Bailouts and Plans

So the sky doesn't fall another day! Another rally, the Dow is up 450 odd points after being down 777 just yesterday. The S&P 500 made similar gains. The more we delay the inevitable bailout, the more it seems like it doesn't have to be inevitable.
I have more than a few friends who oppose the bailout under any circumstances and the general public seems to agree. I have mixed feelings about it honestly. On the one hand, I don't mind letting Wall Street squirm a little under their own failed largesse and excessive risk taking Right now, the only real effect it's had on me is that it's made work a lot more interesting and I get to have wonkish discussions with my coworkers. On the other hand, some people I know have been more effected, primarily because mutual fund indexes are down 52% on the year and their 401K's are looking pretty horrific right now. Luckily for me, I didn't have anything to begin with; nobody is freer than a man with nothing no? But I think that's something being lossed in all of this- the effect this will have on ordinary people. If nothing is done, credit will be even harder to come by, people's savings and investments will drop considerably. Take a look at Japan's lost decade. If we can do something to avoid that then we should. And there are credible economists who think that something like that could happen. Not Great Depression level, but a gradual contraction of our economy and the credit markets. It's always fun to "stick it" to the fat cats on Wall Street, but like it or not, we voted for these policies of little oversight by voting for the leaders who enacted them. The game is always rigged against the little guy, but we helped to rig it ourselves as well. What is important is saving the ship now, and making sure something like this doesn't happen again.
Let me also say that I think the bailout package as proposed, both the three page sham which Secretary Paulson started off negotiations with and the 100 plus page document that Congress ended up putting together, were terrible. They both called for the US to buy 700 billion dollars of bad assets with the money being spent solely at the discretion of the treasury secertary with no or little oversight. Congress added caps for executive compensation and cursory support for other "populist" measures to make sure that taxpayers eventually get their money back. There are no provisions for helping homeowners keep their homes, which, so I've heard, is a complete non-starter for Republican House members (as one Republican who voted against the package put it, if we start socializing the losses then we'll have to socialize the profits, one shudders at the thought). What no one has really explained, however, is how this solves the credit crisis we've been in for some time now. Nor has any one in Congress actually sat down to really think if this is even close to being the best plan. Perusing some economists websites, I saw an intriguing case study of 42 instances where the government had to intervene during a banking crisis. The first conclusion is that doing nothing was the worst option; that much is clear. The study also concluded that attempts by the government to buy bad assets without getting any stock, as in cases by Japan and Mexico cost significantly more than other plans. What this economist thought was the model for dealing with this kind of crisis was the Scandanavian model (man the Scandanavians sure know how to do things right). It was basically using public funds to recapitalize troubled firms through buying preferred shares of stock, putting government securities on the balance sheet of troubled banks, and getting the private sector to match government contributions.
There are a few major things wrong with buying bad assets. First, the taxpayers have much less of a chance of recouping their money. The government would be paying above market price for all of these assets and there is a good chance that even held-to-maturity their net present value is less than what we pay for them. Second, it does not address the real problem of recapitalizing the undercapitalized banks. While passively explained in the economist post I linked to I'll try and explain it more right here really quickly. If the government were to buy the assets it would help cash flow but writedowns would still be necessary and permanent. If the government were to buy equity in the firm, writedowns would still be necessary, but the recapitalization would improve the equity side of the balance sheet and the written down assets could be written back up if/when the market returns.
A United States plan could look something like this, the government could use a significant portion of the 700 billion to buy preferred voting shares and convertible debt with the insistence that the private sector match dollar for dollar. I'd prefer for the taxpayers debt to be senior, but subordinate is okay also. Part of the money could be used to buy some assets, but an equitable plan must taxpayers having stake in the company and a chance to share in the profits should they be realized. If these assets we're buying will eventually payoff as people say they will, then why not let the companies keep them on their books for now. Mark them market right now and hold on while the injection of public money tides you over.
It's a shame- I'm 22 years old, just started my first real job, only took undergraduate economics classes. But I understand that there are plenty of smart and judicious people in the world who have expertise in this area and at the very least, their research could help make a more palatable plan. Why can't our congressional and adminstrative leaders understand this?

How Sunday Should Be

Last Sunday, I slept in, for me at least. I woke up around 11:30 or noon, read some political blogs, sports blogs, online news magazines, and the hilarious comments on okayplayer (a site I've been lurking at for 6 years now). After about an hour, I finally got out of bed and made myself two bowls of Honey Nut Scooters, the two dollar bagged generic brand of Honey Nut Cheerios that are even better than the real kind. As I was eating, I accompanied my thoughts by reading a bit of Jane Eyre, a classic that somehow slipped past me during my schooling days. I took a shower, got dressed, and then walked to the living room to survey my apartment. The cd of 70's Ethiopian music I bought the day before was on the table- I put it into my combo record/cd/tape player and the horns drowned out the sounds of the street below me.

And then I started to clean. I cleaned the living room, picked up our various belongings off the rug, I windexed all three glass tables (is it me or are glass tables SOOO 70's). I swept our hardwood floors and placed everything more or less neatly on the computer table. I cleaned the kitchen, did the dishes, wiped the countertops, swept the floor, took out the trash, tried in vain to make the burners spotless. I cleaned the bathroom- we all know what that entails. And I did it all to an Ethiopian Groove; East African funk with horns that dripped like honey and a guitar that scratched and skatted like the best of Louie Armstrong.
It took me back to my memories of Sunday at home. Back to laying in bed and hearing Bob Marley's Natural Mystic escape from my mother's stereo. The bass; di-doom-doom-doom, di-doom-doom-doom, di-doom-dee-doom, di-doom-dee-doom, would slip through the cracks of me and my brothers bedroom door like light shards. Like a steam whistle for millworkers, it signaled it was time to get up, and more importantly, it was time to start cleaning. We'd clean through the entire Exodus album, putting only cursory effort into our assignments while unsupervised; frantic in our efforts to catch up when our mom stepped into the bathroom. We'd stretch out a simple task like cleaning the sink to unimaginable lengths. When we were younger, my brother and I would use the opportunity to extend our on-going pretend world in real-life instead of toy form. As we got older, we'd talk about girls and sports and how we imagined our lives turning out.
She'd put in something different, War or Bobby "Blue" Bland, the music started to blend together really. Jazz and old soul and blues, light enough to carry us through the day- by the end it sounded like music at the end of a movie, the main plot had been resolved and only a few loose ends needed to be tied together. We finished our room, finished the bathroom, finished the living room, finished the kitchen, just needed to do the dining room. Our focus started to drift though and our breaks got longer; by the end my mom was resigned to tie up those loose ends herself. My head was filled with relief that it was over. With a slight sense of accomplishment and thoughts of catching a few Nicktoons. And finally there was just a twinge of dread, because Sunday today meant Monday tomorrow, and Monday tomorrow meant school. And I'd lay down on the couch with all of these feelings crowding my head as I turned on the TV. And smelling like a combination of dirt, Windex, and 409, I'd laugh with my brother and sometimes my sister and watch Doug or Roundhouse or even NickNews before it was time to go to bed.

I'm not a religious man. Usually, when people say that they're not religious they usually follow that up with "but I am spiritual," in order to not look like some kind of devil-worshipping, soulless heathen. The problem is, that I'm also not particularly spiritual either. My mother told me more than once that I needed to pay attention to my spiritual life, a moment to reflect on my own limitations as a human being. I haven't been to church in I don't know how long and I don't know when I'll ever go. The thing is though, I use to be an altar boy and I love the pagaentry and borderline mysticism of the Catholic church, but I never felt as spiritual as I did while cleaning my apartment last Sunday. The situation and the music brought back so many memories and in turn it made me think about how I got to where I am today, the decisions I made right or wrong. It gave me an opportunity to think about ways to be a better man, a better person. Like a random wikipedia search, my thoughts always snowball from the relatively mundane things, like what I should cook for dinner (baked chicken that day) to cosmological questions about what it means to be human and what are our obligations to each other if we are truly just an accident of space, time, and a few molecules getting together in a primordial ooze that was struck by a bolt of lightning. I don't know why it's cleaning that makes me delve deeper into those thoughts than I normally would; but I do know that the process always, the late afternoon, the task at hand, always feels how Sunday should be (although I don't dread Mondays anymore). Or maybe its just the 409 fumes. Either way it's really all the same.

Immediate Thoughts of the Debate- I Have A Bracelet Too

Just got done watching the debate and my initials thoughts are that it was close- a win on points for Obama but certainly not the knockout punch that many of us Obama partisans wanted.

Jim Lehrer was not as good of a moderator as I thought he'd be. I love the Jim Lehrer Newshour, but I just thought that he was ineffective and more importantly, he was easily run over by the two candidates, especially John McCain. He tried desperately to get the candidates to actually engage each other but they did not do that either. Hopefully now that they are use to the format we will see more first person rather than third person addresses.

Lehrer started out asking about the bailout and Obama scored some easy and critical points. The beginning of the debate is the best time to be engaging, because people are actually paying attention. His opening statement was much better than McCain primarily because he was so much more forceful and much more direct. McCain looked very tired and tentative, like a worn out boxer who spends the first few rounds slowly circling his opponent. Obama certainly got the better of the economic parts of the debate, partially because he tied it to a larger narrative and partially because he just had more energy. He soundly connected our economic condition to the failed philosphy of the Bush administration and by extension John McCain. At the beginning of the debate, Obama was much better at placing McCain and Bush in the same category. It's a shame he got away from that as the night wore on. McCain in the early going was fixated with earmark spending making it seem much more important than it was and Obama rightly caught him on the fact that earmark/pork barrel spending is a fraction of the budget. As with most of his attacks however, Obama would not continue to press on them, letting them pass without much repetition. I can see how it was frustrating for Obama's supporters, but overall I think it was good strategy since he was primarily going for a presidential rather than a truly confrontational demeanor. McCain, for his part, was much more confrontational, if not directly, than it was definitely implied. As the economic section of the debate came to a close, McCain frequently expressed his condescension for Obama and it showed.

Both candidates avoided Lehrer's question about what part of their agenda they'd have to give up post-bailout like ebola. My roommate said he thought it was a dumb question, because it was impossible to answer. I thought it was a very good question in the abstract because it would help to narrow down their priorities, but it was a bad question for our politics, which rewards vague but pleasing answers and punishes unpalatable honesty. Barack tried in his own way to answer the question with a more positive spin by talking about what he would not cut rather than what he would. He also very smartly said that ending the Iraq War would help with a portion of the budget. McCain after again talking about earmarks proposed a spending freeze, which, if we had true conservatives, would have scored some points, but it was not pressed upon and advocating a spending freeze leaves one open for all kinds of attacks. Obama ended the economic portion by landing a punch on the entire Republican brand, saying that they were the cause of the increases in spending. Again, his followup was lacking; perhaps he was hoping that people would remember it anyway. Obama also had a good line in about using a scalpel in order to decrease spending instead of a hatchet. That was memorable and pretty pragmatic as well. This exchange could be scored as a draw.

It took nearly half an hour to get to the foreign policy portion of the debate, mostly because people kept interrupting but also because they HAD to work in the economic crises. The foreign policy portion of the debate was pretty much evenly split as both candidates could point to victories depending on the country of choice. Obama clearly won on Afghanistan, highlighting the Republicans failure and inability to stay focused in order to get the job done. He coupled our diversion in Iraq to the failures and turmoil in Afghanistan, particularly as it pertained to troop levels. He also tied in our growing concerns in Pakistan, and rightly clarified his position on Pakistan's sovereignity in the war on terror. He followed that with the one of the better lines of the night- the "I have a bracelet too," which seemed a little petty but also highlighted the fact that McCain has been using the same lines over and over again in his stump speeches. On Iraq, Obama was a little more hesitant- he had another great exchange on judgment which featured his only real repeatables (You were wrong!). He was in a precarious position because to explain the multifaceted reasons behind the surge would have been too academic, and he'd already conceded that territory. The best he could do was point out the problem of going into Iraq in the first place, which he did, and then try and reduce the damage of essentially agreeing that the surge has worked, which he had trouble with.

I also thought that Obama got the better of the Iran exchange- he used Henry Kissinger's words against McCain and showed that he is much more of a realist in terms of foreign policy than McCain. He did a good job of showing how our standing in the world and the Iraq war has strengthened Iran, and how using direct diplomacy without preconditions, would help to increase our standing and in the end undermine Iran's regional power. The bellicose neocon view of foreign policy has crowded out a view of the world AS IT IS, rather than as our political leaders imagine it to be for far too long, and ultimately I think Obama was effective in displaying his foreign policy credentials.

McCain did have his strong points. He clearly won the discussion on Russia and Georgia, if only because they fundamentally agreed on the position. Since McCain arrived there first, all he had to do was defend territory, which he did admirably. Now, anyone who has read my blog knows that I think we are extremely misguided in our approach to Russia. I for one think that Obama's first reaction, that both sides were at fault was correct. Unfortunately, he defered to his vice presidential nominee and to the media narrative about what went on in initially. Overall, I think this is a minor issue, our national security concerns are more wrapped up in the Middle East and far southwest Asia. I don't think that there'd be too much political damage if Obama were to stand by his previous statements. I think both candidates are wrong where they currently stand. McCain also did well in another area ceded by Obama, the surge. He ceded any way of winning that argument specifically when he said that it was working. It's hard to debate that point, mostly because the surge did what it was designed to do. Obama tried his best to say that the surge didn't solve the main problem (how are we going to ultimately win in Iraq rather than just curb the violence), but it was an uphill battle for him and ultimately McCain took that round as well.

As far as presentation was concerned, Obama looked much more presidential. He looked directly at McCain or into the camera lens, and the entire time he was confident. Many commentators remarked that he did not have too many "ahs" and "uhms", that he was more forceful, less professorial, more direct and assertive and I agree. McCain looked downright exhausted at the beginning of the debate and seemed to gather steam as the night went on. McCain was more cocky, at least in his disdain, had an oft repeated one-liner about Obama not understanding, but he also did not look at Obama. It was weird how he could be so confident that Barack was not in his league on foreign policy yet he was unconfident when it came to his actual demeanor. It was a good performance by both men although it was not a terribly exciting debate. The policy wonk in me enjoyed it, the other me was just happy that the Brewers are now a game up in the wild card. Again, I think that Obama won but he did not deliver a knockout blow or any real haymakers. Early polls indicate that independent voters thought that Obama won as well. Overall, I think his ability to lay out a broad plan and his pragamatism were reassuring. McCain, while he was able to win some rounds did not have any semblance of a central theme. I think that McCain needed a win, if not a clear one than at least a point one because he had the most to gain. All Obama needed to do was look presidential and he did that. Foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's best topic and he merely held Obama to a draw while losing on the economy. He'll need a great performance out of Palin (highly likely of course) or really hammer home on the domestic issues and the economy (not exactly his strong suit). I think McCain just let his best chance to catch Obama get away from him.

"Dontrelle Willis is Steve Avery... and they're both Deader Than Vaudeville"

The above is only a figurative statement and alas, it is not even mine but one I borrowed from Craig Calcaterra, the author of the superb baseball and occasionaly other stuff blog ShysterBall. Maybe I'm easily impressed but that statement, which he used in his description of the Tigers-Indians game on the Hardball Times struck a chord with me, I thought it was a very good metaphor, particularly under the circumstances. There are 2,430 baseball games played ever season, and this man writes (usually) insightful blurbs about most of them. After a while you'd think he'd run out of things to say but he never does.
Not to get too tangental; the metaphor also happens to be true. To think, 3 years ago Willis was arguably the best pitcher in the league (22-10, 151 ERA+, 236 innings, 4th in VORP and he hit far better than any other contending pitcher). Admittedly his peripheral numbers suggested it couldn't last much longer, but I still thought he had a decent career ahead of him. I should have known better, because I heard the rumblings from the sabermetric community years before his implosion took place. And it echoed, the voices bounced around on the white walls of an empty room full of empty promises of future Cy Youngs and Hall of Fame speeches, or at the very least a couple more All-Star games. Voices that tried to convince you that putting all of your stock into that young lefty with the crazy wind-up was not such a good idea Voices that haunted me from the moment I became a baseball fan with two unforgettable words- Steve Avery.
Now I have to admit that I added the Steve Avery part to the title of this post...Steve Avery- that name brings back so many memories. Memories of those early Braves teams, say 1991 until their collapse in the 1996 World Series against the Yankees. It was when the Braves were still exciting. Steve Avery didn't represent their greatness, but he certainly represented the excitment I felt as a young kid just beginning to figure out the inner workings of this wonderful sport. Even as a kid in single digits I knew Steve would never be as good as Tom Glavine or John Smoltz, he didn't exude the same aura I guess. But I had a baseball card of his that showed its owner how to throw a curveball- it was my favorite card, even moreso than the Reggie Jackson card my aunt bought me. On one side it showed him in full out attack mode, unwinding in what I don't recall as the classic fluid lefty motion. The other side was a close up of his hand, holding a pristine ball on the seams, holding as naturally as if he'd been born with it in his hands. And it was all set against a jet black backdrop- man that was a cool card.
He was terrible in his rookie season at the age of 20. But he came out with two straight above average seasons in 1991 and 1992, at the ages of 21 and 22 to help the Braves win two straight pennants. At the age of 23 he was electric, having his best season and it looked like he was right in line to join the hallowed court of dominant Braves starters. (As an aside, I just want to mention how fuckin great the Braves rotations of the 90's were. Easily, easily the greatest in history, 3 Hall of Famers, including one of the 5 or 10 greatest pitchers of all time, a damn good Denny Neagle at times and for one year a young Steve Avery).
But it wasn't meant to be- the next three years he was right around average and in 1997 he pulled a Wil E. Coyote, falling off a cliff with an anvil in his hands. He hung on with Boston and Cincinnati for two more years was out of baseball after the 1999 season. He got another hot cop of coffee in 2003 with the Detroit Tigers, which he proceeded to pour all over himself. I lost that card a long time ago, it kinda faded into oblivion, much like Avery's career. He was special to me because of that card and because of 1993. He always had a special place in my collection.
Willis was my second hard fall for the proverbial flash in the pan. He was so much fun his rookie season. Because the way our athletes are brought up today, there will never be another Mark Fidrych, but Dontrelle was as close as I could ever get. He was inspiring, his unorthodox delivery, with the funky high leg kick, the sweeping arm motion, the wrap-around contortionist follow through. His smile was infectious, his enthusiasm almost alien to major league baseball. He loved to hit, he loved to run, he loved to slide head first, he was BLACK! He won the rookie of the year award, although Brandon Webb was demonstrably better that year (and has proven to be the better pitcher overall). But I watched him throw that 1 hit shutout against he Mets on June 16 of that year- it's completely irrational, but there was no way Brandon Webb was getting my vote. I mean, if I had one. He was basically average in 2004, but he came back with a vengeance in 2005. He placed second in Cy Young voting, lead the league in wins, and placed 4th in VORP behind otherwordly steroid abuser Roger Clemens, peak HGH usage Andy Petitte, and Cy Young award winner Chris Carpenter in the one season where he didn't crack like peanut brittle. He was tough luck above average in 2006, but the chinks were already appearing, particularly the increased wildness. He was terrible in 2007 and here we are in 2008. Now he's with the Tigers, got sent down to triple A, and couldn't find the strike zone with a telescope. It's not that he's deteriorated, it's the rapidness of it that gets to me, he was my great black pitching hero. Luckily I have CC Sabathia to hang my wishes on, and he's of course the real deal.
Flash in the pan. That's not entirely or even mostly fair of course, to Willis or Avery. They both had good seasons, they both have World Series rings, and I for one am always uneasy about labeling ballplayers and trying to extrapolate what they should have been. I mean, they are who they are, lefties with good arms who, because they couldn't blow the ball by hitters and didn't have superb command, were eventually figured out. They could still get lefties out, but damn if righties didn't tee off like Tiger Woods at Torrey Pines every time they came to the plate.
The similarities are pretty striking- Steve Avery is Dontrelle Willis' top comparable through age 25. They are both each others top comparable at the age of 24 and 25. Both left-handed, drafted when they were 18. Dontrelle Willis was much better as a rookie than Steve Avery. Dontrelle at his best (2005 and 2001) was better than Steve Avery at his best (1993, 1992). Steve Avery was probably more consistent over his best years. They both had their best seasons at age 23. Their stuff was a little bit different, Avery had the curve as his breaking pitch, Dontrelle used the slider. And finally, they both seem to be pretty much done by the age of 26. Sometimes, it's pretty tough to figure out what's gonna happen to a player, and sometimes the prediction is spot on. Hopefully, Dontrelle can come back, if not as a starting pitcher, then as a lefty specialist, his windup would still give southpaw hitters fits. Now if only we could revive vaudeville.

Get Your Geek On

I've been in New York for a little more than two months now and so far I've had a wonderful time. It's not even so much everything that I've had a chance to do, it's knowing that I have the opportunity to do them that makes it so exciting. One thing that I haven't really had the chance to do is to explore my more personal places of interest. Yesterday, I left the house at around 1pm and went to Midtown to the Compleat Strategist, a boardgame store on 33rd street between 5th and Madison avenues. I love games, both cardgames and board games- I love the Game of Life family style games, the Taboo party style games, I love every kind of card game you can imagine, and most importantly for this blog post, the Avalon Hill/Rio Grande geeky strategy style boardgames that cost a whole bunch of money and have rulebooks the size of biology textbook and just as dense.
It's pretty easy to find people to play the first two kinds of games with. The Game of Life and others like it are fun because there isn't much thinking involved. Since everything is up to complete chance, the competition is good natured and it's easy to laugh when a tree falls on your house and you don't have any insurance. Games like Taboo are more competitive, but the rules to those kind of games are usually straight forward so it's easy to explain; tons of people can play it and it's a great way to break the ice or get people laughing. Card games are ingrained at a young age, whether it be pass the time style games like war, family reunion games like spades, or heavily strategic games like poker. The rules to some cardgames can be quite involved, particularly for a beginner, but because they are so much a part of our culture, people proactively want to learn as to not be left out. That and a pack of cards costs a few bucks at the most.
For some reason that I can't quite put my finger on though, I have a hard time finding people who are willing to play the geek strategy games with me. Most of the games in the Compleat Strategist and on sites like boardgamegeek.com revolve around war (World War I and II and the Civil War being the most common, but there are also games for the Spanish American war, the Napoleonic Wars, and the Korean War) or allocating resources for a stated objective (colonizing alien worlds, exploiting Puerto Rico's natural resources etc.). They take a pretty big investment both monetarily and timewise in order to enjoy them, not to mention being able to find friends willing to learn how to play as well.
And, you know, they're pretty geeky. I mean really geeky. You ever met someone who participates in reenactments of the Civil War- yeah it's that geeky. It's for the type of person who is not only interested in Robert E. Lee's lost orders from the Battle of Antietam, but whose idea of a fun Saturday afternoon is sitting at a table with likeminded nerds and recreating that very battle. On a 16x16 cardboard cutout with miniature soldiers, miniature supply units, a strategy book, and a pair of 12-sided die to add a little luck to the proceedings. Strange as it sounds, there just aren't that many people per capita who want to engage in such an activity. So, although I have harbored my love for stategy boardgames my entire life, I've only played those kind of games with my brother and haven't really had a chance to explore the vastness of this admittedly pretty narrow world in full.
Even though per capita there aren't that many people who are interested in strategy boardgames,, they do exist. And not only do they exist, everybody knows someone who enjoys them. Besides being the reenactors, they're the kid who enjoys reading those serial sci-fi books. The teenagers who goes outside with their fake sword and shield and plays roleplaying games with his friends. There were always opportunities for me to join a group that enjoyed those kinds of games but I never did. I felt that that world, that group, was always shut off to me. If Taboo and the Game of Life are games that are expansive and inclusive, strategy games are inward looking and exclusive. The group of people that play them are as insular as they can possibly be. The reason I felt I was shut off is not because the people themselves were intentionally exlusionary, but because their focus was.
Think about the people I described above. Most likely, they were exluded from a lot of activities and a lot of social groups growing up, either because of their appearance or because of their interests. Generally speaking, when you are an outcast, you have three options: you can change yourself and try and get in to the "in-group" with mixed results, you can stay the same and try and get in to the "in-group" with predicatble results, or you can be like fuck the "in-group" and form your own group, a group of outcasts with some shared interests. When you do the latter though, in most cases you have to go all-in, there ain't no half-steppin in that regard, particularly when you are young. That makes crossover hard in both directions, from out-to-in and in-to-out. It also means that for someone who is not in said "out-group," there is no connection for a friendship except the strategy game, and part of the fun of any game is the shared experience of friendship beyond what is being played on the table. It's the reason me and my brother are so good at "Catch Phrase," because the words from any of the categories conjures up some memory. A memory so fresh that the connecting word comes up in an instant, a memory so obscure that we're the only ones who know. This is certainly not true for all strategy game geeks, but I believe that it'd be hard to talk about the Brewers untimely collapse, or the ridiculous asses on BET Uncut, or remembering the guilty pleasure of old WB shows, with the people I met at the Compleat Strategist or any other boardgame shop like that. I could be wrong, I hope that I am. Until I find out though, here's a listing of the nerd games me and my brother use to play. If they sound interesting to you and you also like sports, scantilly clad women, and underground hip-hop, hit me up.

Cosmic Encounter- Each player is an alien race with a special power that can help bend or break a rule of the game. The objective is to colonize 5 other planets through battles, alliances, etc. Very fun game, excellent craftsmaship, particularly the alien cards. Lots of fun, and not too complicated either.
Red Storm Rising- Late Cold War era game. Sequel to The Hunt For Red October. You are either the Soviets or US- the game is based around a Warsaw Pact invasion of Germany. The objective is of course to win the war. Game play is mostly tank units, but you can add aerial combat and chemical and tactical nuclear weapons. Me and my brother had been living with my grandfather when we were engaged in a particularly fierce game. We came home to find that my uncle had brought back some woman who also brought her kids. While my uncle and his lady friend were busy, the lady's kids decide to destroy our game, dropping the pieces in the vents or just tearing them up. No point really, but living with my grandfather was great!
Shadowrun DMZ- Shadowrun is an award-winning role playing game developed in the late 80's and DMZ was a boardgame accessory to the RPG game. Truth be told, we didn't really play it, but my brother found it one day. The game looked really cool, and to this day I am completely enamored with the "cyber-punk" aesthetic. The game takes place in a dystopian future where corporations have become defacto nations, wielding more power than any state government. That more than the actual game is what interested me, the character book was amazing.
Summit- Cold War era game (1961) where players use his resources to build military bases, steel mills, and consumer factories in order to gain spheres of influence to score points. The game is really about diplomacy and Cold War style politics rather than actual military engagements.

The Business We've Chosen

The past few days have been a whirlwind in the capital markets. Lehman Brothers goes bankrupt, AIG is bailed out with an 85 billion dollar loan while giving the gov't warrants for an 80% stake in the company. Merrill Lynch was bought by BoA for 50 billion in stock, Morgan Stanley looks like it might merge with Wachovia (talk about your rocky marriage). Goldman itself is taking a beating on the market, although it looks very likely that it'll be the last indy investment bank standing before too long. Washington Mutual is also getting battered, it's in the process of talking to potential buyers as we speak. The Dow took a beating the past few days with back to back 400+ losses before rallying considerably today. The lax attitude which the federal government took towards Wall Street, primarily when it came to credit default swaps and the rest of the unregulated derivatives market (thanks Phil Gramm) has finally caught up to our economy. It'll take a while for the various positions to unwind and for the financial impact to be fully realized. The biggest fallout from all this is the renewed sense that regulation is actually worthwhile. Both candidates have talked about increased regulation in our economy, although from the commercials and comments it seems like Barack Obama has a much better handle on what is actually going on than McCain. I'm heavily biased of course, but did anyone see McCain having a hard time understanding what credit default swaps and derivatives were? He said "derivatives" the way an old person says "rap" with the kind of vindictive disdain that can only come from not having a clue about what one is talking about. I think everybody should get a chance to watch Obama's two minute ad about his plan for the economy, it's actually very good.
Anyway, like most things I comment about, there are an infinite number of better commentaries that one can take a look at for more information. Under the circumstances, Bernake and Paulson are doing all that they can, I certainly do not envy the position they are in right now. I'm not for bailing out a bunch of companies that took on excessive risk, but under the circumstances, it's probably the only solution that would not cause a domino effect of failures, particular those with whom AIG stood as a counterparty to their swaps. The next step it seems is for the government to take on scores of bad debt from some of these institutions. Stocks rallied because of this announcement, but that might be going a step too far. Unfortunately, I think that a case-by-case basis is really the only way to go about deciding who does and does not get government intervention. I think its the only equitable way of both saving our economy and not absolving all the heavy risk-takers. It may seem like it is arbitrary, but really life ain't fair. If you can, try and stay tuned with the latest developments- it's important that we don't forget these lessons the next time Wall Street lobbyists start advocating for deregulation sometime in the future.
One thing I want to go into a little bit more depth about is something that I've been doing a lot of reading about at work. I work in the realm of public finance and have been trying to keep up with recent developments in the municipal market. One of the biggest developments has been the exiting of JP Morgan from the municipal swap market, citing that it the profits are no longer justifying allocated resources. Also, with banks like Lehman as well as insurers like AIG acting as counterparties in these swaps, it is interesting to see who gets stuck with termination fees (most of the time it seems like the issuers/municipalities/hospitals do) and what happens when said swap is in/out of the money (basically who is making or losing money). What I think is most important though, is the degree that institutions like not for profit hospitals and municipalities, institutions charged with keeping the public interest at heart, use these derivatives. And they use them, not simply to transfer the cost-savings to their constituents but in order to speculate, to make money on changes in interest rates.
What's even more striking though, is the lack of financial savvy that many of the finance directors have in these transactions. The guys on Wall Street, who create, package, and sell these instruments- the guys who do this for a living, are of course far more sophisticated than a county finance director or stand-alone hospital CFO. Basically, they (the county finance directors and the like) want to play like they're investment bankers, like they're Gordon Gekko or something, and they get their hats handed to them. How else would they end up with agreements where they end up paying the termination fee, even if the banking counterparty goes bankrupt. I think that unless you are a CFO of a major hospital system, or a major city, you probably have no business swimming in the deep end. Issue your bonds, pay your fixed or variable rate, and always look out for the best interests of the people you are charged with serving.
What this really boils down to though, is an issue of respect. People respect moneymakers, and there ain't too many moneymakers out there like the investment banking crowd. City/county finance directors make good money, just not Wall Street money, nor do they have Wall Street prestige, but they sure as hell want it. When a banker from Goldman comes up to you, after they've already underwritten your bonds and he/she starts talking about fancy new derivative products, you want to seem knowledgeable, you want to feel like an equal; or maybe he's just thrown you some campaign dollars. Either way, you go along with their ideas, regardless of whether or not it helps your city or your hospital.
My belief is, that if you want to be an investment banker, go be an investment banker. But if you are working at a not for profit hospital, which gets the benefit of being tax-exempt with the condition that you give charity care, then thats what you do. Like Hyman Roth from Godfather II said, "this is the business that we've chosen." Don't start getting jealous because you're not making their kind of money or that no one thinks of you as particularly prestigous. Take pride in the fact that you've chosen a profession where you have the opportunity to help dictate the amount of charity care given to those less fortunate. There ain't no big reward, no big pie in the sky for those of us who choose an honorable profession (not to say being a banker isn't honorable, I don't begrudge what a man does for a living, but... well, you know). You make the money that our economy demands, you fight for your constiuents (if you are an elected or appointed official), you fight for the workers you want to help (if you work for a union like me), or you get out of it, do something different. The way we keep score in society, those kind of jobs are tough to handle, but there shouldn't be room in public interest careers for those who want to enrich themselves. The fight is too hard already.

Memories of Pedro

Maybe it was because of my upbringing, but as a child, I never thought of the world as a particularly magical place. I had a pretty good imagination and I was always filled with curiosity and amazement at the seemingly endless surprises that my ever expanding universe bestowed. But all of the things they tell little kids about in an effort to protect their innocence, I was never really into. I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I was 5 and me and my brother caught our parents chatting away, eating the cookies we had left out for him as thanks for giving us presents. When I left my first tooth for the tooth fairy under my pillow, I woke up the next morning with nothing under my pillow but the imprint of a child's tooth pressed firmly into my sheets (on second thought, maybe I didn't believe in magic because my parents botching their duties or something). And don't get me started on the Easter Bunny a big rabbit that gives kids eggs... get real... not even a little kid would believe that crap.
The closest I ever got to magic was on ESPN, between the ages of 12 and 15, when I would get to see Pedro Martinez pitch, either on Sportscenter, or occasionally on a nationally televised game. Those moments were the ultimate in escapism, one of the best things about baseball, you just knew the man was gonna but on a show for you everytime out; he rarely disappointed. As he approaches retirement, his frail body (for a pitcher) not being able to withstand the rigors of being a pitching god any longer, I want to dedicate this post to him- because I finally got a chance to see him pitch live. As Bill James said in the Historical Baseball Abstract, "How can he be so much better than the other pitchers?" it is something that I always wondered about and I could only come up with one conclusion- the man had magic in his arm.

I first noticed Pedro in 1997, while he was still with the Montreal Expos. That was the year he won his first Cy Young award. He was a workhorse then, throwing 13 complete games, but what I was most concerned about was his ending of the Atlanta Braves streak of Cy Young awards, which by that time had become the personal property of Atlanta Braves pitchers (Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, or John Smoltz). I hadn't seen him pitch much, for the most part any game that did not involve the Braves was not of much interest. The next year he was out of the National League- given an enormous contract by the Boston Red Sox. His first year in Boston was very very good, but he happened to run into Roger Clemens second year with the Blue Jays while he was doing his best Walter Johnson impression, you know, leading the league in wins, strikeouts and ERA for the second consecutive year.
1999 though.. wow! 1999 was a pretty bad year all things considered. We moved into our second trailer park, one even crappier than the first, my dad lost his job; there is an assortment of other stories for another day. Needless to say, my spirits had every reason to be uplifted, and they were provided by a Dominican with a magic arm. It is my contention that Pedro Martinez in 1999 and 2000 was the greatest pitcher in the history of baseball. This was one year after the insane 1998 home run race, the absolute peak of offensive prowess, where even backup catchers had the ability to hit opposite field, flat-footed, 500 foot home runs. In that environment he put up ridiculous numbers. 2.07 ERA when the league average was 5.02, a WHIP (walks and hits per inning pitched) of .923, 313 STRIKEOUTS in 213 INNINGS. His ERA was lower in 2000 (1.74!) as was his WHIP (.737!!) and the league ERA was higher (5.07), but he was extremely hit unlucky in '99, and his strikeout rate was much higher then too. Those two years together are easily the best two year stretch for any pitcher. In fact, I dare someone to name a better seven year stretch for a pitcher than Pedro between 1997-2003. It was like Zeus came down from Mt. Olympus, chucking white round bolts of lightning. I would have believed it.
Pedro had it all, an explosive fastball, a Bugs Bunny style changeup, a knee-buckling curveball, the ability to throw from all kinds of arm angles. Most importantly though, and this was something people often missed out on, the man was smart, the way that almost all great pitchers are. He spoke in thoughtful metaphors when he talked to the press, and he always seemed to go to the mound with a plan of action. A dominant pitcher can control his sport like no other position in all of athletics, and Pedro dominated to an extent that no one really has. When a pitcher is going like Pedro at his peak- striking out 12-14 batters per game, he doesn't need his defense for much. And that's why I always liked him more than the other great artistic pitchers of my lifetime.

Greg Maddux was an artist as well, he did not have the golden arm that the other dominant pitchers of his time did. His ability rest in his impeccable control, his ability to get groundballs, and his high intelligence. Greg Maddux was an outstanding pitcher, but he was never electrifying, he was enjoyable in the way that an independent film is. It makes you think, you never question that you are in the midst of brilliance, but you are pretty sure you aren't in the same room as transcendence. Roger Clemens gave off the opposite aura, he never appeared to be an artist. His persona was one of the classic Texas fireballer, a much more refined version of Nolan Ryan. He threw almost as hard as Ryan, but cared about the subtleties of pitching; he saw walks as losses not ties or victories the way Ryan did. Clemens made hitters feel overpowered, his gun was just bigger than theirs. Randy Johnson had my single favorite pitch, the hard biting slider which seemed to travel from one end of the ballpark to the other before crossing the plate from an impossible angle and burying itself somewhere near the batters ankles. He was nasty, had a mean streak, figured out how to pitch relatively late, awkward as a stork, but almost as great as the other two overall and just as dominant at his peak.
But Pedro- he combined the artistry of Maddux with the sheer devastation of Clemens and Randy Johnson. Contrary to what Crash Davis said, I always thought that strikeouts were more democratic than groundballs, strikeouts are between two participants and is one of the three true outcomes (walks and homers being the others), groundballs get an outside party involved. Pedro was Piccasso with a ball, painting corners, constantly experimenting from different arm slots (which may, along with his frailness, explain his injuries), absolutely befuddling hitters with a vast array of weapons. But he was also more than willing and more than able to overmatch you, like Clemens he could bring the big guns in a hurry; he just deployed them in a more varied fashion. A more interesting analogy is to generals- Clemens was like the Colin Powell, adminstering overwhelming force. Pedro was Genghis Khan, who also had overwhelming force at his disposal, but with a more creative and engaging flair. Both get the job done, one is more memorable.

The moments I remember the most. 1999 All-Star game at Fenway where he struck out Barry Larkin, Larry Walker, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire and Jeff Bagwell, making each of them look foolish, like they were swinging a drumstick. 1999, when he struck out 18 against the dynastic Yankees allowing only a single home run to Chili Davis (in my mind more impressive than striking out 20 hacktastic Mariners or Tigers like Clemens did). 1999, Cleveland Indians playoff game, comes in with a sore shoulder, not being able to lift up his arm- 6 no-hit innings on guile to clinch the divisional series. It was incredible to watch beauty that close- he never threw as many innings as he did in 1997, but I figure that you can't ever have too much of a good thing. Baseball fans were spoiled rotten by those seasons, what he did, in a notorious hitters park, in baseballs most offensive era, in its most offensive league, was absolutely absurd (I guide you to take a look at his baseball reference page)- I'm glad I was a fan when it happened.

The game I went to where I finally got to see Pedro live, he got shelled, taken out before the fourth inning, the Phillies went on to cruise in that game. He was a shell of his former self, his fastball hovering in the mid 80's, trying to get by on his ability to pitch. When your stuff is as flat as his was, it's pretty hard to get results no matter how much you know about pitching. This may be the end of the line, magic like his doesn't last forever- maybe his arm was living on borrowed time, it's pretty cool that he got to share it with us all.

The New Gilded Age

For the past two weeks on Tuesday night I've watched the new edition of Beverly Hills 90210. I only vaguely remember the original incarnation; I remember it being wildly popular and I remember that it did not officially end until 2000 although it's cultural cache had evaporated long before that. I watched the new version for several reasons, the most important being that it premiered on my birthday and I thought it would be a delightful treat to have so much fun laughing at a self-important teen drama. Other reasons include wanting to see Tristan Wilds from the Wire succeed in his introduction to a much larger audience, and finally, because watching the conspicuous consumption of rich people makes me feel righteously indignant, which is one of the best feelings in the world.
As a show, it's much better than I thought it would be. The acting isn't terrible, it certainly has style, although not nearly as much as the vapidly interesting Gossip Girl. Mostly though, it moves at a breakneck pace, even for an hour long show- we're only three episodes in and there is already a seasons worth of material to mull over. My interest in this show, however, and my reason for writing about it (besides my ever present ability to navel gaze) is that the proliferation of these kind of shows, the teen dramas which focus on the life and times of the obscenely wealthy really says a lot about this time in American history I think and our collective reaction to the ever increasing inequality in income___
I'm not sure who coined the term "The New Gilded Age," but I do remember reading an article in the New York Times last year by Louis Uchitelle, which documented the thoughts of the insanely wealthy CEO's of major US companies on growing income inequality and their own roles in our economy. When history writes our _____
It's too much to totally take the comparison on face value, but there are many characteristics from the first Gilded Age which are present today. Obviously, growing income inequality is the most obvious- our incomes have not been this skewed towards the top since probably 1915-1916, towards the end of the Gilded Age. There is an intermingling of industry and politics, which while always present, is much more brazen and blatant than in recent history (check out Glenn Greenwald's archives for superb documentation). Election contest between the two major parties are bitter and close, immigration (from Latin America) is as major an issue as it has been since the massive influx of European immigrants around the beginning of the 20th century.

It's not simply income inequality that marks our age as gilded, however- it is the "opulent self-indulgence" (Wikipedia's words not mine) with which said consumption is taking place. The ability of the super-rich to weather any the current economic storm without any kind of budget tightening- their jet-setting, their meetings at Davos. Overall, it is their separation from the middle-income universe. Not to say that rich people were not always separated from the world of those with less money/wealth. But until the deregulation, low tax rates, and complete repudiation of the New Deal framework in the 1980's, and the consolidation, repeal of the Glass-Steagell Act, and tech boom of the 1990's, there were not many opportunities for such wealth to be amassed.

What is different now, however, is how we react to the growing income gap. During the first Gilded Age, the working class response was the growing labor movement and a growing militancy within the population. Business and government, having learned from the mistakes of the past, have done a superb job at re-framing the argument. Instead of calling it an argument over growing inequality, it is described as one of class warfare. Instead of seeing the burden of the poor as a problem to be solved by the masses, their plight is described as the consequences of their individual choices. In the same way, the good fortune of the rich is a consequence of their good judgment, entrepreneurial spirit, and exemplary merit. Basically the elite say that only a "hater" would begrudge of them of their money with redistributive policies. Only a "hater" would decry the greediness with which they persue the accumulation of money. Today, we gawk at the happiness that money can buy. We have magazines and reporters devoted solely to telling us about the clothes and lifestyles of our socioeconomic superiors. The teen dramas like 90210 and Gossip Girl (along with a host of reality shows about celebrities or spoiled 16 year olds) are our eye candy- it's amazing in an escapist sort of way to live vicariously through these enormously wealthy characters. For an instant we get to fly in personal jets, buy Mercedes jeeps on a whim, go to stylish, exclusive cocktail parties, hobnobbing (what a word) with people whose attire cost more than 6 months salary.
At the same time, not only do we get to see how great their lives are (answer, as great as we could possibly imagine), but we also get to revel in their problems. While the former makes us feel awed, the latter makes us feel better about ourselves. Although, the degree to which the rich are demonized and cariactured has been lessening (see this) the fact that rich people are stereotyped as greedy, spoiled, and out of touch gives the viewers an out so to speak, a way to not be too drawn in, lest we question too much why they are rich and we are not.
Which leads to my final point- the change in how we approach the subject of income inequality is based on a a key assumption and one that I think is very wrong. The assumption is that talking about income inequality is really just a case of jealousy by the poor, working, and middle classes. That's unfortunate, because it takes the focus off the real detriments of inequality (crime, substandard schools, etc.) that cannot be discussed in a true sociological sense without tackling the subject head on. There'll be more on this in the near future.

My Choice for NL MVP

Like I promised, here is my NL MVP Ballot. I already explained the methodology by which I choose my MVP (a combination of Value over Replacement Player, Win Probability Added, Revised Zone Rating/Defensive Win Shares, and pennant race dynamics).

1. Albert Pujols 1b St. Louis Cardinals VORP 85 WPA 5.36 OPS 1.116
38 2b's, 32 HR's, .466 OBP, .649 Slug, 93 walks and only 48 strikeouts. Just another average season for Prince Albert. I can say this without any prefacing- Ladies and gentleman, we are watching the greatest first baseman to ever play the game of baseball and we should be eternally grateful. He is the best offensive and defensive first baseman in either league and furthermore he is just so damn consistent. Check out his stats, it's a shame he had to play at the same time as the Transformer, or he'd have 3 MVP's to go along with 2 pennants and a world championship. By all accounts he's also a great guy, adopted a kid with Down Syndrome, invites rookies to dinner, etc. To me, he's the modern day Stan Musial which makes it more than fitting he plays for the Cardinals.

2. Lance Berkman 1b Houston Astros VORP 75 WPA 6.42 OPS 1.020
I like Lance Berkman. He seems like a fun-loving guy, just a big dude who doesn't exude any athletic competence and at first glance, lends credence to the unathletic stereotype of baseball players. But he's turned himself into not only a masher, but a decent defender at the cold corner, in my mind only Pujols and Derek Lee are better right now. He also has two cool nicknames, Fat Elvis (for comparison here and here) and the Big Puma for his "cat-like" reflexes. Berkman is supremely underappreciated, first because he was the third B in Houston behind Craig Biggio and Jeff Bagwell (it's crazy that the best Astros of recent memory have all had last names that start with B) and also because he toils in the same division as a demi-god. If the Astros were in contention, the race would be pretty close. Him and Albert are far ahead of the rest of the field in my opinion.

3. Hanley Ramirez SS Florida Marlins VORP 70 WPA 4.20 OPS .919
Sometime in late 2005 or early 2006, right around the Josh Beckett to Boston trade, I remember hearing that some people thought Hanley Ramirez was not as great a prospect as some people said because of his mediocre minor league numbers. Of course, he was far younger than the rest of his competition- the last three years have justified rating him so highly. We love seeing prospects come out of nowhere, but doesn't it feel good when someone with potential fulfills their destiny? He's not much at shortstop (although he's gotten better) which might mean a move to a less demanding defensive spot in the future, but he's just as exciting as Jose Reyes with a fraction of the press. The best part is, he's only 24 years old so he has a few more years at this level or better. Hopefully playing to small crowds in Florida won't depress him too much.

4. Matt Holliday LF Colorado Rockies VORP 58 WPA 5.11 OPS .963
Last year, Matt Holliday became the symbol for the amazing Rockies when he face planted them to playoff spot with the dramatic come from behind win over the Padres, becoming their symbol and giving voters a signature moment with which to award him 2nd place in MVP balloting (the MVP was won by Jimmy Rollins). This year, with the Rockies comfortably out of a playoff spot, Holliday is having another very good season. Not quite as good as last year and with none of the excitement. The Rockies were a miracle story, a pretty weak World Series participant, and destined for regression to their true talent level. Like I said, I'm all for taking the success of the team into some account when deciding on an MVP, but Holliday should still be getting some love even if the Rockies stink.

5. David Wright 3b New York Mets VORP 49 WPA 2.94 OPS .892
Why would I pick another third baseman when Chipper Jones is having a much better offensive season? I went back and forth between putting either one of their names at this spot; in the end I chose Wright because of defense and because his team is still in the race. New York's golden boy is having another fine season and for some reason, he just seems like really cool guy. My roommate, who is not much of a baseball fan even seems to like him. When I see him play, for some reason, images of Ron Santo come to mind. Obviously I'm too young to have seen Ron Santo play, but he's always been described to me as a very good offensive third baseman with very good defensive skills as well. He may not be the top at any one aspect of the game, but he is so valuable because he is so good in every area. If he continues like this he'll get more love than Santo because of New York and because I think that despite their faults, sportswriters are a little better at noticing the more subtle value that a player like Wright has to a team.

Honorable Mentions
Chipper Jones 3b Atlanta Braves
I first became a baseball fan in 1991 and my first team was the Atlanta Braves. Partially it was because they were always on TV (TBS, the superstation) and partially because my dad made me root for them since they were playing the Pirates in the NLCS. Anyway, even though they are not my team anymore, I still check on them from time to time. It's like calling an old friend, one you rarely speak to and don't have much in common with anymore. But you remember the good times and you recall them fondly until you run out of things to say. I feel the same way when I see that Chipper is still having great seasons, still being the best switch hitter since... It makes me feel a little old, cuz I remember his unbelievable season in 1999, I remember him being the ultimate Met killer, those series seeming to hinge on the sweet spot of his bat. Life was so much simpler, all I had to worry about was school, playing outside, and video games- everything else was steady. My parents fed me and paid the bills and the Braves won the division every year- what more could a kid ask for?

Carlos Lee RF Houston Astros
El Caballo! I don't know if it's me just seeing it after the fact, but Carlos Lee has always reminded me of a horse. I remember him with the White Sox and he's now with the Astros, but I still think of him as a Brewer. He only spent a season and a half in Milwaukee, but the 2005 season was memorable in its disappointment, I really thought they'd make it over .500 (they finished 81-81). With Houston he's been who he always is, a slugger with bad defense, a down ballot MVP candidate.

Ryan Braun LF Milwaukee Brewers
Last year he won the Rookie of the Year award along with a Golden Globe for Best Comedic Performance in "Trying to Impersonate a Third Baseman." This year, the Hebrew Hammer is still raking but moved his act to left field, which is best for everyone involved. I hope and pray that the Brewers make the playoffs and then make some noise while they're there. I use to live in Nashville and I got to see a few Sounds games (Milwaukee's Triple-A affiliate). It's great to see all of those minor leaguers up and winning together. I knew Braun, Fielder, Hart, and Hardy would all be fine and they have been- but damn I thought Rickie Weeks would be so much better than he is. I've made so many excuses for him already- I knew his defense was bad and always would be, but he at least hit in the minors. This is his 25 year old season- either he learns to play defense, which means that his bat can still play at 2nd, or he learns to hit, which will help in his inevitable move to the outfield. Either way, the Brew Crew need more from him, they need him to at least be better than Ray Durham.

Carlos Beltran CF New York Mets
Joe Posnanski said that Carlos Beltran is one of those players you expect so much more out of, even though what he gives is pretty damn good. He's the very definition of the five tool player. To his detriment, he makes everything seem so effortless, which makes people wonder how great he'd be if he looked like he was trying. He doesn't dog it though, he always plays hard. It's not his fault that I see Mickey Mantle talent in him, when he's really just Andre Dawson with a better walk rate. There's nothing wrong with being Andre Dawson, he's a borderline Hall of Famer. Why can't I totally convince myself though?

Chase Utley 2b Philadelphia Phillies
At the beginning of the year it looked like Philadelphia would have three straight MVP's, the way Chase Utley was hitting, spraying hits all over the field and launching bombs into the seats of Citizens Bank Park. He's tailed off some, going from frontrunner to also-ran, but he'll still garner some downballot votes. If the Phillies would have had a better third baseman (oh where for art thou Scott Rolen), they would have had a historically great infield last year, and its still a damn good one this year. I'm glad this generations Ryne Sandberg is playing for my second favorite team. Here's hoping they overtake the Mets again this year- the only unfortunate thing being that they'll most likely play the Brewers in the Divisional rather than League series.

My thoughts for AL MVP

I don't get to watch nearly as much baseball as I'd like. Last year I had a subscription to listen to a lot of games on the radio and next year I plan on paying for the internet tv package, but as of now, I can only hope to watch the games broadcast on regular tv (Mets, ugh! and Yankees, double ugh!). I'm not too fanatical about any team really, in general I like watching good baseball. I primarily root for the Milwaukee Brewers (use to live there and family reasons) and Philadelphia Phillies (use to live there, and the first game I ever went to) although I do have some affinity for the St. Louis Cardinals, and the Rays are exciting. Anyway, I am excited because I will be making my first and almost certainly last trips to Shea and Yankees Stadiums on September 6 and 13 respectively. In honor of getting to watch two Saturday afternoon baseball games in New York I'm gonna do a blog on the various MVP races. Today I will do the AL as I see it.

Before I begin though I do want to say how I go through my MVP choices. The first thing I do is go over the list of people who are leading their league in VORP (Value over Replacement Player). It's basically what it sounds like, the value a player provides to you over what your so-called Quadruple A player could provide. VORP is a counting stat, so it takes into account not only how well someone has played but the amount of time they have played as well. After VORP, I take a look at WPA (win probability added), which as I explained before just takes the batter and says how much their actions have increased or decreased the probability that their team will win the game. I then look at various defensive stats, most notably, Revised Zone Rating, which tracks how well a player fields his zone with extra credit for out of zone plays (for catchers I use catching win shares because I haven't seen any other good stats to rate how catchers field). Finally, I check to see the standings of the players team. I know that a player cannot control how well his team is doing, he can only does his job. And if someone is so far ahead of the rest of the pack (Alex Rodriguez in 2007) I think they should be the MVP regardless. But in the case of really close races, I think the team success should be factored in.. it's not fair of course, but life ain't either.

1. Grady Sizemore CF Cleveland Indians- VORP 62 WPA 3.33 OPS .908
Not mentioned above is that he also plays a very good centerfield, has stolen 35 bases at almost a 90% clip, and has hit 31 homers and 32 doubles. After coming within one game of the World Series last year, the Indians have been incredibly disappointing, but they have gotten outstanding performances from two key players. They'll have a lot of retooling to do, but they should defnitely hold on to this man. Only a few centerfielders have been as good as him for this many years and he's just now hitting his prime

2. Dustin Pedroia 2b Boston Red Sox VORP 58 WPA 3.04 OPS .883
As of now the Red Sox have the inside track to the Wild Card which gives Pedroia, who has been scorching hot since mid-August, a nice shot at actually winning the award. He plays a very very nice second base and is the kind of "scrappy" (read small) player that sportswriters would love to give the MVP to if they ever put up the right numbers. Ellsbury got more of the hype last year, but Pedroia is a far better player.

3. Carlos Quentin RF Chicago White Sox VORP 50 WPA 3.89 OPS .965
If you haven't heard, Quentin broke his wrist and is almost certainly out for the remainder of the season, which is a devastating blow to the White Sox. He has been by far the best player on the team this year, Arizona has to be kicking themselves for letting him go as he leads the AL in homers (36) and has played a pretty good right field. His name has been floated extensively in the race for MVP up until now. He's still only 26 and plays at US Cellular so he'll have a shot at a few more home run crowns before he's through.

4. Justin Morneau 1b Minnesota Twins VORP 48 WPA 3.73 OPS .909
In my opinion, Morneau has been just as good or even slightly better this year than in his undeserved 2006 MVP campaign. The Twins have been a surprising team all year, which should garner some votes, and now that Carlos Quentin is out of the picture, he's the only RBI man on a contending team who will get serious consideration. He only has 22 home runs, which will hurt his cause, he's a lousy 1st baseman, and besides, Joe Mauer has been almost as good. I'd be less disappointed if he won it this year than in 2006 (Jeter was robbed).

5. Joe Mauer C Minnesota Twins VORP 45 WPA 3.95 OPS .858
Wouldn't it be great to be Joe Mauer, national football player of the year in high school as well as a baseball star, drafted number 1 overall by your hometown team, the best hitting and one of the best fielding catchers in baseball, good-looking. Damn, but anyway, he was much more valuable than Justin Morneau in 2006 and about as valuable this year. He may never find the power stroke everyone thought he'd have, but with patience like that a good receiver skills, he's gonna be a top 10 all-time catcher before it's all said and done.

Honorable Mentions
Alex Rodriguez 3b New York Yankees
Leads the league in VORP, but damn has he had a bad year in the clutch. His WPA is way below the league leaders. He's certainly not doing anything to prove the detractors wrong this year. Besides, the Yankees are disappointing. It's crazy how in an off year, he still is probably the best player in the league.

Josh Hamilton CF Texas Rangers
Everybody knows the story, he's "The Natural" incarnate, been to hell and back. He's also a damn good hitter and an okay fielder with a rifle for an arm. He's actually only 3rd on his team in VORP, which tells you just how good the Texas offense is. It also tells you just how bad their pitching has been. You can write those same two sentences nearly every year.

Aubrey Huff DH Baltimore Orioles
For some reason, I can't think of Huff as anything more than the good hitting catcher for the Devil Rays during those absolutely horrendous years (pretty much every year but this one). To me, he is the epitome of the good player languishing, having to go through the dog days without anything to play for but pride. Now he's an MVP candidate for a down and out franchise. Guess only one thing has changed. (sidenote, it's weird that Baltimore has three near MVP candidates as well, Huff, Brian Roberts, and Nick Markakis, if you could pair either one of these teams with Toronto)

Milton Bradley DH Texas Rangers
He's considerably toned down his antics, found a friend in Josh Hamilton, upped his walk rate, and has shown just how good a hitter he really is. My bias towards DH's is considerable, it's not that I hate the position, it's just that someone with no defensive value has to be far and above the league in hitting for them to be anything more than an also-ran in the MVP race, in my book.

Curtis Granderson CF Detroit Tigers
A very exciting and intelligent player. His blog is enjoyable and insightful, he's a decent centerfielder, he hits triples, and he's really learned how to hit. The Tigers are another disappointing team, but man what a find in this guy. His demeanor reminds me of Doug Glanville (former Phillies outfielder who graduated from UPenn), but he is a much better ball player. We really need more great black ballplayers like them in the league.

The Meaning of Statistics

(inspired by my favorite blog- joeposnanski.com. If you haven't read it I suggest you do, he is bar none the BEST sportswriter in America and one of the best writers period. Man I wish I could write like him.)


The one thing that baseball best represents for me is the evolution of ones tastes. Through ever age I've found a new way to appreciate the game. When I was 5, I loved baseball because it was what my father liked and played- it was simply my way of emulating him.
As I progressed through elementary school, I started to collect baseball cards and while I loved the numbers on the back- the conventional statistics, batting average, home runs, RBI, I loved the mythology even more and more importantly I accepted it. I accepted that heart was what truly mattered more than anything else, that there were players who were just naturally clutch. Like Mark Lemke- a guy whose Triple Crown stats were absolutely abhorrent but who saved his best for when the game was on the line. Looking back the mythology was a metaphor for life, at a time when you are still trying to understand just how the world works, and you desperately want to find out what makes you special.
I was always labeled smart, but more than anything else I wanted to be talented- I didn't want to be able to do a math problem quickly, I wanted to hit a baseball far or be on Star Search. If I could hustle, then maybe, just maybe, I could be just as good as the people with more natural ability.
Over time, that worldview comes into question. As a child, you start to understand that while heart and other intangibles do play a part in accomplishments, the field is winnowed down by talent. And if you're not up to the challenge in that regard, your heart could be the size of the Grinch's after he gave back Christmas and it wouldn't matter. Around high school, when I realized a) that growth spurt thing they talked some much about in health class wasn't happening and b) that I just wasn't that good, I decided to approach the game from a different perspective.

I started reading the work of Bill James, Rob Neyer, tangotiger, and other sabermatricians at first, because I wanted to learn about ways to quantify the effects of defense on a baseball team. Like most young baseball fans, I believed that I was throughly versed in how offensive stats and pitching stats correlated to winning games. I had always been a fan of watching excellent defensive players, but I didn't know exactly how good defense effected the fortunes of a baseball team. It was almost like great defensive plays and great defensive players were window dressing, they looked nice on sportscenter but they were not particularly integral to the overall fortunes of the team. Most balls in play are of the routine variety, the kind every major league caliber fielder can get to, and while it is quite easy to tell the difference between Ozzie Smith and Hanley Ramirez, most fielders do not exhibit characteristics of that extreme. The only statistic to really go on from mainstream sites was fielding percentage, the ability to not make an error on balls that you reach. Even when I was younger though, I saw that fielding percentage had many flaws, most importantly, that it only counted balls that you could reach. I thought it was unfair that a player who was slow he couldn't even touch the ball was penalized, while the player who had the ability to get to it would actually look worse at the end of the season. What reading the sabermatricians did for me was help to see defense in a new light. Things like Win Shares (which is only pretty good), Revised Zone Rating, John Dewan's +/- system, defensive efficiency ratio, and others helped to show just how much good defense could help the fortunes of a team. Dewan's +/- system, for instance, slices the field into zones which a particular fielder is responsible for. It then documents every ball hit in said players zone and then calculates the percentage of the time that a fielder makes that play. If a fielder is successful on a play that is typically made 86% of the time, then he gets a +14%. If he fails to make a play that is made 36% of the time, he gets a -36%. Defensive efficiency ratio is much easier, it just documents how often a team turns balls in play, (everything except what a pitcher can control, homers, strikeouts, and walks) into outs. A team that can cover more ground can obviously turn more balls in play into outs (it's one of the major reasons that Tampa Bay is doing so well with a mediocre offense and the Yankees are doing not so well with a much better offense) Many of the systems are highly advanced, taking into account the speed of the ball, the spin, the positioning of the players next to the fielder. They are all quite intuitive and they have greatly enhanced my understanding of defense. There is great work being done on the effects of baserunning, the reasons why certain pitches are effective, and one of my favorite stats, Win Probability Added, which states how much a certain event, such as a single in the top of the fifth with a man on second, changes the probability that a team will win. Hopefully someday these things will go into the mainstream of sports, but as of now, many sportswriters still disparage the study of the game in this manner.
One thing that I've noticed is that the political bent of the sportswriters who lampoon the use of statistics as the primary measure of identifying the MVP, Hall of Famers, and All-Stars is usually quite conservative. Not necessarily the bible-thumping, holy-rollin, anti-abortion crowd, but rather the misogynistic, homophobic, beat on their chest with false-patriotism type. The ones who have pretty skewed views on masculinity, maybe they're ex-jocks. Anyway, their argument against statistics is that the game is played by humans who cannot be reduced to simple numbers, which apparently is what us stats minded folks do. They see people who use stats as nerds who watch Star Trek, live in dark basements, can't play sports, and hate apple pie and puppies.
What this is actually about is insecurity; the insecurity of knowing that their jobs of analysing baseball, about knowing what it takes to win baseball games, is actually done better by an amateur who watches the game and has an understanding of the stats that document what has happened. Because many of these writers do not understand what the statistics entail, how to formulate them, or what their connection to the game is, they automatically diminsh their worth.
Most bad baseball writers have a set number of narratives that they forcibly and retroactively try and match to the scenario which has taken place. If a bad player makes a good play in a big moment, that player instantly becomes clutch. If a good/great player does badly in a given situation, he is a choke artist. Once that narrative is formed it is impossible to break out of. Nobody cares if Alex Rodriguez has been an absolute monster in many playoffs series with both Seattle or with the Yankees. They need to find a reason for why such a great player has not won a championship. Consequently, his infield partner, Derek Jeter, because he has made big plays in big moments on a few occasions is seen as the consummate clutch player, even when it is not exactly true. Even when he hit batted .148/.179/.259 (average, on base percentage, slugging percentage) in the 2001 World Series where he was dubbed Mr. November. The truth is that the amateur assault on the way we report news and the way we analyze information is happening in every category and hopefully it will keep its vibrancy when it comes to the mainstream.

I Got My Arrow

"You can choose to say, good morning God or good God morning," Gift of Gab "First in Flight"

It's tough living in between two places, never really feeling like you're settled. Right now, and probably in some capacity for at least the next year I will be living in two places, mostly in the figurative sense but occasionaly in the literal. I cannot complain, it's the best arrangement for now. I was going through some of my stuff in place number 2 putting some of my music onto my ipod and going through my cds when I stumbled upon a brown cd with a yellow stripe going horizontally through the center, on the right side there was a bowman, with a long bow in one hand, a quiver of arrows slung over his shoulder, listening to some headphones... I haven't listened to Blazing Arrow in a long time, it'd probably been a few years, but I can remember how refeshing it was when I did. To my surprise, I hadn't even put it on my ipod although I do have mounds of music that has meant much less to me.

As a hip-hop album, it is damn near perfect. Chief Xcel effort was herculean- the beats are absolutely eclectic, at times spacy with synthesized distorted guitars, running basslines, well-placed soul samples, just a sonic masterpiece with a few tracks that I'm still in awe of. Gift of Gab is a multi-syllabic monster, his rapid fire flow is impressive in and of itself but he is even moreso when he slows down during the main part and speeds up rapidly before cresting at the chorus. My favorite track, First in Flight, features an amazing Gil Scott-Heron; words like majestic or regal spring the mind and he's only singing the chorus- he's no doubt helped by Chief Xcel's great use of the echo effect, but he really steals the show. As somebody from Pitchfork put it, he not only sounds great, he sounds better than he did when he actually was that great. Just an absolute stunner, and there was little wonder that it became one of my all-time favorite albums and really so much more.

I moved to Nashville a few months before my 16th birthday and I could not have been sadder. My life in Milwaukee, while not perfect, was as close as it ever had been. I was on track to be the valedictorian of my class, I was playing varsity baseball, I was on a championship caliber debate team, I had plenty of friends, and I'd finally found a place that I truly thought that I could call home. On the family front, all of us had our own lives, I got along better with my father than I ever had, my mother was happy and working, my sister was going to Marquette in the fall, and even though me and my brother fought alot, most of the time we had so much fun together. When we moved, at first, I tried to make the best of it. I tried going out, looked for the artsy/nerdy/music scene that didn't involve new country music. I tried to meet people with no car, no drivers license- basically I gave Nashville a chance... and it failed miserably, or maybe I did. Either way, there was a special feeling to that summer, one of bitter defeats, a feeling I get waking up to a hot sun-drenched room knowing I have to get up and face another day when I really don't feel like battling. A feeling I get on endless nights when everytime I wake up only a few hours had passed.

Blazing Arrow became my soundtrack for those feelings. The overlying message I got from the album was one of a sense of hope and purpose on a journey through the doldrums, being able to not so much control your own fate but to control your reaction, to choose your response to the outcome. I've always loved the motif of the "long hot summer" and nothing better describes my experiences during the summer of 2002, those were my doldrums so to speak. Antioch might as well been a desert wilderness, no sidewalks, a long hike up the hill just to get to the store. I remember being abandoned at the bus stop for two hours because southern cities hate things like public transportation (as well as anything like city infrastructure or even a semblance of planning). Mostly, though I remember the anxiety of waiting, waiting to see if the place I was forced to accept was better than the place I was forced to abandon. I'd really thought I was done with moving, thought I was done with start over at least during that phase of my life. My anxiety was tempered somewhat by that aformentioned message, and even when things became worse than I imagined they would be, and they really did, I tried to hold on to that hope.

It's a cliche to say that the music we listen to ultimately becomes a soundtrack for our nostalgic thoughts, but it's also true. There is a difference, however, in the ways that music interacts with those thoughts. There are songs that are in general nostalgic, songs that are shared by the general population, songs that were number 1 when you were in high school. Those songs can certainly be personal and they bring back a flood of memories, and they characterize a time, a place, a certain style of dress. No ones memories surrounding those songs are alike, but there is a palpable excitement for the collective when that song comes on the radio or at a party, it becomes a part of the shared consciousness about the so-called best years of our lives. Unfortunately a lot of the music I listened to during that crucial age was of the other variety, music that is extremely personal, music that I did not and really could not share with anyone else (except for my brother). I knew that there were other people who listened to the music that I did, most of it I discovered for myself by browsing websites, but for the life of me I could never find them in person. Well, at least I couldn't before... I got friends now who enjoy the type of music I listen to, maybe it's one of those things, like you only find things once you stop looking.