Well, the NH primary was discouraging. Clinton won and Guiliani wasn't buried by Ron Paul so the dread Clinton-Guiliani race is still a possibility.
If that occurs we need an independent ticket and I have a better idea than Mike Bloomberg.
The 2008 Dream Team
President - Colin Powell, VP - Bill Bradley
They announce the following choices for their cabinet.
Secretary of Defense - John McCain
Secretary of State - Al Gore
Secretary of Treasury - Mike Bloomfield
Attorney General - John Edwards
Head of Homeland Security - Mitt Romney
Head of EPA - Ralph Nadar
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
We Didn't Start the Fire
Goose Gossage into the Hall of Fame, finally.
Boys and girls back before the days of the closer, back before Lee Smith, Dennis Eckersley, Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman; baseball teams had relief pitchers who were Fireman. They came into the game - not in the beginning of the 9th inning, no on, no out, with their team ahead. They came into the game in the 7th, 8th or 9th with men on base and good hitters up and their job was to prevent not merely the batter at the plate from scoring, their job was to prevent the runners at 2nd and 3rd from scoring. They were call Firemen. They doused opposition rallies.
In this role no one was better than Goose Gossage.
In the beginning, pitchers pitched the entire game. Babe Ruth pitched 107 complete gamesi in 5+ seasons; Greg Maddux has completed 109 games in 22 seasons. Relievers were not that important before the 1960's.
There were a couple of successful relievers for a season or two but the first star reliever was Hoyt Wilhelm. He changed the game. He was a knuckleball pitcher and a relief specialist. He set the example for relief specialists who had one or two dominant pitches. In the 1960's the firemen role was established by guys like Roy Face, Ron Perranoski and Dick "the Monster" Radatz. This was the role that Gossage assumed in the 70's and 80's.
He came to the Yankees in 1978. In the previous year, 1977, Sparky Lyle was the Yankee fireman and won the Cy Young award. But everyone knew that Gossage was much, much better. Craig Nettles offered a famous and brilliant line that Lyle went from Cy Young to Syanora when the Yankees signed Goose.
He was that good. And, certainly better than Bruce Sutter who was elected into the Hall of Fame last year.
Boys and girls back before the days of the closer, back before Lee Smith, Dennis Eckersley, Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman; baseball teams had relief pitchers who were Fireman. They came into the game - not in the beginning of the 9th inning, no on, no out, with their team ahead. They came into the game in the 7th, 8th or 9th with men on base and good hitters up and their job was to prevent not merely the batter at the plate from scoring, their job was to prevent the runners at 2nd and 3rd from scoring. They were call Firemen. They doused opposition rallies.
In this role no one was better than Goose Gossage.
In the beginning, pitchers pitched the entire game. Babe Ruth pitched 107 complete gamesi in 5+ seasons; Greg Maddux has completed 109 games in 22 seasons. Relievers were not that important before the 1960's.
There were a couple of successful relievers for a season or two but the first star reliever was Hoyt Wilhelm. He changed the game. He was a knuckleball pitcher and a relief specialist. He set the example for relief specialists who had one or two dominant pitches. In the 1960's the firemen role was established by guys like Roy Face, Ron Perranoski and Dick "the Monster" Radatz. This was the role that Gossage assumed in the 70's and 80's.
He came to the Yankees in 1978. In the previous year, 1977, Sparky Lyle was the Yankee fireman and won the Cy Young award. But everyone knew that Gossage was much, much better. Craig Nettles offered a famous and brilliant line that Lyle went from Cy Young to Syanora when the Yankees signed Goose.
He was that good. And, certainly better than Bruce Sutter who was elected into the Hall of Fame last year.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Rocket Man
So what do we make of Mike Wallace's interview of Roger Clemens?
Not much I think.
First, I do not trust anything I see on 60 Minutes. The interviews are edited. It seems to me that the story lines are always one-sided. It is not journalism, it is a TV entertainment show.
Putting that aside, at least Clemens directly and vehemently denied the allegations. So it really comes down to who is lying? Brian McNamee or Roger Clemens? I don't think we will ever a final answer to this unless one of these two change their stories, or this is a third party with corroborating evidence - one way or another.
NcNamee's claim is bolstered by the Mitchell report which states that McNamee made the following deal with that prosecutors.
"No truthful statements can be used against McNamee in any federal
prosecution by that Office; if, however, he should be untruthful in any statements made pursuant to that agreement, he may be charged with criminal violations, including making false statements, which is a felony."
This suggests, and apparently Mitchell believed this, that McNamee had no reason to lie and a very good reason to tell the truth. Additionally McNamee's story about Andy Pettitte was confirmed by Pettitte.
On the other hand, McNamee claimed he started giving Clemens steroids during the summer of 1998 and Clemens showed immediate improvement. My understanding is that steroids does not work this way. It only works over time.
Clemen's version is bolstered by (a) his agreement to testify before Congress, (b) his slander suit, and (c) most importantly, his performance and his body.
Unlike Bonds, Clemens did not get better after 1998. True, his performance at that stage of his career was historic. He won two Cy Young Awards after 1998 but neither year matched his early years with the Red Sox. He stopped pitching complete games after 1998. His last good year was 2005 at age 43. His ability to sustain his performance is similar to Nolan Ryan who also pitched effectively into his mid-40's.
So bottom line, Clemens is innocent till proven guilty. Assuming that his performance was not improved by PED, then you have to say that he is easily the greatest pitcher since WWII. Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove and Clemens are the three best pitchers in history.
Not much I think.
First, I do not trust anything I see on 60 Minutes. The interviews are edited. It seems to me that the story lines are always one-sided. It is not journalism, it is a TV entertainment show.
Putting that aside, at least Clemens directly and vehemently denied the allegations. So it really comes down to who is lying? Brian McNamee or Roger Clemens? I don't think we will ever a final answer to this unless one of these two change their stories, or this is a third party with corroborating evidence - one way or another.
NcNamee's claim is bolstered by the Mitchell report which states that McNamee made the following deal with that prosecutors.
"No truthful statements can be used against McNamee in any federal
prosecution by that Office; if, however, he should be untruthful in any statements made pursuant to that agreement, he may be charged with criminal violations, including making false statements, which is a felony."
This suggests, and apparently Mitchell believed this, that McNamee had no reason to lie and a very good reason to tell the truth. Additionally McNamee's story about Andy Pettitte was confirmed by Pettitte.
On the other hand, McNamee claimed he started giving Clemens steroids during the summer of 1998 and Clemens showed immediate improvement. My understanding is that steroids does not work this way. It only works over time.
Clemen's version is bolstered by (a) his agreement to testify before Congress, (b) his slander suit, and (c) most importantly, his performance and his body.
Unlike Bonds, Clemens did not get better after 1998. True, his performance at that stage of his career was historic. He won two Cy Young Awards after 1998 but neither year matched his early years with the Red Sox. He stopped pitching complete games after 1998. His last good year was 2005 at age 43. His ability to sustain his performance is similar to Nolan Ryan who also pitched effectively into his mid-40's.
So bottom line, Clemens is innocent till proven guilty. Assuming that his performance was not improved by PED, then you have to say that he is easily the greatest pitcher since WWII. Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove and Clemens are the three best pitchers in history.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Dr. Robert
So what are we to make of the Mitchell Report on steroids and performance enhancement drugs(PED)?.
Not much I think.
The report affirms what we all believed which is that the use of PED was widespread and that baseball managers, general managers, owners, trainers, players, agents, players union and the commissioner's office were all aware of this fact and did nothing.
Why was nothing done? I'm not sure. Who was being hurt by the use of PED? Not the owners, general managers, managers or the players who were using PED. I think the only potential agents for fixing the problem were the commissioners office and the player's union. The primary victims were the clean players who were at a competitive disadvantage to the users.
The reasons for using PED were and are compelling. Take the example of a marginal catcher. If you play at AAA level you would make less than $100,000. The minimum salary for the major leagues is about $400,000. If a marginal catcher can sustain a career as a backup catcher the salary would grow to $400,000 - $700,000 a year. If a marginal catcher could land a starter's job even for a year or two the salary would probably exceed $1,000,000.
The difference is ability of a AAA-catcher and a backup catcher (e.g. OPS .630) and a marginal starting catcher (e.g. OPS .700) is indeed thin. But the difference is salary is enormous.
The same salary disparity combined with ability similarity exists for marginal relief pitchers.
So it was not too surprising to see that many of the players named in the Mitchell Report were marginal players. They had a lot to gain and little to lose by taking PED. And since there is no testing for HGH, I would suspect that there are many players in these categories still using HGH.
What should we think about the players named in the report?
Not much I think.
Mitchell had very few sources. There was a concentration of players named that were associated with the Mets trainer and Yankees conditioning coach. I suspect that other teams had as many players involved as the Mets and Yankees. My guess is that many of the players named were users but the evidence in the report was not corroborated by second sources. As my son pointed out, a newspaper, even the NY News or Post would not have printed these names based on only one source.
The one issue that remains open is how should serious baseball analysts evaluate the records of players in this era in general, and how should we evaluate the records or known PED users such as Bonds and McGwire? Note I leave Clemens off the list of "known users" for now.
That's a difficult question that I leave for another time.
Not much I think.
The report affirms what we all believed which is that the use of PED was widespread and that baseball managers, general managers, owners, trainers, players, agents, players union and the commissioner's office were all aware of this fact and did nothing.
Why was nothing done? I'm not sure. Who was being hurt by the use of PED? Not the owners, general managers, managers or the players who were using PED. I think the only potential agents for fixing the problem were the commissioners office and the player's union. The primary victims were the clean players who were at a competitive disadvantage to the users.
The reasons for using PED were and are compelling. Take the example of a marginal catcher. If you play at AAA level you would make less than $100,000. The minimum salary for the major leagues is about $400,000. If a marginal catcher can sustain a career as a backup catcher the salary would grow to $400,000 - $700,000 a year. If a marginal catcher could land a starter's job even for a year or two the salary would probably exceed $1,000,000.
The difference is ability of a AAA-catcher and a backup catcher (e.g. OPS .630) and a marginal starting catcher (e.g. OPS .700) is indeed thin. But the difference is salary is enormous.
The same salary disparity combined with ability similarity exists for marginal relief pitchers.
So it was not too surprising to see that many of the players named in the Mitchell Report were marginal players. They had a lot to gain and little to lose by taking PED. And since there is no testing for HGH, I would suspect that there are many players in these categories still using HGH.
What should we think about the players named in the report?
Not much I think.
Mitchell had very few sources. There was a concentration of players named that were associated with the Mets trainer and Yankees conditioning coach. I suspect that other teams had as many players involved as the Mets and Yankees. My guess is that many of the players named were users but the evidence in the report was not corroborated by second sources. As my son pointed out, a newspaper, even the NY News or Post would not have printed these names based on only one source.
The one issue that remains open is how should serious baseball analysts evaluate the records of players in this era in general, and how should we evaluate the records or known PED users such as Bonds and McGwire? Note I leave Clemens off the list of "known users" for now.
That's a difficult question that I leave for another time.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Mrs Robinson
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon,
Going to the candidates debate ...
A presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani would give us a choice between two candidates completely unqualified to be president based on their experience and personal integrity. This would be the ultimate "lessor of two evils" election. Maybe our worst option since Nixon-Kennedy.
Here's a look at some of the other possible elections.
The polar opposite of this would be a race between two "nice" guys - Obama vs. Huckabee. They also lack experience but at least we would not have to listen to Hillary and Rudy shriek at each other for months.
If somehow Iraq becomes the central issue and we want to elect a president that actually has some ideas regarding Irag and some foreign policy experience then the choice could be McCain vs. Biden. Both of these candidates at least thought about what to do next in Iraq.
If the election becomes a choice between management and leadership skills and experience then Mitt Romney becomes the obvious Republican choice. For the Dems the choice is less obvious. If you were an investor in a Fortune 500 company which one of the Democratic candidates would you want to run that company? The answer may be Bill Richardson or perhaps John Edwards.
If each party was most concerned about electability then they would each choice a white, male, Protestant that was either a sitting president, governor, former vice president or war hero and was not from the north-east. Did you know that there since World War 2 we have elected only one senator, only one North-Easterner and only one person who was not a Protestant? All three exceptions were JFK, 1960.
This 'electability' eliminates all of the Senators and Guiliani. It also eliminates Romney. That leaves Bill Richardson vs. Mick Huckabee. I could live with that choice.
Going to the candidates debate ...
A presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani would give us a choice between two candidates completely unqualified to be president based on their experience and personal integrity. This would be the ultimate "lessor of two evils" election. Maybe our worst option since Nixon-Kennedy.
Here's a look at some of the other possible elections.
The polar opposite of this would be a race between two "nice" guys - Obama vs. Huckabee. They also lack experience but at least we would not have to listen to Hillary and Rudy shriek at each other for months.
If somehow Iraq becomes the central issue and we want to elect a president that actually has some ideas regarding Irag and some foreign policy experience then the choice could be McCain vs. Biden. Both of these candidates at least thought about what to do next in Iraq.
If the election becomes a choice between management and leadership skills and experience then Mitt Romney becomes the obvious Republican choice. For the Dems the choice is less obvious. If you were an investor in a Fortune 500 company which one of the Democratic candidates would you want to run that company? The answer may be Bill Richardson or perhaps John Edwards.
If each party was most concerned about electability then they would each choice a white, male, Protestant that was either a sitting president, governor, former vice president or war hero and was not from the north-east. Did you know that there since World War 2 we have elected only one senator, only one North-Easterner and only one person who was not a Protestant? All three exceptions were JFK, 1960.
This 'electability' eliminates all of the Senators and Guiliani. It also eliminates Romney. That leaves Bill Richardson vs. Mick Huckabee. I could live with that choice.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Here Comes The Sun
It seems that the dialog about global warming and climate change is very different than it was a year ago.
No longer is there a serious disagreement or debate on (1) the earth is getting progressively warmer, (2) there is a statistical correlation between green house gasses and the earth's temperature, (3) there is a causal relationship between burning fossil fuels and green house gasses, (4) therefore the earth's rising temperature is caused by the action of humans over the last 50 years, and (5) the trend will continue unbated at least in the short term, probably for 5-10 years.
Now the conversation is about medium term adaptations and longer term solutions.
It seems to me that some of the news (again medium to long term) is positive. Alternative energy solutions abound and as the direct cost of oil increases and the indirect costs of burning oil and coal become more objectionable then these other alternative sources will become economically viable. For example, I would not be surprised to see solar panels as a routine addition to residential housing or average car efficiency exceeding 50 mpg.
Someone once posited that in time George Harrison would be remembered as one of the major figures in bringing eastern religion and philosophy to the attention of the West and ,oh, by the way, he was also a musician.
Perhaps Al Gore will be chiefly remembered as one of the main figures who changed perceptions about climate change and ,oh, by the way, he was once close to being the president of the US.
No longer is there a serious disagreement or debate on (1) the earth is getting progressively warmer, (2) there is a statistical correlation between green house gasses and the earth's temperature, (3) there is a causal relationship between burning fossil fuels and green house gasses, (4) therefore the earth's rising temperature is caused by the action of humans over the last 50 years, and (5) the trend will continue unbated at least in the short term, probably for 5-10 years.
Now the conversation is about medium term adaptations and longer term solutions.
It seems to me that some of the news (again medium to long term) is positive. Alternative energy solutions abound and as the direct cost of oil increases and the indirect costs of burning oil and coal become more objectionable then these other alternative sources will become economically viable. For example, I would not be surprised to see solar panels as a routine addition to residential housing or average car efficiency exceeding 50 mpg.
Someone once posited that in time George Harrison would be remembered as one of the major figures in bringing eastern religion and philosophy to the attention of the West and ,oh, by the way, he was also a musician.
Perhaps Al Gore will be chiefly remembered as one of the main figures who changed perceptions about climate change and ,oh, by the way, he was once close to being the president of the US.
Friday, November 9, 2007
What's Going On
Some ideas about the economy and markets. I have been thinking about the macro trends in the economy and have wondered how we can maintain these trends:
The US government spends more money than it raises each year.
As a nation we import more than we export each year.
As a nation we consume more than we produce each year.
As a nation individual house-holders spend more than they make.
Some individuals borrow more than they can repay.
So he have a huge and growing national debt. Living it up ..
The concern of foreclosures is leading to a tightening of credit and leading financial losses for the financial services companies and a slowdown in home-building.
And, lastly, a huge and growing deficit in the balance of payments. Let's start there.
The trade imbalance means that China ends up with lots of US dollars that they do not spend on US goods and services. What happens to the money? It goes into savings and investment accounts denominated not in Chinese Yuan but in US dollars. So the money has to be invested in either US dollar financial assets, e.g. stocks or bonds, or the Chinese investor can exchange the US dollar for some other currency. Since China has so many USD they primarily invest in US Treasury bonds, e.g. they are buying the bonds the US government has to issue each year since the US government spends more than it collects in taxes, fees, etc. So China is lending the US government money to finance the war in Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthy, and bridges to nowhere.
When the Fed reduces interest rates, short term T-Bills will pay less in interest and and inflation may grow. If we get inflation the value of long term bonds will decrease. Both of these make buying USD financial assets less attractive. So holders of USD trade them for more "stable" currencies such as the Euro, British pound, etc and then buy financial assets dominated in these currencies.
For this currency trading, if someone is selling Euro for USD they will play less for the USD as the number of sellers increases. This is just basic supply and demand combined with the financial risk of owning USD. So what happens, the USD gets cheaper in relationship to other currencies, the price of imported goods and services increases. The price of oil may exceed $100 a barrel before I finish writing this.
So what does this all mean?
The bond market is worried about inflation.
The stock market is jittery.
Stuff, especially imported stuff will cost more. Since we import oil this means the cost of energy will go up so the cost of US produced goods will also increase. In a word, inflation will increase and eventually interest rates will go up.
We will have to buy less stuff. This means a "reduction in the standard of living". I put that in quotes because it does not mean a reduction in the quality of life for most of us. It just means less stuff.
This could be a good thing. We spend less on imported stuff and maybe more on local goods and services. We use less energy. We create less waste. We buy only what we can afford because of the increase in the cost of borrowing. Maybe we save a little money from time to time. We visit the Blue Ridge or Rocky Mtns instead of the Apennines. Maybe we ask Dad for some money.
Maybe the Chinese economy slows down and they slow down a little in the pollution of the planet. Maybe the US government balances the budget.
In the meantime if you are an investor, invest in stocks not bonds especially not bonds in USD. Invest in natural resources as a hedge against the USD continuing to getting weaker.
Lastly and most importantly, Don't Panic.
It's just stuff and mostly harmless.
The US government spends more money than it raises each year.
As a nation we import more than we export each year.
As a nation we consume more than we produce each year.
As a nation individual house-holders spend more than they make.
Some individuals borrow more than they can repay.
So he have a huge and growing national debt. Living it up ..
The concern of foreclosures is leading to a tightening of credit and leading financial losses for the financial services companies and a slowdown in home-building.
And, lastly, a huge and growing deficit in the balance of payments. Let's start there.
The trade imbalance means that China ends up with lots of US dollars that they do not spend on US goods and services. What happens to the money? It goes into savings and investment accounts denominated not in Chinese Yuan but in US dollars. So the money has to be invested in either US dollar financial assets, e.g. stocks or bonds, or the Chinese investor can exchange the US dollar for some other currency. Since China has so many USD they primarily invest in US Treasury bonds, e.g. they are buying the bonds the US government has to issue each year since the US government spends more than it collects in taxes, fees, etc. So China is lending the US government money to finance the war in Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthy, and bridges to nowhere.
When the Fed reduces interest rates, short term T-Bills will pay less in interest and and inflation may grow. If we get inflation the value of long term bonds will decrease. Both of these make buying USD financial assets less attractive. So holders of USD trade them for more "stable" currencies such as the Euro, British pound, etc and then buy financial assets dominated in these currencies.
For this currency trading, if someone is selling Euro for USD they will play less for the USD as the number of sellers increases. This is just basic supply and demand combined with the financial risk of owning USD. So what happens, the USD gets cheaper in relationship to other currencies, the price of imported goods and services increases. The price of oil may exceed $100 a barrel before I finish writing this.
So what does this all mean?
The bond market is worried about inflation.
The stock market is jittery.
Stuff, especially imported stuff will cost more. Since we import oil this means the cost of energy will go up so the cost of US produced goods will also increase. In a word, inflation will increase and eventually interest rates will go up.
We will have to buy less stuff. This means a "reduction in the standard of living". I put that in quotes because it does not mean a reduction in the quality of life for most of us. It just means less stuff.
This could be a good thing. We spend less on imported stuff and maybe more on local goods and services. We use less energy. We create less waste. We buy only what we can afford because of the increase in the cost of borrowing. Maybe we save a little money from time to time. We visit the Blue Ridge or Rocky Mtns instead of the Apennines. Maybe we ask Dad for some money.
Maybe the Chinese economy slows down and they slow down a little in the pollution of the planet. Maybe the US government balances the budget.
In the meantime if you are an investor, invest in stocks not bonds especially not bonds in USD. Invest in natural resources as a hedge against the USD continuing to getting weaker.
Lastly and most importantly, Don't Panic.
It's just stuff and mostly harmless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
