[USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux

Sun Mar 3 18:27:07 EST 2019

Not a B fan, for reasons previously given. Let's see where the votes end up
... & then count hanging chads, etc. :)

On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 6:10 PM Jim Barrett <chicagojab at gmail.com> wrote:

> Looks like B has the momentum. Maybe some A voters (esp the Prof who has
> been really pushing the issue) should consider switching to the B side to
> push it over the goal line.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 3, 2019, at 5:02 PM, springkerb--- via Announce <announce at usml.net>
> wrote:
>
> Ditto.  Put me down for the amended Option B.  It gets to the same
> place (and implicitly demonstrates the obviously superior merits of a
> weighted approach).
>
> Mark K
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Winick <jwinick at hwhlegal.com>
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> Sent: Sun, Mar 3, 2019 3:08 pm
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>
> I vote for amended option B.
>
> Jeffrey H. Winick
> *Harris Winick Harris LLP*
> 333 West Wacker Drive
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0ASuite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+%0D%0A+Illinois+%0D%0A+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Suite 2060
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0ASuite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+%0D%0A+Illinois+%0D%0A+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0ASuite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+%0D%0A+Illinois+%0D%0A+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Chicago,
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0ASuite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+%0D%0A+Illinois+%0D%0A+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>*
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0ASuite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+%0D%0A+Illinois+%0D%0A+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>*
> Illinois
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0ASuite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+%0D%0A+Illinois+%0D%0A+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>*
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0ASuite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+%0D%0A+Illinois+%0D%0A+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>*
> 60606
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0ASuite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+%0D%0A+Illinois+%0D%0A+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Tel: 312.662.4600 *|* Fax: 312.662.4599
> Direct: 312.662.4602 *|* Cell: 312.841.2817
> www.hwhlegal.com *| *jwinick at hwhlegal.com
>
>
> *From:* Announce [mailto:announce-bounces at usml.net
> <announce-bounces at usml.net>] *On Behalf Of *Andy Klein
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 3, 2019 2:53 PM
> *To:* USML Announcements
> *Subject:* Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>
> OK - taken as a "friendly amendment" to Option B.
>
> Again, I vote for Option A.
>
> -Andy
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 3:48 PM Jeffrey Winick <jwinick at hwhlegal.com>
> wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> I think that a vote of this sort is a great idea. However, the website
> only supports Saves + Holds/2. So I’d strongly recommend that we vote on
> that alternative.
> Jeffrey H. Winick
> Harris Winick Harris LLP
> 333 West Wacker Drive
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Suite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+IL+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Suite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+IL+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Suite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+IL+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Suite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+IL+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Suite 2060
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Suite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+IL+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Suite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+IL+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Suite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+IL+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Suite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+IL+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Chicago, IL 60606
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=333+West+Wacker+Drive+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Suite+2060+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A+%0D%0A%0D%0A+Chicago,+IL+60606&entry=gmail&source=g>
> (312) 662-4602
> (312) 841-2817 (cell)
>
> On Mar 3, 2019, at 2:43 PM, Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Starting again with the caveat that this is not an end-of-the world issue,
> I'm taking one more swing at this.
>
> It seems we have a clear majority in favor of including holds in some
> fashion in our scoring system in 2020.  I propose a vote on one of two
> alternatives.
>
> A.  Holds + Saves
> B  Holds + 2XSaves
>
> In the past, we haven't changed rules unless we have a strong majority in
> favor.  Commissioners ... can we vote and see where we stand?  Knowing the
> outcome could have an impact on bidding this year.
>
> -Andy
>
> PS:  I vote for option A - Saves + Holds. :)
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 12:33 PM Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In the end, this is not a huge issue to me, regardless of whether we stick
> with S, go to S+H or 2S+H.  But it's kind of interesting, and I enjoy
> procrastinating during the lunch hour by looking at it!
>
> I suppose you could find odd comparisons either way, but I still like S+H
> better.  Doubling the value of saves retains the huge value gap between 9th
> inning pitchers and others, and does much less to reduce the dynamic that
> encourages our artificial chasing of the "closer carousel."  So, to me,
> it's not just the relative rankings in the spreadsheets that Frank
> created.  It's the gap.  Here's one example.  When you double the value of
> saves, Shane Greene collects twice as many counting points as stronger
> pitchers like Colome, Robertson, and Betances.  With S+H, Greene still
> ranks higher, getting the "bump" for being a 9th inning guy.  But the gap
> is much narrower.  That's a much better outcome in my view.
>
> As for some odd names showing up high in the S+H rankings (Alvarado, Roe,
> Trivino), that just reflects our longstanding bias.  They are "no-names" to
> us because our scoring system doesn't place any value on what they do even
> though they are good pitchers.
>
> -Andy
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:57 PM springkerb--- via Announce <
> announce at usml.net> wrote:
>
> Not so slight.  In the Luby comparison, Alvarado jumps from 10th to 3rd.
> Roe jumps from 14th to 6th.  And a bunch of nobodies after about #20 go
> from the obscurity they deserve to real value.
>
> Mark K
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Blocker, Mark B. <mblocker at sidley.com>
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> Cc: springkerb at aol.com <springkerb at aol.com>
> Sent: Tue, Feb 12, 2019 11:49 am
> Subject: RE: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
> Point taken.  “Substantial value”?  Seems the likely impact is slight
> decrease in value of closers and slight increase in value of some middle
> relievers.
>
> *MARK B. BLOCKER*
>
>
>
> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP *+1 312 853 6097
> mblocker at sidley.com
>
> *From:* Announce <announce-bounces at usml.net> *On Behalf Of *springkerb---
> via Announce
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 12, 2019 11:44 AM
> *To:* announce at usml.net
> *Cc:* springkerb at aol.com
> *Subject:* Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>
> To Jim's point re multiple holds being available per game, the main thing
> I was trying to do w/ my approach is to value both holds and saves equally, *relative
> to the number of saves and holds available*.  The ratio was pretty close
> to 2:1 last year (actually about 2.1:1).  So if we go to a 2:1 ratio, then
> we'd be valuing all available holds and all available saves approximately
> equally.  I think if you look at Buddha's comparison, the most obvious and
> questionable shifts in value involve middle relievers that aren't
> particularly good pitchers but get a lot of appearances in the sixth or
> seventh inning--e.g., Chaz Roe.  To me, those guys are greatly overvalued
> by a 1:1 ratio.  Particularly when you get down to the guys below about the
> top 20, the 1:1 ratio gives substantial value to some guys who just aren't
> very good pitchers.
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Barrett <chicagojab at gmail.com>
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> Sent: Tue, Feb 12, 2019 10:59 am
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
> That’s assuming that everyone’s goal is to value saves and holds equally
> important.  From my perspective, I’d like to recognize holds as having some
> value but I still view saves more important for several reasons. Like it or
> not but saves are an official statistic of MLB but I don’t believe holds
> are. Only 1 save can be given out in a game whereas more than 1 hold can be
> given.  Baseball is a tradition bound game more than most sports and the
> save and closer has the tradition behind it whereas holds do not. If we all
> want to go total saber, we’d get rid of Wins and BA too. So in sum if we
> make a change, I’m in favor of weighting saves more heavily. And no on
> future requests to have a WAR  or OPS+ category! :-)
>
> Jim
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 12, 2019, at 9:49 AM, Blocker, Mark B. via Announce <
> announce at usml.net> wrote:
> Want to give this more thought, but I think I agree with John’s point that
> 2x saves puts too much emphasis on saves and defeats our goal of treating
> holds as equally important.
>
> Also, here are the options Onroto currently allows.  I believe the math on
> option two works out the same as what some have proposed on a relative
> basis:
>
> HOSV (Holds + Saves)
>
> SAVES2 (Saves + Holds / 2)
>
> *MARK B. BLOCKER*
>
>
>
> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP *+1 312 853 6097
> mblocker at sidley.com
>
> *From:* Announce <announce-bounces at usml.net> *On Behalf Of *Bill Strotman
> via Announce
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 12, 2019 9:37 AM
> *To:* USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> *Cc:* Bill Strotman <bbuddhas at aol.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>
> Who cares what’s most realistic.   It’s fantasy sports
>
> We give same weighting to SB as dingers.   That’s wrong.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 12, 2019, at 9:14 AM, Frank Luby via Announce <announce at usml.net>
> wrote:
>
> Good points, Mark.
>
> This version re-sorts the right-hand data to make Mark's points clear.
>
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2019, 8:54:09 AM CST, springkerb <
> springkerb at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> To me, the 2x saves version does a better job of identifying pitchers who
> can reliably hold a lead--which I think is what we're trying to measure
> here.  For example, the version that values saves and holds equally says
> that Jose Alvarado is third in the league.  He's a good reliever, but I
> don't think he was more reliablelast year than Trienen or Chapman.
> Similarly, the equally weighted version says the Chaz Roe (Chaz Roe?) was
> the sixth most reliable holder of leads in the AL.  That's nuts.
>
> In general, major league managers use their best relievers later in the
> games, and that makes sense, since holding a lead gets more valuable later
> in the game.  A clean ninth inning improves the team's likelihood of
> winning more when there are fewer innings left to play.  So, at least to my
> eye, the 2x approach does a better job of rewarding better relievers.
>
> Mark
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S®6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: JOHN FRUIT <jtfruit at msn.com>
> Date: 2/12/19 5:19 AM (GMT-06:00)
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>, Frank Luby <
> zachfehsvater at yahoo.com>, Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com>
> Cc: springkerb <springkerb at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>
> What's apparent is that the 2x saves method seems to put even more
> statistical emphasis on the saves category, kinda defeating the purpose.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: springkerb via Announce <announce at usml.net>
> Date: 2/11/19 10:15 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: Frank Luby <zachfehsvater at yahoo.com>, Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com>,
> USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> Cc: springkerb <springkerb at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>
> Cool.  It's an interesting comparison.
>
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S®6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Frank Luby <zachfehsvater at yahoo.com>
> Date: 2/11/19 10:02 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com>, USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
>
> Cc: springkerb <springkerb at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>
> To throw some data into this discussion, here are the top 50 relievers in
> the AL last season ranked by the SV+HLD method and the 2xSV+HLD, in a side
> by side comparison ...
>
> On Monday, February 11, 2019, 9:44:36 PM CST, springkerb via Announce <
> announce at usml.net> wrote:
>
>
> I'd like you to reconsider the ratio.  There are about twice as many holds
> as saves. Weighting them equally would actually make the 7th and 8th inning
> guys more valuable than closers, which just doesn't seem right.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S®6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com>
> Date: 2/11/19 7:33 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> Cc: springkerb <springkerb at aol.com>
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>
> Nope ... we talked about it, but never voted on it.  I'm actually
> advocating Saves + Holds, not 2XSaves + Holds.  I'm fine with 2020
> implementation.  I'll wait another day and then make a formal proposal.
>
> -Andy
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 7:02 PM springkerb via Announce <announce at usml.net>
> wrote:
>
> See my other email.  Thought thiswas a done deal for this year.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S®6 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com>
> Date: 2/11/19 4:16 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>
> That's four quick positive responses.  Eager to hear others ... and
> whether people would generally prefer to implement in 2020.
>
> -Andy
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 5:01 PM JOHN FRUIT <jtfruit at msn.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, Josh Hader struck out like 50 Cubs in 10+ innings of work and had
> nary a save.
>
>
>
> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Frank Luby via Announce <announce at usml.net>
> Date: 2/11/19 3:38 PM (GMT-06:00)
> To: USML Announcements <announce at usml.net>
> Cc: Frank Luby <zachfehsvater at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [USML Announce] Saves + Holds Redux
>
> What’s a closer ...?
>
> Seriously though, I’m with Andy. Gives a purpose and a strategy to those
> many many pitchers I refer to as DNH guys (as in “do no harm”).
>
> I would be fine with immediate implementation.
>
> - Frank
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Feb 11, 2019, at 3:25 PM, Andy Klein <anrklein at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I proposed this last spring and received a distinctly unenthusiastic
> response.  But I am re-proposing that we move to Saves + Holds as a
> category instead of just Saves.  That better reflects the reality of MLB
> pitching value today.  It also would end what is, IMHO, an inordinate focus
> on playing the "closer carousel" in our league.
> >
> > I would be up for doing this immediately -- and I say that as someone
> who will otherwise retain a closer.  But I suppose the typical way of doing
> this would be to make it effective next season.
> >
> > Last year, we agreed to implement the change if we voted to do so by
> mid-season.  But the proposal died for lack of interest.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -Andy
> > _______________________________________________
> > Announce mailing list
> > Announce at usml.net
> > http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=mvu12n3VZPpZw0FxT6brzBrKWdMI4BnsULLPzD-4E1c&s=5vo53y_fbBL2CGnhyphubf1PmZkITmNWgtp3tfLP2ls&e=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=mvu12n3VZPpZw0FxT6brzBrKWdMI4BnsULLPzD-4E1c&s=5vo53y_fbBL2CGnhyphubf1PmZkITmNWgtp3tfLP2ls&e=>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=mvu12n3VZPpZw0FxT6brzBrKWdMI4BnsULLPzD-4E1c&s=5vo53y_fbBL2CGnhyphubf1PmZkITmNWgtp3tfLP2ls&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=mvu12n3VZPpZw0FxT6brzBrKWdMI4BnsULLPzD-4E1c&s=5vo53y_fbBL2CGnhyphubf1PmZkITmNWgtp3tfLP2ls&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=mvu12n3VZPpZw0FxT6brzBrKWdMI4BnsULLPzD-4E1c&s=5vo53y_fbBL2CGnhyphubf1PmZkITmNWgtp3tfLP2ls&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=mvu12n3VZPpZw0FxT6brzBrKWdMI4BnsULLPzD-4E1c&s=5vo53y_fbBL2CGnhyphubf1PmZkITmNWgtp3tfLP2ls&e=>
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is
> privileged or confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
> attachments and notify us
> immediately.
>
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=ToyZfFH73sB4zV8xM1H-sKUtPOVSJIBAU3LCDqSbv5w&s=jbFpf849NXQuYxK6C3vMvaeVLxS5rkSa5-gu-bpJzDk&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__usml.net_mailman_listinfo_announce-5Fusml.net&d=DwMFaQ&c=Od00qP2XTg0tXf_H69-T2w&r=WbAFAXbG7On4UBymjb2-zZ6uBgn3IoYJQbFZiA6qMRU&m=ToyZfFH73sB4zV8xM1H-sKUtPOVSJIBAU3LCDqSbv5w&s=jbFpf849NXQuYxK6C3vMvaeVLxS5rkSa5-gu-bpJzDk&e=>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Announce mailing list
> Announce at usml.net
> http://usml.net/mailman/listinfo/announce_usml.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://usml.net/pipermail/announce_usml.net/attachments/20190303/ceda140f/attachment-0001.html>