BP 2005, other fun stuff
Okay, so I know I quit BP, but there’s a whole slew of stuff coming out worth mentioning that I contributed to before, and in the case of the Sox book, today.
Baseball Prospectus 2005 ships this week, if you haven’t already pre-ordered your copy. I’ve got two chapters (Mariners and Expos) (added by Dave: The Brewers player comments were written by a good looking guy from North Carolina, as well) and an essay in the back of the book, and I really think all three are good work. $12, 21 cents. I mean even if you only read the Mariners chapter, that’s pretty cheap.
There’s also the Red Sox book Prospectus book, which doesn’t have a listing on Amazon yet, but was edited by Steve Goldman, who is awesome, and I wrote a huge chunk of that. Further updates as we get a release date, a listing, etc.
And then — teaser alert — there’s another huge thing I’m working on. So my fingers hurt, and as much as I love my nice LCD, I’m tired of looking at a monitor and doing reserach.
All of which would be bad enough if Blizzard hadn’t released World of Warcraft, which as a life-long gamer I am obligated to play but which, I must also point out, is enormously time-consuming. Especially with all the ganking (stupid Alliance).
“Better in a Tigers kind of way.”
Jayson Stark names the Mariners the AL’s most improved team. Don’t get too comfortable, though, folks: it’s just to set you up for this zinger.
Of course, all that just makes these Mariners better in a Tigers kind of way, as opposed to a win-the-World Series kind of way. But you’ve gotta start somewhere.
Does anyone else feel a chill? Because that seems cold. At first, anyway.
As miserable as last year was for M’s fans, Detroit was historically bad two seasons ago, a forehead-slapping 20 games worse than the 99-loss 2004 Mariners. Since hope is like a tulip bulb — you can’t stop it from blossoming in the spring — I should mention that the Tigers did improve by 29 games between 2003 and 2004.
That probably won’t happen, of course. That type of improvement has only happened twice in the AL since the 1961 expansion. But improbable does not mean impossible.
Pursuing the path of irrational exuberance a bit further, consider that Detroit’s centerpiece free agent acquisition, Pudge Rodriguez, was a veteran right-handed bat who had an injury history and was entering a spacious pitcher’s ballpark. Red flags? If you were a bull, that signing would’ve looked like a matador. To a Mariner fan, maybe it compares to the deal given to a certain slugging first baseman. Richie Sexson is a different type of player, but it’s nice for those of us that just hit 30 to remember that players north of that number can still perform at an elite level.
That probably won’t happen, of course, since career arcs generally follow similar patterns of descent.
A lot of other cosmic tumblers fell into place for the Tigers, too, most notably Carlos Guillen’s agreement with Mr. Applegate. For all Bill Bavasi has done right this offseason, trading Guillen ranks as his biggest gaffe. To be fair, no one foresaw the Venezuelan shortstop making such a leap. If your team is going to improve nearly 30 games from one year to the next, though, a few serendipitous events have to occur.
Enough serendipity probably won’t come the Mariners’ way to equal the Tigers’ improvement. But if they did pull off such a match, they’d finish 92-70.
However improbable, would anyone not take “better in a Tigers kind of way”? I’m certainly warming to the idea.
Position Roundtables: Starting Shortstop
Dave: Starting Shortstop: Pokey Reese
There aren’t a ton of things in baseball that die hard statistical
analysts and old school scouts will agree on. When you find something
that is being trumpeted as truth by both communities, well, you can be
nearly certain its true. One of these rare truths is that Pokey Reese
is an amazing defensive player, one of the two or three best gloveman
in the game, regardless of position.
Scouts have been raving about Reese’s defensive prowess for nearly a
decade. His defense was the main reason the Mariners tried to acquire
him as the centerpiece of the Ken Griffey Jr trade five years ago.
He’s kept a job in baseball despite hitting like a pitcher for the
past two seasons simply because scouts have seen him vacuum up every
ball that came his way.
In the past couple of seasons, more advanced statistical defensive
metrics have risen to the surface, such as Ultimate Zone Rating,
Defensive Regression Analysis, and the Probablistic Model of Range, as
well as Diamond Mind’s proprietary defensive ratings. UZR, PMR, and
Diamond Mind all base their ratings on specific play by play zone data
that is far more accurate than older, basically worthless stats like
Zone Rating. None of these models are perfect, and we still have a
ways to go in being able to accurately measure defensive performance
statistically, but the consenus among these rankings is clear; Pokey
Reese is worth something like 30 runs with his glove over the course
of a full season. UZR and PRM say about 27; DRA says about 32, and
Diamond Mind consistently gives him the best rating possible.
The only players who even perform at similar levels on a consistent
basis are Darin Erstad (as a center fielder), Mike Cameron, and Scott
Rolen. Saving 30 runs with the glove in one season is basically a
hall of fame type performance defensively, an elite level that few
players can reach.
30 runs is huge, either offensively or defensively. Keep in mind that
Bobby Crosby, last years American League Rookie of the year, only
created 23 runs with his bat. Edgar Renteria, he of the new 4 year,
$40 million contract, created 27 runs with his bat. Even if Reese
doesn’t hit better than .220/.280/.290, he’s still a valuable everyday
player simply based on his glove. For just over a million dollars,
the M’s purchased, arguably, the best defensive player in the game.
That’s just a ridiculous bargain for what he brings to the table.
Jeff: In 1999, Prince could finally party like he’d
always wanted to, the Matrix did for plastic pants what LL Cool J did
for the kangol hat, and something called Napster changed the mix tape
industry forever.
Oh, and 1999 was also the last time Pokey Reese played more than
135 games in a year. He was 26 years old.
Dave’s point about consensus (among people, and among existing
imperfect defensive metrics) is astute. Like blind men attempting to
describe an elephant, basing opinions on only one piece of the puzzle
is often unwise. The fact that Pokey’s glove is respected almost
universally, by baseball minds and by the numbers, is revealing and
encouraging.
Then there’s the injury issue.
A contrarian would point out that Dave’s 30 runs saved figure assumes
Pokey is on the field a lot more than he’s likely to be. A contrarian would
say that this is a guy who played 149 games at his peak, and the last three
years has played 119, 37 and 96, respectively.
Fortunately, I’m not a contrarian. I’m also on the Pokey bandwagon. His
penchant for getting nicked up, though, almost ensures you will hear in
2005 four words you never wanted to hear again:
Willie Bloomquist, starting shortstop.
I love having Reese on the team, think he was a great value signing, and
am excited to watch him for a number of reasons non-statistical. His cockeyed
cap, gleam-eyed love for game and enormous uniform are all a pleasure to watch.
He’ll turn 32 in the middle of this season, though, so maybe I won’t get
to watch him as much as I’d like.
While you’re lighting that candle for King Felix, it couldn’t hurt to throw
an extra thought out there for Pokey.
Jason: OK, so I guess this means I’m the designated
“negative” on Pokey Reese?
It’s actually tough. Sure, he can’t hit a lick — but he’s not supposed to.
If the M’s lose 100 games this season and Reese hits .200, nobody will blame
Pokey for the team’s offensive failings.
At the risk of reading too much into his stat lines, it appears he hits
significantly better when he gets decent playing time. Of course,
significantly better for Reese means a .700 OPS (1999, 2000, close in 2002)
as opposed to anemic .600 or worse seasons like he posted in 2001 and each
of the past two seasons. Again, there’s a positive correlation between his
playing time and his offense, which would appear to be a benefit here since
he’s the starting shortstop as opposed to backup middle infielder.
The injuries are troulbing, though. Last season he missed handful of games
with a thumb injury (pun intended), then missed 45 games with a rib cage
injury and finished the season in a 4-for-49 slump.
In any event, I wouldn’t worry too much about seeing Bloomquist at
shortstop. Looking over the roster, there appears to be a very good chance
one of the spring training non-roster invitees — Ramon Santiago, Benji Gil,
Ricky Gutierrez — will make the roster as Pokey’s backup, since Bloomquist
really can’t handle the position.
With Adrian Beltre, Bret Boone, Richie Sexson and Reese around the infield,
shouldn’t we be more excited about the team’s pitching this season? Well
sure, except that this flyball staff won’t be able to take full advantage of
the upgraded defense.
Jeff: Is the bit about Santiago, Gil or Gutierrez serving
as the backup shortstop — and hence starting when Pokey’s hurt — intended
to make me feel better?
If so, that’s very nice of Jason to try to cheer me up. Nice, but ineffective — kind of like Bloomquist.
Dave: Jason and Jeff are right; Reese’s health is a legitimate concern, and
the backups are cringe worthy. Really, we’d be foolish to assume that
we’ll get a full season out of Reese, and every game he doesn’t play
is a game that we’ll be running a Triple-A player out to play
shortstop. That’s a problem.
Thankfully, there’s probably a 10-20 percent chance that Jose Lopez
makes The Prospect Leap, so if he’s hitting .330/.380/.580 in Tacoma,
he’d be a legitimate option, especially if the alternative is Ramon
Santiago getting at-bats every day for a month.
And yes, our infield defense is going to be something else this year.
Which is why we should want Dan Reichert on the staff, but that’s for
a later roundtable.
Jason: I will say nothing of his bat, but at least
Santiago’s a solid defensive player.
With respect to Lopez — isn’t the organization set on moving him to 2B? If
he spends two months in Tacoma, hits as you suggest and is playing second, I
doubt they’d move him back to shortstop just to fill in for a week or so if
Reese is hurt.
Dave: If it was just a week, you’re right, Lopez wouldn’t get
the call. If it was a month or two, well, that’s another story, I think. Yes, the
organization wants him adjusting to second base, but he’s going to play some
shortstop down there as well, and if they were faced with giving Ramon Santiago
200 at-bats, well, I think Lopez would look a lot more appealing. Especially if
he’s whacking the ball all over Cheney Stadium.
More Hickey
Speaking of John Hickey, he was on KJR this morning (yeah, I’m doing the stay-at-home Dad thing right now, so I listen to too much KJR). On the subject of Campillo, he said the M’s see him competing for the 4th/5th starter job. “But who’s out of the rotation, then?” you must be asking yourself. Apparently the M’s have discussed the possibility of moving — gasp — Ryan Franklin back to the bullpen.
Regardless of Campillo, that they’re even considering yanking Franklin from the rotation seems like a good start to me.
PI: Hickey on Felix, me on Bucky
One, Hickey on King Felix, talks to the phenom:
Already he’s been dubbed “The Franchise” and “King Felix,” among other nicknames. So what’s it like to have such things said about you?
“It’s strange to hear all that,” Hernandez said. “I’m just Felix.”
Ah, such humility. You don’t see that often enough in royalty. Remember folks, if you were a USSM reader, you were a Felix Hernandez fan way before it was cool.
Second, my latest PI column went up yesterday. It’s a careful, fairly detailed look at the Winn-Ibanez-Bucky tradeoff the team faces, and bizarrely was linked on the Foxsports.com Rumors page.
As always, I’d like to mention that if you want these columns to keep going, or if you’d like to see this stuff in print, a totally random passer-by offered places you can write to express your opinions.
Campillo
As we initially reported last week, the Mariners have signed Jorge Campillo.
We didn’t jump the gun. The M’s just weren’t ready to announce the signing at the time.
Jeremy Reed on KJR
The M’s probable centerfielder was on KJR this morning, doing the usual “get to know the new player” interview. For what it’s worth, I thought he came across as well-spoken, intelligent and humble. He spoke repeatedly about not being handed the job, and needing to go out and “make the team” above all else. I also like that when asked about his approach at the plate, he said he loved to draw walks, used a line-drive swing and would hit to all fields. He said he’ll pull the ball when neccessary and thinks that more power will come eventually, though he certainly doesn’t consider himself a power hitter.
The usual fluff, I know, but he certainly said all the right things. Oh, and he was already in Arizona working out, even though he doesn’t have to be there for a few more days.
MLB’s fantasy rampage
If you’re at all interested in the ongoing war between MLB’s web arm (MLBAM) and everyone who wants to play fantasy baseball, Neil deMause wrote an article on this available (for free) at Prospectus on what’s going on and what the issues are. Check it out.
Position Roundtables: Starting Second Base
Dave: Starting Second Base: Bret Boone.
2004 was a disaster for Bret Boone, especially in light of his recent
performances, including his excellent 2003 season. His performances
went down across the board, dropping to a mediocre .251./317/.423
line. More disturbingly, there doesn’t seem to be a single culprit
that led to the struggles; he just got worse across the board. He
swung more often and made less contact. When he hit the ball, it
didn’t go as far, and it was turned into an out far more often. Even
his stolen bases fell, but he was caught more often. In addition, his
defense appeared to have purchased a 20 game plan, only bothering to
come to the park on select days.
He turns 36 before the third game of the season. He’s played almost
1700 games at a position known for wearing down players earlier than
expected. I know Boone thinks he just had an off year, and he’s done
the lasik thing to claim that his increased vision is going to help
him return to previous levels of stardom, but I just don’t see it.
The Bret Boone of 2001-2003 is just a memory at this point, and all
we’ve got left of that Boone is the jersey and the contract.
I don’t expect another massive slide for Boone, at least not this
year. I think he’ll hit something like he did last year or maybe a slight improvement, say
.260/.320/.440, which is still a pretty decent second baseman. With
the impending move of Jose Lopez to second base, however, Boone’s
replacement is waiting in the wings, so this is probably his swan song
in Seattle. It was a great run, but I just don’t see Boone hooking up
the juvenation machine and reliving the glory days again.
Derek: I agree, though I also think there’s a bounce possible. Even the
bad-hitting pre-Mariner Boone hit better than last year’s version.
Boone’s an obvious example of a player that didn’t peak at 27-28. While
on a larger scale we know that players peak then and then decline, and
we can talk about the shape of careers (as we did in Sexson’s case) many
players peak early, or late, and in general a player who had a nice,
easily distinguishable career year at 27 and then declined softly and
steadly until 35, when they crashed would be the exception. When Boone
was supposed to be at his best, in 1995-1997, he wasn’t: his 1994 year
was really good, his 1995 good, and then he stunk it up for two years
until he put up some decent numbers, and then 2001 and 2003 were
stellar. 2002, by istelf, was impressive but wouldn’t have been
unbelievable on its own. Compared to 2001 and 2003, it looks anemic.
My point is that Boone’s career may have taken an unexpected late turn,
but I look at his 13-year career and in trying to guess at what next
year’s performance would be like, I keep looking back at the bad and
decent years that have made up the bulk of his lines. If he hit
.240/.300/.350 next year, that wouldn’t be surprising.
Really, are there cases where LASIK has dramatically improved a hitter’s
performance this late in their career?
Other interesting fact, though: while nearly every defensive stat you
can point to showed Boone as a below-average defender and in many cases,
far below average, UZR had him at +5 which I think has to be some kind
of fluke. Defensive metrics are all subject to strangeness. As much as
I’ve looked to UZR in the past for answers, in this case I think there’s
something odd going on.
Lopez should be a good player and a contributor to the next truly
competitive team, and there’s an excellent chance he’ll be promoted
during the season if he takes to second well and Boone doesn’t rebound well.
Jeff: Once again, I am in concordance with what Dave and Derek have said. One small addendum: I think continued productivity by Jeff Kent (a player of similar vintage, and Boone’s top PECOTA comparison) indicates that a rebound is possible.
To help undermine the site’s reputation as a source for factual information, though, I also offer this parody of Robert Service’s poem ‘Boon Soul.’
***
Boone Soul
With profound apologies to Robert Service
Behold! He is old; frosted hair soon white;
Bret’s years-eroded swing
a sometimes troubling sight,
absent now what it once did bring.
The raucous second baseman’s skills
held through select all-star years,
one-hundred sixteen wins, viewed thrills
where facing Boone ranked in pitchers’ fears.
But in watching him this year you’ll see
(along with an inevitable decline, belated)
observers muse of how next year he’ll be
himself among the For Assignment Designated.
***
Yes, I know that letting a player walk in free agency is not the same as designating him for assignment. Poetic license.
Jason: For starters, I think we should be glad 2005 is the last year of Boone’s
current contract. Maybe he just looks young, but I was marginally surprised
to see he turns 36 in April; not that I thought he was 30 or anything, but
he just doesn’t seem 36.
Moving on. As I said at the USSM Feed a few months back, Boone’s not as good
as he was in 2003 but not as bad as he was last season, either. Nobody’s
mentioned this yet, but he was slowed by nagging hip/back injuries that
certainly hurt him at the plate, even though he still managed to play 148
games. Assuming those problems are gone, we should see a small bounce back
in his offensive numbers. I think we should look for something similar to
his 2002 season — I’ll say he posts a .270/.340/.480 line.
That sort of production won’t mean he’s worth his $9M salary, but it’s
certainly not awful for the position. It also helps that he shouldn’t have
to be the team’s only power option next season; you can afford to have that
line from your fourth- or fifth-best hitter (Ichiro, Beltre, er, Sexson…),
but not from your second-best.
I don’t think we’ll see much of Lopez in 2005 unless Boone’s hurt or the M’s
fall way back in the race the way they did last season. I suppose there’s a
third option as well: Boone’s playing well but the M’s aren’t, and Bavasi
manages to unload him in July.
Peter: For some reason my memory had displaced just how
stinky Boone’s 2004 had been. Then I see him ranked
7th in the AL VORP for 2B, sandwiched between Adam
Kennedy and Omar Infante. Yikes!
The holy books of baseball history leave much to be
desired when it comes to 36-year-old second basemen.
Hmm… let’s see. There’s the 1939 version of Charlie
Gehringer. He played on l18 games for the Tigers, yet
put together a .308 EqA (adjusted for all-time). In
1923, Eddie Collins batted a .302 EqA (again,
era-adjusted) in a full season of 152 games. Those
fellas are enshined in Cooperstown, though, and a Hall
of Famer Bret Boone is not.
More modern and mortal examples include Willie
Randolph (1991, 124 games, .315 EqA), Lou Whitaker
(1993, 119 games, .314 EqA), Tony Fernandez (1998, 138
games, .299 EqA) and Randy Velarde (1999, 95 games of
.286 EqA for Anaheim and 61 games of .306 for
Oakland). However, none of these guys resemble Boone’s
skillset or career arc.
On the other hand, his ginormous season of 2001 seems
to have warped our historical perspective of what we
Mariner fans should expect from their second basemen.
Prior to Booney, the best offensive season we had seen
from a second sacker was Joey Cora of the Kingdome
(1997, 11 HR, 54 RBI, .284 adjusted EqA). In that one
season, Boone hit more homers than Cora did his whole
career.
One interesting tidbit from Boone’s latest tenure in
Seattle: The trend in his
pitches-seen-per-plate-appearance is going up, yet his
plate-appearances-per-strikeout is tanking
dramatically. He saw 3.96 P/PA last year, the very
same as Edgar Martinez.
2001, 3.69 P/PA, 6.27 PA/K
2002, 3.68 P/PA, 6.61 PA/K
2003, 3.93 P/PA, 5.64 PA/K
2004, 3.96 P/PA, 4.87 PA/K
Perhaps he was pressing in a lost, nighmare year.
Perhaps his vision was terrible. And maybe the Lasix
will help. And maybe the presence of Beltre and Sexson
in the lineup will take some pressure off. I’d like to
think so.
PECOTA has Boone pegged around .260/.330/.450 and 25
homers in 490 AB. I, for one, wouldn’t cry to see that
line from Booney. As has been read in this space
before, PECOTA is based on comparable players, and
there just aren’t that many for Boone.
If Boone can manage those solid numbers and the
Mariners find themselves swimming ’round .500 by July,
flipping Boone for some prospects isn’t out of the
question. It would have made for a good run.
I am going to love double plays this summer. I’m just
imagining Dave Niehaus tripping through “Booney to
Pokey, Pokey to Booney.” It’s gonna be great.
Dave: Actually, I think Lou Whittaker is a pretty decent comparison. Not
perfect, but decent. Boone doesn’t possess Whittaker’s ability to
control the strike zone, but both were .270-.300 hitters with some pop
despite not being over 6’0 tall. And though he couldn’t stay healthy
at the end of his career, Whittaker was a pretty good hitter until the
day he retired. So maybe I’m underestimating Boone a little bit.
And, also, I think we’d be remiss to not mention the fact that Boone
is the case study for the type of right-handed power hitter who isn’t
affected by Safeco Field. From 2002-2004, he hit .274/.340/.471 at
home and .276/.342/.478 on the road. That’s a statistical tie, for
all intents and purposes. Why? Look at his hitting
chart. He’s peppering the ball to right field consistently, the
part of Safeco that favors hitters.
By my subjective count, Boone’s career extra base hit numbers at Safeco Field:
Left Field Line: 18 doubles, 0 triples, 2 home runs
Left Center Gap: 14 doubles, 1 triple, 16 home runs
Center Field: 4 doubles, 0 triples, 10 home runs
Right Center Gap: 11 doubles, 2 triples, 15 home runs
Right Field Line: 17 doubles, 1 triple, 15 home runs
Now, trying to divide center field from right center gap by looking at
a hitting chart isn’t perfect, and squinting to see if there are one
or two “D” marks on the chart is a challenge, so these numbers
probably have a 5% margin of error. But the general idea is still
true. Boone drives the ball the other way far more often than he does
to left field. He’s the tailor made Safeco Field power hitter. If
the M’s want right-handed bats who aren’t going to be affected by
Safeco, they should find hitters like Bret Boone.
Jose Canseco’s Wax Shadow
The word “sincere” comes from two Latin words, sin and cere, that together mean “without wax.” Artisans working with stone could fix errors by binding cracks with melted paraffin, a tactic that created statues and bowls with beauty — but no staying power, no durability. A sin cere work of art was one that not only looked good, but would stand the test of time.
Though books are often termed works of literary art, Jose Canseco’s effort merits neither that term or the term “sincere.” As such, it will fade into obscurity as the ramblings of a deluded, greeded huckster. Ball Four? More like bollocks.
So why write about his prattlings? Because the developing party line in sports journalism appears to be “sure Canseco is unreliable, but we can’t really dismiss his allegations.” With reporters the calibre of Larry Stone taking this easy out, a one-and-done condemnation of the messenger and his message seems worthwhile.
First, Canseco has zero credibility. He’s broke, reduced to selling off his Rookie of the Year ring and AL MVP plaque (and selling out former teammates) in a desperate bid to raise cash. Worse, he can’t even keep basic ‘facts’ undergirding his stories straight. In the 60 minutes interview, we learn that Canseco either injected Mark McGwire with steroids “often,” “more times than [he] can count” or “twice,” depending on whether we believe the written or spoken versions of his lurid tales.
One could conclude that the timing of the book’s release, which comes as baseball implements a new steroid policy, is a coincidence. Of course, you would also have to conclude that Canseco said George W. Bush knew about the steroid abuse simply out of Canseco’s concern for the truth, rather than as a cynical book promotion strategy. If you conclude that way, though, I have a night in the Lincoln Bedroom to sell you.
The Romans had another two word phrase that they used to determine what was behind certain phenomena: cui bono (who benefits)? Indeed, who has the most to gain from inciting an opportunistic moral panic over a hot topic? Certainly not McGwire, or Bret Boone, or Major League Baseball. The list of beneficiaries seems to start and end with a list of Ozzie Canseco’s twin brothers.
Some try to put the burden of proof on the victims. Assuming the allegations are untrue, it is said, we should expect McGwire, Boone or others at whom Canseco has directed mud to sue for libel. If they do not, the argument goes, that tells us something.
Maybe players implicated will choose a legal remedy. There are two very strict legal standards, though, that have made it very tricky to win libel cases. First, you have to prove that something is false, and it’s extremely difficult to prove a negative. Could you prove you have never done steroids?
A public figure defamed by the book would also have to prove that Canseco acted with “actual malice,” showing a “reckless disregard for the truth.” That’s tough to prove, too, because it’s tough to see inside someone’s mind.
Finally, to win a libel suit is also difficult and time-consuming. Even if a party was confident they would prevail, it would take years, and would have the counterproductive effect of keeping the allegations in above-the-fold headlines. If you’re Rafael Palmeiro, a four-year court battle might look much less enticing than allowing dismissiveness and derision of Canseco win the day.
It’s possible that someone will sue. But we shouldn’t draw any conclusions based on whether someone files a libel suit, and to think in this manner reverses the necessary presumption of innocence.
Let me state the obvious: of course there are steroid users in baseball. No one doubts that. But it is unwise and unfair to let that truism kick critical analysis out the window. Legitimate concern over drugs in sports should lead one to investigate how best to curb abuse, something that crass opportunism undermines. Information is never completely separate from its source.
Reporters know that. It’s their business. To acknowledge that Canseco may be less accurate than a stopped clock — but to implicitly endorse the line he pushes — is disingenuous.
If drug abuse is anywhere near as widespread as Canseco claims, then there are numerous other witnesses — ones without book deals and disasteful histories. Ones that might hold some semblance of sincerity.
Jose Canseco does not, and neither does his book. He might be riding high on attention from the 60 Minutes interview, but there’s an old story about flying with wings made of wax.
It ends badly.