Who's Who and Who's Not (HOF)

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

The best and most over-rated pitchers from the dead ball era (and beyond) have been debated. Here's a string that's always kind of fun:

Who's Who in the HOF that shouldn't be a Who? I mean who really shouldn't be there? I'm sure a lot of people would agree that at least one if not two players mentioned in that little poem shouldn't be in the HOF and it wasn't by "chance" that one of them made it. One of them deserves to be there. And there are others that have been enshrined for some reason that may defy logic.

Who's not in the HOF that should be? There are a few players that you sit back and wonder what the heck are the voters for the HOF thinking? I'll start with a few. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me why.

I don't even want to start a thread about first ballot HOFers that might not have deserved the honor.

Who Shouldn't:

Johnny Evers
Joe Tinker


Who Should:

Gavvy Cravath (a long stretch here)
Bob Johnson
Harry Stovey
George Van Haltren

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

Haven't looked at a complete list of Hall of Famers, but off the top of my head, here's who I would get rid of:

Dave Bancroft
Jesse Haines
Travis Jackson
Fred Lindstrom
Eppa Rixey
Phil Rizzuto
Red Ruffing
Don Sutton
Joe Tinker
Lloyd Waner
Ross Youngs

There are probably a few I overlooked - I'll look at a complete list of Hall of Famers later

[Archive]

Posted By: Sean Coe

Who Shouldn't:
1. George Kelly
2. Rube Marquard
3. Jesse Haines
4. Joe Tinker
5. Chick Hafey
6. Don Sutton
7. Ross Youngs
8. Waite Hoyt
9. Lloyd Waner
10.Fred Lindstrom
11.Rick Ferrell

Who Should:
1.Joe Gordon
2.Ron Santo

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Kick Out--Tommy McCarthy, Phil Rizzuto, Ozzie Smith, Gary Carter, Candy Cummings, Abner Doubleday, Kirby Puckett, Luis Aparacio, Rick Ferrell, Nellie Fox, Ned Hanlon, Rabbit Maranville, Johnny Mize, Wilbert Robinson, Billy Williams.

Add in--Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, Pete Browning, Dave Orr, Bob Caruthers, Harry Stovey.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

Bob Caruthers--so stretch the rules; it's been done before. Fantastic pitcher and excellent hitter.
Tip O'Neill--.326 B.A.--with the '87 B.A. adjusted.
Dummy Hoy--you can use any reason you like--I think it takes the combination.
Pete Rose and Joe Jackson--probably some day, both of them will make it.


The first three will probably never happen unless the Veteran's Committee is reinstated again--which it will be, of course!

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Jay, can't believe you didn't list Bobby Mathews or Tommy Mullane. Also surprised at you listing booting Ozzie. If you boot him, gotta boot Brooks Robinson and all the other glovemen in the HOF. There has never been a better defensive player in the history of the game. Carter was THE catcher of the 80s. There was no one better.

Gotta go (the usually suspects, all there becuase of cronyism)
Rixey
Lindstrom
Rizzutto
Maranville

Who should be in:
Santo
Grich (a streatch)
Mullane
Mathews
Stovey
Phillippe

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett

OUT:
Morgan Bulkeley

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

look at his stats...I don't see it.



(nice--whateveritis--though)

Morgan Bulkeley...?

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

these should be in everybody else out.HUBBELL, ED MATHEWS, OTT, SISLER, HONUS WAGNER, CY YOUNG, JACKIE ROBINSON, BERRA, BENCH, MORGAN, MIKE SCHMIDT, RUTH, GEHRIG, COBB, GROVE, AARON, DIMAGGIO, FRISCH, T.SPEAKER, ANSON, MAYS, W.JOHNSON, MATTEWSON, SIMMONS, MANTLE, GEHRINGER, CLEMENTE, F.ROBINSON, LAJOIE, P.WANER, MUSIAL, TED WILLIAMS, BANKS, E.COLLINS, CRAWFORD, ED DELAHANTY, FELLER, SPAHN, J.FOXX, B.GIBSON.GREENBERG, T.WILLIAMS, HORNSBY, ACTIVE BONDS, CLEMENS, RANDY JOHNSON, MANAGERS WEAVER, STENGLE, MCCARTY, MACK, MCGRAW NEGRO LEAGUES PAIGE, BELL, J.GIBSON, all of these players were truely GREAT.

[edited because this post was killing the formatting on the page]

[Archive]

Posted By: J Levine

Sherwood "Sherry" Magee should be in the Hall of Fame...

Great hitter, good speed, great arm, wonderful fielding %. Put him in the Hall. I think he is out of the Hall because not a lot of veterans liked him and because he was very outspoken about the Black Sox scandal...Put him in, please!!

-Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

better believe it, because she knows she can't spell. ONE T.

For a Vintage Basball Card Forum, your perspective is too short-sighted. Only 2 from the 19th century (exclusively 19th century) doesn't cut it--wait a minute, Delahanty played till '03. Heavily weighted toward '30s, '40s and '50s players.

But it's interesting, nevertheless. What if we each wrote our own PERSONAL favorites? With the reason for the slant?

WHY IS THIS COLUMN SO WIDE? Threre's only one (small) picture.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris

I can't see leaving Ozzie and Gary Carter out. Gary was the man in the 80's and great off the field as well. I have always thought Barney dreyfuss should be in. Many great contributions to the game. I think Pete Rose should be the last person allowed in. Rules are made to be followed by all. Letting Rose back into baseball would only say you are allowed to break the rules if you are a good enough player. It's time for Pete to live with the consequences of his actions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

My coworker's uncle is Frankie Frisch and we always tease him about how his uncle lowered the standards of the baseball hall of fame. Frisch was a great player and deserving of being in the HOF, but he made some horrible decisions while a member of the Veterans Committee He voted for or lobbied for former teammates who were some of the most undeserving players ever admitted including Jesse Haines, Ross Youngs Chick Hafey, and George Kelly.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

I think one reason of the main reasons Ross Youngs was voted in was because he died at the age of 29 after playing 10 years in the bigs. He did have a respectable .322 lifetime BA. McGraw said he was (one of) the greatest outfielder he'd ever seen. I don't want to make comparisons between an everyday player and a pitcher but Addie Joss was voted in after him after playing 9 years in the majors. I know, Joss as a pitcher had more spectacular stats than Ross as a hitter. Statistically Ross Youngs was a star, a baseball immortal - probably not.

I guess you could call Ross Youngs one of those borderline cases. Who knows what he would have done if he didn't die so young.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

i spelled most right. and yes i omitted a lot of players from pre-1900--but there really ARE NOT too many in the hall from this time period(didn't play into 1900's). i really believe it was harder to dominate in this early period of baseball history(but that's another thread). anybody want to start that one?

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

For reasons lost long ago to history, there are 2Ts in Matty, but only one in Mathewson. What happened to Christy's other T?

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

Give 'em the Hook
Johnny Evers, Frank Chance, Jack Chesbro, Chick Hafey, Jesse Haines, Freddy Lindstrom, Rube Marquard, Tommy McCarthy, Mickey Welch, Ross Youngs

Roll Out the Red Carpet
Bill Dahlen, Andre Dawson, Darrell Evans, Dwight Evans, Keith Hernandez, Tommy John, Jim Kaat, Carl Mays, Jack Quinn, Ron Santo
(Pete Rose and Joe Jackson when the HOF people come to their senses)

Julie:

Are you looking at the same statistics for Bid McPhee that everybody else is? Bill James called him the finest defensive second baseman of the 19th century (a hypothetical Gold Glove winner 9 times and league leader in double plays 11 times). His fielding percentage (+25) and range factor (+61) on Baseball-Reference.com is so far ahead of his contemporaries it is laughable. Other "pure fielder" HOFers at his position were not nearly as far ahead of their contemporaries (Mazeroski +7, +86; Fox +7, +55) as McPhee. And all without a glove for most of his career. He belonged long before the 10 stiffs at the top of this post.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

fielding average was sorta high for a 19th century player...so I should keep my scorecard, huh?
\
Mickey Welch?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ben

Welch belongs. How could you deny someone with 307 wins at nearly a .600 WL% and a career ERA of 2.71? In 1885, Welch was 44-11 with a 1.66 ERA for crying in the sink!

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

Most statistical analyses I've seen rank Welch very low for that reason. Tony Mullane, for instance, had a slightly worse won-loss record, but played for crummier teams. Had he had the benefit of better teams, his record probably would have surpassed Welch's.

For 19th century pitchers, Bill James ranks Tony Mullane, Bob Caruthers and Tommy Bond ahead of Welch. James Vail (a SABRmetician) ranks Jim McCormick, Tommy Bond, Bob Caruthers, Will White and Charlie Buffinton ahead of Welch.

So, Julie, if you want Caruthers in you have to give up Welch!

But you should keep your McPhee scorecard!

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

I know why I thought Welch was good...my Old Judge of him has his w-l record all over the back in fountain pen...it differs slightly from the one in the Baseball Encyclopedia (which is interesting). Looked pretty good to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: logan

Gary Carter should not be in the HOF. He "may" have been the best of the 80's, but all that means is everyone else was more mediocre than him. By the way, I am a Mets fan, so it's not as if I didn't root for the guy when he played.

Jim Rice should be in. Check out his numbers, and how he compares with other HOF'er.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/riceji01.shtml

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

Evers, Tinker, Chance --
Probably NOT worthy solely as players. But, when you figure in that Chance was also the Manager of the "Cubs dynasty" (just after the Ming dyansty historically) and the premier 1B in the NL for six or seven season he probabaly deserves to be in the HOF for his overall contribution. His managerial record is outstanding and may even warrant induction on its own.

McPhee, Mazeroski, Ozzie, Maranville and Brooks Robinson were all great infielders for quite a while I don't know if that's enough or not -- but that's their case. HOF Catcher Ray Schalk also probably belongs with this group as does HOF outfielder Harry Hooper.

Joss, Youngs, O'Neill and Caruthers (as well as Koufax, Puckett and Jennings) were all absolutely top notch but not for very long. Whether it was long enough is open to question and whether it matters exactly what caused their greatness to stop is also worth thinking about.

Mullane, McPhee, Browning, O'Neill, Caruthers and Stovey all did most of their damage in the inferior American Association. How much this should count against them is open to question. The AA was most comparable to the NL during the 1886-1889 period which certainly helps a few of them out.

Players who rely almost entirely on playing pretty well for a very long time but were never really among the best while they accumulated impressive career stats: Jake Beckley, Don Sutton, Mickey Welch, Pud Galvin, Bobby Wallace, Tony Mullane, Bert Blyleven, Bobby Mathews (include National Association numbers and he has 297 wins!), Jack Quinn and Early Wynn.


Players who benefitted (perhaps too much) from being on great teams: Phil Rizzuto, Mickey Welch, Catfish Hunter, Tony Lazzeri (notice all of the Yankees), Rollie Fingers, Evers-Tinker-Chance and Don Drysdale.
Players who absolutely have no business in the HOF no matter how how you look at it include: Tommy McCarthy, Lindstrom, Pennock, Highpockets Kelly, Rube Marquard, Pop Haines, Candy Cummings (at least as player), Stonewall Jackson and Dave "Beauty" Bancroft (notice all of the 1920's Giants pushed through by Frankie Frisch). Also I would include "one hit wonders" Jack Chesbro and Hack Wilson as pretty lame candidates.

Players who absolutely should be in the HOF no mattter how you look at it: Bill Dahlen, Ron Santo, Deacon White (including National Association career), and Negro League standouts Mule Suttles, Christbel Torrienti and Biz Mackey (all of whom are probably better than a few Negro Leaguers currently enshrined).

For the most part the only Managers in the HOF I would really question are "Uncle Wilbert" Robinson and AL Lopez (who deserves significnat credit for his playing anyway) -- eventually they'll need to add Cox, Torre (who may even cut it as a player) and probably LaRussa. Also Southworth is worth thinking aout. Hanlon belongs both because of the Old Orioles and because of his "managerial progeny": McGraw et al.



Just some thoughts.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Since many subscribe to the intrepretation that the rules in force at the time establish the validity of the statistic(s), it follows that no Negro League players should be enshrined due to their on field performance. Similarly, since there have been three long term HR kings in the sport's history (Williamson, Ruth and Maris), this most prized statistic should be sufficient grounds for enshrinement in the Hall of Fame (Fame is not necessarilly Achievement).

IMHO sections should be set up to honor those whose on field performance merits induction, those who are inducted due to popularity or fame, those who deserve recognition due to their team management or other non-playing contributions, those noteworthy individuals who participated primarilly in the Negro League, and other deserving catagories of baseball contributors. What an honor it would be to qualify for multiple catagories of recognition.

Who do you think deserves this multi-catagory honor?

How about McGraw, Ward and Anson, for openers?


Gil

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The HOF is basically set up that way already. Many people are HOF worthy in several catagories, but if you look at the votes, it notes whether they are inducted as a contributor, foudner, Negro Leaguer, player, manager, etc. The HOF just tends to recognize you for wht you got voted in for, not everything you did.

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: John/z28jd

Ive said it before but i think the hall of fame should have 2 different levels.The really great players and then the players that shouldnt be forgotten.They dont need a plaque but just a section of the hall of fame where they recognize the best of the rest.

If someone goes to the hall of fame they will learn mostly about hall of famers[there is other info thrown in,dont get me wrong] but a player like Tony Mullane should have some type of bio in there.He was too good of a player not to get mention.How tough would it be to put a couple pictures of him along with a short bio somewhere.They could have one section where you do this for every player from Jim Creighton and Joe Start to Harold Baines and Tim Raines who both just retired recently but might not get in to the hall.If some guy from this section gets elected to the hall just take him out and replace him with someone else

People who really want to go to the hall of fame to learn something should be able to walk away from there knowing the difference between Bill Lee the all-star pitcher from the 30-40's and Bill Lee the all-star pitcher from the 70's.I dont think its too much to ask to learn about other great players while youre there.

They have a list of all-time home run hitters,no hitters list,wins leaders etc but maybe someone wants to know who Lee May was who hit 354 homers,or some guy named Larry Corcoran who threw 3 no-hitters.

Basically i dont think the hall could ever be too crowded but id also like to see a seperation between the 2 levels of players.I also wouldnt recommend taking that honor away from any dead people because they could haunt the hall of fame.So i say if youre in now you stay,if you dont get elected in your 15 years on the ballot you go the hall of others greats section unless a veterans committee decides youre too good to be there

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

far as I have been able to determine--every major leaguer from the beginning. Judy Mayer, 25 Main Street. P.O. Box 590, Cooperstown, N.Y. 13326-0597. Phone: 607-547-0372.
The prints are excellent.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pcelli60

I like the idea of different 'levels' of recogonition. I would suggest this be done by seperation based on position, including the DH. Or perhaps by the era and compare contemporaries. Emphesize a time line..The plaques will have to be re-arrainged to reflect this 'new' approach..Mind you I have been to the hall at least 15 times in the last 20 years. I would like to see something different done with the main hall. And why not use that as a reason to reflect a new way..Pure stats have never been the sole criteria at the Hall.And EVERYBODY has a short list of legitimate names that belong to the fellowship. Some will sit in an inner ring and some in an outer ring, but we have a place at the table for more..

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim

I agree with your picks. Wish something could be done about the great players left out.

[Archive]

Posted By: PAsJD

As in my other post, I think at least 1/3 of the guys in there don't belong and I can't think of anyone not in who should be, Jim Rice would come the closest because for a 7 year period he truly was the best power hitter in baseball, you can look it up, and he had some pretty good other years as well. Some folks who never belonged: Carter, Fox, Mazeroski, Sutton, Niekro, Yount, Molitor, Winfield, Schoendienst, Lopez, Hafey, Rixey, Grimes, Wynn, Perry, Rizzuto, Slaughter, Cepeda, Perez, Billy Williams, Aparicio, Robin Roberts, Murray. That's just off the top of my head. Fine players, yes, stars, yes, immortal all time greats? No. And as long as I am at it, 500 HR, 300 wins or 3000 hits no longer should automatically get anyone in. Not when Rafael Palmeiro will hit two of those milestones.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

My "close" list would be Rice, Murphy, Oliva and Mattingly. All but Oliva were shoe-ins until their careers went south prematurely.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

In:

Deacon Phillipe, Tony Oliva, Jack Morris, Pete Rose, Joe Jackson.

Out:

Joe Tinker, Stonewall Jackson, Billy Williams, Bill Mazeroski, Don Sutton, Early Wynn, Rube Marquard.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

scott, how is 300 wins not a shoe-in? We are probably seeing thelast of the 300 game winners. If anyone does it from here on out, they deserve to be in the HOF. With 5 man rotations and pitching specialists, winning 300 is going to take a special pitcher.

No argument 500HR doesn't mean what it once did, but 3,000 hits is still very hard to do, until 20 years ago, there were more 300 game winners than there were players with 3,000 hits.

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

It doesn't necessarily indicate greatness - it could mean longevity instead.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

scott, so the HOF should be filled with nothing but the Koufax's and Puckett's of the world? Why should a player that is consisantly among the best in the game during his entire career not be allowed in the HOF, yet someone who is mediocre for most of their career but dominates for 5 years gets in? There needs to be room for both the supernovas and the those that have has sustained careers. You don't hang around for 20 years becuase you want to. You stick around because you are better and/or can offer something that a cheaper, younger player cannot.

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

Sorry man, but I'm looking for "greatness".

Koufax achieved it, even though it wasn't for as long a period as you would like. Niekro didn't achieve it, nor did Sutton, nor did Blyleven or Morris. But that's just my opinion - I doubt there's anyone who agrees man-for-man with every selection in (and out of) the HOF.

[Archive]

Posted By: pete

it reminds me of the Hollywood "walk of fame" anyone can get a star on the "walk of fame" if you have $25k and a group to sponser you! ...hell! ozzy osbourne has one! what about the next generation? i can count maybe 15 guys who REALLY belong ...these guys these days are primmadonnas...its all about the $ now, not for the love of the game.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

You'll have to forgive me here as I was 5 years old during Ron Santo's last year playing, so I never saw him play live or on tv. He appears on so many people's lists here as someone who should be in the hall. I looked at his statistics, and I must say that while his stats are decent, they hardly seem worthy of being in the hall. This is not to say that everyone in the hall should be there, and perhaps some have comparable numbers to Santo which is why they think he deserves inclusion. After looking at his stats both offensive and defensive I still don't get it. Someone please explain why they think he deserves to be in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

If you don't have 300 wins or a .300 lifetime BA then you are in the Hall because of some streak or specific accomplishment. Such as 61 HR in a year or lifetime stolen bases or lots of other specific significant accomplishments.

Gary, you have been looking at Santo's record. Why does anyone consider him noteworthy ?

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

gary what you said is TRUE. "This is not to say that everyone in the hall should be there, and perhaps some have comparable numbers to Santo which is why they think he deserves inclusion." ...he WAS the best player at his position all during the 60's.his career #'s are not inflated by him hanging on an extra 3 or 4 years,he might have retired early because he was diabetic his entire career.he played in the 60's a pitcher dominated era.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

A must read for anyone interested in this thread is Bill James' book The Politics of Glory, which discusses the baseball Hall of Fame, its inductees and those not inducted.

[Archive]

Posted By: mike

The general population appears to adore two types of athletes (other than winners): 1., The type that strikes like lighting (it's probably the unpredictability of each appearance), the flash-and-burn, cold water types. Good for gamblers, I suppose; and 2., The type that performs at a high-level for a sustained period of time.

Why cannot both types of players be in the Hall? 61 homers in one season was a feat, but not enough, imo. Now, add in the MVPs, the rings and a couple of other seasons, those might be enough individual accomplishments.

The top shortstop in the NL for more than a decade? Why not? Are there rings?

That's why the writer's picks are pretty good. A consensus is established.

[Archive]

Posted By: mike

Santo, by many accounts, was a decent fielder, had enthusiasm, and was not blamed for the '69 fiasco. Those who suffer from diabetes admire Santo for his ability to play trough illness. Santo's power numbers are huge for a 6-7 year stretch, especially compared to other HOFers, playing during those years.

If he was a Yankee during those horrible later years, he'd be in. Just because the lovable losers have Banks, Jenkins, & Williams already in, Santo shouldn't be excluded. Add in his broadcasting career, and he's made a life contribution to baseball.

I like Santo, but I'm not really crazy about his broadcasting style. His partner gets sophmoric. I notice my Dad doesn't even turn down the volume on the TV & turn on the radio anymore when the Cubbs are on; he changes the channel.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

great book! a must....also from bill james "THE HISTORICAL BASEBALL ABSTRACT" in this he says to paraprase the standard for the HOF is not willie mays but home run baker et al..so why not santo?

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

I took another look at Santo's numbers, and I guess had he played 5-6 more years and had some of his numbers inflated, it wouldn't look too different than some other hall of famers. Still, I think his inclusion would be very borderline and marginal.

Bob Caruthers on the other hand - checked out his stats. Ok, so WHY isn't this guy in the hall? He only played for 9 years, but what a 9 years - wow!

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

is the standards of entering the hall were lowered so much over the years that people would think Santo had earned a spot. I guess the Hall really is pretty watered down when you put some of the names people have already mentioned as unworthy of inclusion next to people like Cobb, Hornsby, Ruth, Aaron, Mays and other biggies. Maybe there should indeed be two levels of the Hall, and only the best of the best makes it to the top tier, because Ron Santo and some of the people who are in the hall aren't even in the same league with some of the biggies.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

The mission statement at the HOF reads, in part:

"Honoring, by enshrinement, those individuals who had exceptional careers, and recognizing others for their significant achievements."

Mission statements change, but this is the base criteria to get in. 61 homers in 1961 a career? No. 61 homers in 1961 a significant achievement? Maybe that's a consideration.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

maris should be in.also,i was 8 years old when he broke ruths record and he was the most FAMOUS ballplayer around. ask any lady/man in her/his 50's or 60's who knows NOTHING ABOUT BASEBALL and i'll bet she/he knows who roger maris is.THAT'S FAME.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I do not think that the Hall will interpret the performance of a .277 lifetime batter with a .464 slugging average as meeting the criteria of their mission statement. So I conclude that Santo has to be out. But I do note that Maranville is in, and I wonder about how they interpret their statement.

Maranville is a lifetime .258 batter, with a .340 slugging average.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

For those of you who do not understand why Santo is held in such high regard, please find and read the 2 books mentioned along with The Hidden Game by Pete Palmer and John Thorne. After you adjust for league and park factor, Santo was a monster and NO 3B was close to him. He simpley was THE 3B of the 60s. The best at any position for a decade should be in the HOF regardless of numbers. Numbers don't tell the whole story.

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.