UCLA sells America down the river, encourages students to vote

We received the following email from the Chancellor today:

To the Campus Community:

We are just weeks away from the November 4 election, and I am writing to encourage you to take part.  Voting is one of the core responsibilities of every eligible U.S. citizen.  It gives us the opportunity to make our voices heard by choosing the leaders and deciding on the issues that will shape California and the United States for the next generation.

In order to vote, you must register by October 20.  If you have changed your permanent address, name or party affiliation since the last election, you must re-register.  Several helpful links to registration and election information are posted at the California Secretary of State’s Web site, www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections.htm.

In addition to the presidential contest, Californians will choose among candidates for U.S. Congress and state offices, and decide several important statewide ballot initiatives.  I encourage you to learn as much as you can about the candidates and the California propositions in the days ahead and to exercise your right to vote on November 4.

Sincerely,

Gene D. Block
Chancellor

Remember, if you vote in November’s election, you’re part of the problem.  You sell America down the river every time you participate in the process.  By voting or pretending that the democratic process has any positive effect, you legitimize a system in which morons are not only allowed, but encouraged to choose our future as a nation.  The only relevant policies are those which limit procreation and expose democracy as a farce in which the great unwashed forces every aspect of society to absorb its stench.  Idiocracy is here, and participation in the process only entrenches it and supports its legitimacy.  Don’t be fooled.

The 2008 NL MVP “Race”: Final proof that Idiocracy is here

So, we’re at that time when summer slowly turns to fall, when the breeze would be a little bit chillier if I didn’t live in southern California, and when the sportswriters of America “choose” a “most” “valuable” “player”.  Some would say that a non-unanimous victory for Albert Pujols would be something less than a brutal crime against humanity.  I disagree.  Here’s why Pujols doesn’t just win the race, he destroys it:

1) He dominates the NL in nearly every relevant offensive category.  He is second to Chipper in OBP at .453, leads the league with a pornographic .631 slugging percentage, and has a lot of batting average and RBIs, if you care about stupid stats.  If you like decent stats, he leads the NL by 13 Runs Created and leads the league in batting wins and offensive winning percentage.  Basically, he’s a monster at the plate.

2) He is the best defensive first baseman in the game, and among the top defenders in baseball.  Pujols has committed only five errors (another stupid stat), which is tied for best among NL 1B qualifiers.  He leads the league in revised zone rating and is tied for third in out of zone plays (both of the people who have more OOZ plays than Albert have significantly worse numbers in their zone, indicating erratic defense).  Pujols has saved heaven knows how many errors at first base.  It’s not often that the best bat in the league is also the best glove in the league.

3) If you believe in stupid stuff like “intangibles” (which are always then made tangible through nonsensical analysis), Pujols finishes first there too.  On a team that was supposed to win 70 games, Pujols performed well enough to keep the team in contention through mid September.  Pujols is widely acclaimed as one of the hardest workers in baseball and is an amazing influence in the community.  He’s one of the best baserunners in the game.  Despite hitting for outstanding power, he’s one of the toughest strikeouts in the league.  Basically, if you like to define value properly, Pujols wins in a walk.  If you like stupid stuff, Pujols wins that too.  So why is it that at least half of these morons who call themselves “writers” will vote for someone else?  We’ve got a few other candidates in the mix: Ryan Howard, Lance Berkman, Chase Utley, C.C. Sabathia, and Manny Ramirez.  Let’s take those in turn.

RYAN HOWARD

OK, so he’s got a nice smile and craps inner city ballparks.  The only argument for Howard over Pujols is his power: nobody hits for more power than Ryan Howard (or so the legend goes).  But has anybody checked the numbers?  He does have twelve more dingers and thirty more RBI.  However, a much better measure of power is isolated power, which is calculated by subtracting batting average from slugging percentage.  This shows you how hard the batter hits the ball when he hits it, eliminating all those nasty times when he doesn’t.  Here’s a shocker: Howard’s IsoP is .284, Albert’s .283.  They’ve got exactly the same power.  The difference is Pujols provides that power a whole lot more often, crapping doubles while Howard’s crapping cheeseburgers.  And how would you compare the non-power elements of Howard’s game to those same element’s of Albert’s?  Show yourself out.

Q: How do you turn Ryan Howard into Albert Pujols?

A: Add twenty walks, seventeen doubles, and thirty one hits.  Turn lousy defense into the best defense in the league.  Turn a useless baserunner into one of the best.  Subtract eighty plate appearances and seventy pounds.

LANCE BERKMAN

This is a thinking man’s argument.  Lance Berkman is one hell of a player, and Ryan Howard is not fit to carry his jock (at least in 2008).  Berkman finishes a bit behind Pujols in all of the defensive metrics.  The problem is that Berkman is still giving up thirty points of OBP and seventy points of SLG.  He’s a good player, a great player even, but a touch behind Albert in every way, and he plays the same position.  Lance has a great case as the second best player in the league.  He is not the best.

CHASE UTLEY

Utley’s offense lags well behind Albert: he’s giving up seventy points of OBP and a hundred points of SLG despite a much better home ballpark.  The only real argument for Utley is that he has more positional value, which is indisputable.  He might well be the best defensive second baseman in the NL, which is an outstanding point in his favor.  However, it isn’t enough to make up a whopping advantage in Albert’s offensive numbers.  Think of it this way: the offensive difference between Albert Pujols and Chase Utley is pretty much the same as the difference between Chase Utley and Kelly Johnson.  Playing second base doesn’t make that go away.

C.C. SABATHIA

Good night, this is a stupid argument.  But I’ll crush it anyway.  Albert Pujols is sixty eight runs better than the league average hitter.  Over his time in the National League, Sabathia has been about thirty four runs better than the NL average pitcher.  Over the whole season, Sabathia has been about fifty runs better than the average pitcher.  Albert wins easily…..oh crap.  I forgot to mention that Albert is also the best defensive player at his position.  And the baserunning.  And everything else.

MANNY RAMIREZ

OK, so he’s been great for the Dodgers.  Over the whole season, he’s been fourteen runs worse than Albert compared to the league average.  Game over.  And you want to compare their defensive value?  Maybe you think Manny stabilizes a clubhouse while Albert destroys one?  Well, I guess that’s an empirical question…..I don’t even know how you’d evaluate that…..

Why I will not be voting in November

OK, I know: virtually anyone who knows me knows that I prefer Senator Obama’s policy platform to that of Senator McCain. In a walk, really. I’d give Obama maybe a 5 or a 6, while McCain gets a 2 on a ten point scale. If we’re comparing your average Democratic Representative to your average Republican Representative, the breakdown looks basically the same way for me. So why am I abstaining?

I’m not voting because we live in Idiocracy. Democracy has failed, and will never again work properly (assuming we don’t do what’s required and restrict breeding and socialization). Our political discourse is corrupted, and it’s been corrupted by the need to talk to honest, everyday people. People are not good enough for democracy to be worth having. This terrible violence that has been done to the discourse and to our society has manifested itself in at least three ways.

First, honestly considering a proposition is now prima facie evidence of a lack of patriotism or, more likely, “fagginess”. We saw this throughout the primary season. I mean, whatever you think of Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or Mike Huckabee, or John McCain, they’re obviously significantly smarter than average. Clinton and Obama are graduates of legitimate, honest to goodness universities. I’m not familiar with the pedigree of Huckabee or McCain, but wouldn’t the most ardent liberal agree that they’re brighter than ninety eight in a hundred? I know I can. So why do their discussions happen at a fourth grade level? Why is “patriotism” an actual issue in this election? In at least one debate, we will hear someone ask “so, Senator, where do you stand on America?” And, I guaran-damn-tee you, the answers will be parsed for meaning. Lapel pins are a real issue in this election. And you people are the reason why. You don’t want more research on global warming: you want someone to tell you that this position or that is the most “American” thing to believe, or maybe even that God loves you and that makes your thoughts all better. Maybe He does love you, but he doesn’t want you to be stupid, and he certainly doesn’t actively bless your desire to avoid knowledge wherever possible.

Second, the act of justifying policies to the masses alters the content of those policies. Because of the need for the public to understand policies, we’re prevented from doing anything that might actually work. Let’s take one of the few problems that I know something about: nuclear proliferation. The international nuclear nonproliferation regime has been spectacularly effective: it has outperformed expectations for sixty years, despite the bumbling efforts of many. The performance of the regime has been the equivalent of the Baylor Bears winning ten games every year, or maybe Trinidad and Tobago winning the World Cup. Despite every insanely strong incentive to proliferate, many have not done so, and the international regime is the reason why. But now, the public needs to know what to do so that they can, bless their hearts, CHOOSE. Our VPILF-in-waiting has straight up lied about Senator Obama’s efforts on nonproliferation issues, but we don’t live in a world where it’s possible to bludgeon her to death with facts. “Talking tough” and “standing up to [country/religion]” are all that matter now, and this is clearly evidenced by Senator Obama’s failure to slap her hot little face with a copy of the most significant nonproliferation legislation in fifteen years. He KNOWS that she’s lying, and he’s either too cowardly to do it or smart enough to know that it wouldn’t matter. And, our reward is that whomever wins this election will be obligated to talk tough and stand up……just like this administration has done. Nuclear nonproliferation policy is not about talking tough and standing up: it’s about competent management and relentless, universal, and equitable interpretation and implementation of the standards to which everyone has agreed. But not anymore. And it will never be about any of those things again, at least not in America.

What would we expect to see if we relied on one’s ability to please morons as a relevant measure of who should hold power? Wouldn’t we see irresponsible, unbalanced budgets? Wouldn’t we see legislation with the sole virtue of an alluring name? Wouldn’t we see foreign policy that consists entirely of buzzwords? Most of all, wouldn’t we see a failure to congratulate ourselves as a moral failing and, amazingly enough, a relevant policy concern? I mean, damn, you don’t have to believe what I do to see that there’s a problem, do you? Let’s suppose you pray to your 401(k) and wouldn’t help a dying child swallow the food that would sustain life. This nonsense doesn’t even serve your interests.

Third, the march of Idiocracy has made all policies not directed toward fixing our genetic and intellectual maladies irrelevant. Let’s suppose that our political process continues as it does, except that perfect policy falls like manna from heaven. We’re becoming too stupid to implement it. Women who grow to grad school have 1.6 children apiece, and let me be the first to testify that going to grad school is not exactly a reliable indicator of a decent level of intelligence. On the other hand, neither graduating high school nor getting a GED is generally a great indicator of not being intelligent, and these ladies are popping out nearly three kids each. Our women in grad school are having fewer kids than necessary to replace themselves, and our less than special ladies are having far more. Yet grad school enrollment goes up. What, precisely, do you expect is now happening to our grad schools? A person with an IQ of 85 today will likely be at the median in a few decades. Can you even contemplate what that’s going to mean?

What’s the alternative? Thanks to my genetic and cultural poverty, I don’t really know. I’ve only got two suggestions. First, we’ve just got to do something about reproduction. You can’t drive a car without a license. You, in many states, can’t buy a gun without jumping through a couple of hoops. One guy needs to jump through one hoop to create a kid, and this decision has far more potential to harm society than a monster truck rally full of drunk drivers. Second, we need to be far stricter in schools, and students need to be kept there longer. America’s parents are failing – the least we can do for our children is give them half a chance, and our parents can no longer do that. Our worst people are producing the bulk of our society, and that matters. It matters a lot. And that’s why an incremental improvement, corrupted by the need to explain it to the dogs and befouled by society, isn’t even worth the ten minutes it takes to vote.

ESPN debates the NL Central – foolishness ensues

I’ll post my real thoughts on the NL Central race over the All-Star break, but I just couldn’t resist this tasty gem.  How many stupid comments will be made by a full time baseball journalist?  Let’s see. 

(I know this is very FJM, but it’s the division I love, and I can’t stand to see it bastardized)

The Brewers didn’t just make the most important pre-deadline trade of 2008. They made the first pre-deadline trade of 2008. And because they struck so fast, Sabathia figures to sneak in two starts for the Brewers before the All-Star break — and four before the deadline hits. So as rentals go, an elite pitcher who makes 14 starts is likely to make a far bigger impact than a pitcher who makes 10. [more CC stuff]

Let’s assume C.C. Sabathia wins ten of his fourteen starts, and let’s further assume that the Brewer starter he’ll replace will win seven of those fourteen.  That’s three games – probably not enough to ensure that they’ll overtake the Cubs or even hold off the Cardinals.  You should include something else in your “case for Milwaukee”.

The Cubs were the best team in the National League before this deal. And it won’t be easy for a man who only goes out there every fifth day to change that. The Cubs are a deeper, more efficient and more consistent offensive team than Milwaukee, for one thing. They’ve scored nearly 70 more runs (475-406). They’ve outhit the Brewers by nearly 30 points (.283-.255) and have a much better on-base percentage (.359-.324). And the Cubs still have the better bullpen (3.65 ERA to Milwaukee’s 4.07).

Absolutely correct, but you should mention the other team in the NL Central that is three and a half games behind Chicago.  Defeating Milwaukee is a necessary, but not sufficient condition of winning the Central.

The Cardinals have been defying the numbers and the experts all season. So it would be crazy to count them out. You wouldn’t think this would be possible if you looked over the names in their lineup, but they’ve been a better offensive team than the Brewers in just about every category except home runs. The Cardinals also have committed the fewest errors in the league (46 — or 10 fewer than either the Cubs or Brewers). And they figure to get both Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright back in the second half. So they won’t be conceding anytime soon.

The reason for the Cardinal success on offense is their phenomenal walk rate, which has led to one of the NL’s best OBPs (behind only Chicago, of course).  Rick Ankiel has been a better offensive player than Ryan Braun this year, and the reason is that Braun only walks once a week despite his phenomenal power.  Corey Hart is another example of this.  Milwaukee would be the best offensive team in the league if they would learn plate discipline.  But, like, none of that would matter in a baseball chat.  So the Cards can walk, and they’ll be getting a pitcher as good as Sabathia back when Wainwright returns.  That’s the case for St. Louis, although I admit that it probably is a thin one.

I agree with you that no one would want to play the Brewers in October — but not because of their offense. Talked to several scouts about this in the last 24 hours, and their feeling is that this lineup is still one that can be pitched to. It’s still too homer-dependent and too streaky. So to assume it’s going to go on some kind of three-month tear now just isn’t a safe assumption — unless CC hits cleanup. And I know he’d be willing!

No lineup is too “homer-dependent”.  Many lineups are too dependent on hitting four of them to score five runs – such as a team that hits for ridiculous power and never walks.  Milwaukee is hitting a homer and a half a game – in most situations, that would be good for almost three runs.  When your OBP isn’t up to what it should be, it’s not going to help you as much.  Also, some support for “too streaky” would be nice.

Ben Sheets is a big part of this in various ways. But one of the biggest is one you touched on — i.e., health. One scout I talked to mentioned how badly the Brewers played last year after he went down. And given his health history, you wouldn’t want to bet the lake house that he won’t miss any turns the rest of this season. With Sabathia in the co-ace penthouse, there’s no reason now for the ship to sink if Sheets gets hurt.

A Ben Sheets injury still costs whatever it would have before.  The only difference is that they now have somebody else to win some games as well.  So they’d still probably lose a game or two with somebody other than Sheets, they just upgraded somewhere else.  Since we can all probably agree that they’re not going to win the wild card or the division by eight games, those couple games still matter and still reduce their chances.  They just reduce them from a higher baseline, and directly contradict Stark’s argument from later in the chat, in which he says that Sabathia makes them a contender instead of an also-ran.  If you add Sabathia to an also-ran and deduct Sheets, don’t you get an also-ran?  Particularly when Sheets has been a better pitcher than Sabathia this year?

Mark (Milwaukee): Lets not forget about Manny Parra. He’ll be going for his 8th win in a row later this week and in my opinion is fantastic for a 3rd or 4th starter.

 Jayson Stark: You’re right. If he’s the No. 3 starter, at this point you’d take him, Sabathia and Sheets over Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster and Ted Lilly. As someone said to me today, “this is going to force the Cubs to go get somebody.” And they’re looking for a 1-2 as we speak.

And Marshall and Gallagher are much better than whatever slop the Brewers toss out in the 4-5 slots, which pitch exactly as often as the top three.  Maybe this matters less in October, but we’re not talking about October, we’re talking about getting to October.  Big difference.

An every-day player always has more impact than a starting pitcher. And you’re seeing now how much the Cubs miss Soriano. They’re 32-17 when he starts, only two over .500 (21-19) when he doesn’t.

That’s not enough of a sample size to say that, particularly when the Cubs have faced tougher opposition over the forty games without Soriano.  Most importantly, Soriano isn’t really that good an offensive player.  I mean, he’s good, but hardly irreplaceable, and Jim Edmonds has been significantly better than Soriano in his absence.  Wouldn’t hold up over a whole season, probably, but Soriano wouldn’t have produced any more, probably would have produced less, and the Cubs wouldn’t win any additional games.

[The Cardinals] have to keep pace, in my mind. They haven’t been closer to the Cubs than 2 1/2 games in over a month. And the Brewers have made up six games on them in the standings since late May WITHOUT Sabathia. So they might need 20 starts from those two to hang in there, which is asking a lot.

Compare to:

Beware of snapshot glances. You saw the Brewers at their worst, when the Red Sox were playing their best ball of the season. The Brewers are 29-15 since they left Boston, and they’re playing much better baseball.

Cherry picking forty games is a snapshot glance.  They’ve certainly been hot and everything, but I don’t think we should assume the Brewers are really going to win two in three the rest of the way.  And why not?  Oh, yeah: everything we saw in April and May is still true.

There’s no doubt the Brewers are now a team built for October. The problem is, they’re not going to be allowed to get a bye and go straight to October. They’re going to have to earn this in July, August and September. If they do, look out.

Compare to:

I agree with you that no one would want to play the Brewers in October — but not because of their offense. Talked to several scouts about this in the last 24 hours, and their feeling is that this lineup is still one that can be pitched to. It’s still too homer-dependent and too streaky. So to assume it’s going to go on some kind of three-month tear now just isn’t a safe assumption — unless CC hits cleanup. And I know he’d be willing!

So, the team is built for October, except for the lineup, and the bullpen, which you maligned a few posts back.  So what you’re trying to say is that they’ve got three good starting pitchers.  Also true of Chicago, you know, and this chat is about who will win the NL Central.  Or is it?

I mean, let’s just pick one inane story and stick with it, OK?  Promise?

Yeah, they won the Super Bowl, but it was only by ten

Yahoo’s Steve Henson seems to think the Cardinals merit only a B+ so far.  He rightly lauds the performance of several unheralded Cardinals, but provides no real explanation of why the team deserves a grade worse than five other teams (the Rays, Angels, Cubs, White Sox, and Red Sox).  Let’s look at those:

Rays: Yeah, amazing stuff.

Angels: Expected to win their division in a walkover and have outperformed their Pythagorean record by seven games, all in the same season that the projected also-ran Athletics have underperformed their Pythagorean record by four.  Someone should be leading the AL West by 5 1/2, but it’s Oakland, and not Los Angeles of Anaheim of Buena Park.  C at best.

Cubs – Nothing to fault, but they’ve just done as expected.  Nothing shocking here, but an A grade is probably fair. 

White Sox – Again, great work.

Red Sox – They’ve done as expected, except that they’re losing their division to Tampa.  Whatever, they’ll be fine and all that.  But how is Boston doing exactly as well as expected worthy of a better grade than the Cardinals putting together the same record with two thirds of the payroll and one third of the talent?  Ridiculous.

So, my question is basically this: What on earth do the Cards have to do?  I’m not saying they “get no respect” or whatever: that crap doesn’t matter.  What does matter is an unwillingness to establish any internal standards for your own columns and a lack of motivation to write anything other than “look at this laundry list of division leaders and Boston”.  Poor work.

ESPN analyst screws up statistics, probably believes that Adam Dunn clogs up the bases

Jayson Stark is not ESPN’s best baseball guy – Rob Neyer and Keith Law are the primary contenders for that title.  He’s not the worst either, at least as long as Joe Morgan and John Kruk patrol their patches of real estate.  But he’s posted this gem of statistical analysis:

But the more we looked at this, the more we determined that if we make too little of interleague play, we’re making a big mistake.

Just two World Series winners in the interleague era have had a losing interleague record.  And all told, those 11 champs were a combined 37 games over .500 in interleague games (110-73).

 

But if you factor out the 2006 Cardinals (83-78 overall, 5-10 in interleague), a team that defied odds across the board, it gets even more pronounced. The other 10 winners had a .625 interleague winning percentage — the equivalent of a 101-win season. Those same teams had just a .593 winning percentage against their own league.

Where to start?  Well, first, you can’t conveniently exclude outliers without a better reason than “defied odds across the board”.  Sure, that Cardinal team wasn’t your typical division winner, but outliers help us to understand why the process doesn’t always produce what we’d usually expect.  In Starkworld, however, a difference that amounts to five games over a whole season (.032 of winnig percentage) collected from a trivial sample size is much more statistically significant than one randomly chosen outlier, which would have formed 8.33% of Stark’s “data” “set”.

Second, if you pick any random 18 game set, it’s very likely that teams who are good enough to contend for a title will do well in that, whether the category is actually revealing or not.  For example, no team has won a title this decade with a losing record on artificial turf.  Boston, however…….is 2-10 on the stuff.  2-10.  Start the Boston Grass Party, ’cause you’re going to need it, now that your season is mathematically over. 

(And, by the way, that isn’t far off.  They’ll need to win basically all of their games in Toronto and Tampa to get to .500, which is of course absolutely necessary to win a title.)

Third, if the “AL is stronger” thesis really holds water, you’re now setting the bar even lower – the NL has had just four world champions since 1996, one of which was arbitrarily thrown out of the data set.  This makes it even more likely that these random fifteen games will be against weaker opposition, making Point #2 even more compelling.

Fourth, Stark drops this gem:

But when we ran that research past an official of one contending team, he didn’t sound shocked.

 

“You can’t go 2-10, or 3-12, in interleague play and get to the postseason,” he said, flatly.

 

Well, that sounds logical enough. But is it? Isn’t it worse to have two bad weeks against the teams in your own league, the teams you’re actually fighting for those playoff berths? It seems like it. Except that interleague time is “the one time all year,” said the same official, “where you can lose that day and every team in your division can gain ground on you, because none of them are playing each other.” Hey, good point.

Ho.  Ly.  Shit.  This is where the dum-dums really come out.  In your league, a game lost is a game won by a potential competitor.  In interleague, that’s not true.  So, regardless of the way the standings look in the short term, it is MUCH worse to lose to a team in your league, particularly if that teams turns out to be a contender.  A brief thought experiment, if you will:

Let’s assume that all contenders except for Team A play .600 baseball in all of their games that are not against Team A.  They play .500 against each other and .700 against the also-rans.  Team A also plays .600 baseball, but some of Team A’s games are against teams against whom Team A is not competing at all.  If Team A loses to those teams, then Team A must inflict additional losses on potential competitors in its own league in order to play .600.  This, in itself, has the potential to make Team A’s competitors worse off in the standings.  However, if you kick the hell out of the teams against whom you’re not competing, your record is actually less valuable, as you inflicted fewer losses on your potential competitors.

Make sense?  Oh, shoot, I’m sorry.  Dusty Baker’s delivering a baserunning sermon – you were probably distracted by that.  Go over there.  And don’t forget to ask him for pitching tips for your teenaged son.