Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Pettitte to hang 'em up ....

Word out of New York City is that long-time Yankee (and briefly, Astro) lefty Andy Pettitte will announce his retirement on Friday. No, really this time!

Pettitte, third all-time among Yankee pitchers in victories for the franchise (though including his Astro years, he tops Whitey Ford in career wins, 240-236), has endured some reputation-damaging PR over the past few years; he will get some Hall of Fame support, certainly -- pitching in New York and being MLB's all-time leader in post-season wins, even in the modern three-tiered playoff system -- will do that for a guy.

But does he belong in the Hall of Fame? There's a poll to that notion on ESPN SportsNation right now -- for the record, I am a huge Pettitte fan, but voted "no" -- and I am genuinely shocked that no less than 61% (sixty-one percent!) of the first 1800 or so votes cast came down on the side of Pettitte to Cooperstown.

Andy Pettitte, Hall of Famer? Really? A sturdy lefty with 240 wins, a 3.88 career ERA, 2251 K, a caeer ERA+ of 117, top five "Most Similars" are a NYC-heavy Boomer Wells, Kevin Brown, Bob Welch, Mike Mussina and Doc Gooden -- sounds to me like a really solid "Hall of Really Good" case, but not so much for a Cooperstown bust. Over to you, valued Bauxites ...

Posted by Mick Doherty on Thursday, February 03 2011 @ 03:11 PM EST.

Pettitte to hang 'em up .... | 55 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

92-93 - Thursday, February 03 2011 @ 03:28 PM EST (#229906) #

Not only does he not have the career #s to support induction, he is an admitted PED user. If McGwire can't sniff 25% of the votes, Pettitte is not a HOFer. Next.

Mike Green - Thursday, February 03 2011 @ 03:44 PM EST (#229907) #

Leaving aside the PED issue for the moment, I agree that he does not quite have the career/prime/peak numbers. He was a better pitcher than Jack Morris though; one does not realize it because his peers included Pedro, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Roger Clemens, Tom Glavine, John Smoltz, Curt Schilling and Mike Mussina. Mussina, by the way, qualifies easily in my view.

Magpie - Thursday, February 03 2011 @ 03:47 PM EST (#229908) #

I would agree - whatever the standards are, Pettite doesn't quite get there. A good pitcher, certainly - indeed a better pitcher than a number of pitchers already inducted. But I wouldn't vote for him.

That said, I think it's possible that down the road, some Veterans Committee of the future (which may also have an entirely different take on PEDs) may see things differently. There simply haven't been many pitchers who won 100 games more than they lost.

Chuck - Thursday, February 03 2011 @ 05:03 PM EST (#229916) #

Wolf? Wolf? Where?

Mylegacy - Thursday, February 03 2011 @ 05:38 PM EST (#229918) #

A 1.36 career whip in the Hall? Not on my watch!

Did I mention he did PED's?

lexomatic - Thursday, February 03 2011 @ 06:16 PM EST (#229924) #

92-93 sums it up

but you can add Raines, Trammell etc..
he's had an excellent career, but in no way should he even get that high a % of the vote.

Alex Obal - Thursday, February 03 2011 @ 06:17 PM EST (#229925) #

Iconic. Not sure how much that helps, but...

Magpie - Thursday, February 03 2011 @ 08:33 PM EST (#229929) #

Pettitte for the most part was exactly as effective in his 30s as he was in his 20s:

Age 23-29: 115-65, 3.99 ERA+ 117
Age 30-38: 125-73, 3.78 ERA+ 117

You have to wonder just how long he could keep doing this, if he wanted. For one thing, his strikeouts have actually gone up as he's gotten older. In his 20s, he was striking out 6.2 per 9 IP, but in his 30s he's striking out 7.0 per 9 IP. And his 3 years in the NL aren't enough to account for it - he was striking out more guys in the AL as well. Just an odd thing.

Mick Doherty - Thursday, February 03 2011 @ 08:51 PM EST (#229930) #

Yeah, I think he sticks around five more years -- not all that long really -- he's a lock to win 300, and then he absolutely gets in the Hall. Glad numbers didn't totally drive him, other than the, what, six or seven WS he was in ...

Magpie - Thursday, February 03 2011 @ 08:57 PM EST (#229931) #

the, what, six or seven WS he was in ...

Actually, it was eight. Eight World Series! Doesn't seem fair! He pitched another whole season in the post-season, and it was just like all the rest of them: 19-10, 3.83 in 42 starts.

Original Ryan - Thursday, February 03 2011 @ 10:29 PM EST (#229933) #

I still remember the silly argument that some sportswriters used to support Pettitte's case for the Cy Young in 1996 over Pat Hentgen. They cited Pettitte's 13-3 record after a Yankees loss, claiming that Pettitte was a "stopper" who put an end to losing streaks. The fact that Pettitte was an unremarkable 8-5 when trying to extend winning streaks was conveniently ignored.

Hentgen had vastly superior overall numbers that year and fortunately the voters ultimately came to the right decision, but the vote was closer than it should have been.

Rich - Thursday, February 03 2011 @ 10:36 PM EST (#229936) #

He was a very good pitcher but almost never one of the top 5 starters in baseball at any given time (Cy season excepted). Pettite was definitely a class below the likes of Clemens, Maddux, Johnson, and Glavine in my books and I don't see him as HOF'er at all.

Denoit - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 07:07 AM EST (#229937) #

I don't want to jump the gun too much on this, but how weak does the Yankee rotation look now? Compared to Boston, Toronto and Tampa they are not even close. Now saying that the Yankees are the one team with resources to go and change that pretty quick. But they are one injury to CC Sabathia away from being really really bad.

92-93 - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 07:20 AM EST (#229938) #

I'd still have Sabathia, Hughes, and Burnett > Romero, Morrow, and Cecil. Too early and hard to call who gets more out of the 4th and 5th spots.

Parker - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 08:48 AM EST (#229939) #

I'm not at all surprised by the 61% vote in favor. Yankees fans aren't generally known to be overly objective, and there are a god-awful lot of them.

BalzacChieftain - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 08:54 AM EST (#229940) #

@Denoit

You still must consider that the Yankees signed former aces Bartolo Colon and Freddy Garcia to minor league deals.

/sarcasm

Chuck - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 10:01 AM EST (#229941) #

Yankees fans aren't generally known to be overly objective

I think you can safely say this about the fans of any team in any sport.

Dave Till - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 10:26 AM EST (#229942) #

I'd still have Sabathia, Hughes, and Burnett > Romero, Morrow, and Cecil.

I'm not sure that I would (granted, I'm not necessarily objective). Sabathia is better than anybody the Jays have, but he's 30 years old and makes David Wells look svelte. I can't help but think that his conditioning is going to catch up with him at some point.

Cecil and Hughes are almost identical:

PITCHERS          W- L    ERA    BA   G GS CG GF SH SV   IP    H   R  ER HR  BB  SO

Hughes           18- 8   4.19  .244  31 29  0  0  0  0 176.1 162  83  82 25  58 146
Cecil            15- 7   4.22  .264  28 28  0  0  0  0 172.2 175  87  81 18  54 117

(Cut and pasted shamelessly from the USA Today web site.) Hughes is a bit better - fewer hits and more strikeouts, but allows more home runs. Their innings pitched and ERA totals were almost identical, and Cecil is a left-handed pitcher in a right-handed-hitter-friendly ballpark.

And while Sabathia/Romero is "advantage Yankees", Burnett/Morrow is a clear win for the Jays. (Aside: it's ironic that the Yankees are now having to rely on A.J. Burnett. Comment from disgruntled Jays fan: ha ha ha ha ha.)

It's nice to see the Yankees going into the season with significant holes on their roster - holes that they couldn't spend one zillion dollars to fill. (Hurray for Cliff Lee for spurning Yankee bucks.) And many of their existing key players are on the high side of 30. There's a strong possibility that the Yankees could finish out of the playoffs this year, especially if one or more of their big hitters goes down with an injury.

BlueJayWay - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 10:33 AM EST (#229943) #

Agreed. Sabathia is better than anyone the Jays have (right now, anyway), but Morrow/Cecil is probably at least the equal of Burnett/Hughes.

Even in the case of C.C. vs Ricky, while you'd have to take Sabathia now, he's quite a bit older and a David Wells heavier. Going forward a couple three years, and who knows.

John Northey - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 10:35 AM EST (#229944) #

If it wasn't for the PED's I'd say Pettitte was a HOF lock with the record number of post-season wins and the Yankee brand. Regardless of anything else, he was a good story and since it is writers voting the story will win out if the stats are close.

However, it will all depend on how writers view PED use in five years. If we still have 50%+ being 'no PEDs on my watch' then Pettitte could even be a one and gone guy as many of them would be the story over stat guys as well (drugs being a good story and all).

Mike Green - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 10:40 AM EST (#229945) #

Funny, I went to look at the Fangraphs collection of projections for the Yankees 1-3 pitchers vs. the Jay 1-3 pitchers. If you take an average of Bill James, Marcel and the Fans, you have the Yankee pitchers pitching 15 more innings with an almost identical FIP as the Jay pitchers. The projections suggest that the Yankees will have a better defence than the Jays in 2011 so the Yankees top 3 will end up with a modestly better ERA. The summary according to these projections: Sabathia is quite a bit better than Romero, Morrow is marginally better than Hughes, and Cecil is noticeably better than Burnett.

FWIW, Rzecpzynski and Drabek are both projected to throw 100 innings with a FIP of 4. Oddly, there is very little difference in performance projections between the #1 and the #5 for the Jays (all tightly in the 3.7-4 range). The Yankee options so far in the #4-#5 slots are looking to be in the 4.4-4.5 range.

92-93 - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 12:49 PM EST (#229948) #

And while Sabathia/Romero is "advantage Yankees", Burnett/Morrow is a clear win for the Jays.

I have a hard time calling 150 innings of success in 2010 "a clear win for the Jays" going forward. Burnett is the same SP he was entering 2010, even if you don't want to believe Morrow is. As for Cecil vs. Hughes - I think you'll have a hard time finding someone who thinks they have similar ceilings - I look at each's first half last year and see much better results for Hughes, who predictably tailed off as the season wore on under a massive innings increase. I really don't think it's a stretch to say the Yankees are better in all 3 spots, no matter what order you rank either team in.

Magpie - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 01:01 PM EST (#229949) #

The Yankees and Jays' pitching was fairly comparable in 2010 - the Jays allowed 35 more runs, despite the season long black hole that was the fifth starter. I think it's quite possible - I don't guarantee it, I just think it's possible - that Brandon Morrow will be the best starting pitcher on either team in 2011...

But that's neither here nor there. The real gap between the two teams, and a great gap it is, is at the plate. The Yankees scored more than 100 runs more than Toronto last season, and I expect that gap to increase in 2011...

PeterG - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 01:09 PM EST (#229950) #

Suggesting that Burnett is equal to or better than Morrow, at this point in time, is just plain wrong imo. Burnett is no better than an average starter at best and that may be pushing it. Morrow is a much better pitcher than he was at the start of 2010(to suggest otherwise is foolish) and may be one of the best performing starters in the AL in 2011. I would be willing to bet that he is #1 in the rotation by mid season, ahead of Romero.

As an aside, Morrow is the player the Jays most need sign to a long term contract(next year, I hope) and that includes Bautista.

MatO - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 01:46 PM EST (#229951) #

I look at each's first half last year and see much better results for Hughes, who predictably tailed off as the season wore on under a massive innings increase.

Not really. ERA by month for Hughes after his great start.. June 5.17 July 5.52 August 4.22 September 4.67. So, he got off to a great start (especially April but only 3 starts in that month) , was terrible in the middle and sort of blah at the end. He particularly struggled at home. Not sure what to expect from him.

Chuck - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 01:48 PM EST (#229952) #

Burnett is no better than an average starter at best

At best, Burnett is a much better than average starter. The Yankees' problem is that they can't count on getting Burnett at his best. He's got that whole Mr. Hyde side to his game.

Parker - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 01:58 PM EST (#229953) #

Sabathia is better than anybody the Jays have, but he's 30 years old and makes David Wells look svelte. I can't help but think that his conditioning is going to catch up with him at some point.

While it's very well-documented that bad bodies don't age well, I don't think Wells in particular is a good comparison. The guy was still a league-average pitcher at age 43, amazingly enough.

It makes one wonder exactly how good he could've been if he took conditioning and nutrition seriously.

JohnL - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 03:00 PM EST (#229955) #

It makes one wonder exactly how good he could've been if he took conditioning and nutrition seriously.

Same for that other old Yankee, George H. Ruth.

Thomas - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 05:40 PM EST (#229961) #

Jeff Blair is quoted in an article on SI.com as saying Andy Pettitte's case is the equivalent of Tim Raines's.

Let's just say, I disagree.

Ron - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 06:10 PM EST (#229964) #

My own Hall Of Fame criteria is that if you even have to think about it when you hear the player�s name, than they don�t belong. Players like Pettitte, Biggio, Baines, and Dawson fall under the No list for me. In my opinion, the Hall Of Fame should only include elite talent like Frank Thomas, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Mariano Rivera, Ichiro Suzuki, etc�

ayjackson - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 06:17 PM EST (#229965) #

At best, Burnett is a much better than average starter.

At "his" best - yes. But "at best" was I think just a colloquialism for an "optimistic assessment". The problem for Burnett throughout his career was that he rarely pitched at his best.

I'm not certain I agree with the assessment, but then, given another year I might think it's too optimistic.

Chuck - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 06:47 PM EST (#229966) #

At "his" best - yes. But "at best" was I think just a colloquialism for an "optimistic assessment".

If that is so, then I misread the language that was used. And I, too, would disagree with the assessment if the position is that Burnett's upside is as a league average starter.

Since coming to the AL, Burnett's ERA+'s: 115, 119, 104, 114, 81.

An average start is what, about a 95? If so, then suggesting that this is Burnett's new upside, one would have to believe that he is truly in decline and the 81 we saw from him in 2010 is closer to his true level of ability than every year prior.

Burnett is frustrating because he so often looks like he should be one of the best pitchers in baseball. But then for whatever reason, he's not. While he can be considered an underachiever based on the seeming disconnect between his physical abilities and the results they bear, he has rarely been just average. His career ERA+ of 107 well exceeds that of a league average starter.

Thomas - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 07:31 PM EST (#229967) #

I couldn't disagree more strongly with the idea that you should eliminate research, consideration and reflection from the Hall of Fame selection process.

CeeBee - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 08:16 PM EST (#229969) #

"My own Hall Of Fame criteria is that if you even have to think about it when you hear the player�s name, than they don�t belong."
That's how they do it now, is it not? Kind of explains the whys and the why-nots rather nicely I'd say.

Ron - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 10:49 PM EST (#229972) #

I couldn't disagree more strongly with the idea that you should eliminate research, consideration and reflection from the Hall of Fame selection process.

In some cases, there has been too much research, consideration, and reflection. It�s ridiculous how you can be voted into the Hall Of Fame on your 14th year of eligibility like Blyleven. Did Blyleven magically get better despite not pitching all these years or were most of the voters too dumb to begin with?

It seems like with each passing year, the Baseball Hall Of Fame is becoming home to the Elite and Very Good player. The only way players like Jim Rice and Andre Dawson get into my Hall Of Fame is if they buy a ticket.

John Northey - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 11:07 PM EST (#229974) #

The spread from Rice to Dawson to Blyleven is a major one. Blyleven was an amazing pitcher who just didn't have his teams score a lot of runs for him. Check his record when given 1 run, 2 runs, 3 runs, etc. and iirc it matches up well with many no doubt HOF'ers.

Rice was a short peak case where the voters had a major brain cramp. He was no better (and maybe worse) of a candidate than many guys who will never get in like Dave Parker, Dale Murphy, and many others.

Dawson's peak years were very solid and back in the day when people ignored OBP. Unlike Rice he played the first 1/2 of his career in a park that hurt his game and his health. He was a solid defender who had speed and power. IMO he shouldn't have made the HOF, but he was a lot stronger candidate than Rice was.

As to the years to vote someone in, all HOF's have that. It is needed as sometimes it takes time to notice how good a guy is, or a guy gets qualified on a year where there are a ton of candidates thus doesn't get in while someone who is a lot weaker will make it when there is a weak class.

The HOF is really the last honour a guy can get from baseball and it should be both hard to get in and voters should have time to decide. I'd prefer if they had a method to say 'keep considering' instead of just 'no' and allow more than 10 names onto the ballot.

Magpie - Friday, February 04 2011 @ 11:08 PM EST (#229975) #

I love Ichiro, but the idea that he's been a better ball player than Craig Biggio is downright bizarre.

Thomas - Saturday, February 05 2011 @ 12:48 AM EST (#229979) #

It�s ridiculous how you can be voted into the Hall Of Fame on your 14th year of eligibility like Blyleven.

Is your position that if voters make a mistake for the first 13 years, they should just keep on making it?

92-93 - Saturday, February 05 2011 @ 08:51 AM EST (#229980) #

WAR thinks it's pretty easy to argue Ichiro has been the better ballplayer - in his 10 seasons, he's had a better WAR than Biggio at that same age 6 times.

Magpie - Saturday, February 05 2011 @ 11:44 AM EST (#229982) #

You're right - or it's much, much closer than I'm in the habit of thinking. I'd still take Biggio - his peaks are more impressive to me. But I've certainly been betrayed by my shortcut of regarding Biggio as Joe Morgan-lite and Suzuki as Roberto Clemente-lite. While Morgan was a whole lot better than Clemente, Suzuki's a lot closer to Clemente than Biggio was to Morgan.

Mick Doherty - Saturday, February 05 2011 @ 03:24 PM EST (#229986) #

Last check on the SportsNation poll -- now nearly 160,000 votes, or ten times what we last reported, and "Yes" for Pettitte still leads, 55-45.

Shocking,

92-93 - Saturday, February 05 2011 @ 05:41 PM EST (#229987) #

Biggio really only has that 1 season of a super peak, after that his best years are in line with Ichiro's. It's amazing that in '97 Biggio hit .309/.415/.501 and posted a 9.7 WAR while in '93 he hit .318/.411/.483 for only a 4.5 WAR. I guess that's what an alleged 26 run defensive swing will do for you.

Magpie - Saturday, February 05 2011 @ 07:24 PM EST (#229988) #

Perhaps you've nicely isolated why some people are extremely dubious about WAR!

I'm never very happy about the use of any single figure - a Great Statistic - for any purpose whatsoever besides gathering up a great quantity of seasons - you know, if you want to compare one group of 200 draft picks to another such group. For which purpose, it - or something like it - is probably a necessary evil. Otherwise, I'd rather avoid them if possible...

92-93 - Saturday, February 05 2011 @ 07:52 PM EST (#229989) #

What is it good for?

Magpie - Saturday, February 05 2011 @ 08:09 PM EST (#229990) #

Say it again...

Powder Blues - Sunday, February 06 2011 @ 02:06 AM EST (#229992) #

Put Pettite on the Royals instead of the Yanks, and he wins 150 career games, at 10h/9, and 6k/9. It's not even really close - he's not a HOF'er.

Of course, baseball survives on lore and legend, and so he'll get in.

Magpie - Sunday, February 06 2011 @ 02:27 AM EST (#229993) #

Put Pettite on the Royals instead of the Yanks, and he wins 150 career games

You don't seriously think he'd have stayed with the Royals? And so... what?

Obviously Pettitte played on a lot of very good teams. But he does have a .635 winning percentage, and that's quite a bit better than the teams he was playing for. As a Yankee, his winning pct was .644, and the team's record was .598 (but only if you include Pettitte's own games, it's .590 if you don't.) With Houston, he pitched .587 ball for a team that was otherwise a .540 ball club (including his games, a .531 team if you don't.) I'm not inclined to put him in the Hall either, but his career deserves a little more respect than it seems to get sometimes. In the history of the game, one of the hardest and most uncommon things for any pitcher to do has been to rise above the level of a great team. Andy Pettitte did that.

Powder Blues - Sunday, February 06 2011 @ 09:26 AM EST (#229994) #

You're inadvertently proving my point, I think.

The assumption of free agency aside, if Pettitte had stayed on the Royals his entire career (he seemed loyal enough), and put up a 175 - 175 record (.500 w%) during that span, he would NOT have the peripheral numbers to get in the Hall without the wins. The Royals had a .43% win percentage during his career years. A .070 w% bump is pretty generous considering the lack of run support he would have received, and ultimately he would have retired a loyal, durable team ace with a very solid career.

Would a 175-175 pitcher with 6k/9, and 10h/9 (think a worse Kevin Millwood in 5 years) sniff the 5% HoF ballot drop off mark? Probably. Would he get 60% of the vote, like the poll suggests? God no.

He's in the conversation because the Yankees bought better hitters than anyone else, and he was put in a situation to shine in the playoffs. He's a durable, above average lefty who deserves to be in the top pantheon of the Hall of the Great. He's one level above Moyer, but one level below Glavine and three levels below Randy.

Magpie - Sunday, February 06 2011 @ 10:46 AM EST (#229995) #

He's a durable, above average lefty who deserves to be in the top pantheon of the Hall of the Great. He's one level above Moyer, but one level below Glavine and three levels below Randy.

Sure. He wasn't chopped liver, is what I'm saying!

Actually, it would have been pretty difficult for him to 175-175 if he'd spent his entire career with the Royals. His winning pct was 40 points better than his Yankees teams (which is extraordinary) and 40 points better than his Houston teams (which is impressive.) But the Royals were a .422 team during his career. Something really miraculous would have been required...

Alex Obal - Sunday, February 06 2011 @ 12:34 PM EST (#229996) #

I'm most intrigued by the idea his K rate would go down on a different team. He would never face the Yankees, and he'd pitch with a lead less often. To me it's unclear what effect each of those changes would have. But I've never thought hard about it...

Alex Obal - Sunday, February 06 2011 @ 12:36 PM EST (#229997) #

Uh, I mean, he would get to face the Yankees.

Mike Green - Sunday, February 06 2011 @ 07:50 PM EST (#229999) #

I doubt that the rate advantage in pitching for the Yankees would be that substantial, at least since the unbalanced schedule came into being in 2001 (IIRC). The Red Sox have been very good over that time and the Rays and Jays have at times been good. It's not like pitching for the Cardinals from 2001-10 and facing the Pirates, Astros, Reds, Brewers and Cubs all those times, and with the bonus of having a superior defence behind you much of the time.

Ron - Sunday, February 06 2011 @ 11:33 PM EST (#230002) #

Is your position that if voters make a mistake for the first 13 years, they should just keep on making it?

My position is that the current Hall Of Fame process is really flawed and needs to be blown up. My Hall Of Fame wouldn�t have a limit on the number of people that can get inducted per year and you would only have one chance to get in. Now of course the decision on who gets a vote or not would also be examined.

Rich - Monday, February 07 2011 @ 09:57 AM EST (#230009) #

IMHO any player whose candidacy is so hotly debated probably doesn't belong. The Hall should be for players who are very widely regarded as among the best of both their eras and of all time.

Mike Green - Monday, February 07 2011 @ 10:13 AM EST (#230010) #

That isn't what the Hall of Fame has ever been. A comparable offensive player to Pettitte might be Enos Slaughter. He was a very good player on a great club (the Cardinals of the 40s), but he obviously wasn't Stan Musial. Like Pettitte, he had one great year (1942), but most often he was just a very good player. There was a raging debate about his Hall merits, and the VC eventually let him in the 70s.

Even if the Hall were to become a place with much stricter standards, there would still be debate. Take the second basemen. There are the obvious cases- Lajoie, Collins, Hornsby and Morgan. And then it gets a bit stickier- Gehringer, Grich, Biggio, Alomar, Sandberg, Kent and Randolph. Some people think that Sandberg is an obvious in and Biggio and Grich were obvious outs; others (myself included) think that Biggio and Grich were slightly better ballplayers. The difference revolves on the weight given to context and to the importance of getting on base.

To be clear, I agree that Pettitte and Slaughter ought not to be there.

Pettitte to hang 'em up .... | 55 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.