Fantasy Draft 2017

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 

1. Your own score explains roughly 40% of your wins. 
2. Opponent's scores explains roughly 30% of your wins.
3. 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:

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.

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.

ESPN Sweetspot is missing some good baseball

During the baseball season I follow the blogs / articles on ESPN's Sweetspot.  They are usually interesting and sometimes informative.  And, unlike most of ESPN, they seemed less focused on the New York, Boston and Los Angeles media markets.

Their MLB playoff coverage has relapsed.  As of today, Oct 8th, the playoff coverage (besides generic articles covering all the matchups) has six articles on the Dodgers/Braves Series:

1. Where's Craig Kimbrel?
2. Good move by Mattingly to start Kershaw
3. Hanley great, Braves awful, Fredi messes up
4. Braves-Dodgers: Managers key in Game 3
5. Heyward delivers after Mattingly mistake
6. Underrated McCann's last game in Atlanta?

There are three articles on the Sox/Rays Series:

1. Rays pull out another must-win victory
2. David Price ignores fact that nerds help him
3. Lackey's remarkable Red Sox renaissance

There are two articles on Cards/Bucs:

1. Wacha's gem puts Cards in driver's seat
2. Pedro power: Alvarez delivers for Bucs

and one whole article on Tigers/As:

1. Leyland's slow hook burns Tigers in Game 3

I'm frankly surprised that Hollywood has takes over from ESPN's previous favorite Boston so quickly.

Can you explain this biased coverage by the quality of the games?  Was the Dodger's/Braves series incredibly compelling.  No.  Two of the games were close, but two were blowouts.  Did some player do something amazing?  Not really - as you can tell by the article titles, a lot of the talk was about the managers.  Ryu, who had a good regular season, disappointed on the national stage.  Sweetspot needed some excuse to talk about Hollywood and came up with them.  Need I add that the Dodgers "developed" most of their team with brute money, not skill?

Has the #2 rated series, Sox/Rays been compelling?  Sortof.  Game three was exciting, decided by a walkoff, well worthy of comment.  Game two was pretty good, game one was a slaughter.

The Bucs/Cards series has been compelling.  The first two games were slaughters, but each team took a win to Pittsburgh, where two close and exciting games went down to the wire.  And the whole story of Pittsburgh being in the playoffs for the first time in 20 years is compelling.  These are two very good teams who didn't buy all their players.

The series they haven't really covered, As/Tigers, has been the most compelling.  Game three was pretty good and had some fireworks.  Games one and two were incredible tense playoff baseball, each decided by one run, featuring awesome pitching performances by Max Scherzer (likely Cy Young), Justin Verlander (no introduction necessary) and rookie Sonny Gray who out-pitched Verlander and matched the exploits of Hall of Famer Chief Bender from over a century ago, 1910.  None of these pitching performances has been mentioned on Sweetspot.  None.  I repeat, Scherzer and Verlander each going 7 strong innings and striking out a small city - unmentioned.  A rookie matching a Hall of Famer from over a century past - ignored.  Though the Tigers offense is struggling, many As position players have had good offensive or defensive plays.  Not mentioned.

Not a shock from ESPN, but I'm calling BS.

How much is hard work rewarded in Rotissery Baseball?

I just completed my 2nd year in a competitive rotisserie 5x5 baseball league as co-owner of the SF Marauders.  After leading for a couple of months in the middle of the year, we finished a solid third.

This league is a good test bed to try to estimate how important daily moves and work are to maintain your team.  Because we had one team manager, the Jolly Jayhawks, who spends a lot of time on fantasy baseball, making moves basically every day, as he was researching matchups and streaming a starting pitcher almost every day.  Another team, the Los Angeles Sad Pandas, paid no attention all year, making no trades, no drops or pickups, nor, as best as I can tell, did he even make internal moves to correct for players on the DL, starters who needed to be put in, etc.  In effect, "his" team, including, so far as I know, the Draft, was entirely computer driven.  And for my team, the SF Marauders, most of the time I was pretty active, but was away on a long vacation for nearly two months (August and September) with limited internet access.

In a rotisserie league with ten teams, each earning scores of 1-10 on 10 categories, the average score for a team should be 55.  How did the three teams fare?

Jolly Jayhawks won the league and ended up with a phenomenal 85.5, 30 points above average.  Is constant work is worth +30?  If we break that down by month, one could argue that constant, smart, savvy work on your roto team is worth about 5 points a month, or about 1 point a week.  The second place team, the Pac Bell Bombers, was also quite active and finished with 82 points, roughly supporting this calculation.

The completely inactive Sad Pandas did end up last, at 23 points.  32 points below average.  Again, roughly 5 points a month.  Now, part of the blame probably lies in his initial draft, since this particular league (and the managers) places less emphasis on starting pitchers and more on relievers than the computer AI seems to understand.  The Sad Pandas have way too many starters and zero relievers to fare well in our league.  Pulling a number somewhat out of my butt, let's ascribe -8 points to his lousy draft.  He should have ended up at 31, -24 off average, for a net loss due to neglect of -4 a month, or -1 a week.

Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to get the ESPN site to show me some graph of the standings over time to find out exactly how my team did during my vacation.  But, based on memory, the Marauders dropped from the high 70s to the low 70s.  (After my return, we rallied in the final weeks to get back to 75.5)  Let's say a net loss of 6, or 3 a month.  Now, I did have some internet access, so if we call my activities "50% active", you come up with a loss of 6 a month for complete inactivity.  Not far from the 4 and 5 above.

In conclusion, it appears that continuous, smart, high activity in a roto league is worth about 5 points a month, relative to "average activity".  Complete inactivity costs about the same, 4 points a month.  And the difference between high activity and complete inactivity is nearly 10 points a month.  These results are based upon a very small sample size of one league, so take them with a huge grain of salt!

Josh Donaldson deserves the 2013 AL MVP

The Sweetspot Blog has 5 posts about why the MVP award should go to Miguel Cabrera, Mike Trout, Chris Davis, Josh Donaldson and Robinson Cano.  Interesting reading.

I was impressed at just how well Josh Donaldson has played this year.  He has the beat WAR of any player on a playoff team:

Baseball Reference WAR leaders: Trout 9.1, Donaldson 8.1, Cano 7.4, Cabrera 7.3, Davis 6.1. 
FanGraphs WAR leaders: Trout 10.2, Donaldson 7.7, Cabrera 7.7, Davis 6.4, Cano 6.0.

If one believes MVP is or the best player in baseball, Trout deserves it.  If one believes that MVP is tied to team performance, Trout is out.  If so, then Josh Donaldson deserves it.

BTW, here is what the letter to the MVP voters says:

Dear Voter:
There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.
The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:
1.  Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2.  Number of games played.
3.  General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4.  Former winners are eligible.
5.  Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.
You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.

Seton Medical Center makes a great investment.

Seton Medical Center donates large amounts of money supporting San Mateo County Measure A bond measure last Fall.  I've read elsewhere that the total was more like $1.5 million

San Mateo County just gave $11.5 million to Seton.  That's better than a 700% return on investment.

Who says that crime, er, legalized bribery, doesn't pay?  O.K., that's a bit harsh.

I (and my family) have used Seton for some medical issues, and it would be great to keep it active in the community, and there were some definite financial issues, but this doesn't seem right.  Am I out of line here?

My vote for new Royal Baby name

Alfred.

Arguably the greatest English King.

After a thousand years we can forgive him for being a Saxon, right?

San Jose vs. MLB, and a Math Puzzle

In a nutshell, I say bully for San Jose.  MLB and the SF Giants are using MLB's monopoly powers to restrain the commerce of the Athletics and San Jose.  With rare exceptions, this should be illegal.  And keeping the As in Oakland is also bad for baseball.  The As would be more competitive, and would drain less revenue sharing money, if they were in San Jose.  With the possible exception of the Giants, everybody wins.  And I think even they would come out slightly ahead.

But I'm writing in response to a post on Hardball Times which describes the pace of Bud Selig's Special Committee as "snail-like".  That is overly generous.

If you Google the speed of a snail, you get a few answers.  Here were my top hits.

Infoplease says 0.03 MPH, which is 13 millimeters (mm) per second.
Speedofanimals says about 1 millimeter per second.
Wikipedia also says 1 millimeter per second (which converts to 0.002 MPH)
Arnobrosi has several answers, combining all the above, plus a few notes from actual snail racers, which come in at around 3 millimeters per second.

So we have a range of speeds over an order of magnitude, between 1mm/sec and 13mm/sec.

MLB has been "studying" the move for four years.  A year is 31557600 seconds.  Let's round down to 3*10^7.  So our snail, in four years, can cover somewhere between 12*10^7 mm, (at the slowest speed of 1 mm/sec) up to 156*10^7mm (at 13mm/sec)

Google Maps says that the driving distance between Hegenberger Road in Oakland (site of their current stadium) and downtown San Jose (proposed new site) is 33.9 miles.  That converts to 54.56 kilometers.  Let's round up to 55 km.

Now that everything is in metric, the final math is easier.  A km is 10^6 mm.

Our fastest snail, the 13mm/sec one, can cover 1560 km in those four years.  It could do 14 round trips between Oakland and San Jose!

Even our slowest snail. the 1mm/sec one, can cover 120 km in those four years.  It could travel from Oakland to San Jose and back with plenty of time to grab a hot dog and beer.

In conclusion, MLB's pace has not been "snail-like".  It has been far slower than even the slowest snail.

Even if NSA Phone Tapping were legal, which it's not, it's a terrible idea

The NSA Phone metadata program is an overly broad, non-specific, and non-expiring search program.  Just like a Writ of Assistance.  Which is precisely why we have the 4th Amendment.  How can any constitutional scholar, elected official, or judge think otherwise?

Also, even if this were legal, it's a terrible idea.  It's trivial to imagine scenarios where this information could be used to manipulate or blackmail Americans.  And where is the whistleblower, Edward Snowden, now?  Apparently in Hong Kong.

Imagine if this metadata got into the hands of a foreign government, drug cartel, or terrorist group.  They could blackmail defense contractors, border guards, or guards at power plants.

As for the inane argument that if you weren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide:

Impeach Eric Holder

In testimony before Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder recently admitted to Senator Mark Kirk that the Executive Branch is spying on the Legislature and the Judiciary.  In reference to the recent Verizon / phone records expose:

Kirk: “Can you assure us no members of the Capitol building were monitored?”

Now, the only correct response is "Hell no".

Instead, Holder replied "With all due respect, senator, I don’t think this is an appropriate setting for me to discuss that issue."

That's a yes.

Kirk followed up with:  “I would hope we get absolute assurance no Supreme Court justice is involved in this Verizon thing.”

Holder replied:  “there was no intention to do anything of that nature to spy on members of Congress or members of the Supreme Court,”

Which means that they were spied on.  Which is immediate grounds for impeachment.

My Letter to The Economist (they didn't publish it)

SIR:  In Down to Earth you write that "Some of the best minds of this generation" are Investment Bankers.  Are these the same geniuses described later in Spring Break?  First, they run a transparent scam to fleece tax collectors.  Clever, but far from rocket science, ( an "odd ritual") and of zero benefit to society.

But then, they get really clever.  Most people holding a huge loan that needed to be repaid within a week would put it someplace exceedingly safe.  No, not the "best minds" at AIG.  They invested in risky and illiquid bonds.  Actually, worse than invested.  They leveraged the risk: "used the cash it accumulated as collateral to invest in risky and illiquid mortgage bonds."  What could possibly go wrong?  How could the "best minds" miss the risks?  When it tanked, all at a cost of $182 Billion to U.S. taxpayers.

Sorry, these are not "best minds".  Best minds invent, discover, or develop things of benefit to mankind.  These bankers have irresponsible antisocial criminal minds scheming to get rich quick while fleecing the rest of us.

Sincerely,

Morgan Conrad

Montara, California

This is not a Spin Doctor, this is a Spin Nobel Prize for the New York Times

Check out the headline, White House Pushes to Revive Legislation Protecting Reporters.

After his own Justice Department trampled the First Amendment by seizing AP phone records, today the administration, including Eric Holder, who supposedly runs the Justice Department, proposed a revival of the "Free Flow of Information Act".

BTW, the headline isn't coming from the White House.  It's coming from their house organ, the New York Times, which has proven to be in complete alliance with the White House throughout the recent scandals.

The Freedom to Receive NO Information Act

The ACLU recently filed a Freedom of Information Act requesting government policies pertaining to text messages.  The response was fifteen pages, entirely redacted.  Yes, you heard that right, entirely redacted.

ABC News Article

NY Times Article

GGNRA reveals it priorities

A recent letter (and reply) in the Half Moon Bay Review, concerning the GGNRA's recent anti-dog policies, (here's a recent and fairly balanced article) is revealing.  The GGNRA reply says

The decisions to temporarily permit or restrict areas for dogs until the Dog Management Plan is complete were based primarily on conversations with the equestrian community regarding conflicts between horses and dogs...

I'm sorry, I have no issues with the local equestrian community, indeed, some of my close friends are equestrians :-) , but why the heck do equestrians take the primary lead in determining dog policy???  That's even more insane that the actual dog policies.

You can rest assured that there are many many more dog owners that horse owners.  But, apparently, the horse owners, who are much more organized, have figured out which government officials to bribe with campaign donations.

Our Government isn't just wasting money, it's deliberately spending it to buy votes.

Last Friday's New Your Times had a lengthy article "U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination".  It described how many Hispanic and female farmers had claimed bias by federal loan officers, and the US Department of Justice had been successful in defending against almost every claim, including cases at the Supreme Court.

But then they gave in to the tune of $1.33 billion.  This is more than double the air traffic controllers expenses recently "fixed" by Congress.  And the total will probably rise, and could top $4.4 billion.  It sure feels like a political payout to groups (Hispanics and women) that the Democrats are courting.  Oh yeah - law firms.  And the article supports my gut feeling.

In something of a surprise to me, since the New York Times certainly leans left, their analysis was blunt.  My favorite quote is "“You couldn't have designed it worse if you had tried.”  But below are more.  It's a long article, please read it, but below are some highlights.  Italics are mine for emphasis, and words in brackets are added for clarification.  Note that some of the quotes concern the earlier case where African-American farmers had claimed and won bias.

the Obama administration’s political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a stunning turnabout: they committed $1.33 billion to compensate not just the 91 plaintiffs but thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court.

despite the vehement objections — until now undisclosed — of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal — the $50,000 payouts to black farmers — had proved a magnet for fraud. 

an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees

Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination.

Delton Wright, a Pine Bluff justice of the peace, recalled what happened after word of the settlement reached his impoverished region: “It just went wild. Some people took the money who didn’t even have a garden in the ground.” He added, “They didn’t make it hard at all, and that’s why people jumped on it.”

Claimants described how, at packed meetings, lawyers’ aides would fill out forms for them on the spot, sometimes supplying answers “to keep the line moving,” as one put it. 

In 16 ZIP codes in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina, the number of successful claimants exceeded the total number of farms operated by people of any race in 1997, the year the lawsuit was filed. Those applicants received nearly $100 million. 

nearly everyone in two adjoining apartment buildings had filed

Mr. Boyd said Mr. Obama’s support [of the settlement] led him to throw the backing of his 109,000-member black farmers’ association behind the Obama presidential primary campaign.

[A quote from one government expert, professor Gordon Rausser]  "It was simply buying the support of the Native-Americans."

 Anyway, please read the article and reach your own conclusions.  And maybe $4 billion is small potatoes in out immense deficit, but the entire year-long sequester that is causing a lot of grief is only $85 billion.