notesfromnokomis@gmail.com

2017 Reading List

Today is the last day of 2017. I’m going to reprise a small chunk of it: my reading list. I read the 40 books listed below,[1] bringing my long-term average to 35.4 books per year. Not bad, though to be fair some of them were not that strenuous. One book this year was a graphic novel – a Ray Bradbury authorized version of Fahreneit 451 – all the flavor of the original with some really cool drawings. There were a couple[2] of volumes of poetry (Aronson, Bennett, Ossman), a few spy novels (Furst), some light fiction (Crighton, Marquez, Turow), and even an old favorite from my youth (George).

A Most Improbable Journey, a big history of our planet and ourselves	Alvarez
Ghost Child of the Atalanta Bloom	Aronson
The Sobbing School	Bennett
A Sovereign People	Berkin
Utopia for Realists	Bregman
Nomadland: Surviving America in the Twenty-first Century	Bruder
In Cold Blood	Capote
Airframe	Crighton
Younger Next Year — The Exercise Program	Crowley/Lodge
The Death and Life of the Great Lakes	Egan
The Experts’ Guide to 100 Things Everyone Should Know How to Do	Ettus
Ghost Empire	Fidler
The Strategy of Victory	Fleming
Dark Voyage	Furst
Blood of Victory	Furst
The Polish Officer	Furst
The Foreign Correspondent	Furst
My Side of the Mountain	George
The Teammates	Halberstam
Fahrenheit 451	Hamilton (Bradbury)
The Universe in a Nutshell	Hawking
Bill James Handbook 2017	James
Urban Survival Guide	Johnson
Moment of Battle — the twenty clashes that changed the world	Lacey/Murray
No One Writes to the Colonel	Marquez
Unlock the Hidden Job Market	Mathison/Finney
The American Spirit	McCullough
Make Your Bed — little things that can change your life	McRaven
Event Boundaries	Ossmann
Where the Water Goes — Life and death along the Colorado River	Owen
Hello, Is This Planet Earth (my view from the international space station)	Peake
Dream Land — the true tale of america’s opiate epidemic	Quinones
The Wayfarer’s Handbook — a field guide for the independent traveler	Rice
Glaxo	Ronsino
Bottom of the Ninth — Branch Rickey, Casey Stengel (Continental)	Shapiro
Survive — essential skills and tactics to get you out of anywhere — alive	Stroud
American Revolutions	Taylor
Pleading Guilty	Turow
Innocent	Turow
Medieval Europe	Wickham

But I also pushed myself a bit. I tackled a smorgasbord of nonfiction issues. A couple of books on water (Egan, Owen) highlight an increasingly important and potentially divisive issue. Baseball always gets some of my time (Halberstam, James, Shapiro). James gets extra (un-listworthy) time from me because I subscribe to his outstanding website: billjamesonline.com. As in most years, history wins the plurality – I am devoted to learning from the past; it’s easier than doing something in the present.

The Strategy of Victory by Fleming tells the tale of George Washington’s approach to warfare during the revolutionary war. It cogently explains Washington’s belief that the most important thing wasn’t to win, it was not to lose. And it trenchantly conveys that the war was a civil war, which I don’t think most Americans appreciate. In any event, they don’t understand the day-to-day consequences of not knowing whether your neighbor is your friend or your active enemy.

If you haven’t read In Cold Blood by Capote, you really should. It is among the very best of non-fiction writing, telling a classic (true) tale of senseless murder.

I highly recommend two books that capture current sad realities (Bruder and Quinones). The former tracks a group of retirees, who make the most of limited means by living in RVs. The latter describes how heroin is destroying lives and communities. The writing in both books is as good as the issues are timely. Reading them will help you better understand the on-going trials and tribulations of millions of Americans.

One book I cannot recommend is The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking, even though he is a terrific “writer.”[3] The book is interesting, informative, and showcases Hawking’s brilliance. But it contains some pretty heavy science and math that significantly hampered my ability to understand, let alone enjoy, the ideas he put forth.

The next post will focus on one of the books that I have not mentioned yet.

Happy New Year.

[1] The books are listing in alphabetical order by author, just like the books on my bookshelves.

[2] You cannot convince me that “couple” refers only to two of something. For example, if you ask for a couple of M&Ms, you would likely be mightily disappointed if I handed you exactly two green ones.

[3] I put “writer” in quotes because (obviously) Hawking cannot write. Then again, few of us with the physical ability to do so write. Every word I have posted on this website has been the product of typing. Perhaps we should rid ourselves of words like “writer.”

Basketball Suggestions

The NHL and college basketball seasons started (relatively) recently with all the fanfare of a 34th birthday.[1] Serious fans likely noticed, but really how excited were you. It’s not like the start of college football, which is hyped for months until its orgiastic crescendo in late August.

I don’t have much to say about the NHL. “Thankfully,” you all silently mouth. I love attending games live – the speed and excitement are unrivaled in sports. But following the puck on TV is difficult for most non-fans since the demise of the FoxTrax. HD helps, but the sport’s TV ratings do not match the other major sports in this country.

I have plenty to say about basketball. First – there is still too much traveling. (See 4/1/17 post https://www.notesfromnokomis.com/?p=652 .) Second – basketball is the sport that is the most enjoyable to play. Anybody can grab a ball, find a nearby hoop and start shooting. Find a friend and you can play H-O-R-S-E.[2] Find a few friends and you can play three-on-three. Collect a couple of passers-by and a full court game is in the offing. No other sport has that kind of flexibility and all of the variants are fun.[3]

Third – bsaketball is not perfect. So in the spirit of giving, I proffer three rule changes for your consideration as you watch the NBA on Christmas Day. Be honest, you will watch at least some of one of the five games scheduled.

Kicking the ball is already against the rules, but there is no penalty. The most common use of the kick is to deter a bounce pass to a back-door cutter. That is my favorite play in basketball. We should encourage it, not allow flagrant rule-breaking to stymie it without punishment.

Therefore I suggest that a kicked ball (a true kick) should be considered a technical foul (though not a personal foul) and the other team should be awarded a foul shot and (of course) keep the ball. Implementing this rule would cause players to stop kicking the ball. I can think of no negative unintended consequences.

The second rule change would involve calling technical fouls for flopping. If a player wants to take a change, he should stand in there and take the charge. He should not attempt to deceive the refs by acting like he was run over by a bull charging a red flag.[4] Similarly, players (especially point guards) who react to incidental contact with a violent head flop (as if they have been rear-ended at high speed) should be charged with a technical foul. The flopping is unsportsmanlike and should be penalized. The refs have a hard enough job without worrying about whether players are intentionally deceiving them. After a few technical foul calls, I suspect the deceptions would diminish and the game would improve.

Finally, (for now, there will undoubtedly be future posts about basketball) we need a way to minimize the influence of three-point shooting. Too many players launch long shots with alacrity and impunity because of the 50% bonus that is granted. The original bonus was intended to loosen interior defense because the game had become something of a slugfest.

In the 1979 NBA season, the first with a three-point line, teams shot an average of 227 threes. That was 3% of all shots taken. Last year, almost a third of all shots taken were three-pointers. It’s an epidemic, not without good reason. A made 3-point shot is worth 50% more than a made layup. The following chart shows team averages in the NBA. (3PA = three point attempt, 2PA = other shot attempts, FGA = all shots attempted)

	3PA	% of shots	2PA	Total FGA
		taken

1979-80	227	3.05%	7205	7433

1991-92	626	8.74%	6537	7163

2003-04	1224	18.70%	5321	6545

2015-16	2214	31.61%	4790	7004

Larry Bird was one of the greatest shooters in the history of the NBA. His first year coincided with the first year of the three-point line. He twice led the NBA in three-pointers made. His season high was 98 made three-point shots. Last year, 91 players made more than 98 three-point shots, including centers DeMarcus Cousins (131), Marc Gasol (104), and Karl-Anthony Towns (101). An unintended consequence of the three-point rule is that centers now move away from the basket to take three-pointers. Nobody would have predicted that in 1979.

Even though three-point shooting is better than ever in percentage terms, overall shooting is not–because so many shots are long, lower percentage shots.

	3P%	2P%	FG%

1979-80	0.280	0.488	0.481

1991-92	0.331	0.486	0.472

2003-04	0.347	0.460	0.439

2015-16	0.358	0.503	0.457

Basketball is not better when more players are taking more shots from farther from the rim. Basketball is better when players pass and help each other get open (preferably easy) shots. I can’t argue that players should take fewer three-point shots – because the 50% bonus is so advantageous. But I will argue that we should do something to restore the balance between good shots and rules-advantaged long shots.

I suggest awarding three points for layups. “Preposterous,” you scream. Perhaps so, but hear me out. I would only grant three points if the player who shot the layup caught it (meaning someone passed it to him) with at least one foot in the restricted area[5] and that he shot without dribbling.

We already reward many long bad shots with an extra point if the shot is made. Why not reward a shot that can only be achieved through teamwork? It wouldn’t be that hard to enforce, no harder than the three-point shot. The key feature is the same: the placement of the feet when the shot is taken.

This rule change would encourage teams to pass and set up good shots, instead of just open long ones. Watching a team chuck up a bunch of long shots is not as interesting as watching a team strive to get easy short shots.

Whether you agree or disagree (and I expect more of the latter), have a Merry Christmas and enjoy the games.

[1] I was traveling and distracted, but my favorite college basketball team had played two games before I realized the season had started.

[2] If you need “horse” explained, this post probably isn’t for you.

[3] “Horse” is a game, not a sport. For further explanation see 2/2/17 post https://www.notesfromnokomis.com/?p=630 .

[4] The redness of the flag is irrelevant. Bulls are color blind. The bulls charge the flag because it is moving.

[5] This area is already marked on the floor to prevent players from drawing charges while standing, essentially, under the basket. The arc extends 1.25 meters from the basket, that’s 4.1 feet.

Tax Reform

I love the idea of tax reform. I love the idea of tax simplification even better. Based on my limited knowledge of tax bills being discussed in Washington, they collectively deliver neither reform nor simplification. I understand that these goals are not easy to achieve. What worthwhile goal is? Tweaking some deductions and lowering some rates is not tax reform, unless you consider exchanging a used white oxford shirt for a new white oxford shirt wardrobe reform.

A big picture look at the tax reform construct reveals:

Corporate tax rates are lowered significantly. I think this is probably a good idea because the rates are high compared to corporate rates in other countries. But it is no panacea. Companies make few large decisions based solely on tax rates. Moreover, companies almost never hire more people because taxes are lower; they hire people when the new hires can help the company generate more profits. Tax rates influence how much profit a company gets to keep, not whether it will be profitable.

Lower tax rates are not reform. Changing the tax treatment of dividends would be a significant and long overdue reform. Currently if a company with $10 million in profit pays $5 million in dividends to shareholders, it must pay taxes on the $10,000,000 profit. That may or may not be fair. What is certainly unfair is to then tax the shareholders on the $5,000,000 in dividends that they received. That is double taxation, both the company and its shareholders pay taxes (though at different rates) on the same $5,000,000. As far as I can tell, no change is contemplated.

The estate tax is being eliminated. This is true reform, but it is also virtually meaningless. Of the 2.6 million people who died in 2013, only 4,700 paid federal estate tax – that’s a bit less than one person out of every 550 who died. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-many-people-pay-estate-tax

This tax is often derisively called the “death tax,” as if that makes is worse than any other tax. Taxes are just the way a government pays for the things it does. The focus of any tax reform should be to ensure that government can pay for its own operations and to make paying taxes easier for the taxpayers. Lessening the tax burden is a separate issue, though more important. The best way to lessen the tax burden is to reduce governmental operations. Our politicians seem incapable of doing that.

The bottom line is that the estate tax doesn’t affect many people and doesn’t raise much money (about $20 billion a year). Instead of eliminating it, which would allow the mega-rich to avoid taxes on potentially billions of dollars of appreciation,[1] we should raise the floor. At the current $5,000,000 or so, few family farms need to be sold to pay estate taxes (a common claim among detractors of estate taxes), but to make sure it never happens, let’s raise the floor to $50,000,000. Then only the truly wealthy would be subject to this tax and it would continue to pay for some minimal level of governmental operations and would undercut opponents who say that tax reform inordinately benefits the wealthy.

Deduction tweaking is a mixed bag. The current concept calls for a higher standard deduction but lesser itemized deductions. Most analysis suggests that the majority of lower and middle class taxpayers will pay less (for a few years[2]), but that some significant minority (primarily those in states with high state and local taxes) will pay more. There’s really nothing inherently wrong with that – the current system has the opposite effect or did when it was instituted.
The reform is going to increase the budget deficit by $1.5 trillion over ten years. Maybe a little less, maybe a little more depending on how the economy does. Of course, nobody knows the exact number, only that the deficit will be grow from the current $400 billion or so. And here I thought we wanted the deficit to be decrease.

Tax reform should be budget neutral in concept, it shouldn’t assume a $1 trillion plus hole. I am constantly amazed at how few Republican politicians are concerned about adding substantially to the deficit when they control the budgetary process. Oh how they caterwaul when deficit increase while the Democrats are in charge.

In short, this particular version of “tax reform” is not very reformy. They should call it the tax change bill because they are just making a few changes. They should also tell POTUS that his billionaire status will be enhanced not reduced by the tax plan. POTUS seems to think that eliminating the estate tax will cost his family a fortune. Although we can’t know for sure because he refuses to release his tax returns,[3] it is virtually inconceivable that, even if he pays a bit more annually (which is unlikely), his family is a loser in aggregate. If he is worth close to $10 billion (as he claims), the elimination of estate taxes will save his family hundreds of millions.

I believe we should engage in serious tax reform that simplifies the tax system and is revenue neutral. Currently the federal income tax raises approximately $1.7 trillion. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-where-do-federal-tax-revenues-come-from The total personal income of taxpayers is $16 trillion. https://www.statista.com/statistics/216756/us-personal-income/ Personal income includes income from all sources: salary, dividends, interest, pass-through businesses, etc.

I would treat them all the same, income is income. [4] I would eliminate all personal deductions, all personal exemptions. ALL OF THEM. That is reform. That is simple. That would allow us to file our taxes on a postcard.

Furthermore, I would ignore all income below some floor, let’s call it $30,000. A single taxpayer would have the first $30,000 of income ignored, a married couple the first $60,000. All income over this level would be taxed in an increasing path until we reached $1.7 trillion in taxes.

I can’t find enough good information that enables me to do the math.[5] But it’s not complicated. Think about it this way – the next $10,000 of income for every taxpayer could be taxes at 10%, the next $10,000 at 15%, etc., until we reach the number that income taxes currently raise. There would be many tax brackets, but they would be based solely on income and would not affect deductions or exemptions or anything else – because there is nothing else. The top rate might have to be as high as 35%, but we need to average “only” 10% or so to raise $1.7 trillion based on total personal income of $16 trillion.

A simple plan like this would allow people to make decisions based solely on their income, not whether this or that is deductible. The biggest problem with this plan (other than the fact that it will never happen) is trying to find new jobs for the various tax professionals who would be rendered obsolete. I would not consider that a tragedy.

[1] Company founders can avoid all tax liability under the new plan by never selling their stock.

[2] Many of the reforms that benefit lower and middle income taxpayers are scheduled to terminate in the next few years. This is necessary to ensure that the deficit grows only so much. It’s a game the partisans of the tax plan employ to keep the estimated increase in the deficit below a certain level for political reasons. They insist that the reforms that terminate will be extended, meaning that the true deficit will be greater than currently estimated.

[3] What is he hiding? Hasn’t he said something similar about people who didn’t want to disclose something?

[4] I believe the country would support one massive exception – “profits” from the sale of a personal residence should not count as income. “Profits” is in quotes because most “profits” from the sale of a personal residence are really just inflation. Most homes do not truly appreciate.

[5] Believe me, I tried. I have the spreadsheets to prove it.

Political Integrity

Donald Trump is among the most mendacious Presidents in the history of our country. Sadly, he is not without serious competition – Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson all get strong consideration and that doesn’t take us farther back than 1960. But none of them have the prolonged documented track record of Donald Trump.[1] The man will say anything that supports the “idea” he is shepherding at the time without regard to its truth, its consistency with his own prior statements, or its future usefulness. These factors, which most of us consider important if not obligatory, are ignored in the moment. All that matters to Donald Trump is the current moment and in that moment, he must be considered awesome. It is beyond bizarre.[2]

That would be bad enough. What makes it worse is the huge raft of people willing to offer support to whatever poppycock he happens to spew in the moment. That is the true danger: that enough people buy into the Trump cult of personality that they forget to exercise reason and independent thought, thereby forfeiting political integrity.

Hannah Arendt stated that “the ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt We are increasingly seeing such people. Distressingly, the person most committed to blurring fact and fiction, truth and falsity, resides in the White House. In one prime example, he is among the few Americans with the gall to assert that he doesn’t believe the Russians attempted to interfere in our most recent presidential election. It beggars description.

Where is Margaret Chase Smith (a fellow Mainer[3]) when we need her.[4] She is almost an avatar for political integrity. She was one of Maine’s US Senators throughout my youth. Before that (while also a Senator), she was among the first prominent people to stand up to the scourge of McCarthyism. The following quotes from her are appropriate to our times. See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Chase_Smith

“One of the basic causes for all the trouble in the world today is that people talk too much and think too little. They act too impulsively without thinking.” A certain frequent Twitter user comes to mind. It’s a little scary to ponder the new 280 character limit.

“I speak as a Republican, I speak as a woman, I speak as a United States Senator, I speak as an American. I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the four horsemen of calumny—fear, ignorance, bigotry, and smear.” At times, POTUS embraces these horsemen. Too many Republicans support him regardless because of the opportunity to take advantage of having control of Congress and the Presidency. The party of Lincoln used to govern based on principles (including family values). It is now full of fervent converts to the belief that the ends justify the means.

“Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore basic principles such as the right to criticize, the right to hold unpopular beliefs, the right to protest, the right to independent thought.” Politicians and supporters of both parties enjoy hurling accusations across the aisle. When challenged, most partisans are more likely to point to an error by the opposition than to discuss the challenge. It helps them survive the moment, but it does not serve the country.

John Adams stated about the White House: “I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house, and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.” FDR had this quote carved into a wooden mantelpiece in the White House. JFK had it carved into marble mantelpiece in the White House. DJT has erased it, if not in fact, then in spirit. https://www.whitehousehistory.org/photos/adamss-blessing-was-carved-into-the-state-dining-room-mantel-in-1945

One last quote from MCS aptly underscores my hopes for the future: “As an American, I want to see our nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy instead of ourselves.” It is farcical to watch this play out regarding sexual abuse. Many of our politicians and political pundits are appalled at abuse committed by political opponents, but surprisingly forgiving of or uncommunicative about abuse committed by political friends. We need to remember that the enemy is abuse. We need to unite against abuse, not pick and choose based on the political party of the abuser.

Margaret Chase Smith was the first woman to serve in both houses of Congress. She was the first woman nominated to be president by a major political party (the Republican Party in 1964). She had political integrity. Donald J. Trump doesn’t. She acted and spoke based on principle; he acts and speaks based on expediency. Sad.

[1] I’m not going to provide support for this proposition, it is manifest. Pick up any newspaper that has been printed on any given day since he started campaigning and the chances are high that on the front page, Donald Trump will have been quoted saying something that is absurd, unfounded, or patently untrue.

[2] Did he really need to call out the UCLA basketball players for not saying “thank you” quickly enough to suit his ego?

[3] To foreigners (anyone who is not from Maine), we are “Mainers.” Among ourselves, it is not uncommon to hear self-references to “Mainiacs.”

[4] She died in 1995 at the age of 97.

It’s the Playoffs — So More Baseball!

Among the reasons baseball is so great is that something unusual happens regularly, it has a robust, extensively documented history, and, despite significant changes,[1] the sport remains essentially the same as it was in 1903. But this post isn’t about the big picture, it’s (mostly) about one game.

Let’s start though with an old baseball chestnut: good pitching beats good hitting. It might even be true, certainly many people think it is. With an added caveat, it is irrefutably true: good pitching beats good hitting, except when it doesn’t.

This year in the AL, teams averaged 4.71 runs per team per game. That includes both the good teams (the ones with better pitching) and the bad teams (the ones with worse pitching). In the 10 games of the playoffs thus far, team have scored 93 runs in 10 games, or 4.65 runs per team per game. It’s only 10 games, but the pitchers from the best teams have been giving up the same number of runs as the pitchers from all of the teams. That is not good pitching beating good hitting. In five of the 10 games, the winning team scored eight or more runs and one losing team scored eight runs. That is not good pitching beating good hitting.

This year in the NL, teams averaged 4.58 runs per game. It’s not surprising that NL teams score fewer runs than AL teams because pitchers bat in the NL. Pitchers are not good hitters, exceptions to the contrary notwithstanding. In the playoffs so far, NL teams have scored 93 runs in nine games, that’s 5.16 runs per team per game. So with the best pitchers from the best teams pitching, the batters have been scoring more runs per game. In the nine games, the winning team has scored eight or more runs four times and the losing teams scored eight runs twice. Again, it’s only 10 games (so it disproves nothing), but it certainly doesn’t support the notion that good pitching beats good hitting.

Never look to truisms for truth.

Now let’s look at a few of the notable events from last night’s game, in which the Chicago Cubs defeated the Washington Nationals in a decisive game 5 in the NLDS to advance to face the Los Angeles Dodgers in the NLCS.

In the first inning and the score 0-0, Jon Jay of the Cubs was on third base with one out. Anthony Rizzo hit a ground ball to second and was thrown out at first base while Jay scored. Rizzo was credited with a run batted in and charged with an at bat. With the infield playing back, it’s possible that Rizzo intentionally tried to hit a ground ball, knowing it would generate a run. It’s possible, but unlikely, and it certainly isn’t reliably verifiable.

In the eighth inning, with his team trailing by two runs and the based loaded with one out, Bryce Harper flied out to center field. Michael Taylor, the runner on third base tagged up and scored. Harper was credited with a run batted in but was not charged with an at bat. In this game situation, it is inconceivable that Harper was willing, let alone attempting, to trade an out for a run. Yet according to the rules, he is considered to have sacrificed himself, just as if he had squared up and bunted. It’s an absurd vestigial scoring rule.

Neither or both of these situations should be considered sacrifices. I would prefer neither because I believe batters are (almost) always trying to get hits, unless they sacrifice bunt.

Catcher Matt Wieters had a rough game, despite going 2-4 at the plate. He was called for catcher’s interference, which occurs when the batter while attempting to hit a pitch makes contact with the catcher, usually with the catcher’s outstretched hand or mitt. In the last ten years, catcher’s interference has been called as few as 17 times in a season and as many at 28 times. If we err on the high side (28 times per year) that means catcher’s interference occurs once every 173 games. It’s a rare thing and is rightly considered an error.

Wieters also had a throwing error. A team’s catchers averaged 94 errors this past season in 162 games, which is .58 per game. With two errors in one game, Wieters more than tripled that rate. There’s more — he also mishandled a strikeout, though that shouldn’t have mattered.

With two outs in the 5th inning, Javier Baez swung and missed on strike three. Weiters didn’t catch the low pitch, though it hit his glove in the air. A caught strikeout would have ended the inning with the Cubs ahead 6-4. Instead, a run scored to make it 7-4. But it shouldn’t have counted because Baez hit Weiters in the head with his bat while following through with his swing.

Just as catchers can’t interfere with batters while they are attempting to hit, batters can’t interfere with catchers. Baez should have been called out for hitting the catcher. All six umpires missed it. For some reason, hitting the catcher with your bat is not reviewable and the umpires couldn’t correct their obvious mistake. In a one-run loss, that run was pretty important.

Of Wieters’s three misplays, two occurred on a play that should have been negated. His throwing error occurred after he retrieved the passed ball on Baez’s swinging strikeout, when Baez should have been called out for interfering with Wieters. So it’s really on the umpires or rather the system that doesn’t let them correct all of their obvious errors. I’d like to blame that on Bud Selig,[2] but even to me, that doesn’t seem fair.

Baseball is a weird game. All of this strangeness in one game – and I barely scratched the surface, discussing only four plays.[3] Still, that’s probably more than enough for some of you. Those of you who want more will get a chance very soon.

[1] See recent post https://www.notesfromnokomis.com/?p=754

[2] See https://www.notesfromnokomis.com/?p=767 for a bit more blame assigned to Selig.

[3] If I had to pick one more play to discuss, it would be a non-play. In the 8th inning with no runners on base, Wade Davis threw a pitch that missed his target so badly that catcher Willson Contreras whiffed when attempting to catch it. The fastball hit the umpire square in the mask and staggered him. The umpire retaliated by softly punching Contreras in the jaw.

A Thought Experiment about Flags

Let’s engage in a thought experiment. Imagine America in the future.

In scenario number one, we have an America much as it looks today—except there are no national flags. All other aspects of life are the same, including schools, restaurants, the federal, state, and local governments, shopping malls, a separate and independent judiciary, movie theatres, and libraries, etc. But again, there are no national flags anywhere.

In scenario number two, we have an America much as it looks today. There are flags everywhere – at schools, government buildings, along public roads, at many businesses and private residences. Flags fly anywhere someone wants to put them. But one of the freedoms that the flag represents is missing. Pick a freedom, any freedom – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press. It hardly matters which freedom is missing, just pick one.

Now tell me which America you would rather live in: an America without a flag that you currently love and cherish or an America without a freedom that you currently love and cherish. Is it even a close call?

Let’s look a bit further. Here are the countries that have the worst record regarding religious freedom:

Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Uzbekistan.

https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/01/worst-countries-religious-freedom/

Here are the countries with the worst record regarding freedom of the press:

North Korea, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Eritrea, Belarus, Cuba, Iran, Equatorial Guinea, Syria, and Bahrain.

https://freedomhouse.org/article/10-worst-countries-journalists

Here are the countries with the worst record regarding freedom of speech:

Senegal, Jordan, Pakistan, Ukraine, Burkina Faso, Vietnam, Lebanon, Japan, Turkey, and Russia.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/freedom-of-speech-country-comparison/

So if you want to imagine an America without a basic freedom, you don’t have to try very hard. There are lots of countries in the world that lack basic freedoms and rights. Are you in a hurry to visit these places, let alone live in one?

Even the countries above don’t ban their own flag. Some of the most despotic regimes in world history have flown their flags with enthusiastic abandon. Think about the Nazis, when the Swastika reigned supreme. Think about North Korea, where an American student was sentenced to hard labor (and likely tortured) for attempting to steal a propaganda poster. Imagine if he had attempted to steal a flag. Think about the Ku Klux Klan which honors the Swastika (the flag of the holocaust) and the Southern Cross (the flag of the Confederacy and slavery). http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article29557972.html

Flags are both good and bad. They can symbolize great freedoms or they can stand for repression and oppression. Our US flag is great, not in and of itself, but because it embodies the freedoms that Americans enjoy.

There is no doubt in my mind that I would much prefer a future devoid of the Stars and Stripes than one devoid of any of the freedoms symbolized by our flag.

Musings: baseball, hoax, college football, peripathetic

Both wild card games were won by the team with the best record. Good. Even so, having two one-game “playoff” games is stupid. Playing 162 games and making the “playoffs” for one whole game just doesn’t make sense. Neither does having a five-game series in the playoffs. It’s as if MLB wants lesser teams to win.

A better system would be to eliminate divisions. They were created in 1969, so it’s not like they have ancient roots. Instead each league should play a balanced schedule; the current unbalanced schedule in which teams play almost half of their games against the other four teams in their division is absurd. Repeat: absurd.

A balanced schedule would put all teams in a league on equal footing; none would play a weaker or stronger schedule. My scheme is radical, so I might as well double down and propose that MLB decrease the schedule from 162 to 154 games.[1] One hundred fifty-four is the perfect number for two reasons. First it allows each team in a league to play every other team 11 times. Second, it’s the number of games that all major league teams played from the early 20th century until 1960 when baseball expanded.[2]

Notice that there is no provision for interleague games. Even better. That was another silly Bud Selig creation (like the one-game wild card playoff), that is best discarded as quickly as possible. With 15 teams in each league and each team playing all of its games within its own league, one team in each league will always be without an opponent. So what? Let the players enjoy a few three-day vacations during the season in addition to the all-star break. I’m sure they will love it. And the fans will be able to adjust.

Ok – no interleague play, no unbalanced schedule, no divisions, and “only” 154 games. Time to tackle the playoffs: the top four teams in each league make the playoffs. The #1 and the #4 seed play in the first round, as do the #2 and #3 seeds. There will have to be a tie-break system to determine seeds, but no extra games, unless the #4 and #5 or more finished tied.

The first round will be seven games with no extra days between games. That will reward the team with deeper starting pitching. Because of travel and other off days built in to the current system, many teams only use their top three starting pitchers. The second round and the World Series would also be seven games with no extra days between games. The teams all fly charter planes, so the players will be able to handle it, just like they do all year. I might even consider a longer World Series. In the early days, a few World Series were played until a team won five games (1903 and 1919-1921).[3]

Eliminating travel days would help the better teams, who are presumably deeper in pitching and position players – otherwise they wouldn’t have won more regular season games. It would also enable the post-season to end before November. Baseball should not be played when players can see their own breath.

These ideas are available to MLB for the asking. If they want to give me two tickets to the next World Series game seven, I probably wouldn’t say no.

In November 2004, Colin Powell, then US Secretary of State, in response to Russian interference in the elections in Ukraine, stated “We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10212-2004Nov24.html

In September 2017, President Donald Trump, in response to various investigations regarding Russian interference in the elections in the United States, stated “I call it the Russian Hoax, one of the great hoaxes.”

I’m not saying Trump’s victory wasn’t legitimate – it was unless someone can prove otherwise. And, as far as I can tell, nobody is even trying to. That does not mean the Russians did not interfere, which is why the investigations are important. We must determine what happened and attempt to prevent it from happening again. Calling it a hoax demeans virtually every American, all of whom know that the Russians were up to something. Whether that something worked, whether it was collusion, even whether it influenced a single vote, has not been proven – and may never be. But that doesn’t mean that the interference doesn’t matter. And it is beyond debate that their attempt to influence the election was not a hoax.

Q: Why is Ohio State’s football team ranked above Washington State’s?

A: Pedigree.

Oh, I guess you could argue that OSU is more likely to win the rest of its game than WSU. But based on what has happened so far, there is no reason to rank OSU ahead of WSU. They have both played five games – WSU is 5-0, OSU is 4-1.

OSU has beaten juggernauts like Indiana (48th in Sagarin’s College Football Rankings — http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm ), UNLV (101), Rutgers (108), and Army (138). That’s an average ranking of 99. 99! That is an incredibly unimpressive string of victories.

WSU has done something similar, defeating Boise St. (49), Oregon St. (111), Montana St. (135) and Nevada (138). That’s an average ranking of 108, even worse than OSU, though not appreciably so.

But what about the fifth game you ask. OSU played Oklahoma (who was ranked in the top ten at the time) at home and was favored by a bit more than a touchdown. They managed to lose decisively. The final score, 31-16, was not indicative of how little chance OSU had to win. Oklahoma dominated the second half.

Meanwhile, WSU played USC (who was ranked in the top ten at the time) at home and was a five-point (or so) underdog. They won. It wasn’t decisive, but it was a victory.

To recap – OSU and WSU have played four nobodies and beaten them. They have also each played one (at the time) top ten team. WSU won; OSU lost, but is higher ranked because . . .

Neologism (see previous post https://www.notesfromnokomis.com/?p=627 ) – peripathetic. This word was created (by yours truly) in “honor” of the Cleveland Browns. The word combines “peripatetic,” which describes a person who travels from place to place and “pathetic,” which needs no explanation. Neither does the ascription of that word to the Browns.

[1] There would be 5% fewer games. The overall impact on revenues is uncertain, but would likely be less than 5%. For example, no team operates at full capacity, so they can still sell the same number of tickets, just at slightly fewer games.

[2] Does anybody know why baseball expanded? I gave you a clue in my last post.

[3] Baseball expanded in 1960 to forestall the Federal League.

Baseball is Changing and It Isn’t

The modern era of Major League Baseball began in 1901 when Ban Johnson morphed the minor Western League into the major American League. He did this by declaring that the newly-named American League would be a major league. Then the owners of the teams in the American League paid major league salaries and raided dozens of players from the National League. In 1903, the National League surrendered, and agreed that, if the American League would quit signing its players, it would recognize the American League as a major league. That two-league system remains to this day, despite some interesting forays by other putative major leagues: the Federal League in 1914-1915 and the Continental League in 1959-1960.

Since that beginning, certain aspects of baseball have been remarkably stable.[1] The average age of all batters was 28.1 in 1920, 28.3 in 1950, 28.2 in 1980, and it is 28.3 this year.

Here’s another graph based on league average batting average. Other than a live ball era peak in 1930, which was a year of epic offense, comparable to the so-called Steroid Era (the 1990s give or take a few years on either side of the decade), batting average is quite stable, around .260.

And, the last graph highlighting stability shows the average runs scored by each team per game. Other than that bump in 1930, runs scored are quite stable at around 4.5 runs per team.

Other aspects of baseball have changed dramatically. Strikeouts per game have risen sharply, from 3.87 strikeouts per game in 1910 to 8.25 this year.

Complete games per game have dropped even faster than strikeouts have risen as teams limit the innings their starting pitchers throw, hoping that helps them stay healthy. In the early days of modern baseball, starters completed over 60% of the games they started; now they complete under 3%. That is a massive change.

Finally we come to home runs, which are being hit at an unprecedented rate.

This year, players hit more home runs than they hit during the steroid years. Players of that era were pilloried for ruining the game by using steroids. They were accused of desecrating the game (essentially) for exceeding certain magic numbers – 60 home runs in a season for instance. Babe Ruth hit 60 in 1927 and Roger Maris hit 61 in 1961. Nobody else hit 60 home runs in the first 98 years of modern baseball. But in the next four years, three different players eclipsed 60 home runs: Sammy Sosa did it three times, Mark McGwire twice, and worst of all Barry Bonds, when he hit the most ever, 73 in 2001. Many baseball fans have never forgiven them.

I have no doubt that each of those recent 60+ home run years was aided and abetted by PEDs (performance enhancing drugs). I am equally certain that neither I nor anyone else can quantify how much PEDs helped. It just isn’t possible. I fervently wish that the excesses of the Steroid Era had not occurred. But the players did little more than what players have done for decades: push the envelope in an effort to help their teams win games and earn massive contracts for themselves. Think corked bats,[2] improperly stolen signs,[3] spit balls,[4] and amphetamines, among other rules violations.

People tend to scoff at suggestions that amphetamines were as helpful as steroids and other modern PEDs. But the players didn’t. They used them regularly, often every day. It helped them sustain their energy through a 162-game season. Yet, none of the players of the 1960s and 1970s have taken the hits that the Steroid Era players have taken. We should not glorify the players for cheating, but neither should we vilify them.

The bottom line is that many factors affect the total number of home runs that are hit, whether during the Steroid Era, when record numbers of home runs were hit, or now when even more home runs are being hit.

Among the factors that might influence how many home runs are hit are:

Hotter summers – players hit better when it is hot,
Smaller ballparks and shorter fences,
Better scouting – though that would also help the pitchers,
Faster pitches, but less command of the strike zone,[5]
Changes in the ball – they could have more hop or lower seams and, therefore, less movement,[6]
Greater willingness to swing for the fences,[7]
Greater willingness to accept more strikeouts (related to 6 above), and
Changes in the strike zone, smaller and higher.

There are no doubt other factors that I haven’t mentioned. The most important might be that players are continuing to use PEDs. Perhaps they are using them in lower dosages to avoid suspicion, perhaps they are just better at avoiding detection. Few people are talking about PEDs even though home runs are being hit at an historic rate. That might be because no individual player is setting records. [8] Apparently, when players set a collective record, it doesn’t offend sensibilities.

“The more things change, the more they stay the same” is wonderfully trite and even true in certain situations. But in baseball, many things remain stable even as others change dramatically. It’s one of the reasons baseball fans remain in the sport’s thrall. And now we get to watch the playoffs. Happy days.

[1] I like these graphs much better than charts full of numbers. But Word Press can’t handle graphs unless I engage is some pretty serious software manipulation, which I’m not capable of. Instead, I took a picture of each graph, emailed it to myself, and uploaded the graph as a picture. This work around is inelegant, but effective. If any of your know a better way to achieve the same result, I’m all ears.

The data points are the years on the X-axis, 1910, 1920, etc. The lines between the data points are straight. That way I could enter 12 data points, not over a hundred for each graph.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corked_bat

[3] It is likely that one of the most famous home runs in the history of baseball was hit with the help of signs stolen by the use of a telescope. http://www.booksonbaseball.com/2010/08/did-the-ny-giants-steal-the-signs-for-bobby-thomsons-1951-homer/

[4] One great pitcher, Gaylord Perry, was well-known to throw illegal spit balls. It didn’t keep him out of the Hall of Fame. http://www.captainsblog.info/2013/01/10/the-gaylord-perry-problem-hall-of-fame-already-has-a-cheater-in-its-midst/18860/

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/sports/baseball/home-run-trend-derby-all-star-break.html?mcubz=0

[6] http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2017/06/29/a-second-study-confirms-that-home-runs-are-up-due-to-a-change-in-the-baseball/

[7] http://www.chicagonow.com/312-sports/2017/05/why-are-there-so-many-home-runs-in-major-league-baseball-today/

[8] With three games left in the season, Giancarlo Stanton has 59 home runs.

What He Said

I have written about Colin Kaepernick before.

https://www.notesfromnokomis.com/?p=563 Not much has changed, except that POTUS has weighed in with his usual nuanced and thoughtful approach. (For those unable to read sarcasm, what I really mean is “unnuanced and not even close to thoughtful.”)

Rather than repeat myself, I thought I would present my first guest post — though the author doesn’t know it — he invited others (including me) to pass along his Facebook post. BTW, his Facebook post appears to be real. http://www.businessinsider.com/army-veteran-nfl-players-kneeling-during-national-anthem-trump-2017-9

Without further ado, I present Michael Sand.

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, standing

I’ve seen a lot of posts over the last 24 hours regarding “respecting the flag” and what that means…and how athletes who use their public forum to voice dissent are somehow “unpatriotic”. I want to offer a different opinion.

My father is buried at the foot of the flagpole in Golden Gate National Cemetery. He landed at Normandy, fought at the Battle of the Bulge and liberated Nazi camps in Germany. His enemy was fascism. I served as a Green Beret in the early 1970s (pretty sure you all know what that entails). Our enemy at the time was communism. My son is currently a serving officer in the Army, who on his dress blues wears the Bronze Star he was awarded during a year-long tour in Afghanistan. His enemy is and was the Taliban and the threat of terrorism.

Three generations of my family, serving the USA, in harms’ way. Three vastly different enemies, but enemies who shared one common trait. ALL of them stifle free speech. All of them bully, degrade and terrorize those who hold opposing views and who peacefully express them. All of them are intolerant and demand “loyalty” to the leader.

I can tell you, speaking for three generations of my family, it is PRECISELY for men like Kaepernick, and his right to peacefully protest injustice, that we were willing to serve. There is NOTHING more respectful of our country than living up to its ideals. There is nothing more patriotic than to say “I’m concerned with injustice, and will use my position to try and address it.”

Want to know what’s unpatriotic? Using your white privilege to avoid serving, citing “bone spurs in the heel” while playing varsity tennis at college while others went. Want to know what is antithetical to American values? Using the most powerful pulpit in the land to incite violence – against ANYONE. Want to define disgraceful behavior? Denigrating a man like Senator John McCain’s service and heroism while you sat home.

Want to respect the American flag? Then respect the ideals for which it stands. Bullying language and calling peaceful protesters “sons of bitches” who should be fired aren’t among them.

p..s. anyone wishing to share this, please feel free.

Four Comments on Baseball

(1)

The playoffs are upon us and it’s a shame that four wild card teams make the post-season. To be fair, two of them will last just one game. That only adds to the stupidity of the current system.

Under the old system (1993-2011), four teams made the playoffs in each league: the three division winners and the team with the most wins that didn’t win a division. If that were the case this year, we would have four worthy teams in the American League. As of today, Boston (89 wins), Cleveland (96), and Houston (94) would be the division winners and New York (85) would be the wild card team. Minnesota would be the second wild card team with 80 wins. The Twins have a 3.5 game lead on the Rangers and Angels, who are both under .500. News flash: adding a clearly inferior team does not enhance playoff excitement.

The picture is essentially the same in the National League. Washington (92 wins), Chicago (86), and Los Angeles (98) would win divisions and Arizona (89) would be the wild card. The second wild card team is only slightly more credible than in the AL, Colorado has 83 wins, followed closely by Milwaukee (81) and St. Louis (81).

The single game play-in format generates bogus excitement. It is winner-take-all, so inevitably there is interest in who wins. But, in reality, it is just an opportunity for an inferior team to advance and water down the playoff competition.

(2)

The intentional walk is now automatic, if the defensive team’s manager so chooses, and the baseball world is nonplussed (secondary definition).[1]

(3)

One of the great things about baseball is that unusual things happen on the field of play on a regular basis. Sometimes the unusual things are more personal. For instance, Dovydas Neverauskas is not exactly a household name. Well, not in the US anyway. But in Lithuania, he probably is. Neverauskas is the first player in the 100 plus year history of MLB to hail from that Baltic country. But even that is small potatoes compared to Gift Ngoepe. He is the first player not merely from his home country, South Africa, but from the entire continent. No player born in Africa had ever played in the major leagues until Gift pulled on his cleats and played some second base for the Pirates. Dovydas also plays for the Pirates. That seems unusual, but it just a coincidence.

(4)

I’m going to pile a bunch of unusual into one player: Scooter Gennett. He was not a household name entering the season, but now he just might be.

When the season started Gennett has played in 456 games and hit 35 home runs, one every 44 at bats. This season he has hit 27 homeruns in 133 games, one every 16 at bats. That’s almost three times the frequency. That is a highly unusual seasonal improvement. In years past, people would have screamed about PEDs (performance enhancing drugs).

Along the way, Gennett has achieved extremely rare milestones. On June 6, he hit four home runs in a single game. That means he hit more than 10% of the home runs he had hit in 456 games (headed into the season) in one game. That is unbelievable. He became just only the 17th player to hit four home runs in a game.[2] http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/rare_feats/index.jsp?feature=four_homer_game

Gennett’s unusual home run exploits were not done. Last night he hit his fourth grand slam of the year. Only six players have hit more in a season. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/higs2.shtml

And last, Gennett became only the second player to hit four grand slams in the same season in which he also had a four-homer game. The only other player to do it: Lou Gehrig. I’m pretty sure that, entering the season, Gennett had never been favorably mentioned with Lou Gehrig. Now he always will be.

[1] “Nonplussed” has long been one of my favorite words because its two main meanings are essentially antithetical. The primary definition is “so surprised and confused that one is unsure how to react.” The secondary definition is “not disconcerted, unperturbed.” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nonplussed

[2] Subsequently J.D. Martinez hit four home runs in a game. So now, 18 players have hit four home runs in a game.