Does Big Spending in Baseball Even Matter?
Baseball May 13th. 2008, 2:45pm
Following up on Monday’s little discussion about the A’s, Rays and Marlins … we decided to take a peek at who has made the MLB postseason since payroll began topping the $100 million mark. According to this database, that first took place in 2001, when the Yankees payroll totaled $112 million. Realizing that numbers can be interpreted any number of ways – usually, to fit someone’s argument; somebody sent in this link – perhaps you’ll be interested in these.
We broke the total payroll list down into three categories: “Big Spenders” (ie, Top 10 payroll), “medium” (payroll ranked 11-20), and “cheapskates” (payroll ranked 21-30).
(For instance: In 2007, here’s where the postseason teams ranked in terms of total payroll – Yankees (1), Red Sox (2), Angels (4), Cubs (8), Phillies (13), Indians (23), Rockies (25), Diamondbacks (26). We charted all of these from 2001, and 2007 was the only year in which three teams from the “cheapskates” category qualified for the postseason; 2004 was the opposite, with six of the eight teams coming from the “Big Spenders” category.)
Findings about the 56 postseason teams from 2001-2007
- 31 postseason teams came from the “Big Spenders” group – 55% (15 in the AL, 16 in the NL)
- 16 postseason teams came from the “Medium” group – 28% (7 in the AL, 9 in the NL)
- 9 postseason teams came from the “Cheapskates” group – 16% (6 in the AL, 3 in the NL)
Does that mean you can say, any team that began this season with a bottom 10 payroll in MLB only has a 16 percent chance of making the postseason, whereas a “Big Spender” has a 55 percent chance? Well, from 2004-2006, there was only one postseason team from the “cheapskates” category (Oakland in 2006).
In addition, we’d be interested to see Divisional payroll breakdown – for instance, the AL Central doesn’t seem to produce “Big Spenders” (seven of the eight playoff teams from that Division had “medium” or “cheapskate”), or perhaps one in which somebody takes a look at any teams who moved from one category to another and whether or not there was an immediate result (ie, postseason).
Obviously the best move is to spend as little as you can as wisely as you can, but we’re going to stand by the obvious – if you spend money, it enhances your chances of winning.
98 Responses to “Does Big Spending in Baseball Even Matter?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.


May 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
What am I supposed to buy on that ad on the right of a girl bent over in a bikini?
I remember seeing something where in like 1990 the Kansas City Royals had the highest payroll in baseball, I was floored by that.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
What is with TBL today – I was told there would be no math!
May 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Cereally – the engineer in me loves this crap
May 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
As a Tigers fan, I’d say no, big spending doesn’t matter. At least so far.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
@TBL: I like this graph better.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
My head hurts. Where is that Advil ad when I need it?
May 13th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
This seems disingenuous to me.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
To me this is almost a non-issue. The best way to win over a long period of time is to draft well and trade vets for minor leaguers. And as long as Barry Zito and Matt Morris and guys like that get the type of years and money they get it’s going to skew the data.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Gonzo, i’ll put it in easier words:
It is clear that MLB is not on an even playing field.
Let’s get a salary cap on this sucker and even things out.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Salary caps are for communists!
May 13th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
TBL, you’re preaching to the choir man. I would love a hard salary cap in baseball. The current salary cap (off of memory) is a soft cap. The team matches 40% for each doller spent over $130 million. Just think to 8 years ago when the Yankees spent $112 million, THEN they made the cap $130M. It’s the fault of the players union. They want all the money they can get. Of course it’s their right, but I hate seeing teams ship out the Cabrera’s and Johan’s of the world because of money.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
But your blatantly mocking post yeasterday called people sheeple for going to games and pretty much shit on anyone’s chances of winning on less they had a big payroll…so 55% of the time a “big spender” got in over the 45% of everyone else? so the how does that take away anyone’s chance at winning. From 2001-2007 (a small sample…you could start at 1995..post strike year) how many of the big spenders are the Yankess and Red Sox? As for championships.since 2001…the D-Backs, Angels, Marlins, Red Sox, White Sox, Cardinals and Red Sox again one…so thats 2 little guys…2 middle guys and 2 big spenders…pretty even…if you go back to 1995 like you should, 24 of 30 teams have made the postseason…of those who didn’t, the Pirates are the only team never to finish at 2nd in their division. Baseball has had more Unique champions in the last 12 years than the NFL, NBA and NHL…all of which have a cap…so for all the garbage that a cap makes things equal…it works out the same or better in baseball without one..your argument is flawed..what a higher payroll allows for is an opportunity to keep a team competitive longer…it doesn’t squash a teams ability to compete
May 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
If baseball got a salary cap, would that mean ESPN would have to stop slobbing the Yankees and Red Sox’s knobs?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
God bless you RWH.
I would like to add that looking at the payroll in terms of 1-10, 11-20, and 21-30 is skewed. I have pulled the salaries from 2001-2007 (which is an unsightly small sample size) and will be running some numbers.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I wonder what the data would look like if the top two payrolls and the bottom two payrolls were eliminated.
/It’s Science
May 13th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
You’re right … choked the life out of the NFL
May 13th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
@tallguy: No because they would just use their money to overpay the best draft talent available, not to mention sign the best international amateurs.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
A salary cap is a foolish idiotic solution that encourages bad management…simple people need help balancing their check books..well lets give them and allowance..it is asinine…$230 million is not helping the Yankees this year…the 4 years this decade the Red Sox didn’t make it no one complained they spent too much…teams like Oakland and Minnesota have laid a ground work on how to build from with in and invest wisely in your team…if things suck so bad…why did Florida give Hanley Ramirez $70 million dollars last week…why did the Rays lock up Longoria through free agency? How about everything the D-Backs are doing…they are about to lock up Webb and Haren…smart people are in the right places figuring it out…
May 13th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
They pinky promise to. They want to care about PIttsburgh and KC again.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
How so?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
TBL..it works in the NFL because of no guaranteed contracts…the NHL every year a team has to trade a star player it can’t sign for cap purposes…the NBA has to trade overpaid un motivated garbage around to get one useful player…the cap can not work where salary is guaranteed…once again..the Salary Cap is for the weak and unenlightened…the NFL argument is apples and oranges
May 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
he can skew it how ever he pleases..his argument shows he is wrong…if 2 teams encompass most of the 55% than it is two well managed teams…24 of 30 teams in the postseason in the last 12 years…with only 6 playoff spots…there is more parody than he thinks
May 13th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
@TBL: It’s skewed because there are huge gaps between 1-2 and 3-10 and 11-23 and 24-30. There are like 5-6 tears, not just three. Huge statistical differences.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
@TBL
Because off the top of my head, I assume 6-10 is closer to 20-25 than they are to 1-5 in terms of payroll. I.E. the top 5 are huge outliers.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
TBL, how you have not thrown up a Romo/Jessica break up post yet?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Reason being: the gap in total payroll really began expanding in 2001, when payrolls began to top 100 million
Wasn’t measuring titles. That’s not the point. Anything can happen in a short series.
Absolutely meaningless in this discussion.
All this does is draw a simple correlation: In the big-spending era, it is clear that baseball is not on a level playing field. If you are willing to spend the money, your chances of reaching the postseason are enhanced.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
1. Yankees 209 mil Tier 1
2-4 133-137mil Tier 2
5-9 117-121 mil Tier 3
10-13 98-102 mil Tier 4
15-19 73-80 mil Tier 5
May 13th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
lol
not everything on the net is true
May 13th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Also the salaries change form year to year…teams 3-10 switch back and forth over who is 3-10…and lets say you make the cutoff 90 million…the guy who spends 88 is different…or better yet..70 mill…so 70 is mid tier but 67 is lower tier? how do you determine…there is one true behemoth…the Yankees..the Yankees also pay more money to everyone else..so besides buying players he is a revenue generator for the lower tier…why would this be bad?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
My sarcasm aside, the thing about salary caps is that they are suppose to make everybody equal. And I don’t like parity in sports. The most memorable eras in sports were back when there was no parity.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
30 Florida 23 mil Tier 7
20-29 43-68 mil Tier 6
May 13th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
A single tier streams down my cheek for your misspelling, Hef.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Where are the triangle graphs?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I fixed it later, dick.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
So you’re saying there’s a chance!!!
/TBL
May 13th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Lol – How many tiers will there be? 8? Are two teams a tier? The problem with that many tiers is that you will have heavy movement each year. In the three tier model, you dont have as much movement on a yearly basis.(IE – The Tigers always have spent, and spent big-time this offseason, but remained in tier 1.)
As i said at the outset, anyone can skew numbers toward an argument they want to make. Feel free to massage these into an argument to the contrary. I have no doubt it can be done.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
im trying to get a cost of living raise in my salary
/ we are talking about salaries right
May 13th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
For example?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Look at the groupings TBL: these are teams with similar pay scales. The yankees belong in their own tier because they are outspending everyone by 33%
May 13th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
TBL…how are championships and Playoff appearances meaningless…doesn’t mean lower tier teams are competative? Are all these lower tier teams 60 win teams in you eyes? Of course it means something…the point is to compete and win any team in this league can compete and win…you present a fallacy and joke perpetuated by the idea that money is everything..its not..all this started by calling people sheeple…they are not..they are people looking to be entertained..they are people that root for teams that have a chance to win contrary to you money argument..
May 13th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Make that 50%. My apologies.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Carl Pavano sees no problems with Major League Baseball’s current salary structure.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
@CRM- a little afternoon roundup maybe. slacking, its almost 3:30. I thought TBL kept you on a tight schedule
May 13th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Again, are they called a small market because of their payroll or what?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Oh…and while we are at it…you poo poohed my Championship argument…than why make playoff appearances important…let go look at winning percentage…and are the Twins a middle or a small because they made the post season twice between 2004-2006
May 13th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
@CRM – So does Barry Zito.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Irish – TBL doesn’t keep any sort of tight schedule. I’m in a work related event all day so my contribution for the day is in spirit only.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
@guiness: also because of the size of their bats (wink).
May 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
@jim – And all the other former Marlins in baseball
May 13th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Then why try making the argument in the first place? If a group of numbers can easily prove two points, doesn’t that mean that neither is wholly valid?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
The NHL during the 80’s. The Islanders, the Oilers and everybody else.
Hmmm, maybe it’s free agency that I really hate… in thinking of a reply, all I could do was think of examples from before free agency had such a big impact on player movement.
Either way, I’ll let you guys with actually valid points continue. I’m going back to my spreadsheet.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
@CRM- i thought you were the main man for that. My bad
May 13th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Ben I am guessing you are either a contrarian or hate numbers? Am I right on either?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
guniess…small market is a misnomer as well..the Marlins play in the 5th biggest TV market in the US..they are last in payroll..
May 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
That is why I was asking the question. The Tampa Bay area is the 13th largest tv market, we just don’t spend on salaries..oh, and thanks Hef!
May 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
My sarcasm aside, the thing about salary caps is that they are suppose to make everybody equal. And I don’t like parity in sports. The most memorable eras in sports were back when there was no parity.
“Back in the day” there WAS parity. I wish I could look at salary figures from the 70’s and 80’s, but I bet the difference from the top spending team to the lowest spending team back then is infinitely smaller than it is in 2008.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
i dont think anyone will argue that having a higher payroll increases your odds of winning, but it doesnt mean big pending ensures competitiveness nor does mean a tight budget ensures a team cant compete, which i thought your previous post implied and is what i thought most people took issue with.
its a nice little bit of numbery you did but its not terribly meaningful. didnt kieth law already explain this whole bit to you already? i mean you did read moneyball, right? with smarter, more efficient use of resources, teams can compete on a smaller budget.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I am an engineer, and therefore a big fan of using numbers and data to prove points, providing that the point is actually proven and not contrived. The last two math posts on here have tried to use numbers to prove points that are highly tenuous at best.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
@Ben – so that’s why your comments on the last two posts have been so condescending!
May 13th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Ben…I used to work with engineers…you guys are a strange breed…always wanting proof and facts…DAMN YOU!
May 13th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I too was an engineer (NO WAY who would’ve guessed) but jumped ship.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
i only have their postseason years:
2006 – 19th
2004 – 19th
2003 – 18th
2002 – 27th
May 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
re: Twins … as i said above, nobody in that division, historically (meaning 2001-2007), has ’spent’
May 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
with smarter, more efficient use of resources, teams can compete on a smaller budget.
The problem is, you really have to capitalize on several young players being terrific in their first 4 years of their career. the first 3 years they make pocket change. The 4th, 5th and 6th years they are arbitration eligible (That’s when they can make big one year coin). Although, the first year of arbitration is generally on the cheap end (rarely do players make more than a few million their first year of arbitration, save for Pujols, Cabrera, Howard). So the 5th and/or 6th years of a player you have control over is when they may make the big bucks (if they are any good).
May 13th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
i’m with ben, not to be condescending but breaking the league into arbitrary tiers and an arbitrary time frame will not give you a good predictor of the future. the link TBL provides is much more instructive. from year to year there is a correlation of payroll to winning percentage of varying degrees, ranging from strong to nonexistent. what you want to do next is study the trend year to year of this correlation and see if there is a true relation. i’m going to assume there, but not nearly as high as TBL and most people would assume. i’m sure someone has done this somewhere at baseballprospectus et al. and the reason for that is you have smart efficient franchises like the A’s and big expensive dumb ones like the giants and the rangers.
if you want to find who the frauds and sleepers are at the beginning of the season, don’t look at payroll, looks at a teams run differential and finds their pythagorean win amount, which is closer to a teams ‘true’ win expectancy (ie gets rid of the luck). if you want to get nerdier, there is 2nd and 3rd levels of pythagorean that work with the number of hits a team scores and also takes into account strength of schedule. this is tabulated everyday at thehardballtimes and is really easy to find.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
TBL..so that diminshes their accomplishments? They still played in the American league against the Big bad Yankees and Red Sox…the A’s are more impressive they played in teh same division as as teh Angels, Rnagers (who spent money) and Mariners (ditto) and won…How about Atlanta in the same division as teh Mets and Phillies? The NL west has sent everyteam to the playoffs…in you time frame…I just think you make too big a deal about money since the spending and winning are corollated with 2 teams
May 13th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I also seriously hate IE…I can’t get spell check to work..this blows
May 13th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Roman, i downloaded IE Pro 7 today and it is working wonders. its just a 2MB add on.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Does Ken Tremendous use the alias Ken Dynamo on this site? To prove it Ken, tell me what Torii Hunter’s VORP and Adam Dunn’s OBP+ from 2007?
May 13th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
That statement is great.
(1) Over the last three years (’06-’08) the White Sox have been top five in payroll (4th, 5th, 5th). Unless of course you’re saying they’re not paying because they’re not reaching Yankees or Red Sox levels, in which case the 10 teams per tier notion is shot.
(2) The last time they weren’t top five (2005 – 13th) in payroll was the year they won 99 games and won the World Series.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Gonzo if i werent so lazy i’d be happy to oblige, but they are honestly mere clicks away to anyone with an internet hookup (all of you here) and a subscription to BP (i would guess not many of the people here).
the main point i would make is this whole discussion has happened many many times before on the interweb, only with legit peer reviewed analysis (baseball geeks are great that way) and its not as hopeless as it seems for these small market teams. of course im also too lazy to find these studies that i purport to be mere clicks away, so i may as well be full of shit myself.
but to start, just read moneyball.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
naturally, i left out 2 words. “spent AND WON.”
White Sox in 2005 had the trip to the WS … 13th in payroll. The original #’s are up top: 8 playoff teams from 01-07 from the AL central … 7 of them didn’t have a payroll in the top 10.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Jesus, is it really making some of you guys(and ESPN) so bijiggity because the Rays(and others) are doing well? I guess we better hope the Yanks get back to form to get the universe in order..
May 13th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
And Jesus, that was not directed at you.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Hoo-boy…
It isn’t the size of the market, it’s the size of the payroll. Many of the “small” markets are in fact in big media markets. The team chooses to spend a certain amount on the big league payroll. By the way, the MLBPA is violently opposed to a salary cap/salary floor. Don Fehr and Gene Orza believe in the free market and would never, EVER, agree to a salary cap. A cap retards salary growth, that’s it. And for the arguments that the salary cap is the reason the NFL is so successful – wrong. The salary cap doesn’t help Arizona or Cincinnati or Atlanta. The NFL owners agreed to share national revenue – that’s what made the NFL successful.
Good management trumps money. It so happens that Theo Epstein and Brian Cashman are good general managers and they can afford to make expensive mistakes. But Billy Beane and Mark Shapiro exist with limited payrolls and do quite well.
Teams that only spend money on the big league payroll will be in the dumps. That’s why the Yankees and Red Sox have started to pour money into scouting and the international market. Cheap young talent is the new currency. Teams are now overvaluing prospects to the extent that it takes a bold or desperate team to hand over prospects for expensive talent.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Noted. Even if it was, always feel free to holla (do people still say that? What’s more appropriate?) at Me, guinessgirl13. No need to worry about inappropriate behavior with Me.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
That’s the point!
Thanks for re-wording the second point that you didn’t copy. That’s exactly what I said. The last time they weren’t top five in payroll, they were thirteenth, and they won 99 games and the World Series.
The point about tiers I was trying to make is that lumping in number ten with number one doesn’t prove anything. In 2007, the #1 spending team was the Yankees, who spent $190M, while the #10 spending team was the Orioles, who spent $94M. The Orioles, at #10, were closer to the Rays in last than they were to the Yankees at #1.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
The exact opposite, actually. It’s great they’re winning, it sparks these conversations.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
That was very well written Jesus..
May 13th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
As if Jesus needs his ego massaged. He’s friggin’ Jesus!
May 13th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Was that one directed at Jesus?
May 13th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Nick, check email. Now.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I can check it now, but can’t access comments.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Hooray!!! I am victorious. Should we change the server now?
May 13th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Jesus agrees with my points…I love you Jesus.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
benji…I just did the update…thanks..this is much better
May 13th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
This makes sense, but cannot be proved.
And for some of the small market teams, it works in reverse: good management (ie, not spending at all) MAKES you more money.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
That sounds always similar to some other point trying to be proved in this post…
May 13th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Yes, revenue corresponds with performance. But why are we supposed to buy that a salary cap makes things better? Does a salary cap work in the NBA? Does it work in the NFL? I think this is a discussion worth having. But it’s worth discussing the actual impact of a cap. If it’s to improve the perception of competitive balance? By all means. But it doesn’t “fix” what’s wrong with pro sports on the field. As noted previously, dominant team(s) tend to bring about the most interest throughout the modern history of sports.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I’d say yes and yes. The luxury tax in the NBA makes it a debate worth having … but the NBA also lets 16 of 30 teams reach the postseason. I guess I’m a firm believer on giving everyone a level playing field and letting them go at it.
Do you have stats that can back-up the phrase?
May 13th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I like that you’re trying to turn it around when it’s your point that can’t adequately statistically be proven to begin with, but we’ll give yours a shot anyway. Are you looking for a dollar spent per win type of figure? That would be eash enough to calculate. The harder part will be delineating what are termed ‘good’ management teams. I’ll tell you what, you give me the teams you want to compare on a $/W basis from ‘01-’07 and I’ll do it.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Well, competitive balance would seem a lot better in MLB if they had more than 50 percent of their teams playing in October, too. I guess what I’m getting at is that it’s pretty easy to say that a cap “fixes” the imbalances in revenue. I’d argue that it just shifts the problem elsewhere.
In the NFL you’ve got ownership like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder (among others) doing everything they can to shield their local revenues from the NFL revenue sharing agreement. Not to mention, the contract structure in the NFL is going to get a serious once-over when their CBA is up. In the NBA, great teams are tinkered with through one-year salary exemptions.
Making everybody equal is very idealistic and I guess a noble goal. It’s just not actually the case. Are the Cowboys and the Falcons actually on level footing? Are the Grizzlies and the Lakers?
May 13th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
You can make money in many ways. you could run in the red for many years and increase Frachise value which is what has been happening because of overall growth of MLB.
Not mentioned, but another flaw in your ’study’ – I think they changed the way you get compensated for draft picks over your timeline which could have had lots of implications. You need to isolate variables!!!
May 13th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
The post up top was more than adequately proved. But this “good” argument is yours, and if you want that to hold up, by all means, i’d be willing to read about it.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
re: Grizzlie and Lakers – Great point. Chris, if you’re an NBA guy, and you want to ask if that salary cap works, I’d read it.
The Lakers spent $20 million more than the Grizz. Clearly, there’s a major talent gap there. I’m not too familiar with the NBA cap, but I’d definitely be interested in reading about, say, the Orlando Magic, who had one of the lowest payrolls in the league this season, are – according to reports everywhere – “locked in” to their big three and only their big three for several years to come.
Meanwhile, the Nuggets and Knicks spent $20 or more million, and seem to be making moves rather freely.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
You have proven nothing with the ‘analysis’ from up top. I already explained why the ‘tiers’ thing just flat out doesn’t work and won’t turn into usable statistics.
Additionally, concerning the ‘good’ management trumping money argument: it wasn’t mine, that was originally brought up by Jesus. You made the statement that it couldn’t be proven, I made a snarky comment that some other argument in this post (yours) couldn’t be proven either. From there, you asked if I had stats that could back-up Jesus’ statement, I offered a place to start ($/W), and you responded by saying that if I did something with it, you’d be willing to read it when you were, in fact, the one asking for it in the first place.
Finally, as an add-on, you state that your post was more than adequately proved, when in fact, it’s not.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. Duly noted.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
It’s not an opinion when it’s based on statistics.