Because I Can

Author Complains of Lousy Kids

2009-01-21T20:19:00.002-05:00

Larry McMurtry (if you had to say, "Who?" you're not alone. Wikipedia here; basically he wrote the screenplay for Brokeback Mountain) complains of kids these days not reading:

[I will be discussing t]he end of the culture of the book. I’m pessimistic. Mainly it’s the flow of people into my bookshop in Archer City. They’re almost always people over 40.

I don’t see kids, and I don’t see kids reading. I think little kids love to have stories read to them, but when they get to 10 or 11 or 12, they run into this tsunami of technology: iPod, iPhone, Blackberries.

They don’t resist it, and it’s normal that they wouldn’t; it’s their culture. I’m not so sure they ever come back to reading. Some will, but most won’t.

"Those damn kids and their technology. I wrote that screenplay on a typewriter. Why don't kids use typewriters these days? That's what wrong with them - staring at their damn screens." As for kids not reading, tell that to J.K. Rowling. People stood in line at bookstores for the release of those books. But shh, don't ruin his point. Let him do that.

Q: What are you reading these days that excites you?

A: I’m reading this book (of essays) by the late David Foster Wallace called Consider the Lobster, which is a pretty good book. Mostly I reread books.

He rereads books? In part, probably because he has a terrible memory, but still, why not read anything new? Anything at all? Is he convinced they're all bad? Perhaps what he's trying to say, or should have said if he wasn't a retard, was that books these days suck, and the kids are all right, hell they're honest enough to tell us that by listening to crappy music on their iPods.

McDonald's Monopoly Contest

2008-10-13T21:02:00.003-04:00

Ok, so here's what I want to know: how come McDonalds doesn't put those Monopoly pieces on their salads? Seriously they never do it. The fries, the drinks, the coffee, the hash browns, and select sandwiches get the pieces, but the healthiest thing that has it are the grilled chicken premium sandwiches, which cost a bit over $3 apiece by themselves ($4 for the grilled chicken club, my favorite).

Now look, I'm no health nut, but one has to wonder why McDonald's would use the contest this way. Why not put those pieces on their side salad, fruit & walnut salad, or any of their $4-$5 entree salads?

Here's a guess - demand elasticity is higher for the other stuff. Even though there is officially "no purchase necessary," most people don't bother to pay attention to that. If you give a little bit of an incentive, people will go for a little bit of extra stuff (let me make that a large fries, and I'll get your expensive sandwich). They're trying to convince customers who would normally get something off the dollar menu to try the fancier, more expensive stuff on the regular menu. There isn't really a way to upgrade a salad; what would you do, besides add more meat? Super size it? Add fries? Salad meals stand alone.

There's also an adverse selection issue - the type of person who would play a fast food lottery would be more likely to be just as reckless in eating less healthy food. Along the same lines, salad eaters tend to be more disciplined in their eating habits, and part of that involves avoiding McDonalds.

The purpose of the contest is to make money, and this method will likely prove more profitable for McDonalds than promoting its salads. McDonalds does not have a social agenda to consider in pushing healthy foods, only the bottom line. And even then, it's doubtful that would even advance a socil agenda, it would only make some corporate executive and idiotic observers feel better that McDonalds is fighting obesity.

Price Gouging

2008-06-17T22:11:00.003-04:00

I work at a truck rental counter, and at the end of the month, or anytime we're really busy, we'll boost our prices up. Part of the reason we do this is that our competitors don't, so they won't have a truck for people who walk in needing one. Worse, some will get stiffed on a reservation, and their only compensation might be $50, and the difference could be a lot more.

Arnold Kling discussed in his commentary on Russell Roberts' forthcoming book that it is particularly frowned on for people in catastrophic situations to find themselves faced with having to pay more for their circumstances. That's the easy way to make the convincing case, but the case is just a lot weaker as a result anyway.

There are a few problems with this. In the first place, those who are in the greatest need by definition have the most inelastic demand, and therefore will most likely have the greatest willingness to pay. If someone is willing to pay, then, it seems as though it should be fair for them to do so. Those who can do without, can wait until the supplies come in, or can make it a few towns over to get the supply should do so - not only will they save money, making them better off, but they free that supply for the more desperate. The one who has whatever is in such great need is really doing quite a favor for those individuals, and it makes sense to reward him accordingly. That's the standard economist response, and it will appease most people who already agree with it.

Another fundamental problem would be one of lying and cheating. Those who are not willing to pay more reveal a preference different from those who are. If everyone who came up with a sad story got a truck for the same normal weekday rate, then everyone would make up such a story for their discount. When you consider this, allowing for need would lead to either:

Invasion of privacy to ensure stories are true or
The destruction of the rationing mechanism in the price system

That gets you back to square one where you simply have to make it first and hope that you can get this sacred scarce good.

It also should be acknowledged also that there are planning considerations to be made. A month ahead of time, more of a good can be ordered, etc. In truck rental land, this means that one way trucks leaving busy inbound locations can be practically given away to outbound locations. A week ahead of time, trucks can be picked up from nearby locations that do not need them. Both of these are to some degree costly, and often they will be done in anticipation of future reservations. When someone walks in on the last Saturday of the month and needs a truck with no reservation, more trucks can not simply be picked up - this is where there is rationing. One has to think, though, why would anyone just realize that they have to move and need to get a truck? People generally know when their apartment lease is about to end, and moving is something that should require ample preparation. Reasons for people to move suddenly generally have to do with either suddenly separating/divorcing/breaking up with a wife/girlfriend, going to jail, and eviction, all of which are they types of things that one can avoid. In fact, it seems as though these things make certain events more costly, and given that these are undesirable events, that should be a good thing.

It strikes me, though, that if I'm renting a truck, I don't want the guy at the rental counter to pass judgement over me, I just want him to do his job and get me what I want. Isn't there some information that should be left private, and why not let them charge more for me to not have to divulge too many private details? If you want to divulge that information, that's fine, but should you really expect a business to do you a favor when you are down on your luck? It is a fine and noble thing to give with one's own money, but it is quite damnable to give what is not your own, as that is really stealing.

Supply and Demand In Action

2008-05-01T18:23:00.004-04:00

Two and a half years ago, I pondered the following:

Because the only way to cut consumption significantly, short of a move and/or a lifestyle change, is to drive more efficient vehicles, gasoline demand is said to be “price inelastic”. One of the determinants of price inelasticity is the time it takes to change prices. Numbers never mean anything without a frame of reference, and so our frame of reference would be the time to act on changing consumption of gas. Coming up with a new route, carpooling, spending less time driving around, knowing where we're going in the first place, and never driving at rush hour are ways we can adjust the quantity we demand, but as we see, it takes a little while (a week to a month sometimes) for us to adjust these short term measures, especially when some of them, like carpooling or changing your work hours, are harder to change back if the mere gas spike falls.

What if gas prices never again stabilize below $2.00 a gallon? Suppose the new standard price is $2.09? Well, decisions about which new cars to buy will change a bit; rather than anticipate an average price of $1.20 or whatever it was then, we'll realistically expect gas to stay at $2.09, and thus buy more fuel efficient cars. That's not to say everyone will necessarily get a smaller car, as is the case in Britain. But if fuel prices do not decline, automakers will have greater incentive to redesign models with greater fuel efficiency.

The most hillarious line - what if gas prices never stabilize below $2.00 a gallon? We are now starting $3.50 gas in the face, and it'll go up. Price up equals quantity demanded down! Congress doesn't trust the market, but we're already seeing a response.

"Consumer preference is shifting, and we're shifting with it," said Mark LaNeve, GM's vice president of North American sales. Sales of GM's midsize Chevrolet Malibu shot up 40 percent, but the long popular Chevrolet TrailBlazer SUV saw sales dip 73 percent.

Ford Motor Co. said its SUV sales were down 36 percent in April compared with the same month last year. Car sales were down only 1 percent, buoyed by sales of the Ford Focus small car, which saw a 44 percent jump in sales. The Focus gets 24 miles per gallon in the city and 33 on the highway. By comparison, Ford's largest SUV, the Expedition, gets 12 miles per gallon in the city and 18 on the highway, according to federal statistics.

Well who would have thought. Small car good, big car bad. The Focus gets double the gas milage of an Expedition. And that's Ford's biggest SUV now. Remember the Excursion? The one that was bigger than the Suburban? Well, it's dead. Forever.

Now, the last time gas was less than $1.50 a gallon was before the Iraq War. It's about 5 years after that, and at a point where people are transitioning to replacing their old cars. Over the next year in the US, expect a few changes:

Demand will drop more substantially for gas in the US as more Americans buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars. Prices will continue to rise, though, because the Chinese and Indians will pay more.
More states will pass laws that have graduated drivers licenses, so teenagers will not drive until they are 17 or 18. This will reduce the number of cars driven by these kids, also reducing demand for fuel. The great thing about this is that teenagers can't vote until they're 18, and it can be excused as a desire for greater public safety.
People will make grocery lists and visit the express lanes less frequently. It will be less worthwhile to make a trip to the store just for milk.
Fewer fatalities on the roads, as more people carpool, people use alternate transportation for vacations, and the most dangerous drivers, teenagers and the elderly (who are often on fixed incomes) drive less.

Now let's set the baseline for gas at $3 per gallon, to be optimistic. If you're driving an SUV that gets 15 MPG overall and you drive 20000 miles per year, replacing it with a Ford Escape Hybrid that gets 30 MPG overall, you will save $2000 a year on fuel, and your savings will be greater as the price of fuel goes up. You will save, then, $10,000 on fuel over a five year period on an Escape Hybrid vs a regular SUV, making it a worthwhile move. When you compare smaller cars, you'll notice that a Ford Focus could go for around $16,000 and gets about 27 MPG, while a Toyota Prius gets around 50 MPG. That will save you about $1000 per year, but that may not make up for the price difference in the Prius. The Corolla is even more fuel efficient, making the Prius less desirable, although still potentially worthwhile.

Political Affiliations

2008-04-28T23:35:00.003-04:00

Often my political opinions would be categorized as conservative in the US. That doesn't match my stance on immigration, the legal drinking age, "faith-based initiatives", etc. I'm also apathetic on the war in Iraq, because it's a mess now, but it wasn't exactly Disneyland under Saddam Hussein either. But I don't call myself a conservative, maybe a lower-case L libertarian or something. Conservative and Liberal are relative terms, which make them, like most other labels in American politics, worthless. If it's very easy to read too much into a label, it's probably a terrible label.

What is conservative? Is George W. Bush conservative? He oversaw a huge expansion of government, including a new entitlement program. If he's a conservative, is Ronald Reagan a liberal? If cutting taxes made Bush a conservative, and thus Clinton a liberal, was Bush Sr. a liberal? And was JFK a conservative? If supporting free trade is conservative, is George W Bush a liberal for supporting steel tarriffs? I could go on forever, but I don't want to.

Then there's the abortion debate. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are propagandist labels; Pro-Abortion or Anti-Abortion would be more accurate. Think about it - how many of those who are Pro-Life truly oppose all taking of life from others, including war, capital punishment, the FDA, mandatory indefinite life support, and other sources. For that matter, though, how many people who call themselves Pro-Choice support school choice, freedom from closed or union shops, free trade, eliminating the FDA, assisted suicide, and other libertarian positions? Again, there are people in both camps - but those are not the only ones who bear those labels.

Further, the opposite of Pro-Life is not Pro-Death or Anti-Life, but Pro-Choice. Isn't this odd? You have to choose whether you live or get to choose something. Why can't people just say pro-abortion and anti-abortion? That's all it is. Not much to read into that. For that matter, why can't we just use our coordinates on the political compass? As they write

There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher?

I'm (7.75,-0.36).

Are these people really freaks?

2008-03-18T12:26:00.003-04:00

Gold Prices get higher, up to near $1000 an ounce. That of course can only mean one thing: get your metal detectors!

Piles of gold have been pouring into beachside pawn shops in recent weeks, Local 6 has learned. Some residents are selling items they already have for cash. "The jewelry was a luxury to have, but I'm selling it for necessity reasons," resident Marie Savickas said. Experts said the previous high-water mark for gold was $800 an ounce in the 1980s. They said they don't expect prices to drop any time soon.

It's like the law of supply works or something. So it's a good time to sell gold. Great. Glad I get to buy wedding bands soon.

Here's Money! Now give me what I want!

2007-12-08T12:22:00.000-05:00

In a free society, you are never compelled to say "yes sir" to this statement if acting on your own. If working for a corporation, you are to follow certain guidelines - those guidelines being "yes" in general, but "no" in specific cases. But to be fair, you are for all practical purposes usually compelled to say "yes sir" because you want that person's money.

NBC Rejected some rather harmless ads, claiming that the invitation to the group's website was far to politically charged and controversial. A strange guideline, considering that I have yet to see an NBC ban on political ads. Now if this were a public university, then this would be a bigger issue, since public universities are institutions which rely on the state for their funding. But for a private television network, that's within their rights.

The article also mentions the following with Fox News:

Earlier this week, the Fox News Channel rejected a television commercial from a liberal group that featured actor Danny Glover denouncing what he said were U.S. acts of rendition, torture and detention. The spot, created for the Center for Constitutional Rights, showed pages being shredded while Glover says: "The Bush administration is destroying the Constitution."
Fox senior vice president for advertising Paul Rittenberg said the network asked the group to provide backup information _ from news accounts or legal scholars _ supporting Glover's claim that acts by the Bush administration threatened the Constitution.
"In this case, saying the president is destroying the Constitution frankly sounds like a claim that is fairly extreme," Rittenberg said. "Who else thinks this? Of course Dann Glover can say that, but does anyone else say that?"

Again, this is well within Fox's rights. It just happens to be very weird, and one has to wonder if they hold their other advertisers to task on that. Remember that if you ever see an ad for weight loss drugs or exercise equipment on Fox News.

Now, had NBC taken FreedomsWatch's money, they should air the ads, but that's not what's in question. It just seems like a questionable move that cost them some money.

But it doesn't end there. Newt Gingrich wants to boycott NBC (for a more favorable and enjoyable clip of Newt, see his appearance on Da Ali G Show here). Seems a bit extreme, but maybe the message is that freedom isn't free. For what it's worth, I'd like to see who would boycott Fox News, given its viewers are mostly conservatives anyway. I also wonder how many people would follow Newt's advice, and then change their mind when new episodes of The Office are on.

Month old story that needs commentary

2007-11-25T14:42:00.000-05:00

I thought it was just sportswriters, but now apparently anyone that writes for newspapers can be stupid (HT: Tim).

My friend often summarizes for me what he sees, firsthand, every day and every month, year in and year out, in his classroom. He speaks not merely of the sad decline in overall intellectual acumen among students over the years, not merely of the astonishing spread of lazy slackerhood, or the fact that cell phones and iPods and excess TV exposure are, absolutely and without reservation, short-circuiting the minds of the upcoming generations. Of this, he says, there is zero doubt.

Cell phones? What have cell phones done to destroy the intellectual makeup of young people? Because they can't sneak away from their parents as easily? Oh, I get it, they use abbreviations instead of write out entire words in text messages. MaB if U tried 2 txt real fast u wood 2. At least they're efficient. Sometimes.

As for TV exposure, that's arguable, because you can find some links, but merely watching TV doesn't make one that much dumber. But the iPod thing, that's clearly the sign of an old man ranting. "Those dang kids listening to their music all the time! Back in my day, you listened to the same songs everyone else did on your transistor radio, and that's if you were lucky."

Nor does he speak merely of the notion that kids these days are overprotected and wussified and don't spend enough time outdoors and don't get any real exercise and therefore can't, say, identify basic plants, or handle a tool, or build, well, anything at all. Again, these things are a given. Widely reported, tragically ignored, nothing new.
No, my friend takes it all a full step — or rather, leap — further. It is not merely a sad slide. It is not just a general dumbing down. It is far uglier than that.

So kids don't do scouts anymore? That seems to be your complaint. But what about this stuff, identify basic plants? How basic do you mean? Poison Ivy (that sounds more like a cry for us to all be boy scouts)? Handle a tool? Yeah, why don't those kids take shop class? And they can't build anything. These are the children of today, look at that crap! But here it gets good, on why the system is broken.

Hell, why should they? After all, the dumber the populace, the easier it is to rule and control and launch unwinnable wars and pass laws telling them that sex is bad and TV is good and God knows all, so just pipe down and eat your Taco Bell Double-Supremo Burrito and be glad we don't arrest you for posting dirty pictures on your cute little blog.

Amazing how people believe their own hyperbole. Fast food loses its appeal as tastes mature and kids appreciate better food, particularly after college life. As for ruling a stupid class of subjects, that actually is harder, because there is the difficulty on their part of actually executing your commands. The War in Iraq could have turned out differently if the occupation was better planned before the start of the war - the invasion itself was brilliant, but while we've gotten better at military conflict, we haven't gotten that much better at occupation and establishing new governments. As for passing laws telling them that sex is bad, that was done centuries ago, actually, and striking down anti-sodomy laws is really a rather recent phenomenon. And I can't remember any laws suggesting that TV is good, or for that matter that God knows all. Again, secularization is a recent phenomenon, as religious education was actually a significant motivation for the first public schools. But enough about facts. Let's look at a Jayson Stark style argument.

Hell, some of the best designers, writers, artists, poets, chefs, and so on that I meet are in their early to mid-20s. And the nation's top universities are still managing, despite a factory-churning mentality, to crank out young minds of astonishing ability and acumen. How did these kids do it? How did they escape the horrible public school system? How did they avoid the great dumbing down of America? Did they never see a TV show until they hit puberty? Were they all born and raised elsewhere, in India and Asia and Russia? Did they all go to Waldorf or Montessori and eat whole-grain breads and play with firecrackers and take long walks in wild nature? Are these kids flukes? Exceptions? Just lucky?
My friend would say, well, yes, that's precisely what most of them are. Lucky, wealthy, foreign-born, private-schooled ... and increasingly rare. Most affluent parents in America — and many more who aren't — now put their kids in private schools from day one, and the smart ones give their kids no TV and minimal junk food and no video games. (Of course, this in no way guarantees a smart, attuned kid, but compared to the odds of success in the public school system, it sure seems to help). This covers about, what, 3 percent of the populace?
As for the rest, well, the dystopian evidence seems overwhelming indeed, to the point where it might be no stretch at all to say the biggest threat facing America is perhaps not global warming, not perpetual warmongering, not garbage food or low-level radiation or way too much Lindsay Lohan, but a populace far too ignorant to know how to properly manage any of it, much less change it all for the better.

Let's just take his word for it, despite the fact that you may actually have evidence to suggest that the future isn't completely full of idiots, or at least that it's not more full of idiots than before. I mean, it's not like you could actually do research and determine whether a random sample of young successful people had a public school education, etc. You're a newspaper columnist, your job is to give the people what they want. And what they want is for you to bash the kids, because the kids have better things to do than waste time reading a newspaper. What a load of garbage.

From the Department of Big Surprises

2007-09-07T21:28:00.000-04:00

An Actual Headline:

Pope says abortion "not a human right"

Monica Hesse

2007-08-12T21:01:00.000-04:00

Decided that it was necessary to make a bizarre ad hominem attack on the name Fred. I don't know what's more bizarre - the fact that she thought to write this, or that the Post's standards are so low they would publish such drivel. This is the kind of thing I expect to see in the Sports pages, but not the serious news. I mean, really, the Washington Post published this:

In the swampy soup of hopefuls for the 2008 presidential election, there is
a man with a funny name. (No, not that one.)

We're thinking of the one named Fred (Thompson).

Say it out loud. Do it. Fred. Fred. In the South, Fray-ud.

Fur-red-duh.

It has the tonal quality of something being dropped on the floor, something
heavy and damp-ish.

Waterlogged paper towel.

Fred.

This lady also seems to borrow from the poetic stylings of Bill Plaschke. But it doesn't stop being awful right there.

There has never before been a major presidential candidate named Fred. There
were two Alfreds, in 1928 and 1936. But Alfred, being all British and Batman-y,
is not the same.

Wow, so you did research. This is where she goes on her rant about how Fred sounds like it should end in Rogers or Flintstone. Just for fun, here are all of the Presidential first names:

George
John
Thomas
James
James (2)
John (2)
Andrew
Martin
William
John (3)
James (3)
Zachary
Millard
Franklin
James (4)
Abraham
Andrew (2)
Ulysses
Rutherford
James (5)
Chester
Grover
Benjamin
William (2)
Theodore
William (3)
Woodrow
Warren
Calvin
Herbert
Franklin (2)
Harry
Dwight
John (4)
Lyndon
Richard
Gerald (Gerry)
Jimmy
Ronald
George (2)
Bill
George (3)

There has also never been a president named Joseph, David, Jacob, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Noah, or Adam. Rutherford and Jimmy sound more presidential though. Idiot.

Then there's this bit:

But is it, Dr. Smith, a sexy name?

Silence.

"I would not say that. The name Fred does not suggest blatant sexuality at
all."

This from a chick named Monica. Monica. Sorry, it's been a couple of years, but go ahead and click here for a reminder of what comes to mind when you think Monica (picture is clean, SFW, etc). Sorry Ms. Hesse, we can't all have names that conjure up dirty images.

Wag of the finger to Monica Hesse and the Post. But that still doesn't answer, why is Monica talking about what's in a name? Clearly, she had a deadline and some writer's block. Or maybe this is really the Onion. I don't know, but wow.

Wag of the Finger

2007-07-22T19:50:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post gets a Wag of the Finger for failing to provide accurate information with regard to pricing. It claimed student tickets were only $8.50 at the movie theater at Tyson's, but in fact they were $9.50. I'm not sure I can really trust their news anymore either.

This is their second offense, after denying an internship to a friend of mine on Christmas Eve.

Amusement Parks are Awesome! Take that!

2007-06-24T00:51:00.000-04:00

Well, at least the good ones are.

But here's why "Fiacolet" says he doesn't like amusment parks.

1. Amusement parks are for poor people who cannot afford to travel more than 100 miles on a vacation.
Amusement parks are not for poor people. Look, anywhere that it costs $10 to park, $50 to get in and they still charge you $4 for a bottle of water is definitely not for those with little disposable income.

2 . Amusement parks are for socialists who refuse to drive more than 100 miles because they are boycotting the petroleum industry (i.e. Exxon-Mobil).
This is pretty funny. Basically the bungee jumping fans, because they can bike over and carry their cords in a backpack.

3. Amusement parks are for communists who don't have the balls to go on a "real" vacation (i.e. Yellowstone Park, an uncrowded beach, Vermont, etc).
I don't think that makes them communists, although standing in line for everything just might. In fact, those spots for "real vacations" sound like places hippies would go to commune with nature or something like that. The Ben & Jerry's Factory Tour in Vermont is pretty cool though, while Cabot Cheese doesn't put on nearly as much of a show (although they have more free samples).

4. Amusement parks are for irresponsible people who want to outsource parenting to Amusement parks (this generally to families who go more than three times a year, a lot of them do that).
Well, if you're gonna drive all the way over to the park, pay a parking fee, drop your kids off, leave, drive back, pay another parking fee, pick them up, and drive home, then sure. If the kids' parents actually go along with their kids, they'll generally be rather protective (this is where I see kids on leashes), and up until the kids reach at least middle school age, parents are generally going to stick around them. Besides, the kids will want their parents to keep buying them expensive theme park stuff.

5. Amusement parks are for city people who prefer to be in a smelly crowded place than anywhere outside of civilization (i.e. most of the country).
Fair enough, Kings Dominion's water park doesn't smell very good, and these parks are usually in populated areas.

****

The one thing about Amusement Parks that my friend here makes a faulty assumption about, I believe, is that people go there for a vacation, when in fact these parks are most frequently a source of local recreation. People will get season passes to Busch Gardens or Kings Dominion because it's something they like, and they want to go there often. Oftentimes the rides are a significant draw, as they should be for the controlled chaos they exhibit.

Those parks which people do make vacations of are either for enthusiasts who want to take in as many theme parks as they can or Disney World. The theme park enthusiast will travel the country, and you will often see quite a few out-of-state plates at a theme park. Disney World is itself a grand bit of American culture which draws tourists from around the world, and it's really really expensive. Staying on Disney property gets quite expensive.

There is much to admire about enjoying nature, but I don't see anything wrong with people enjoying theme parks, or even being obsessed with them. Roller Coasters are amazing when you consider how precisely controlled they are, yet they give you such a dramatic feeling that you are out of control. I don't see any reason to block people from such things, although it is good that there are options for those who want to get away from the mess.

Takeout

2007-04-26T01:35:00.000-04:00

Bryan Caplan posed interesting questions regarding takeout food from restaraunts, namely

Almost every restaurant does take-out these days. Funny thing is, they usually charge as much for take-out as they do for dine-in. How is that possible? Dine-in requires servers and a lot more real estate. Shouldn't it be cheaper? As it stands, the only thing you save by doing take-out is the tip.

The comments section on his and Arnold Kling's reply are good. Kling had this to say:

I'll make my guess. In restaurants, the analogy with "follow the money" is "follow the beverages." For example, if you eliminated sodas at fast food restaurants, my guess is that the profits would disappear.
My guess is that high-end restaurants make most of their money on wine. If they could get you to take out wine at the same price that they charge for dine-in, they would do take-out. In reality, they can't force you to take out wine with your meal, but they can discourage you from bringing your own bottle. So they prefer dine-in to take-out.

Caplan later adds his original hypothesis with Cowen, relating to advertising. I wanted to mention everything, but I need to make my own blog post for that, just to be fair.

First off, I'll remind my reader that I'm a college student, and therefore do not eat out a whole lot, but I did a bit at home. The main reason we would eat out or get takeout would be that we didn't have time to and/or didn't feel like cooking, which seems logical enough. Occasionally, we'd also do this to celebrate something, but mostly it was for convenience. When someone was too tired or we wanted to stay home, we'd just get some takeout, usually Chinese or Vietnamese. Typically, we'd got to the kind of restaraunt where we would get free refills on soft drinks, although if we went for Chinese food, we'd just go with water. The exception of course would be Cracker Barrell, but we'd never get a second pint of Stewart's Root Beer or Orange & Cream with our meal.

Of course, nobody in my immediate family drank anything alcoholic, so that would affect prices quite a bit. Shortly after turning 21 I discovered how pricey some of that stuff was; some places it's $3 for a beer at a restaraunt, and it's $4.50 for a Foster's at Outback. Even the soft drinks add up if you don't get free refills, yet you behave as though you do. Wine certainly seems to be something to lose money on as well. The same could be said for mixed drinks; although there is some cost in holding the liquor, the fact is that they have quite a markup. The realization to make with these drinks, though, is that this is different from normal beverage consumption patterns. Typically, if at home, I would drink water or milk with meals, not sodas, and certainly not 4 rounds of sodas, or anything alcoholic. So that is one cost there.

Another cost is the cost of service. Restaraunts have a low fixed cost here; waitstaff typically make a very small hourly wage and make most of their money off tips. This tip is an additional 15-20% added onto the bill, typically, and can add up to a good bit.

I would hypothesize that there are a couple of social pressures with restaraunts. First, there is the pressure for everyone to order an entree, even though they might be big enough that you would split it if you just ate at home. Additionally, there is a sense that proper table manners, etc, must be employed in a restaraunt, and it is more comfortable and relaxed at home (I will concede weakness in this argument, particularly since people don't really dress up all that much). The biggest performance, if you will, would be if you have children. People with children in restaraunts cannot be left alone. If they are very young other people will want to say hi and wave and smile and in general not leave you alone. If they are poorly behaved, people will talk about you behind your back or perhaps even directly to you. If they are well behaved, then people will come to you in amazement and talk to you if the kids are young. Also, the nicer the restaraunt, generally, the less the kids will like the food.

Why aren't there high-end takeout restaraunts? Well there's not just signaling for the restaraunt, but for the customer too. The customer at the high-end restaraunt has to consider what eating at these high-end restaraunts signals about him. When other people are involved is where this has the greatest signaling power, probably. When it comes to taking someone to a high-end restaraunt, typically this is not done for the food, so it falls under a similar category to giving gifts.

Well, that's some food for thought.

Arnold Kling's Radically Pathetic Proposal

2007-04-03T11:43:00.000-04:00

Bryan Caplan writes
Arnold writes:
I carry around an entrepreneurial idea of an American equivalent of the "gap year," which would be a year of education in between high school and college. This year would involve finding a part-time job, living in and
cleaning an apartment, learning to cook one's own meals (and pick out fresh ingredients to go into that cooking), learning personal finance, learning something about household wiring and plumbing, and taking courses in philosophy and mathematics. I have not found a single person who doubts that this would be better for young people than the typical college freshman experience.
Maybe Arnold's "gap year" would be better for the young person's soul. But
would it actually be a prudent unilateral course of action? I very much doubt
it. After your gap year, you'd still have to do a regular four-year degree to
signal that you've got the Right Stuff. Unless the world changes a lot,
employers are going to treat the gap year like a gap in your resume, nothing
more. And are household management skills so difficult that people can't learn
them by doing once they get their first real job and their own apartment?

Point by point, Arnold's gap year.

finding a part-time job,
Many people do this in high school. Some people get summer jobs. Some people do this in college. If it's a way to make money, worthwhile, and accessible, then you'll see it happen.

living in and cleaning an apartment,
Living in an apartment is like living in a house except it's not as big. To clean it, you still use a vacuum cleaner, a toilet brush, a mop, some cleaning chemicals, etc. You should know something about how to clean a house if you ever lived in one, even if you were a kid. Parents who aren't worthless as human beings have their kids do chores at some point. If your parents get a maid when you're young, they're doing you a disservice, and wasting money too.

learning to cook one's own meals (and pick out fresh ingredients to go into that cooking),
You can learn this young too, and it's best with parental supervision anyway. But honestly, give the kid a damn cookbook. It's not that hard, really.

learning personal finance,
Very simple lesson. YOU ARE NOT THE GODDAMN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. YOU CAN ONLY SPEND MONEY YOU HAVE. This involves such advanced skills as COUNTING YOUR DAMN MONEY and KEEPING TRACK OF HOW MUCH YOU SPEND. Then it gets harder when it gets to PAYING YOUR BILLS ON TIME, which of course involves such skills as WRITING NUMBERS and READING A CALENDAR. But ultimately, YOU ARE NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT sums the whole thing up. As for investing and that sort of thing, a lot of it is common sense, but you can read up on that on the internet. But nobody does that before graduating college anyway.

learning something about household wiring and plumbing,
Household wiring? I guess you mean how to handle a bad fuse, or as is more often the case, how to flip the switch on a circuit breaker. Or maybe DON'T PLUG IN 80 THINGS IN ONE OUTLET. Every college student should know stereo wiring by buying a stereo. As for plumbing, there's flushing a toilet, jiggling the handle, and knowing the back of the toilet. Stuff to pick up when you live at home in MIDDLE SCHOOL.

and taking courses in philosophy and mathematics.
People need to learn more math. But where do you take courses? Oh, I don't know . . . IN SCHOOL?! Maybe instead of taking a year off, you should try learning math in school. Philosophy, as we all know, is useful in trying to impress people while talking to them, but is ultimately worthelss, particularly as a job skill.

Caplan's desire to be polite is sickening. Maybe it's good for the young person's soul? (Well, what's an atheist gonna know about the soul anyway :-p ) Forget the signaling. How worthless is one if he has to take a year off because he had adolescence and never grew up? That's not good for the soul; it's good for making you pathetic, disgraceful, a loser, and aware of it. It's about as good for the soul as constantly referring to the driver's manual every single time you come to a 4 way stop. The only people who would need this would be the ones who were Billy Madison, in such a case it would be better for their soul than mooching of their parents the rest of their lives. But otherwise, it's pretty damn worthless.

If Kling were genuinely entrepreneural, he'd institutionalize this and create a rigorous program. But as an idea to try on your own, no way.

Addendum: I can understand this if you've had some problems you need to straighten out, or if you're going to do something like pay your own way through college. But for a more typical case, where the student goes to school and is at least partially(and more often fully) supported by parents, my case stands.

Why is this news

2007-03-04T14:26:00.000-05:00

Ann Coulter made the following remarks about John Edwards:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

Later adding:

“C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Ann Coulter is not in the least bit politically correct or out of character. This isn't even that funny either. Consider, though, this line from the Edwards campaign:

“John was singled out for a personal attack because the Republican establishment knows he poses the greatest threat to their power,” said his campaign manager, David E. Bonior. “Since they have nothing real to use against him, Coulter’s resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion.”

Here you have John Edwards, who lost his home state of North Carolina in 2004, asserting that he is the greatest threat to power to the Republican party. That is much funnier.

So many CDs it's Bach-Breaking

2007-03-02T03:17:00.000-05:00

You can get the complete works of Bach at Amazon.com for $108 (HT: Marginalrevolution). This takes up 155 CDs. The product description does not reveal the complete runtime, so I will make some estimates.

Let's assume that each CD is filled to the brim - 80 minutes apiece. In that case, it's about 207 hours, which is over 8.5 days of continuous Bach. Suppose you listen to music only in the car on the way to work, and that you have a 30 minute commute each way. If you buy this set and get it when you return from work on March 2nd, you will not finish until two days after Christmas, December 27th.

It is much more likely that the average length of these CDs is closer to 72 minutes. If that is the case, then the total playing time reduces to 186 hours, and you will be done by November 27th.

Sticking with that 72 minute assumption, suppose then that you encode this into a 192kbps MP3 file (a slightly higher sound quality than the standard 128kbps). In that case, it will take up 16194.55 megabytes. The largest iPod currently available, at $332.49 on Amazon, has a capacity of 80000 megabytes, so it can hold this collection nearly five times over. For $100 less, you can get a 30000 megabyte iPod, but that's only enough for the complete works of Bach twice.

Who the heck wants Satellite Radio?

2007-02-21T12:30:00.000-05:00

Bryan Caplan is a proud subscriber to satellite radio, and has a few things to say about the merger. My intentions are not to talk about the public choice and benefits for consumers, though; rather I want to talk about why nobody wants to waste their money on that crap.

Caplan states in his post, in the parentheses:

I pre-paid XM for five years, and I get nervous every time I poll my undergrads and find that none of them subscribe.

Now why could this be? Actually, there are about a billion reasons for this, but here are the easiest ones.

Undergraduate college students gain more utility from normal radio stations than Caplan. A large part of this has to do with Caplan's taste for classical music, which is not popular among younger people, generally.
Undergraduate college students have lower levels of income, so the trade-off is much higher than it is for Caplan. This kinda goes with #1, but still.
Nobody listens to radio by itself. The radio is something that people listen to while multitasking, rather than just sitting there and listening. It's one thing to listen to the radio at work, but who watches ESPN while they're on the job? People listen to morning radio more than anything, because that's what wakes them up on their clock radios, it's what they listen to in their cars, etc, and a huge part of that is the news and traffic reports.
There is nothing special about listening to the radio at all. Back when the radio aired dramas, etc just like television shows, everyone gathered around and listened. At the time, there were three TV channels. But most of what is on the radio is music or talk shows. Of that music, very little of it is live or exclusive; rather, most of it is readily available for purchase at your local record store, or on iTunes, or you can download it legally, or illegally. Radio is basically what life would be like if all TV channels were like TBS (without the Braves games) and TV-Land. While it provides a variety, this can be overcome by getting an iPod and finding some way to hook it up to your car. Or in your office.

Even the sports content on satellite radio isn't that special. You can sit at your computer and get it just as easily.

But that's my take on the whole thing. Even if I had the money for such a thing, I'd prefer the one-time fixed-cost iPod to the variable cost satellite radio.

Tim Hardaway Cracks Me Up

2007-02-15T23:44:00.000-05:00

Tim Hardaway, who obviously doesn't care what people think, decided to say this:

"You know, I hate gay people, so I let it be known," Hardaway said. "I don't
like gay people and I don't like to be around gay people. I am homophobic. I
don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States."

He's retired, so he doesn't care about anything. What makes this particularly amusing is that on Pardon The Interruption on ESPN, Charles Barkley said that he has gay friends and played with a couple of gay guys. If you get more public outrage than Charles Barkley, then that's something to stare at.

But I have no idea why Hardaway said that, or for that matter felt that. I mean, that's pretty harsh to say you wouldn't want the guy as a teammate, just because he went 1 for 13 from behind the arc and never played for the Rockets after he was traded to them for Glen Rice. He made an apology, and for once someone actually cares that it's not a genuine apology because he didn't apologize for how he felt, just what he said.

Hope Hardaway didn't blow all his money, because he'll have a hard time getting endorsements now.

Superbowl Challenge

2007-02-15T16:20:00.000-05:00

It occurred to me that people may forget just how awful this year's superbowl commercials were. The chest-hair ripping, suicidal robot, and old Coke commercials were utterly worthless, and those who spent their time, stayed at the office late, wasted part of their lives putting them together. Madison Avenue should be kicking their own asses when a user-generated commercial beats their stuff out, except for the Fed Ex and the Bud Lite commercials.

I want to challenge everyone to remember this next year. Advertisers should be given an oppurtunity to recant. In the event that they do so, and the commercials are decent, then pardon them, and do what you usually do. If another series of commercial breaks matches last year's superbowl, then screw the commercials. If any of them are actually any good you can check them out on YouTube anyway (I don't think any advertiser will complain that people are watching their copyrighted commercials). Then nothing bad will happen.

In the event, however, that the commercials are as bad or worse, then it is time to realize that just like any other commericials, Superbowl commercials are useless and should just be skipped. Flip through the channels instead. If you're not a football fan, then you have 4 hours of your life back on a Sunday night. But you'll probably waste it, by reading this blog, or watching good commercials on youtube.

Hardly News, or Even Useful

2007-02-05T18:46:00.000-05:00

In one of my many journeys in the land of Wikipedia, I stumbled across something. Rolling Stone came out with the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time in November 2003, and provided that nobody does anything great after that date, that's useful. Wikipedia says that it was made by votes from various Rock musicians and other industry guys, and being a Rolling Stone list, you would expect much more of a rock bias. But nonetheless, here's the list.

Here are the ones I own:
12. Kind of Blue, Miles Davis
17. Nevermind, Nirvana
26. The Joshua Tree, U2
61. Appetite for Destruction, Guns n' Roses
73. Back in Black, AC/DC
94. Bitches Brew, Miles Davis
467. Love and Theft, Bob Dylan

Granted I did skim the list, but I was still rather surprised that this is all I've got. I'm pretty sure I have more on the AFI 100 movies list (and I'd love to compare it to this years update).

Upon further review, I agree with the critics that there is quite a bias towards the 60s and 70s, and further that a "greatest albums of all time" should encompass music a bit more broadly. Frankly, I think this list looks completely different in 10 years, and 10 years after that, and is hardly a good "all-time" list.

But it's something to look at anyway.

I want to tell the world that the Superbowl Ads were Awful

2007-02-05T10:49:00.000-05:00

Here's some commentary from Yahoo! if you care to read that, but there are a couple things that went unaddressed.

1) Chevy had terrible and creepy ads. None of them were funny in the first place, but at the same time were all quite stupid. After the one with the old guys dancing around the car, I thought they were really trying to top the Whopperettes from last year (as a sidenote, the Whopperettes was funny, at least, in that Mel Brooks kind of way). But the suicidal robot was terrible. I drive a Chevy, and after those ads, I don't think I ever want to again.

2) Coca-Cola gets a big fat BOO! for not airing new ads; I had seen all of them before. If you're gonna get that many spots, you need something new. One new ad would have been better than this. I guess the fact that they can't make a decent root beer wasn't bad enough for them.

3) Budweiser's clydesdale "awwww" ad was ok, but didn't quite live up to the previous year's one. Granted, that was a tough act to follow, but still.

Honestly the Nationwide ad was one of the best ones, as was the FedEx ad, although I think my favorite was the Bud Light rock, paper, scissors one.

Format Change

2007-01-31T18:58:00.000-05:00

It has occurred to me that I put a wide variety of stuff on here, and it's a bit too random at times. But basically, I put stuff into three categories:

1) Baseball and other sports stuff

2) Politics and Economics

3) Just plain funny stuff

So I'm going to create two new blogs. This one will remain as my Just Plain Funny Stuff blog, because quite frankly, that's all quite amusing and I enjoy it. Now I can crowd cyberspace with two new blogs nobody will read.

The other stuff will be added to the sidebar when completed.

UPDATE: Done. See the sidebar under "shameless self-promotion." No promises about my next venture into bad creative writing.

Bonds May Be Juicing, but the MLBPA is stronger

2007-01-31T10:06:00.000-05:00

Barry Bonds signed a $15.8 million contract with the San Francisco Giants, much to the amusement of anyone that is not a Giants fan. There was some stalling, though, in the gap from when it was agreed on and when it was signed. Bonds has some rather special circumstances, though.

For one thing, he tested positive for amphetamines last year. In the course of that, he blamed a teammate for the substance - a very Bonds-like thing to do but despicable nonetheless.
Bonds is also an admitted steroid user, having claimed before a grand jury he thought he was getting "flaxseed oil" from his trainer. It is very possible, then that he could be indicted not only on some drug charges, but on charges of perjury as well.

We already knew that, but what is particularly interesting is that Bonds' contract contained an escape clause for the Giants in the event that he was indicted. Major League Baseball rejected the contract, apparently to save the Giants. Here is Bonds' agent Jeff Borris.

Borris said that the additional language in Bonds' contract would be unenforceable if the matter ever was litigated because baseball's collective bargaining agreement would take precedence. Because of that, Borris said the inclusion of the added provision is meaningless.
"Although it is not my policy to comment on the specifics of an individual player's contract, the reporting that Barry will allow the Giants to get out of his contract if he is indicted on the federal steroid investigation is inaccurate," he said. "The collective bargaining agreement governs the work relationship between the owners and players, not the Giants' unilateral assertions."

From this we can conclude that Brian Sabean's IQ is a bit short of Bonds' single-season home run record. I mean, seriously, if it turns out that it's no big deal and that part of the contract is invalid, was Sabean tricked into thinking it would hold up? And in such an event, would he think he could get away with such a thing?

One comparison which could potentially be drawn by the MLBPA is Kobe Bryant, and how he played despite the rape trial going on. Of course, there was nothing in Bryant's contract about rape indictments, nor did Bryant have a reputation as a rapist beforehand, so that weakens the analogy. After all, Bonds' head got bigger - literally.

The saving grace for San Francisco is that Bud Selig rejected the deal. The question is whether or not the Giants will continue to cave, or what other concessions will have to be made to get the contract signed, because this is a very stupid deal. I don't know if they're without a choice because they agreed in principle or something, but either way, that's just screwy.

Fantasy Baseball for 2007

2007-01-21T20:13:00.000-05:00

If you don't play fantasy baseball, then you should. It will teach you a whole lot about major league baseball, moreso than you would have thought. Most significantly, you will learn that there are more good players than you knew. It can also teach you a bit about the game, like the importance of WHIP (walks + hits per inning pitched).

A good fantasy team is not the same as a good baseball team, and there are different things to keep in mind. But there are still several tips as to how to have a good fantasy baseball team.

1) Depth. While it's important to get your superstars early in the opening rounds, don't forget the importance of having players that get the job done all the way down. You get a few utility players, so this is tricky. Pitching depth is key too, and that can also be hard.

2) Know what stats a player can control. A pitcher will generally be consistent with IP and K numbers generally. WHIP is also not out of their control entirely, although it is somewhat. But stats such as ERA, Wins, and Saves depend on the team. ERA factors in defense; there's more to good defense than just not bobbling the ball. Wins and saves are hugely depenent on team factors. The offense has to put up more runs than the other team, which can be nasty for a pitcher on a team like Tampa Bay, and defense has a lot more to do with run prevention than one might thing. Saves require a save situation, which means that the game has to end with that team up by 1-3 runs.

For hitters, AVG, R, RBI, HR, SB can vary too. SB varies on opposing catchers and pitchers as well as that player's manager, but otherwise is generally consistent. Home Runs can be consistent too, as can average. Runs and RBI, though, depend on batting order. A player moving from batting 3rd to batting 4th, for example, will score fewer runs but will likely have more Runs Batted In. Further, players whose teammates are more likely to get on base get more RBI, because there are more guys on in front of them.

3) Oppurtunity Costs. In the draft, remember to pick players based on how useful they'll be to you. If you draft Albert Pujols in the first round instead of Chase Utley, for example, you'll get a better overall player. But remember that you have available slots based on position, so your second base slot will not be nearly as good, whereas you could wait a couple rounds and still get reigning AL MVP Justin Morneau. Know which positions have more depth than others; there are lots of good first basemen and outfielders, but not so many catchers or second basemen. As for pitchers, starters carry more weight because they pitch more innings, so get really good starters; better to get Johan Santana and Brad Lidge than K-Rod and Jeff Weaver.

4) Free agents. There are going to be plenty of players nobody has on their team, and they may be good. People may have not noticed them, or they just got promoted, or they might have just been injured. Look them up, and maybe shuffle your lineup. Players can be streaky, though, so be careful.

5) Look for good overall. I'd take Fernando Rodney over Todd Jones 7 days a week because he'll give me a better ERA, WHIP and K count, even if he doesn't do saves.

6) Don't play favorites. You might like a player or they might be on your favorite team, but if they're sucking, drop 'em.

Pujols is the best overall, but because of the comparative value, I'd be flipping a coin between Chase Utley and Johan Santana for my first overall pick. Daisuke Matsuzaka is intruiging. The DH utility spots are few, but there are few good DHs to go for. David Ortiz, Travis Hafner and Jim Thome are still up there. Frank Thomas may be lower on the totem pole, although Piazza may still be eligible as a catcher, and if so still a good catcher to have.

Update

2007-01-21T17:34:00.000-05:00

Update on player contracts.

A classic

2007-01-18T16:15:00.000-05:00

Why American Idol Sucks

On a Resolution by the Commonwealth of Virginia to say that Slavery was Bad

2007-01-18T09:12:00.000-05:00

Ok, here's the gag: the state of Virginia is proposing an apology for slavery. Yeah, slavery's bad, mmm-kay. This 140 years after slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment to the Constitution. "We're sorry that people we've never met but are related to enslaved people you've never met but are related to."

But then it gets really funny. A delegate in the General Assembly said no. And he didn't just say no, he said a few more words. Frank Hargrove, R-Hanover, said this, as stated in the Times-Dispatch:

Regarding slavery, Hargrove said "black citizens should get over it" and that
asking the state to apologize for slavery is akin to asking Jews to apologize
for killing Christ.

Hargrove did not add that he felt that importing and enslaving Africans was necessary to salvation, so we might have to ask if that one's a fair assumption. Or perhaps he meant that the abolition of slavery was similar to Christ's resurrection.

Nonetheless, these remarks scared the governor, Tim Kaine. Kaine immediately was frightened that this would lead everyone to think that such a person was typical of Virginians. Granted, the only people who will think that are the people who think that Fred Phelps is a legitimate Christian leader, and they're just a bunch of idiots anyway. But whatever.

The stupid resolution, the crazy delegate, and the paranoid governor. Once again in Richmond, the Circus is in town early.

Forseeable Victory for Free Trade?

2007-01-07T02:01:00.000-05:00

As we all know, most soft drinks in the US are made with corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup. Corn syrup, though, has negative effects that exceed that even of your basic granulated sugar.

Another major use for corn, of course, is in ethanol fuel. Ethanol, a corn-based alcohol, is such a major component of fuel that we can expect ethanol and grain prices to climb quite a bit as the need for more corn will grow rather quickly.

High fructose corn syrup is used in soft drinks for the same reason that oil-based gasoline is still used in automobiles: it's cheap. Thanks to tariffs imposed to protect the US sugar industry, it is cheaper than sugar in the US. So it seems simple enough: once there is more demand for ethanol, even if we do nothing, it will be more profitable to use sugar more often because the soaring demand for corn will raise its price, making sugar relatively cheaper; even if corn syrup were more still a little cheaper, soft drink makers would be more apt to selling drinks with sugar because they would be a bit healthier for consumers.

The difficulty, of course, lies in the politics of this whole issue. Politicians do not want to disappoint the sugar lobby, and the corn lobby would have it in their interest to make sure that sugar remained expensive enough that people still used high fructose corn syrup. Fortunately for the marginally health conscious (the truly health conscious would drink juice, milk, tea and water), all that needs to be done is to explain to the American public that foreign sugar means cheaper fuel, because Americans love cheaper fuel. This fixation on cheap gas, which led to nostalgia for gas price fixes of the 1970s, can be used to promote freer markets, potentially quite soon.

So the Giants gave Zito a 7 year deal

2006-12-29T03:11:00.000-05:00

Brian Sabean gave Barry Zito a 7 year, $126 million dollar deal, and I'm actually not laughing at San Francisco that much. Honestly, I like the deal, in general and for the Dodgers.

First of all, it means that Barry Zito will not be on a good team for a few years, so while the Dodgers are in the playoffs, he won't be able to do anything to them. Secondly, it's a long deal for San Francisco, which has to do something for their future payroll possibilities. Third, it means LA didn't sign him, even though Colletti wasn't going near a Boras client.

In general, the Giants already looked stupid for paying $16 million to Bonds, even though there's a reasonable chance that mister bloated head will go to jail. At least this time they signed someone under 30, and he'll only be 35 when the deal is up, so he shouldn't regress too much. Comparisons to Kevin Brown are a bit poor considering Brown signed at an age that would be near the end of Zito's deal, although it should be considered that the Yankees would be able to bail out the Giants at the end of the contract if necessary like they did with Brown; no-trade clauses, after all, can be waved.

As a friend of mine remarked earlier this afternoon, "it's sad when a team drops an eighth of a billion dollars and my first inclination is, 'well, they didn't really overpay him.'"

Explanation

2006-12-28T19:28:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine commented that he likes to check my blog to see what I have to say, but isn't as interested in a lot of the sports stuff. I have tried to post a lot of non-sports items, but they never come to fruition. The fact is that the other posts take longer to write because they require a whole lot more thought. Additionally, I always like to link to other sites, and this doesn't go over too well because I leave those windows open. Adding that altogether, my computer usually can't handle what I want to do with my web browser, so I generally have to control-alt-delete and close out the whole program, thus causing me to lose the entire post.

The moral of the story is that I need to write my blog posts in Word first before I post them online, because Word won't crash on me like that. I'll work on that one.

I give up

2006-12-14T04:19:00.000-05:00

Ok, Matsuzaka is going to Boston after all: $52 Million over 6 for a total of $103.1 million over 6 years. $17.2 million a year isn't bad if he handles the majors as well as everyone expects.

Whatever. The Red Sox still have Alex Cora, and no closer.

Free Agents Left

2006-12-13T14:44:00.000-05:00

Well, not a whole lot to choose from, even after the non-tenders. Here are your choices (note: I will update this when I hear about any changes):

Catcher
Toby Hall - the only guy on the list that represents more than just a backup, as he was the starter for Tampa Bay previously. A few decent backups remain on the list, though.

First Base
Craig Wilson - a right hander good here or in the outfield, as long as he gets some playing time
Shea Hillenbrand - another right hander, acceptable hitting first baseman
Doug Mientkevitz - noted more for glove work

Second Base
Marcus Giles - the non-tender from Atlanta would be a fine choice for any interested team.
Ronnie Belliard - he's got World Series experience
Mark Loretta - getting a bit old, but still has some use left

Third Base
Aubrey Huff - hey, we've got a hitter here. Good for 25ish home runs, a good 5 hitter to pick up.

Shortstop
nobody but backups and scrap. Please check your organizations, or ask the Dodgers for one.

Outfield
Craig Wilson - someone give him some playing time!
Trot Nixon - injury risk, but a good lefty bat
David Newhan - interesting non-tender, possibly has some potential
Bernie Williams - proved he's still capable of playing everyday
Steve Finley - 2004 centerfield gold glover. If you're counting on Hunter or Jones being available for 2008 and you need someone for the meantime, then why not.
Jeromy Burnitz - a "proven slugger" who's not much at hitting for average or plate discipline. If Francouer did not improve and just got fat and worse defensively, this is what he would be.

Starting Pitchers
Barry Zito - $$$$
Roger Clemens - ???????????????
Jeff Weaver - finally due for his 4 year $40 million contract after the postseason, or is he?
Mark Mulder - injury problems last year, but can still be good
Chan Ho Park - done with his contract from the Rangers, homer prone guy strikes out people
Ramon Ortiz - almost had a no hitter, and World Series experience
Tony Armas - was part of the trade that brought Pedro Martinez to Boston
Aaron Sele - did well for LA as a NRI to Spring Training

Relievers
Keith Foulke
Chris Reitsma
Doug Brocail
JC Romero
and some guys to invite to Spring Training

The Skinny
Starting pitching is not too thin for the middle to end of the rotation. Baltimore killed the reliever market. Very few hitters left.

UPDATE: The Giants paid a whole lot for Zito.

UPDATE 2: Basically nothing left. Except Jeff Weaver. Just like last year.

Matsuzaka Update

2006-12-13T12:14:00.000-05:00

ESPN Reports the following offers regarding Matsuzaka

Boston - $48 million over 6 years

Boras - $66 million over 6 years

That translates to Boston saying Matsuzaka is worth $16.5 million per year over 6 years and Boras saying, no, $19.5 million per year. These are both a good bit lower than what I reported earlier, no doubt showing that a deal is more possible, and that the Red Sox are idiots for not taking the $11 million a year counter offer. Barry Zito is worth $15 or $16 million in this free agent market, at a bare minimum, although I'm projecting 6 years, $120 million. It is no stretch to say that Matsuzaka would outperform Zito in the majors, particularly since Matsuzaka will be less in decline; a better comparison may be Carlos Zambrano, who hits the free agent market next year. Nonetheless, Because at age 27-32 Matsuzaka will deliver the best of his playing years, it would be foolish to say he's not worth what it would cost for Zito. Additionally, Boston jumping into the Zito hunt would only drive up the left-hander's price, which would almost certianly push that to $20 million a year or so. Boston would be foolish not to go with the $11 million a year offer; after all, for the purposes of the luxury tax, it's much cheaper. Additionally, Boras will take a lot of flack if Matsuzaka is not signed, and since he represents Zito, he can get his revenge there. So Boston will parade a rotation of Schilling, Beckett, Wakefield, Papelbon and Lester while trading off Clement. When you consider that Schilling will likely retire after this year, Boston should go ahead with it.

Optimism in the Face of Pierre and Gonzo

2006-12-13T03:35:00.000-05:00

I find myself on net optimistic about the Dodgers next season, and I am positive that they will win at least 90 games. Here is why:

1) Player retention. This has much more meaning than a happy feeling of knowing everybody; it means that there will be fewer games lost due to miscalculation of abilites, particularly in the bullpen. Takashi Saito is a closer and Jonathan Broxton is a setup man, but that order did not happen until almost June, when Baez was clearly tanking. Franquelis Osoria wasn't that great, and Lance Carter was a nightmare. Tim Hamulack also probably got more credit that he deserved at times. Hong-Chih Kuo is clearly better suited to be a starting pitcher than a reliever.

In the rotation, the Dodgers had to deal with discovering the downside of Seo and Perez, and then Tomko and Hendrickson. Billingsley and Kuo were not revealed until later to be useful major league starters, and Sele would have been helpful in April.

Discovering Jose Cruz couldn't hit right handed pitching, which constitutes the majority of the major leagues, also hurt. Having Ethier there full-time would have been an improvement. Similarly, Martin behind the plate would have benefitted the Dodgers earlier. The Dodgers also didn't know that Julio Lugo was going to suck more than a brothel on double coupon day.

Now, all the accidentally useful players from last year are still around.

2) Better starting pitching. Jason Schmidt will be good, but how good? He is a bit homer prone, but strikes out quite a few, and he's very durable. In fact, the rotation this year is much more likely to average 6 innings or more per start, which is quite a bit.

3) Ethier, Martin, and Betemit up all year. Martin looked like he will be consistent for a long time, while Ethier is still hard to assess (although he's definitely good). Wilson Betemit will have the oppurtunity to demonstrate that he is capable of 25-35 homers when given 550+ at bats.

4) Jeff Kent is working out like never before this offseason, determined to show up in excellent shape. Kent has a good work ethic, sure, but more importantly, he has a vesting option this year. If he gets in 500 or so plate appearances, he automatically makes several million for 2008, but he has to stay healthy and productive for that. I think he's due for about 22-26 homers and a solid .885 or higher OPS even as he gets older.

5) Pierre will balance out Kenny Lofton. Lofton likely would have split time with Repko, while Pierre would play a full season. The Lofton/Repko platoon would have performed similarly to Pierre offensively, perhaps slightly better. But the improvement in defense would be substantial, as Pierre is actually reasonable at getting to balls in center field, and in fact this will likely lead to a net improvement, given that the marginal value of preventing runs is greater than the marginal value of scoring runs.

6) The replacements and callups are going to be good. Those who before last year did not follow the Dodgers' minor league system would never have guessed that Martin, Billingsley, Kemp would look so good. Next year, we could see contributions from Loney, Kemp, Laroche, Miller, Alexander, or even Scott Elbert.

Overall, I would expect the Dodgers to have a slightly less potent but more consistent offense, and I would expect something like 795 runs from them. The pitching I think would be capable of team ERA of an even 4. Assuming an equal number of unearned runs, That would be an estimate of 715 runs allowed. The Pythagorean winning percentage then would dictate about 89 or 90 wins, but due to the strength of the bullpen and Nomar's magical powers of hitting in the late innings, I'd say 92 wins isn't out of reach.

*****

As for the rest of the division, I would expect the Padres to be the closest competitor again. While still not solid at third base, they will sign Marcus Giles at 2nd. Their pitching will be good again too. They will win from 87-92 games.

The Diamondbacks are the third place and rising team in the division. Their youth movement is starting to kick in, and Hernandez and Davis are intriguing in the middle of the rotation next year. Their bullpen will not be much better though. Stephen Drew will start to look really good. I project them to win 82-86 games.

The Rockies just traded Jason Jennings to try to ruin my projections. As it happens though, I still like the team. They have a lot of young talent, and picked up some more still. Losing Jennings will hurt, but they will still be effective, and Fuentes is a good closer. I'll say 75-82 wins.

The Giants have done nothing to rebuild. Spending $16 million on Bonds was a waste as well, and they will suffer greatly. Their team continues to get older, and they will not get better, save for a few young starters. And do they have someone better than Armando Benitez to close? They'll be at the bottom, and Barry Bonds will never notice, unless Lance Niekro breaks out as a great knuckleball pitcher. Look for 71-77 wins.

Matsuzaka Arithmetic

2006-12-12T01:54:00.000-05:00

The Red Sox have until Thursday night, and Matsuzaka doesn't look like he'll be signed. As it stands, the question is what Matsuzaka's annual value is. This assumes of course that his value is constant over time. So here's what it is for a 3-10 year contract:

51.1	Posting fee (millions)
15	Matsuzaka's value (in $millions/year)
	Years	Salary	Total Contract
	3	$2,033,333	$6,100,000
	4	$2,225,000	$8,900,000
	5	$4,780,000	$23,900,000
	6	$6,483,333	$38,900,000
	7	$7,700,000	$53,900,000
	8	$8,612,500	$68,900,000
	9	$9,322,222	$83,900,000
	10	$9,890,000	$98,900,000

Clearly, not a $15 million pitcher given how commonly Japanese players get 3 year deals. Let's say $20 million.

51.1	Posting fee (millions)
20	Matsuzaka's value (in $millions/year)
	years	Salary	Total Contract
	3	$2,966,667	$8,900,000
	4	$7,225,000	$28,900,000
	5	$9,780,000	$48,900,000
	6	$11,483,333	$68,900,000
	7	$12,700,000	$88,900,000
	8	$13,612,500	$108,900,000
	9	$14,322,222	$128,900,000
	10	$14,890,000	$148,900,000

We notice here that all the numbers are in the black. My guess is that this is where Boston sees Matsuzaka's value. But let's try $25 million.

51.1	Posting fee (millions)
25	Matsuzaka's value (in $millions/year)
	years	Salary	Total Contract
	3	$7,966,667	$23,900,000
	4	$12,225,000	$48,900,000
	5	$14,780,000	$73,900,000
	6	$16,483,333	$98,900,000
	7	$17,700,000	$123,900,000
	8	$18,612,500	$148,900,000
	9	$19,322,222	$173,900,000
	10	$19,890,000	$198,900,000

ESPN is saying Boras wants Zito money for Matsuzaka, particularly 6 years, $100 million. That seems like a bridgeable gap, but it clearly has huge implications for Matsuzaka. His salary nearly triples for a 3 year contract, and even for a 6 year contract there's a 43% difference. Keep in mind that the total cost here to Boston is only a 25% difference.

Boras would argue that with a rotation of Matsuzaka, Schilling, Beckett, Papelbon, Lester, plus Wakefield and Clement, the Red Sox could easily find an NL suitor for Clement if they needed to shed salary and avoid the luxury tax. The ultimate leverage, though, would be based on what Matsuzaka would get next year. An MLB.com article said Matsuzaka could become a general free agent, and that would open him up to much higher salaries (although with a $2 million deal for 2007), but compare that to holding out with Luke Hochevar.

**********

Ultimately, the posting system as it was set up was flawed, as it was a sealed bid first-price auction. Teams would not bid their true value, but rather either bid very high to block, or bid just enough to get access and sign. What would have made more sense would have been better would be to bid in a sealed bid second-price auction. If you bid $50 million, you would pay up to that amount, but you would not actually have to spend that much, but only the second place bid, which might have been $32 million. Here's what Boston would offer Matsuzaka then:

32	Posting fee (millions)
20	Matsuzaka's value (in $millions/year)
	years	Salary	Total Contract
	3	$9,333,333	$28,000,000
	4	$12,000,000	$48,000,000
	5	$13,600,000	$68,000,000
	6	$14,666,667	$88,000,000
	7	$15,428,571	$108,000,000
	8	$16,000,000	$128,000,000
	9	$16,444,444	$148,000,000
	10	$16,800,000	$168,000,000

This is much closer to what Boras is looking for. Realistically, teams would likely bid a bit more and teams looking for a high-priced block would need to price themselves so high that they may not be able to make a "good faith" effort to get the pitcher, causing the commissioner to intervene and nullify their bid. Perhaps the most interesting effect of this is that if the player went to New York, the Yankee Premium would not be absorbed by Matsuzaka, but rather by the posting team.

A Surplus of Pitching

2006-12-09T14:36:00.000-05:00

The Dodgers successfully created the surplus of pitching Ned Colletti talked about. The question is: what do you do with it now? One theory involves trading Brad Penny for a power bat, but his value is low after a poor post all-star performance. The other option for LA looks like Hong-Chih Kuo, who in a brief sample as a starter did well, but it remains to be seen how the league will adjust to him. But here are those Dodger pitchers who look like they have a reasonable chance of being part of the opening day roster, a trade, or something.

Starters
Derek Lowe: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline, MLB4u
Brad Penny: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline , MLB4u
Chad Billingsley: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline , MLB4u
Hong-Chih Kuo: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline , MLB4u
Jason Schmidt: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline , MLB4u
Randy Wolf: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline, MLB4u
Mark Hendrickson: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline, MLB4u
Brett Tomko: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline , MLB4u
Eric Stults: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline, MLB4u
DJ Houlton: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline

Relievers
Jonathan Broxton: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline, MLB4u
Takashi Saito: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline, MLB4u, Japan
Joe Beimel: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline, MLB4u
Yhency Brazoban: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline, MLB4u
Greg Miller: BP, CBS Sportsline
Mark Alexander: CBS Sportsline
Elmer Dessens: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline, MLB4u
Franquelis Osoria: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline, MLB4u
Tim Hamulack: BR, BP, CBS Sportsline, MLB4u

I'm not going to put Scott Elbert on there, personally, because I think he still needs more seasoning in the minors.

But as it stands, I'd expect/suggest the following staff for next year:
Rotation
Schmidt
Lowe
Penny
Wolf
Kuo

Bullpen
Saito (CL)
Broxton
Billingsley
Beimel
Brazoban
Dessens

And I would definitely trade Tomko off, along with Toby Hall. At the deadline, I'd expect one of the starters to be traded, which pushes Billingsley back into the 4th starter's role and Greg Miller being called up. Billingsley would also take to the rotation in the event that any of the starters is injured.

As it stands now, the Dodgers have just signed Wolf, Schmidt, Gonzalez, and Pierre as free agents, so they can't be traded for a while. That essentially limits the trade options for a power bat to Penny, Billingsley, and Kuo, neither of which would be a good idea, because the young guys shouldn't go and Penny's value is low because of his second half. An ideal package includes Pierre and/or Gonzalez, and would result in an outfield of Wells or Jones and Kemp with Ethier in left. Although if Kemp needs the rest of the year in AAA, that's ok too, as long as Pierre can be traded quickly.

***

Addendum: Osoria has been grayed out because he was claimed off waivers by the Pirates.

Cool New Blogger Update

2006-12-09T14:33:00.000-05:00

Google's Blogger software finally updated so you can put labels and categories on posts. This is very useful; now I don't have to put the subjects in the title. More importantly, you can click on the specific category to see something you're interested in. Not much else has changed from what I can tell so far, but that's good enough for me.

Dodgers - JP

2006-11-24T01:51:00.000-05:00

The Dodgers changed their minds and decided not to go after a power bat, or that they were going to wreck their future on something stupid, or both. They signed Juan Pierre to a 5 year, $44 million deal (the 5th year is worth $7.5 million). Why they would pay that much for a younger Kenny Lofton that's more likely to get out is beyond me, and even if his defense is better, that's still not a good move. Whatever, maybe his defense will help enough that it won't matter. Nomar was resigned to a reasonable 2 years, $18.5 million. While he's no Frank Thomas at the plate, he's also no Frank Thomas in the trainer's room, so paying him less because of the lacking option and getting someone that plays defense is a pretty nice deal.

So here's the Dodgers right now:

Lineup
Pierre - cf
Furcal - ss
Nomar - 1b
Kent - 2b
Ethier - lf
Martin - c
Betemit - 3b
Loney - rf

Which while somewhat balanced, will not inspire a lot of fear throughout the league.

Here is the pitching staff as of now:

Rotation
Lowe
Penny
Billingsley
Kuo

Bullpen
Broxton
Brazoban
Beimel
Hendrickson
Tomko
Dessens

Definitely out:
JD Drew
Julio Lugo

Probably out:
Greg Maddux

Status Unknown:
Eric Gagne
Takashi Saito

Potential Free Agent Starters:
Zito
Schmidt
Maddux

The Dodgers need a free agent starter, and then Gagne and/or Saito. At this point, though, LA cannot afford to part with Broxton. Trading him is now at the top of my fears list.

In the News - The Draft, and Why Economists Should Be More Popular

2006-11-19T13:03:00.000-05:00

This past Thursday, Milton Friedman died at the age of 94. It is particularly interesting that this story, then, would come up in the AP that Charlie Rangel wants to re-instate the draft.

Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" if he was still serious about the proposal for a universal draft he raised a couple of years ago, he said, "You bet your life. Underscore serious."

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," he said.

The article goes on.

Rangel, who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, also said he did not think the United States would have invaded Iraq if the children of members of Congress were sent to fight. He has said the U.S. fighting force is comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities.
"I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft. I think to do so is hypocritical," he said.

Congressman Rangel, you don't support the war, but you do support the draft. So what does that say about you?

Now economics tell a different tale of how this works.

This is a supply and demand graph for military labor. Economics treat goods as subject to supply and demand, even labor. What this shows is that the military is currently paying W1, and that is why the government is willing to pay for L2 but only getting L1 of labor. This model, of course, applies to the all-volunteer army. A draft army does not work this way, because soliders do not have a choice about joining the military.

So if you ask an economist how to increase troop levels, the answer is to pay the troops more. Let us examine the equilibrium wage of We. At this price, more troops are willing to serve, but the government is not willing to pay as many. This means that not only can troop levels increase voluntarily, but also the government will be more careful in the use of military force.

Rangle, though, makes the argument that Congressmen do not care about the money, only their own children, and that the element of fear is a vital deterrent of war. If that is the case, Rangle should advocate an all-draft army to increase the level of fear involved in the military as well as reduce the wages a little more. There are a few problems with this, not the least of which is that living in fear runs opposite to living in a free society. Not only that, but insisting on such tactics would reduce type I errors of unnecessary war and increase type II errors of unpreparadness and reluctance to fight when it is absolutely necessary.

This does not even go into the fact that his argument is flat out wrong. In the first place, Congressmen whose children go overseas can and likely will get preferential treatment - heck, when Al Gore was in Vietnam, he was a military photographer with a bodyguard - so there goes the congressman's fear. Then there's just the unpopularity of the draft; it is not coincidental that the 18-year-old right to vote was followed shortly thereafter by the all-volunteer army. Studies of the electorate have shown that politicians generally do what voters want, and according to this article in the Washington Post 70% of the public opposes the draft. Further, supply and demand are not complete or perfect models, but they are accurate, at least enough so that one could determine that increasing military salaries by at least 50% will drastically increase numbers in the service.

The relevance to Milton Friedman is extroardinary. In a debate with General William Westmorland (ht: Don Boudreaux) about the draft, Westmorland said to Friedman that he didn't want an army of mercenaries. Friedman had him right where he wanted him.

Mr. Friedman interrupted, "General, would you rather command an army of slaves?"

Mr. Westmoreland replied, "I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves."

Mr. Friedman then retorted, "I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher."

Dodgers - I won't stop with these lists, but this is based on something Colletti said

2006-11-15T14:46:00.000-05:00

Check the post in Dodger Thoughts, and here's what I see for LA for next year if Colletti is accurate and can get what he wants:

Lineup
Furcal - ss
Loney - rf
Nomar - 1b
Sori - lf/cf
Kent - 2b
Ethier - cf/lf
Martin -c
Betemit - 3b

Rotation
Zito
Lowe
Penny
Billingsley
Kuo

Bill Plaschke's article on Joe Beimel suggests that he will likely be back next year, making for a bullpen of at least

Bullpen
Broxton
Brazoban
Beimel
Tomko
Hendrickson
Dessens

And finally, the bench looks like:

Bench
Saenz
Hall
Anderson
Martinez
Repko
Werth*

The crop of minor league players that could potentially hit the majors, just to clarify this one again:

Pitchers
Mark Alexander
Greg Miller
Eric Stults
DJ Houlton
Infield
Andy Laroche
Oscar Robles
Wilson Valdez
Outfield
Matt Kemp
Delwyn Young

* - denotes that he will be coming off a full year on the DL
italics denote that a player is a free agent signing or can qualify as a rookie next year

Dodgers - JD Did

2006-11-11T02:36:00.000-05:00

JD Drew flew the coup. Drew has the opt-out option in his contract, so he flew the coup, leaving drastic implications for the Dodgers in the future.

First of all, they are now seeking two bats for the lineup, specifically a 3 and 4 hitter. Given budget constraints, Colletti decides that he keeps Maddux and goes for that rotation.

The Dodgers also need two starting outfielders for next year, so it goes without saying that Aramis Ramirez is certaily not a priority. With Wilson Betemit, and Andy Laroche at AAA, why would Ned Colletti want to get another third baseman, especially when Betemit could be close enough for a lot less money. There are basically 6 guys who could get the job done available on the market. In parentheses, their 2004-2006 OBP/SLG and my estimate for 2007 home runs.

1) Alfonso Soriano, 31, Free Agent (.327/.519, 35). ( He's a power/speed guy, so he will be productive for the length of his contract. He will also get better in the outfield.

2) Carlos Lee, 30, Free Agent (.350/.517, 33). He's got a little speed, and consistent power, average with the glove.

3) Pat Burrell, 30, Phillies (.382/.488, 29). He's owed $27 million over the next two years. That said, he's the only guy listed here that comes close to JD Drew's OBP, yet he delivers 25-30 homer type power, and he's more durable. He'll need convincing to come over, but it can be done. Phillies will require picking up his entire salary, and probably a pitcher or two. Beimel will factor in.

4) Vernon Wells, 28, Blue Jays (.339/.493, 28) He's cheap next year, but he'll need to be extended for a few years. He's a good centerfielder with 25-30 homer power, although with subpar OBP. Also a good doubles hitter. A centerfielder, so bye Matt Kemp, and likely Hu too.

5) Adam Dunn, 27, Reds (.380/.543, 42). He's owed $10 million, and his option is not valid, so an extention would be necessary. Strikes out a lot, which leads him to hit for terrible average, but walks a lot too, which gives him good OBP. When he hits the ball, he hits it hard. Defense is not a strong suit. The Reds are odd to please; they like guys who don't strike out a lot, don't care about OBP, and they love middle relievers. Joe Beimel and Mark Hendrickson along with another prospect, probably, will do it. Krivsky is asking for it.

6) Andruw Jones, 30, Braves (.345/.532, 40). He's owed a bit, and in the last year of a contract that will be dwarfed next year. An excellent player, gold glover and cleanup hitter. Decent OBP, 40 homer power. Will be the most costly, not just financially, but in terms of personnel, and any deal for him will definitely involve Broxton and Kemp.

My guess is that Colletti goes for one of the above, though two is a possibility. Going for two, though, would almost certainly rule out even the possibility of getting a big name pitcher. Assuming that Jason Schmidt is in the cards, though, here are some free agents that Ned Colletti will consider adding as that other bat:

Nomar Garicaparra, 33 (.355/.483, 17). Nomar was already on the team, a fan favorite, a great player, and certainly serviceable. He's capable of more than these predictions, but that would be satisfactory. Even signing him to 3 years wouldn't be bad if he plays in the outfield or he's the new second baseman once Kent leaves. Best 3-hitter out of the group.

Luis Gonzalez, 39 (.358/.462, 20). Gonzo was the favorite player of none other than Andre Everett Ethier, so it is not at all a stretch that Colletti would want to add such a role model. Gonzo would also be eligible for a 1 year contract, and can be brought back just in case Matt Kemp is not ready for 2008.

Cliff Floyd, 34 (.334/.466, 22). Floyd has had achilles problems, but can hit the ball pretty hard. Good enough likely for a 2 year deal.

Ryan Klesko, 35 (.377/.435, 13). Basically he's a spring training invite, guy who won't get $1million next year, if he's still playing.

Moises Alou, 41 (.373/.547, 26). He's still serviceable, but the question is how much he'll play. If given enough playing time, could be a decent middle-lineup bat.

Trot Nixon, 32 (.365/.435, 12). Has above average OBP, but frankly looks like too much of an injury risk, and demand for him at age 32 will be too high to try.

Jose Guillen, 31 (.347/.472, 24). Spring Training invite, because he just had Tommy John. Much less certain.

********************

That said, here are my rankings in order of preference of the top 6 guys:
Dunn
Jones
Burrell
Soriano
Lee
Wells

If LA gets any two of these, I'm thrilled and I say stick with the pitching we've got. If signing Barry Zito comes into play (possibly because Penny is traded), my order of preference for the other guys:

Nomar
Alou
Gonzo
Floyd
Guillen

because on second thought, I don't think Klesko or Nixon are what LA could use right now.

**************

The Dodgers lineup before:

Furcal
Loney
(help)
(help some more)
Kent
Ethier
Martin
Betemit

New lineup:

Furcal
Loney
Nomar
Dunn
Kent
Ethier
Martin
Betemit

Election 2006 - Be Polite or Be a Loser

2006-11-08T16:28:00.000-05:00

Down by about 8200 votes currently but likely on his way out, George Allen ruined his campaign by failing to be courteous, basically. So, in a choose your own adventure novel, let's go ahead and see what could have been.

"My friends, we're gonna run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas, and it's important that we motivate and inspire people for something.

"This fellow here over here with th-the yellow shirt, um, hey son, what's your name?"

Loop until "the name" = "correct"{
[SD Sidarth gives him a name to go by]
[Allen says = the name, asking if he got it right]
[Sidarth corrects him]}
[Allen writes this down]

"[Allen says the name correctly], he's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great; we're going to places all over Virginia, and he's having it on film and it's great to have you here. You show it to your opponent, because he's never been there and probably will never come, so it's good for you to see what it's like out here in the real world. Rather than living inside the beltway, his [sic] opponent right now is actually with a bunch of Hollywood movie moguls. (pause for laughter) We care about fact, not fiction. So welcome, let's give a welcome to, uh [name] here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

That would have been clever. The words "Welcome to America" just reinforce the idea that Webb and the Democrats just don't represent the state effectively. Being a bit more personable, Allen could have even gotten in a discussion with the guy and found out that he's a student at UVA, where Allen got his bachelor's and law degree. Fact of the matter is, it all came down to Allen failing the most basic test of common courtesy - asking someone their name. That would have meant George Allen would have won, no problems.

But noooooooo. Somebody couldn't remember basic rules of 4-year-old manners. Instead, this is what we got:

"My friends, we're gonna run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas, and it's important that we motivate and inspire people for something."

"This fellow here over here with th-the yellow shirt - Macaca or whatever his name is, he's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great; we're going to places all over Virginia, and he's having it on film and it's great to have you here. You show it to your opponent, because he's never been there and probably will never come, so it's good for you to see what it's like out here in the real world. Rather than livin' inside the beltway, his [sic] opponent right now is actually with a bunch of Hollywood movie moguls. We care about fact, not fiction. So welcome, let's give a welcome to, uh Macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia."

Just like this movie tells you how to lose a guy in 10 days, that speech tells you how to lose a double digit victory and shot at running for the presidency. Stupid.

Election 2006 - Is there Sampling Bias in Public Opinion polls?

2006-11-07T01:48:00.000-05:00

Before one can make conclusions about data, one must grasp the meaning of the inferential statistics that point to that conclusion. Before that, one must grasp what those inferential statistics are testing, namely the descriptive statistics. Before that, one must obtain the data. And before that, one must have a method of obtaining a sample from the population.

This is why one of the first stories statistics students are told is the 1948 Presidential election. This election had more significance than keeping Earl Warren from becoming Vice President and thus making him available for the Supreme Court. What was more important was that the polls absolutely blew it. The public opinion polls of the time were all leaning towards Dewey, so much so that the infamous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline was printed up before the results were even made final, and before it was proven wrong.

How did the pollsters blow it? Well it's quite simple: they took a biased sample. They were conducting several telephone polls, and at the time people who owned telephones were generally wealthier, thus more likely to vote Republican. Since then, controlling for party affiliation (Republican, Democrat, Independent, Other) and other concepts to draw a sample from the whole population has made polling more reliable. Also, as the telephone became more commonplace (basically within the next decade), it became a more reliable source of data.

Ever since Caller ID became popular, though, polling by phone has always struck me as odd. Pollsters, like other telemarketers, show up as unavailable. My parents don't answer telemarketers or survey calls, so understandably more calls have to be made. What becomes especially curious, then, is whether there are any particular demographics which people with Caller ID belong to. Further, whether Caller ID becomes a call screening object or not varies from person to person. My thoughts:

1) The elderly would have a greater representation in these polls because they are more likely to answer every phone call, not to mention that they are likely retired and at home.

2) Perhaps there is a correlation between intelligence and Caller ID use patterns; given the expected value of a call labeled "unavailable" is some guy trying to sell you something, it's probably best that one does not answer the phone on such calls.

3) Polling places would put themselves in an interesting situation if they identified themselves as polling organizations. Because of the high volumes of calls required because of Caller ID, picking up the phone and participating could in effect become a method of voluntary response. So we assume this does not happen, and the call is simply filed under "unavailable."

4) Since cell phone numbers are not in the phone book, those numbers will not be reached. This will essentially exclude college students as well as other young people who have cell phones but no land line phone.

5) Effects 1 and 4 may likely cancel, depending on voter tendencies.

6) Since the internet is not a good place to conduct a poll, perhaps a gas station or a supermarket would be more suitable. Yet even this could be complicated. In Richmond, VA, the grocery store with the highest market share is closed on Sunday and does not sell alcohol. Polling would have to occur at several grocery store locations in order to get an accurate read of the population.

7) Major League Baseball's ratings have gone down by at least one of the following: either the advent of Caller ID (and baseball fans all use their caller IDs to block annoyances), or Fox taking over broadcasting the postseason.

Dodgers - We have a link to be proud of!

2006-11-01T21:04:00.000-05:00

Way back in 1998, Mike Piazza was traded in what was easily the worst trade by the Dodgers in the last decade. The result was Gary Sheffield, who was good, but then he was traded because he was a jerk, and that yielded Odalis Perez and Brian Jordan. Jordan wasn't much, but at the time Perez seemed attractive. In 2006, Perez soured, and the Dodgers dumped him for Elmer Dessens. So this would lead us to believe that Elmer Dessens is the last link to Mike Piazza.

But there is good news. Gary Sheffield netted more than Odalis Perez and Brian Jordan; he also got the Dodgers a guy by the name of Andrew Brown, a 6' 6" pitching prospect. Brown was later traded, along with spare outfielder Franklin Gutierrez for Milton Bradley. Bradley was decent, and funny to watch if you weren't too embarrassed by him.

Along the way, the Dodgers made a few somewhat useless deals. In 1996, they signed 18-year-old Luke Allen as an amateur free agent. He was traded for Jason Romano, who was traded for Antonio Perez.

On December 13, 2005, Ned Colletti traded Bradley and Perez for a prospect in the A's system by the name of Andre Ethier. So that's right: Andre Ethier is the Dodgers' last link to Mike Piazza.

Dodgers - Trade time?

2006-11-01T18:51:00.000-05:00

Assuming that a power-hitting free agent is not obtained, the Dodgers have a few options to go with via trade. So here are some power bats to look for, in order of priority.

1) Adam Dunn, Reds (.234/.365/.490 in 2006, .245/.380/.513 career)
2006 HR: 40
162 game avg: 39
Years left on contract: 1
Money left on contract: $10.5 million
2007 Opening Day Age:27

The Reds will want pitching, but will take pitching in any form apparently. After the trade with Washington, Krivsky may settle for Joe Beimel. Downside is that at a higher price, he may not be worth it because he's basically a rent-a-player.

2) Pat Burrell (.258/.388/.502 in 2006, .258/.362/.479 career)
2006 HR: 29
162 game avg: 31
Years left on contract: 2
Money left on contract: $27 million
2007 Opening Day Age:30

The Phillies are more interested in making room for the future, clearing payroll, and youth (and pitching). Burrell is probably the lowest-valued, yet most tradeable player on the market. A team agreeing to take on his salary will likely not have to part with too much in terms of personnel. He's more of a stop-gap player than a rental,

3) Andruw Jones (.262/.363/.531 in 2006, .267/.345/.505 career)
2006 HR: 41
162 game avg: 34
Years left on contract: 1
Money left on contract: $13.5 million
2007 Opening Day Age: 29

Jones is worth the hefty price tag, and for this reason if he is made available to trade, expect the Braves to demand a package of Kuo, Broxton and Kemp. Of course, if you get Andruw Jones, you don't need Matt Kemp. Jones will be offered a big contract extention immediately, so this will be a move designed for the future.

4) Vernon Wells (.303/.357/.542 in 2006, .288/.336/.492 career)
2006 HR: 32
162 game avg: 28
Years left on contract: 1
Money left on contract: $5.6 million
2007 Opening Day Age: 28

Best value on the market. The Blue Jays are not likely to trade him, though, because you don't rebuild after spending $100 million on two pitchers in the previous offseason, even though they have long-term deals and you need to find another way to get a leg up on your competition. The Jays could potentially get a lot of pitching from him, so it's hard to say. The Dodgers may be satisfied to make him their centerfielder for the next several years, but that will likely be decided at season's end.

5) Manny Ramirez (.321/.439/.619 in 2006, .314/.411/.600 career)
2006 HR: 35
162 game avg: 42
Years left on contract: 2
Money left on contract: $38 million
2007 Opening Day Age: 34

The deferred salary makes this contract look worse, and Boston will have to eat some of it. The more they eat, though, the more value they get. The Red Sox will deal shrewdly, though, definitely going for Broxton, among other prospects, because this guy is one of the top 5 players in the game, period.

6) Alex Rodriguez (.290/.392/.523 in 2006, .305/.386/.573 career)
2006 HR: 35
162 game avg: 43
Years left on contract: 4
Money left on contract: $66 million (?)
2007 Opening Day Age: 31

Again, huge contract, but the Yankees will pick up some of the tab to get some value for him. The Dodgers may or may not want him, but with better depth at third than in the outfield (compare Laroche and Betemit to Kemp and um . . .), probably unlikely.

MLB - We have reached an agreement

2006-10-24T22:27:00.000-04:00

Baseball got a labor contract. Let's all cheer that they're guaranteed not to strike until at least 2011. Now, let's look at the specifics of this contract and comment on it:

Summary of MLBPA-Major League Baseball Labor Agreement
Term
1. Five-year labor contract.
2. Termination date - December 11, 2011.

I believe I just said that, but now you have the official press release version.

Revenue Sharing
1. Net transfer of revenue sharing plan will be the same as the current plan ($326 million in 2006). Net transfer amounts will continue to grow with revenue and changes in disparity.
2. Marginal tax rates for all recipients are reduced significantly through the use of a new central fund redistribution mechanism. Rates reduced to 31% from 40% (high revenue Clubs) and 48% (low revenue Clubs) under old agreement.
3. All Clubs face the same marginal rate for first time.
4. Commissioner's Discretionary Fund will continue at $10 million per year, with cap of $3 million per Club per year.
5. Provision requiring revenue sharing recipients to spend receipts to improve on-field performance retained with modifications.

There's the revenue sharing issue, which is baseball's way of trying to encourage teams to be more equitable in sharing resources.

Policy number (5) is the biggest sticking point with the high revenue clubs, the idea that a team could get $30 million in revenue sharing and have a $15 million payroll. I have to wonder what the penalties for breaking this rule are.

Competitive Balance Tax
1. Competitive Balance Tax structure from 2002 agreement is continued.
2. Rates will continue at 22 ½ % for Clubs over the threshold the first time, 30% for Clubs over the threshold the second time and 40% for Clubs over threshold the third time. 3. Clubs that paid 40% in 2006 will face 40% rate in 2007.
4. Thresholds reset to $148 million in 2007, $155 million in 2008, $162 million in 2009, $170 million in 2010 and $178 million in 2011.

This is part of how they get revenue to share. The payroll threshold, which has really only applied to the Yankees and Red Sox, rises, for the luxury tax. This is where the super-bloated payroll starts to hurt, as that $200 million payroll really costs the Yankees $80 million. Nothing exciting here.

We are also told the "Debt Service Rule" from 2002 has been retained, so here's what that says:

Debt
A team may not have more debt than 10 times EBIDTA (earnings before interest, depreciation, taxes and amortization), except that a team that has moved into a newly constructed ballpark within the past 10 years may not have more debt than 15 times EBIDTA. There will be a three-year grace period, during which the commissioner has the right to retain the debt service rule, fully implemented. If he so elects, the commissioner must revoke the 60-40 assets-to-debt ratio rule. If he doesn't want to revoke the 60-40 rule, the debt-service rule becomes fully implemented.

This says that ballclubs have to pay off those gigantic loans used to build stadiums, and they can't ruin a franchise by burying it in debt. Now let's get to the interesting stuff.

Amateur Draft
1. Clubs that fail to sign first or second round draft pick will receive the same pick in the subsequent draft as compensation. Club that fails to sign a third round pick will receive a sandwich pick between rounds three and four in the subsequent draft as compensation.
2. Period of time before a Player must be protected from the Rule 5 Draft is changed from three or four years from first minor league season to four or five years from year of signing.
3. Signing deadline of August 15 for draft picks other than college seniors.

This entire section is huge, and deserves to be addressed point by point.
1) Failure to sign a first or second round draft get the same pick next year as a compensation. This provides not only equity, but improves the club's position, particularly if the next year is poised to be a much better draft year.
2) This makes a difference because the younger players not yet developed have more time to do so, especially for teams that have them for the purpose of depth when they have an injury-prone major league roster.
3) This is the biggest part of the draft rules. A player has to sign by August 15 instead of by next June. I don't know if he becomes eligible to be signed at large after this or not, and in that case his wage would rise because the future price would rise because the monopsony would be lifted faster. I also don't know what this will mean if securing a visa for Canadian draft picks gets harder.

Draft Choice Compensation
1. Type C free agents eliminated in 2006
2. Also in 2006, compensation for type B players becomes indirect (sandwich pick) as opposed to direct compensation from signing Club.
3. Effective 2007, Type A players limited to top 20 percent of each position (down from 30 percent) and Type B players become 21 percent - 40 percent at each position (rather than 31 percent - 50 percent).
4. Salary arbitration offer and acceptance dates move to December 1 and December 7

Now that teams have to spend revenue sharing money on payroll, this is set up so that their draft won't have to suffer. This is also good for the players, because the cost of losing them increases, so teams have greater incentive to retain them for the next year. For those of you not keeping score, type A free agents are the ones that get you a first round draft pick, and type B give you a second round pick.

Benefit Plan
1. Players Benefit Plan continued with maximum allowable benefit under IRS rules.
2. $154.5 million average annual contribution.
3. Improved benefits for some retired players.

Minimum Salary
1. Major League: $380,000 in 2007, $390,000 in 2008 and $400,000 in 2009, COLA in 2011.
2. Minor League: $60,000 in 2007, $62,500 in 2008, $65,000 in 2009.
3. New minimum for first time roster players of 50% of minor league minimum.
4. Maximum cut rule applicable to split contracts reduced to 60% from 80%.

Under salary, that just means you can make $30k on a cup of coffee. Otherwise, nothing that interesting here. These guys make money.

Free Agency
1. Eliminate December 7, December 19, January 8 and May 1 deadlines for free agents.
2. Tender Date - December 12
3. Eliminate right to demand a trade for all new multi-year contracts.

Other
1. Home-field advantage in World Series to League that wins the All-Star Game.
2. Drug program continues.
3. Settlement of 40 plus grievances and disputes.
4. No contraction during term of agreement.

The free agency moves are particularly interesting because of the types of deadlines removed. The January 8 and May 1 deadlines in particular are huge, as they signify that now a club doesn't risk losing the rights to negotiate with their player just because they don't re-sign him by early January.

The agreement is bold as far as allowing clubs to maintain and improve rosters, but the consequences for the draft remain to be seen.

MLB - Tigers, Kenny Rogers

2006-10-23T01:53:00.000-04:00

So I say Tigers sweep, and then the Tigers play crappy baseball on Saturday. Just great.

Speaking of crappy, I can't get a picture, but I'm going to say right now that Kenny Rogers did not properly wipe his hand after going to the bathroom. He's the monkey pitcher; he flung poo. Rhymes with spitball.

Dodgers - other stuff I wouldn't mind seeing

2006-10-20T23:32:00.000-04:00

Ok, I've expressed my preference for A-Rod, particularly as it means the Dodgers can keep Nomar, but in retrospect, I would rather not trade Penny, but Kuo. Kuo is a wild card, but he's actually at a high point in his value. The Yankees might like the idea of having two old high school teammates from Taiwan on the same team, too. Still, that is a costly move, so I will consider other moves that would be advantageous.

1) Adam Dunn, OF, Cincinnatti Reds. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer (HT: TrueBlueLA.com), Reds General Manager Wayne Krivsky really hates strikeouts, and would rather have a low strikeout rate than a lot of power. The article really points to Krivsky trading Adam Dunn, who lead the league with 194 strikeouts and hit .234. Dunn is coming off a below average year, though; his career average is .245. Before thinking he's terrible, though, look at his full batting line for 2006 and it's .234/.365/490, and did I mention he hit 40 homers, and that he had more extra-base hits than singles? By comparison, Andre Ethier put up a line of .308/.365/.477. Given Krivsky's obsession with mediocre pitchers and the Dodgers' likely willingness to deal Mark Hendrickson, Brett Tomko, and/or Joe Beimel, that might be just the ticket. Sure he's $10 million next year, and his option becomes void as he hits the free agent market, but Matt Kemp could very easily be ready after a year of tearing up in AAA.

2) Alfonso Soriano, OF/2B, Free Agent. Soriano is a free agent, so the good news is that nobody will be traded. The bad news, though, is that we can't simultaneously get rid of Brett Tomko by signing Sori. Still, offensively he is the power guy the Dodgers need, and he can also be a speedster if he has to be. Last year, his first year in the NL, he learned how to walk, and hopefully this will continue this year. What makes him viable is that he can also play second base (whenever Kemp is ready), or left field, and he's a plus defensive left fielder. Offensively, he's a huge plus as a second baseman. What makes this seem viable is that after watching Kent play second with his stunning .790 Zone Rating, Soriano would be a step up. Additionally, after being a good defensive left fielder, Sori may want to extend that reputation to the middle infield.

3) Jim Edmonds, CF, Potential Free Agent. Now granted, the Cardinals do have an option on him, but after an injury-riddled season, why not test the market. After all, they have Encarnacion in right, a defensive specialist in Taguchi who could possibly play center, and Chris Duncan for left field. Edmonds has a $10 million option, and the Cardinals may have other ideas as to how to spend that money. Edmonds is in kind of a Jeff Kent situation, where he had an injury riddled year, and could be worse next year. On the other hand, not only does he have the potential to still be good offensively (he was limited to 350 AB), but he's one of the best defensive (read: not Kenny Lofton) center fielders in the game.

4) Gary Sheffield, OF, Free Agent. Hey Gary, how's it going? Yeah, remember how you were mad about your contract a few years back? Um, forget about it. It's history. Wanna come back? We could use a cleanup hitter. And you'll be in right field, not at first base. Although, he did have a wrist injury, so maybe that won't be the best idea, as he might not have that power stroke next year.

I will amend this list if I see anything.

*****

As it stands, here's the Dodgers' defensive lineup next year (italics for iffy players):

c - Martin
1b - Loney
2b - Kent
3b - Betemit
ss - Furcal
lf - Ethier
cf - Repko
rf - Drew

Rotation
Lowe, Penny, Maddux, Billingsley, Kuo

All that needs to be done now is to get Gagne, Saito, and Brazoban back in the bullpen along with Broxton, and throw in Greg Miller. Dessens mops up.

MLB - Go Tigers

2006-10-20T01:38:00.000-04:00

Ok, so I picked the Mets in 7. At least I got 7, but the Cardinals won. And I picked the Tigers in 6, and they swept. So why bother?

You know what, I'm going with the Tigers. Because they have pitching everywhere. And they have a good bottom of the lineup. Tigers sweep.

Dodgers - I thought Adande was a name I could trust

2006-10-10T01:40:00.000-04:00

JA Adande, in this column in the LA Times yesterday said something with which I will disagree sharply:

My problem is this: Name a team that has been better off for taking on Rodriguez's contract, even a portion of it. The Rangers? They never won the division with him. The Yankees? They never made the World Series with him.

For both teams, this is not an issue of a third baseman's problems, but of the consequences of poor pitching staffs. The Texas Rangers team ERA year-by-year:

2001: 5.71
2002: 5.15
2003: 5.67
2004: 4.53
2005: 4.96

That's it! Alex Rodriguez was a crappy pitcher bringing down the team ERA!

But seriously, in 2004 the Rangers had a stellar bullpen, including Francisco Cordero's best year as a closer. As for 2005, chaulk that up to quality seasons from Kenny Rogers and Chris Young.

What about the Yankees pitching? Same analysis:

2001: 4.02
2002: 3.87
2003: 4.02
2004: 4.69
2005: 4.52

The difference for the Yankees was a loss of quality starters, namely Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, and David Wells, and the influx of Kevin Brown, Randy Johnson, Carl Pavano, Jaret Wright, etc.

******************

That said, here's what I want to put out

Lineup:
Furcal - ss
Ethier - lf
Nomar - 1b
A-Rod - 3b
Drew - cf
Kent - 2b
Loney - rf
Martin - c

Rotation
Lowe
Zito/Matsusaka/Schmidt
Maddux
Billingsley
Kuo

Bullpen
Gagne
Saito
Broxton
Brazoban
Hendrickson
Dessens

Bench
Martinez
Repko
Anderson
(non roster backup catcher)
Saenz
(non-roster guy)

OUT:
Lugo
Lofton
Hall
Tomko
Penny
Betemit

Note that italics denote a position change and bold denotes a new acquisition.

The idea is that the team acquires one more starting pitcher from the free agent market, re-signs Eric Gagne, Nomar Garicaparra, Greg Maddux and Takashi Saito, and then trades Brad Penny, Toby Hall, Wilson Betemit, and Brett Tomko off for Alex Rodriguez and prospects (not necessarily all Yankees prospects). Kenny Lofton is a free agent and goes somewhere to provide a center fielder and leadoff man.

The position changes are of this logic: JD Drew wants to play center, so now he can. Loney has played the outfield in the minors, so he can probably play adequately, and move to first if Nomar is out. The important thing is for his bat to be in the lineup. Kent probably will not play in 2008, but Nomar would. Nomar could probably be a decent second base candidate for that year, given the Dodgers' lack of depth at the position, and he would be less prone to throwing errors since he wouldn't have as much distance to throw. Then Loney could move back to first and Kemp could play in the outfield.

I want A-Rod because he's unofficially available and the Dodgers need a boost at third base. Any other option would involve blocking Matt Kemp for three years, which will not do.

*****

The Boston Red Sox got a .299 OBP from their starting shortstop. Given the free agent market, if the Red Sox want offense out of their shortstop position, they may be due for an awkward reunion of sorts.

MLB - Really useless picks

2006-10-09T14:13:00.000-04:00

Well, if you read my post last week, you'll notice that none of my picks advanced. That's right, none. Zip, zero, zilch, nada.

So we're left with these two serieses

Mets vs Cardinals

Ok, Mets. They have the lineup, and neither team has the pitching, except Carpenter for the Cards. I don't care how many squeeze bunts Larussa drops down, the Mets can power their way through.

prediction: Mets in 6

A's vs Tigers

I really don't know here. Detroit has the best defense for a staff of groundball pitchers, but Sean Casey is their 3 hitter. They have a good bottom of the lineup, though. The A's on the other hand have 3 big power guys in Thomas and Swisher, and a lineup that does a good job getting on base. This one is close to call, but I think the final blow will be Billy Beane facing down his demons as the A's are shut down by Jeremy Bonderman.

prediction: Tigers in 7

MLB - Division Series

2006-10-02T00:15:00.000-04:00

That's right. The postseason matchups have been announced. And ladies and gents, here they are, with commentary.

American League
Detroit Tigers at New York Yankees
Jim Leyland's bunch go up against the nastiest lineup ever. Seriously, Robinson Cano and Jorge Posada are at the bottom of the lineup. That's just sick. Sure the rotation's not much, but everyone's healthy just in time for the postseason, and they actually made it there despite missing Shef and Matsui. The Tigers have good defense and groundball pitchers, so that will continue to work to their advantage. Still, the Yankees look like the juggernaut.

Season Series: 5-2 Yankees

Starters:
Robertson vs Wang
Verlander vs Mussina
Johnson vs Rogers

Prediction: Yankees in 4

Oakland Athletics at Minnesota Twins
Wow, two teams that really picked it up later on in the season. The A's have been hot in the second half, but the Twins have been hotter. Shooting all the way to the top in a short run, they will be nasty to beat. The A's real weapons are their pitching, all the way through. The Twins have great pitching as well, particularly in Santana and Nathan, though if you look at their regular season numbers, you'll see how much better Liriano made them. There are some significant bats for the Twins as they've got batting leader Joe Mauer, as well as power bats Torii Hunter and Justin Morneau. The A's feature Nick Swisher and future hall-of-famer Frank Thomas.

Season series: 6-4 Minnesota

Starters:
Zito vs Santana
Haren vs Bonser
Garza vs Loaiza

Prediction: Minnesota in 5

National League
Los Angeles Dodgers at New York Mets
As far as lineups go, the Mets have the advantage of having the most home run power, but that isn't hard against the Dodgers. What makes this difficult for the Dodgers, though, is that the Mets have speed to match them. The Mets have speedsters in Reyes, Wright, Beltran, and Chavez, while the Dodgers have them in Furcal, Lofton, Lugo, and Martin (yes, the catcher). The Dodgers have been more dynamic in making changes to their pitching, though, as nobody in their bullpen started the year in the majors, and neither has their catcher. The Dodgers also upgraded their rotation by picking up Greg Maddux, while the Mets added Guillermo Mota to replace Duaner Sanchez. The Dodgers as a team seem to have the most balance, though. Their lineup, in particular, is well balanced with pretty good hitters 1-8 (unless Lugo starts). In the second half, it is worth noting that the Dodgers are hotter in the second half, although the Mets weren't a bad second half team either. Most critically, though, may be rotation depth. The Mets have El Duque and Tom Glavine for the front of the rotation, but the Dodgers have not only Lowe and Maddux, but also options with Penny, Billingsley, and Kuo, while the Mets have Steve Traschel, John Maine, and Oliver Perez.

Season series: 4-3 Mets

Lowe vs El Duque
Maddux vs Glavine
TBA vs TBA

Prediction: Dodgers in 4

St Louis Cardinals at San Diego Padres

The St. Louis Cardinals would have been the favorites in this series for the past few years, and the beginning of this year. Things have changed, though. The Padres got better. They made some nice offseason moves, acquired guys who will make the future bright, and got that Piazza fellow too. The Cardinals have seen Isringhausen tank, Eckstein and Edmonds battle injury, and their rotation diminish to dependence on Jeff Weaver. They still have Scott Rolen. They still have Chris Carpenter, and they still have Albert Pujols. But the Padres have Chris Young, Jake Peavy, Woody Williams, David Wells as starters, and a dependable back end of the bullpen. Pitching gets you through the postseason, so I'd go with the Pads.

Season series: 4-2 Padres

Starters
Carpenter vs Peavy
Suppan vs Young
TBA vs TBA

Prediction: Padres in 4

So my predictions for what you'll see next week are:

Dodgers at Padres
Twins at Yankees

The most exciting game to watch will be Thursday night's game, simply because it is the two lead pitchers of the Atlanta dynasty duking it out against each other.

MLB - About that Trade Deadline

2006-09-21T15:11:00.000-04:00

Major League Records from 8/1 - 9/20:

American League
East
Yankees____31-19
BlueJays____23-24
Orioles_____18-27
RedSox_____18-30
D-Rays_____14-36

Central
Twins______29-18
Indians_____25-22
WhiteSox ___23-25
Tigers ______21-26
Royals______21-26

West
A's ________32-13
Angels______28-19
Rangers_____25-22
Mariners____21-26

National League
East
Phillies_____30-18
Mets______29-18
Marlins ____26-21
Braves_____26-22
Nationals___19-27

Central
Pirates_____25-21
Astros_____24-22
Cardinals___22-24
Brewers____19-27
Reds______19-28
Cubs______19-29

West
Dodgers____29-18
Giants_____24-21
Padres_____24-22
Rockies____20-27
D-Backs____18-28

Major League Baseball - Free Agents that will be interesting to watch

2006-08-31T11:36:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow it turns to September, but for many teams, the season is already over. While some teams try to make waiver trades for relatively useless players (when a guy who's retiring next month is the top prize, that's bad), the offseason has some highlights available, particularly among position players. Truly quality players are scarce, but here are the best guys out there, from the after 2006 Free Agent List at MLB4u.com

Outfielders

Dave Roberts, Padres - Roberts has had an outstanding year. His speed has never really been a question mark, but his on-base percentage has been troublesome. His isolated patience (OBP-BA) has been rather consistent, around .070-.080, so it's largely a function of a jump in batting average. He's not a power hitter, but is an excellent leadoff man with great speed. Paul DePodesta's presence in the Padres' front office would certainly arouse suspicion that Roberts would not be long for the Padres organization, particularly since he practically gave him away in 2004 for a 29 year old minor leaguer. That he's played left field recently would certainly get the attention of the Atlanta Braves, who have not been strong at that position and could use a leadoff man.

Alfonso Soriano, Nationals - The question is whether Washington will build their franchise around this superstar. He seems to have adjusted well, but he would require a no-trade clause and a lot of money, and it is unlikely the Lerners would blow the Nats' payroll wide open so soon. Don't expect him to be a marketable second baseman, because of his defense, but he's a plus defensive outfielder because he can actually use his speed and monster arm without having to charge ground balls as often.

Jose Guillen, Nationals - Anyone want to pick up an outfielder who came off a terrible year and Tommy John surgery? Well, he'll be cheap because of the uncertainty, and he can deliver some power. One year deal likely, but not a bad option for someone who needs a little something extra in the outfield, especially someone hoping that he still can hit for a bit of power.

Carlos Lee, Rangers - Don't know if he'll stay with Texas or not. Looking at it now, if any of the players they trade for him turn out worthwhile they'll feel really stupid as their postseason plans backfired. Lee has mysteriously had a relative power slump, averaging a homer every 43.3 at bats as a Ranger, down from one every 13.9 at bats. It's amazing what not facing NL Central pitching will do, as that division alone has the Pirates, Reds, and Cubs to go up against. Someone looking for a guy to whack a few out of the park might be interested. He has some decent speed on the basepaths, too.

Frank Catalanotto, Blue Jays - Another lefty bat, a good overall hitter. His .316/.397/.460 line is not overwhelming, but certainly pretty good. The Blue Jays might keep him though, as he does have some use for that lineup. Not much of a speedster, though.

Kenny Lofton - If you want a platoon player lefty centerfielder with speed and a .300 bat, here ya go. Even at his age he's still producing, although his defense has gone from a + to a -.

Torii Hunter - $12 million is a lot of money, and that's how much the Twins would have to shell out to hold onto him. Don't know where he might end up.

Jim Edmonds - Interesting mainly to see if he calls it quits at age 36 or keeps going for a little longer, especially with the post-concussion syndrome.

Catchers

Bengie Molina - He's slow, and his OBP dropped this year to a weak .309, though his slugging is still decent. His CS % is fading, but who else are you gonna get?

Mike Piazza - He's old, and he's headed to the hall of fame, but he can still hit home runs. The Padres may not be as well off without him, given how hard it is to hit for power in that ballpark.

First Base

Nomar Garicaparra - He's played the position well, and can stay healthy longer, or at least it seems that way. He will regress this year, probably ending with a .290-.300 BA because of a nagging injury, which will heal in the offseason. Not a power guy in the sense of hitting home runs, but he's a line drive hitter with an .889 OPS. Is also a defensive plus player at first. Will likely be available, though, due to the improvements James Loney has made.

Shea Hillenbrand - yep, it's a thin market. Hillenbrand is certainly an "extra bat" type guy, not a guy to bank on.

Craig Wilson - Will someone please give the poor guy some playing time? He's an outfielder too, and with moderate power.

Second Base

Ray Durham - Kind of old, but he's got some pop in his bat, and you don't get that a whole lot at second base. Offensively, he's the best second baseman on the free agent market unless you count Soriano.

Shortstop

Julio Lugo - While he's shown limited value as a Dodger, he's a pretty good offensive shortstop. Good speed, a little bit of power. He's versatile, but he won't take to playing other positions easily. The best shortstop available as a free agent unless you count Nomar.

Third Base

Pedro Feliz - The guy is the most important guy on the Giants offense other than Durham with 85 RBI and 21 HR. San Francisco would be wise to retain him, though the Padres may get in a bidding war in their quest to get a third baseman.

Aubrey Huff - Available in the offseason, he's put up decent power, although he's not quite the Aubrey Huff of 2003.

***********

Another post coming later on which teams will have holes, and I'll address pitchers eventually too.

Dodgers - "Your bat needs some lovin'"

2006-07-23T03:11:00.000-04:00

http://tinyurl.com/nrk5a

In 2004, Jose Lima was actually good. He pitched effectively for the Dodgers, especially at home. It was all capped by a complete game shutout of the Cardinals in the postseason.

He was also crazy. The above link is just typical of his antics that year.

That's about where' the Dodgers are now.

So what should they do, looking for a power boost?

Do not trade prospects for power. Wait for guys to get back from the DL first. Kent and Repko can belt out a few. With a bit of rest, Drew should be belting them out soon as well. Ethier has the potential, and is also a good player at hitting for average.

Grady Little should never put Lofton and Cruz in the same lineup. Cruz is decent defensively, a gold glover in 2003, but abysmal at the plate. Lofton is a nightmare in centerfield, has no arm, and hits upper .290s. The time has come though. Cruz needs to go, Lofton and Ledee can be lefty ph's, and Etheir,Repko, Drew should be the starting outfield, but Kemp comes up if Drew hits the DL.

For the infield, go with a 5 man rotation when Kent returns. Every 5th day, a player will get a day to rest on the bench. Every one of these players has had injury issues within the last year, except for Aybar. This would present a few lineup options

Kent resting:
Furcal
Izturis
Nomar
Drew
Repko
Aybar -2b
Ethier
Martin

Izturis resting
Furcal
Repko
Nomar
Kent
Drew
Aybar -3b
Ethier
Martin

Nomar resting
Furcal
Izturis
Drew
Kent - 1b
Repko
Aybar -2b
Ethier
Martin

Furcal resting
Repko
Izturis
Nomar
Kent
Drew
Aybar -3b
Ethier
Martin

Aybar resting
Furcal
Izturis
Nomar
Kent
Drew
Repko
Ethier
Martin

Lofton would be the fourth outfielder.

Bench
Lofton
Saenz
Hall
Ledee
5th inf
Martinez

The only issue here is dropping down to an 11 man pitching staff. This means drop someone when Tomko gets back. Or Ramon Martinez could go in a trade to someone who needs a utility INF.

Next Year - On the Cheap, or all about the pitching

2006-07-14T12:45:00.000-04:00

How could the Dodgers solve their problems with a reduced payroll?

Ned Colletti is not likely to decide to do this, because he likes Kent, but the guy's age is catching up with him. If some other team thinks he has upside, dealing him may not be a bad idea, especially if the trade can net a pitcher. This will be important in freeing up 3rd for Laroche while still keeping Izturis for 2nd, making the best DP combo in baseball potentially.

JD Drew is a trade begging to happen, even though he seems to be a decent clubhouse guy. Why have a $11 million outfielder when rookies can put up similar numbers? A fair trade would be Mark Prior, who is a good starter, but gets injured about as often.

Furcal ain't goin' anywhere, though.

Nomar is let go, because there are guys who can play first, and the Dodgers would get a first round draft pick. Loney might come up, and he'll likely platoon for a while with Saenz at first.

Outfield may be Ethier, Kemp, and Guzman, depending on Repko's status.

Granted, this is problematic to let the #3,4, and 5 guys go from the lineup, which is another reason it's unlikely, unless Ethier keeps hitting over .300 all season.

Odalis Perez and $11 million will go to Pittsburgh for Mike Gonzalez.

Saito and Sele re-signed at $3 million each for a 1 year deal, and Saito gets an option for next year at $3.5 million.

Gagne leaves for the Braves and the Dodgers get another draft pick.

The Dodgers may not get a draft pick for Danys Baez.

Ramon Martinez is re-signed because he's a utilityman that can hit. Ledee because he's a lefty pinch hitter.

Tomko and Hendrickson are both dealt.

Lineup
Furcal
Izturis
Ethier
Laroche
Guzman
Kemp
Loney
Martin

(the whole 3-6 section would be in limbo, except Ethier would not bat cleanup).

Rotation
Lowe
Penny
Prior
Billingsley
Sele

Bullpen
Saito (CL)
Brazoban
Broxton
Gonzalez
Beimel
Carrara

Bench
Olmedo
Martinez
Ledee
Repko
backup catcher

Total payroll: $67 Million = $17 Million for vet shortstops + $29 Million for Vet Pitchers + $11 Million for Odalis + $7 Million for young players/rookies + $3 Million for Saenz, Ledee, Martinez

******

Uncheapening it, with the best pitching money can buy
Add Zito and Maddux for a more viable experiment:

Zito: 6 years, $92 Million (8 mil signing bonus, 14 mil/year)
Maddux: 2 years, $23 Million (11, 12 mil year)

Cancel Sele.

Give Gagne a Nomar deal: 1 year, 6 million with 4 million in incentives.

New 2007 Payroll: $103 million

New Rotation
Penny
Zito
Lowe
Maddux
Prior

Billingsley would work on efficiency at AAA, coming up in May or June when Prior is injured. Or he could become a closer. But you have to admit, these are all good starters.

New Bullpen
Gagne (CL)
Saito
Broxton
Brazoban
Gonzalez
Beimel/Kuo

That would be pretty sick.

Dodgers - Next Year, My Idea

2006-07-11T03:23:00.000-04:00

The Following Lineup
CF - Furcal
SS - Izturis
1B - Nomar
3B - Beltre
2B - Kent
LF - Ethier
RF - Kemp
C - Martin

Rotation
1. Penny
2. Maddux
3. Lowe
4. Hernandez
5. Billingsley/Tomko/Hendrickson

Bullpen
CL - Gagne
Saito
Brazoban
Broxton
Kuo
Tomko/Hendrickson

Bench
Saenz
Martinez
Ledee
Guzman
(non roster invite catcher)
Robles

Transactions to make this possible -
1) Toby Hall, Andy Laroche, JD Drew, and PTBNL to the Seattle Mariners for Adrian Beltre and Felix Hernandez
2) Nomar to a 3 year, $32 million deal, including a $5 million signing bonus, and $9 million per year over 3 years.
2) Sign Ricky Ledee, Ramon Martinez, Oscar Robles
3) Invite a bunch of backup catchers to spring training
4) Free agent signing of Greg Maddux to a 1 year deal at $12 Million, with team option for $12 million and $2 million buyout for 2008
5) Eat Odalis Perez' contract
6) Trade Hendrickson or Tomko for a mid-level prospect
7) Sign Eric Gagne to a 1 year deal at $6 million with a $1 million bonus for 40 IP, and $1 million more at each 50, 60, 70 IP
8) Sign Takashi Saito to 1 year $3 million with option for $3 million or buyout of $500,000

Payroll changes
1) + $2 million
2) + $14 million
3) + $3 million
4) + $1 million
5) + $12 million
6) no change
7) no change
8) + $6 million
9) + $3 million

Payroll (estimated): $122 million

Dodgers - Next Year, Questions

2006-07-11T02:27:00.000-04:00

"Wait til next year" was the motto of the Brooklyn Dodgers. What about next year? There are some players under contract, some likely to be traded before the deadline, some that aren't under contract but not eligible to be free agents, and some eligible free agents.

Players Under Contract
Izturis ($4.15 Million)
Furcal ($13 Million)
Drew ($11 Million)
Kent ($11 Million)
Tomko ($4.1 Million)
Perez ($10 Million)
Mueller ($4.5 Million)
Lowe ($9.5 Million)
Penny ($8 Million)
Saenz ($1 Million)

buyouts
Cruz ($ 0.3 Million)
Gagne ($1 Million)

Do the math, and that's $77.55 Million. That's not all. There are other guys the Dodgers have used this year already that could be part of the club

Not Eligible for Free Agency
Martin - C
Broxton - RP
Billingsley - SP
Kuo - RP
Ethier - OF
Kemp - OF
Guzman - OF/3B/1B/SS
Laroche - 3B
Loney - 1B/OF
Hall - C
Hendrickson - SP
Brazoban - RP

Free Agents
Nomar Garciaparra - 1B
Eric Gagne - CL
Takashi Saito - CL
Ricky Ledee - OF
Jose Cruz - OF
Kenny Lofton - OF
Danys Baez - RP
Giovanni Carrara - RP
Ramon Martinez - INF
Aaron Sele - SP

The two players just acquired via trade, Hendrickson and Hall, are themselves likely to be traded. Hall will be a catcher playing for a contract year, and Hendrickson is a left-handed starting pitcher. Realistically, this is what the Dodgers roster will look like next year

Infield
1B - ?
2B - Kent
SS - Furcal
3B - ?

It's the shortstops out of position. Whether or not to keep Nomar is the first question. If not, does Kent move to first and Izturis to second, clearing third for Laroche? Or does Nomar stay, Kent stay at 2nd, Furcal at short, and Izturis stay at third, blocking Laroche? Or is Izturis traded? Or is Laroche traded? It's basically down to whether Nomar Garciaparra, Cesar Izturis, or Andy Laroche is the odd man out, and that will depend largely on the quality of talent available in the draft. Or Rafael Furcal could be the new centerfielder, and all three could stay, but that's not very likely given the farm system's outfield depth.

Outfield
LF - Ethier
CF - Repko
RF - Drew

Kemp may be the 4th outfielder because of he can play all three positions, and Grady will likely give Drew plenty of rest. Drew would likely be traded if his value rises enough, given that he's still a fairly solid player when he's not broken, which could prompt a position switch for Furcal.

Catcher - Martin

It's his spot now, and for years to come. The end.

Bench
Saenz - 1B/3B
OF - Kemp
OF - ?
INF - ?
C - ?

The question here is whether Colletti lets the rookies go loose, or if he keeps some veterans around to help with the transition. Ledee would be a good option for the 5th outfielder, as well as Martinez for the utilityman. The backup catcher will be a non-roster invite unless Hall gets more playing time in LA.

Rotation
Penny
Lowe
Billingsley
4 - ?
5 - ?

Brad Penny is the new #1, but Lowe is solid too. Where Tomko and Hendrickson go is a question mark. One of them will likely be traded. A free agent signing would be a possibility, most likely Greg Maddux.

Bullpen
CL - ?
Brazoban
Broxton
Kuo
Perez
?

Is there any chance of a Gagne return? What about Saito? Will Odalis Perez stick around, or perhaps even be an effective reliever? The "CL - ?" says everything.

ESPN's All-time All-Star List

2006-07-07T17:11:00.000-04:00

ESPN has a vote for the all time all-star. They asked me to vote for some of these, but I can't bring myself to select one of their picks for some of them.

Starting Catcher
Roy Campanella 1953
Johnny Bench 1970
Mike Piazza 1997

I went with Campy because he had a great combo of HR, Power and RBI, and also because he was a better defensive guy than Piazza. The Dodgers have always succeeded in producing catchers, so they had to get hat position.

Now a none of the above:

Starting First Baseman
Stan Musial 1946
Will Clark 1989
Jeff Bagwell 1996

How about Derrek Lee 2005? The guy batted .335, hit 46 HR and batted in 107. The Cubs had a winning record this year before his injury! Or for that matter, Mark McGwire 1998, 70 HR .299 BA. People still pitched to him; of his 162 walks, only 28 were intentional.

Starting Second Baseman
Joe Morgan 1975
Joe Morgan 1976
Ryne Sandberg 1990
Craig Biggio 1997

First, it is absurd to give Joe Morgan two shots on similar seasons, especially since he's an ESPN broadcaster. But I will say that his speed combo in 1975 was good.

Starting Shortstop
Honus Wagner 1908
Arky Vaughan 1935
Ozzie Smith 1987

I pick Smith, because he's the best defensive shortstop quite possibly in the history of the game. And he hit .300 that year. End of story.

Starting Third Baseman
Eddie Matthews 1953
Dick Allen 1964
Mike Schmidt 1980

Adrian Beltre in 2004 batted .334 with 48 homers and 121 RBI. He was also part of the best defensive infield in the National League that year. Tell me again why he's not on the list if we're just looking at single-season performance. I guess the same reason Roger Maris isn't on the AL List.

Starting Outfielder
Hack Wilson 1930
Mell Ott 1936
Willie Mays 1954
Duke Snider 1954
Willie Mays 1955
Frank Robinson 1962
Hank Aaron 1963
Barry Bonds 1996
Barry Bonds 2001

Again, absolutely worthless to give Mays and Bonds each two seasons. Aaron is a gimme. Snider absolutely deserves to be there for the average and RBI combo, and Wilson hit .356 that year.

Starting Pitcher
Christy Mathewson 1905
Bob Gibson 1966
Dwight Gooden 1985
Greg Maddux 1994
Randy Johnson 2002

It doesn't take a genius for this one. This list is officially worthless for its negligence of Sandy Koufax. I'd pick the 1965 Koufax, with a 2.04 ERA, 0.855 WHIP (they never cite WHIP, just W-L and ERA), and 382 K. Koufax even came out of the bullpen to save a couple games, and pitched 27 complete games, although '63 Koufax pitched 11 shutouts. Fernando '86 was the last pitcher to pitch 20 complete games. Don't forget the greatest knuckleballer of all time, Phil Niekro. No votes for a dead-ball pitcher (Mathewson) either.

Nationals - A Real Fantasy Team

2006-06-29T02:46:00.000-04:00

The Washington Nationals right now want to build up their farm system so they can be a successful franchise. This is an excellent idea, but there's not reason not to add to payroll and shore up the rest of the team while they're at it. Since I live in a fantasy world where I make up stuff like this, I'm going to post my Nats roster for next year, with a little help from the Unofficial MLB site, which has all the contract info.

Before that happens, I will officially call the Nats getting rocked tomorrow because Roy Halladay is starting for the Blue Jays, and he's awesome.

Now, that having been said, here are the people under contract for next year:

Marlon Anderson - OF
Luis Ayala - RP
Christian Guzman - SS
Livan Hernandez - SP
Nick Johnson - 1B
Brian Schneider - C
Jose Vidro - 2B

Guys with options:

Ryan Drese - SP
Brian Lawrence - SP

Players not under contract that won't be free agents:

Chad Cordero - CP
Ryan Zimmerman - 3B
Gary Majewski - RP
Jon Rauch - RP
Ryan Church - OF
Marlon Byrd - OF
Zach Day - SP
Alexander Escobar - OF
Brendan Harris - IN
Matt LeCroy - 1B/PH
John Patterson - SP
Michael O'Connor - SP

Before looking at next year's free agent pool, let's check the roster

C - Schneider
1B - Johnson
2B - Vidro
SS - Clayton
3B - Zimmerman
OF - Escobar
OF - Church
OF - Anderson

IN - Harris
1B/PH - LeCroy

SP - Hernandez
SP* - Lawrence
SP* - Dreese
SP - Patterson
SP - Day
SP - O'Connor

CL - Cordero
RP - Rauch
RP - Majewski
RP - Ayala

Players that will be Free Agents next year:

Alfonso Soriano - OF/2B
Daryle Ward - 1B/PH
Felix Rodriguez - RP
Ramon Ortiz - SP
Damian Jackson - OF
Jose Guillen - OF
Robert Fick - C
Joseph Eischen - RP
Royce Clayton - SS
Pedro Astacio - SP
Tony Armas - SP

The question of free agents is which players are best to sign for the team, then which are best for the money. Here are people I absolutely retain.

Soriano - he can be a leader for this franchise, with his work ethic. Great arm, bat and speed.
Fick - backup catcher and pinch hitter, and that's his market value. Why not

Maybe characters:

Ward - lefty power off the bench, is price right?
Guillen - decentish bat
Armas - reliable starter, puts in his 180 innings

The rest can go. The bullpen is solid, and a mop-up man and lefty reliever can come via non-roster invite. I would expect Dreese and Lawrence to go next year, so that leaves Hernandez and Patterson, which isn't a lot. There is a need for another starter, unless the club feels like letting Hill or Day start regularly. So besides Soriano, that would be the big acquisition. Picking up another outfielder would be a priority as well, but maybe not as high a priority. Ideally, getting a true leadoff hitter will help.

I would heavily pursue Dave Roberts as my first choice there. The guy can run, and he and Sori can probably run a few double steals. If not him, then Ryan Klesko would be good too, or Kenny Lofton (who can still perform despite his age).

For the starting pitcher, Barry Zito is the big prize. But that might not be the best move, or even possible; the Nats may blow their wad on Soriano. Andy Pettite, Soriano's former teammate, might be a good acquisition if he can be coaxed away from Houston. Tom Glavine is old but can still pitch, and the same can be said for El Duque. Both Hernandez brothers would be kind of cool really. Byung-Hyung Kim is a maybe, although as diverse as DC is, he may attract a good following, and he would probably come cheaper than Chan Ho Park, though Park may be a better option. If you want to live dangerously, Kerry Wood.

Here's the end result of the Nationals, assuming the ex-Yankee pickups in the rotation.

C - Schneider
1B - Johnson
2B - Vidro
3B - Zimm
SS - Clayton
LF - Soriano
CF - Church
RF - Roberts

Bench
LeCroy
Anderson
Byrd
Harris
Fick

Rotation
1 - Livan Hernandez
2 - Andy Pettite
3 - John Patterson
4 - Orlando Hernandez
5 - Michael O'Connor

Bullpen
Cordero (CL)
Ayala
Rauch
Majewski
mop-up
lefty

That's not a bad team. Power from Soriano and Johnson, straight hitting from Vidro, and who knows what from Zimm. The bullpen for the Nats is already great. This team could challenge for the division.

Opening day lineup in 07, then

Roberts
Vidro
Soriano
Johnson
Zimmerman
Church
Clayton
Schneider
L. Hernandez

In for a long one - my take on the Inspiring Films list

2006-06-16T00:12:00.000-04:00

Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution has a blog entry on the AFI 100 list of Inspirational movies. Well it gets a blurb, and he basically says they're awful. I've skimmed it, but haven't commented on the whole thing, until now.

First off, I'm going to go with "inspire" as defined by Dictionary.com, definition #2, which is "To fill with enlivening or exalting emotion." I will note whether the films are inspiring, good, and other comments.

1)IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE (1946)
This isn't a bad start, or end if you're doing a countdown. Getting a mention in Russell Roberts' The Invisible Heart, this is one of those movies that I enjoy watching, just not on TV. And it's inspiring to know how one man can do so much.

2) TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1962)
I got a 100 on a test on the book in an English class, so I can't hate it. Atticus Finch is cool though.

3) SCHINDLER'S LIST (1993)
This film was somewhat inspiring with how Schindler saved a few, but what I remember it for was the appauling depiction of life in Nazi Germany.

4) ROCKY (1976)
never saw it, and from what I understand, it's an inspirational film benchmark

5) MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (1939)
A Jimmy Stewart flick where he represents the only noble politician ever (except of course, Abe Lincoln). Seriously, that's the plot. This is too boring to be in "fantasy" but is a pretty good film, so they had to put it somewhere.

6) E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL (1982)
I never saw this in English (we watched it in German class), but again, I don't think this is inspiring. Feel-good, maybe. Is this supposed to inspire me to call my mom?

7) THE GRAPES OF WRATH (1940)
never saw it, don't really care

8 BREAKING AWAY (1979)
Never heard of it. Look it up if you care.

9) MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET (1947)
"It is the opinion of this court that judges should not be elected. They should be installed for life and paid handsomely." This is a feel-good Christmas movie. It inspires me to open presents.

10) SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998)
I feel guilty criticizing this movie, but I didn't like it. You had the action scenes, some sickening gore, and then they just talk, and that part bored me. Then again, I saw this movie on VHS, so that was a while ago. Nonetheless, I'd say a good movie to ponder the past, and at the time a great film to take a veteran to the theater to see. But I wasn't inspired.

11) THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (1946)
don't know, don't care

12) APOLLO 13 (1995)
The inspirational film for the 2003 Detroit Tigers. Yay, we didn't kill them!

13) HOOSIERS (1986)
This is a good movie, and it's inspirational. I'm waiting for Ed Harris to play Jim Larranaga.

Now, 9 movies I have not seen
14) THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI (1957)
15) THE MIRACLE WORKER (1962)
16) NORMA RAE (1979)
17) ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)
18) THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK (1959)
19) THE RIGHT STUFF (1983)
20) PHILADELPHIA (1993)
21) IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT (1967)
22) THE PRIDE OF THE YANKEES (1942) - is certainly not Alex Rodriguez

23) THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (1994)
It inspired me to break out of prison. Morgan Freeman had a great speech that finally got him Parole.

24) NATIONAL VELVET (1944)
don't know
25) SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS (1941)
?

26) THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939)
This movie is on too many lists. Come on people. What's so inspiring? Are you inspired to throw buckets of water at people you don't like?

27) HIGH NOON (1952)
never saw it

28) FIELD OF DREAMS (1989)
This is a great movie. Not only about the father-son thing, or the idea of letting the past be amended, but it's just cool. I'm going to plow over my corn too, except I don't have any.

3 in a row I have not seen
29) GANDHI (1982)
30) LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
31) GLORY (1989)

32) CASABLANCA (1942)
Inspirational? Um, no. But a good movie. Round up the usual suspects.

More movies I haven't seen
33) CITY LIGHTS (1931)
34) ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976)
35) GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER (1967)
I give up, who?
36) ON THE WATERFRONT (1954)

37) FORREST GUMP (1994)
How come in movies kids in leg braces can run fast? I want leg braces. This is kinda touching.

38) PINOCCHIO (1940)
When you fish upon a car, ice cream will too.

39) STAR WARS (1977)
I wasn't inspired by this as much as I thought it was a pretty good story.

40) MRS. MINIVER (1942)
never saw it

41) THE SOUND OF MUSIC (1965)
As if World War II wasn't bad enough, it gave us this.

42) 12 ANGRY MEN (1957)
The American justice system really does work.

43) GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)
Well frankly my dear I don't give a damn.

44) SPARTACUS (1960)
I never saw this, but a friend of mine in high school got a new marching baritone and named it Sparticus. He ran around with it on his head or something and dented it.

oooooooooo . . . nature
45) ON GOLDEN POND (1981)
46) LILIES OF THE FIELD (1963)

4 more I didn't see
47) 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)
48) THE AFRICAN QUEEN (1951)
49) MEET JOHN DOE (1941)
50) SEABISCUIT (2003)

51) THE COLOR PURPLE (1985)
This is a good movie. And while it's bleak at times, it makes you feel good in the end.

52) DEAD POET'S SOCIETY (1989) - I keep forgetting to see this
53) SHANE (1953)
54) RUDY (1993)
55) THE DEFIANT ONES (1958)
56) BEN-HUR (1959)
57) SERGEANT YORK (1941)
58) CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (1977)
59) DANCES WITH WOLVES (1990)
60) THE KILLING FIELDS (1984)

61) SOUNDER (1972)
I think I read the book, and it was actually kinda sad.

62) BRAVEHEART (1995)
This is how I know the AFI people are retards. This movie is excellent and most definitely inspiring (unless you're English, in which case Mel Gibson hates you). FREEDOM!

Now get this, 30 films in a row I have not seen.
63) RAIN MAN (1988)
64) THE BLACK STALLION (1979)
65) A RAISIN IN THE SUN (1961)
66) SILKWOOD (1983)
67) THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (1951)
68) AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN (1982)
69) THE SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS (1957)
70) COAL MINER'S DAUGHTER (1980)
71) COOL HAND LUKE (1960)
72) DARK VICTORY (1939)
73) ERIN BROCKOVICH (2000)
74) GUNGA DIN (1939)
75) THE VERDICT (1982)
76) BIRDMAN OF ALCATRAZ (1962)
77) DRIVING MISS DAISY (1989)
78) THELMA & LOUISE (1991)

EDIT - I have actually seen these, but I skimmed the list too quickly.
79) THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956)
No, I have seen this one. I guess it is inspirational, but I've jsut alwasy thought it was a good film.

80) BABE (1995)
Yes, I've seen this. My favorite scene is when the little girl opens her Chrismas present and screams. It makes me thankful I don't know anyone like that.

81) BOYS TOWN (1938)
82) FIDDLER ON THE ROOF (1971)
83) MR. DEEDS GOES TO TOWN (1936)
84) SERPICO (1973)
85 WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT 1993
86 STAND AND DELIVER 1988
87 WORKING GIRL 1988
88 YANKEE DOODLE DANDY 1942
89 HAROLD AND MAUDE 1972
90 HOTEL RWANDA 2004
91 THE PAPER CHASE 1973
92 FAME 1980

93) A BEAUTIFUL MIND (2001)
Finally one I've seen. And it's one I can relate to, being a math major and feeling like I'm going crazy, especially after my differential equations class last semester.

94) CAPTAINS COURAGEOUS (1937)
95) PLACES IN THE HEART (1984)

96) SEARCHING FOR BOBBY FISCHER (1993)
This movie did make me want to play chess, until I kept losing. I beat my mom in 5 moves once, though.

97) MADAME CURIE (1943)
98 THE KARATE KID 1984
99 RAY 2004
100 CHARIOTS OF FIRE 1981

Verdict. I haven't seen a lot of these, but I don't really think I'm missing much. I'll put up an ultimate movie list sometime.

Dodgers - No wonder the fired Grady Little

2006-06-14T11:25:00.000-04:00

The man is apparently a total retard. Last night, Rafael Furcal committed two errors in the first inning, allowing four runs to score. Jae Seo had the worst performance of any pitcher, and allowed 3 runs to score. The Dodgers could have been in the game were it not for Furcal. Rafael Furcal, the Dodgers' latest waste of money, committed errors number 14 and 15 last night. Grady Little had this to say:

Little called the errors "the difference in the game."

Ok, so with a Gold Glove shortstop returning, and the incumbent leading the league in errors, what do you do?

If you're Grady Little, you bench the gold glover, because the new GM paid a lot more money for the other guy. No seriously. That is what Grady has said. How he can be so retarded is beyond me. He had previously referenced A-Rod in New York, but said nothing else. This may just be doublespeak, like with Danys Baez, but I really do think Grady doesn't care about defense. Or maybe he's wondering if Izturis can top Furcal's .252 batting average. Nonetheless, more cowardice than thought is clearly going into this decision.

Dodgers - Trade time!

2006-06-08T01:27:00.000-04:00

The Dodgers really want to trade off Odalis Perez. That's no secret. The question is, who else has to go?

The Mets already turned down Odalis' contract. The Yankees would be the go-to guys, and we did, after all, allow things to work out so they got Randy Johnson. I'm sure they're thrilled. Although the Yankees may not be interested since Odalis is not even 30, where Steinbrenner only wants 40 years and up on his club.

The Mariners? They do have a giant ballpark, and that might be just what Jae Seo needs, although it couldn't hurt Odalis. They'd probably try to get us to take back Adrian Beltre, who is hitting like .220 and they keep moving him around in the lineup. Beltre, of course, has an even more massive contract that would potentially block out younger players, but he can play defense at third, and hits pretty well for the position. If we threw in Bill Mueller, I wonder who we'd get to go along with that. Maybe adding Guzman would give us Felix Hernandez?

I tend to think it might be a good idea to try Boston, because the Dodgers gave Dave Roberts to them for a minor leaguer who's not playing right now. They have Matt Clement in almost the same contract, so we could throw in Jae Seo with Odalis and that might appeal to them. But that's not where it ends.

The Red Sox want a shortstop who can contribute with the bat. They're eyeing Izturis. When you eye Izturis for his bat, that is desperation. The obviously are missing Nomar now, as he's hitting .369 in LA at first. But Furcal would give them a good leadoff or #2 guy who can steal, bunt for a hit, and play short. The Dodgers would then be in a position to go for a marquis player, and while Varitek, Ortiz, and Ramirez would likely be off limits, Wakefield may become available. Throwing in Navarro for Mirabelli would seal the deal.

To review

TRADE 1 minor
Odalis Perez for Adrian Beltre

TRADE 1 major
Odalis Perez for Adrian Beltre
Bill Mueller Felix Hernandez
Joel Guzman (minor leaguer?)

TRADE 2 minor
Odalis Perez for Matt Clement

TRADE 2 major
Odalis Perez for Matt Clement
Jae Seo Tim Wakefield
Rafael Furcal Doug Mirabelli
Dioner Navarro (minor leaguer?)

But who knows?

Nationals - Frank Tracy

2006-05-25T17:35:00.000-04:00

Frank Robinson, showing his ability to create a lineup, has decided that Alfonso Soriano should bat leadoff, and he has Jose Vidro hitting third. Now, I can understand that Soriano has a speed advantage, but this just doesn't work. Soriano is an annual candidate for the 30-30 club, but he's also an annual member of the 100-strikeout club. You always want the leadoff man to be able to do what Grady Little calls "that Oakland thing." Soriano has improved in plate discipline, but he still has 42 strikeouts on the year to a mere 15 walks. Soriano also has 16 home runs on the season. Jose Vidro, the Nats' second baseman, is hitting .347 with a .407 OBP, with 18 walks to 20 strikeouts, and 4 home runs on the season. Soriano and Johnson batting 3 and 4 - both players have double digit home runs 48 games into the season - would solidify the lineup more. In addition, Marlon Byrd and his .330 slugging percentage were sitting in 6th today in the lineup, as Ryan Zimmerman, who went 2-3 today, is slugging .441. In creating a lineup, you want someone who gets on base at the top, then you want someone to at least move him in #2, then power in at least 3-5, and Soriano, Johnson, Guillen are a good trio for that. Players around that core provide protection.

Sure the Nationals won today, but Andy Pettite is having a terrible start to his season, which was typified by the fact that he only lasted 3 innings. Tony Armas is pitching effectively, but not efficiently, as he can't go deep into games because of his pitch count. But Soriano had an outfield assist.

Nonetheless, I'm looking forward to watching the first game of the Dodgers sweep of the Nationals.

In the news - another politician saves the world

2006-05-24T14:35:00.000-04:00

Or so he would want you to think.

Sen. John McCain said something "behind closed doors" that someone wrote down. And because he's someone that apparently people care about, that got reported. I don't have that problem, personally, because I can't get people to read something I write on the internet, much less care about anything I say privately.

But since his closed-door comments are kind of funny, as he remarks the following.

“One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites
and the Sunnis down and say, ‘Stop the bullshit,’” said Mr. McCain, according to
Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi, an invitee, and two other guests.

Why didn't anyone else think of that? I mean really. We have these Muslim-majority countries, many of which tend one way or another to be vastly Sunni or Shiite by majority. These two particular groups have a history of not getting along, going back to when the groups were first formed. All over whether or not the Prophet had a hereditary successor! Honestly, just because this is a debate that's raged for over a millenium, it's obvious that a call to "stop the bullshit" would definitlely take care of things.

John McCain, having established his wisdom, now provides for us a domestic application of his plan for ensuring domestic tranquility.

He cautioned against ghettoizing immigrants, which he noted has brought about
disastrous results in France, and criticized elements in his own party as
“nativist” before lambasting the punditry of Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs and
Michael Savage for helping to “fuel the problem,” according to two of the
sources.

What is the problem? According to McCain, it is not illegal immigration, unless he has secret information telling him that Limbaugh, Dobbs, and Savage are secretly sneaking Mexicans across the border to take over the town of Rio Linda, CA.

The problem is with "ghettoizing," which is to imply that Mexicans are being forced to the ghetto, which invokes the first law of wisdom: when in doubt, make comparisons to Nazi Germany. It is clear to this brilliant man that the fact that France's socialist setup and near-impossible hiring conditions, not to mention its double-digit employment for the nation as a whole, are not the cause of this. McCain, uninterested in such a silly concept such as whether or not a nation has the right to sovereignly declare who may immigrate into that country, is addressing the real issue: anti-Mexicanism.

In drawing the comparison with France, McCain knows better than to think that the 20% and higher unemployment rate among young Muslim males in France is the cause of unemployment, because that would not translate to the American situation in which Mexicans cross the border specifically for employment, often staying because they find what they want. The fact that the US has an unemployment rate nationally of under 5% is clearly irrelevant to the ability of these immigrants to obtain jobs. What McCain knows is that the problem in France is nothing more than people hating Muslims simply because they are Muslims, and that does not satisfy the traditional definition of being French. The problem clearly translates, as logic would dictate, that Americans do not care about legal or illegal immigration, but are more interested in the definition of American as defined by the societal dictates of what it is to be American. Such arguments that the definition of being French is far more narrow than the definition of being American are silly, as both countries are very similar because their flags are red, white, and blue and they both had a revolution in the late 18th century. This clearly trumps any notion that American national identity is more broadly defined just because of a greater religious and ethnic diversity in non-segregated segments of society.

McCain gets picked on a lot in this respect, but he is no different from any other politician. Politicians in general do not set out to create schemes which will cause economic harm, restrict freedom, or fail to solve their objective. They are successful in these things, though, because they are too busy acting in accorance to what rhetoric would help them most to get re-elected, because that is what the people want. Yet at the same time, they have to think differently from the supposed "common sense," because they are the great minds that run Washington, and after all, they have to come up with such brilliant thoughts that the common folk (or "the masses," as Karl Marx so eloquently described those individuals who are not in some position of great power or stature) cannot understand, and need them. That is how Congressmen sleep at night.

Dodgers - OWhere is Odalis?

2006-05-21T23:54:00.000-04:00

Odails Perez pitched the first time I ever saw the Dodgers live in a Major League stadium. It was in Dodger Stadium. I had gone on a trip to LA with my family, and we took in a game Sunday night of the trip. Dodgers vs. Cardinals. The game was on July 20, 2003, and best known for being the most home runs ever hit in Dodger Stadium in one night: 9. While that was nice, the unfortunate thing was that the Dodgers 5 home runs were pretty much all solo shots, while the Cardinals got people on base and then launched the ball out of the park. So the first time I saw the Dodgers play, they lost, by a score of 10-7.

That being said, I will admit to my frustrations with Odalis Perez. His performance in the 2004 playoff series, where he lost twice, didn't make me feel any better about him. Last season was not good for him either, particularly with the injury. I figured it wasn't too much to worry about; after all, a lot of the games ended up as no-decisions, 4.5 isn't a terrible ERA when he'd get more run support this year, and he plays well in even-numbered years.

The Dodgers essentially made up their minds that after he blew the game and gave away a 6 run lead to the division rival Diamondbacks, after blowing a 5 run lead in a previous game against the Braves, and just getting off to a lousy start against the Houston Astros, that he was out of the rotation. Pitching coach Rick Honeycutt claimed that there were problems with his mechanics, although these clearly have not been effectively communicated as Odalis refuses to acknowledge any mechanical problems on his part. Looking simply at his W-L record says that he has a 4-1 record in 7 games, and a 3-1 record in his 6 starts. His ERA, though, is a whopping 6.9.

Odalis claimed that the reason for his poor performance against Arizona was because he couldn't help but think about his mother, and this is believable since he claimed a similar distraction during the 2004 playoffs. Whether that distraction caused the mechanical problems he had is uncertain, although what was certain was that he proved himself unstable, unable to hold when the Dodgers give him the run support which he has publicly criticized the team for not giving him in the past.

Odalis' last good outing came April 21, also against Arizona. He lasted 6 innings, struck out 4, walked one, and surrendered just 4 hits and one run. A stellar performance for sure. Said Grady Little after the game

Manager Grady Little said of Perez's performance, "He had a very consistent
approach to the game and gave us another strong six innings. We're happy for him
and for us."

And then, the next two starts for Perez were rather disasterous. Grady Little had the following to say after that one

"He kept firing, but they kept hitting," said Little, who lifted Perez after he
allowed a grand slam to Chad Tracy to tie the game and walked Luis Gonzalez, the
eighth batter of the inning, putting the go-ahead run on base.
"Too many
times this year we've had five-run leads, six-run leads. Today, we made great
strides with our offense, and it continued throughout the ballgame, but, [dang],
we've got to make a pitch when we've got to make a pitch."

Now after that start, Odalis went on bereavement, Aaron Sele made a replacement start, and pitched rather well. Perez was then moved to the bullpen right when he got back. For an explanation, the most logical one is this:

Owner Frank McCourt visited Colletti in his press-level suite above home plate
moments after Chad Tracy's grand slam against Odalis Perez tied the score, 6-6,
in the fifth inning.
From their animated gestures, it appeared McCourt vented for
several minutes, then Colletti made a few points. Eventually both men sat back
in their chairs and chatted amiably for two innings before McCourt departed.

That would be the apparent trigger of Perez's demotion, although his number do tell a distinct story.

Odalis had never had an opponent's batting average above .290 against him after a season (2001 with Atlanta) - never above .267 as a starter (2003), and already opponents are thus far hitting .330 against him.
The teams that have gotten the most out of him are the Astros, the Diamondbacks, and the Braves.
What is most telling is the WHIP (walks + hits per inning pitched). For his career, this number is 1.26, and as a starter never exceeded 1.28 (2003), and in fact got as low as .99 (2002), but this season it is 1.71. Over 6 innings, that's more than 10 guys on base.
Perez tended more towards grounders in 2003 and 2004, having close to a 2-1 GO-AO ratio in those years, but currently that number is closer to 1.2-1. This is not completely relevant, though, with a 1.34 number in his best year, 2002, and a 1.4 number last year, which was acceptable.
While the 5 bases stolen on him already this season can also in part be blamed on Navarro, the fact is that Perez is letting baserunners on, and they are more apt to score. Last year in 108 innings, 14 were swiped off him in 19 starts compared to 5 in 6 starts and 31 innings this year.
Perez is on track for a normal season with regard to home runs allowed, as he has surrendered 4 thus far.
The

Fantasy Baseball - Update

2006-05-19T03:06:00.000-04:00

I am currently in the 7th week of fantasy baseball. I constantly adjust the team, and last week I actually placed first in my league (of 10, if you recall). My lineup for last week was

Batters
Lopez - C
Molina - C
Sexson - 1b
Kent -2b
Glaus -3b
Crosby - ss
Bay -of
Gibbons - of
Griffey - of
Kearns -of
Ichiro - of
Zimmerman - utility
Wiggington - utility

Pitchers
Contreras
Gonzales
Gordan
Halladay
Hernandez
Jenks
Penny
Sheets
Verlander

I've made a few changes since then, though, and I think I just about have my lineup set for next week. Scott Kazmir of the Devil Rays has been pitching well, and the impression that I get is that he is the real deal. Felix Hernandez needs refinement, and might get sent down to the minors. I've also switched Javy Lopez for another former Atlanta player, Johnny Estrada, behind the plate. Sexson is out because the reason he's not hitting is a bone bruise, and I put Gibbons at first and added rookie-of-the-year candidate Prince Fielder. I also have Robinson Cano as a utility player, as the Yankees second baseman is hitting well, even though he is a terrible base stealer, and I put Wiggington on the reserve list since he's kinda been fading. Also I switched Gagne and Sheets (I had Gagne on reserve) since Gagne will be back, and he will be Gagne when he's back. My season may yet be salvaged.

In The News - Don't Ask For Directions, Under Penalty of Law

2006-05-18T23:32:00.000-04:00

I saw on the news, yesterday I guess, an item about a couple who went to a Baltimore Orioles game and were arrested. A little more information has come out about the whole thing, but here's the recap of what happened. Essentially, the couple got lost on the way over to Camden Yards, and got lost coming out.

The couple stopped in the 800 block of Bridgeview Drive in Cherry Hill to
ask a Baltimore police officer for directions. Brook said the officer was blunt:
“You found your way in. You can find your way out.”
After writing a citation for failure to obey a stop sign — a ticket Kelly
disputes — the officer told them to leave. Confused, the couple drove about “40
feet” and stopped.
“We still didn’t know how to get out,” Kelly said.
But the officer pulled up behind them and arrested Kelly for “trespassing,”
according to the ticket.

“The officer said we were on private property,” Brook said. “But we were parked on a public street.”

Kelly said the officer told him that “no trespassing signs” were evident “up and down the block,” but he didn’t see any.

After Kelly’s arrest, Brook said, she was told to “get lost.” But because the car was being impounded, she didn’t know what to do.

“I didn’t know where to go, so [the officer] arrested me.”

There is, of course, a bit more to the story, which one would hope with the extremity of the account. From the Baltimore Sun

A Baltimore police officer who arrested a young Virginia couple who claim
they were asking for directions after getting lost in a South Baltimore
neighborhood stated in a report that the driver argued with her and tried to
tear a ticket out of a citation book.

Officer Natalie N. Preston wrote in police documents that, after she
ticketed the driver for running a stop sign on Round Road in Cherry Hill, the
man held onto her pen before she grabbed it back and that he then refused to
leave, prompting her to arrest him and his girlfriend on suspicion of
trespassing on public housing property and failing to obey a lawful order.

The account offers the first explanation of the arrests from police
after complaints by the couple in which they said they were arrested after
asking an officer how to leave South Baltimore's Cherry Hill neighborhood.

Authorities declined to elaborate on the police report yesterday, saying
the matter is being investigated by the department's Internal Affairs Division.

Prosecutors at Central Booking and Intake Center, where Joshua Kelley, 22,
and Llara Brook, 20, were taken after their arrest, reviewed the officer's
statement and decided not to pursue the case.

"This did not rise to a case that we believe should be criminally
prosecuted," said spokeswoman Margaret T. Burns. She said the couple, who were
arrested Saturday evening, were held at Central Booking for more than eight
hours until prosecutors ordered them released without charges.

Police said the stop occurred about 8:25 p.m. Saturday when an officer
stopped them near Round and Bridgeview roads.

Well that seems to tell a bit more. It was dark, and the officer was unsure what this couple was doing in the neighborhood.

The officer claimed that there were signs around that said no trespassing, but based on some experience I have had, police officers always know where all the signs are in the area, even if the drivers don't. It is possible that the signs got caught up in the brush, etc.

Now I can understand the officer getting apprehensive if the driver did actually try to tear the ticket out of the officer's citation book, because that is a belligerent act, no question. Arresting the couple does seem to be a bit over the line though. When arresting someone, police officers have high standards so that prosecutors do not dismiss charges so quickly, but this looks like the officer could not control her temper. That the officer would hold out-of-towners on trespassing charges is also a bit absurd, especially after they asked for directions. After seeing out-of-state plates the officer should have gotten the idea that the couple was lost, and that people in unfamiliar areas often miss street signs. The officer instead played a ticket trap that is more stereotypical of one-horse drive-through towns that want revenue from passing travelers, suggesting that perhaps she should be fired and find work in such a town.

I had a similar experience getting lost in Baltimore, but fortunately for me, it was during the daytime. That says something though; the stadium parking lots for Camden Yards are horribly marked; they are not labled along the sides very well, and signs are put in place poorly. Perhaps Virgina is just good at putting up signs, but that is no reason for Maryland to do a poor job in such an area. Had I gone to a night game in Oriole Park, I could have been just as horribly lost, certainly. There is something to take away from this. I am rather sure that Joshua Kelley has learned his lesson and will not listen to his girlfriend, or any woman, again if prompted to ask for directions.

Besides a bad joke, this is bad for Baltimore, and bad for the Orioles. This is a couple from Chantilly, VA, and now if they want to see Major League Baseball, they have every reason to go to RFK instead. They can park at the Metro station for free on the weekends, and sit and read the Post to find out who's starting and how yesterday's game went. Peter Angelos was very much worried about losing fans to the Nationals, and despite the quality of the team, the Nationals will continue to draw fans. John Patterson will return from injury, Livan Hernandez will pitch like Livan Hernandez, and Ramon Ortiz will get kicked out of the starting rotation (sure he won, but everyone's beating the Cubs right now; the fact is he has a WHIP over 1.7 and he hasn't been good since 2002).

Dodgers - Colletti's report card

2006-05-13T22:37:00.000-04:00

Ned Colletti brought in a bunch of people to the Dodgers this year after becoming the new GM. Let's see how his big acquisitions are working out:

Rafael Furcal - .223 BA, .335 OBP, 2 HR, 10 RBI, 9 SB, 9 errors for .946 FP
Bill Mueller - DL, .252, .357 OBP, 3 HR, 15 RBI, 1 SB, 8 errors for .905 FP
Kenny Lofton - .286BA, .343 OBP, 8RBI, 9 SB, 1 error for .984 FP
Nomar Garciaparra - .360 BA, .424 OBP, 5 HR, 21 RBI, 1 SB, no errors thus far
Brett Tomko - 4-1, 2.93 ERA, 43 IP in 7 starts, 28 K to 11 BB, 1.16 WHIP
Jae Seo - 1-2, 6.00 ERA, 33 IP in 6 starts and 1 relief appearance, 24K to 11BB, 1.55 WHIP
Danys Baez - 2-2, 3.38 ERA, 18.2 IP in 18 appearances, 14 K to 4 BB, 1.45 WHIP
Grady Little - 18-19, has a personality

What would I say in grading these acquisitions?
Furcal : C+. It's nice that he has speed and plate discipline, but his BA and fielding percentage are terrible. So we're supposed to leave a gold glover on the bench while he bobbles around trying to play short? Furcal only committed 15 errors last year, but is looking more like years past when he committed 20+ at short. He has only made 1 error at second, and would be better off moving there than Izturis.

Mueller: B. The guy is solid in the lineup, and a decent third baseman, but he his prone to injury, which caused his downward slide. He was probably not necessary, with Willy Aybar's impressive debut last year, but the injury allows the Dodgers to give Aybar another tryout, to determine how good he actually is.

Lofton: A-. He has done about everything you would expect, except maybe hit for a slightly higher average. He does not have much of an arm in the outfield, but has good range thanks to his speed. His speed, on top of Furcal and Repko make the Dodgers a speedy team again.

Nomar: A+. Nomar has learned a new position well, he has hit well, he has hit for power, and that alone would give a guy liscence to be a prima donna. Nomar's personality is still great. An excellent acquisition for Los Angeles, and he should stick around as long as he can.

Tomko: A. Brought over to replace Jeff Weaver, and exceed expectations already. Coming off an 8-15 season last year, not much was expected of him except pitching 180-200 innings. He has been solid and consistent. Also a great clubhouse guy. No ace, but solid nonetheless.

Seo: D+. He's anything but consistent. Duaner Sanchez, who was forgone for him, was and has been that. Seo is an upgrade over past 5th starters, but right now is barely looking better than Jose Lima. Not a lot of presence.

Baez: F. Is it harsh to judge him in the wake of the loss to the Giants? Absolutely not. He was given a 3 run lead, so it was just barely a save situation for him. He had the last two days to rest, even. He blew it, and quite miserably. Even with Aybar's error and JD Drew's terrible throw, he blew it. He now has a walks + hits per innings pitched ratio of 1.45, which is worse than everyone else on the team except for Seo, Perez, Hamulack, and Osoria. The closer should be at the top of that list. Also, he had a situation with the bases loaded, and he gave up a flyout on a 1-2 count. Had he gone for the inside corner at least he might have been more successful, but he pitched in the same spot as the two pitches fouled away, low outside corner, inducing a flyout, the last thing he would have wanted then. The groundout would have been risky if the double play didn't work. The strikeout was critical, and he failed. He has blown more than a third of his save oppurtunities, and that makes him a failure.

Little: B-. Still is too trusting of pitching staffs, and veteran position players. Invites too much second guessing from fans. A fun manager to hear talk though, and encouraging when talking to him.

Dodgers and Nationals - The Inexcuseable and the Unstoppable

2006-05-11T23:54:00.000-04:00

There is no joy in Los Angeles, because the left side of the infield went down the toilet. Bill Mueller made two errors, including screwing up on a rundown. The rundown play got so bad Derek Lowe even came over. Lowe was once again victim of awful defense, as after that play, Rafael Furcal threw away the ball, when he was supposed to throw to Nomar, and gave up 2 runs. Derek Lowe has an Earned Run Average of 2.98, but an Earned Run Average of 3.85. The Dodgers are playing terrible defense for everyone else too; in 35 games, they have given up 29 errors.

The 2004 Dodgers team, if you would remember, had the best defense in the National League, committing only 73 errors for a .988 team fielding percentage. It took more than good hitting from the likes of Beltre and Izturis (hit .290 that year). As it stands now, only the Brewers, Marlins, and Reds are fielding the ball worse than the Dodgers, who have a .979 team fielding percentage. Today's game demonstrated that all the dinners and pep talks that Colletti and Little wanted won't make up for playing ability. The Blue Team needs to take infield practice, as the number of errors is just unacceptable, especially behind Derek Lowe. If you can't play defense behind Lowe, he's useless. This is also why Cesar Izturis needs to see a lot of time at shortstop. Those two errors in that inning and Jeff Kent's booted ball in the opener are two games that the Dodgers lost to defense, and 2 losses Derek Lowe did not deserve.

Is fielding the only problem? Well, consider the following Dodger team batting averages
2004 ______ .262
2005 ______ .253
2006 (so far)_.264

And the team ERA's
2004 ______ 4.01
2005 ______ 4.38
2006 (so far)_ 4.20

Not that drastic a difference. But if you compare unearned runs
2004 ______ 37
2005 ______ 60
2006 (so far)_ 14

then it becomes apparent that after 35 games, the Dodgers are certainly not on course to have a good year. But just as the Rockies are not likely to keep up their season, the Dodgers have a few good things going for them later in the season:

1) Eric Gagne is feeling better. There is no update as to whether or not he is back at 97mph, but he is pain-free and scheduled for a rehab apperance on May 25. His return means that the 9th inning is safe, and that Baez has the 8th. Broxton, Beimel, and Saito are making a good case to keep their job, and it is a duel between Hamulack and Osoria to see who will stay with the big club. The Dodgers would be smart to give Odalis Perez an inning to prove he has fixed his mechanics tomorrow, and then if he looks good let him start. Jae Seo would be a much more likely candidate to become a long reliever, with Sele earning a spot in the rotation if he can repeat himself in San Francisco.

2) Cesar Izturis is scheduled to begin rehabbing on the same day, starting at class A to DH, then going to AAA to try 2nd base, and then test his arm out at 2nd base. His major league callup is scheduled to coincide with the "boo Beltre" series against the Mariners. The Dodgers would be smart to start experimenting with Furcal in left field, especially with only 4 outfielders.

3) The Dodgers from AAA that have come up have not disappointed. Aybar may see a start Friday in place of Bill Mueller. Ethier has thus far played reasonably well. Russell Martin has been outstanding. Chad Billingsley still has yet to see time with the big club, and everyone wants to see him come up.

4) The Dodgers own Brad Lidge. Every time they have faced him, he has faltered. It's not game over until we say so.

#######################

Nationals

The Nats managed a nice 9th inning comeback to keep the game going, but their pitching gave out in the 11th. Starter Zach Day did well, although he intentionally walked David Ross to get to Bronson Arroyo. Arroyo struck out every time he batted, and struck out 8 Nationals. Frank Robinson was too impatient with Rauch, and pulled him after allowing a single run, only to be replaced by two of the weaker relievers on the team. Felix Rodriguez got nobody out, nor did Joey Eischen, who had a 9.58 ERA before facing Ken Griffey Jr. Memo to Frank: don't bring in a left-handed specialist against Griffey. He's GRIFFEY! Had Robinson been more patient with Rauch, the Nationals could have still won the game, but Robinson clearly has no patience left, which will probably lead to his retirement.

Nationals - What to do?

2006-05-09T00:21:00.001-04:00

I've focused a lot on the Dodgers, my primary favorite team, but what of the Washington Nationals? They have problems. I address what I would take care of here.

* * * * *

The Washington Nationals, after operating on a $27 million operating income, expanded their payroll from $48 million to $63 million. There is no reason for their payroll to be below $70 million, as they have the fan base to support them from the vast DC metro area. Attendance last year was the most in franchise history - more than quadruple the previous year's attendance - and with an acutal owner, things should look up for the Nats. Washington is a much different town than it was in 1972, and the local counties happen to be among the wealthiest in the nation. RFK Stadium still has plenty of empty seats remaining, should Washington attract more fans.

* * * * *

Frank Robinson has made it standard practice that the big screen in the clubhouse stays blank before the game to give the players focus. Grady Little clearly had a better idea with looping video from the starting pitcher. A blank screen does not create focus, just a void. It still leaves the players to talking, playing cards, or whatever before the game begins, and there is no guarantee of unity in purpose. Little's concept is not only more positive, but more proactive, as it presents a common image for the players, so that they would have a common focus. While the bullpen could benefit from watching the other team bat, it does focus everyone on the common objective of beating the other team's pitcher, and thus the other team. This is only part of the problem.

* * * * *

The Nats absolutely botched the Soriano deal. Jim Bowden should be immediately fired for his complete lack of gracefulness in handling the situation, including his threat to put Soriano on the DQ list, which would bar Soriano from playing in the majors for the Nats or any other team, although a DUI conviction would certainly help put the point across.

Soriano should stay, as should Guillen. While Jose Guillen is off to a slow start, he is a quality player. Jose Vidro is a good second baseman, and should stay. Nick Johnson is playing excellent ball, and Zimmerman gives hope to the future of the organization. Byrd and Church both have excellent plate discipline, with on-base percentages that show the power of walks in comparison to their batting averages (Byrd .258 BA / .410 OBP; Church .239 BA / .386 OBP). Either one of these guys would be good at the top of the order, as they will not only get on with high likelihood, but they can make a pitcher throw a few extra pitches, which makes the whole opposing pitching staff more accessible.

Livan Hernandez is a quality starting pitcher, as is John Patterson, and rookie Michael O'Connor is promising too. Tony Armas needs to prove he can last 6 innings in his starts - basically go 180 innings - or he should be converted to a long reliever. The Nationals pitching is better once healed, given that Brian Lawrence and John Patterson will return eventually. That leaves

Hernandez
Patterson
Lawrence
O'Connor
Armas

* * * * *

The bullpen, incidentally, is the Nationals' biggest worry. The untold story of the World Baseball Classic is that the Nationals lost their setup man, Luis Ayala, to the WBC; he's got to undergo Tommy John, and apparently the team couldn't stop him from participating. Good for a 2.75 ERA over 232 innings, with 149 K and 42 walks over that time period. Losing 80 innings from Ayala will cost the Nationals dearly, as only closer Chad Cordero, John Rauch, and near-39-year-old Mike Stanton have ERA under 4 in the bullpen. With starters that can pitch deep into games, Washington can get by with this bullpen, but otherwise can consider themselves in trouble. The Nationals need to get one more quality relieve, which can be achieved easily enough by calming down the young Gary Majewski, and returning him to his career ERA of 3.31. This will keep Washington in control of games.

* * * * *

Aside from patience in waiting for the starting pitching situation to get better, the Nationals need to upgrade their shortstop position, likely in the offseason, since they do not really have an extra player to give. I don't know what the free agent market has up for grabs, but the Lerners should show that they care by getting the best free agent shortstop available, as I'm sure there will be someone for the taking.

If finding a free agent shortstop is a problem, the answer is simple enough - ask Jose Vidro to move to the other side of the middle of the infield. Then, instead of looking for a quality middle infielder, the Nationals can get a power-hitting left fielder, and put Soriano back at 2nd base where he belongs. Chipper Jones demonstrated that it is entirely possible to go from the infield to the outfield back to the infield.

Defenders of the Nationals would suggest that Soriano's defense was a liability, and that he does less harm in the outfield. While that may be, there is also to consider that power hitting left fielders are far more common than power hitting left fielders. If Ken Griffey Jr ever gets off the DL, Cody Ross will be up for grabs, and would be a worthwhile pickup for the Nationals. He has potential and can hit for power. He is also young enough that he Nationals can get him to a long term contract rather cheaply now. Once their new stadium opens, their players can demonstrate their hidden power. The point is it makes more sense to put Soriano back at second after giving him experience as a good defensive player. Then, the Nats can focus on upgrading starting pitching, so that Tony Armas can be a long reliever. If they are serious, they'll offer big bucks for 2 years to Greg Maddux.

* * * * *

The biggest changes the new ownership should make are the firings of Jim Bowden and Frank Robinson. Bowden missed the oppurtunity to get Cody Ross (come on, a player to be named later?), and has produced miserable results for Washington lately.

Frank, while a hall of famer, is frankly too old and senile to contribute anything positive to the team. It would be best for the team if he were to simply retire after this season, remarking that he is ready to retire, because it would not look ugly. It's hard to fire a hall of famer who was also the first black manager in the majors. In 1976, Robinson batted .224 with 3 home runs and 10 RBI, those homers his only extra-base hits. At that point he realized it was time to step down, and now that he cannot be pleased with his current team, it is once again that time.

* * * * *

The Nationals do not have a whole lot of a farm system left, so extending the quality of their current team will gradually get more expensive (making extending Soriano and acquiring Cody Ross good moves). Paul Depodesta, despite his infatuation with Hee Seop Choi, was a defender of the farm system, and could be effective for a team with more payroll limitations. Otherwise, I would love the job.

As for a manager, that will be the most difficult decision for the Nationals to make. It would need to be someone with a good work ethic, someone to motivate and inspire confidence in his team, and to bring out the best in his players. Again, I would love the job, but I think the best person available I can think of for this job would be Orel Hershiser.

* * * * *

So my dream scenario would be, I am the GM, Hershiser manages, and the Nats post the following lineup

Byrd/Church - CF
Vidro - SS
Soriano - 2B
Johnson - 1B
Guillen - RF
Ross - LF
Zimmerman - 3B
Schneider - C
pitcher

and rotation

Hernandez
Maddux
Patterson
Lawrence
O'Connor

and then I'd spend some money on some guys that can be reserves so that the rookies can come up slowly. As for draft picks, I would take college players only if they fill more immediate needs for the next two years and if they are among the best in the NCAA. Otherwise, I'd take high schoolers that are coachable and talented for the long range.

Now let's see if Washington can do that.

In the News - Congress is Retarded

2006-05-03T09:47:00.000-04:00

Ok, so that isn't news, but the idea of a national statute on "price gouging" is. According to the AP

Worried about the political heat from high gasoline prices, the House is preparing to vote on a bill that would impose criminal and civil penalties on any energy company caught price gouging.

The legislation, offered by Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., calls for penalties of up to $150 million for refiners and other wholesalers and $2 million for retailers.

The reason they are worried about the political heat is that people get upset over price changes in cheap things. There's no political heat in house gouging with housing bubbles. But gas, a relatively cheap liquid is different, as it is the only variable cost in owning and driving an automobile. And consuming less means a change in behavior. So let's see, how does AP represent the argument that the market causes changing prices?

Rex W. Tillerson, chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp., defended the company's record profits and high gas prices in an interview on NBC's "Today" show Wednesday.

"Obviously, the truth is we do not get together and manipulate prices, that would be illegal," he said, adding that there have been several past investigations of price collusion in the oil industry and none of them have found any evidence of collusion.

"The profit we earn is what the market gives us ... the price is set on the open market."

Of course, the CEO of Exxon, despised because he's successful. But there was a gem that I found in this piece, no diamond, but a ruby at least.

"Nationally there is no common definition of price gouging," Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard told a Senate hearing in November. He said some states have laws that apply only to emergencies, while others allow up to 20 percent price increases.

No common definition. Because Price Gouging is held to the standard of "I know it when I see it." Because Price Gouging is a subjective, normative term. That's like mandating fairness; it cannot be done, except subjectively. Fairness from subjective standards, of course, always leads to unfairness.

The government, of course, takes no role in accepting that new regulation regarding the production and processing of gasoline (MTBE regulations) played a role, because only people that read the whole article know that, and these congressmen have to be re-elected, after all!

Dodgers - Back-seat managing call of the night

2006-04-23T02:05:00.000-04:00

Grady Little did not use Jason Repko at all, but rather Olmedo Saenz, in a pinch hit situation with two outs. Olmedo's great to put up if you've got a runner on, but since you didn't (and weren't if Cruz didn't get on, since Navarro is batting under the Mendoza line now), Repko is the go to guy. It's the bottom of the 8th, 2 outs. Repko has power and speed. It's like batting leadoff but with no chances for an out.

One bit of advice to the Dodgers 1-2-3 guys: swing at the ball. The Dodgers swung the bat once when facing the Diamondbacks closer, yielding 3 strikeouts. He's not on my fantasy team; it's ok to get a hit. And he's a closer - he will throw strikes. He had thrown 53 out of 80 for strikes before this game, indicating that he would probably throw strikes, 40 for 54 if you ignore the one save he blew. This is the biggest failure of the team - failure to adapt to the individuals which they are facing. I'm sure they have scouting repots of the opposing team's pitchers. But even without that, they could look to see if the pitcher throws pitches for strikes. Instead, the Dodgers stuck to their guns, trying to draw a walk from Valverde, and failed. JD Drew and Rafael Furcal, a combined $72 million in payroll over the next 3 years, were caught looking.

Unacceptable.

In the News - Why gas prices are rising

2006-04-21T08:47:00.000-04:00

It turns out that the President may very well be one to blame for recent gas price spikes. Look at this, from the link on Drudge.

As if rising prices weren't enough, the tanks have run dry at some Philadelphia-area service stations in the last few days as the refining industry stumbles through a change in the formulation of gasoline.

Oil refiners are phasing out a petrochemical that makes gasoline burn cleaner but which also has been found to contaminate groundwater. Refiners are switching to corn-based ethanol.

The changeover is creating supply-chain bottlenecks because much work must be done at fuel terminals and service stations to handle ethanol.

Ok, contaminates groundwater. So the oil companies are doing this because they care about us and the environment. Right? Well,

The conversion to ethanol was prompted by the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, which left refiners vulnerable to groundwater contamination suits and mandated greater use of renewable fuels. The use of ethanol forced gasoline retailers to clean their tanks, remove all water from them and install extremely fine filters on their pumps.

You see, it's all George Bush's fault. If he wasn't such a coward, he would veto something. But seriously, this article is good as it actually explores causes and effects of the rise of gas prices. And who would have though that environmental regulation could be expensive (other than every intellectually honest economist ever)! Here's what has to be done:

Ethanol is a solvent that picks up any gunk in tanks and readily blends with water. Those properties could ruin a 9,000-gallon tank of gasoline at a huge cost to a retailer.

It costs up to $1,500 to clean tanks, said Kevin S. Kan, president and chief executive officer of American Auto Wash Inc. in Malvern, which operates 18 stations in the region, including 13 BPs that have converted to the ethanol blend.

Ethanol is logistically more complicated than the petrochemical it replaced - MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether. Refiners could blend MTBE into gasoline at the refinery and send the finished gasoline through pipelines to terminals.

But ethanol must be blended into gasoline at the terminal because it would mix with water if it were sent through pipelines, ruining the fuel. So, fuel terminals have to go through a similar process of cleaning tanks to store ethanol before it is blended.

They must also install blending equipment.

Yep. People who have had basic econ (Econ 103 at GMU) know that prices are a means of spreading information. There was a sharp decrease in supply, and the rising prices are designed to minimize the effects of that; you'll probably be more careful with your gas at $3 per gallon.

Now that we know the true cause of the rise in gas prices, what does that tell us about Congress when we see this:

During a news conference Tuesday, Schumer said he expects there will be hearings on the matter in Congress and possible sanctions. He believes the four major oil producers, such as Exxon-Mobile, have a monopoly on oil production. Mergers that created just four major oil producers should be broken up, he added.

Now, one can certainly make the argument that MTBE was causing a problem, particularly in the high amounts in which it was used (which was incidentally due to another environmental regulation). But if that's the case, then the cost of higher gas prices is one that must be taken on, as it is a response to a supply shock. Perhaps someone should look into why the government doesn't warn consumers of the costs of regulation, no matter how safe it makes us.

And as some Philadelphia gas tanks run dry, it is obvious that there are multiple gas tanks in Philadelphia, so consumers will just have to go to another one (because E means extra 10 miles). But this is not a shortage; there is still gas to be bought. If it's too expensive, carpool, or use public transport if available. You can even walk or bicycle, which gives you exercise too. If that's not worth it, then you're still as best of as you could driving and paying a lot for gas; your consumer surplus just shrank.

Briefly - Barry and Bowden

2006-04-18T16:28:00.000-04:00

Jim Bowden was not sober when he was driving the other night. No word though on whether the organization will punish him for this offseason's TUI - trading under the influence.

Barry Bonds had a tube of toothpaste thrown at him, only to have a security guard take it away immediately. Bonds is enough of a joker, though, that he might start saying "no comment" with a British accent. "I never used toothpaste or put any other performance enhancing substances on my teeth. Good show." Well, I think it would be funny.

Dodgers - Good News, Bad News

2006-04-18T01:04:00.000-04:00

Good News: Every Dodger starter that has had 3 or more starts has recorded a win.

Bad News: The Dodgers are 6-8.

Against the Cubs, the Dodgers really showed that they don't know what to do with an effective Greg Maddux, which is, admittedly, a problem nearly every ballclub has had. But the biggest problem was part of a general pattern. The Dodgers failed to adjust and realize that Maddux throws strikes, and took strike three 5 times, with only one swinging strikeout. Putting the ball in play at least has a chance of being a hit, and when nobody is on, the worst thing you can do is ruin the fantasy stats for someone who started Maddux.

Maddux facts: In each appearance this season, Greg Maddux has thrown 87 pitches. Tonight he threw the most strikes, at 59. He has given up four (4) walks on the season.

The Dodgers need to learn to adjust faster. They should be more aware of what parts of Maddux's game were on and off, and try to duplicate what Bill Mueller did with his RBI double (which would be swing the bat).

Good news: Franquelis Osoria got his ERA down under 10 after 3 perfect innings.

Bad News: Brett Tomko gave up 4 runs (3 earned) in 6.

On the upside, an upsurging Derek Lowe is pitching against Carlos Zambrano, who is not on as much of an upward trend. On the downside, Zambrano's ERA is lower, and all but one of his earned runs have been given up on home runs.

On the upside, Jeff Kent looks like he will return to the lineup. On the downside, he has been off to a slow start, and the Dodgers lack power severely. On the upside, they have a better chance of taking walks. On the downside, Zambrano is a groundball pitcher, and the Dodger can ground into a double play.

And finally, what in the name of Maury Wills are the Dodgers doing on the bases? Repko has been picked off, Cody Ross got doubled of Sunday night, and now Furcal got picked off by Maddux after singling and a well-played sacrifice bunt by Kenny Lofton.

I hope Nomar has a really good season for LA. The Dodgers sure look like they need it; at this rate, they'll need him to win another batting title.

Dodgers - My fantasy world

2006-04-13T02:05:00.000-04:00

The Dodgers have the following problems:

1) Ailing pitching staff
2) Six outfielders
3) Only one closer

Now (3) isn't really a problem, except they're supposed to have 3 closers - Brazoban, Baez, and Gagne. Yhency will undergo Tommy John surgery.

The Dodgers have another experienced closer on the staff, a 40-save closer at that. His name is Derek Lowe. He's had a bit of a rough start. He's also Grady Little's favorite. If Grady can convince him that he belongs with the rank of Gagne and Baez, Lowe would be a candidate to move to the bullpen. Or, if being Grady's favorite, he stays in the rotation, Jae Seo may be converted to a long reliever. So that sort of helps #3, but what for 1 and 2?

The Florida Marlins are reportedly looking to ship out Dontrelle Willis, because they are cheap. One theory is that they are saving up to buy their own brand new stadium. The other is that they are angry that they play in Dolphins' Stadium instead of Pro Player Stadium, even though they're good and they've actually won a championship in the last 3 years while the Dolphins suck. The Dodgers have a player that yesterday showed that he can hit for power in a clutch situation. Cody Ross hit 2 home runs, one grand slam and one 3-run shot.

Would the Marlins be stupid enough to trade D-Train for Cody Ross? Possibly. They might demand some other prospect, which the Dodgers may or may not supply. Andre Ethier? While it would be a drag to lose another great outfield prospect, that would be awesome if they had Dontrelle Willis to show for Milton Bradley. The Dodgers are not about to trade Chad Billingsley if the Marlins want another pitcher. Or I could dream and think they'll want a left-handed ex-Yankee and take Ross and Ledee. Then, oh darn, they have to call up Joel Guzman, who currently has slightly more experience in the outfield than Alfonso Soriano. Sure the Marlins owner said that they're not shopping Willis, but would you really believe that from someone who knocked their payroll down to $15 million and could cut down another $4 million? We have three first round draft picks; would he like one (but not the #7 overall pick, we deserve that after suffering through last season)?

Realistically, we can only hope the Dodgers will do something good and smart. But speaking from experience, or at least cynicism - which Catbert says is just as good as experience, they'll probably keep Ross, go with 6 outfielders, and hope that Takashi Saito continues to be good and becomes Baez's setup man.

In the News - McDonalds Call Centers

2006-04-11T03:00:00.000-04:00

McDonalds, according to the New York Times (hat tip: Drudge), has started putting drive through orders through call centers. We're not kidding.
Like many American teenagers, Julissa Vargas, 17, has a minimum-wage job in the fast-food industry — but hers has an unusual geographic reach.

"Would you like your Coke and orange juice medium or large?" Ms. Vargas said into her headset to an unseen woman who was ordering breakfast from a drive-through line. She did not neglect the small details —"You Must Ask for Condiments," a sign next to her computer terminal instructs — and wished the woman a wonderful day.

What made the $12.08 transaction remarkable was that the customer was not just outside Ms. Vargas's workplace here on California's central coast. She was at a McDonald's in Honolulu. And within a two-minute span Ms. Vargas had also taken orders from drive-through windows in Gulfport, Miss., and Gillette, Wyo.

Now, some people are complaining about this. I can see how call centers for de-localizing operations, like for the car dealer for my parents getting their oil changed, can be annoying. Relaying enough information can be frustrating. When I suggested to my mom that instead of getting an appointment that she get her oil changed at Jiffy Lube, she rejected the thought, because apparently the dealer does other stuff. I think she didn't want to admit that I had a point. The reason people take their cars to the dealer, though, is that it's a few bucks cheaper.

Do I expect that McDonalds will drop its price as a result of this? No. Do I expect their employees to make more? No. Do I expect the quality of service to increase? Yes, actually.

Anyone who has ever ordered at a fast food drive through has no doubt seen the marvelous pieces of junk that make for the drive-through intercom. Imagine talking on the phone with someone whose voice is muffled. That someone is mumbling. That someone is your dog. That's about what drive through speak is like. The idea that they are sending this out to a call-center suggests that they have actually care about the communications infrastructure of the drive-thru, which will mean better service. As it stands now, the order is just put on a screen for the restaraunt workers to put the order together, so that merits no change. A clearer connection, and someone who was hired because they speak clearly would be a step up. From a labor point of view, it makes individual restaraunt employees more valuable, and the drive-thru workers have a better work environments in a casual office setting.

Now, if they're going to do this, they can also have language specialists, so that customers who want to order in Japanese, Spanish, German, Russian, French, or some other language, they could press the buttons to place their order with someone in a particular language.

But what they should really do is just have a button system for each customer's order. You could even play 20 questions or something to get an order for a customer who doesn't know what they want. You could make the readouts next to the sceen.

Ways this could go wrong:

1) More centralized control over restaraunts so wrong orders cannot be corrected. (doubtful)
2) Call center workers strike. (slightly less doubtful)
3) Call center workers have minimal language proficiency. (slightly more likely)
4) Call center workers are rude to customers and nothing can be done about it. (more likely)
5) Machines are not upkept, and then someone 200 miles away says "mrhmmmh mhrrhmmf mrrhmffmrhmhfr Big Mac mmrfhmhrfm." (most likely)

My reaction:
I always go into the restaraunt. First of all, it's a quality control thing; if it looks dirty or smells dirty, run away, because fast food places just work like that. If they screw up my order, I can say so. I can get condiments and not worry about messing up my car. I don't like to eat and drive. I can get a free refill when I'm done.

Fantasy Baseball

2006-04-06T23:28:00.000-04:00

The blog is called "Because I Can" for a reason.

I'm doing CBS Sportsline's Fantasy Baseball. Just for fun, I'll also do an all-Dodger team, which will have a new lineup thanks to Eric Gagne's new surgery. As far as I know, Friday is not the Canadian April Fools Day.

Anyway, the way it's set up, you get a roster of up to 24 players. You can draft up to 22 players, and then pick up 2 more off waivers. You get 22 Starters, strangely enough, with 9 pitchers, one of each of the infield positions, 2 catchers, 5 outfielders, and 2 non-pitcher "utility players," which is where you'd have to put David Ortiz. My opening bunch is as follows

Pitchers
Roy Halladay
Brad Penny
Ben Sheets
Jose Contreras
Felix Hernandez
Bobby Jenks
Tom "Flash" Gordon
Chris Reitsma
Mike Gonzalez

Outfield
Ichiro Suzuki
Ken Griffey, Jr
Jason Bay
Jay Gibbons
Milton Bradley

Infield
Troy Glaus - 3B
Bobby Crosby - SS
Jeff Kent - 2B
Richie Sexson - 1B

Catcher
Javy Lopez
Bengie Molina

Utility
Ryan Zimmerman - 3B
Jacque Jones - OF

Soriano went quickly, but he becomes a good player to have this season as you can put him in when you need a spare outfielder, and otherwise play him at second. As for my guys, Gibbons can handle outfield and also first. Zimmerman keeps me covered at third.

There are 10 teams per league. I get ranked in categories each week, and then I get 11-ranking, that is if I finish first in ERA, I get 10 points. The categories are

Pitching
ERA, K, WHIP, W, S

Offense
BA, RBI, H, HR, SB

Why no defense, I don't know. You could have a punishment score for errors, bonus points for outfield assists, fielding percentage, etc.

I've never done a fantasy league before actually. I'll see how this goes. I'm optimistic.

Dodgers - Openers

2006-04-05T11:32:00.000-04:00

So the first game of the season, the Dodgers lost 11-10, as Derek Lowe looked terrible. The rally in the end was not enough to win the game, but it was nice to know the Dodger offense was capable of such things, namely 10 runs without a homer.

As it stands though, Opening Day means very little. Consider the following season outcomes since the 1958 move to LA:

Season Result.............................Opening Day Record
Losing Season............................................6-6
Winning Season, No playoffs.................12-9
Playoffs, no pennant.................................2-3
Lose World Series....................................4-0
Win World Series......................................1-4

In the Dodgers win the pennant, following trends would indicate that they would win the World Series. At least it's nice to think that.

The second game, though, was better, as they won 5-4. It would have been 5-1 were it not for the 3 runs given up by Jae Seo in the top of the 8th with 2 outs. One could make the case, though, that after retiring 8 consecutive batters and then allowing a double, that Seo lost a bit of his rhythym. He had thrown 40 pitches up to that point, and further, the most important thing with him is his confidence. The following has also been said of Rick Honeycutt:

Rick Honeycutt is the absolute worse pitching coach in history. Two games into his tenure in Los Angeles and the results have been disastrous. On Monday with the Dodgers trailing something like 34-1 in the 5th inning and a runner on, Honeycutt went to the mound to settle down Derek Lowe . Whatever tip he gave Lowe obviously didn't work as the very next pitch to Andruw Jones was slammed for a home run.
In the 8th inning of a 5-1 ballgame, Seo gave up a hit here and a double there to allow a run. With the score now 5-2 and a runner on second base, enter Rick Honeycutt. A few words, a nodding of the head, and a soft pat on the butt later, and the coaching session ended.

Grady Little made the same point.

RICK HONEYCUTT made his first appearance as the team's new pitching coach, going to the mound in the fifth, and after chatting with Lowe, Andruw Jones hit the next pitch for a three-run homer.

"I told Honeycutt whatever you just told Lowe, don't ever tell him that again," Little said.

But after two innings, the Dodgers should have had someone other than Baez ready to go for the end. Yesterday they used Kuo, Osoria, Brazoban and Baez. So Lance Carter still has not seen action, and easily could have finished up, pitched his 1/3 inning, been pinch hit for, and sat down. Or for that matter, Tim Hamulack, the lefty specialist, may not have been a bad option to pitch to the left-hander LaRoche.

As for tonight's game, Odalis Perez is pitching against Horacio Ramirez. The Big Little has decided that Sandy Alomar Jr will catch Perez. It is also likely that Olmedo Saenz will start at first. Here was Monday's lineup and what each player bats

Furcal - S
Cruz - S
Drew - L
Kent - R
Saenz - R
Mueller - S
Alomar - R
Repko - R
pitcher

And in that lineup, Saenz had 3 strikeouts, but he may fare better against the lefty. Repko may have better luck tonight, and he has started the season 5-8 with a walk. Given those probables, I personally would go with

Furcal - S
Cruz - S
Drew - L
Kent - R
Repko - R
Mueller - S
Saenz - R
Alomar - R
pitcher

and if Atlanta brings in a right handed reliever, the Dodgers go from 1 lefty to 4 (not counting the pitcher's spot, but who cares).

Osoria, Kuo, Brazoban, Carter, and Hamulack are well-rested and ready to come out of the bullpen.

Go Dodgers. You're on TBS tonight.

Bracket Update

2006-03-30T17:30:00.000-05:00

Now that the Final Four teams are playing this weekend, I'll get to what happened in my brackets after day 1.

Gut Instinct

I called 24 first round victories out of a possible 32. Of my Sweet 16 Picks, I picked 75% again with 12 teams, the four failures being Tennessee, Air Force (who didn't pass the first round and should never have been picked), Kansas (the Bradley upset), and Syracuse (the WVA upset). All of my elite 8 picks were correct, except Duke. Unfortunately, Duke was the champion I picked, so there will be no more winners in this bracket. Peaked at a rank of 365 on ESPN. The only final four team I called was UCLA.

Kitty

Kitty didn't do so well. Sure, she called Northwest and Montana, but two of her final four teams didn't make it past the first round. She had 10 Sweet 16's and 2 elite 8's. UCLA is her only remaining final 4 team.

The Crazy One

Apparently not so crazy now, and shame on me for thinking that it was unrealistic to put my own school in the final 4. Nothing else was called well other than GMU all the way. GMU is not only the only final 4 team left in this one, but the only elite 8 team too. I mean, the final four calls for this were UNCW, Bucknell, Milwaukee, and GMU. Only GMU was good.

Moneyball

Actually quite reliable. It was but a round premature, but it did correctly forsee the demise of Duke. It probably needs some refining. Unfortunately, it called Texas as the Champion, although my final four methodology was to go by electoral votes, because Moneyball never picks champions, just people who can get close. Only 8 sweet 16s, but 5 elite 8's. This did call GMU and Florida though, along with Texas and Kansas.

Coin Flip

When you call half of the first round, that's weak. Especially when you call those teams in pairs. Calling UConn as the national champ didn't work out so well either. Remaining were 5 Sweet 16 teams, just UConn in the elite 8, and now, nobody. Never flip a coin. As long as you are not completely stupid, you can make up a better bracket.

Bracketology - First Day Results

2006-03-17T01:47:00.000-05:00

ESPN.com has a place to enter your brackets for a shot at $10000. Well, after day 1, my 5 Entries have had mixed results. Actually, I have done well in all of them except one. I used different strategies for each one, and named them.

Gut Instinct - Self explanatory, I think. I essentially picked teams that I felt would do well, based on what I knew about them, or what state they were in. I was clueless on that Minneapolis bracket, but I did call the Milwaukee upset over Oklahoma. I'm saying Duke beats UConn in the championship.

Kitty - This is the strangest bracket I did. I did it though, because last year, my cat picked Vermont in that upset. Basically I hold out two fingers, and the one she goes towards is the one I pick. She went 11 for 16 on the first day. Unfortunately, she picked Syracuse to win the tournament, and Syracuse got eliminated tonight.

The Crazy One - George Mason University wins it all. Basically a parallel universe in which this happens. I did this because I get 5 entries, and I should be loyal to my school. Still, it's done 11 for 16.

Moneyball - I'm a Dodger fan, so this title should haunt me, but it's my best one so far, at 12 for 16. Basically, I made the assumption that having an even point spread among starters is a good plan, because that way you have plenty of strengths and options. I did think it was important if your leading scorer could put out a lot, though. So I took the scoring averages for the starters from MSNBC.com and made up the formula

((#number of starters with over 10 PPG) + (highest PPG of a starter))

(standard deviation of starters' PPG)

PPG, of course, means points per game. What I really like about this statistic is that it favors George Mason heavily. In fact, it carried the Patriots to the final four. Once I got to the Final Four, though, I decided that Moneyball never wins championships in real life. So I made my picks based on states' electoral votes, giving Texas the win.

Virtual Coin Flip - This was out of laziness. First, I was too lazy to do another research bracket, so I figured I'd flip a coin. Then, I was too lazy to flip a coin that many times. So I just had a calculater give me a random binomial sample, and I determined the winner from there. ESPN.com was congested when I was submitting this, and I figured I must have picked some awful teams and was being rejected, so I changed some of them while I was waiting for it to submit. I ended up with UConn winning this one. Go figure. This has done the worst, at 7 for 16.

So those are my results. I use the gut instinct one in a pool with my roommates, and I have an early lead. Time will tell if it holds.

Real Quick - A Little About Michael Moore

2006-02-15T01:38:00.000-05:00

Just for kicks I went over to MichaelMoore.com, as I haven't done in a while. The lines about Cheney and the birdshot incident were all over the page, but that didn't catch my eye. No, it takes real stupidity to get me to notice.

And I saw that in the headline "What if Jesus is Burning These Baptist Churches?" I though I would find some support for Moore's headline. But no. I found this:

"It's definitely arson," state fire marshal spokesman Ragan Ingram said Sunday.

Since Ragan Ingram is not significant enough to have his own page on Wikipedia, I conclude there is not much of a conspiracy theory surrounding him. Which leads me to the following conclusions conclusions:

1) Moore has his own conspiracy about Ingram.

2) Reading an entire article is as difficult for this man as running.

3) He does not like Baptists.

4) I wasted my time going to his site.

In The News - Mommy!

2006-02-08T19:23:00.000-05:00

Well, Drudge has reported what critics of sexual harassment policies fear: a stupid case in which an innocent first grade boy gets sent home. As the AP reports:

A first grader was suspended for three days after school officials said he sexually harassed a girl in his class by allegedly putting two fingers inside the girl's waistband while she sat on the floor in front of him.

The boy's mother, Berthena Dorinvil, said she "screamed" about last week's suspension from Downey Elementary School, and added her son doesn't know what sexual harassment is.

"He doesn't know those things," she told The Enterprise of Brockton. "He's only 6 years old."

Berthena Dorinvil claims that her son was already touched by the girl. Either way, one serious question arises: Why wasn't the old rule of "keep your hands to yourself" ever instilled in this child?

That's one of those things that can be picked up at age 3, even if the kid wasn't in a day care environment. All it takes is for the kid's parents to realize that they exist for more reason than production and financial support of the child. The concept of not touching other kids is easy enough, and the rule about specific no-no touchie spots is always areas covered by the swimsuit. Kids should learn this at least from their parents. I learned it from them, teachers, and television (they ran little bits in between cartoons saying that you should tell if you're touched somewhere like that, etc).

I fully believe that corporal punishment should be employed here. I think the principal needs to take the kid's mom and turn her over her knee.

Dodgers - Well, he used to be a Dodger

2006-02-02T16:35:00.000-05:00

The Boston Red Sox, appauled by the idea of a skilled defensive shortstop, have been looking around. They have been looking around ever since the 2003-2004 offseason. When they were pursuing A-Rod, they essentially signaled that they were not satisfied with Nomar, then the face of the Red Sox. They then shuffled around, not re-establishing the team at that position. Now they are dissatisfied with Alex Cora, which may mean he'll be a Dodger again in a couple of years.

Unfortunately, there's not a lot on the market without a trade. And with Miggy for Manny unlikely, Boston has been reduced to looking at Alex Gonzalez. The Alex Gonzalez who played for the Marlins in 2003.

The problem is, he's barely a step up over Cora. In fact, he's more likely to be a step down. By the numbers:

Career Stats (from Baseball-Reference.com)
Batting AVG
Cora: .244
Gonzo: .245

Slugging
Cora: .349
Gonzo: .391

On Base %
Cora: .310
Gonzo: .291

Strikeout-Walk Ratio
Cora: 1.83 to 1
Gonzo: 3.95 to 1

Fielding % (at shortstop)
Cora: .970
Gonzo .968

***

One final statistic: quality of pitchers who gave up their most famous home run. While Gonzales has been known to pop a few more than Cora, neither is known as being a power hitter, or much of a hitter at all with career batting averages under .250. Gonzales' most famous home run was off Jeff Weaver in Game 4 of the 2003 World Series, which granted was a great clutch move. Cora's was at the end of an 18-pitch at bat off Matt Clement. Comparing the performances of those two pitchers last year:

Weaver 14-11, ERA 4:22, 35 HR
Clement 13-6, ERA 4.57, 18 HR

And Weaver pitched in the NL West, a much weaker division than the AL East, where Clement pitched.

Gonzo may not make the team. Cora may have his best year yet. Either way, the Red Sox will face a challenge from Toronto, who made good moves in the offseason, Baltimore, who has Leo Mazzone to work on 4 starting pitchers born in the 80s, Tampa Bay, who will try to start a fight with them again for no reason, and the Yankees, who will sign Barry Bonds as their DH in 2007 for $100,000,000. Granted, though, it is expected that Boston will try to hit grounders up the middle and go for doubles, provided that Johnny Damon does not pull a reverse Sampson and become stronger after cutting his hair.

Dodgers - Final Wish

2006-01-17T00:35:00.000-05:00

There is but one last wish that I have for the Dodgers. And it sounds crazy, but it's a great idea. And if the price is right, it just might work.

Mike Piazza.

Yes, Tommy Lasorda's Godson, Mike Piazza, is still a free agent, which probably means that his asking price is going to be lower than the $16 million he made last year. Which is good, because the Dodgers are racking up a payroll already, but haven't quite hit $100 million. If they can convince him to take, an $11 million paycut like Bernie Williams did, the Dodgers just might have the answer. They would use him occasionally as a catcher (probably about 30-40 games at most), an additional coach for Navarro (on catching and power hitting), a first baseman (in case something is wrong with Kent, or to let them try Nomar in left field before he's there regularly), and a pinch hitter. You don't have to make a start to be a Dodger great. Manny Mota is still a "coach," and I don't know what he coaches, but I bet he sits on the bench just to make everyone hope that he'll come out and pinch hit. And Kirk Gibson's shot was, of course, a pinch hit home run.

Then, all they have to do is trade Hee Seop Choi for a relief pitcher, or a prospect, or even a draft pick.

But just think of the batting situations you could get out of this. Without Piazza, it's

Furcal
Lofton
Drew
Kent
Nomar
Mueller
Cruz
Navarro
(pitcher)

and with Izturis,

Furcal
Lofton
Drew
Kent
Nomar
Mueller
Izturis
Navarro
(pitcher)

Consider the possibilities for the Dodgers with Piazza.

Furcal
Lofton
Drew
Kent
Piazza
Nomar
Mueller
Cruz
(pitcher)

Now, obviously he can't play catcher every game. Before Izturis returns, he can get some time at first. But here's the effective lineup if they use him as a pinch hitter with Izturis in there

Furcal
Lofton
Drew
Kent
Nomar
Mueller
Izturis
Navarro
Piazza

Start that lineup with Izturis or Navarro, and you have some offensive potency.

Not only would Piazza then not have to go to the Angels, but the Dodgers would once again have my favorite player, and they could let the bobbleheads roll out.

Dodgers - The Canadian Will Always Be There

2006-01-16T23:02:00.000-05:00

Over the weekend, the Dodgers made a trade for someone else to fill a position they already have an all-star for. No, not another shortstop, but a closer. The Dodgers traded prospect Chuck Tiffany and post-prospect Edwin Jackson for Danys Baez and Lance Carter of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

In doing this, the Dodgers department bureau of redundancy and repetition department has yielded a team that now has 2 leadoff men (Furcal and Lofton), 2 closers (Baez and Gagne), and a bajillion shortstops (Furcal, Izturis, Garciaparra, Robles, Lowe). On the upside, the Dodgers also have a 5 man rotation for the first time since, well, I don't know. And they don't have to depend on Hee Seop Choi to play first.

Some reports have suggested that LA might be without franchise-maker Eric Gagne by the start of the 2007 season. These reports were believed to be filed by British intelligence sources because first of all, the British have cricket, not baseball, and if Frank McCourt does that you will be able to hear crickets chirp at Dodger stadium. Secondly, the Los Angeles Times reveals that it is Baez who will be more likely to leave.

"If you ask me what I want to do, I want to be a closer," Baez said Sunday.
"Now I've got to see what kind of situation we have. I'm not too happy about
that situation, to be a setup man again when I've been a closer the last couple
years."
He made it clear it's nothing personal. He admires Gagne's work. And he
won't make waves."
I know [Gagne] has been hurt, but he's very, very good," Baez
said. "We're going to work together and we'll see what happens. They know I can
close games. But I'm fine, and whatever the situation is, I'll be ready to go
into games. . . ."

Baez, too, is looking ahead. He made it clear he wouldn't sign an extension
with the Dodgers unless he would be the closer in 2007."I'll pitch one more
year, then I'll be a free agent and everyone in both leagues will know I can be
a closer," he said.

Isn't that nice. They're going to work together. But only for one year. Baez has been in Tampa Bay for two years after being with the Indians for three. If the Dodgers pull of a title (and offer him a little more money) he just might change his mind to continue as the setup man and "other closer." In considering Baez compared to Gagne, you don't have to be a Paul DePodesta sabermetric dork to figure out that 160 for 166 is better than 102 for 126, or how that means that Baez has four times as many blown saves in his career than Gagne despite 40 fewer oppurtunities. Which doesn't mean Baez is bad; rather, it just means that he's Gagne's setup man.

Personally, I'm of the theory that a team should basically have 6 or 7 starters and 3 closers, with maybe a left handed specialist just to screw someone up sometime. You can use a starter as a long reliever without screwing up your rotation, and still give everyone plenty of rest. Or by having a couple extra days rest the pitchers can actually make it to the 8th inning. Even having two teams of setup man-closer would be good in letting them get rest, especially for very streaky teams.

Given his pattern of moves this offseason, though, this trade and creation of a 2-inning sequence of lights-out suggest that Colletti was being quite earnest when he said, "I can't sit around and wait; I want the Dodgers to win now." But I think this move is made for Grady Little more than anyone. Although Scott Williamson had proven effective in the 2003 postseason, the Red Sox did not really have a legitimate setup man - closer sequence. Through 2001 they had Derek Lowe, and in 2002 they had Urbina, but nobody in 2003. The point being that Grady Little had good reason to leave Pedro Martinez in - he was more confident in Pedro than his bullpen. By getting an extra closer and not keeping the guy who's the most durable starting pitcher, the Dodgers are insuring against Grady's weakness.

The Dodgers are determined to make this year "next year" since last year sucked.

Fiction, At Least for Now

2006-01-09T21:55:00.000-05:00

January 9, 2006. 6:54PM PT.

LOS ANGELES - Eric Gagne announced today that he will have laser eye surgery, stating "those goggles were just getting too foggy, especially in other cities, where they have moisture in the air." Gagne continued, "Hey, everyone else is getting surgery, and I don't like being left out."

Indeed just a few days ago, Jeff Kent announced he was getting surgery to remove himself from spring training, and get a bit of scar tissue off his wrist. Ned Colletti called this "precautionary." Rafael Furcal announced earlier today that he would be getting surgery on his knee, which had been bothering him last year. Colletti called this "a cleanup." At the news of Gagne's eye surgery, Colletti said Gagne was being a punk for trying to get him to call his surgery "visionary," describing it rather as "elective."

Rumors are circling now of more potential surgery. Kenny Lofton and Sandy Alomar Jr, are both shopping around for Botox treatments. Owner Frank McCourt announced he would have a brain transplant, because doctors gave him a discount as there is nothing to remove. JD Drew announced that he would do whatever it takes to have his entire skeletal structure replaced with adamantium, because he told his family that he would be Wolverine for Halloween. Finally, Odalis Perez announced he would get a haircut. Ned Colletti announced that he and Gagne have a good working relationship due to his experience as a sportswriter who covered hockey. When asked about the surgeries, Colletti said "well, why not."

Major League Baseball - Fish in the Desert?

2006-01-08T20:07:00.000-05:00

From the looks of things, the Florida Marlins are likely moving to either Las Vegas, Nevada or Portland, Oregon. They want a baseball-only stadium, and frankly they do not have the following in Florida for the city of Miami to build them one.

If they want an exciting stadium, they should put it in Vegas. They could do all kinds of crazy things, like have the monorail take you right to it (a la Disneyworld), have a high-capacity dome, sell reasonably-priced concessions, etc. And they could play in Trump stadium. Given its tourist attraction status, the Vegas location would benefit greatly from a more gimmicky stadium, and would thus be even more fun to watch.

In Portland, though, they could not only develop a greater following (with a larger overall population). And the city has proven they can support a professional sports franchise with the Blazers, whereas Vegas currently holds the Dodgers' AAA affiliate. Also, Portland's location could give a view of the Willamette - or moving away from central Portland, Columbia - river, where such an option is not so easy in Vegas, if a waterside view is prefered.

Regardless, the team will no longer remain in the National League's "East" division, save for a farce similar to that which put the Atlanta Braves in the West division until the advent of the Central division, but would move to the National League West. The obvious initial solution then to merely put the Pittsburgh Pirates in the East, since they are east of Atlanta. This still leaves 5 teams in the East, 5 in the Central, and 6 in the West. But that would be odd with the American League having 5 teams in the East, 5 in the Central, and only 4 in the West.

The revolutionary, and yet blatantly obvious solution is to put the Colorado Rockies in the American League, West division. What is blatantly obvious about this is that the Rockies, with their mountain air, have a great hitters' park, and the American League caters more to offense with the Designated Hitter position. What is revolutionary about this, though, is that it will force the league to schedule interleague play thoughout the season, since there would then be an odd number of teams in each league.

To put this in perspective, the Dodgers are scheduled for 5 3-game interleague series in 2006, most of which are in the months right before the all-star break, which would be 15 games. This new schedule would create the need for either 4 or 6 interleague series, and for the purposes of this idea, it will be 6. This will create 2 3-day stretches where each team plays in interleague. In each occurance, the pairing will be the same, with all NL teams getting home field advantage the first time and all AL teams getting it the second time. Then there will be one weekend in which 9 teams will play interleague series while 6 series between major intra-division rivals take place, which can be known as "super rivalry weekend." These rivalries will vary year to year, but will always include Yankees-Red Sox and Dodgers-Giants.

Summarizing, the current layout looks like this:

National League

East
Braves
Mets
Marlins
Nationals
Phillies

Central
Astros
Brewers
Cardinals
Cubs
Pirates
Reds

West _ _
Diamondbacks
Dodgers
Giants
Padres
Rockies

American League

East
Blue Jays
Devil Rays
Orioles
Red Sox
Yankees

Central
Indians
Royals
Tigers
Twins
White Sox

West
Angels
Athletics
Mariners
Rangers

Whereas my new proposal would look more like this:

National League

East ____________ Central _____________ West _ _
Braves__________ Astros ____________ Diamondbacks
Mets ___________Brewers ____________Dodgers
Nationals________Cardinals____________Giants
Phillies__________ Cubs ___________Marlins (new name likely)
Pirates __________Reds ______________Padres

American League

East_____ ________ Central _____________ West _ _
Blue Jays _________Indians ____________ _Angels
Devil Rays ________Royals ______________Athletics
Orioles __________Tigers _____________ _Mariners
Red Sox __________Twins ______________Rangers
Yankees _________White Sox ____________Rockies

Each team will play 21 games against each of the other teams in their division, 6 games against each of the other teams in the league, and 18 total interleague games, consisting of at least one series against each team in the corresponding division of the opposite league. For example, the Yankees would play the Braves, Mets, Phillies, Nationals, and Pirates in interleague play. To recap, that is

Division Play 84 games
League Play 60 games
+ Interleague Play 18 games
Total 162 games

Which adds up to a full season.

Granted, there are winners and losers in this deal. The losers would be the four original NL West teams, the four original AL West teams, and arguably the Pirates (although they would no longer have the Cubs, Astros and Cardinals, the Braves, Mets, and Phillies, and maybe even Nationals might give them a hard time). The winners of this, by a greater margin would be the AL East, whichever new city gets the Marlins, and the Colorado Rockies, who would be given a chance to be legitimate competitors. Fans of baseball, though, would also see a more competitive major league system (except possibly the NL East, with the Pirates and Nationals as questionable contenders), an overall improvement in the division setup, and the home to a DH who's close to retirement but just not quite ready to go yet (Frank Thomas? Mike Piazza? Larry Walker's return from retirement?), especially one who wants to work on a home run total.

So when the Marlins decide they want to move West, I will be sending a letter to Bud Selig's office.

In The News - Hank Bosnia leaves VA Tech

2006-01-06T19:21:00.000-05:00

Marcus Vick, the younger brother of Michael Vick, who has been nothing but trouble for Virginia Tech finally got kicked off the team. What was most revealing, though, was the information about an arrest:

Vick might have avoided dismissal had news not broken Friday that he has a
hearing on Jan. 17 for traffic violations stemming from a Dec. 17 arrest. He was
charged with going 38 in a 25 mph zone and driving on a suspended
license.
The offenses occurred the day Tech players began pre-Gator Bowl
preparations with a 1 p.m. team run in Blacksburg. In July 2004, Vick was
arrested for reckless driving and possession of marijuana. That arrest followed
an arrest earlier in the year on charges of contributing to the delinquency of a
minor. Those legal troubles led to his suspension from school for the fall, 2004
semester. He was reinstated with the stipulation that further trouble would lead
to his dismissal.

Information about legal problems that did not make the media until now. This is nothing new for the Vick family, as his older brother Michael, had a lawsuit drawn against him. According to the Smoking Gun,

a 26-year-old health care worker, was infected with the sexually
transmitted disease in April 2003 after an unprotected encounter with Vick at
the athlete's Duluth, Georgia home.

adding to that

Elliott's complaint also contends that Vick "apologized profusely" for not
telling her he was infected with the STD.

So that's the awful truth. But it cannot stay that way, of course. It has to get funny; it's on smokinggun.com, after all.

Elliot's lawsuit alleges that Vick has used the name "Ron Mexico" and, in a
related court filing, her lawyers are seeking Vick's admission that he used the
"Mexico" alias--and perhaps other fake names--"for the purpose of herpes testing
and/or treatment."

Ron Mexico. Wikipedia has a great section on this on their Michael Vick page. What's really fascinating, also, is that you too can come up with your own bogus name for just such an emergency as Vick's. All you need to do is to go to the Ron Mexico Name Generator. Marcus Vick's new pseudonym is Hank Bosnia.

Nomar Garciaparra's nickname is Guy California.

And Osama bin Laden is Kurt Zambia!

Stuff I Read - I apparently think a lot like Thomas Sowell

2006-01-06T00:44:00.000-05:00

I just finished Freakonomics, the bestseller written by an economist and New York Times writer. It's interesting, as it explores some fun questions. Though the authors claim no central focus, the subjects of the chapters are cheating, information, crime, and how a child will end up as an adult, and seem to add a bit to each other.

Much attention is also given to Levitt's personal life and how he ended up researching various problems, which I suppose is to be attributed to Dubner. This book was really written for a very mainstream audience, as it is not only apolitical, but also does not require a prerequisite knowledge of economics.

I did find myself agreeing with Thomas Sowell's assessment of Freakonomics in a random thoughts column, where he stated:

Economist Steven Levitt's best-selling book "Freakonomics"
is not really about economics. It is about applying systematic reasoning to all
sorts of social problems. Systematic reasoning is needed even more than
economics.

The emphasis on the reasoning was not in the use of economics, but the system of testing against data to reveal underlying causes. The way the book analyzes statistical findings (without showing all the data that was processed) reveals perhaps a bit more about how statisticians think. What makes this an economics book is the use of the idea that people act rationally in their own self-interest, which is how to arrive at some of the startling conclusions.

Dodgers - Finally, another starting pitcher

2006-01-04T22:07:00.000-05:00

Ned Colletti made the move today of getting rid of every Dodger named Duaner. Duaner Sanchez is now a Met, as is Steve Schmoll. The Mets must put a lot of stock in Jae Seo, because along with him, they also dumped Tim Hamulack. Hamulack persisted for 10 years trying to make the majors, and finally did this year, giving up 6 runs in 6 appearances in a total of 2.1 innings pitched in the majors. Rightfully so for Seo, though; in his 14 starts, he went 8-2 with a 2.59 ERA, pitching a little over 90 innings. He could easily last over 180 innings for the Dodgers, puttin less strain on the bullpen, and actually win games, giving Eric Gagne something to do.

Sanchez will be missed, as he and Brazoban would easily be great setup men or fill-ins for Gagne, which is important with the way their starting pitchers go. He also will probably improve and be a great setup man for Wagner. Schmoll is young enough that he will likely improve a bit as well, and while he didn't do too bad, he did have an ERA over 5 last season.

Seo gives the Dodgers a complete starting lineup without having to rely on rookies that are not yet prepared, which is important for the organization. Edwin Jackson can master the minors a bit more before he comes up (which will be the next time Brad Penny gets injured), and he and Houlton can drastically improve then. The Dodgers also protected in this move secret weapons in the minors that they have yet to call up to the Major Leagues, which represent their future. Schmoll will be getting plenty of major league experience, though, as the Dodgers will need to use someone in their bullpen.

So let's recap the lineup. The Dodgers starting pitchers currently look like they'll be
Lowe
Penny
Perez
Seo
Tomko

and the bullpen will be
Gagne (Closer)
Brazoban
Broxton
Hamulack
a couple others

Their opening day position players as of today will be, in order of expected batting apperance
Shortstop Raphael Furcal
Center Field Kenny Lofton
Right Field JD Drew
Second Base Jeff Kent
First Base Nomar Garciaparra
Third Base Bill Mueller
Left Field Jose Cruz
Catcher Dioner Navarro

So with a 5 man starting rotation, 6 or 7 in the bullpen, and 8 starting position players, that leaves 5 or 6 bench players for opening day. These are my predictions
Hee Seop Choi
Jayson Werth
Willy Aybar
Ricky Ledee
Sandy Alomar
Olmedo Saenz or Oscar Robles

When Izturis gets back, assuming no infield or outfield injuries, Kent goes to 1st, Nomar goes to left, and Ledee goes to the Minors since Cruz will not be the 4th outfielder.

Kudos, Ned. It almost looked like he went on vacation, then he comes back and boom, an unexpected deal that gives the Dodgers a starting pitcher that's 14 years younger than David Wells. Let the Padres have him. The Dodgers can wait to deal Perez until after Jackson and Houlton, or some of their other young prospects are ready. Sure he's a lefty with a good arm, but he's also 43. I would expect him to last a little while longer, but the fact that he's talked to the Padres about a position with the organization after his playing career seems to exhibit that he's thinking he's near done. Besides, the Dodgers' pitching prospects are getting there, and LA might even be lucky with a non-roster invitee, a la Jose Lima 2004.

Weaver is a "long shot", as the Dodgers have made the smart move of assuming players that have Scott Boras as an agent want to be somewhere else. In fact, that seems to indicate why LA would even make the move to get Seo (who will be making a good bit under a million dollars, actually). But he would be nice to have again, given how dependable he's been for LA. That's not to mention what the Dodgers would be able to do with 6 dependable starting pitchers (like trade one).

In The News - Hugo Chavez is a nice guy, right?

2006-01-02T12:42:00.000-05:00

Well, Drudge is headlining that all-around jerkface and former KGB agent Vladmir Pootin' (he had the Moscow baked beans special every day for 50 years) is cutting off oil to Ukraine. As the Telegraph Reports,

Russia took Europe to the brink of a winter energy crisis yesterday when it
carried out a Cold War-style threat and halted gas deliveries to Ukraine, the
main conduit for exports to the West.

With a quarter of its gas supplied by
Russia, Europe is facing serious disruption and price rises for as long as the
dispute rumbles on.

So that is a loss of 25% of heating oil to Europe, meaning that Europeans will pay a premium to get their remaining sources to give them more, and many will have to do either with less or without. The US supposedly had a bit of saving grace from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who offered cheap oil. We wanted it, because the average consumer cares very little about whether or not a President borders on being dictatorial, and Americans have a specific emotional attachment and economic ignorance when it comes to oil.

So here are a few things to consider. First, I'd like to give a hat tip to Russell Roberts of Cafe Hayek for pointing this out about a month ago. Now of interest, the CIA World Factbook gives information on many aspects of the country, including per captia GDP. In the US, this was $40,100 per person in 2004. In Europe, Austria's was $31,300 in 2004, France's was $28,700 in 2004, Italy $27,700, Belgium $30,600, and Germany at $28,700.

We could then say that Chavez may be more benevolent to send his oil to Europe, since they have a greater supply crisis and that America's poor people are actually reasonably well-off. The difficulty with that is, though, is in transportation; it would take a bit more fuel to get a tanker from Venezuela to Portugal than to Delaware. The quality of mercy lying therein would require calculation and data that I can't get my hands on.

But what makes people so cynical of Chavez? Does he look better than Putin by comparison? Well consider the following, from that original Cafe Hayek post:

Yes, the people of Venezuela are lucky to have him. He's selling oil at a
40% discount to people in a country whose per-capita
income is over SIX TIMES that of Venezuela's. That's a man who really
knows how to take care of the little guy.

Venezuela's per capita income was about $5,800 in 2004. Is it really more compassionate to sell to the US or even Europe at depressed prices? Or rather, it is better to sell at the going market rate and distribute the rest of the money to the people of Venezuela, and invest money in the nation's infrastucture and economy so that they can bring down the nation's unemployment rate (17.1% in 2004).

Here's another twist, though. In some oil-rich countries, the wealth from oil does not offer a cure-all to poverty. Look at the Middle East. Suppose Chavez believes he cannot help but be a dictatorial ruler, and therefore wants to pass on a consumer surplus to the US, who would have the abilities to do good for his country. Well then, should he really be helping the poor, who would be less apt to use their consumer surplus for charitable contribution as opposed to the economy at large?

The evidence points to Chavez being one of two things, a reputational entrepreneur or an self-aware, yet bungling philanthropist. I would give him credit for being smarter than that, so I think the reputational entrepreneur point is the most likely.

Dodgers - My Wish List for 2006

2005-12-28T00:15:00.000-05:00

Ok, time to divorce myself from reality altogether. I fantasize that the Dodgers will complete the turnaround and win the World Series, but will do it in a way that captures the character of the 2004 team where different people stepped up each day, and that it happens realistically, not by scoring 1000 runs or nobody getting injured or Cesar Izturis hitting 50 home runs.

So here's what's on my Dodgers wish list:

1) Maintain essential players. Basically the lineup is good, except that JD Drew doesn't stay healthy, Navarro needs work as a catcher, and LA really needs a starting pitcher. I trust, though, that Colletti won't do something stupid like trade off the guy who's the most productive hitter before the all-star break. Supposedly Boston is interested in dealing David Wells to LA, who was good for 180 innings, and the article seems to indicate that they would take Duaner Sanchez for him. Wells for Milton Bradley would have been a better trade for both teams (especially the Damon-less Bosox), but time will tell depending on what LA's prospect from the trade does. If Wells can keep holding up this would be an excellent move for LA if they can get away with Sanchez, rather than a starting prospect.

2) Hold most of their prospects. Especially pitching and anyone who can hit for power. If Los Angeles can hold their own with a solid lineup and develop their minor leaguers, then they can have half the team injured and still make the playoffs (although maybe, like the Braves, struggling to pass the first round).

3) Re-sign Jeff Weaver. Sure it'll be expensive, but that's what McCourt's been promising anyway. If they pull of getting Wells too, then they can easily dump a weaker starter midseason for whatever else they need in the middle of the season, for that extra added kick.

4) Keep Eric Gagne very happy. His contract expires next year, and if he can stay on for a 3 year contract, that will hold LA until their young guys are ready to move up.

5) Hail Cesar. Izturis won a gold glove at shortstop in the National League. At age 24. He (along with Alex Cora) helped shape the defensive presence of the Dodgers, which plummeted this year thanks to Jose Valentin. Izturis has an arthritic elbow, but isn't about to quit. If anything, his painkillers probably aren't banned by the league yet, and he's more liable than ever to hit 20 home runs. Realistically, though, moving Kent to first and Nomar to left field is a perfect solution, because if nobody's injured, they can rotate Cruz and Choi in enough so everyone can take a break (especially Furcal, since one of the requirements for being a Dodger now is being able to play shortstop). And if someone's injured, it will just balance Izturis' return, and you can pick up power wherever you want it by trading a pitcher.

6) Don't play the Cardinals in the playoffs. This is the key to success. Basically, they have to make sure that they or St. Louis have the best record in the NL. If Atlanta or the Mets have the top seed, then they have to play the Cardinals. The wild card will be in the NL east, unquestionably.

7) Don't let the Diamondbacks make the playoffs. El Duque. Need I say more?

8) David Kingman appearing with the Philly Phanatic.

9) Kirk Gibson coming in for one pinch hit home run. Or Frank Thomas.

10) Mike Piazza anywhere but the Angels. Maybe as Piazza's Godfather, Tommy Lasorda will get him to think twice about being an Angel.

11) The Angels going back to being the California Angels. The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim?That's a five word team name. Well, the Dodgers should just go ahead and call themselves the Boston Red Sox of Los Angeles. That or become an extention of Duke University so they can be the Blue Devils, and adopt the team slogan "You see, evil will always triumph because good is dumb."

12) Nine ladies dancing. Player's wives (or concubines, if Derek Lowe is starting) take the field.

Happy 2006 to me, I hope. Whoever signs Frank Thomas will be the most noble franchise of the 21st century. Are you listening, Mr. Steinbrenner?

Dodgers - Another Day, Another Signing

2005-12-22T15:27:00.000-05:00

Eric Gagne's call for McCourt to open his wallet has been heard, as this story confirms, with a projected payroll for LA over $100 million again. What this also reveals, though, is the signing of one Brett Tomko as the #4 starter. This is a move that makes me think either the Giants just sucked, or the Dodgers' front office wanted to get a crappy starter again.

Tomko went 8-15 last season for the Giants. He won games against the Pirates (twice), the Brewers, the Diamondbacks, the Dodgers (he was 1-2, and he lost those two games early in April), the Mets (with Kaz Ishii pitching), the Reds, and the Marlins (with a lot of run support, surprisingly, with Dontrell Willis pitching). He only won two games in his own division; he went 1-2 against the Diamondbacks, 0-1 against the Padres, and 0-2 against the Rockies. We can only hope that Edwin Jackson will finally be ready to come up to the majors.

That's not to say Tomko can't have a winning season. In fact, he's had a winning season in 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004. He seems to do worse in that in-between season, and maybe Colletti figures that was this year, and so in signing Tomko to a two-year deal, he's getting the two good seasons. Once again, the Dodgers' GM is either a genius or a complete moron. But one has to admit that that is a pretty strange pattern for a pitcher to have.

He's 32, so he's established, but not too old. His strikeout-to-walk ratio was exactly 2-1 last year, which isn't bad, and is about where his career numbers are. I'll take a chance and be optimistic, and chaulk up last year's crappy season to the fact that the Giants suck. I still would rather see Lance Niekro, but we'll see how this plays out.

Dodgers - The Next Step in The Transformation

2005-12-21T16:12:00.000-05:00

The Los Angeles Dodgers have been making quite a few acquisitions this offseason. Their new players (and manager) all have one of the following in common:

1) They help Frank McCourt realize his dream of owning the Red Sox by slowly turning the Dodgers into the Red Sox.

2) They are people that Ned Colletti knew when he was with the Giants.

As it stands now, though, the Dodgers have a major need to fill in starting pitching. It seems like the only logical step is to combine these two, in a rather unconventional method.

One of the more popular, and older, players on the Red Sox, who has been on the team since 1995 is Tim Wakefield. Wakefield is best known for being a knuckleball pitcher, which enables him to have the most wins of his career this past season at age 39, and will allow him to play until he's about 60. The Dodgers do not currently have a knuckleball pitcher, and haven't since Tom Candiotti.

Enter the Giants.

Yes, the hated enemy in San Francisco has the nephew of a hall-of-fame knuckleballer, whose father was also a good knuckleballer. This would be their first baseman, Lance Niekro.

Yes, first baseman.

But as we will find out, this is actually advantageous. Clicking on Wakefield's biography reveals the following information:

Tim attended Florida Tech in Melbourne, and was named Panthers team MVP as
a first baseman as a sophomore in 1987 and as a junior in 1988.

A first baseman turned pitcher, eh?

The Dodgers just re-signed Hee Seop Choi for some unknown reason, but this may be the perfect oppurtunity to get a starting pitcher and get rid of Choi. All they have to do is trade Choi (and maybe throw in someone else they don't want) for Niekro. Then, they release their grand experiment. As Wikipedia reveals,

Like his father and uncle, Niekro can throw a knuckleball, although he has
not pitched professionally.

So we have a move here that would satisfy McCourt's desires as well as Colletti's tendencies. All it will take is a little bit of gambling. But hey, could he really be worse than Scott Erickson?

In The News - Not Even A Slap

2005-12-20T16:26:00.000-05:00

A story linked from Drudge revealed that New York Transit workers are striking, and that there is legal action taken against them. A New York Court has even issued a fine against them. The story reports:

A judge promptly slapped the union with a $1 million-a-day fine. State Justice
Theodore Jones leveled the sanction against the Transport Workers Union for
violating a state law that bars public employees from going on strike.

Now, a million dollars is a lot of money, if you are a single individual. If you're the government, it's one of those little squares of toilet paper, and that's if you get it on sale. So for the union, which is multiple people, it's a little more. How much?

The heavy penalty could force the union off the picket lines and back on the
job. Its 33,000 members are already facing individual fines of two days' pay for
every day they are on strike.

In case you are useless enough to not be able to do simple division, here's the easy way to think about it:

33,000 x $30.30 = $999,900

and

$100 / 33,000 = $1 /330 < $0.01

which tells you that each union member was fined $30.30 per day for striking, because unions get money from their members. The union workers were already being fined 2 days pay for each day of striking. A little bit of detective work (called reading the article) reveals:

MTA workers typically earn from $35,000 as a starting salary to about $55,000
annually.

Let's assume $35,000 for 50 weeks, which give us $700 per week, which is $140 per day. This means union workers are already being fined $280 per day for striking by the MTA (not to mention not getting paid $140), and this article would have us believe that $420 won't stop them, but $450.30 will.

It's not the fine, but the fact that the court would not ignore state law against transit strikes that is discouraging the unions. Strikes are actually useless tactics, whereas they cost the individual members far more than the protested party, who can easily close up, and cut down on electrical and other expenses, as well as not pay striking workers. The only power that a strike possibly has is to gain public support, which is easy when it does not affect them. When people are affected, though, they don't like strikes, and that is why transit strikes are counterproductive, and why in London, transit strikes only last one day.

Why would people do something like that, then? If transit strikes are so bad, why bother? Call it what you will. Clifford Geertz term would be "deep play," but I wouldn't label this as such, since it is such a rare incident and not really part of a cultural force. I think it's human nature.

Economists often state that voting is irrational since the expected impact is 0 whereas the expected cost is time and other activities (and being registered to vote means being eligible for jury duty). In attempting to resolve the economic implications with observed results, I would argue that anger breeds irrationality, particularly in small acts of irrationality. Examples of this include one-day strikes, mass voter turnout in the 2004 US Presidential election, and young children throwing temper tanturms when they can't get the candy bar in the checkout line. This is essentially an act of negative reciprocity, which will end when they come to their senses.

Dodgers - Hail Cesar?

2005-12-18T14:08:00.000-05:00

According to MLB.com, spending two days with Nomar Garciaparra helped the Dodgers to nearly secure a one-year contract with him, pending only a physical and other contract details (watch this include "writing it.") The Dodgers still will not have names on the back of the uniforms next year, and this will be good for them since Garciaparra is hard to spell. On the bottom of the article:

The Dodgers also are in pursuit of outfielders Kenny Lofton and Reggie Sanders to round out a renovated lineup.

Which is interesting, but begs the question, what will be of Cesar Izturis? The plan is, when he gets back, he plays second base (since he has an arthritic elbow and a shorter throw would be easier), Kent plays first (because he's old), and Nomar plays left field. Now if the Dodgers have Kenny Lofton, Reggie Sanders, JD Drew, and we'll go ahead and count Jose Cruz, will there be room for everybody, or will Nomar have to be on the bench?

The Dodgers are apparently counting on injuries, which is a safe bet with Kent, Lofton, and Sanders getting that old, not to mention Nomar's recent injury issues, or JD Drew's lack of sturdiness. If nobody is injured, they will likely be able to give some fielders a day off, maybe even once a week, allowing for an appearance in a pinch hit, maybe a double switch. Or perhaps Grady Little was planning on making Sanders the DH, which would be bad, since the NL doesn't have that, and that would signal that Little is stupid.

Still in the realm of the mediocre, though, is the catcher spot, which the Dodgers fixed by hiring a mentor for Navarro. At least they're keeping someone. Also, starting pitching does not look that much more promising. Jeff Weaver is in arbitration, and if the Dodgers do not sign him, they will be in need of 2 new starting pitchers, and I am far from convined that DJ Houlton and Edwin Jackson will be there. One or the other, maybe, but Jackson hasn't been stable, and has had more walks than strikeouts this past year. My prediction is that the Dodgers will re-sign Weaver, and they might make a trade later to bolster their starting pitching.

They will definitely be good in 2008, when their prospects are all ready.

First Post

2005-12-18T13:16:00.000-05:00

Well I have to start the blog off with something, so I decided not to be creative, but instead to create a post that says absolutely nothing except that I have a post. Note the title of the blog.

As a preface, I will say that half the time I am joking around. If something seriously offends you, ask yourself "Is he serious?" before becoming offended. I'm a nice guy really. Let me know nicely if I can accomodate you, or just stop reading this blog. I want people to read it, so I'm happy to accomodate you.

I will likely refrain from the use of profanity, and if you are commenting, I ask that you do the same. I would like to think that there are still some standards of discourse left, even on the internet. Even if you don't like me, please show some self-control. Be better than me, if you want to think of it that way.

So what should you expect from this site? Well, often it will include links to thinks that I find interesting in the news or elsewhere online. I'm an active Drudge Report reader, so - hey, stop groaning! - you can expect me to find stories from there, perhaps just looking at the Washington Post or Richmond Times-Dispatch's page, or some other sources, and I'll generally own up to how I came across the page. From there, I will get political stories, bizarre stories, and other stories that just interest me.

I am also a baseball fan. My top two teams are the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Washington Nationals (hometown team at school). I'll likely pick an American League team at some point, despite the AL's inferiority; this will likely be the team that picks up Mike Piazza as the DH, even if it's the Yankees (ha!). I'll say good things, but I'll be fairly critical, and I'll also make suggestions, hoping that Ned Colletti doesn't do anything stupid, like lose Cesar Izturis.

Sometimes, I'll run across something in one of my classes, or on the internet, that's interesting that I think is worth sharing. This blog, however, is by no means one of those internet journal things. This is stuff that I am aware that I am saying in public, and is written to be insightful, informative, and entertaining.

Finally, a notification of biases. Politically, I tend to have more of a libertarian political philosophy, but that is a lower case l. I am more likely to side with Republicans, and yet be frustrated with them. Sort of like the Dodgers. Religiously, I am a Christian, and I would describe myself as a conservative reformed evangelical, and as such I am affiliated with the Presybterian Church in America (PCA). I typically won't post too many religious items, but I feel it's fair to say who I am and where I'm coming from. I am also a student at George Mason University, and am double majoring in Mathematics and Economics. Finally, as a Dodgers and Nats fan, I am generally opposed to the American League, and the San Francisco Giants in the National League.

That said, I now have a blog.