I want to congratulate Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice on their election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Henderson was named on 94.8% of the ballots- somehow 28 voters thought that Rickey Henderson was undeserving of their vote. Rice made it on his final ballot- players can only be on the ballot for 15 years, after that their case moves to the Veteran's Committee, which has come under fire since its controversial election of Bill Mazeroski in 2001; the Veteran's Committee has not elected a player since, despite the widespread public support for Ron Santo's induction.
Anyway, congratulations to both of them. I have been holding a sneaky suspicion that players from the 80s would be overlooked, other than the obvious ones, because of the rise in player statistics since 1993 expansion. So, while I tend to agree with those against electing Rice to the Hall of Fame, it's also nice to see that we aren't necessarily ignoring players' accomplishments as they were perceived at the time.
The next two highest vote totals belong to Andre Dawson (67%) and Bert Blyleven (62.7%). I would fully expect both of them to requisite 75% in the next few years. For Blyleven, induction is far overdue. Amongst the notable statistics in favor of Blyleven:
- At the time of retirement, Blyleven was 3rd all time with 3,701; he's been surpassed since by Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens. All other pitchers in the Top 20 are either in the Hall of Fame, will be in the Hall of Fame, or have a good argument to be in the Hall of Fame, except for one- Mickey Lolich.
- He has 242 complete games over 22 seasons. With the retirement of Greg Maddux, the active leader is Randy Johnson with 100.
- He has 60 shutouts, which ranks 9th all time; 9th!!!!!! The only other pitcher in the top 20 that's not in the Hall of Fame is Luis Tiant, and he had 49. The active leader is Randy Johnson with 37.
All of this is to say that how Bert Blyleven is not in the Hall of Fame is a mystery.
Anyway, with the election of Henderson and Rice, I can't help but look to see how's up for election next time. Of importance in the 2010 election are: Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Edgar Martinez and, my favorite baseball player, Fred McGriff.
I realize that McGriff is probably a borderline, at best, Hall of Fame candidate. He didn't hit 500 home runs, and he isn't normally considered as one of the "dominant" first basemen of his time, often overshadowed by the likes of Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Jim Thome. His adjusted OPS+ is the same as Al Kaline and higher than Hall of Famers Orlando Cepeda, Eddie Murray, Dave Winfield, Jim Rice, not to mention Rafael Palmeiro. He's top 50 in extra base hits and has more of them than Willie Stargell, Willie McCovey, Mark McGwire, Orlando Cepeda; he's only 11 behind Bagwell. He finished 6 times in the top 10 MVP voting, with 1 top 5 finish. For perspective, Jim Thome has 4 top 10 and only 1 top 5, Palmeiro has 3 top 10 and 0 top 5 and McGwire had 5 top 10 and 1 top 5. McGriff is in the top 40 of RBI's, 5 behind McCovey, ahead of Stargell, Bagwell, Thome, Rice, McGwire, and Cepeda. Basically, if McGriff had been playing in the 70's, he'd be almost automatic. However, he played in the 90s at the time of the explosion in offensive numbers.
What he didn't do? He didn't win an MVP, he never had a 40 HR season (he likely would have had that, along with his 500 career home runs had the 1994 season not been cut short due to the strike), but he did have a fairly lengthy and productive run. He hit 30 or more home runs in 7 straight seasons and 10 seasons total; he hit 20 or more in 15 of 16 straight seasons; the one blip- he hit 19 in 1998, but he followed that up 4 seasons of more than 27 home runs and over 100 RBI's. He was in All-Star in 5 seasons, winning the All Star Game MVP in 1994.
I will root for him to make the Hall of Fame, but while I think he'll hang around for his 15 years, I fear that he will ultimately fall short. That will be a shame- he quietly put up numbers, year after year, worthy of the Hall of Fame, only to be overshadowed by brighter names and numbers that may or may not have been aided by various substances. Not only that, but discussion of his merits for the Hall will likely continue to be overshadowed by a discussion as to the merits of Alomar and Larkin amongst those who write about this stuff. Even in retirement, he can't catch a break.
But none of that should diminish his contributions to baseball- after all, let's not forget that it was his trade to Atlanta in 1993 that galvanized the Braves forward into the playoffs as they beat the Giants by 1 game in what's called the last pennant race; or that Atlanta's one World Series title in the 90s came with him on the roster. And that's all without mentioning his fantastic nickname- the Crimedog, or his appearance endorsing the Tom Emanski videos.
So, here's to you Fred. Should you be lucky enough to join the Hall, I'll be there in Cooperstown, cheering you on. . .
Your Fan.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The next bailout?
Apparently, it's the inauguration.
According to the article, President Bush has declared a State of Emergency in the District of Columbia so that the federal government can appropriate additional "emergency" funds to cover the skyrocketing costs of next week's inauguration. The extra money is to come out of FEMA's budget for this year. The Washington Post notes: "Officials said that the move reflected a post-Hurricane Katrina reform that allows the White House to predesignate areas that could become disasters, such as cities in the path of a hurricane."
I don't know which is funnier- having to bailout the inauguration or waiting this long before declaring D.C. a disaster area. What's more troubling is that the purported reason for bailing out the inauguration is that there's a belief that with so many people coming, D.C. will be unable to adequately protect its citizens. The White House noted that federal money will be available so that D.C. can institute protective measures "undertaken to save lives and protect public health and safety." I wonder how many cities, counties, and states will use that defense in asking for federal money to bail them out.
According to the article, President Bush has declared a State of Emergency in the District of Columbia so that the federal government can appropriate additional "emergency" funds to cover the skyrocketing costs of next week's inauguration. The extra money is to come out of FEMA's budget for this year. The Washington Post notes: "Officials said that the move reflected a post-Hurricane Katrina reform that allows the White House to predesignate areas that could become disasters, such as cities in the path of a hurricane."
I don't know which is funnier- having to bailout the inauguration or waiting this long before declaring D.C. a disaster area. What's more troubling is that the purported reason for bailing out the inauguration is that there's a belief that with so many people coming, D.C. will be unable to adequately protect its citizens. The White House noted that federal money will be available so that D.C. can institute protective measures "undertaken to save lives and protect public health and safety." I wonder how many cities, counties, and states will use that defense in asking for federal money to bail them out.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Downward spiral
Here's a question:
As a state worker, at what point should I just stop caring?
Headline from the Sacramento Bee:
"State to shut down first and third Fridays each month"
Awesome.
Now, I work for the state, but my agency is not under the direct control of the Governor, so we are ostensibly exempt from the Governor's various orders on state employees. However, there are other areas where we are not, and if the legislature steps in and passes a law that says we are included, well then, I'll get a 3 day, unpaid weekend twice a month.
So, again I ask, at what point do I stop caring? And I don't mean to insinuate that my desire to do my job, or the fervor with which I care about the issues I work on suffer, just my desire to show up and be productive. About the only productive thing I'll be doing is updating my resume. That being said, I'll certainly take a reduction in pay if it means that I'll keep my job, and this furlough order is basically losing a month of pay over the year; I doubt that the union that supposedly represents my interests agrees with me though.
I won't go into a big, long post about the problems between the Democrats, Republicans and the Governor in Sacramento, there's been enough about that. What I will say is that we can't meet this deficit simply by raising taxes, all that will do is depress spending and production even more; of course, we can't meet this by cutting spending, government does play some role and have a purpose after all. Someone needs to be willing to find that middle ground. That's about all I really feel like talking about on this- it's a mess.
As a state worker, at what point should I just stop caring?
Headline from the Sacramento Bee:
"State to shut down first and third Fridays each month"
Awesome.
Now, I work for the state, but my agency is not under the direct control of the Governor, so we are ostensibly exempt from the Governor's various orders on state employees. However, there are other areas where we are not, and if the legislature steps in and passes a law that says we are included, well then, I'll get a 3 day, unpaid weekend twice a month.
So, again I ask, at what point do I stop caring? And I don't mean to insinuate that my desire to do my job, or the fervor with which I care about the issues I work on suffer, just my desire to show up and be productive. About the only productive thing I'll be doing is updating my resume. That being said, I'll certainly take a reduction in pay if it means that I'll keep my job, and this furlough order is basically losing a month of pay over the year; I doubt that the union that supposedly represents my interests agrees with me though.
I won't go into a big, long post about the problems between the Democrats, Republicans and the Governor in Sacramento, there's been enough about that. What I will say is that we can't meet this deficit simply by raising taxes, all that will do is depress spending and production even more; of course, we can't meet this by cutting spending, government does play some role and have a purpose after all. Someone needs to be willing to find that middle ground. That's about all I really feel like talking about on this- it's a mess.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
A mess of things
In the course of yesterday's workday, two articles were brought to my attention, and I think it worthwhile to highlight them here.
The first is an article written by Eliot Spitzer (yes, that Eliot Spitzer) for Slate. In it he argues that the proposed Obama stimulus package is flawed by focusing on transportation infrastructure, like roads and bridges. Rather, he argues that the money should be spent on "transformative" projects, and that roads and bridges are "not transformative. These projects by and large are building or patching the same economy with the same flaws that got us where we are. Our concern should be that as we look for the next great infrastructure project to transform our economy, we might rebuild the Erie Canal and find ourselves a century behind technologically."
Spitzer believes that government spending would be better "spent on new investments that may not be quite as ready to go but are surely more important to our long-term economic viability." He then argues for government to spend money on installing smart electricity meters, coupled with additional smart grid investments (I'll get to this later), building new service stations that will be able to sell alternative fuels for automobiles, upgrade medical record-keeping, upgrade the internet "backbone", and fund "robotic teams" for schools. He concludes noting that "investing in the necessary public goods to support a post-hydrocarbon, information-based economy is a much better choice than using the stimulus to patch up the old economy."
There are two points I want to make about this article. One, he uses an analogy to the New Deal and says something surprising- "The New Deal probably didn't pull us out of the Depression; World War II did that. What the New Deal did was redefine the social contract—perhaps just as important an outcome." This is surprising because a) there is an admission that the New Deal may not have done what people still think it did and b) recognizes that the importance of the New Deal was not about the economy, but a government-run social engineering program. It is this social engineering aspect of the New Deal that Spitzer hopes Obama will emulate, and Spitzer argues that building new roads and bridges won't accomplish that. Needless to say, I think that government-sponsored social engineering is wrong and should be opposed at every turn. People should be given every chance to suceed and make the best of their lives, undoubtedly there are going to be people who choose not to use that chance and there are going to be people who find ways to better their odds; government should try to make a level playing field, but it is ultimately up to the individual to make their own choices, the government should not be stepping in and dragging the person along.
Second, in the section about smart meters he makes an unsurprising statement (but surprising for its breadth): "The problem with installation of smart meters has been both the cost and, often, state-by-state regulatory hurdles. Now is the moment to sweep both aside and transform our entire electricity market into a smart market." I agree that the problem of getting new meters installed are costs and state regulatory problems; but, we have a federalist system that gives a lot of power to the state. The second sentence is the breathtaking one- that the federal government should both pay for the meters and run roughshod over state sovereignty to accomplish this would be an extreme mis-use of federal authority. As someone who works on that issue, having the federal government step in and take control over this would be a huge mistake. I want smart meters in peoples' homes, but I want that decision and control to be left to the states. The federal government can incentivize this all they want, and they have been, but the ultimate decision should remain with the states.
I have been skeptical of each "stimulus" package that has been proposed, including the bailout packages approved last year. I remain wary of the long-term damage being done to the economy in order to focus on a short-term fix. Just today, the Congressional Budget Office released an estimate that the deficit for 2009 will be $1.2 trillion, with a T, and that does not include the spending in the proposed Obama stimulus package, which will reach nearly $800 billion. According to the article, "Democratic leaders in Congress described today's deficit announcement as stunning and warned of exploding debt in the future. But they said Congress must nevertheless pass a stimulus package quickly." In other words, yes, all this spending will likely cause untold damage in the future, but, in typical congressional fashion (that applies to both Republicans and Democrats), we'll deal with that later. The article estimates that if the Obama stimulus package is passed, the deficit will likely soar to $1.6 trillion, if not more. Astounding. I have little faith that the federal government will spending whatever batch of money that gets approved in the next stimulus package wisely or efficiently, despite having a "watch dog." That simply isn't what governments do.
The second article that warranted my attention was an amusing list of "Bad design trends we hope die in 2009" that was posted on the L.A. Times' web page. Number six is this statement:
The quote is attributed to a guy named Sean O'Connor from O'Connor Lighting. I find this fascinating that a) this somehow made it in the L.A. Times and b) why hasn't anyone made this argument before? All we get bombarded with is "Buy CFLs, Buy CFLs, Buy CFLs" and "Save money, Buy CFLs." When we moved into our new apartment in 2006, we filled the house with expensive CFLs that were supposed to pay itself back and last many years. Almost 3 years later, we've now had 4 CFL's burn out on us, and they can't simply be thrown into the trash because of their mercury content. And I really don't think that they have saved us as much money as promised. Of course, CFLs don't work with dimmers either. I can only wonder at what other energy efficiency tales the public has been sold on where other options are just as viable, but aren't as interesting. How much money has been wasted by consumers on products that ostensibly save money and reduce energy but are no better than what we already have. How much money and time has the government spent on devising rules when the market is already moving in that direction?
On that topic, I note the recent movement by the California Energy Commission to set up energy efficiency standards for televisions. In the article, the CEC already admits that 87% of television models (current and proposed) will meet the standards by 2011- so what's the point in making the standards to begin with? If the industry is already making them, and if consumers actively seek them out, then the remaining 13% will either not be sold, will be remade to meet market demands or will be bought by people who are willing to pay more on their energy bill. All three of them are valid market responses.
It is this type of government heavy-handedness that I fear will become more commonplace as we move into the next administration. The ability of the consumer to decide what they want will be pushed aside in favor of what the government says you should buy, all in the name of energy efficiency and the environment, regardless of the ultimate economics of it all.
Update- not 10 minutes after I posted this, I received an email from my friend Vansmack with a link to this article: "VIZIO Offers Complete Line of Energy Efficient LCD HDTVs." The important part of the article: "Currently, all VIZIO LCD HDTVs meet Energy Star 3.0 requirements for lower energy consumption. These seven new EcoHD(TM) models, however, exceed those standards by as much as 25%, which is good news for both the environment and value-conscious consumers."
Again, this simply points out that industry, tv makers and the market are already moving in the direction of making more energy efficient televisions.
The first is an article written by Eliot Spitzer (yes, that Eliot Spitzer) for Slate. In it he argues that the proposed Obama stimulus package is flawed by focusing on transportation infrastructure, like roads and bridges. Rather, he argues that the money should be spent on "transformative" projects, and that roads and bridges are "not transformative. These projects by and large are building or patching the same economy with the same flaws that got us where we are. Our concern should be that as we look for the next great infrastructure project to transform our economy, we might rebuild the Erie Canal and find ourselves a century behind technologically."
Spitzer believes that government spending would be better "spent on new investments that may not be quite as ready to go but are surely more important to our long-term economic viability." He then argues for government to spend money on installing smart electricity meters, coupled with additional smart grid investments (I'll get to this later), building new service stations that will be able to sell alternative fuels for automobiles, upgrade medical record-keeping, upgrade the internet "backbone", and fund "robotic teams" for schools. He concludes noting that "investing in the necessary public goods to support a post-hydrocarbon, information-based economy is a much better choice than using the stimulus to patch up the old economy."
There are two points I want to make about this article. One, he uses an analogy to the New Deal and says something surprising- "The New Deal probably didn't pull us out of the Depression; World War II did that. What the New Deal did was redefine the social contract—perhaps just as important an outcome." This is surprising because a) there is an admission that the New Deal may not have done what people still think it did and b) recognizes that the importance of the New Deal was not about the economy, but a government-run social engineering program. It is this social engineering aspect of the New Deal that Spitzer hopes Obama will emulate, and Spitzer argues that building new roads and bridges won't accomplish that. Needless to say, I think that government-sponsored social engineering is wrong and should be opposed at every turn. People should be given every chance to suceed and make the best of their lives, undoubtedly there are going to be people who choose not to use that chance and there are going to be people who find ways to better their odds; government should try to make a level playing field, but it is ultimately up to the individual to make their own choices, the government should not be stepping in and dragging the person along.
Second, in the section about smart meters he makes an unsurprising statement (but surprising for its breadth): "The problem with installation of smart meters has been both the cost and, often, state-by-state regulatory hurdles. Now is the moment to sweep both aside and transform our entire electricity market into a smart market." I agree that the problem of getting new meters installed are costs and state regulatory problems; but, we have a federalist system that gives a lot of power to the state. The second sentence is the breathtaking one- that the federal government should both pay for the meters and run roughshod over state sovereignty to accomplish this would be an extreme mis-use of federal authority. As someone who works on that issue, having the federal government step in and take control over this would be a huge mistake. I want smart meters in peoples' homes, but I want that decision and control to be left to the states. The federal government can incentivize this all they want, and they have been, but the ultimate decision should remain with the states.
I have been skeptical of each "stimulus" package that has been proposed, including the bailout packages approved last year. I remain wary of the long-term damage being done to the economy in order to focus on a short-term fix. Just today, the Congressional Budget Office released an estimate that the deficit for 2009 will be $1.2 trillion, with a T, and that does not include the spending in the proposed Obama stimulus package, which will reach nearly $800 billion. According to the article, "Democratic leaders in Congress described today's deficit announcement as stunning and warned of exploding debt in the future. But they said Congress must nevertheless pass a stimulus package quickly." In other words, yes, all this spending will likely cause untold damage in the future, but, in typical congressional fashion (that applies to both Republicans and Democrats), we'll deal with that later. The article estimates that if the Obama stimulus package is passed, the deficit will likely soar to $1.6 trillion, if not more. Astounding. I have little faith that the federal government will spending whatever batch of money that gets approved in the next stimulus package wisely or efficiently, despite having a "watch dog." That simply isn't what governments do.
The second article that warranted my attention was an amusing list of "Bad design trends we hope die in 2009" that was posted on the L.A. Times' web page. Number six is this statement:
CFLs: "To be green, you do not need to suffer with compact fluorescent bulbs, a light source that does not render color or texture and only turns on and off. Instead, do the planet a favor by using a combination of a halogen bulb, which does not use mercury or rare earth phosphors, and a dimmer. If you dim a halogen bulb to 50%, you will save over 40% energy and your light bulb can last more than 10 years."
The quote is attributed to a guy named Sean O'Connor from O'Connor Lighting. I find this fascinating that a) this somehow made it in the L.A. Times and b) why hasn't anyone made this argument before? All we get bombarded with is "Buy CFLs, Buy CFLs, Buy CFLs" and "Save money, Buy CFLs." When we moved into our new apartment in 2006, we filled the house with expensive CFLs that were supposed to pay itself back and last many years. Almost 3 years later, we've now had 4 CFL's burn out on us, and they can't simply be thrown into the trash because of their mercury content. And I really don't think that they have saved us as much money as promised. Of course, CFLs don't work with dimmers either. I can only wonder at what other energy efficiency tales the public has been sold on where other options are just as viable, but aren't as interesting. How much money has been wasted by consumers on products that ostensibly save money and reduce energy but are no better than what we already have. How much money and time has the government spent on devising rules when the market is already moving in that direction?
On that topic, I note the recent movement by the California Energy Commission to set up energy efficiency standards for televisions. In the article, the CEC already admits that 87% of television models (current and proposed) will meet the standards by 2011- so what's the point in making the standards to begin with? If the industry is already making them, and if consumers actively seek them out, then the remaining 13% will either not be sold, will be remade to meet market demands or will be bought by people who are willing to pay more on their energy bill. All three of them are valid market responses.
It is this type of government heavy-handedness that I fear will become more commonplace as we move into the next administration. The ability of the consumer to decide what they want will be pushed aside in favor of what the government says you should buy, all in the name of energy efficiency and the environment, regardless of the ultimate economics of it all.
Update- not 10 minutes after I posted this, I received an email from my friend Vansmack with a link to this article: "VIZIO Offers Complete Line of Energy Efficient LCD HDTVs." The important part of the article: "Currently, all VIZIO LCD HDTVs meet Energy Star 3.0 requirements for lower energy consumption. These seven new EcoHD(TM) models, however, exceed those standards by as much as 25%, which is good news for both the environment and value-conscious consumers."
Again, this simply points out that industry, tv makers and the market are already moving in the direction of making more energy efficient televisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)