Hank Steinbrenner is the biggest...uh...kitty...I've ever seen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CatKnight

I love how all the Yankee fans are whining. Whimper. Sniffle. We can't afford our stadium, and now they want our pitchers to run!? Poor oppressed Yankees.

Maybe it's time for HANK to grow up. And some others, perhaps.

Wang SHOULD be in excellent shape. If he can't run 90 feet, then there is a BIG problem. If he can't turn corners, then how can he maneuver to catch a ball?

If the Yankees aren't preparing their pitchers for the possibility that one day, yes, they might actually have a job to do besides throw a ball 100.000 times per game, then maybe HANK should talk to his TRAINERS.

I agree the disparity between the leagues should be dealt with. Obviously the NL pitchers are in better shape than their AL counterparts, therefore the solution is simple.

Get rid of the DH.

Poor Yankee babies. Once Hank is done sucking on his golden pacifier, let me know and maybe we can play a game he can WIN.

---

Wow... such hate for the greatest sports franchise in history.

Babe Ruth would totally agree. I mean, a guy that pitched AND hit?? Thank goodness he never made it anywhere. Much less revered as a true great of the sport! Hah, silly guy.

A clown like that would never have played for the Yankees, who have used the DH since it's inception in 203 BC.

So far this year , the DH is having its worst collective BA since inception.
(heard on a telecast )

Guess those shoulda been washed up already but im on steroids guys are having some probs.

DH was installed during a low period in baseball attendance.
It was intended to generate more offense as a marketing ploy.

National League attendance seems ok to me.
It was NOT intended to "protect the pitcher".
although that is a side benefit , i guess...

If they can run in the WS they can run in an interleague game in a national league park.

besides its a freakin abomination.

oh and the yankees have won far more WS with Pitcher batting the with the DH .
id bet the per year rate of winning the WS is higher with pitcher batting too.

tho lol
if the yanks had the dh back then
he would have pitched every 3rd day (as they did) and DH on his days off. 400+ wins with 800 HR lol

UPDATE: The Red Sox have now lost Bartolo Colon, due to an injury sustained while swinging a bat in yesterday's game...something he has rarely had to do as a pitcher!

I dunno about you guys, but I am pretty sure Theo Epstein or Larry Lucchino will have a press conference soon, denouncing the NL rules as a useless throwback, and blaming MLB and the NL for this injury. Right? Right? I'm sure it will happen....aaaany minute now...

Or, maybe we'll just deal with it, and call up some other talented starter, since the Sox have the depth to deal with issues like this, the foresight to develop and safeguard their prospects, and generally behave like something more mature than a rejected 13-year old?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

This is insane! really he's afaraid of his guys having to run, what a *****. I want to enact a rule that we can have Ellsbury run for Ortiz from now on, I mean we dont pay Ortiz to run the bases hes paid to hit the ball.

---

I'm replying before i read the entire thread...but I can do that :)

If pitchers should have to run & bat, than hitters should have to throw 95MPH consistently and nibble corners while perfecting late breaking pitches that make hitters swing & miss.

Not realistic eh?? Of course not. This is a multi-billion dollar sport now, and pitchers are specialists. They are paid millions of dollars to be so. Sure running the bases and batting doesn't SEEM like much but it is not something they should do at all!! There is no need for it. They are paid to pitch and to perfect their pitching ability, and paid in high order. That specialty should be protected.

:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

Can and should are two different things....Pitchers can run and cover first base, pitchers should NOT run around the bases and hit balls....they should pitch NOT hit.

Go Yankees!

---

Agree 100%...except for the go yankees part.

I'm a die hard sox fan...but earily suspect that if this was Beckett who was out for the year the sawx hipocrite fan base in here would have a different opinion.

Traditionalists crack me up. We can spend all day talking about different eras and changes to the game that makes 'tradition' an obsolete argument. Heck, when baseball begun they didn't have 9 innings, they played as long as it took for one team to score 22 runs! Times have changed quite a bit.

Back in the day, sure it made sense. The game has modernized, pitchers are much more valuable and perfect the 'art' and should be protected from meaningless at bats and base running. Fans should be able to see the stars doing what they do best, not sitting at home on the DL or worse, swinging a bat when they have no right doing so.

Yeah I know NL pitchers run the bases all the time, but fact is they get hurt doing it as well. Its not made to be a big deal because it's something they do. The AL doesn't have that situation, so this is highlighted because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

If pitchers should have to run & bat, than hitters should have to throw 95MPH consistently and nibble corners while perfecting late breaking pitches that make hitters swing & miss.

---

Exactly! Not only that, but the defensive team in baseball should work like volleyball. With every at bat, the players should rotate positions. There's no reason why only a few guys should have to pitch, a few have to catch, etc. All of this modern day "specialization" stuff is ridiculous. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Fans should be able to see the stars doing what they do best

---

Then why are fans treated to Adam Dunn in Left Field? Or Bonds for that matter? There are some pitchers who hit well - Zambrano, Willis, Micah Owings - we shouldn't eliminate the pitcher hitting part of the game just because of some 1-dimensional players.

Personally, I like seeing Wake or Dice-K at the plate. Beckett did hit in the NL for years, and he did fine. And if you missed my post, Colon just got injured swinging a bat (seriously?). So it can and has affected the Sox team as well (granted, our #5 starter, and a much shorter time period, but ah well).

I think the flaw here is that somewhere along the line all the minor league teams went DH only, as well...so pitchers like Wang don't hit, at all, from high school until midway thru an MLB season 6-8 years later, for 10 at bats. If it was something they at least had foundations in, this might not be such a serious problem.

But that's all beside the point - this wasn't even HITTING! This was RUNNING! What kind of professional athlete can't make it 90 feet?? This sort of thing has to be chalked up to unfortunate happenstance - it could've happened with him fielding the ball or getting to first. Heck, this could just be fallout from the way the weight falls on his leg with every pitch. To take one injury and blow it into NL-is-evil-for-making-pitchers-hit is a tad over the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

Then why are fans treated to Adam Dunn in Left Field? Or Bonds for that matter? There are some pitchers who hit well - Zambrano, Willis, Micah Owings - we shouldn't eliminate the pitcher hitting part of the game just because of some 1-dimensional players.

Personally, I like seeing Wake or Dice-K at the plate. Beckett did hit in the NL for years, and he did fine. And if you missed my post, Colon just got injured swinging a bat (seriously?). So it can and has affected the Sox team as well (granted, our #5 starter, and a much shorter time period, but ah well).

I think the flaw here is that somewhere along the line all the minor league teams went DH only, as well...so pitchers like Wang don't hit, at all, from high school until midway thru an MLB season 6-8 years later, for 10 at bats. If it was something they at least had foundations in, this might not be such a serious problem.

But that's all beside the point - this wasn't even HITTING! This was RUNNING! What kind of professional athlete can't make it 90 feet?? This sort of thing has to be chalked up to unfortunate happenstance - it could've happened with him fielding the ball or getting to first. Heck, this could just be fallout from the way the weight falls on his leg with every pitch. To take one injury and blow it into NL-is-evil-for-making-pitchers-hit is a tad over the top.

---

The point isn't that he should be able to run it is that he shouldn't HAVE to run. There's no benefit. As for Zambrano, Owings, or whatever pitcher you want to say swings a good bat, any sane person will agree that IF IT WERE POSSIBLE PER THE RULES the team would take that pitcher out of the lineup in lieu of a DH, solely to protect him from injury. The offense, plus or minus, is a moot point. No rule in the AL says a team CANNOT ALLOW a pitcher to hit or run the bases....they just did what any sane team would, protect their investment. You wouldn't put a classic show car in a nascar race, or a short sprinter in a marathon and visa versa. These guys are bred to be perfectionists at pitching. Thats what they are paid to do, and thats what we the fans pay to see. Keep them healthy.

You hit it on the head when you said Colon for a short period is not of equal discussion as Wang through Sept. Nuff said.

Pitcher's protected? Well, there are some mighty fine shortstops in several layers of the minors that can play the position with the best of them, but can't hit a lick. Maybe we should have a DH for them too?

There you go. I can see it now. Baseball like football. The best 8 defensive guys play the field, and the best 9 offensive guys hit. Rosters expand to 40 year round, the player's association loves it (more MLB jobs), and pretty soon the specialist idea can be taken to the extreme and even those great hitters can have designated runners because they're too slow. Now rosters are 50, the MLBPA loves it.

But one thing it ain't, it ain't baseball. Baseball always was my nine guys against your nine guys. Period. You don't like the way pitchers hit?? Fine, there's no rule against having Albert Pujols pitch. There's no rule against having Barry Bonds pitch. That's just it. You pick the nine guys on your team, and you can play them anywhere you want. I pick my nine and play them where I want. You can pick a great pitcher who can't hit just like you could pitch shortstop who can't hit. But to then want to change the game from what it's always been??? Like I said, take this specialization to the extreme and it may be efficient, it may even be popular, but it ain't baseball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

I think the flaw here is that somewhere along the line all the minor league teams went DH only, as well...so pitchers like Wang don't hit, at all, from high school until midway thru an MLB season 6-8 years later, for 10 at bats. If it was something they at least had foundations in, this might not be such a serious problem.

---

The part in bold is incorrect. In AAA/AA, when a NL minor league team plays another NL minor league team, there is no DH. Example.
Somewhere I posted the rules for DH use in the minor leagues, but not sure where at this moment, but if I recall correctly, the home team has the option to not have the DH in the game, they just don't use it (similar to A ball and below)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Überpöster

and for all of your that say its dumb pitcher hit... i guess babe ruth would have stayed a pitcher since he never would have come to bat and seen what he could do!!!

---

That would have been a shame. That could have meant a championship or two?(not really sure) less for the poor NY Wangkees.

And OldFatGuy summed it up best.

Btw Matt Cain's two homers this year were far more entertaining to me than any washed up, roided up DH's entire season of homers. So I'll pay to see a pitcher hit any day.

Speaking of homers, lol at all the poor whining Wangkee fans. Get over yourselves.

What's with all the talk about DH's being roid-monsters?

Of all the player's caught for steroids, I think none of them were regular DH's.

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

But to then want to change the game from what it's always been???

---

The game has changed many times from "what it's always been." Look at 19th century baseball and it's nothing at all like modern-day baseball, or pre-DH baseball in the middle of the 20th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Like I said, take this specialization to the extreme and it may be efficient, it may even be popular, but it ain't baseball.

---

Thankfully, nobody wants to take it to the extreme.

probably, but thats just my opinion, and I mean it as nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogue9

probably, but thats just my opinion, and I mean it as nothing more.

---

It's your opinion that designated hitters all use steroids, or at least use it a lot more than other players?

no, not all. Its my suspicion that alot of the older DH's that are just rediculously bulked have probably done peds at some point or another.

Giambi comes to mind, of course he has admitted it (I think?).

Anyways, that wasn't really my point in saying that. I was trying to say that I get more entertainment seeing someone like Matt Cain get two dingers than see some washed up, bulked up guy who can't field hit 50 HRs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogue9

no, not all. Its my suspicion that alot of the older DH's that are just rediculously bulked have probably done peds at some point or another.

---

Maybe. But a lot of the older players, DH or not, that played in the 90's probably did PEDs at some point.

Quote:

---

Giambi comes to mind, of course he has admitted it (I think?).

---

He basically has.

Quote:

---

Anyways, that wasn't really my point in saying that. I was trying to say that I get more entertainment seeing someone like Matt Cain get two dingers than see some washed up, bulked up guy who can't field hit 50 HRs.

---

Fair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Maybe. But a lot of the older players, DH or not, that played in the 90's probably did PEDs at some point.

---

Granted, but if they hadn't taken peds, there is a decent chance they would not be playing today. Which is basically why I threw the roided up comment in there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rogue9

Granted, but if they hadn't taken peds, there is a decent chance they would not be playing today. Which is basically why I threw the roided up comment in there.

---

Right, I'm just saying, it's not limited to DH's at all, though.

well obviously, I wouldn't say something like that. Just the names from Giants (the team I pay the most attention to) teams (Bonds excluded) that were associated with peds tells you that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

What's with all the talk about DH's being roid-monsters?

Of all the player's caught for steroids, I think none of them were regular DH's.

:confused:

---

In fact, an AWFUL lot of them have been pitchers. The last I heard, a MAJORITY of those penalized for PED's since testing began has been pitchers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

The game has changed many times from "what it's always been." Look at 19th century baseball and it's nothing at all like modern-day baseball, or pre-DH baseball in the middle of the 20th century.

---

The RULES of the game didn't change much for almost 100 years. Yeah, deadball era versus modern day stats don't match, but they still fielded nine players, played nine innings, three outs to an inning, and three strikes for a K. I realize that 4 balls meaning a walk wasn't always a rule, but it was for most of baseball's history. As was nine players against nine players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Thankfully, nobody wants to take it to the extreme.

---

How do you know?? It sounds to me like Hank Steinbrenner might. And most of us old enough to remember the beginning of the DH recall how MANY, MANY of us considered THAT extreme. Once we're all ok with that, who's to say the other half of the battery doesn't deserve a DH as well. Groom your pitchers and cathers to just get batters out, and we'll hit for em. Like I said, you down this road, it might be fun, it might be popular, but it ain't baseball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

it might be popular, but it ain't baseball.

---

Too true.

My stance too. Why stop at pitchers and catchers? Let's have a designated defense, some designated hitters, and designated runners. You may think I'm stretching here, but the original proposal was to have a dh and a designated runner. Look it up. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

The RULES of the game didn't change much for almost 100 years. Yeah, deadball era versus modern day stats don't match, but they still fielded nine players, played nine innings, three outs to an inning, and three strikes for a K. I realize that 4 balls meaning a walk wasn't always a rule, but it was for most of baseball's history. As was nine players against nine players.

---

As somebody else originally posted, the game wasn't originally 9 innings, it was originally first to 22 runs, games would go on for a long time, stop and be restarted the next day if it went into dark.

I don't consider a DH changing the "rules" of the game. It's still nine players on the field, nine innings, 3 outs an inning, 3 strikes, 4 balls, etc. It's not fundamentally changing any rules.

Quote:

---

How do you know?? It sounds to me like Hank Steinbrenner might.

---

It sounds to me that Hank Steinbrenner wants to use a DH all the time, which isn't taking it to any extreme. However, it really sounds to me like Hank is just a whiner who'll ***** about anything that doesn't go his way.

Quote:

---

And most of us old enough to remember the beginning of the DH recall how MANY, MANY of us considered THAT extreme. Once we're all ok with that, who's to say the other half of the battery doesn't deserve a DH as well. Groom your pitchers and cathers to just get batters out, and we'll hit for em. Like I said, you down this road, it might be fun, it might be popular, but it ain't baseball.

---

I don't think you have to worry about it ever going down that road. I've NEVER heard ANYBODY advocate anything more than a DH for the pitcher.

But anyway, we have two leagues, one with the DH, one without, what's the big deal? The game is still baseball. People that like the DH can watch it. People that don't can watch without it. Everybody's satisfied except professional whiners like Hank Steinbrenner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Everybody's satisfied except professional whiners like Hank Steinbrenner.

---

Well, I may not be a professional whiner, but I'm pretty darned good at it. I would have to at least be rated semi-pro. And I'm not satisfied. To me it really does give the AL an advantage in any interleague contest, including the World Series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Well, I may not be a professional whiner, but I'm pretty darned good at it. I would have to at least be rated semi-pro. And I'm not satisfied. To me it really does give the AL an advantage in any interleague contest, including the World Series.

---

How? Most AL teams don't even have a good regular DH, and most NL teams have a bench player comparable to the average DH.

There's AL teams that are hurt when having to not use the DH, like the Red Sox, for example, when they have everyone healthy. There's NL teams that benefit when they can use the DH, by putting a poor-fielding good hitter at the DH spot and a better fielder on the field. How are the Phillies disadvantaged by getting to use Ryan Howard as a DH and inserting a better fielder like Greg Dobbs at first?

There's AL teams that are disadvantaged when playing without the DH. There's NL teams that benefit when they get to use the DH.

I don't think either league has the advantage in interleague play or the World Series. Yes, the AL has been better in interleague play lately, by a longshot, but that does not mean that they have an advantage because of the DH, it just means that they've had better teams, and that much is obvious just by examining the teams in both leagues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Yes, the AL has been better in interleague play lately, by a longshot, but that does not mean that they have an advantage because of the DH, it just means that they've had better teams, and that much is obvious just by examining the teams in both leagues.

---

No, it doesn't mean it yet. I would never presume to prove my theory on still a relatively small sample size. But here's the thing.

An AL GM KNOWS he's gonna have a DH, day in and day out. And he also knows that every other AL team he's competing with is gonna have one. So, in order to compete, AL teams are both willing and compelled to sign one more quality bat on the roster. Plus, they still have to have a good PH or two, not to mention replacements. In the NL, they rarely use the DH, and are therefore not compelled to build their roster the same way.

I don't know about you, but I've even done this myself in BM. I've built/planned my team differently based on whether there was a DH or not. And though I still consider the sample size to small to say definitivly (especially World Series'), I really do think in a game against two teams built differently (one built for the DH and one not), it's an advantage for the AL.

Think of it this way. Let's suppose Barry Bonds had zero baggage. The guy can still perform offensively, but not so good defensively. Now, I'm betting NO NL team would pay the required dollars for that level of a pinch hitter, while plenty of AL teams would because they get there money's worth. So, in an interleague game, the AL team has a Barry Bonds hitting DH, and the NL team has a cheaper alternative. Almost always.

Everything you said is true, but I don't think it gives the AL, as a whole, an advantage in the interleague games. Some AL teams are hurt when they can't use their DH, as they have to put that player in the field, hurting their defense, and benching another good player. Some NL teams benefit when they can use a DH, as they get to use a poor fielder in the DH slot and improve their defense. Since each team plays games both with and without the DH, it evens out.

Are there specific teams that may be at an advantage in interleague games? Yes. The Red Sox have an advantage in games with the DH, but they're disadvantaged in the games without the DH. The Phillies are an NL team that benefits from using the DH. But I don't think any blanket statement can be applied.

Every GM, NL and AL, knows at some point he will have to play by the others rules. Especially if you are a team thinking about winning a World Series, you better factor that in when putting your team together, even so far as way back in the winter.

Now, obvisouly a NL team isn't going to spend $10 mils on a Barry B*nds type to sit on the bench most of the season, but there's someone on the bench that can swing a bat.

Similarly, an AL team, better have the pitchers take a few rounds of batting practice, and base running, every now and then, because it IS going to come up at some point.

If Steinbrenner isn't man enough to realize injuries happen and wants to blame someone for his pitcher not being able to run without hurting himself, he needs to blame his coaching staff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

Wah wah, my pitcher had to run the bases, and he got hurt. And...what...if Johnny Damon got hurt doing the same he'd demand that every ballpark in the majors cushion the basepaths with soft foam when the Yankees come to town? :rolleyes:

---

Maybe put some padded turnbuckles on the corners ala WWE?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Everything you said is true, but I don't think it gives the AL, as a whole, an advantage in the interleague games. Some AL teams are hurt when they can't use their DH, as they have to put that player in the field, hurting their defense, and benching another good player. Some NL teams benefit when they can use a DH, as they get to use a poor fielder in the DH slot and improve their defense. Since each team plays games both with and without the DH, it evens out.

Are there specific teams that may be at an advantage in interleague games? Yes. The Red Sox have an advantage in games with the DH, but they're disadvantaged in the games without the DH. The Phillies are an NL team that benefits from using the DH. But I don't think any blanket statement can be applied.

---

And really, does the DH help the Royals all that much? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

"Am I (mad) about it? Yes," Steinbrenner added. "I've got my pitchers running the bases, and one of them gets hurt. He's going to be out. I don't like that, and it's about time they address it. That was a rule from the 1800s."

---

Hank knows his history! ;) It is a long-standing tradition for New York baseball teams to complain about their pitchers running the bases:

http://www.retrosheet.org/earlycrt.htm
From William J. Ryczek, Blackguards and Red Stockings ... 1871-1875 (1992), page 18, who points out that the substitute runner was selected by the opposing captain:

"Some pitchers, prima donnas even before the advent of the designated hitter, felt they deserved a courtesy runner on all occasions. An 1874 Hartford (Dark Blue)-(New York) Mutual game was delayed while the opposing captains debated whether pitcher (Bobby) Mathews should be allowed relief on the base paths. The Mutuals at first refused to play if the courtesy runner was not allowed, but relented and took the field nonetheless."
Ryczek cites Hartford Courant 4 Sep 1874 and Clipper 12 Sep 1874.

In the end it comes down to this fact: The YANKEES are the greatest team ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

In the end it comes down to this fact: The YANKEES are the greatest team ever.

---

well its DEFINATLY hard to dispute that however you may want to say greatest BASEBALL team ever. Manchester United i believe is the winningest franchise.
( i dont follow soccer so i could be wrong however)

Well, there is alot of theory and speculation in this thread.

First off, as I mentioned I back steinbrennars comments 100%. I don't see why we don't protect the pitchers from injury, as they are far and away the most succeptible to it while running the bases and swinging the bat because of all the other leg work they have to do while on the mound. It's obviously also an area they don't excel in as todays pitchers are much much more specialized artists and perfectionists than ever before. In the NFL they recognized this about the QB position and have gone out of their way to try and protect them while keeping a balance. The MLB can do the same with the DH.

To the extremists who want to talk about designated runners, and defensive team units and all the other ****...thats just unrealistic jargen to get in the way and muddy a realistic argument. Nobody is discussing going to those extremes, they are only discussing a balance to protect the pitchers. If ever those extreme situations come into the discussion I most certainly would argue in your favor that they should not be allowed.

As for the DH giving an advantage, I most certainly believe it does to the AL as do most of the professional analysts/journalists who discuss this ad-nauseum every World Series and interleague matchup. Some want to dispute this, they are welcomed to do so.

The short of my argument is that pitching is now more than ever a specialized trait that very few can do. They now make millions of dollars because of that specialty and as a fan that is what I pay to see. That should be protected to keep as best as possible the most talented individuals on the field. Sure pitchers can hit and run physically, but it does expose them to additional injury unnecessarily. In addition, in almost every case the manager will chose if the option were available to bat a DH over the pitcher, meaning protecting the pitcher has value to the teams as well. Nobody says in the AL a pitcher CAN'T hit...the fact the teams choose not to let them should say something.

Finally, as for the arguement that the game hasn't changed, that is laughable. We had dead ball era's, live ball era's, sterioid era, high mound, low mounds, pre-integration, post-integration, changes to the balls, bats, the batters now wear armor at the plate. There was a time where substitutions could ONLY be made due to an injury. There were pitchers that threw well over 100 pitchers per game every 3rd or 4th day, and well...you know what we have today. As mentioned earlier, the game initially never was 9 innings, it was the first to score 21 runs (correction from my earlier 22 run comment). We now have september call-ups and 25 man rosters, those have changed over the years. The bases were initially 42 'paces', pretty unscientific...thats now changed. We had 12 game series, 10 game series, and now have 7 & 5 game series. We now have interleague play and wild cards. There's a rule on the book demanding players be of a certain height that wasn't always there. There was a time where baseball was a game, then a parttime job, then a career. We can go on and on...each one of those effected the 'traditionalists' arguement. I'm all for tradition, but the tradition of baseball is that things DO change.

Now if you can just agree the YANKEES are the greatest Baseball team ever you'd be at 100%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

Now if you can just agree the YANKEES are the greatest Baseball team ever you'd be at 100%

---

He wouldn't say that though, he's not a liar...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metsguy234

He wouldn't say that though, he's not a liar...

---

Ah, the irony of your signature! :D