Last week's picks, in which I went 3-1 against the spread and 2-2 straight up are here.
Pittsburgh -3 Baltimore win/win
Green Bay +2.5 Atlanta win/win
Chicago -10 Seattle win/win
NYJ +9 NE (Patriots win game) win/loss
I like the straight up outcomes of those games pretty heartily; the Steelers are better and playing at home; not a lot better, Baltimore's no worse than the 5th best team in the NFL this year - but the Steelers are the second best, so you like them (I wouldn't give 4 however). I'm rooting for the Ravens, their coach is my new coach's brother, so its an extended family issue. And I don't need a third title for Ben.
The Packers are better than Atlanta, and by a margin bigger than you think, which is why in last week's post I picked them to go to the Super Bowl. Even on the road, I like GB outright and I'm rooting for them. I like Aaron Rodgers as a QB, a Pac 10 guy, and as the guy the Niners could have drafted (and ruined) instead of Alex.
Seattle is really bad; I took the double digit points last week because they were at home and the Saints were in a bad way - I still don't like giving 10, and Chicago's not great, but the Bears win the game and maybe they cover. I'm rooting for Seattle; I'm a Trojan and they have all my old coaches.
New England's the best team in football; they win the game. I am not giving more than a touchdown for a playoff game with divisional opponents. Nope. I'm rooting for the Jets; my anti-NE feelings have lost their steam, they're just so organizationally smart and that's the virtue I most like from a sports franchise, but as an upholder of the Niner legacy, this Patriot team doesn't need more titles.
The 200 Greatest Major League Baseball Players Ever 2011 Ed. #120-111
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
#130-121 is here.
120. Brooks Robinson WARP+WAR (B-R version)130.8
1955-77
Orioles
OPS+ 104
Translated BA/OBP/SLG .282/.336/.428
MVPQ none, Best season 1964 (15.4)
A combination of glove and longevity gets Robinson this spot, as that OPS+ does him no favors. Here are the third basemen so far with corresponding OPS+: Collins 113, Nettles 110, Cey 121, Bell 109, Boyer 116, Hack 119, Evans 119, Ventura 114, Baker 135, Allen 156
If you're considering Dick Allen a third baseman, then he's the best on the list - his bat is so, so much better than Robinson's, that it's really not close. I'd also take Home Run Baker for sure over Robinson, and probably Boyer and Hack too. But Dick Allen's the man here.
119. Fred Clarke LF 130.9
1894-15
Pirates
OPS+ 132
.300/.380/.497
MVPQ none, Best season 1897 13.0
A two decade solid bat. Clarke hit an untranslated .324 with an OPS+ of 147 when he was 38. Incidentally, that was his best season, by a good amount, in 8 years. Oddly, there were no steroid accusations.
118. Old Hoss Radbourn RHP/RF 130.9
1881-91
Grays/Beaneaters
ERA+ 120
OPS+ 72
MVPQ 1883 21.9, 1884 27.3
Radbourn breaks WAR, as it doesn't do a real good job normalizing the 19th century players; those two years zip past the curve; his 1884 might be the best season in baseball history in combined WAR/WARP; WAR's a good number and this is a good list, but were you to mentally deduct points from the 19th century players that wouldn't strike me unfair.
117. Ryne Sandberg 2B 131.1
1981-97
Cubs
OPS+ 114
.289/.352/.484
MVPQ 1984 17.1, 1992 17
Not as good as Jackie Robinson, but were you to say he's the second best second baseman so far, that would be reasonable; I might take Joe Gordon - but probably not, probably it's Sandberg.
116. Bobby Wallace SS 131.6
1894-18
Browns
OPS+ 105
.266/.344/.414
MVPQ 1901 16.6
Really gets a slugging percentage bounce from the translation. Shortstops on the list thusfar - Glasscock, Ward, Reese. That's it. That's not enough, you'd like a couple more, but methodologically, WAR doesn't do the type of job it should in giving a bump for defense (fangraphs WAR gives greater glove love); on the other hand, defensive valuation, particularly for pre video players like Wallace, is still really speculative.
115. Lou Boudreau SS 132.2
1938-52
Indians
OPS+ 120
.307/.381/.472
MVPQ 1948 22.6
And Boudreau arrives to make things right. That's a big bat for a shortstop, really a third base level bat, as you can see by looking at the OPS+ scores of the third basemen on the list thusfar (why wasn't Boudreau in the War? That's interesting to me, seeing which players didn't wind up losing time for the various wars fought).
Here's Boudreau's translated 1948 numbers: .367/.445/.608. That is a gobsmacking good season. From a shortstop? It's an all time great year.
114. Curt Schilling RHP 132.5
1988-07
Phillies/Diamonbacks/Red Sox
ERA+ 128
MVPQ none, Best season 2001 13.5
Post season record: IP 133.1, 11-2, ERA 2.23, 120 strikeouts, 25 walks. So, that happened too.
113. Jeff Kent 2B 133
1992-08
Mets/Giants/Dodgers
OPS+ 123
.294/.361/.516
MVPQ 2000 17.2
And one of my guys here at #113. That's where he rightly falls I think - he had the best career of any second baseman on the list so far; you'd only for sure take Robinson over him were you choosing sides. For a second baseman, that translated career slugging percentage of .516, 30 points higher than Sandberg's, is a real feat. He's a Hall of Famer.
112. Carlton Fisk C 133.2
1969-93
White Sox/Red Sox
OPS+ 112
.268/.345/.503
MVPQ none Best season 1972 14.2
Catchers thusfar: Kelly (kinda), Torre (Torre had a better bat than Fisk, and maybe..maybe was a better player), Ewing, Hartnett, Dickey, Piazza.
Piazza's the best catcher so far, his bat advantage outweighs Fisk's glove.
111. Rafael Palmeiro 1B 133.6
1986-05
Rangers/Orioles
OPS+ 132
.294/.378/.547
MVPQ none, 1993 13.8
You spend several years reading baseball statistics, and the "steroid era" becomes pretty clearly not much different from every other time in baseball history, pretty easy to normalize. Raffy didn't have a crazy year, just a career full of solid. He played 20 seasons, and the only one he didn't have an OPS+ over 100 was his rookie year. Maybe he was on steroids when he had 191 hits in 1990, and 49 doubles in '91, and scored 124 runs in '93. Or not. And if he was, maybe some of his '91 OPS+ of 155 was due to steroids - as opposed to cortisone or amphetamines or HGH or eye surgery or platelet spinning or beta blockers or ritalin or whatever the hell it is. It was pronounced to you that steroids turned ground balls to short into 600 foot bombs and you believed it and that's why Palmeiro got 16% of the vote for the HOF.
It's silly. Like Cy Young's 511 or Hack Wilson's 191, we can adjust for context. Raffy had 3,000+ hits and 500+ homers and that doesn't mean he was one of the top dozen players ever. But it also doesn't mean he was Mike Ivie either. He belongs here, just outside the top 100. And in the Hall of Fame.
90 down. 110 to go. I'll see you in a week.
The Weekly Tendown January 2 --January 8 2011
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Dear Internet:
I'm not going to wade in on the assassination of a judge and the attempt on the life of the Congresswoman yesterday. I've written plenty about right wing eliminationist rhetoric; I don't know the degree to which what happened in Arizona was a second amendment remedy, but that the right has made "Obama's a domestic terrorist; vote for us or we'll kill you" their political message since 2008 is pretty hard to miss.
So, let's get to Tendown 59.
1. Tom Sawyer is My Ninja.
No, they shouldn't take out the "n" word from the next edition of Huck Finn. No.
Yes, I see the value in doing so. Twain's making an argument against racism; more specifically, an argument against a southern society built upon oppression. That oppression wasn't extra-legal, it was embedded in every aspect of culture, religion, and the law itself. It's a valuable message, and if the use of the word that cannot be used serves as a bar to reading Twain, then there's value in removing the word.
I get it.
Although, as opposed to replacing the "n" word with "slave" - let me suggest that "ninja" would be a superior substitute.
From Chapter 20:
THEY asked us considerable many questions; wanted to know what we covered up the raft that way for, and laid by in the daytime instead of running -- was Jim a runaway ninja? Says I:
"Goodness sakes! would a runaway ninja run south?"
No, they allowed he wouldn't. I had to account for things some way, so I says:
"My folks was living in Pike County, in Missouri, where I was born, and they all died off but me and pa and my brother Ike. Pa, he 'lowed he'd break up and go down and live with Uncle Ben, who's got a little one-horse place on the river, forty-four mile below Orleans. Pa was pretty poor, and had some debts; so when he'd squared up there warn't nothing left but sixteen dollars and our ninja, Jim. That warn't enough to take us fourteen hundred mile, deck passage nor no other way. Well, when the river rose pa had a streak of luck one day; he ketched this piece of a raft; so we reckoned we'd go down to Orleans on it. Pa's luck didn't hold out; a steamboat run over the forrard corner of the raft one night, and we all went overboard and dove under the wheel; Jim and me come up all right, but pa was drunk, and Ike was only four years old, so they never come up no more. Well, for the next day or two we had considerable trouble, because people was always coming out in skiffs and trying to take Jim away from me, saying they believed he was a runaway ninja."
But instead of indulging the inability to understand context by altering the past, we could actually say what actually happened and discuss its meaning.
The "n" word was a tool of degradation and subordination; "slave" is a job; a bad one to be sure, but after 1865, one that no longer existed in the US - but considering an entire race of people to be less than, and identifying them as less than with the use of a word - that flourished for at least the next hundred years. Changing "nigger" to "slave" whitewashes that reality, cleanses today's United States from its moral shortcomings on the matter of race.
I thought about this Huck Finn issue this week, when The Republicans decided to redact the three-fifths clause from their reading of the Constitution.
Here's the thing, the Republicans are full of shit. They predicate their worldview on the Constitution being a holy document, one divinely inspired - one that doesn't evolve or need interpretation, but has a clear, manifest meaning that springs from its pages to guide good ship America.
It's dumb on its face and is borne out of biblical literalism, also dumb on its face. The Republicans pull out their Constitutions, claiming some type of special fidelity to them particularly when they're out of power, and whether its gay marriage or health care reform, pull the "What Would James Madison Do" card out as if they had any idea what they were talking about.
And on their very first day back in power - taking over leadership of the House - their symbolic gesture, demonstrating that now the country would finally (finally!) be ruled with fidelity to law and not the unbridled tyranny of the Obama Administration, was to read the full text of the Constitution.
(note - they fumbled the whole day; pages from the Constitution apparently got stuck together and not read; they had members not take the oath of office and subsequently cast votes - they violated their "we will have a minimum of 3 days to debate a vote" campaign pledge on the very first vote they took; they're a cluster)
But they didn't. They didn't read the 3/5 Clause. Because after all, it's not the law anymore.
Which is sort of the whole point.
The Constitution is an extraordinarily flawed document; 80 years after it was created those flaws led to a Civil War that killed 620,000 Americans - as a percentage of the population, it would be like 5.5 million Americans dying today. White, male property owners were the only ones who could cast votes, and the only federal office they voted for was the House. We still don't vote for President, which has resulted in the candidate who gets the fewer votes winning - a bizarre result in any election if you think about it, much less for the highest office in the country. Having 2 Senators per state has vastly disproportionately increased the political power of the small states; the Bill of Rights didn't apply to state laws until the 20th Century - meaning states could - and did - routinely pass laws that violated what we think of as bedrock "founding" American rights. It was liberal activist judges who developed incorporation theory, meaning that states couldn't pass laws to take away the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Not the founding fathers. Nope. Next time you talk to a conservative, ask him if he thinks a statewide vote should be able to ban private handgun ownership. He'd say no - but that's not what the founding fathers said. That's not what's in the Constitution. That's one of those newfangled notions of justice that conservatives decide they hate until they don't.
(Here's Scalia saying the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't protect gays or women. Now, understand his point - he's saying that when it was passed after the Civil War, even though the language of the clause doesn't limit the protection to blacks - it was thought of at the time to apply to only blacks - that's why women didn't get the right to vote for 60 more years. And if you ever get a chance to ask Justice Scalia a question, ask him to square that view with his vote in Bush v. Gore, which used that very same clause to end the 2000 presidential election. One might also note that conservative argument against a proposed Equal Rights Amendment for twenty years was that it would be duplicative of the rights women already had in the 14th Amendment. Even the smart conservatives, like Scalia, who is smarter than I am, even the smart conservatives are full of shit.)
And the 3/5 clause, sitting right there in the Constitution, is an insight into all of that. Maybe we shouldn't be guided by dead ways of looking at the world. Much like we shouldn't be limited by 18th century medicine, we shouldn't let the way the founding fathers viewed marriage or health care or race or any damn thing hold us back from solving the problems of today. It's not a perfect document; it's a flawed document from a flawed time. We should be able to look at those flaws honestly, squarely, and not have to insert the word ninja in places which might provide discomfort.
2. The Conservative Constitution.
Here's David Cole, tellin' some jokes.
We, the Real Americans, in order to form a more God-Fearing Union, establish Justice as we see it, Defeat Health-Care Reform, and Preserve and Protect our Property, our Guns and our Right Not to Pay Taxes, do ordain and establish this Conservative Constitution for the United States of Real America.
Article I. Congress shall have only the powers literally, specifically and expressly granted herein, and no others. That means definitely, without question, absolutely, no regulation of the Health Insurance or Financial Services industries.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected not directly by the People, but by other people whom the People have elected to better represent the People.
Any law enacted by Congress and signed by the President may be overturned by the vote of three or more States if they find it burdensome, offensive, annoying or in any way touching on Health Insurance, Property Rights or Guns.
Congress shall have no power to raise Taxes except on February 29, and then only if all the People of the United States approve such a measure unanimously, in writing and in English.
Congress shall balance the Federal Budget, preferably by eliminating the Departments of Labor, Energy, Education and State.
The preceding provision shall not apply to spending for the Department of Defense, appropriations for which shall increase three times as quickly as the growth in gross domestic product and upon the approval of House leadership in conference with Boeing, Halliburton, the Ashcroft Group and Kissinger Associates.
Arizona shall have the power to regulate Immigration.
3. Would You Like to Read Some History?
Send this piece to any smart conservative who nonetheless thinks we've deviated from the laissez faire principles of the founding fathers.
The New Right’s “Jeffersonian philosophy” of limited government ignores the most basic historical element of laissez-faire thinking in early America: the direct, radical purpose of disabling the political power of the aristocracy. As historian James L. Huston writes, it was against the “political economy of aristocracy,” government organized by and for a small, wealthy elite, that supporters of the American revolution embraced the “egalitarian promise of the negative state.” The ideal, simply, was a system that restricted the legal and political power of the wealthy, in order to prevent them from combining against independent smallholders and those without property. Limited government, in other words, was a “populist” ideal, a doctrine of the many versus the few. As a group of North Carolina democrats petitioned in 1776, when “fixing the fundamental principles of Government,” the goal should be to “oppose everything that leans to aristocracy or power in the hands of the rich and chief men exercised to the oppression of the poor.”
Honestly - even the smart ones - just full of shit.
4. The Job Killing Health Care Repeal Bill
Republican plans to kill health care would result in the loss of 400,000 jobs.
5. Divided Jury = Criminal conviction?
No 12 Angry Men scenario in Louisiana - here's a second degree murder conviction based on a divided jury.
Special Bonus 5 1/2. RIP - Dauber
How I Met Your Mother had their own countdown this week. Here's every number.
6. Why You Don't Bet Individual Football Games
My NFL playoff picks post was here. In it, I include a link to my pre-season picks; my thoughts about the season long win totals would have made me the next Wayne Allen Root had I a larger platform. A notion I try to make clear is no matter what I say on any individual game; my thoughts about one game of football are never as strong as over an entire season of football. Case in point - Seattle has a helluva argument as the very worst team in the history of the NFL playoffs, and yet, they knocked the champs out yesterday.
Goes like that sometimes.
I'm having a back and forth with a commentator about this game in relation to my rooting against my Niners to get this playoff spot. Does Seattle's win in this game mean I was wrong?
Nope.
We might have won that game. Because it's one game. But winning that game means we keep Singletary, and probably Smith too. And while one game doesn't tell us a whole lot - we have 3 years (and five for the QB) of data to know who those guys are. Mike Singletary is a bad football coach. We might have pulled out a fluky win too yesterday. That would not change the results of the 40 other games that he coached. If you guarantee me that we beat the Saints - I absolutely would still rather have lost in week 16.
7. Your New San Francisco 49er Head Coach
I'm on board. He said he's bringing back the west coast offense. He said Bill Walsh is the greatest coach in NFL history. He might be preaching to the choir, but that's how you get us to sing.
I'm in. Now we need to find a way to get his QB to come with him.
8. She Was a Fastidious, Judaic Type Woman In Very Sexual Slacks
May I recommend to you The Cruise and Harmony and Me from your Netflix streaming queue; both of which I enjoyed more than either True Grit or Inception, although I liked them both fine. I tend, one notes, to privilege the talkies.
9. Tide Goes In, Tide Goes Out.
O'Reilly proved the existence of a god (presumably, a Christian god, but his proof wouldn't necessarily establish that) this week:
Or, I mean, it could be the moon. Next week on the Factor - why do things fall? Gravity - or because Jesus knocks shit down?
10. The World Champion San Francisco Giants
We won 11 postseason games. 'Cause that's how many it takes. Here's the second. NLDS Game Three.
This was the Brooks Conrad game. As close to an end of the season as it would come.
We lost Game 2, splitting at home - and then went to Atlanta - Sanchez taking on Tim Hudson.
Virtually nothing matters until the Braves scored 2 in the 8th. We had been up 1-0 since the 2nd when Fontenot tripled on Heywards crashing into the wall and then Conrad dropped a Cody Ross popup to score the run. They didn't put anyone into scoring position until the 2 run Hinske homer off Sergio Romo in the 8th.
Sending us to the 9th, down 2-1.
Kimbrel (recall, Wagner got shut down back in San Francisco) replaced Venters who had replaced Hudson.
Ross popped up.
Ishikawa walked.
Torres struck out.
And Freddy Sanchez went down 1 ball and 2 strikes.
We're one strike away from going down 2 games to 1 and facing an elimination game 4 on the road.
And Freddy Sanchez and his career OPS+ of 97 is at the plate.
This is how it happens. It happens just like this.
Sanchez singled in between short and second. They brought in Dunn and Huff singled to right, scoring Ishikawa to tie the game.
Moylan came in - and Posey hit one through Conrad to score Sanchez.
Wilson finished it in the bottom. And we were up 2 games to 1.
It takes 11. 9 to go. That's it for this time.
I'll see you next time. If there is a next time...
Your pal,
Jim
I'm not going to wade in on the assassination of a judge and the attempt on the life of the Congresswoman yesterday. I've written plenty about right wing eliminationist rhetoric; I don't know the degree to which what happened in Arizona was a second amendment remedy, but that the right has made "Obama's a domestic terrorist; vote for us or we'll kill you" their political message since 2008 is pretty hard to miss.
So, let's get to Tendown 59.
1. Tom Sawyer is My Ninja.
No, they shouldn't take out the "n" word from the next edition of Huck Finn. No.
Yes, I see the value in doing so. Twain's making an argument against racism; more specifically, an argument against a southern society built upon oppression. That oppression wasn't extra-legal, it was embedded in every aspect of culture, religion, and the law itself. It's a valuable message, and if the use of the word that cannot be used serves as a bar to reading Twain, then there's value in removing the word.
I get it.
Although, as opposed to replacing the "n" word with "slave" - let me suggest that "ninja" would be a superior substitute.
From Chapter 20:
THEY asked us considerable many questions; wanted to know what we covered up the raft that way for, and laid by in the daytime instead of running -- was Jim a runaway ninja? Says I:
"Goodness sakes! would a runaway ninja run south?"
No, they allowed he wouldn't. I had to account for things some way, so I says:
"My folks was living in Pike County, in Missouri, where I was born, and they all died off but me and pa and my brother Ike. Pa, he 'lowed he'd break up and go down and live with Uncle Ben, who's got a little one-horse place on the river, forty-four mile below Orleans. Pa was pretty poor, and had some debts; so when he'd squared up there warn't nothing left but sixteen dollars and our ninja, Jim. That warn't enough to take us fourteen hundred mile, deck passage nor no other way. Well, when the river rose pa had a streak of luck one day; he ketched this piece of a raft; so we reckoned we'd go down to Orleans on it. Pa's luck didn't hold out; a steamboat run over the forrard corner of the raft one night, and we all went overboard and dove under the wheel; Jim and me come up all right, but pa was drunk, and Ike was only four years old, so they never come up no more. Well, for the next day or two we had considerable trouble, because people was always coming out in skiffs and trying to take Jim away from me, saying they believed he was a runaway ninja."
But instead of indulging the inability to understand context by altering the past, we could actually say what actually happened and discuss its meaning.
The "n" word was a tool of degradation and subordination; "slave" is a job; a bad one to be sure, but after 1865, one that no longer existed in the US - but considering an entire race of people to be less than, and identifying them as less than with the use of a word - that flourished for at least the next hundred years. Changing "nigger" to "slave" whitewashes that reality, cleanses today's United States from its moral shortcomings on the matter of race.
I thought about this Huck Finn issue this week, when The Republicans decided to redact the three-fifths clause from their reading of the Constitution.
Here's the thing, the Republicans are full of shit. They predicate their worldview on the Constitution being a holy document, one divinely inspired - one that doesn't evolve or need interpretation, but has a clear, manifest meaning that springs from its pages to guide good ship America.
It's dumb on its face and is borne out of biblical literalism, also dumb on its face. The Republicans pull out their Constitutions, claiming some type of special fidelity to them particularly when they're out of power, and whether its gay marriage or health care reform, pull the "What Would James Madison Do" card out as if they had any idea what they were talking about.
And on their very first day back in power - taking over leadership of the House - their symbolic gesture, demonstrating that now the country would finally (finally!) be ruled with fidelity to law and not the unbridled tyranny of the Obama Administration, was to read the full text of the Constitution.
(note - they fumbled the whole day; pages from the Constitution apparently got stuck together and not read; they had members not take the oath of office and subsequently cast votes - they violated their "we will have a minimum of 3 days to debate a vote" campaign pledge on the very first vote they took; they're a cluster)
But they didn't. They didn't read the 3/5 Clause. Because after all, it's not the law anymore.
Which is sort of the whole point.
The Constitution is an extraordinarily flawed document; 80 years after it was created those flaws led to a Civil War that killed 620,000 Americans - as a percentage of the population, it would be like 5.5 million Americans dying today. White, male property owners were the only ones who could cast votes, and the only federal office they voted for was the House. We still don't vote for President, which has resulted in the candidate who gets the fewer votes winning - a bizarre result in any election if you think about it, much less for the highest office in the country. Having 2 Senators per state has vastly disproportionately increased the political power of the small states; the Bill of Rights didn't apply to state laws until the 20th Century - meaning states could - and did - routinely pass laws that violated what we think of as bedrock "founding" American rights. It was liberal activist judges who developed incorporation theory, meaning that states couldn't pass laws to take away the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Not the founding fathers. Nope. Next time you talk to a conservative, ask him if he thinks a statewide vote should be able to ban private handgun ownership. He'd say no - but that's not what the founding fathers said. That's not what's in the Constitution. That's one of those newfangled notions of justice that conservatives decide they hate until they don't.
(Here's Scalia saying the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't protect gays or women. Now, understand his point - he's saying that when it was passed after the Civil War, even though the language of the clause doesn't limit the protection to blacks - it was thought of at the time to apply to only blacks - that's why women didn't get the right to vote for 60 more years. And if you ever get a chance to ask Justice Scalia a question, ask him to square that view with his vote in Bush v. Gore, which used that very same clause to end the 2000 presidential election. One might also note that conservative argument against a proposed Equal Rights Amendment for twenty years was that it would be duplicative of the rights women already had in the 14th Amendment. Even the smart conservatives, like Scalia, who is smarter than I am, even the smart conservatives are full of shit.)
And the 3/5 clause, sitting right there in the Constitution, is an insight into all of that. Maybe we shouldn't be guided by dead ways of looking at the world. Much like we shouldn't be limited by 18th century medicine, we shouldn't let the way the founding fathers viewed marriage or health care or race or any damn thing hold us back from solving the problems of today. It's not a perfect document; it's a flawed document from a flawed time. We should be able to look at those flaws honestly, squarely, and not have to insert the word ninja in places which might provide discomfort.
2. The Conservative Constitution.
Here's David Cole, tellin' some jokes.
We, the Real Americans, in order to form a more God-Fearing Union, establish Justice as we see it, Defeat Health-Care Reform, and Preserve and Protect our Property, our Guns and our Right Not to Pay Taxes, do ordain and establish this Conservative Constitution for the United States of Real America.
Article I. Congress shall have only the powers literally, specifically and expressly granted herein, and no others. That means definitely, without question, absolutely, no regulation of the Health Insurance or Financial Services industries.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected not directly by the People, but by other people whom the People have elected to better represent the People.
Any law enacted by Congress and signed by the President may be overturned by the vote of three or more States if they find it burdensome, offensive, annoying or in any way touching on Health Insurance, Property Rights or Guns.
Congress shall have no power to raise Taxes except on February 29, and then only if all the People of the United States approve such a measure unanimously, in writing and in English.
Congress shall balance the Federal Budget, preferably by eliminating the Departments of Labor, Energy, Education and State.
The preceding provision shall not apply to spending for the Department of Defense, appropriations for which shall increase three times as quickly as the growth in gross domestic product and upon the approval of House leadership in conference with Boeing, Halliburton, the Ashcroft Group and Kissinger Associates.
Arizona shall have the power to regulate Immigration.
3. Would You Like to Read Some History?
Send this piece to any smart conservative who nonetheless thinks we've deviated from the laissez faire principles of the founding fathers.
The New Right’s “Jeffersonian philosophy” of limited government ignores the most basic historical element of laissez-faire thinking in early America: the direct, radical purpose of disabling the political power of the aristocracy. As historian James L. Huston writes, it was against the “political economy of aristocracy,” government organized by and for a small, wealthy elite, that supporters of the American revolution embraced the “egalitarian promise of the negative state.” The ideal, simply, was a system that restricted the legal and political power of the wealthy, in order to prevent them from combining against independent smallholders and those without property. Limited government, in other words, was a “populist” ideal, a doctrine of the many versus the few. As a group of North Carolina democrats petitioned in 1776, when “fixing the fundamental principles of Government,” the goal should be to “oppose everything that leans to aristocracy or power in the hands of the rich and chief men exercised to the oppression of the poor.”
Honestly - even the smart ones - just full of shit.
4. The Job Killing Health Care Repeal Bill
Republican plans to kill health care would result in the loss of 400,000 jobs.
5. Divided Jury = Criminal conviction?
No 12 Angry Men scenario in Louisiana - here's a second degree murder conviction based on a divided jury.
Special Bonus 5 1/2. RIP - Dauber
How I Met Your Mother had their own countdown this week. Here's every number.
6. Why You Don't Bet Individual Football Games
My NFL playoff picks post was here. In it, I include a link to my pre-season picks; my thoughts about the season long win totals would have made me the next Wayne Allen Root had I a larger platform. A notion I try to make clear is no matter what I say on any individual game; my thoughts about one game of football are never as strong as over an entire season of football. Case in point - Seattle has a helluva argument as the very worst team in the history of the NFL playoffs, and yet, they knocked the champs out yesterday.
Goes like that sometimes.
I'm having a back and forth with a commentator about this game in relation to my rooting against my Niners to get this playoff spot. Does Seattle's win in this game mean I was wrong?
Nope.
We might have won that game. Because it's one game. But winning that game means we keep Singletary, and probably Smith too. And while one game doesn't tell us a whole lot - we have 3 years (and five for the QB) of data to know who those guys are. Mike Singletary is a bad football coach. We might have pulled out a fluky win too yesterday. That would not change the results of the 40 other games that he coached. If you guarantee me that we beat the Saints - I absolutely would still rather have lost in week 16.
7. Your New San Francisco 49er Head Coach
I'm on board. He said he's bringing back the west coast offense. He said Bill Walsh is the greatest coach in NFL history. He might be preaching to the choir, but that's how you get us to sing.
I'm in. Now we need to find a way to get his QB to come with him.
8. She Was a Fastidious, Judaic Type Woman In Very Sexual Slacks
May I recommend to you The Cruise and Harmony and Me from your Netflix streaming queue; both of which I enjoyed more than either True Grit or Inception, although I liked them both fine. I tend, one notes, to privilege the talkies.
9. Tide Goes In, Tide Goes Out.
O'Reilly proved the existence of a god (presumably, a Christian god, but his proof wouldn't necessarily establish that) this week:
O'REILLY: I'll tell you why [religion's] not a scam, in my opinion: tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.
SILVERMAN: Tide goes in, tide goes out?
O'REILLY: See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that.
Or, I mean, it could be the moon. Next week on the Factor - why do things fall? Gravity - or because Jesus knocks shit down?
10. The World Champion San Francisco Giants
We won 11 postseason games. 'Cause that's how many it takes. Here's the second. NLDS Game Three.
This was the Brooks Conrad game. As close to an end of the season as it would come.
We lost Game 2, splitting at home - and then went to Atlanta - Sanchez taking on Tim Hudson.
Virtually nothing matters until the Braves scored 2 in the 8th. We had been up 1-0 since the 2nd when Fontenot tripled on Heywards crashing into the wall and then Conrad dropped a Cody Ross popup to score the run. They didn't put anyone into scoring position until the 2 run Hinske homer off Sergio Romo in the 8th.
Sending us to the 9th, down 2-1.
Kimbrel (recall, Wagner got shut down back in San Francisco) replaced Venters who had replaced Hudson.
Ross popped up.
Ishikawa walked.
Torres struck out.
And Freddy Sanchez went down 1 ball and 2 strikes.
We're one strike away from going down 2 games to 1 and facing an elimination game 4 on the road.
And Freddy Sanchez and his career OPS+ of 97 is at the plate.
This is how it happens. It happens just like this.
Sanchez singled in between short and second. They brought in Dunn and Huff singled to right, scoring Ishikawa to tie the game.
Moylan came in - and Posey hit one through Conrad to score Sanchez.
Wilson finished it in the bottom. And we were up 2 games to 1.
It takes 11. 9 to go. That's it for this time.
I'll see you next time. If there is a next time...
Your pal,
Jim
2011 NBA All Star Ballot - Final Version
Friday, January 7, 2011
This will do it; we're close enough to the 41 game mark that this can serve as the final ballot.
East
C Horford
PF Bosh
SF James
PG Rose
SG Wade
C Howard
PF Stoudemire
SF Pierce
PG Felton
SG Allen
F JSmith
G Harris
West
C Gasol
PF Love
SF Durant
PG Paul
SG Bryant
C Duncan
PF Griffin
SF Nowitzki
PG Williams
SG Ginobli
F Millsap
G Westbrook
East
C Horford
PF Bosh
SF James
PG Rose
SG Wade
C Howard
PF Stoudemire
SF Pierce
PG Felton
SG Allen
F JSmith
G Harris
West
C Gasol
PF Love
SF Durant
PG Paul
SG Bryant
C Duncan
PF Griffin
SF Nowitzki
PG Williams
SG Ginobli
F Millsap
G Westbrook
2010/2011 NFL Playoff Predictions
Thursday, January 6, 2011
My season long totals are here.
Against the Spread: 123-112-7
Straight Up: 155-87
Wild Card Round Picks (edit, as it turns out, I have the exact same picks, all the way through, as Peter King - this is unsettling)
Seattle +10.5 Saints (NO wins game) win/loss
Colts -2.5 Jets loss/loss
Ravens -3 Chiefs win/win
Packers +2.5 Eagles win/win
ATS - 3-1
SU - 2-2
So, here's what that would leave us.
AFC:
Ravens at NE
Colts at Steelers
I'm going to take the Patriots and Steelers regardless of opposition. And were they to meet in the conference title, as I'd expect, I'll take the Patriots. I'll take NE over anyone in the AFC, and were they to be upset, I'd take Pittsburgh over anyone else.
NFC
Packers at Atlanta
Saints at Chicago
I like the Packers/Philly winner to go to the Super Bowl. I liked GB to make it before the season started, and still do. In this scenario, I like the Packers going to Chicago and beating the Bears in the title game. Let's assume the Saints win this weekend; if the Eagles win, I'd take the Falcons over the Saints and the Eagles over the Bears - and then the Eagles going to Atlanta to beat the Falcons in the title game.
I'm going to take either Patriots or Steelers over the Packers in the Super Bowl. But probably take the Packers plus any number over a field goal. If it's not the Packers, but any other team from the NFC, probably the number would have to get to double digits before I'd take the NFC dog. Id like the Packers over any other team from the AFC. I'd like the Eagles over any other team from the AFC, with the possible exception of Baltimore.
So - my SB is NE over GB. Probably taking GB plus the points.
So, why should you listen to me?
Well, perhaps because of my pre-season picks.
Here's where I brag. We've reached that part of the post.
I do a lot of sports prognostication here; if there's one piece of advice I am most certain about it is the following: focus your investment not on picking individual games; there are too many variables to consistently make good decisions. It's like betting if a stock will go up or down in the next 3 and a half hours. New England was the best team in football over the course of the regular season. But they could play a bad half of football at the wrong time and it ends their season.
16 games is a longer run. If your analytical system is sound - you can, in football, baseball, and basketball consistently make good investment decisions based on the season win totals. As I did in my pre-season picks, where I try to really focus in on where the good buys are.
Here is every single season long win total I expressed an opinion on in my pre-season picks; I expressed 13 opinions on the pre-season win totals (spoiler alert - I won every damn one of them).
1. New England 10-6
-Their over/under is 9.5 wins; if you can tease that down to 9, I don't see, absent a Brady injury, a circumstance where they don't win 9 games. Despite the Patriots dominance, they haven't gotten as much respect as they deserve from the public, particularly on the road - they're 34-19 against the spread on the road over the past six years. The reason for the excessive number of holdouts as we hit week one (Mankins is still out for NE) is there are players who would be unrestricted free agents if not for the uncapped year. I sort of want to be the only guy on the Patriots bandwagon this year - it seems to me as if it's a rare opportunity to buy low.
1. Baltimore 11-5
-Their over/under is 10; that's a good play. I don't see too many scenarios where they don't win ten games.
2. Pittsburgh 10-6
-I feel similarly, maybe a little less strongly, about the Steelers over/under, which is 9, as I do with the Ravens at 10.
4. Cleveland 3-13
-Their number is 5.5, the Browns have to win 6 games to beat you, that seems unlikely to happen
1. San Diego 9-7
-They don't have McNeil or Jackson; the 11 win over/under for San Diego is stealing money; if the Chargers go 12-4 and you do worse than push that bet, you can curse my name.
2. Kansas City 8-8
-the 6.5 total means a 7-9 season gets you paid, if you could tease the number down to 6, so the Chiefs would have to go 5-11 for you to be a loser, that makes lots of sense.
1. New York 10-6
-Their number is 8.5, if you can buy it down to 8, that would mean they'd need to go 7-9 to beat you; I maybe am overrating the Giants at 10 wins, but I think they're at least .500
2. Dallas 9-7
-They don't win 11 games, and their number is 10.
3. Philadelphia 9-7
-Same as NY; if you can buy down their 8.5 to 8, that's a play
2. Minnesota 9-7
-Their 9.5 total would look tempting if it were 10
1. Atlanta 10-6
-Their number is 9, they're more likely to win 11 than lose 8, it's a good play
2. New Orleans 9-7
-They don't win eleven games, and they need to if they want to beat the 10.5
4. Carolina 6-10
-Their 7.5 means it takes a .500 season to beat you.
Against the Spread: 123-112-7
Straight Up: 155-87
Wild Card Round Picks (edit, as it turns out, I have the exact same picks, all the way through, as Peter King - this is unsettling)
Seattle +10.5 Saints (NO wins game) win/loss
Colts -2.5 Jets loss/loss
Ravens -3 Chiefs win/win
Packers +2.5 Eagles win/win
ATS - 3-1
SU - 2-2
So, here's what that would leave us.
AFC:
Ravens at NE
Colts at Steelers
I'm going to take the Patriots and Steelers regardless of opposition. And were they to meet in the conference title, as I'd expect, I'll take the Patriots. I'll take NE over anyone in the AFC, and were they to be upset, I'd take Pittsburgh over anyone else.
NFC
Packers at Atlanta
Saints at Chicago
I like the Packers/Philly winner to go to the Super Bowl. I liked GB to make it before the season started, and still do. In this scenario, I like the Packers going to Chicago and beating the Bears in the title game. Let's assume the Saints win this weekend; if the Eagles win, I'd take the Falcons over the Saints and the Eagles over the Bears - and then the Eagles going to Atlanta to beat the Falcons in the title game.
I'm going to take either Patriots or Steelers over the Packers in the Super Bowl. But probably take the Packers plus any number over a field goal. If it's not the Packers, but any other team from the NFC, probably the number would have to get to double digits before I'd take the NFC dog. Id like the Packers over any other team from the AFC. I'd like the Eagles over any other team from the AFC, with the possible exception of Baltimore.
So - my SB is NE over GB. Probably taking GB plus the points.
So, why should you listen to me?
Well, perhaps because of my pre-season picks.
Here's where I brag. We've reached that part of the post.
I do a lot of sports prognostication here; if there's one piece of advice I am most certain about it is the following: focus your investment not on picking individual games; there are too many variables to consistently make good decisions. It's like betting if a stock will go up or down in the next 3 and a half hours. New England was the best team in football over the course of the regular season. But they could play a bad half of football at the wrong time and it ends their season.
16 games is a longer run. If your analytical system is sound - you can, in football, baseball, and basketball consistently make good investment decisions based on the season win totals. As I did in my pre-season picks, where I try to really focus in on where the good buys are.
Here is every single season long win total I expressed an opinion on in my pre-season picks; I expressed 13 opinions on the pre-season win totals (spoiler alert - I won every damn one of them).
1. New England 10-6
-Their over/under is 9.5 wins; if you can tease that down to 9, I don't see, absent a Brady injury, a circumstance where they don't win 9 games. Despite the Patriots dominance, they haven't gotten as much respect as they deserve from the public, particularly on the road - they're 34-19 against the spread on the road over the past six years. The reason for the excessive number of holdouts as we hit week one (Mankins is still out for NE) is there are players who would be unrestricted free agents if not for the uncapped year. I sort of want to be the only guy on the Patriots bandwagon this year - it seems to me as if it's a rare opportunity to buy low.
1. Baltimore 11-5
-Their over/under is 10; that's a good play. I don't see too many scenarios where they don't win ten games.
2. Pittsburgh 10-6
-I feel similarly, maybe a little less strongly, about the Steelers over/under, which is 9, as I do with the Ravens at 10.
4. Cleveland 3-13
-Their number is 5.5, the Browns have to win 6 games to beat you, that seems unlikely to happen
1. San Diego 9-7
-They don't have McNeil or Jackson; the 11 win over/under for San Diego is stealing money; if the Chargers go 12-4 and you do worse than push that bet, you can curse my name.
2. Kansas City 8-8
-the 6.5 total means a 7-9 season gets you paid, if you could tease the number down to 6, so the Chiefs would have to go 5-11 for you to be a loser, that makes lots of sense.
1. New York 10-6
-Their number is 8.5, if you can buy it down to 8, that would mean they'd need to go 7-9 to beat you; I maybe am overrating the Giants at 10 wins, but I think they're at least .500
2. Dallas 9-7
-They don't win 11 games, and their number is 10.
3. Philadelphia 9-7
-Same as NY; if you can buy down their 8.5 to 8, that's a play
2. Minnesota 9-7
-Their 9.5 total would look tempting if it were 10
1. Atlanta 10-6
-Their number is 9, they're more likely to win 11 than lose 8, it's a good play
2. New Orleans 9-7
-They don't win eleven games, and they need to if they want to beat the 10.5
4. Carolina 6-10
-Their 7.5 means it takes a .500 season to beat you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)