2008 NL MVP: Pujols v. Howard
This comes from an email exchange with my friend JTT. My email:
Here is another article and counter article by two really good
sportswriters, Thomas Boswell and Joe Posnanski. Definitely read
these, Boswell is making points very similar to what you were making
earlier this year, JTT. Thing is he's getting blasted by commenters
and other bloggers/writers.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/baseball-insider/2008/11/mvps_howard_k-rod_not_pujols_p.html
http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/11/19/life-of-boswell/
JTT's email response:
specific judgment of Howard over Pujols (as indicated in my prior
e-mail), but I don't think it's crazy. I strongly agree with Boswell
on this though: the VORP discrepancy between Howard and Pujols is just
so great that the obvious inference to draw here is that this is one of
those things VORP gets badly wrong. That's not the end of the world;
it doesn't mean VORP is a bad stat. Even good stats will get things
wrong, occasionally. Here is one time when VORP really screws up.
And, truth be told, everyone really knows it's misleading here. Even
the people attacking Boswell so harshly here surely don't believe that
Pujols is 3 times more valuable than Ryan Howard,
which is what you would have to believe if you accepted their VORP
ratings. If the Boswell-critics really do believe this, we need to
bring them into our fantasy league and EWB leagues, so I can exploit
the hell out of them. I'll gladly trade them my 1 Pujols for their 3
Ryan Howards, and we'll just see who fares better.
number of baseball stats you could consider. Take slugging percentage
for example. To calulate it, you take ((singles x 1) + (doubles x 2) +
(triples x 3) + (HR x 4))/AB. Offhand, it seems obvious why you would
select just these values — why a single should get 1 point, a double 2
points, and so on. But in truth, I would bet my life that these aren't
the "real values" of these different sorts of hits. That is, I would
bet my life that 1 HR isn't "equivalent in value" to 4 singles, or to 2
doubles, or to 1 triple + 1 single, etc. Here is a quick argument for
the conclusion: Suppose you get to choose what your team's offensive
production will be today, which option do you prefer (a) 1 HR, no other
hits, or (b) 1 triple, 1 single (not necessarily consecutive, just over
the course of the game), and no other hits? I guarantee you that (a)
on average will deliver your team more runs, because (a) guarantees at
least *one* run, the guy who hit the HR (in addition, there may or may
not be runners on base). In contrast, (b) doesn't guarantee you at
least one run. If the triple takes place in the 2nd inning and the
single in the 7th, it doesn't really help you at all. Obviously, there
are possible scenarios where (b) leads to more runs: the triple
happened right after you got two walks, and the single happened when
there was a runner on 2nd thanks to an error, etc. Still, I guarantee
that (a) will have the higher expected run-value than (b).
it: ((singles x 1) + (doubles x 2) + (triples x 3) + (HR x 4.2))/AB.
Call this SLUG* (slug-prime). The way it differs from original SLUG is
that SLUG* assigns a value of 4.2 to a home run, instead of just 4.
This is to reflect our latest conclusion, that a HR is really worth
more than 1 triple + 1 single. (According to SLUG*, a HR is worth 4.2,
while a triple + single is worth 4.) Well, from that first step, you
can see how (literally, infinitiely) many different revisions might
go. Why not assign a single the value of .9, or .91, or .911, or
.9111, etc., infinitely. I say let a thousand flowers bloom, and use
each statistic so-generated: so you have SLUG, SLUG*, SLUG**, SLUG***,
and so on, for infitenly many different stats. And that's just
limiting our attention to variations on slugging percentage — here
alone we get infinitely many different statistical measures.
valuations of players. So for instance, Pedroia has a worse SLUG than
Youkilis. But, suppose that if you use SLUG*****, Pedroia is better
than Youkilis. So then, the question is, which statistic is a better
measure of true value, SLUG or SLUG*****? If it's SLUG, then Youkilis
should get the MVP; if it's SLUG*****, Pedroia should get the vote.
But how do you find out which statistic is better?
"commonsense" . If you want me to back up my commonsense verdicts,
with "stats," I can do that all day. Playing the role of Boswell,
Pujols is better than Howard at VORP, but Howard is better than Pujols
at VORP x RBI. (VORP x RBI isn't a pre-existing stat, I just made it
up: it's VORP multiplied by RBI total.) So question, why should we
care about VORP more than VORP x RBI? Why not vote on the basis of
VORP x RBI and thus give the award to Howard over Pujols? Hey, that
way, we can claim to be honoring both Sabermetrics (by including VORP) and traditional stats (by including RBIs). Everyone should be happy.
no way to figure out which stat is bettern between SLUG vs. SLUG****,
between VORP vs. VORP x RBI, than by appealing to commonsense. There's
no way to assess it by appealing to more stats. For, even if you do
show me some stat that indicates VORP is better, I'll just invent my
own stat that says VORP x RBI is better. (And again, Sabermetrics
people ultimately ground their claims in commonsense anyway, e.g., when
they discredit RBIs. They argue that RBIs depend on too many
extraneous factors. Let me stipulate that they're right about this.
Even so, it's a commonsense appeal, not statistics.)
Topics: Baseball | No Comments »
Reliving Baseball Cards, Thank You Internet!
The 1980's were a glorious time to be collecting baseball cards as a kid. The hobby was really hitting a peak, magazines such as Beckett's started publishing values to the cards, and everybody I knew collected cards. My love for baseball carries on to this day but somewhere along the line, probably around age 12, my love for collecting cards faded.
However, like with other childhood nostalgia there comes a point when sometimes you yearn to re-experience it. In my case, one day while stumbling through the web a happened upon a weblog that was sifting through the 1988 Topps Set. It's great! Seeing all the cards with a new, fresh perspective. Examining the photography, checking out the stats again, correcting misperceptions of my youth (a lot of these players were much better or much worse than I remembered as a kid).
I recommend you check out the site here, even if you never collected cards you'll enjoy it if you're a baseball fan. There is a relevant background and stats. That same guy also is doing a 1978 Topps Set here and I just finished with this post and was great.
I believe there are several baseball card sites on the internet, I plan to check as many as I can out. It is very relaxing and escapist to pore over these childhood relics.
Topics: Baseball | No Comments »
Nebraska Electoral College: Future?
This comes from my friend, JTT, about the future of the Nebraska Electoral System. If you are not familiar, Nebraska like Maine allocates their Electoral College Votes by Congressional District, not winner take all. JTT's comments:
"I see that fresh off Obama getting the Omaha electoral college
vote, the Nebraska State Republican Party is trying to change the state
constitution so that in future years, Nebraska will allocate their
electoral votes the way that everybody else (besides Maine) does: all
or nothing.
stupid to me. First, by virtue of having the split system, Nebraska is
able to get attention from national candidates in a way that it never
would under an all-or-nothing system: you can be sure that Obama
wouldn't have bothered pouring resources into Omaha on that scenario,
and that Palin never would have visited, etc. And it's not just a
matter of empty gestures: if politicians have to compete for Omaha,
they're bound to make promises relevant to Omahans.
Omaha, it's not like Republicans give up anything of worth under the
present system. There's only one scenario where the present system
could screw Republicans: the nation-wide electoral college vote is
separated by just 1, and Omaha makes all the difference. It is a long, long, long
shot that this will ever happen. In part, because the nation-wide
electoral vote has never been that close; and in part, because on any
likely scenario where it is that close, it's very doubtful Omaha would
go Democratic. If Omaha ever does go Democratic again (at least for
the foreseeable future), it will probably be in a landslide year (like
2008) where the Democratic candidate doesn't need that 1 vote anyway.
Almost surely will not happen in a true 50/50 year.
Texas. If California opted to break up their votes like Nebraska
currently does, the end result would be that Republicans could count on
getting many more electoral votes from the state than they do right now
(where they get shut out 55-0). That would have serious national
ramifications, and it would make the path to the White House much more
difficult for Democrats. For that reason, the California Democratic
party would be smart to fight a Nebraska-system. But, precisely
because Nebraska is so small, and you're only talking about a single
electoral vote which is at stake, Nebraska is wholly different.
Needless to say I agree with my friend 100%.
Topics: Politics | No Comments »
Election Day: Call A Spade A Spade
Nothing is more annoying than intellectual dishonesty hidden under the guise of fairness and balance in journalism. I cannot watch MSNBC's election coverage anymore, it's sickening me because they refuse to acknowledge what is obvious to most of the world; that Barack Obama will not only win today but win big. Yeah that's right I'm going out on a big limb here, calling it before the votes have been cast (well that's not even true considering early voting has accounted for a third of the total in some states).
I generally like MSNBC but lately Mika Brezinski and Joe Scarborough are getting out of hand. Every 2 minutes they make a qualifying statement along the lines of " you know this is far from over, McCain still has an electoral college path…" this is often in response to some other commentator's innocuous praise of Obama or his campaign. Two things Brezinski and Scarborough need to understand:
1) Their credibility rests upon being able to reflect some sort of reality, not on their ability to appease both political parties. Here is the reality; both anecdotally and mathematically it appears by all rational viewers to be an Obama blow out or at the very minimum an electoral victory. This is not opinion or spin this is reality. Check any polling you want. A McCain possibility is possible, yes we can all acknowledge that, however possible and the degree of probability are far different. MSNBC's coverage is implying that this a McCain victory is more along the lines of 45% than the more realistic 3% ( see www.fivethirtyeight.com). Yes, it is possible McCain will pull out the slim chance or that the polls and math is all wrong but no credible evidence suggests that! It's also why their horrible analogy's to elections past and sporting events are wrong, those were wholly different situations.
2) There is no reason to try to be balanced when doing so is dishonest. Trying to pander to the Conservative Republicans by not calling this race what it is is ludicrous. First, it accomplishes nothing, no matter what the media does it will always be labeled "liberal." This is a rallying cry for the Conservatives, and they have made it their mantra for years and no election coverage is ever going to change it. Secondly, an objective commentator is supposed to be, OBJECTIVE, shocking isn't it. Objectivity does not mean compromising two points of view, it means interpreting reality as clearly as one can. It's like being a football fan and your team is down big in the 4th Quarter, you can want them to come back, you can envision all these scenarios, you can say that your team should have been closer, you can say the other team is dirty, or that the refs were unfair, but the objectively you have to acknowledge the mathematical probability of your plight.
The media needs to step up. They've been battered by the right wing for so long with the claims of media bias that they cower to even call a spade a spade. Through constant claims of liberal bias the right wing is able to spread their dirty propaganda and not have it contested. So on this historic day, when a new, uplifting candidate finally prevails over the Republican slime, please for one day can't the media just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that Obama will be the next President of the United States.
Topics: Current Affairs, Politics | No Comments »
PBS Interview with Taleb and Mandelbroit Over Economic Crises
Paul Solman of PBS conducted this interview with Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Benoit Mandelbroit. It is very sobering and somewhat scary, mainly because of the fact that they are scared. Mandelbroit is known for his work in fractal geometry and Taleb works in the financial industry and is the author of Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets
and The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
Unfortunately, that's what is being discussed and applied to this current global economic crisis and the two's take on it is frightening. For those who don't have the time to listen to the interview or prefer to read the summary, Mandelbroit and Taleb make the following comments and assertions:
- First, both feel vindicated since their work has been primarily on the complexity of the current economic models and human inability to assess the risk. That being said both are not basking in their vindication and are very frightened, stating that this could be worse than the Great Depression and the biggest period of turmoil since the American Revolution.
- Taleb states that never in history have we had so much complexity in our economic system coupled with so much incompetence and misunderstanding. This system leads to less crises but when they do hit they are far more disastrous.
- The system is Over-Optimized and therefore much more fragile, mainly due to the consolidation of many banks. Instead of in the past having 10 banks and some failing, now we may have one huge bank fail making things 10 times worse.
- Mandelbroit likens the economic system to the weather. Using the analogy that forecasters may see an already formed storm coming but due to complexities and turbulences cannot predict a storm forming. Except he says that the actors in our global economic system are even more difficult to predict and account for than the liquids and gases in the weather system.
- Mandelbroit also goes on to assert that we can't take into effect multiple little storms forming and rapidly evolving into a bigger and bigger crises because of their interrelated complexity. The rapidity is overwhelming.
- Taleb says the 700 Billion bailout is pocket money for what is about to come. He asserts that hedge funds will not be able to get lending from banks and will be forced to sell off positions, that in turn will impact other entitites, prices will drop, businesses will not make payroll. Everything is tied in intricately in ways we were not able to see or predict these impacts.
- Admitting that although the worst is possible, it is also possible for recovery as well. Their is no scientific model to account for what is happening and therefore predicting probabilities moot. Everything is possible, uncertainty is certain.
I highly respect both of these men, and to hear them speak about the current crisis and be so scared (Taleb is not sleeping) is sobering. They both hope they are dead wrong about their thoughts on what may happen, however, I too think that we are entering a time of major turmoil.
Topics: Economics | No Comments »
Book Review: Failed States by Noam Chomsky
In the midst of the 2008 Presidential election, awareness of
America’s foreign policy should be at its height. Unfortunately after reading Noam Chomsky’s Failed States,
writings. Having read Hegemony or Survival
and What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World
perspective. Failed States
again reiterates what those books state, that America is first and foremost
concerned with Hegemony and protecting the interests of the privileged and
elite.
Chomsky’s
writing brings relentless logic, page after page. His writing, although brilliant and
illuminating, is also repetitive and overwhelming. If reading a nice enjoyable novel is like
floating down a stream, then reading Chomsky is like trudging through
quicksand. My review is not an attempt
to capture point by point Chomsky’s assertions, that would entail me writing a
book. Instead, I will proceed by taking
a couple of broad overviews that I found interesting.
As one
may imagine, Chomsky is extremely critical of Bush II. In fact much of the book highlights Bush’s
failings and misguided stances. What may
surprise most about Chomsky is that he is critical of almost all U.S.
Presidents and their policy. In Failed States
committed toward the Seminoles. Bill
Clinton is not spared either. In fact,
Bush II stands out not for his policy but instead how he conducts it. Whereas past Presidents were subtle and
feigned respect for the rest of the globe, Bush II has become the outlaw cowboy
doing as he damn pleases under the guise of some “moral vision.”
Another
claim that Chomsky makes, that we all need to increase our awareness about, is
that the U.S. has done more to enhance the threat of Nuclear proliferation and
a Nuclear disaster than any other global state.
The U.S. throughout history has had many opportunities to decrease the
likelihood of a nuclear disaster yet insists on taking policy stances that
force the hands of other countries to nuclear weaponry. These are areas where the government rather
than looking out for the survival and wellbeing of mankind, is instead more
concerned about U.S. hegemony. The
problem is they take it to the point of irrationality. Hegemony could still be attained, without
ramping up the threat of nuclear destruction.
Chomsky points this out several times.
Well
known by readers of Chomsky is his distaste for the US-Israeli relations. Chomsky
delves into this subject again extensively.
Chomsky paints Israel as the lapdogs of the US. Israel pursues its own ugly foreign policy by
continually taking more and more Palestinian lands and refuses to honestly
negotiate a peace. However, still bows
down when the master speaks.
Chomsky
takes on the subject of democracy promotion.
This is typically the red herring that allows us to justify our actions
in third world countries. The problem
is, we only truly allow democracy if the “right person wins.” If the democratically elected leader of
another country is at all a perceived threat, then the principles of democracy
are thrown out the window. In addition,
our own democracy is failed. The leaders
of the country do not follow the general will of the populace. This is shown extensively in Failed States
when Chomsky addresses the issues that matter to the population, such as health
care, reducing military spending, signing the Kyoto protocols, and generally
accepting International law.
Chomsky’s
vision of a just foreign policy is one that adheres to the principle of
universality. In other words, the Golden
Rule. We, as a country, declare
pre-emptive wars, interfere in the democracies of other countries, carry on torture,
allow inhumane treatment, and yet at the same time declare moral superiority to
ourselves and the rest of the world. I
enjoy reading Chomsky, though at times it is a chore and at times it is
discouraging to my hope for the future.
Whether you agree with him or not, he must be acknowledged. His thoughts and ideas are important enough
that they merit discussion. This is what
saddens me the most. That in the current
climate, to state the ideas Chomsky promotes is heresy. Americas has come to a point where it is
necessary to examine ourselves as a nation.
Examining the faults will be the most important thing going forward. The virtues of America are well known and
hopefully appreciated. I know I am
thankful everyday to be born so lucky.
However, examining our faults is what will allow us to progress to a
more humane and just society.
Topics: Book Review, Current Affairs, Politics | No Comments »
Why Barry Bonds and Wall Street Are Both Getting Screwed
Finally it's going to come out. The baseball player's union is going to take it to MLB Owners for colluding against Barry Bonds.
Wasn't it obvious they colluded to keep Bonds out? Freaking Infuriating. I
hope MLB gets nailed to the wall for this. This really pissed me off
this season, Bonds should have gotten a fair chance to play. As a fan
I wanted to see him play. You know he's clean for sure, so let's see
what he can do clean and in his early 40's.
I have no vehemence
to Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens or anyone else they slimed. Well, maybe
Palmeiro was a little sleazy but I feel bad for people like Clemens and
McGwire. I wanted to see Bonds play. If Florida was going to pull the
trigger on the Manny Ramirez trade and decided not to because of the
cost, WTF? Why not pick up Barry Bonds, pay him league minimum (which
he was going to donate to charity anyway)? It's a no lose, if he sucks
drop him – no cost, if he is disruptive, drop him – no cost, can't play
defense, drop him – no cost. Tampa Bay, a DH AL team, same thing when
Longoria went down. No Crawford and no Longoria, in a pennant race,
why not?
Biggest sham in the world, do they think everyone is stupid?
Here's the deal and the parallel with Wall St. The players in baseball most likely used some enhancing drugs, but the rules allowed it. In fact there were no rules.
1) In an extremely competitive atmosphere players used performance enhancers to get ahead. Why? Because others were doing it and their livelihoods depended on it.
1a) In an extremely competitive atmosphere banks leveraged gaboodles of money to make risky investments. Why? Because others were doing it and making even more gaboodles of money. If not them it was going to be their competitor, livelihoods depended on it.
2) The result of an increase in performance enhancing drugs in the league caused more offense and as a result more attendance and as a result more money for the owners. Times were good, players were chasing records and attendances were finally coming back from the dismal 1994 strike season.
2a) The result of the increased investing and leverage for the banks allowed for everyone to be happy, the economy grew, the market went up and the corporations made lots of money. The economy was coming back strong after the dismal recession after 9/11.
3) This was the direct result of the MLB rulers, namely Bud Selig, turning a blind eye to the performance enhancers. There were no rules or testing in MLB for performance enhancing drugs. Why bother, everyone is doing well.
3a) The increased investments made by banks were a direct result of the Fed giving out money. Interest rates were so low, you were stupid not to use it. The government and Fed had no reason to step in, instead turn a blind eye and delude yourself. Everyone is doing well.
4) Finally alarm bells start to go off. Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, Balco.
4a) Alarm bells go off. Defaults, foreclosures, mortgage companies failing.
5) Public turns on players using steriods, attacking them from moral stances.
5a) Public turns on Wall St. Calling them greedy and immoral.
6) MLB cleans up its system and persecutes the stars of its game, whom they ALLOWED to use performance enhancing drugs.
6a) Treasury attempts to clean up its system and will try to persecute the banks and bankers it ALLOWED to leverage so high and make risky investments.
Are the players and bankers guilty? Yes, but they only did what the system allowed them to do. The people that deserve the wrath in both situations are the rule makers of the games, not the players of the games.
Topics: Baseball, Current Affairs, Economics, Politics | No Comments »
Sarah Palin, Manager of the Boston Red Sox
If Sarah Palin were the manager of the Red Sox right now in their attempt to come back from a 3-1 deficit in the ALCS agains Tampa Bay. A little jest during playoff and election time.
On Boston being the more American team:
"Look at their name, Hussein Obama the DEVIL Rays! You betcha, promoting the work of the Devil, what kind of American does that? They don't use that Hussein Devil anymore, but they can't deceive us!"
On being down 3-1 to Tampa Bay in the ALCS:
"Look were not going to quit now. We're doing this for every Joe Six Pack in America Boston, to give him a voice amongst the overwhelming Liberal Yankee Press. We will fight and play hardball slander against our opponents."
On opposing manager Joe Maddon:
"Do you know who Barack Obama Joe Maddon is? Did you know he associates with former terrorists Yankees, like Bill Ayers Joe Torre?
On her job as manager of the Red Sox:
"As for that VP manager talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer
that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the
VP manager does every day?"
On her dedication to the Red Sox winning the World Series:
"Pray for our military men and women Red Sox who are striving to do what is
right defeat the Rays. Also, for this country Boston, that our leaders Epstein, our national leaders John Henry,
are sending soldiers players out on a task that is from God. That's what we
have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that
that plan is God's plan."
EDIT (10/17/08): After seeing last night's game, Boston coming back from a 7-0 deficit with 7 outs to go, it may just be God's plan. Sorry.
Topics: Baseball, Politics | No Comments »
Deal with the Devil (Republicans and the Religious Right)
With the Final Debate within hours, just a short political thought:
The Republicans made a deal with the devil when they seriously
started to court the religious right. Instant Gratification, 1994
to present, but it's going to have some serious long term
consequences. The public is not as stupid as some people peg them
to be, the Republican Party schtick is coming to an end.
There are plenty of people like me that agree with old
republican values like less government, high priority on civil
liberties, free market, less socialistic tendencies etc.
Guess what though, I am a staunch Obama supporter. Obama doesn't
speak down to me. He is intelligent and has a civil demeanor, he
assumes that you "get it." If you don't well then your not going to
vote for him anyway. I trust someone that I believe to have a high
level of intelligence and character, despite my disagreements, over
a blowhard that caters to ignorance and lies. Our views may not
mesh perfectly but two things:
1) I consider I may be wrong in my views,
2) Even if I am right, at least the chance of rational
interaction exists. As opposed to the recent Republican stance that
rational discourse is not worthy.
I would rather vote for a Democrat that has an ideology that I
may not fully agree with, then a Republican who willfully exhibits
their ignorance and demeans intellectual discussion as
"elitist."
Hopefully soon the Republican Party will understand the drag
that the religious right imposes on them. Then we can go back to a
rational discussion of governmental ideology, not moralistic
platitudes.
Topics: Politics | No Comments »
Life Without Banks
This article examines how life would be without a bank account. First one caveat, this is from the BBC and the article concerns the British culture, however it's essentially the same here in the US.
I have long been anti-bank and pro cash. My thoughts are the further you subject yourself to their system and rules, the more you subject yourself to their power and whims. This paragraph is absolutely horrifying to me:
are – the 14-digits that comprise a bank account number and its sort
code are almost as intrinsic to one's identity these days as name and
postcode.
Intrinsic to my identity? No, not at all. In fact there was a time where I did live as bankless as possible. Relying on cash, no credit cards, no debit cards, and virtually no credit history. Guess what? It can be done. It is more difficult and more costly, that's a result of allowing ourselves to be sucked into a no cash culture. This ultimately benefits the banks. It benefits them by allowing them to set the rules. They, like organized crime, skim off of everything. If you're a merchant, they charge to process transactions, which ultimately get passed to the consumer. The banks set unreasonable and arbitrary fees. Why does it cost $39 dollars if I am one day late on my credit card payment? How many of us ask these questions? What is the rational behind needing a checking account in order to rent
a place? As long as cash is a form of currency it should be accepted
as payment.
Furthermore, the article makes no mention, most likely because it is British, of a gigantic class of people who make due without the banking system, illegal and legal immigrants. Many immigrants come from countries without reliable banking or currency and tend to distrust the banking system. They also fear that they may jeopardize their status in the country. They get along without the banking system, of course it can be more costly and also shut people out from certain financial products. The solution should be not to incorporate the bankless into a banking culture, instead create a more accepting culture for the bankless by accommodating cash.
Cash allows for freedom and privacy, it should not be shunned, but embraced by a society that proclaims freedom as it's highest
Topics: Current Affairs | No Comments »
