Fantasy Baseball 2012 Starts

Our Head-to-head points league had it's draft yesterday.  We use standard ESPN points, with the exceptions that strikeouts do not count -1 against a hitter, but errors do.  And a blown save is only -2, not -5.  So the player rankings are significantly different than the more typical "rotissery" 5x5 league.  I did a lot of practice mock drafts beforehand, and a lot of that effort was wasted because the points and ranking are so completely different.  But it got me familiar with the draft application so that I only hit the wrong key once.  Note that our league allows up to 12 starts per week, so having six, or even more, good starters is one of my strategies.  I tend to devalue relievers.

A few of us had glitches with the rankings in the draft application.  In my case, catchers were all listed at absurdly high numbers, e.g. Buster Posey was listed at some number in the 3000s.  Fortunately, my strategy was to pretty much ignore catchers unless they fell really low.  So I changed it to "ignore catchers completely" and pick up one in the last round.  Our rosters have 27 players, so we had 27 rounds.

My thoughts and comments round to round.  At least one of the teams, the Peregrine Falcons, missed the emails about the draft and she was represented by the computer "auto-picks".  And I think the Ewoks and Nerds may have been also computerized.  If so, the computer did a pretty good job for those two.  And you can submit your own ranking and strategy for the picks, which perhaps they did.

My thoughts and comments.  I had pick #2, too early for my taste.  Since it is a "snake" draft, that means that in alternating rounds I have the 2nd and the 9th pick.  My good friend, Dan Quill, (SF Marauders, he's a big Giants fan) had pick #1 (and then #10) so a lot of times we were competing for the same players.  PLayer #3, the Peregrine Falcons, was on my "other side" in some picks.  I based many of my picks on the ESPN projections for 2012, with some hunches and "I just like the player" thrown in.  As for SS, I had decided on either Tulo or "whomever looks decent sometime later on".

Round 1:  Dan picked Pujols, leaving me a tough call between Bautista and Cabrera (who rate very closely in the projections) but Bautista has the flexibility to play 3B and OF.  I figured I'd pick up a 1B much later in the draft, especially when three more (Cabrera, AGon, and Votto) went quickly.

Round 2: Andover Underdogs start the run on elite pitchers with Verlander, followed quickly by Halladay and Kershaw.  I'm seeing Prince Fielder fall down towards me.  Maybe?  The Falcons, picking before me, had the option of Longoria or Fielder.  They already had Miguel Cabrera, who will theoretically play 3B, so I figured they would take Fielder, in which case I'd have a really tough call - double up on 3B with Longoria (not a bad move, but a bit weird) or pick a pitcher.  But the Falcons took Longoria and I very happily picked Fielder as an unexpected offering at 1B.  As in round 1, a lot of top OF and 2B are picked.

Round 3: I was thinking King Felix or Lincecum, but SF Marauders of course picked Lincecum so I took Felix.  Lots of other elite pitchers (Lee, Weaver, Hamels) go.  IMO, Displaced Braves Fan gets a good deal on Curtis Granderson at #27.

Round 4,5: I was looking at Greinke and a 2B here.  I saw that Dan needed a 2B, and since I prefer Zobrist to Uggla (again, positional flexibility) I went with him.  I was pretty sure Dan would pick Uggla and Panda, which he did.  So, in round 5, I got Greinke.

Round 6,7: I wanted either Price or Shields, but I was scrolling down the list to find Matt Moore and mainly Bumgarner, who I wanted to grab before Dan.  When it came my time to pick, I messed up and picked Matt Moore instead of Shields.  Well, maybe Moore will live up to the hype!  If so, I'm a lucky genius.  If not, well, it's all for fun.  Round 7 I took Mark Reynolds, who scores very well in our system.  remember, Ks do not count against a batter!  I'm feeling real solid at the corners.  By now a lot of the top OF are gone so I figured if all else fails Reynolds can play 3B for me and I move Bautista to OF.

Round 8,9: Just in time, I pluck Bumgarner from the grasping fingers of the evil SF Marauders!  However, he grabs Chris Young, my planned pick for round 9 to start filling in the OF.  The other OF are unappealing (objectively, maybe I should take Heyward or Werth here, but they both have burned me in the past) so I pick another young and promising SP, Daniel Hudson, bringing me to five good SP.

Round 10,11: I was eyeing Nick Swisher, Neil Walker, Ackley, and Scutaro.  In round 10 I picked Ackley because he might become OF eligible (flexibility + covers the OF).  Dan, for the second time, grabs "my" OF, Swisher.  So I fill in SS (which was starting to get thin) with Scutaro, who I'm hoping has a good year at Coors.

Round 12,13: I was eyeing Gio Gonzales (I like the guy) and Carlos Lee.  Picked Gio, so of course Dan picks Lee.  To show we really do think alike, he then gets a good deal on Neil Walker.  Once again, the immediate OF offerings are bleak (Melky Cabrera was the best of a bad lot), so I pick yet another good pitcher, Anibel Sanchez.  I'm up to 7 good SP.

Round 14,15: I was eyeing Beltran, Carlos Pena (he also scores well in our system), Logan Morrison and Jeff Francoeur.  Picked Beltran, Dan picked Pena.  Which was probably good for me, forced me to pick another OF, Morrison.  I like the guy.

Round 16,17:  Jaime Garcia had fallen pretty far by my ratings.  Also looking at Torii Hunter, Josh Willingham, and Andrew Bailey.  But Torii plays for the Angels, ick.  So picked Garcia.  Dan picked Torii.  In round 17 I probably should have picked Josh Willingham for OF.  But, in a bit of frustration and a possible reach, picked Jesus Montero.  If he can hit or catch he will be a good pick at 17, if he can do both he will be a great pick.

Round 18,19: Finish off the outfield with a couple of borderline players with upside and downside, Kubel and Rasmus.  Hopefully one will pan out.  Pickings are getting thin, and lots of "borderline" pitchers like Lilly and McCarthy are going as the others fill their rosters.  Braves Fan picks Alex Rios which could be a great pick.

Round 20,21: Joe Nathan as my 1st closer.  He will get lots of chances in Texas.  Lucas Duda for 1B/OF.  Flexibility again.  But was also considering Austin Jackson and Moustakis.  In retrospect, I might have been better with Austin Jackson.

Round 22,23: I can barely recognize some of the names.  :-)  Since I'm an As fan, and still a bit dubious about my OF, I pick Yoenis Cespedes.  Then Derek Holland.  I like the guy, and I think he's a great value pick in round 23.  I now have 9 SP, so will have some flexibility to trade one.

Round 24,25: Kendrys Morales, Addison Reed.  These are my "fun" shoot for the stars picks.  Was also considering Sean Rodriquez as utility infielder, since Scutaro is my only SS.  But Scoot will become SS/2B so he could become my utility guy.  And utility guys are pretty easy to pick up on the waiver wire.

Round 26,27: Steven Drew as backup SS, though looks like he may start on the DL.  And, finally, a catcher, Russel Martin.

Is free contraception a core constitutional issue?

I've seen a lot of letters and editorials that are just plain ignorantly wrong about the contraception issue.  Today's San Mateo Daily Journal had two.

In a letter, Jorg Aadahl writes that "religious zealots ... (want to) deny women access to contraceptives." as part of a "war on women".  In case you missed it, Jorg then repeats that they are "trying to deny others the right to plan for their own families" and that this is a "war on women's rights".

In an editorial, Michelle Durand writes that, under a potential President Santorum, aspirin would "be the only contraception available", and, repeating the "war" analogy, "reproductive rights are in the crosshairs" and decries "attacks on women’s rights"

Nobody is proposing to outlaw contraceptives!.  Catholic bishops, and their supporters, just don't want to be forced to pay to provide free coverage, on moral grounds.  Women will still be able to obtain contraceptives, just like most Catholic women do today.  The letter and editorial are pure political posturing.

I have to believe that these writers know this, but are harping on a political point.  Why not, Obama is using the issue to woo women voters.

For the record, I think the Catholic position on contraception is silly, and their justifications for it unconvincing.  But  that doesn't matter.  I don't get to decide which religious position is "right", nor does the US Government, unless it has a "compelling interest".  See also the RFRA, which applies to Federal laws.  It clarifies that "A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues."  Now, I'm not on the Supreme Court, but it's hard to imagine that free contraception is a core constitutional issue.

For those on the left who are knowingly, unconstitutionally bashing religion to woo women voters, I say shame.  And for women voters who buy into their argument, shame on them too.

Was this a "victory" for Gay Rights?

The Ninth Circuit Court overturned California's Prop 8, which banned gay "marriage".  For the record, though I lean conservative on fiscal issues, I am for Gay Marriage.  Ideally, I think the state should get out of the "Marriage" issue completely, that is a religious term, but that barn door has been open too long to be closed.  So, as a fallback, I am for Gay Marriage.  Should I be cheering?

The strange, narrow basis for the ruling really concerns me.  And it seems unfair to both sides of the argument.

The appeals panel's majority said Tuesday that Proposition 8 must be invalidated because California's existing laws related to domestic partnerships already give gay couples the same state rights as opposite-sex couples. So in effect, they said, Proposition 8 took away the significant designation of "marriage" while leaving in place all of marriage's legal rights and responsibilities.

So, because California was liberal/generous/open enough to offer a fully equal legal status for domestic partnerships, the ruling says that it must also allow these to be called "marriage".  Imagine yourself as a religious conservative opposing this decision.  Your only logical conclusion is that you should never have been "nice" enough to give any ground and allow domestic partnerships.  Next time a minority group wants "just a few" more rights, screw them, because, as proved by the 9th Circuit Court, it really is a slippery slope.  This decision will rally and harden conservative opposition.  I don't know if any conservative states still prohibit domestic partnerships, but, if there are, the chance of gays obtaining that right just went way down.  Or, if their domestic partnership laws aren't quite equal to marriage rights, they will darned tooting remain unequal, otherwise these "liberal judges" will force them to allow marriage.

The Obama administration is already in a fight with Catholic institutions, attempting to force them to provide contraception coverage.  So, a religious conservative can easily imagine their church, mosque or synagogue being forced to perform a gay marriage.  While I support Gay Marriage, forcing others, against their conscience, to perform the ceremony is a violation of religious liberty and the First Amendment.

And, if I were Gay, I'd be worried by this decision.  The right to "marry" is based upon a very narrow legalistic interpretation of existing laws, not a fundamental right of equality.  And, in any case, it came through the courts, not through acceptance of the general population.  Which ultimately should be the goal, even if that will take time.  And, IMO, this decision pushed that acceptance further into the future.

ADA Shows that America is more polarized, and who is causing it

Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal advocacy group, rates House and Senate members for how well they vote for liberal interests.  All perfectly fine.  A recent study and explanation can be found here.  The graphs (also below) clearly shows more polarization.

So, who is causing this polarization?  Both the Democrats (blue) and Republicans (red) are voting more "in lockstep", as shown by the narrowing bands of color.

However, liberal papers like the New York Times constantly complain of the Republicans moving to the "far right", to the "extreme".  Are they?  From the picture, it appears that they may be moving slightly to the right (down).  However, in comparison, what is immensely clear is that the Democrats are moving strongly to the left (up).

So, according to a liberal advocacy group, and their data, it is not the Republicans, but the Democrats who are moving to the extremes.

Wow, it's not even November, and New York Times is in full frothing at the mouth mode

Check out today's New York Times editorial, calling Newt Gingrich a lying racist.  I'm sorry, it's one of those things where I understand the individual words and sentences, but not the meaning of anything they are trying to say.

...Mr. Gingrich has made racial resentment an integral part of his platform...presenting African-Americans with the great revelation that they should prefer paychecks to federal handouts. 

Is "great revelation" praise, or sarcasm?  If it is meant as praise, the section is self-contradictory, because where is the racial resentment?  And, if is it sarcasm (as I suspect), it means that the editorial writers are seriously proposing that federal handouts are preferable to paychecks.  In conclusion, this section literally makes no sense.

Newt blames Obama for putting lots of people on food stamps (SNAP).  Now, one could legitimately argue that it was Bush's policies, globalization, and/or the financial crisis that really caused this, not Obama.  But, to my great surprise, the NYT does not blame Bush or Wall Street for this,  Instead, they quibble.

The fact is that Mr. Obama has “put” no one on food stamps. People apply for food assistance...because they’re poor or out of work...

Puhleese.  Presidents get praised or blamed for job creation, inflation, whatever all the time.  Even if they have little to do with it.  Imagine the following argument in an editorial:  "Obama/Bush has not 'put' anybody on unemployment.  People apply for unemployment when they get fired..."  I can't.

The NYT editorial goes to great pains to mention that whites far outnumber blacks receiving SNAP benefits.  Duh!  Whites far outnumber blacks in total.  The relevant number is percentage, which the NYT does not provide.  In any case, why is this relevant?  As quoted by the NYT, Newt said "The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president...".

The editorial continues

But these are inconvenient details to Mr. Gingrich, who implied that the rise in federal aid was a sad indication of the insufficient work ethic of black Americans.

None of the quotes attributed to Newt in the editorial even mention black Americans.  Even if the NYT Editorial Board now includes Matt Parkman from the Heroes TV series and can read Newt's mind and knows that he is a racist, it is factually incorrect, based upon the quotes presented, to write that Newt said or implied that black Americans have a poor work ethic.  He did nothing of the sort.

Newt then proposes that poor children (not "black children") be employed in jobs such as school janitors.  He cites his daughter doing so and benefiting from the experience.  The editorial responds:

Don’t try to follow any kind of logical thread of why the president wouldn’t want the jobless rate to decrease...

Don't try to follow any kind of logical thread in the editorial, because children don't count in the jobless rate!  But this kind of talk from Newt is "divisive".

For the record, I'm not a big Newt fan.  But this editorial is absurd in its criticisms, which are not supported by a single iota of evidence.

Oh yeah, check out the comments, which are even more wildly hostile and hateful.  I'm just going to mention the first two I saw.  MJR calls the Republican Presidential Debate a "KKK rally".  And has 35 "thumbs up" votes.  Julieanne Wozniak says "Newt is rich white trash...Newt is an odious, possibly narcissistic excuse for a human being, a waste of breathable air."  And earns 43 thumbs up.

Enjoy November.  It's going to be an incredibly hostile and bitter campaign.

A slightly useful Paul Krugman Editorial

A recent Paul Krugman editorial takes Mitt Romney to task for some arguably misleading statements about jobs lost or created by Romney and Obama.  I agree that Obama inherited a mess and it is unfair to count jb losses from, say, February 2009 against him.

Krugman then takes issue with Romney's claim of 100,000 jobs created by Staples, Sports Authority and Dominos.  True, not all the jobs were created under Romney's tenure.  Krugman asks, rhetorically, "Can he claim credit for everything good that has happened to the company in the past 12 years?".  Of course not.  But he can claim credit for some of it, by putting the companies on a good path to growth.  And, let me point out, that the 2000s were an overall bad time for the US economy.  Obama inherited a mess and deserves some credit for starting the economy back on the right track.  But, to be fair, Krugman should give Romney credit for his companies doing well even through the lousy 2000s.  Of course he won't.

The rest of the editorial is more of the recent Krugman sophistry similar to his recent column "well, the debt is not a problem, we owe most of it to ourselves".  And well, if Staples did well, maybe Office Depot didn't, so Romney must take the blame for their job losses.  Sorry, I'm calling B.S. here.  You aren't going to blame your pitcher for lowering the batting average of the other team, are you?  "Sorry Gio, you got us 3 extra wins but that came at the expense of the Baltimore Orioles who had three extra losses.   So, overall wins for the league were equal, no raise for you."  Like that would work...

Krugman then goes into a complete non-sequiter.

"In any case, it makes no sense to look at changes in one company’s work force and say that this measures job creation for America as a whole."

True,  But need I point out the obvious?    Romney wasn't responsible for America as a whole.  Nor did he claim to be.  This is a complete Red Herring, ascribing a ridiculous false argument to your opponent then tearing it down.  Listen to Obama and you'll hear a lot of the same.

Krugman claims that Romney destroyed good jobs.  Maybe Romney did.  Perhaps Krugman, Nobel Prize Laureate economist with access to lots of data and papers, could cite a number?

California Coddles Lobbyists and Opposes Small Business

In a previous blog post, I showed how California has by far the highest yearly fees of any state for small-business LLCs.  $800 per year, plus a share of the gross.  The vast majority of states charge no yearly tax at all, and those that do typically charge $200 or less.

By contrast, California has some of the lowest fees on lobbyists.  $25 a year.  Many other states charge a bit more; here's an old (2003) compilation of lobbyist fees and here is a more recent one.  As you can see, many states charge more like $100/year, with Massachusetts at the high end at $1000.

To his credit, CA State Senator Leland Yee proposes to raise the lobbying fee.  To a whopping $50 a year.  Puhleese.  Well, he has to worry some, cause the lobbyist lobby defeated Proposition 15 in 2010, which would have, among many other things, raised fees to $350.  But $50 a year is pathetic.

This increased fee is not going to raise much revenue for California.  Prop 15 was estimated to raise $1.5  million a year.  So it wont fix our budget.  But nor would it impact the big lobbyists, for whom a million dollars, split multiple ways so it more like a thousand dollars, is chump change.  For example, PG&E is estimated to have spent $45 million in 2010.  Akin Gump et. al., a top lobbying firm (they boast of it here), made $25 million in lobbying income in 2011.

So, why does California impede small business with huge small business LLC fees, while coddling lobbyist groups?  Yes, that's a rhetorical question.  It's due to our system of government, which is corruption.  Our state representatives don't want the people to get money from the lobbyist groups, they want themselves to get money from lobbyists.  And the cheaper the fees, the more lobbyists, which means more for them.