If Timlin is on the mound at the end of the game, the Sox will lose, pretty much guaranteed. I really don't understand why Francona gives him the ball, ever. Why not use Paul Byrd, perhaps when Beckett left in the middle of the fifth? Not that I saw the 11th inning, because the game took 5 and half hours and started after 8pm. Whether it is a weekend or weeknight, east coast teams or west coast teams, MLB's insistence on starting games so damn late is infuriating. Playoff games don't last 3 hours, so stop pretending that they do.
And Beckett stunk, for the second game in a row. Lester goes Monday, an afternoon game.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
ALCS Game 1: Sox 2, Rays 0
To the uninitiated, last night's game was a slow heart attack, DiceK pitching into and then out of trouble. To those that have watched this all year, though, it is more annoying/brilliant than anything else. If you know that he will get out of the jam, such as walking the bases loaded in the first inning, you just roll your eyes with every ball four and give a little fist jab (a terrorist one?) when he gets out of it.
DiceK got through 7 full innings, Okijima and Masterson did their jobs to get out of a (DiceK-created) jam in the 8th, and Paps shut the door in the 9th. Upshot of this game? Surprise surprise, Francona was right with his pitching rotation.
DiceK got through 7 full innings, Okijima and Masterson did their jobs to get out of a (DiceK-created) jam in the 8th, and Paps shut the door in the 9th. Upshot of this game? Surprise surprise, Francona was right with his pitching rotation.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Math is cool
Not sure how this came up, but this is what happens when two physicists email each other. I love stuff like this (minor edits for clarity):
I think the inherent neatness of equations underlies systems biology. Because everything is a system. And no, I don't know what systems biology actually means.
Does 0.99999....(i.e. forever 9s) equal 1? Actually, yes:
Proof:
(1) x = .999999....
(2) 10x = 9.99999....
(3) Subtract (1) from (2)
(4) 9x = 9
(5) x = 1
I think the inherent neatness of equations underlies systems biology. Because everything is a system. And no, I don't know what systems biology actually means.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Please oh please
The Dodgers-Phillies series is broadcast by McCarver and Buck. I hate McCarver, so I'm glad I won't have to hear him for the ALCS... is there a snowball's chance in hell we'd get Orsillo, who did one of the series for TBS? I'm going to look this up now....
Ah crap, it is the same dudes who did the ALDS:
Buck Martinez, who hasn't figured out that the second, nor first, syllable of Ortiz receives the emphasis -- David Or-TIZ, not David OR-tiz.
Chip Caray, who, well, was mediocre
Craig Sagar, who wears puke-inducing jackets, and oh yeah, doesn't understand baseball.
Dammit.
PS Fox, stop playing 'orchestral' music in between innings. Doo doo doo DOO, doo doo doo Doooooooo
Ah crap, it is the same dudes who did the ALDS:
Buck Martinez, who hasn't figured out that the second, nor first, syllable of Ortiz receives the emphasis -- David Or-TIZ, not David OR-tiz.
Chip Caray, who, well, was mediocre
Craig Sagar, who wears puke-inducing jackets, and oh yeah, doesn't understand baseball.
Dammit.
PS Fox, stop playing 'orchestral' music in between innings. Doo doo doo DOO, doo doo doo Doooooooo
We're #2!
Every year the Harris polling firm asks Americans to rate the prestige of various careers. Scientist came out as #2, only 1 percentage point behind firefighter. We'll see if that offers any consolation if (sigh, when) the Western blot I'm doing right now fails.
I would love to know why there aren't more scientists involved in public policy. Rush Holt, a congressman from New Jersey, is a physicist, and Bill Foster, also a physicist, was recently elected to replace Dennis Hastert, but I think that's pretty much it in terms of people with science training in national politics. Of course, one could use the same poll to wonder why there aren't more firefighters and nurses in public policy either (interestingly, Member of Congress comes in at 28%, while lawyer, which is probably the plurality discipline of most Congressmen, is 24%).
I suppose one explanation is that scientists are mousey people who couldn't carry on a conversation if their lives depended on it, and besides, their pasty skin makes them quite un-camera-friendly. While that is true of some scientists, it is certainly not a requirement for entry into the profession, and at least from my observations, most scientists certainly pass the 'beer test' because they have a helluva lot of practice in drinking the stuff.
I would love to know why there aren't more scientists involved in public policy. Rush Holt, a congressman from New Jersey, is a physicist, and Bill Foster, also a physicist, was recently elected to replace Dennis Hastert, but I think that's pretty much it in terms of people with science training in national politics. Of course, one could use the same poll to wonder why there aren't more firefighters and nurses in public policy either (interestingly, Member of Congress comes in at 28%, while lawyer, which is probably the plurality discipline of most Congressmen, is 24%).
I suppose one explanation is that scientists are mousey people who couldn't carry on a conversation if their lives depended on it, and besides, their pasty skin makes them quite un-camera-friendly. While that is true of some scientists, it is certainly not a requirement for entry into the profession, and at least from my observations, most scientists certainly pass the 'beer test' because they have a helluva lot of practice in drinking the stuff.
Negative campaign ads
The media enjoy decrying the preponderance of negative ads every political season, but the term itself is vague. For obvious reasons, all negative ads are about your opponent, but it seems that this is the only criterion the media use to label something as negative. In other words, if Obama talks about himself, it is a positive ad, and if he talks about McCain, it is a negative ad.
To me, I think that the more important barometer is how truthful the ad is. For example, let's say that Obama were to run an ad pointing out that McCain is Pro-Life. I wouldn't classify this as negative. Sure, if there's a deep voiceover intoning that "John McCain would send the FBI into your daughter's room late at night to make sure she has the baby" then that would be a negative ad, but only because it is untrue. Pointing out substantive policy differences between you and your opponent is not negative. But obscuring the truth or outright lying certainly is. I'd much rather see Pew put out statistics on the accuracy of the various campaigns' ads than a rating of how positive or negative they are.
To me, I think that the more important barometer is how truthful the ad is. For example, let's say that Obama were to run an ad pointing out that McCain is Pro-Life. I wouldn't classify this as negative. Sure, if there's a deep voiceover intoning that "John McCain would send the FBI into your daughter's room late at night to make sure she has the baby" then that would be a negative ad, but only because it is untrue. Pointing out substantive policy differences between you and your opponent is not negative. But obscuring the truth or outright lying certainly is. I'd much rather see Pew put out statistics on the accuracy of the various campaigns' ads than a rating of how positive or negative they are.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
ALCS rotation
Just announced:
Game 1 @ Tampa: DiceK (6 days rest)
Game 2 @ Tampa: Beckett (5 days)
Game 3 Fenway: Lester (6 days)
Game 4 Fenway: Wakefield (2 weeks)
Game 5 Fenway: DiceK (5 days)
Game 6 @ Tampa: Beckett (6 days)
Game 7 @ Tampa: Lester (5 days)
Francona has clearly decided to optimize his rotation for rest rather than prior playoff performance. In other words, you could start Beckett and Lester in games 1 and 2 and each would be on normal (4 days) rest. One thing I don't like about this rotation is that 3 of the first 5 games are started by your inferior pitchers -- who knows what Wake will give you, and DiceK has been pretty bad in the playoffs these past two years. But, maybe the Sox know something I don't, namely, how well you can expect a pitcher to perform, especially at the end of the year, with extra rest. And, there is something to be said for having DiceK start the series, when the bullpen is fully rested, because he is least likely to get you through 7 innings.
Game 1 @ Tampa: DiceK (6 days rest)
Game 2 @ Tampa: Beckett (5 days)
Game 3 Fenway: Lester (6 days)
Game 4 Fenway: Wakefield (2 weeks)
Game 5 Fenway: DiceK (5 days)
Game 6 @ Tampa: Beckett (6 days)
Game 7 @ Tampa: Lester (5 days)
Francona has clearly decided to optimize his rotation for rest rather than prior playoff performance. In other words, you could start Beckett and Lester in games 1 and 2 and each would be on normal (4 days) rest. One thing I don't like about this rotation is that 3 of the first 5 games are started by your inferior pitchers -- who knows what Wake will give you, and DiceK has been pretty bad in the playoffs these past two years. But, maybe the Sox know something I don't, namely, how well you can expect a pitcher to perform, especially at the end of the year, with extra rest. And, there is something to be said for having DiceK start the series, when the bullpen is fully rested, because he is least likely to get you through 7 innings.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Presidential Debate II: The Wrath of McCain
10:33 - Okay, nothing game changing here. However, I will close with a prediction. The polls will tighten a bit over the next week. McCain will not get into a tie, but it will get closer. The reason? I've decided that McCain's dive over the past week was due to Palin, not the economy. But Palin is done from the campaign -- she won't give interviews, so we won't get any more 'huh?' moments, and she already debated, so she's out of the picture. So I think some people that moved away from McCain because of Palin will shift back. G'night.
10:30 - What don't you know and how will you learn it? I like Obama's historical answer, the presidency can't be predicted... pivot to personal story allows McCain to end the debate by saying he didn't answer the question...
10:25 - Very direct question (but unfortunately hypothetical) - if Israel is attacked by Iran, go in with or without the UN security council.
10:23 - Yet another horrible black and white question from Brokaw. I hope that when some British historian write a tome on the downfall of America, large sections are given to the crappy gatekeeper job the media has done.
10:22 - After this debate, I really wish there were a Division Series game 5 to watch.
10:21 - McCain is predicting a Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Hey, if you want it, you can have it -- I've played Risk. You should instead focus on the purple Australia area.
10:17 - I'm waiting for Sarah Palin to jump onto stage shouting 'Sic Semper Tyrannis' and squirt Obama with a water gun.
10:15 - McCain is getting a little Nixonian with his secret plans.
10:14 - Obama just pissed off McCain big time. I like it :)
10:10 - McCain is suggesting that Obama is too warlike, yet he sang a song about bombing Iran. And again, Afghan freedom fighters are actually bribed drug-lords.
10:08 - I got tired of Blogger (a Google subsidiary or something) asking me after every single post if I wanted to post ads, so I posted ads. It now is bothering me to do something else. Blech. I think I just swallowed the mouse to catch the fly.
10:06 - McCain's tie is way too long and is peaking out from under his coat.
10:04 - I like the use of the Holocaust as an example of when sometimes we actually need to act. Did you know that Florida has 27 electoral votes?
10:02 - I like the phrase 'McCain cheerleading the president' especially since Bush was, in fact, a cheerleader. Can you imagine if Kerry or Gore were actual male cheerleaders?
9:59 - McCain didn't understand the word 'peacemaker' and instead answers that his heart is fine, thank you. McCain is also under the impression that the world is a flat rectangle and thus has four corners. His yellow humour must be out of balance.
9:52 - What does it say about this country that the vast majority of our debates are arguments over facts? It seems that the facts of so-and-so's proposal are the debate, not whether the outcome of that proposal is good or wise. Can you imagine any other 'industry' spending its time arguing so much over the existence of facts rather than the interpretation of them? This leads me to two quotes regarding John Adams, one by him, one of him: First, by him: "Facts are stubborn things." Second, about him "Not only does he not suffer fools gladly, but also would tell them to their face they were fools."
9:50 - Obama is forgetting to thank so-and-so for the question. In related news, Sean Hannity just developed a boner.
9:47 - Wow, Tom comes up with another stupid question -- should we have a Manhattan Project or go with the Wozniak/Jobs model. Choose one! It must be one or the other! McCain is now reiterating the drill now drill often idea. I don't think this works.
9:45 - Environmental issues... thank you, whatever your name was... Nuclear power is not the best way to fix the environment, not to mention its obvious weapons proliferation issues. I like Obama's green jobs / computers analogy (I haven't heard him use this before).
9:40 - NOT THAT HARD TO FIX SOCIAL SECURITY?! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
9:37 - Obama needs to reply forcefully to the taxes issues.
9:34 - Random thought... does the fact that Obama is black make him more or less likely to be branded a class warrior? Ooh, I like the hatchet v. scalpel comparison.
9:28 - Nice questions, what sacrifices will you ask Americans to make? McCain wants to eliminate... defense spending (that is actually refreshing to hear). Obama is the first to mention 9/11 (effective debate technique). He should probably repeat the question, about sacrifices. Bush asked us to 'go out and shop' and missed an opportunity, well said. Wants to take burden off troops -- effective pivot.
9:26 - Tom, stop complaining about the rules. Do you know what happens if you don't follow them? Nothing!
9:24 - Oh Christ, great question, please rank your priorities, as if you had to do all of one and none of the other and that's it. I hate the moderators at these things.
9:22 - Is 'pork barrel earmarks' as redundant as 'ATM machine'?
9:21 - The McCainBot just remembered its instructions to turn and look at Obama every now and again.
9:17 - Yes, it will get worse before it gets better. Stay in school, avoid the real world! Actually, American workers have the highest rate of adult-onset diabetes, so they are probably not the best in the world.
9:12 - Bailout vs. rescue doesn't sound too different, in my opinion. I think McCain's barking up the wrong tree by re-living this campaign suspension bit. I don't understand this oft-repeated Republican attack line against Freddie/Fannie, in that beyond its inaccuracy, I don't think it works.
9:09 - Who would you appoint to Tres. Sec. Senator Obama? I would cut middle class taxes.
9:07 - McCain talking about home values, saying the treasury will buy bad mortgages and renegotiate the terms of the loans. Perhaps I should pretend to have problems paying my mortgage so the government will give me money. That's an odd "not you, Tom" retort. But it is a bad question. Why did McCain note that Buffet supports Obama?
9:04 - Obama watched the same CNBC report I did re: AIG. I don't know what it means to help homeowners stay in their homes... he's been vague on that in the debates, maybe his website has more.
9:03 - I wish McCain had come out riding a Rascal.
9:01 - I am not currently constrained by the ties of sobriety either.
9:00 - Okay, here we go. In my opinion, the only debate better than the first was The Empire Strikes Back.
8:57 - Did you know that the (former) CEO of AIG had the board of directors vote to essentially guarantee his salary regardless of how well the company was doing one week before they were bailed out this summer? I need to find a link to this, I just saw a piece on CNBC.
8:45 - I've never been to a town hall meeting, like an actual meeting where people from the town get together and, I dunno, complain about parking tickets. I'd like to imagine that they're all like the one in Hoosiers, where Jimmy Chitwood saves Coach Dale's job. While we're at it, who exactly are the people in the audience? I've long held that 'undecided voter,' this late in the game, is synonymous with 'moron.' I'd love to know how much overlap there is between people undecided in this election vs. 2004. I'd also love to know how many of the '04 undecideds who ended up voting for Bush still approve of the job he's done (hell, 1 out of every 5 or so people still do!) For the ones who voted Bush '04 and are unhappy with the job he's done, here's my advice: stop voting. You're a dufus. You are too easily fooled. Stay home and eat Marshmallow Fluff.
6:54 - Potential game changers (either direction):
• Instead of his usual flag pin, Obama mistakenly wears his burning flag pin.
• McCain suggest that we solve the financial crisis by re-opening the Yukon for gold exploration.
• Obama picks nose, examines, consumes.
• McCain nervously consults his watch during the debate then prematurely walks off stage, muttering that "it's lasted longer than 4 hours and I need to talk to my doctor."
• Asked to name his favorite philosopher, Obama unable to decide between Mohammad and "that white guy, you know, the one with the beard."
• McCain ends a defense of his foreign policy credentials by noting that his strategic plans have the support of many recipients of the Nobel War Prize.
5:22 - Tonight's presidential debate, moderated by Tom Brokaw, comes to us from Nashville, Tennessee. The town hall format is said to favor McCain, but I think there's a difference between a town hall filled with your supporters and a town hall where your opponent is standing right next to you. Polls continue to show Obama pulling away in this race, and McCain needs a game changer.
10:30 - What don't you know and how will you learn it? I like Obama's historical answer, the presidency can't be predicted... pivot to personal story allows McCain to end the debate by saying he didn't answer the question...
10:25 - Very direct question (but unfortunately hypothetical) - if Israel is attacked by Iran, go in with or without the UN security council.
10:23 - Yet another horrible black and white question from Brokaw. I hope that when some British historian write a tome on the downfall of America, large sections are given to the crappy gatekeeper job the media has done.
10:22 - After this debate, I really wish there were a Division Series game 5 to watch.
10:21 - McCain is predicting a Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Hey, if you want it, you can have it -- I've played Risk. You should instead focus on the purple Australia area.
10:17 - I'm waiting for Sarah Palin to jump onto stage shouting 'Sic Semper Tyrannis' and squirt Obama with a water gun.
10:15 - McCain is getting a little Nixonian with his secret plans.
10:14 - Obama just pissed off McCain big time. I like it :)
10:10 - McCain is suggesting that Obama is too warlike, yet he sang a song about bombing Iran. And again, Afghan freedom fighters are actually bribed drug-lords.
10:08 - I got tired of Blogger (a Google subsidiary or something) asking me after every single post if I wanted to post ads, so I posted ads. It now is bothering me to do something else. Blech. I think I just swallowed the mouse to catch the fly.
10:06 - McCain's tie is way too long and is peaking out from under his coat.
10:04 - I like the use of the Holocaust as an example of when sometimes we actually need to act. Did you know that Florida has 27 electoral votes?
10:02 - I like the phrase 'McCain cheerleading the president' especially since Bush was, in fact, a cheerleader. Can you imagine if Kerry or Gore were actual male cheerleaders?
9:59 - McCain didn't understand the word 'peacemaker' and instead answers that his heart is fine, thank you. McCain is also under the impression that the world is a flat rectangle and thus has four corners. His yellow humour must be out of balance.
9:52 - What does it say about this country that the vast majority of our debates are arguments over facts? It seems that the facts of so-and-so's proposal are the debate, not whether the outcome of that proposal is good or wise. Can you imagine any other 'industry' spending its time arguing so much over the existence of facts rather than the interpretation of them? This leads me to two quotes regarding John Adams, one by him, one of him: First, by him: "Facts are stubborn things." Second, about him "Not only does he not suffer fools gladly, but also would tell them to their face they were fools."
9:50 - Obama is forgetting to thank so-and-so for the question. In related news, Sean Hannity just developed a boner.
9:47 - Wow, Tom comes up with another stupid question -- should we have a Manhattan Project or go with the Wozniak/Jobs model. Choose one! It must be one or the other! McCain is now reiterating the drill now drill often idea. I don't think this works.
9:45 - Environmental issues... thank you, whatever your name was... Nuclear power is not the best way to fix the environment, not to mention its obvious weapons proliferation issues. I like Obama's green jobs / computers analogy (I haven't heard him use this before).
9:40 - NOT THAT HARD TO FIX SOCIAL SECURITY?! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
9:37 - Obama needs to reply forcefully to the taxes issues.
9:34 - Random thought... does the fact that Obama is black make him more or less likely to be branded a class warrior? Ooh, I like the hatchet v. scalpel comparison.
9:28 - Nice questions, what sacrifices will you ask Americans to make? McCain wants to eliminate... defense spending (that is actually refreshing to hear). Obama is the first to mention 9/11 (effective debate technique). He should probably repeat the question, about sacrifices. Bush asked us to 'go out and shop' and missed an opportunity, well said. Wants to take burden off troops -- effective pivot.
9:26 - Tom, stop complaining about the rules. Do you know what happens if you don't follow them? Nothing!
9:24 - Oh Christ, great question, please rank your priorities, as if you had to do all of one and none of the other and that's it. I hate the moderators at these things.
9:22 - Is 'pork barrel earmarks' as redundant as 'ATM machine'?
9:21 - The McCainBot just remembered its instructions to turn and look at Obama every now and again.
9:17 - Yes, it will get worse before it gets better. Stay in school, avoid the real world! Actually, American workers have the highest rate of adult-onset diabetes, so they are probably not the best in the world.
9:12 - Bailout vs. rescue doesn't sound too different, in my opinion. I think McCain's barking up the wrong tree by re-living this campaign suspension bit. I don't understand this oft-repeated Republican attack line against Freddie/Fannie, in that beyond its inaccuracy, I don't think it works.
9:09 - Who would you appoint to Tres. Sec. Senator Obama? I would cut middle class taxes.
9:07 - McCain talking about home values, saying the treasury will buy bad mortgages and renegotiate the terms of the loans. Perhaps I should pretend to have problems paying my mortgage so the government will give me money. That's an odd "not you, Tom" retort. But it is a bad question. Why did McCain note that Buffet supports Obama?
9:04 - Obama watched the same CNBC report I did re: AIG. I don't know what it means to help homeowners stay in their homes... he's been vague on that in the debates, maybe his website has more.
9:03 - I wish McCain had come out riding a Rascal.
9:01 - I am not currently constrained by the ties of sobriety either.
9:00 - Okay, here we go. In my opinion, the only debate better than the first was The Empire Strikes Back.
8:57 - Did you know that the (former) CEO of AIG had the board of directors vote to essentially guarantee his salary regardless of how well the company was doing one week before they were bailed out this summer? I need to find a link to this, I just saw a piece on CNBC.
8:45 - I've never been to a town hall meeting, like an actual meeting where people from the town get together and, I dunno, complain about parking tickets. I'd like to imagine that they're all like the one in Hoosiers, where Jimmy Chitwood saves Coach Dale's job. While we're at it, who exactly are the people in the audience? I've long held that 'undecided voter,' this late in the game, is synonymous with 'moron.' I'd love to know how much overlap there is between people undecided in this election vs. 2004. I'd also love to know how many of the '04 undecideds who ended up voting for Bush still approve of the job he's done (hell, 1 out of every 5 or so people still do!) For the ones who voted Bush '04 and are unhappy with the job he's done, here's my advice: stop voting. You're a dufus. You are too easily fooled. Stay home and eat Marshmallow Fluff.
6:54 - Potential game changers (either direction):
• Instead of his usual flag pin, Obama mistakenly wears his burning flag pin.
• McCain suggest that we solve the financial crisis by re-opening the Yukon for gold exploration.
• Obama picks nose, examines, consumes.
• McCain nervously consults his watch during the debate then prematurely walks off stage, muttering that "it's lasted longer than 4 hours and I need to talk to my doctor."
• Asked to name his favorite philosopher, Obama unable to decide between Mohammad and "that white guy, you know, the one with the beard."
• McCain ends a defense of his foreign policy credentials by noting that his strategic plans have the support of many recipients of the Nobel War Prize.
5:22 - Tonight's presidential debate, moderated by Tom Brokaw, comes to us from Nashville, Tennessee. The town hall format is said to favor McCain, but I think there's a difference between a town hall filled with your supporters and a town hall where your opponent is standing right next to you. Polls continue to show Obama pulling away in this race, and McCain needs a game changer.
Monday, October 6, 2008
ALDS Game 4: Sox 3, Angels 2
First, Mike Scioscia is the Bret Favre of MLB. No matter how many times Favre throws a ridiculous interception, you can count on some commentator praising him as a gunslinger, a gamer, someone who plays the game the way it is supposed to be played. Nevermind the fact that his teams don't seem to win playoff games terribly often, the media just love him. So enter Mike Scioscia with his suicide squeeze and 'aggressive' baserunning approach in general. Oh, and you lost the game with your best pitcher sitting on the bench (K-Rod)? Wow, what a gamer that Mike Scioscia is. Hell, I'm watching the Red Sox postgame commentary and they're not blaming Scioscia. You have a guy on third with one out! If the first guy hits a fly ball, you're ahead! You've got two outs to get one hit! Idiotic.
I note that the Sox have finished the Angels in three straight postseason series with walk-offs: Ortiz had a walk-off homer in '04, Manny had a walk-off homer in '07, and now Lowrie with a walk-off single. I think I can sum up this series best by quoting Joe Morgan, during a Sox-Angels Sunday night game in July: "The Angels are peaking at the right time." Yes they were Joe, yes they were.
Schedule for the series with Tampa -- hey Ivan, welcome to town for playoff baseball! [Mets/Pirates joke deleted]:
1 - Friday at Tampa, 8:37
2 - Saturday at Tampa, 8:07
3 - Monday in Fenway, 4:37 (holy hell!!! awesome start time!)
4 - Tuesday in Fenway, 8:07
5 - Thursday in Fenway, 8:07
6 - Saturday at Tampa, 4:37
7 - Sunday at Tampa, 8:07
edit: corrected for first pitch time, instead of TV coverage start time; games on TBS
For pitching, the Sox could start either DiceK (>5 days rest) or Beckett (normal 4 days rest) on Friday. I gotta think they opt to go Beckett for game 1. There's zero chance of them going with the same starter for games 1, 4, and 7, so that's not a consideration, and Beckett is still your ace, you start him game 1. As for game 2, do you really want to leave Lester sitting there after throwing only 109 pitches tonight? No, you don't -- start Lester game 2.
I note that the Sox have finished the Angels in three straight postseason series with walk-offs: Ortiz had a walk-off homer in '04, Manny had a walk-off homer in '07, and now Lowrie with a walk-off single. I think I can sum up this series best by quoting Joe Morgan, during a Sox-Angels Sunday night game in July: "The Angels are peaking at the right time." Yes they were Joe, yes they were.
Schedule for the series with Tampa -- hey Ivan, welcome to town for playoff baseball! [Mets/Pirates joke deleted]:
1 - Friday at Tampa, 8:37
2 - Saturday at Tampa, 8:07
3 - Monday in Fenway, 4:37 (holy hell!!! awesome start time!)
4 - Tuesday in Fenway, 8:07
5 - Thursday in Fenway, 8:07
6 - Saturday at Tampa, 4:37
7 - Sunday at Tampa, 8:07
edit: corrected for first pitch time, instead of TV coverage start time; games on TBS
For pitching, the Sox could start either DiceK (>5 days rest) or Beckett (normal 4 days rest) on Friday. I gotta think they opt to go Beckett for game 1. There's zero chance of them going with the same starter for games 1, 4, and 7, so that's not a consideration, and Beckett is still your ace, you start him game 1. As for game 2, do you really want to leave Lester sitting there after throwing only 109 pitches tonight? No, you don't -- start Lester game 2.
You've won, now what?
A friend agrees with me that, barring something bizarre, this election is over (I wish I felt the same about the ALDS -- although at least through 4 innings, I'm getting my asked-for pitchers duel). He's already thinking about the first year agenda:
I think the more pressing question right now is what Obama perceives as his first year agenda --- whether the economy is going to mean delay for major initiatives (health care, energy, other "investment" programs, etc.). And, more importantly, whether or not he wants to reauthorize the Bush 2001 tax cuts. I see that as the key out-of-the-gate problem for the Obama administration during the 111th Congress. If they aren't reauthorized, he could very well face 1994 all over again, especially if economy is still shit. If they are reauthorized, there's not a chance in hell that any major initiative can be paid for simply by making the income tax more progressive at the very top, not post-bailout and in the middle of a revenue-draining recession. Of course, all of this is subject to politics, not normative philosophizing, so who knows. On the political front, it strikes me that Obama is going to also have to count heads in the Senate very carefully. His massive majority there is certain to conceal an inevitable conservative coalition when it comes to the major initiatives (for instance, R. Byrd on energy), and one doesn't want that to screw him the way it did Clinton in 1993.The point about counting heads reminds me that there's an outside chance of the Democrats hitting 60 in the Senate. But, that number includes two independents who organize with the Dems, Sanders from Vermont and -- blech -- Lieberman. I'd rather the Dems achieve 'only' 59 so they can kick Lieberman off every damn committee and make his final four years in the Senate miserable. Or better yet, appoint him ambassador to Bostwana.
Is it over?
For over a week now, Obama has held a 5 - 8 point lead in the national polls, and this lead has carried over into the individual states too (i.e. it is not that he is just wildly popular in California). By most metrics, were the election to be held today, Obama would cruise to victory, getting more than 300 electoral votes and maybe even bumping up against 350.
We go the polls in 4 weeks. The only remaining official events are the second (tomorrow) and third (Oct. 15) presidential debates. Is there any way McCain can turn this around and win? Not likely at all in my opinion. I highly doubt that Obama will make a mistake at the debates --including the primaries, he's going on about two dozen of them, and has yet to make any big gaffes yet.
I'm sure that the McCain campaign is going to turn quite negative, but does that mud really stick this late in the game, especially when you and your surrogates have been throwing mud for months anyway? October is not August, and I think it is very hard to change people's perceptions this late in the game -- the sort of emotional connection you do (or don't) have with a candidate is probably pretty well set right now. McCain essentially needs an external event to intervene, and probably nothing short of a terrorist attack would help him (that's a weird sentence to write, and I feel a little dirty for having done so).
One interesting question is how much this economic crisis hurt McCain, as it occured at essentially the same time that the American public learned about the idiocy that is Sarah Palin. I actually think that the latter event drove McCain's numbers down more than the former. People don't understand the economic crisis, but they do understand that Palin can't speak in sentences.
We go the polls in 4 weeks. The only remaining official events are the second (tomorrow) and third (Oct. 15) presidential debates. Is there any way McCain can turn this around and win? Not likely at all in my opinion. I highly doubt that Obama will make a mistake at the debates --including the primaries, he's going on about two dozen of them, and has yet to make any big gaffes yet.
I'm sure that the McCain campaign is going to turn quite negative, but does that mud really stick this late in the game, especially when you and your surrogates have been throwing mud for months anyway? October is not August, and I think it is very hard to change people's perceptions this late in the game -- the sort of emotional connection you do (or don't) have with a candidate is probably pretty well set right now. McCain essentially needs an external event to intervene, and probably nothing short of a terrorist attack would help him (that's a weird sentence to write, and I feel a little dirty for having done so).
One interesting question is how much this economic crisis hurt McCain, as it occured at essentially the same time that the American public learned about the idiocy that is Sarah Palin. I actually think that the latter event drove McCain's numbers down more than the former. People don't understand the economic crisis, but they do understand that Palin can't speak in sentences.
ALDS Game 3: Angels 5, Sox 4
These Sox-Angels games are turning into Sox-Yankees games of a few years back, in that they take forever. The game ended post-1am last night, er, today. While the score was close, the Sox were lucky not to get blown out -- indeed, if you add up the individual hits, walks, etc. and figure out what the score 'should' have been, the Angels won 9-3 (If you have no idea what this means, think of it this way: it is possible to hit 9 doubles in a game and not score a single run, if you hit one an inning, but by the law of averages, that is not likely to occur. So, you can figure out what the score should have been had you not gotten lucky/unlucky with the spacing out of your hits and such. Basically, just an objective way of saying the Angels totally outplayed the Sox in game 3).
The good news for the Sox is that a rested Jon Lester is going. The bad news is that all the reliable bullpen arms were used last night, including Papelbon for two innings. When Beckett went out early last night, I was surprised not to see Byrd -- I mean, isn't that exactly what he is for, not blowing out your bullpen? The Angels have the same problem, so I would imagine that whomever's starter can go longer has a huge advantage (well, even moreso than usual). If Lester and Lackey falter, look for this to be another very long game, and probably higher scoring. Wouldn't you just love to see a 2 and half hour 2-1 pitchers duel? Is that too much to ask?
The good news for the Sox is that a rested Jon Lester is going. The bad news is that all the reliable bullpen arms were used last night, including Papelbon for two innings. When Beckett went out early last night, I was surprised not to see Byrd -- I mean, isn't that exactly what he is for, not blowing out your bullpen? The Angels have the same problem, so I would imagine that whomever's starter can go longer has a huge advantage (well, even moreso than usual). If Lester and Lackey falter, look for this to be another very long game, and probably higher scoring. Wouldn't you just love to see a 2 and half hour 2-1 pitchers duel? Is that too much to ask?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Dick Morris
Dick Morris, a former Clintonista who, spurned by them, has dedicated the rest of his life to hating anything related to first the Clintons and, lacking that, any Democrat. In this column, he writes of Sarah Palin:
His website:
Reality:
I also don't understand this new CBS series that claims "every scientific experiment requires sacrifice." Weird.
She didn't just win the vice-presidential debate, she showed that she belongs with Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as among the best communicators of our modern political times.As George Costanza would say, it is not a lie, if you believe it. To enhance the comedy, this column included a picture of Dick Morris, which was either Photoshop'd or from about 20 years ago, as Dick actually weighs in at close to 300 nowadays.
His website:
Reality:
I also don't understand this new CBS series that claims "every scientific experiment requires sacrifice." Weird.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
ALDS Game 2: Sox 7, Angels 5
I'm very much enjoying the Division series home run chase, with Manny Ramirez and Jason Bay tied for the lead at 2. Also, it looks like I wasn't insane when I was legitimately happy that JD Drew was back.
One quibble with Francona last night. With the Sox leading 5 - 3 in the 7th, he brings in Masterson. Fine. Masterson then gives up a run and manages to get out of a bases loaded jam, and obviously doesn't look too good in the process -- several walks, including one that forced in the run, and several balls hit in the air, which is a bad sign for a sinker ball pitcher.
Turn to the 8th inning now, still 5 - 4, and Francona brings Masterson back out to start the 8th. He immediately gives up a leadoff triple, so Papelbon is brought in. Here's what I'm wondering -- if Papelbon was warmed up and ready to go, and you were already prepared to pitch him for two full innings, why not just have him start the 8th? You had days off both before and after this game, so this isn't a rest issue. Further, it seems like a 1 one lead with 2 innings to go is exactly the sort of time you'd want your best pitcher in the game. Papelbon pitched great, of course, but the leadoff triple did score to tie the game (which is why a blown-save is the only stat dumber than the save itself). JD Drew's homer in the 9th means few people will talk about this decision, but if this game had gone into extra innings, and/or the Angels had won, that decision to have Masterson start the 8th would come under more scrutiny.
Game 3 is slated for a 7:17 first pitch at Fenway on Sunday; Beckett reportedly had a good side session the other day, so he's ready to go.
One quibble with Francona last night. With the Sox leading 5 - 3 in the 7th, he brings in Masterson. Fine. Masterson then gives up a run and manages to get out of a bases loaded jam, and obviously doesn't look too good in the process -- several walks, including one that forced in the run, and several balls hit in the air, which is a bad sign for a sinker ball pitcher.
Turn to the 8th inning now, still 5 - 4, and Francona brings Masterson back out to start the 8th. He immediately gives up a leadoff triple, so Papelbon is brought in. Here's what I'm wondering -- if Papelbon was warmed up and ready to go, and you were already prepared to pitch him for two full innings, why not just have him start the 8th? You had days off both before and after this game, so this isn't a rest issue. Further, it seems like a 1 one lead with 2 innings to go is exactly the sort of time you'd want your best pitcher in the game. Papelbon pitched great, of course, but the leadoff triple did score to tie the game (which is why a blown-save is the only stat dumber than the save itself). JD Drew's homer in the 9th means few people will talk about this decision, but if this game had gone into extra innings, and/or the Angels had won, that decision to have Masterson start the 8th would come under more scrutiny.
Game 3 is slated for a 7:17 first pitch at Fenway on Sunday; Beckett reportedly had a good side session the other day, so he's ready to go.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
The VP debate live blog
10:33 - Talking Heads will say Palin didn't screw up, so she 'won' -- they're wrong, Biden did everything that a frontrunner should do. G'night, and go Sox.
10:30 - The only thing that Obama might possibly be lacking on from the perspective of undecided voters is gravitas/presidentiality (and melanin count, but that ain't changing). Biden showed tonight that Obama made a very presidential choice to be his VP.
10:29 - "Without the filter of the mainstream media" - What, did CBS edit out that part where you predicted what the Large Haldron Collider would find?
10:28 - How the fuck is your family diverse?
10:27 - Motive vs. judgement is a nice comparison, at least for an egghead like me
10:26 - Yes, all the accomplishements in Alaska, which is why it is a backwoods state...
10:23 - Biden has a nice balance between restraint and attack.
10:21 - Look, Paley Pal, 'Maverick' would have worked n 1985, but Goose is dead, and so is the dream. You also just named four rich white guys as evidence for McCain's maverickicity
10:18 - Does Sarah Palin even know what a sentence is? Can she speak in sentences? FUCK OFF BITCH, CITY ON A HILL WAS WINTHROP (1600s), NOT REAGAN.
10:16 - Nice question about Cheney and the execute/legislative divide of the VP; "yeah, so"
10:13 - How should the VP 'exert more authority' over the Senate? What does that mean, the VP gets two votes? The VP gets to -- I GOT BINGO -- the VP gets to eliminate a Senator each week, because in fashion, one week you are in, and the next, you are out.
10:12 - My school teacher wife and mother (separate people) hate Sarah Palin, and in my book, they get extra credit for that. Think they should teach teens about sex in schools honey?
10:11 - Wha? There you go again AND say it ain't so Joe in one incomplete sentence?
10:10 - Sarah Palin, I knew Ronald Reagan. You're no Ronald Reagan.
10:08 - Watching the first Prez debate and now this one keeps bringing one image to my mind: the NY Giants of the mid-80s. They'd get a lead and the would own the 3rd quarter. I mean, every game, they'd come out of the locker room and own the 3rd quarter. They'd run the ball, the get first downs, they'd play tight D. This is what Obama-Biden is doing. Nothing flashy, not throwing the ball downfield, but rather putting themselves in position to win this game. I dunno who is Mark Bavaro in this analogy, but man, he had good hands.
10:06 - How exactly does John McCain know how to win a war? I mean, I don't want to disrespect a veteran who served the country, but what wars has he won?
10:04 - Palin did not actually watch those debates, I guarantee. Biden is showing incredible patience by not just blowing up at Palin for being a moron and asking her, you know, questions.
9:59 - There is no way you could walk away from watching this and not think that Biden doesn't know his shit. He's been good.
9:56 - Good question, on the nuk-u-ler weapons. Palin is into rambling phrase mode.
9:55 - McCain is a bit too late to claim the 'change' mantel...
9:51 - Ifill just asked if a "two state solution is the solution" in Israel and Palin vehemently agreed. I think that Ifill could have asked if a "broccoli-coated noodle is the solution" in Israel and Palin would have vehemently agreed.
9:49 - I would really like to hear a fact-based question asked of Palin. I mean, about anything. Math? Geography? Potent Potables?
9:48 - Please please learn how to pronounce nuclear
9:45 - Without reading the history of the last 700 years -- great line :)
9:38 - Tolerant people generally don't say how tolerant they are
9:36 - Fuck yeah Joe, don't be timid about same-sex couples. This is something Obama has always been very good on.
9:34 - Green natural gas? That's new to me...
9:31 - Palin is eating her tail right now -- why argue about causes, because it is not like knowing what is causing something can help you prevent it...
9:30 - Great question Gwen!!!
9:29 - Please nail her on this nonsensical drill-baby-drill approach...
9:26 - If you're a Sports Guy reader, you just saw Sarah Palin use the face that has been attributed to Derek Lowe, Peyton Manning, and others who become confused in the face of pressure. She's starting to ramble more.
9:24 - Sarah Palin: I've been at this five weeks
9:23 - Palin says "earmarks" and I got Bingo (call Troy Brown)
9:22 - Call me nuts, and certainly Palin wouldn't be here if she were, but wouldn't Clinton - Palin just be unreal?
9:19 - Palin is talking as if the Republicans haven't been in power the past 8 years...
9:16 - Biden is effective on the taxes issue, and the Reagan comp is good.
9:14 - Biden has sharp elbows. "I may not answer the questions" no shit Sarah
9:10 - Well, 10 minutes in, Biden has yet to talk to Palin about anything, which is probably a good move. Palin has yet to screw up and sounds better than with Couric. I'm up to 2 hits on bingo, btw.
9:08 - Well done Biden, don't let that stuff hang out there, take command of the debate, and don't let Sarah Palin get away with that stuff. That wink of hers in infuriating. The good news is that she's already just yammering out fed lines, meaning her brain is shut off.
9:06 - Palin is way more comfortable talking to a camera than a human.
9:05 - Is Palin pretending to be writing things down? Or is she doing the Jumble?
9:04 - Excellent pivot by Biden on the first question. Blame Bush, praise Obama. Debating 101.
9:00 - Tom Brokaw mentions that Biden will need to have undergone a 'gene transplant' in order to be succint. I have no idea what that means.
8:56 - You know, so many people in the media are already so anti-Palin (I'm watching Chris Matthews right now, but there are many people -- George Will, Fareed Zakaria) that no matter what happens right now, they know she's a joke and won't be convinced to sing her praises solely because she doesn't screw up.
8:44 - For those wondering what to watch whilst waiting, I suggest "Dodgeball" on Fx, although you just missed the best quote in the movie, "let me hit you with some knowledge," which I plan on using during job talks.
8:41 - While I wait, I've turned to the Brewers/Phillies game. Eric Gagme is pitching and doing well. Either he has found some new and improved 'supplements' or the NL is just a joke.
8:39 - Printed out my Palin Bingo card. I'm playing card #1 -- well, The Live-In Intern will be playing for me, because there's not enough time in the day for live-blogging and playing bingo.
5:54 - About three hours from now, the American public will get to see Sarah Palin think on her feet. Or not. I'm quite bummed that the candidates aren't allowed to talk to each other much, nor does it appear that the moderator, Gwen Ifill, will get to ask too many follow up questions. This may allow Palin to get away with her incredibly vague platitudes, but you only need one deer-in-the-headlights moment to show, yet again, that she's not smarter than a fifth grader. I hope at least some of the questions are direct repeats of ones she's already been asked, especially regarding her assertion in the Couric interview that the Constitution does contain a right to privacy, the underpining of Roe v. Wade.
I think the Talking Heads are going to waaay overemphasize the expectations game, namely, that if Palin doesn't make any major screw-ups she'll have 'won' because everyone expects her to screw up. While that may be how they watch the debate, it is not how the most important audience, undecided voters, watch the debate. Truly undecided people will not vote based on who exceeded expectations more but rather who looks better in the comparison to the other, Palin or Biden -- and even then, do they really care all that much about the VP debate? Don't get me wrong, if someone does say something really stupid it will move voters, but I don't think that seeming maybe-competent is a victory for Palin, although that is what most Talking Heads will spout.
10:30 - The only thing that Obama might possibly be lacking on from the perspective of undecided voters is gravitas/presidentiality (and melanin count, but that ain't changing). Biden showed tonight that Obama made a very presidential choice to be his VP.
10:29 - "Without the filter of the mainstream media" - What, did CBS edit out that part where you predicted what the Large Haldron Collider would find?
10:28 - How the fuck is your family diverse?
10:27 - Motive vs. judgement is a nice comparison, at least for an egghead like me
10:26 - Yes, all the accomplishements in Alaska, which is why it is a backwoods state...
10:23 - Biden has a nice balance between restraint and attack.
10:21 - Look, Paley Pal, 'Maverick' would have worked n 1985, but Goose is dead, and so is the dream. You also just named four rich white guys as evidence for McCain's maverickicity
10:18 - Does Sarah Palin even know what a sentence is? Can she speak in sentences? FUCK OFF BITCH, CITY ON A HILL WAS WINTHROP (1600s), NOT REAGAN.
10:16 - Nice question about Cheney and the execute/legislative divide of the VP; "yeah, so"
10:13 - How should the VP 'exert more authority' over the Senate? What does that mean, the VP gets two votes? The VP gets to -- I GOT BINGO -- the VP gets to eliminate a Senator each week, because in fashion, one week you are in, and the next, you are out.
10:12 - My school teacher wife and mother (separate people) hate Sarah Palin, and in my book, they get extra credit for that. Think they should teach teens about sex in schools honey?
10:11 - Wha? There you go again AND say it ain't so Joe in one incomplete sentence?
10:10 - Sarah Palin, I knew Ronald Reagan. You're no Ronald Reagan.
10:08 - Watching the first Prez debate and now this one keeps bringing one image to my mind: the NY Giants of the mid-80s. They'd get a lead and the would own the 3rd quarter. I mean, every game, they'd come out of the locker room and own the 3rd quarter. They'd run the ball, the get first downs, they'd play tight D. This is what Obama-Biden is doing. Nothing flashy, not throwing the ball downfield, but rather putting themselves in position to win this game. I dunno who is Mark Bavaro in this analogy, but man, he had good hands.
10:06 - How exactly does John McCain know how to win a war? I mean, I don't want to disrespect a veteran who served the country, but what wars has he won?
10:04 - Palin did not actually watch those debates, I guarantee. Biden is showing incredible patience by not just blowing up at Palin for being a moron and asking her, you know, questions.
9:59 - There is no way you could walk away from watching this and not think that Biden doesn't know his shit. He's been good.
9:56 - Good question, on the nuk-u-ler weapons. Palin is into rambling phrase mode.
9:55 - McCain is a bit too late to claim the 'change' mantel...
9:51 - Ifill just asked if a "two state solution is the solution" in Israel and Palin vehemently agreed. I think that Ifill could have asked if a "broccoli-coated noodle is the solution" in Israel and Palin would have vehemently agreed.
9:49 - I would really like to hear a fact-based question asked of Palin. I mean, about anything. Math? Geography? Potent Potables?
9:48 - Please please learn how to pronounce nuclear
9:45 - Without reading the history of the last 700 years -- great line :)
9:38 - Tolerant people generally don't say how tolerant they are
9:36 - Fuck yeah Joe, don't be timid about same-sex couples. This is something Obama has always been very good on.
9:34 - Green natural gas? That's new to me...
9:31 - Palin is eating her tail right now -- why argue about causes, because it is not like knowing what is causing something can help you prevent it...
9:30 - Great question Gwen!!!
9:29 - Please nail her on this nonsensical drill-baby-drill approach...
9:26 - If you're a Sports Guy reader, you just saw Sarah Palin use the face that has been attributed to Derek Lowe, Peyton Manning, and others who become confused in the face of pressure. She's starting to ramble more.
9:24 - Sarah Palin: I've been at this five weeks
9:23 - Palin says "earmarks" and I got Bingo (call Troy Brown)
9:22 - Call me nuts, and certainly Palin wouldn't be here if she were, but wouldn't Clinton - Palin just be unreal?
9:19 - Palin is talking as if the Republicans haven't been in power the past 8 years...
9:16 - Biden is effective on the taxes issue, and the Reagan comp is good.
9:14 - Biden has sharp elbows. "I may not answer the questions" no shit Sarah
9:10 - Well, 10 minutes in, Biden has yet to talk to Palin about anything, which is probably a good move. Palin has yet to screw up and sounds better than with Couric. I'm up to 2 hits on bingo, btw.
9:08 - Well done Biden, don't let that stuff hang out there, take command of the debate, and don't let Sarah Palin get away with that stuff. That wink of hers in infuriating. The good news is that she's already just yammering out fed lines, meaning her brain is shut off.
9:06 - Palin is way more comfortable talking to a camera than a human.
9:05 - Is Palin pretending to be writing things down? Or is she doing the Jumble?
9:04 - Excellent pivot by Biden on the first question. Blame Bush, praise Obama. Debating 101.
9:00 - Tom Brokaw mentions that Biden will need to have undergone a 'gene transplant' in order to be succint. I have no idea what that means.
8:56 - You know, so many people in the media are already so anti-Palin (I'm watching Chris Matthews right now, but there are many people -- George Will, Fareed Zakaria) that no matter what happens right now, they know she's a joke and won't be convinced to sing her praises solely because she doesn't screw up.
8:44 - For those wondering what to watch whilst waiting, I suggest "Dodgeball" on Fx, although you just missed the best quote in the movie, "let me hit you with some knowledge," which I plan on using during job talks.
8:41 - While I wait, I've turned to the Brewers/Phillies game. Eric Gagme is pitching and doing well. Either he has found some new and improved 'supplements' or the NL is just a joke.
8:39 - Printed out my Palin Bingo card. I'm playing card #1 -- well, The Live-In Intern will be playing for me, because there's not enough time in the day for live-blogging and playing bingo.
5:54 - About three hours from now, the American public will get to see Sarah Palin think on her feet. Or not. I'm quite bummed that the candidates aren't allowed to talk to each other much, nor does it appear that the moderator, Gwen Ifill, will get to ask too many follow up questions. This may allow Palin to get away with her incredibly vague platitudes, but you only need one deer-in-the-headlights moment to show, yet again, that she's not smarter than a fifth grader. I hope at least some of the questions are direct repeats of ones she's already been asked, especially regarding her assertion in the Couric interview that the Constitution does contain a right to privacy, the underpining of Roe v. Wade.
I think the Talking Heads are going to waaay overemphasize the expectations game, namely, that if Palin doesn't make any major screw-ups she'll have 'won' because everyone expects her to screw up. While that may be how they watch the debate, it is not how the most important audience, undecided voters, watch the debate. Truly undecided people will not vote based on who exceeded expectations more but rather who looks better in the comparison to the other, Palin or Biden -- and even then, do they really care all that much about the VP debate? Don't get me wrong, if someone does say something really stupid it will move voters, but I don't think that seeming maybe-competent is a victory for Palin, although that is what most Talking Heads will spout.
ALDS Game 1: Sox 4, Angels 1
Phenomenal pitching by Lester last night. Hard to believe that, back in April, he was one of the starters that many were worried was turning into Matt Clement -- he'd get flustered on the mound, he'd start taking forever in between pitches, and he'd rarely make it through the 6th inning. Then he dueled Roy Halladay, threw a no-hitter, and hasn't looked back. I can't remember the last Sox starter to develop in front of our eyes like this -- the last homegrown ace the Sox have produced was Clemens, and it is not like he really developed per se, he started off as a star. Bruce Hurst maybe?
I was very surprised to see Francona go to Masterson to pitch the 8th with a one-run lead instead of Okijima. I don't think it was a simple lefty-righty thing, as Oki has actually been better against righties. I thought Masterson pitched well, as he has all season. Yes, he got lucky with excellent defensive plays by Ellsbury and Youkilis, but don't forget, he was also unlucky in that both of those plays were bloops into no-mans-land.
DiceK goes on Friday night (9:30 start). Let's hope that the Cubs manage to take a game from the Dodgers, so that game 4 of Chicago at LA will be the late game on Sunday night instead of game 3 of Sox-Angels at Fenway.
I was very surprised to see Francona go to Masterson to pitch the 8th with a one-run lead instead of Okijima. I don't think it was a simple lefty-righty thing, as Oki has actually been better against righties. I thought Masterson pitched well, as he has all season. Yes, he got lucky with excellent defensive plays by Ellsbury and Youkilis, but don't forget, he was also unlucky in that both of those plays were bloops into no-mans-land.
DiceK goes on Friday night (9:30 start). Let's hope that the Cubs manage to take a game from the Dodgers, so that game 4 of Chicago at LA will be the late game on Sunday night instead of game 3 of Sox-Angels at Fenway.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
C'mon TBS...
So Craig Sager is on the 'sidelines' for TBS in the Sox-Angels series. In addition to wearing a tangerine-colored sports jacket, he has already said that Jon Lester has overcome "lymph noma" -- it is one word, lymphoma, douchebag, and doesn't sound anything like that. Second, apparently Mike Lowell's last name should be pronounced like it rhymes with "towel." I mean, has this guy done any preparation?
Oh, one more thing... the TBS K-Zone, or whatever the hell they're calling the box that tracks the pitch, has really no connection to reality. They showed a ball as hitting high and outside even though Varitek was diving low and in to catch it.
Oh, one more thing... the TBS K-Zone, or whatever the hell they're calling the box that tracks the pitch, has really no connection to reality. They showed a ball as hitting high and outside even though Varitek was diving low and in to catch it.
The Contest
I suppose it is time to put my money where my mouth is in terms of electoral math, so I'm opening up a little contest. Go to this form to make your prediction about how this is all going to end. Enter how many electoral votes you think Obama will end up with (out of 538 total) as well as the winner in 14 battleground states. You can vote often (up to 5 times), and there is a bonus for voting early. Voting closes at noon on Election Day.
ALDS roster
Drew, Lowell, and Beckett all made the Division series roster for the Sox, so they must be reasonably healthy. Because of the question marks surrounding Beckett, the Sox took both Byrd and Wakefield; I'd imagine that Wakefield isn't used in games 1 and 2 as he'd likely start game 3 should Beckett not be able to go. While Manny Delcarmen still scares the hell out of me, I'd imagine that Byrd is the last option in the pen, meaning extra innings or mop-up. Shockingly, and thankfully, Timlin did not make the roster -- apparently, Francona realized that 90 mph straight fastballs right over the plate can be hit by most major leaguers.
Also, as I suspected, the Sox will have three catchers on the roster, adding David Ross. I really doubt he'll see the field, but it does allow Francona to pinch hit for Tek.
So thrilled that I'm already tired and the game doesn't start for 3 and half hours... Cubs-Dodgers should be a helluva series, though.
Also, as I suspected, the Sox will have three catchers on the roster, adding David Ross. I really doubt he'll see the field, but it does allow Francona to pinch hit for Tek.
So thrilled that I'm already tired and the game doesn't start for 3 and half hours... Cubs-Dodgers should be a helluva series, though.
Would an idiot do that?
A friend sends along a link to an opinion piece appearing in today's Wall St. Journal, by an Econ Nobel Laureate from Columbia University. I particularly enjoyed reading this because sometimes I needed to go back and read a sentence again to make sure I understood it. This will occur when someone is treating a serious matter seriously, and when complex ideas need to be explained. Unfortunately, most articles that appear in most OpEd pages are completely devoid of facts and analysis and can thus be read quite rapidly, as the rate-limiting step becomes how fast your eyes can move across the page, not how fast your brain can process the information.
Also, another friend passes along a great read from NPR, a transcript from a recent show that does a good job of explaining how everything went to hell. It certainly helped me make sense of things.
No one wants a broken economy, and if the bailout would prevent bad things from
happening to good people, then fine. But I think a lot of us want some "punishment" to the idiots who made bad decisions, which after all, is what idiots do, because they didn't listen to Dwight Shrute:
Who are the idiots? Well, I guess there are two classes of them, the people who took out loans they couldn't afford and the people who gave them the loans. Being the neopopulist that I am (Does that word exist yet? I don't think it does, so it can mean whatever I want it to mean), I'd prefer that we err on the side of hammering the idiot bankers, if only because they were getting paid too much to begin with.
Also, another friend passes along a great read from NPR, a transcript from a recent show that does a good job of explaining how everything went to hell. It certainly helped me make sense of things.
No one wants a broken economy, and if the bailout would prevent bad things from
happening to good people, then fine. But I think a lot of us want some "punishment" to the idiots who made bad decisions, which after all, is what idiots do, because they didn't listen to Dwight Shrute:Whenever I’m about to do something, I think, “Would an idiot do that?”, and if they would, I do not do that thing.
Who are the idiots? Well, I guess there are two classes of them, the people who took out loans they couldn't afford and the people who gave them the loans. Being the neopopulist that I am (Does that word exist yet? I don't think it does, so it can mean whatever I want it to mean), I'd prefer that we err on the side of hammering the idiot bankers, if only because they were getting paid too much to begin with.
Intellectual morass
The conventional wisdom now holds that the Senate will vote on a bailout/rescue bill sometime today, while the House will reconvene tomorrow and vote that day or Friday. While no bill sails through Congress, it seems that the sausage-being-made aspect of this one is particularly gruesome. No one knows what to think or what to say, as evidenced by this quick succession of events noticed by a friend while watching CNN for 30 minutes:
I doubt that I'm alone in not knowing what to think either. Do I want Wall Street to get a wad of dough and get bailed-out from a lot of bad decisions? No. Am I worried about the whole sucker going down (wow, there's a presidential quote for posterity...)? Yes. Of course, maybe this just points to the fact that we're all lemmings -- I mean, for the past 8 years, I could pretty much feel comfortable just opposing whatever the hell Bush was supporting. Likewise, if some elected leader who's intellect and opinion I respected had some clear statements on this, that would certainly help. Maybe I should just think whatever Paul Krugman tells me to.
1) News report of GOP Members blaming Dems for failure to pass bailout.
2) Liberal 527 ad against "Bush bailout" for "his friends on Wall Street"
3) RNC(I think) ad blaming Obama for economy and trying to pass "reckless" bailout
4) News report of House Dems blaming GOP for failing to bailout economy.
I doubt that I'm alone in not knowing what to think either. Do I want Wall Street to get a wad of dough and get bailed-out from a lot of bad decisions? No. Am I worried about the whole sucker going down (wow, there's a presidential quote for posterity...)? Yes. Of course, maybe this just points to the fact that we're all lemmings -- I mean, for the past 8 years, I could pretty much feel comfortable just opposing whatever the hell Bush was supporting. Likewise, if some elected leader who's intellect and opinion I respected had some clear statements on this, that would certainly help. Maybe I should just think whatever Paul Krugman tells me to.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Aaah!
Every now and again in the lab, you'll have a result that jives with all your hypotheses, that points towards some interesting conclusion that might explain some tiny part of how this world works, and that other people might be interested in. Those are good moments... rare, but good.
The flip-side of that feeling, however, is the realization that the result might not mean what you think it means (inconceivable!). These realizations stink, because they tend to point towards an experiment that you don't want to do and don't want to 'work' because proving yourself wrong is never fun. These are moments of dread, when you have these thoughts, but these are also, fortunately, rare.
I just had one of those moments. I've been thoroughly enjoying the Sarah Palin Experience. The interviews with Charlie & Katie were great, but I loved having another reason to watch Tina Fey. I already thought she was great from SNL and 30 Rock, but now I love her even more. So today, when I clicked on another episode of Sarah Palin with Katie Couric, I was horrified when for a split second I liked Sarah Palin -- not because it was Sarah Palin, but because in my mind I saw Tina Fey and that made me smile, instead of vomit in terror that the actual Sarah Palin could be the actual president. Given how easy it is for the human brain to work on the emotional level instead of the rational one, I really really hope that this is not a common occurrence.
The flip-side of that feeling, however, is the realization that the result might not mean what you think it means (inconceivable!). These realizations stink, because they tend to point towards an experiment that you don't want to do and don't want to 'work' because proving yourself wrong is never fun. These are moments of dread, when you have these thoughts, but these are also, fortunately, rare.
I just had one of those moments. I've been thoroughly enjoying the Sarah Palin Experience. The interviews with Charlie & Katie were great, but I loved having another reason to watch Tina Fey. I already thought she was great from SNL and 30 Rock, but now I love her even more. So today, when I clicked on another episode of Sarah Palin with Katie Couric, I was horrified when for a split second I liked Sarah Palin -- not because it was Sarah Palin, but because in my mind I saw Tina Fey and that made me smile, instead of vomit in terror that the actual Sarah Palin could be the actual president. Given how easy it is for the human brain to work on the emotional level instead of the rational one, I really really hope that this is not a common occurrence.
Ignorance and fear
A friend points me to a recent article by Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post. There's a paragraph I find particularly insightful:
One thing I find odd about the various bailout proposals is that none of them (as far as I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong) seek to eliminate mortgage-backed securities as an investment tool. If one believes that they really are the root cause of this crisis, then shouldn't we just say, huh, I guess they are a bad financial instrument, we should eliminate them and just go back to the way mortages were handled thirty years ago? It is not like people weren't buying homes thirty years ago. I have no idea how one would go about eliminating them, and they might be so entrenched into the system that they really couldn't be abolished, in the same way that the QWERTY keyboard is a horribly inefficient layout but we're now pretty much stuck with it, or the way our eyes have a blindspot because the optic nerve passes in front of the light receptors.
This highlights one of the reasons we need government to keep an eye on the financial sector and do a vigorous job of adapting and enforcing the rules. This is, of course, quite different from attempting to plan the economy in any way. The problem with the Republican party of the past twenty or so years is that any rules were to be avoided and the market should be left entirely to its own devices -- of course, even Adam Smith himself never advocated such a system, and indeed, thought that the state was an important part of the market.What we are discovering is that all the complex securities, combined with ever-greater international investment flows, have created a global financial system "so arcane that few people can understand its workings," David Smick writes in "The World Is Curved: Hidden Dangers to the Global Economy." The difference between now and two years ago is that financial managers then thought they understood the system; now they know they don't. Ignorance breeds risk-aversion and fear.
One thing I find odd about the various bailout proposals is that none of them (as far as I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong) seek to eliminate mortgage-backed securities as an investment tool. If one believes that they really are the root cause of this crisis, then shouldn't we just say, huh, I guess they are a bad financial instrument, we should eliminate them and just go back to the way mortages were handled thirty years ago? It is not like people weren't buying homes thirty years ago. I have no idea how one would go about eliminating them, and they might be so entrenched into the system that they really couldn't be abolished, in the same way that the QWERTY keyboard is a horribly inefficient layout but we're now pretty much stuck with it, or the way our eyes have a blindspot because the optic nerve passes in front of the light receptors.
Turing test
The questions of what it means to be alive is something that humans have puzzled and puzzed over for years. Descartes came up with "I think therefore I am" but because he said it in Latin, no one took him seriously.
Fast forward many years, and computer heads started thinking about how do we tell if a computer is alive (you know, like in the Terminator movies), and a guy named Alan Turing came up with what is now known as the Turing Test. The idea is pretty simple: if you sit in a room and 'talk' to a computer (over, say, IM) could you tell if the writer on the other end were a computer or a person. If you can't tell, then the computer has passed the Turing Test.
I'm very happy to report that this bar has now been crossed... if all humans were Sarah Palin. Using an analysis of her word usage in speeches and interviews, this site randomly generates Sarah Palin-like answers. Quite accurate, really. And scary.
Fast forward many years, and computer heads started thinking about how do we tell if a computer is alive (you know, like in the Terminator movies), and a guy named Alan Turing came up with what is now known as the Turing Test. The idea is pretty simple: if you sit in a room and 'talk' to a computer (over, say, IM) could you tell if the writer on the other end were a computer or a person. If you can't tell, then the computer has passed the Turing Test.
I'm very happy to report that this bar has now been crossed... if all humans were Sarah Palin. Using an analysis of her word usage in speeches and interviews, this site randomly generates Sarah Palin-like answers. Quite accurate, really. And scary.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Weekend cobwebs
I really don't know why MLB has decided to put the Red Sox first playoff game on at 10pm eastern time on Wednesday night (Friday night's at 9:30). There are certainly more Sox fans in the east coast than there are Angels fans in the west coast. And if the Angels can't fill a stadium for a mid-afternoon playoff game, then that's their problem (think Fenway or Wrigley wouldn't be full for an afternoon playoff game?)
Oh yeah, and Beckett is out for game 1, and I'm skeptical that he'd be able to pitch by game 3. Blech.
I'm sure by tomorrow morning I'll have figured out this whole bailout thing. But really, we're all just looking forward to Thursday night's debate, which I will live-blog and hopefully not choke to death from laughter.
Oh yeah, and Beckett is out for game 1, and I'm skeptical that he'd be able to pitch by game 3. Blech.
I'm sure by tomorrow morning I'll have figured out this whole bailout thing. But really, we're all just looking forward to Thursday night's debate, which I will live-blog and hopefully not choke to death from laughter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
