Another draft in our H2H Points Fantasy Baseball League happened yesterday. ESPN recap here. Note that unlike many points leagues we do not penalize batters for striking out. Otherwise it's a very typical 10 team, AL and NL league. We limit teams to 10 starts per week with 5 moves a week. So you probably want 6-7 SP on your team, which puts them at a bit of a premium. In previous years we allowed 12 starts, so SP were even more at a premium.
For some reason, the standard ESPN draft SW was ranking the players by their rotisserie rankings, not points, which sometimes made picks a bit tricky. I was constantly switching between sorting by RANK and PTS, in between selecting certain positions.
My picks are noted by round and absolute pick. I was team 8, so the picks were 1.8, 2.13, etc... I was sandwiched between the #7 Papas Grande, who seem to really follow the ESPN projections for player's points and therefore think a lot like me, and the #9 Braves Fans, who is another solid GM who, in the past, has gone more heavily into relievers than most. Team #6, the SF Marauders, is a good friend who works for the Giants and we like sniping each other's players. :-)
1.8 In round one, I would have loved to pick Kershaw, but knew that he wouldn't reach me. Either one of the top 6 would pick him, if not, the Papas would, as they took him with their first pick last year. I was thinking I'd get Donaldson but Marauders picked him, and, as feared, Papas picked Kershaw. Normally I'd pick a solid bopper like Goldy but this year went in a different direction, filling a skill position early by picking Machado, who I (and ESPN) rated as a great 3B but also as the top SS, even in a league deep with great SS.
2.13 I rated Kershaw, Scherzer, and MadBum as a big step up from the next level of SP, so it was time to grab one. Based on durability, and partly to tweak Marauders, picked MadBum. This triggered a run on SP, as 6 of the 10 picks (starting with mine) were SP: MadBum, Scherzer, Sale, Kluber, Thor, and Cueto. These were intermixed with a run on some of the many great middle infielders in MLB today: Turner, Correa, Dozier, Carpenter, Seager and a few sluggers: EE, Rizzo, Cruz.
3.28 My pre-draft notes on 1B were "Like Freeman, else be patient". Somewhat to my surprise, (and due to the run on SP and MI) both Freeman and Votto were still available. Both good picks, went with Freeman. Here's hoping that the new Braves park plays well for hitters!
4.33 If I hadn't picked Machado might have picked Story, but time for another top and durable SP: Lester. Story went to Papas the next pick.
5.48 My outfield needed work, and several OF were "coming up". (Papas had just picked McCutchen, who was on my radar) Picked Cespedes in a near coin flip over Stanton.
6.53 Braves Fan took Stanton at #52. Still concerned about my OF, but, thinking that one of "my guys", Khris Davis, would still be around later, picked an SP with upside - Carlos Martinez. (strongly considered Carrasco as well). Papas picked Davis at #53 (we do think alike!) and Mommy Monsters, who were sadly lacking in SP after last year's autodraft, continued her "full speed ahead draft SP" strategy by picking up Carrasco at #57.
7.68 A bunch of relievers were off the board by now, but I tend to wait on RP. Many top OF were gone too. Hoping he's got another good year, I picked Jose Bautista. His high OBP still helps. Also considered Todd Frazier. Braves took him at #69.
8.73 Around here the draft gets hard. There are a lot of good players still available, but you must balance your evaluation, your needs, and what the other GMs have been doing. I considered Melancon to get a top RP. Considered Danny Duffy, some "experts" are high on him, but was feeling pretty good at SP. Maybe should have picked Lucroy, but went with Carlos Santana, a solid hitter who scores really well due to his high OBP. Papas picked Duffy at #74.
9.88 I was beginning to worry about 3B, but had a few "late guys" in mind, so went another year with Jose Quintana. Like him a lot, and when he gets traded to a good team he will pick up more wins, right? I was surprised when Heimlichs picked up Alex Bregman, one of my "late guys", so early at #90.
10.93 He wasn't on my radar at all, but J Up had slipped, and ESPN rated him higher than a guy who was on my radar, Kole Calhoun. Picked Upton. Papas picked Calhoun at #94!
11.108 Was now officially worried about 2B (remember, Jason Kipnis is hurt for at least a month) and RP. Evil Papas had just picked one of "my guys", Edwin Diaz, at 107. Whatever - DJ LeMahieu is a very good player who plays half his games in wonderful Coors Field. Feeling got at SS and 2B.
12.113 Herrera and Osuna went #111 and #112. Picked Cody Allen. O.K., I have one (hopefully) solid reliever on a great team.
13.128 Drew Smyly, hoping his new-found velocity is for real. And many of the fantasy blogs are high on him. And, now that I live by the Puget Sound, wanted a Mariner to root for!
14.133, 15.148 Considered Alex Colome at RP, but I'm not big on him or his team. Time finally to pick 3B: Justin Turner, then, for good measure, Jake Lamb, who may be a mistake. :-( I remember a few experts who touted Lamb. Not sure if they liked him with mint jelly.
16.153 Matt Shoemaker. I hate Angels, but he's underrated.
17.168 Lots of beeping leading up to this pick, as several players I had queued up, Schoop, Baez, Granderson and Thames went (some quite early IMO). Oh - oh, need to do some quick reanalysis. Considered Carlos Gomez, picked Grichuk. Gomez went to Braves at #169.
18.173 Holding my nose a bit, picked Tony Watson. He's pitching poorly in spring training and the "experts" are down on him. OTOH, I needed a closer and he's been solid for many years. Matt Moore, one of my "late round SP guys", went at #174 to Papas.
19.188 Needing one more middle infield, picked Marcus Semien. (Brandon Crawford, another of "my guys", was picked quite early at #119)
20.193 Only two of my "trendy sleeper SP" were left, Paxton and Manaea. Picked Manaea. Papas picked Paxton at #194.
21.208. Do I want Jim Johnson? Nah, hey, who's around at catcher? To my surprise, Sal Perez. Happy enough at catcher now.
22.213, 23.228 Looking back, maybe not my best here. Max Kepler and Jharel Cotton. Iffy OF and probably one too many SP. So, of course, these guys will be stars! :-)
24.233 Having watched a bunch of iffy relievers go by, grabbed the best of a sorry looking bunch, Brandon Maurer.
25.248, 26.253 Many of the super-utility guys (Zobrist, Baez) had been picked very early IMO. I needed some utility! Hoping that he quickly qualifies at 2B, picked Brandon Drury over Gyorko. Last pick was Nomar Mazara, a classic "high-risk. high-reward" last round pick.
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Saturday, March 21, 2015
Another Fantasy Baseball Draft - 2015
Our semi-competitive, largely-fun ESPN fantasy baseball league held it's draft today. Here are my thoughts and comments. We use a "points" scoring system, not the traditional "rotisserie 5x5". And we don't count strikeouts against a hitter. So many of the rankings differ from the typical rotisserie league. Walks count, power counts a lot, and steals are of less import than in rotisserie. We allow up to 12 starts a week, with only 5 moves per week, so you cannot stream all, or even many, of your starts. Starting pitching is at a high premium and it shows in our draft. Most teams have 8-9 starters. Note that two teams, the Springfield Wonderbolts and Displaced Braves Fan, were not present and on "autodraft".
So much as I had a strategy, it was to get several "great" pitchers, pick other starters as "high risk, high reward", trust to my skills to pick up other surprise breakout pitchers off the waiver wire, and get a lot of sluggers. Wait on catcher, relievers, and, in general, on middle infield, with exceptions noted below.
I was pick #4. The good news is that I was sure to get one of Kershaw, Goldi, or Stanton, all of whom are great. As it turned out, I had a choice between Goldi and Kershaw. Did consider the hitter, but I wanted to get a top tier pitcher before they all went, so picked Kershaw with no regrets. Felix and Scherzer went in round 1, and, before my round 2 pick, Strasburg, Sale, MadBum and Price were gone. So I now really liked my initial pick.
Round #2 (2.17, meaning round 2, pick 17) I briefly considered Donaldson, but I had some later round 3B in mind, so went with Abreu, who is probably the better choice anyway. Donaldson went shortly thereafter, at 2.19.
3.24. Wanted another elite starter, so picked Johnny Cueto. No regrets here.
4.37 I was unpleasantly surprised when Papas Grandes picked Carlos Santana at 4.32. He draws a lot of walks and is highly ranked in our scoring. Was thinking of picking him up in round 5 or so. Instead, went with another huge power guy, George Springer. Remember that Ks do not count against our hitters!
5.44 I normally wait on closers in our league. As do many others. Except Braves Fan likes a strategy of maxing up on closers. Noticed here that his last 3 picks were Kimbrel, Chapman, and Holland. O.K. by me. I thought long and hard on this pick. I wanted Brian Dozier, a power hitting 2B, but I liked Cole Hamels significantly better than any of the remaining pitchers. Especially considering that he may get traded to a better team sometime. So picked Hamels. Since six of the next seven picks were also starters, I felt good about my pick, even when Papas Grandes picked Dozier at 6.52. Apparently he and I were thinking alike in our planning. I can only hope that I picked some of his guys in other rounds. :-)
6.57 Considered Gio Gonzalez, who I like, and also Cespedes. Went with Corey Dickerson. Great young hitter who plays half his games at Coors field. Gio went at 6.60 and Cespedes at 7.61
7.64 Here there were a lot of thoughts. With Carlos Santana gone, considered Nolan Arenado as my 3B. Also Fielder, Votto. But wanted another great young pitcher, so took Jacob deGrom. Now that I had 4 really nice pitchers I planned to fill in hitters for the next few rounds.
Rounds 8 and 9
At 8.72 Papas Grandes picks another of "my guys", Jorge Soler. I was thinking more like round 10 for him, so maybe he was early. At 8.77 I picked Mark Trumbo, who is much more valuable in points than in real life, and at 9.84 Kole Calhoun. Bopping outfielders.
Rounds 10,11
Mookie Betts went at 10.96, just ahead of me. But I was targeting Ryan Zimmerman, who will soon qualify at 1B,3B and OF, and hopefully will be healthy on a good offensive team. Also considered Chris Davis, who went immediately afterwards. Didn't know his suspension was for only 1 game, bad knowledge on my part. Round 11.104 I reached a bit for Ben Zobrist. He draws walks which scores well in points, gives me a ton of flexibility, and he's an Athletic. This may have been too early, but I was a little spooked that Papas was picking "my guys" and wanted to beat him to the punch. At 11.109 Papas picked Kris Bryant, who was also on my "coming soon" list.
Rounds 12, 13, 14, 15
Hunter Pence went right in front of me, and that manager said it was a mistake. Considered Garrett Richards but stayed with my "pick a hitter" strategy and picked bopper Marcel Ozuna at 12.117. Feeling pretty good about my hitting, 13.124 was Andrew Cashner, with his high upside, over the "safer" Anibal Sanchez. At round 14 I noticed that many top relievers were gone, and it's nice to have at least one solid closer. So picked Cishek at 14.137 over Brandon Moss, who went two later. 15.144 was Jose Quintana.
Rounds 16, 17
Several remaining "solid" relievers went just ahead of me, such as Britton, Miller, Benoit, and Perkins. My middle infield was largely vapor, so hard to argue with Chase Utley at 16.157. 17.164 was Oswaldo Arcia. Also considered Phil Hughes and Drew Storen, who went later in round 17.
Rounds 18,19,20
Here I did some reaching for definitely high-risk, high-reward players. 18.177 was Jose Fernandez. Could be a big mistake. My thinking: we have a 4-week playoff in September to decide league champion. If I can make the playoffs, and Fernandez is back and strong, this is a great pickup. Otherwise, not so much. 19.184 picked Pedro Alvarez. Was also considering Billy Butler but GreenAndGold beat me to him. 20.197 Michael Pineda. Again, high-risk, high-reward. Perhaps should have picked Scott Kazmir who went two picks later.
Rounds 21 - 28
21.204 was Jedd Gyorko. Flesh out the infield with a guy with potential and an improved lineup. 22.217 Danny Salazar, more high-upside. By round 23 Ken Giles, one of my sleepers, was gone. 23.224 picked Tyler Clippard, a close call over Wade Davis. O.K. now I have two decent closers. At round 24, I had been considering R.A. Dickey, but he went right before me. Maybe should have picked a pitcher here, but at 24.237 Yasmani Grandal was still available and he seemed significantly better than any other catcher. Plus he is eligible at 1B. If one Yasmani is good, two must be better, so 25.244 went to Yasmany Tomas. A ton of relievers went right after him, so if I lose due to a lousy bullpen, which is unlikely in our league, one of these Yasmanis was a bad pick. :-) 26.257 wanted John Lackey, but he was gone, so picked Drew Hutchinson, another young starter with good reviews. 27.264 considered Steve Pearce (who went right thereafter) but picked Mike Napoli. 28.277 Brandon Crawford.
Interesting picks by others:
28.274 Addison Russel. We aren't a keeper league, but if a Cub infielder gets hurt soon this could be a very smart move.
23.222, 23.225 Michael Morse and Mark Teixeira. I predict that one of these will look good at the end of the year, and one will look bad. :-)
19.186 John Jaso. He draws walks and is a good pick in our scoring system.
20.191 Matt Wieters. Depends on his health.
So much as I had a strategy, it was to get several "great" pitchers, pick other starters as "high risk, high reward", trust to my skills to pick up other surprise breakout pitchers off the waiver wire, and get a lot of sluggers. Wait on catcher, relievers, and, in general, on middle infield, with exceptions noted below.
I was pick #4. The good news is that I was sure to get one of Kershaw, Goldi, or Stanton, all of whom are great. As it turned out, I had a choice between Goldi and Kershaw. Did consider the hitter, but I wanted to get a top tier pitcher before they all went, so picked Kershaw with no regrets. Felix and Scherzer went in round 1, and, before my round 2 pick, Strasburg, Sale, MadBum and Price were gone. So I now really liked my initial pick.
Round #2 (2.17, meaning round 2, pick 17) I briefly considered Donaldson, but I had some later round 3B in mind, so went with Abreu, who is probably the better choice anyway. Donaldson went shortly thereafter, at 2.19.
3.24. Wanted another elite starter, so picked Johnny Cueto. No regrets here.
4.37 I was unpleasantly surprised when Papas Grandes picked Carlos Santana at 4.32. He draws a lot of walks and is highly ranked in our scoring. Was thinking of picking him up in round 5 or so. Instead, went with another huge power guy, George Springer. Remember that Ks do not count against our hitters!
5.44 I normally wait on closers in our league. As do many others. Except Braves Fan likes a strategy of maxing up on closers. Noticed here that his last 3 picks were Kimbrel, Chapman, and Holland. O.K. by me. I thought long and hard on this pick. I wanted Brian Dozier, a power hitting 2B, but I liked Cole Hamels significantly better than any of the remaining pitchers. Especially considering that he may get traded to a better team sometime. So picked Hamels. Since six of the next seven picks were also starters, I felt good about my pick, even when Papas Grandes picked Dozier at 6.52. Apparently he and I were thinking alike in our planning. I can only hope that I picked some of his guys in other rounds. :-)
6.57 Considered Gio Gonzalez, who I like, and also Cespedes. Went with Corey Dickerson. Great young hitter who plays half his games at Coors field. Gio went at 6.60 and Cespedes at 7.61
7.64 Here there were a lot of thoughts. With Carlos Santana gone, considered Nolan Arenado as my 3B. Also Fielder, Votto. But wanted another great young pitcher, so took Jacob deGrom. Now that I had 4 really nice pitchers I planned to fill in hitters for the next few rounds.
Rounds 8 and 9
At 8.72 Papas Grandes picks another of "my guys", Jorge Soler. I was thinking more like round 10 for him, so maybe he was early. At 8.77 I picked Mark Trumbo, who is much more valuable in points than in real life, and at 9.84 Kole Calhoun. Bopping outfielders.
Rounds 10,11
Mookie Betts went at 10.96, just ahead of me. But I was targeting Ryan Zimmerman, who will soon qualify at 1B,3B and OF, and hopefully will be healthy on a good offensive team. Also considered Chris Davis, who went immediately afterwards. Didn't know his suspension was for only 1 game, bad knowledge on my part. Round 11.104 I reached a bit for Ben Zobrist. He draws walks which scores well in points, gives me a ton of flexibility, and he's an Athletic. This may have been too early, but I was a little spooked that Papas was picking "my guys" and wanted to beat him to the punch. At 11.109 Papas picked Kris Bryant, who was also on my "coming soon" list.
Rounds 12, 13, 14, 15
Hunter Pence went right in front of me, and that manager said it was a mistake. Considered Garrett Richards but stayed with my "pick a hitter" strategy and picked bopper Marcel Ozuna at 12.117. Feeling pretty good about my hitting, 13.124 was Andrew Cashner, with his high upside, over the "safer" Anibal Sanchez. At round 14 I noticed that many top relievers were gone, and it's nice to have at least one solid closer. So picked Cishek at 14.137 over Brandon Moss, who went two later. 15.144 was Jose Quintana.
Rounds 16, 17
Several remaining "solid" relievers went just ahead of me, such as Britton, Miller, Benoit, and Perkins. My middle infield was largely vapor, so hard to argue with Chase Utley at 16.157. 17.164 was Oswaldo Arcia. Also considered Phil Hughes and Drew Storen, who went later in round 17.
Rounds 18,19,20
Here I did some reaching for definitely high-risk, high-reward players. 18.177 was Jose Fernandez. Could be a big mistake. My thinking: we have a 4-week playoff in September to decide league champion. If I can make the playoffs, and Fernandez is back and strong, this is a great pickup. Otherwise, not so much. 19.184 picked Pedro Alvarez. Was also considering Billy Butler but GreenAndGold beat me to him. 20.197 Michael Pineda. Again, high-risk, high-reward. Perhaps should have picked Scott Kazmir who went two picks later.
Rounds 21 - 28
21.204 was Jedd Gyorko. Flesh out the infield with a guy with potential and an improved lineup. 22.217 Danny Salazar, more high-upside. By round 23 Ken Giles, one of my sleepers, was gone. 23.224 picked Tyler Clippard, a close call over Wade Davis. O.K. now I have two decent closers. At round 24, I had been considering R.A. Dickey, but he went right before me. Maybe should have picked a pitcher here, but at 24.237 Yasmani Grandal was still available and he seemed significantly better than any other catcher. Plus he is eligible at 1B. If one Yasmani is good, two must be better, so 25.244 went to Yasmany Tomas. A ton of relievers went right after him, so if I lose due to a lousy bullpen, which is unlikely in our league, one of these Yasmanis was a bad pick. :-) 26.257 wanted John Lackey, but he was gone, so picked Drew Hutchinson, another young starter with good reviews. 27.264 considered Steve Pearce (who went right thereafter) but picked Mike Napoli. 28.277 Brandon Crawford.
Interesting picks by others:
28.274 Addison Russel. We aren't a keeper league, but if a Cub infielder gets hurt soon this could be a very smart move.
23.222, 23.225 Michael Morse and Mark Teixeira. I predict that one of these will look good at the end of the year, and one will look bad. :-)
19.186 John Jaso. He draws walks and is a good pick in our scoring system.
20.191 Matt Wieters. Depends on his health.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
New York Times Asks Court to Stack the Deck
In today's New York Times, the Editorial Board asks the conservative judges in Wisconsin to recuse themselves from ruling on the legality of an investigation of Scott Walker's campaign. Why? Because they received large donations from conservative groups in support of their elections.
Now, I agree that allowing large contributions to judge's campaigns is a terrible idea and presents a possible conflict of interest. But how about the liberal Wisconsin judges? How many of them received large donations from liberal interest groups, especially the public employee unions? Since most of the controversy around and opposition to Governor Walker stems from his beat down of the public employee unions, a reasonable, non-biased observer would note that judges who received large donations from those unions also face a conflict of interest and should recuse themselves.
But, as we know, the New York Times Editorial Board is neither reasonable not unbiased. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of the mainstream Democratic Party.
If both sides recused themselves "honorably", there may be no judge left to rule on the case. Which is why it isn't going to happen. The Times knows that, and is just making political theatre. When the Republican House stupidly repeals Obamacare for the gazillionth time, the Times rightly points out that they are wasting time and money and partaking of pointless theatre. But so is the Times, just for the other side.
Now, I agree that allowing large contributions to judge's campaigns is a terrible idea and presents a possible conflict of interest. But how about the liberal Wisconsin judges? How many of them received large donations from liberal interest groups, especially the public employee unions? Since most of the controversy around and opposition to Governor Walker stems from his beat down of the public employee unions, a reasonable, non-biased observer would note that judges who received large donations from those unions also face a conflict of interest and should recuse themselves.
But, as we know, the New York Times Editorial Board is neither reasonable not unbiased. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of the mainstream Democratic Party.
If both sides recused themselves "honorably", there may be no judge left to rule on the case. Which is why it isn't going to happen. The Times knows that, and is just making political theatre. When the Republican House stupidly repeals Obamacare for the gazillionth time, the Times rightly points out that they are wasting time and money and partaking of pointless theatre. But so is the Times, just for the other side.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Where's Waldo?
There is a popular proposal to rename the Waldo Tunnel, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge, after Robin Williams, who lived nearby in Tiburon. At first, makes some sense. Many people, myself included, loved Robin Williams, why not name something after him?
Here's a view as you leave the tunnel southbound:
Anybody sensing a "BUT. BUT..." coming???
Robin Williams was a famous and wonderful actor who died of an apparent suicide. The tunnel is close to the Golden Gate Bridge, which is the second most used suicide site in the world. Any chance that the close proximity of the two will "inspire" even more suicides?
Sorry, this is a really bad idea.
Here's a view as you leave the tunnel southbound:
Anybody sensing a "BUT. BUT..." coming???
Robin Williams was a famous and wonderful actor who died of an apparent suicide. The tunnel is close to the Golden Gate Bridge, which is the second most used suicide site in the world. Any chance that the close proximity of the two will "inspire" even more suicides?
Sorry, this is a really bad idea.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Fantasy Baseball: What factors control your wins?
In a weekly head to head points fantasy baseball league, such as ours, you win by scoring more points that your opponent each week.
- some is "skill" - picking good players, spotting matchups, and racking up points for your team.
- some is luck - hoping your opponent has a bad week.
Here are some charts from our league after the first 17 weeks. For the most part, every team has played every other team twice, so things should be evening out.
The first chart, "Points For vs. Wins", shows the correlation between "points for" (points you earned for your team) and wins. The slope is 0.0036, which means that every 278 points is worth an additional win. With a fairly weak R2 "goodness of fit" of 0.4075
There second chart, "Points Against vs. Wins", compares opponent's points vs. wins. The R2 "goodness of fit" correlation is somewhat weaker, at 0.2991. However, the slope is roughly twice as great, -0.0071, which means that every 141 points an opponent earns is likely to cost you a win.
In conclusion,
- Your own score explains roughly 40% of your wins.
- Opponent's scores explains roughly 30% of your wins.
- However, your opponent's points seem to hurt more against you than your points help.
At least, in our league. Obviously, it would take a big study to make conclusions over a larger number of leagues. Anybody looking for a math project?
See charts below:
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Dog opponent Becky Evans has facts all wrong
In a recent letter to the SF Examiner, Becky Evans takes issue with an earlier Examiner article, claiming that "Joel Engardio is well off-base with his screed about parks". Instead, it is Ms. Evans who has the facts wrong. Responding by her bullet points.
1. "The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a national park".
Wrong. It is a National Recreation Area. There is a difference. As you can see by the list on that page, most NRAs are not even managed by the National Park Service!
2. "San Francisco gave its parks to the GGNRA irrevocably. Period."
Wrong. Proposition F in 1973, says "in perpetuity for recreation or park purposes with a right of reversion upon breach of said restriction". And the The Deed of Transfer for Fort Funston (for example) contains the following clause: "to hold only for so long as said real property is reserved and used for recreation and park purposes". Now, one could argue whether the proposed GGNRA regulations are in breach of said restriction, but the transfer is very clearly revocable.
3. " No one is trying to apply backcountry rules to these parks".
Maybe. But when you go online to see various petitions to restrict off-leash dog walking, they come from organizations like WildEquity, whose mission is "unites the grassroots conservation and environmental justice movements in campaigns that build a healthy and sustainable global community for people and the plants and animals that accompany us on Earth". Nothing about recreation there. Or from the Center for Biological Diversity, which "works through science, law and creative media to secure a future for all species, great or small, hovering on the brink of extinction." Again, nothing about recreation. Becky Evans is a chairwoman and spokesperson for the Sierra Club. Nothing wrong with any of that, but these are all groups with primary goals of wilderness (er, one has "Wild" in it's name, duh) and species preservation. Laudable goals, but yes, they are bringing "back-countryish" rules to the GGNRA.
4. "The GGNRA is one of 401 units of the Park Service, and no matter what the name of the park, they are all bound by the same regulations.".
Wrong. Do a quick Google search for "national park special regulations", and you'll find a lot. Two early hits were a special regulation for winter tours in Yellowstone, and another that authorizes limited off-road vehicle use at Cape Hatteras. The National Park Service clearly does have different regulations for different areas.
5. "The Park Service is trying to work out a special regulation for the GGNRA which would give dogs more freedom than in other national parks..."
Stop right there. First, this contradicts her claim in #4 that they all have the same regulations. Proving my rebuttal to her! Second, and more importantly, GGNRA is not a National Park. As for the "more freedom", what GGNRA is trying to do is give dogs far less freedom than they have had in the past.
1. "The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a national park".
Wrong. It is a National Recreation Area. There is a difference. As you can see by the list on that page, most NRAs are not even managed by the National Park Service!
2. "San Francisco gave its parks to the GGNRA irrevocably. Period."
Wrong. Proposition F in 1973, says "in perpetuity for recreation or park purposes with a right of reversion upon breach of said restriction". And the The Deed of Transfer for Fort Funston (for example) contains the following clause: "to hold only for so long as said real property is reserved and used for recreation and park purposes". Now, one could argue whether the proposed GGNRA regulations are in breach of said restriction, but the transfer is very clearly revocable.
3. " No one is trying to apply backcountry rules to these parks".
Maybe. But when you go online to see various petitions to restrict off-leash dog walking, they come from organizations like WildEquity, whose mission is "unites the grassroots conservation and environmental justice movements in campaigns that build a healthy and sustainable global community for people and the plants and animals that accompany us on Earth". Nothing about recreation there. Or from the Center for Biological Diversity, which "works through science, law and creative media to secure a future for all species, great or small, hovering on the brink of extinction." Again, nothing about recreation. Becky Evans is a chairwoman and spokesperson for the Sierra Club. Nothing wrong with any of that, but these are all groups with primary goals of wilderness (er, one has "Wild" in it's name, duh) and species preservation. Laudable goals, but yes, they are bringing "back-countryish" rules to the GGNRA.
4. "The GGNRA is one of 401 units of the Park Service, and no matter what the name of the park, they are all bound by the same regulations.".
Wrong. Do a quick Google search for "national park special regulations", and you'll find a lot. Two early hits were a special regulation for winter tours in Yellowstone, and another that authorizes limited off-road vehicle use at Cape Hatteras. The National Park Service clearly does have different regulations for different areas.
5. "The Park Service is trying to work out a special regulation for the GGNRA which would give dogs more freedom than in other national parks..."
Stop right there. First, this contradicts her claim in #4 that they all have the same regulations. Proving my rebuttal to her! Second, and more importantly, GGNRA is not a National Park. As for the "more freedom", what GGNRA is trying to do is give dogs far less freedom than they have had in the past.
Friday, October 11, 2013
In MLB Playoffs, team payrolls matter
Here's a link to 2013 MLB team payrolls.
As for making the playoffs, if you include both wildcard teams, we had teams ranked 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 17, 23, 26, 27, and 28 (Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers, Cardinals, Reds, Braves, Indians, Pirates, Athletics, and Rays) make the playoffs. This is an average of 15.8, almost exactly in the middle. Five teams from the upper half and five from the lower half made the playoffs. So, to a first approximation, team payroll was not correlated with the regular season, i.e. making the playoffs.
But, moving on into the second round, the League Championship Series, we have the Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers and Cardinals: teams 2, 4, 5, and 12. All teams in the top half of payroll. So far in 2013, there is perfect correlation between the highest payroll and getting to the next round of the playoffs.
How about 2012? Here's are the payrolls. And, in case you have forgotten, here's what happened last year. The teams making the playoffs were ranked 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 19, 20, 30. Six teams from the top half, four from the bottom. An average of 12.8. So payroll was very slightly correlated in 2012. But, as for success, the teams making the final four were ranked 1, 5, 6, 9. Again, all teams in the top half of payroll. (#5 and #6 ended up in the World Series).
I attribute this to the nature of the layoffs, where big stars become more important. Especially, in a 5 game series, expensive star pitchers, who, with the breaks between games, can appear two times. Two years in a row Justin Verlander has earned his $20 million a year salary vs. the Athletics. He's a great pitcher, a likely Hall of Famer. This year, he was greatly aided by Max Scherzer ($6.7 M), Victor Martinez ($13 M), with help from Prince Fielder ($23 M) and Miguel Cabrera ($21 M). These are all great players. Throw in a key homerun by Jhonny Peralta ($6 M) and you are at nearly $90 million dollars, which is close to the median payroll for an entire MLB team.
As for making the playoffs, if you include both wildcard teams, we had teams ranked 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 17, 23, 26, 27, and 28 (Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers, Cardinals, Reds, Braves, Indians, Pirates, Athletics, and Rays) make the playoffs. This is an average of 15.8, almost exactly in the middle. Five teams from the upper half and five from the lower half made the playoffs. So, to a first approximation, team payroll was not correlated with the regular season, i.e. making the playoffs.
But, moving on into the second round, the League Championship Series, we have the Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers and Cardinals: teams 2, 4, 5, and 12. All teams in the top half of payroll. So far in 2013, there is perfect correlation between the highest payroll and getting to the next round of the playoffs.
How about 2012? Here's are the payrolls. And, in case you have forgotten, here's what happened last year. The teams making the playoffs were ranked 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 19, 20, 30. Six teams from the top half, four from the bottom. An average of 12.8. So payroll was very slightly correlated in 2012. But, as for success, the teams making the final four were ranked 1, 5, 6, 9. Again, all teams in the top half of payroll. (#5 and #6 ended up in the World Series).
I attribute this to the nature of the layoffs, where big stars become more important. Especially, in a 5 game series, expensive star pitchers, who, with the breaks between games, can appear two times. Two years in a row Justin Verlander has earned his $20 million a year salary vs. the Athletics. He's a great pitcher, a likely Hall of Famer. This year, he was greatly aided by Max Scherzer ($6.7 M), Victor Martinez ($13 M), with help from Prince Fielder ($23 M) and Miguel Cabrera ($21 M). These are all great players. Throw in a key homerun by Jhonny Peralta ($6 M) and you are at nearly $90 million dollars, which is close to the median payroll for an entire MLB team.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
