I Pick Every NFL Game Week 6 (and both Baseball Championship Series)

Overall: 39-37

I'm over .500 for the first time; do with that what you will.

I was 3 of 4 picking the opening round of the baseball playoffs (missing on Angels/Sox); my two World Series teams remain, so I'll roll with that and pick a Yankees/Dodgers Series. 

The AL is closer than you think - the Yanks are prohibitive favorites to win the whole thing, and they're stronger in every phase than the Angels, but just by a little bit, and a possible unintended consequence of a Yankee strength (plate discipline) can hurt them in a short series (the Twins threw a lot of strikes and the Yanks didn't hit as well as you would have liked).  If Lackey/Kazmir can put the ball over the plate, that might suppress the NY attack.  Still, you're just creating trouble for yourself if you pick anyone but New York to win the whole thing.

The Cards were favored over the Dodgers - I liked LA because they were the best team in the NL by a solid margin over the course of the whole year and they have power bullpen arms, which has been an excellent predictor of postseason success.  I similarly like LA in the series with Philly; it's essentially a pick 'em and I see it as such, but the huge (I mean huge) bullpen disparity is enough to get me to go Dodgers.

I have two blog posts whirling around in my head, it's really only a matter of carving out time (and my health; I've been flu-ish all week; if south Florida collapses under the weight of swine flu I might be patient zero) to get to them.  One is about Rush Limbaugh, so I'd better hurry as that story is about to zip its way out of the news cycle, and the other is a comparison between Barack Obama and Vince McMahon; I'm likely to be the only person who will draw that specific connection, so I'm not as afraid of losing out to Dave Zirin on that piece.  Also, at the other place, I have to finish the build to Counterfactual Survivor Series 2008 before the end of the month.  Oh - and my first of two fantasy hoops drafts is Saturday afternoon. 

Let's get to the picks.

Redskins -6 Chiefs (loss)
Bengals -4.5 Texans (loss)
Steelers -14 Browns (loss)
Vikes -3 Ravens (loss)
Jags -9.5 Rams (loss)
(here's how bad the Rams are; the Jags lost by 5 touchdowns to a middling Seattle team just last week, and I'm willing to give up ten points just to avoid being on the Rams' side)
Saints -3 Giants (win)
Bucs +3 Panthers (loss)
Pack -13 Lions (win)
Eagles -14 Raiders (loss)
(I pick every game, as you know, so I'd have to pick this game no matter the number - in my head I set 21 as the most I'd give here, and still I wouldn't like taking the Raiders.  It's sad and there's no other way to put it)
Seattle -3 Arizona (loss)
Jets -9.5 Bills (loss)
NE -9 Titans (win)
Falcons -3 Bears (win)
Broncos +3.5 Chargers
(I didn't like them before the season either, but at some point you won't be able to get points and the Broncos).

5-9
44-46

The Weekly Ten - Week 6 College Football Picks

Record: 36-14
Locks: 5-0

Look, I'm not saying I'm going to keep doing well as this is a bit freakish, but if I had been following this blog over the past 5 weeks, I'd be a believer.  My guess is at this point there's at least someone taking some investment advice.  I'm on your side.  Let's go get 'em.

La Tech +10.5 Nevada (loss)
WVA -10 Syracuse (win)
Toledo v. WMichigan Under 63 (loss)
South Carolina -9.5 Kentucky (loss)
Auburn -2.5 Arkansas (loss)
Navy -11 Rice (win)
Marshall -4 Tulane (win)
Utah -8 Col St. (loss)
Wake -11.5 Maryland (loss)
Lock: Michigan St. -4 Illinois (win)

Week: 4-6 (boo).  The Maryland end of game loss gets me my first losing week of the season. I did give you the Dodgers this week, let's not forget.
Overall: 40-20
Locks: 6-0

I Pick Every NFL Game - Week 5

I'm 31-31.  Because you shouldn't pick every NFL game.

Dallas -8.5 KC (loss)
Redskins +3.5 Panthers (win)
Eagles -15 Bucs (win)
NYG -15 Oakland (win)
Ravens -8.5 Bengals (loss)
Vikes -10 Rams (win)
Browns +6 Bills (win)
Steelers -10.5 Lions (loss)
Falcons +2.5 Niners (win)
Texans +5.5 Cards (loss)
Denver +3 NE (win)
Colts -3.5 Titans (win)
Jets -2 Dolphins (loss)
Jags +.5 Seattle (loss)

8-6
39-37

2009 MLB Playoff Predictions

Who helped negotiate Michael Crabtree's contract?

Hey, playoffs start today, Cliff Lee and whatnot. I'll pick all of the opening series, offering a couple of smart things about all of them, and then give my picks for the remainder of the postseason.

NL
Phils (WARP3 68.4) v. Rox (67.8)
-Closer matchup then you think; Phils have just a tick more value over the course of the season; I'm going to pick the champs, but I wouldn't invest in it. 

-Rox swept the Phils in '07; they keep the ball in the park and the Phils rely heavily on home runs; the problem for the Rox is they will send out RH arms (Cook, Jimenez, Marquis/Hammel) against the Phils left handed power (Utley, Ibanez, and especially Howard, who has a crazy platoon split).  On the other hand, the Rox arms (Cook, Street) keep the ball down, and the Phils power is concentrated up in the zone. 

-The Rox are patient, seeing a lot of pitches (it's good to work counts, Jim offers to his beloved SFG, the two teams which saw the most pitches-per-PA this year were the Yanks and RSox, their being the two best teams in the game isn't coincidental), but the Phils don't walk anyone (2nd fewest in NL). 

-Both of the bullpens are bad.  The Rox seems to have improved recently; it's unclear the Phils have much of a pen plan.  Know whose pen was good?  The Giants.  One real bat at the deadline, this is all I'm saying.

-Phils in 5.  But stay away from this series.

Dodgers (78.3) v. Cards (69.1)
-LA, over the course of the season, was the best team in the NL.  They played badly down the stretch; there are lots of reasons baseball playoffs are hard to predict, one of them is the length of the season makes consideration of season long value numbers less valuable when trying to call a short October series. 

-The Cards, despite Pujols being Pujols, hit much better against RH than LH (they have the lowest OPS in the NL against lefties, which is the determining factor for me in calling this for the Dodgers) LA's going to run Kershaw (if he's the guy the mainstream media is talking about in a month as the new Josh Beckett, you read it here) and Wolf at them.  There are going to be a lot of ground balls in this series, as the Cards arms/Dodgers bats both trend hard that way - if there's a play in this series it might be under the daily run total. 

-LA's bullpen is bananas. 

-The Dodgers hit fastballs well - Carpenter's a fastball pitcher, the Dodgers have had good success against him.

-LA in 4. 

-I'll take the Dodgers to win the pennant, beating the Phils in 6.

AL
Angels (70.8) v. Red Sox (77.3)

-Boston's playing the best ball of the season; they're in good shape to drive past the Angels again this year. Victor Martinez and Billy Wagner were really good upgrades, demonstrating that its possible to tune up an already good ballclub during the season in an effort to win the whole thing (not that I'm complaining about the deal for Freddie Sanchez, which was obviously unassailable)

-LAA did a nice job converting to a walk/homer team (Abreu helped with the former, Morales with the latter) moving away from the small ball with which they were associated for several years.  But they're outmatched here.

-Sox in 4. 

Yankees (82.7) v. Twins (70.7)

-The Twins are good, you see their season long value was the same as the Angels - obviously they come into the postseason playing well and they have Joe Mauer, who probably wins the AL MVP Award (I'd vote for Greinke, but Mauer would be second and an equally good choice).

-But they're gonna lose.  Yanks in 4. 

-New York's been the best team in baseball all season long; they're the best team now.  Does that mean they'll win - nah - it's October, stuff happens.  The Yanks will need one (at least) of their non-Sabathia starters to step up, and a few crucial outs will cause the "A-Rod can't hit in the postseason" shouts to get louder and louder.  But if you're calling it - their weaknesses are fewer than the other clubs, their strengths are more pronounced.  Lets say Yanks in 6 over the Sox, and then in 6 more over the Dodgers.

Dead Peasants

I've yet to see Michael Moore's new movie, but I will, and I'll buy the DVD (although I will not enjoy it as much as my newly discovered favorite thing ever - Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog, which I encourage you to rent, and if you do, you must watch the musical commentary track.  I know, you are unlike me; you do not share my obsessive devotion to all things commentary, you have no opinion as to the best feature commentary track ever {Boogie Nights} but you are doing yourself a disservice if you (a) do not immediately put Dr Horrible to the top of your netflix queue and (b) slavishly devote yourself to the musical commentary track, which literallty will double the pleasure you receive from the Dr. Horrible experience.  Seriously, you shouldn't be reading this blog right now.  Click on a new window and go get yourself some Dr. Horrible.  No, a torrent is insufficient unless you can get the commentary track too.  Which you can if you try, but that would be wrong) I'm aware though that one of the elements of the film is Moore's discovery of what is known euphemistically as "dead peasant insurance" - that being the corporate practice of taking out life insurance on employees, naming the company as the beneficiary, all without the employee's knowledge. 

I was unaware of this practice.

In fact, had you asked me prior to this film if this was legal, I would have said no.

You:  Don't you teach a course in law?

Hey, as long as I'm 36-14 against the spread picking college football games, it doesn't so much matter what I know about your "laws".  Seriously, it's the kind of run that would get me booted out of casinos.  If I had a broader readership, it's the kind of run that would set me up for years as "The Professor of the Pigskin"; I'd have a 900 number and a subscription based tout service. I'd be able to stop teaching 7 courses a term..

You:  7?  Isn't that a lot?  How do you live?  How do you love?

These are insightful questions.  I will share with you my foodstuffs.

There are public policy principles that require in order to take out life insurance on someone, you have to have an "insurable interest" in that person.  The rationale for this isn't complicated - if you take out a life insurance policy on your neighbor, it creates for you an incentive to want him dead.  On the other hand, if the policy is on your dad, we decide that the familial bonds (no, I'm not returning to the Mackenzie Phillips piece) will outweigh the financial gain.  The idea, of course, behind having life insurance in the first place is that someone who is financially dependent on another isn't abandoned, left to the charity of others, upon the death of that person.  That's what insurable interest means.

I don't have the slightest idea what the insurable interest is that Coca-Cola has in its employees. 

In fact, given the level of control that corporations have over the health insurance of their employees - business has an extraordinary ability to see to it that their employees die.  And profit from that death.

Coke couldn't take out life insurance on its customers.  Say, get the names of the highest quantity drinkers of its product and take out life insurance policies (if I'm not being clear enough here - imagine a tobacco company or a vodka manufacturer, say asking for personal data through a website, giving away product to customers who are willing to provide it - supplying, heavily supplying legal, but obviously harmful product to those special customers - and taking out dead peasants policies on all of them.)

Illegal.  Least I thought so. 

Because imagine the corporation which controls a worker's hours, grinding a worker down with increasingly heavy course loads, packing dozens and dozens of students into small rooms, increasing the number of courses, the numbers of subjects - treating that worker as if he is just a piece on a chess board to be maneuvered at the whim of the corporation.  Then you slice his vacation in half - that's good - then you cut the medical benefits such that it will reduce the number of routine doctor visits.  Work him harder, for more hours, for more weeks, and take away his medical coverage.  Then take out a life insurance policy on him and wait for him to keel over during a discussion of the 14th Amendment. 

Um, I mean, not that I'm talking about anyone specific.  It's more of a general observation on the American worker.

So, there is an answer to this question.  I'm sure it's a good one.  I just don't know what it is.

(note - the Tigers just took the lead in the tenth, they're a slightly tougher matchup for the Yanks than are the Twins, but both would be heavy, heavy dogs - I'll put up my playoff picks tomorrow.  Oh, Cuddyer just tripled.  It's a thing.)

So, while I'm unlikely to write a full piece about it - something happened on Fox News today, Shepard Smith went all socialist/nazi/death panel on Barrasso from West Virginia:

As the costs have gone up, the insurance industry's profits, on average, have gone up more than 350 percent. And it is the insurance companies which have paid, and who have contributed to Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle to the point where now we cannot get what all concerned on Capitol Hill seem to believe and more 60 percent of Americans say they would support, which is a public option

Which is, you know, exactly right.  Ups to Fox News.

What? 

(and now it's 5-5.  Oh - Casilla got thrown out!  Who will win?  Who?  Who?)

Oh - and the next time the conservatives say they're the real Americans, and "country first" and claim that liberals with their, you know, dislike of war and inequality "hate America" - consider this.  Good to have a little insight on what drives these people, as if you needed one. 

Except, apparently, for Shep Smith.  Huh. 

And leave Dave alone.  We had a deal.

And here is Oklahoma's new law requiring abortion details to be posted online.  So that happened.