Blog Preview

I have been away from the blog, as paper writing (42 pages over the last two weeks) has largely dominated my life.  So, here is a preview of what is coming over the next week:

MLB Preview – It will be big, long, and right.

Campaign 2008 – Veepstakes for Obama, plus my pick for who John McCain should take

Bracket Update – I have six of the eight Elite Eight teams, and it could be more – I’ve gone 1-4 in overtime this tournament.

Miscellaneous – Stay tuned!

Go Toreros!

 Sometimes, you just gotta love March Madness!

Then again, I had USC in the Elite Eight, Baylor and Drake (oh, man, what a game) in the Sweet Sixteen.

Saw It, Had to Post It

I am currently writing a long paper for a law school final, and a lot of the research has involved combing the New York Times. Below is an actual internet advertisement next to one of the Times articles:

NCAA Quick Picks

I’m not going to go through my whole bracket here, but I do have some picks that I am going to get down on paper.  Luckily for me, all of the players are men, so I can avoid the disaster that was my Oscar post.

Biggest Upset (first round): San Diego over UConn (I hate UConn!)

Biggest Upset I don’t have the guts to pick (first round): Boise St. over Louisville.

Seed 7 or above that makes the Sweet 16: Butler, West Virginia, Baylor

Seed 4 or above to make the Elite 8: USC, West Virginia
Final Four: Louisville, Kansas, Memphis, UCLA

Championship: Kansas over Memphis

Oh, these are boring picks, I know.  Normally, I go for bigger upsets, but I just don’t see it this year.  The two best teams in my mind, Kansas and North Carolina, got the tougher draws.  I do see some carnage with the two seeds, though, and have only one making the Elite 8.

I personally like Stanford, and think they present a matchup nightmare for Memphis.  Memphis isn’t a great outside shooting team, relying heavily on guard penetration.  The Tigers haven’t seen anything close to the Lopez twins all season.  However, Texas can definitely hit the three, and should beat Stanford, but won’t be able to keep up with the Memphis attack.

Kansas is Memphis + defense, better outside shooting, and free throws.  Kansas 84, Memphis 72.

How to Fix the Florida/Michigan Mess

Note: This post has received a lot of attention (well, for this blog, anyway) because it has been tagged on foxnews.com.  If you are a new reader, I encourage you to comment on this post, even if you think I am totally off base – if you have a better idea, please put it in the comments section.  All feedback, as long as it is PG rated, is welcome.  Also, take a look around the rest of the site, and hopefully you will find something you like.

Today, the Florida Democratic Party announced that there will be no re-vote in the Sunshine State. That means the only current results coming out of Florida happened when none of the candidates were allowed to campaign or air advertisements in the state. Furthermore, we are nowhere close to figuring out a way to seat Florida’s delegation.

Michigan is worse. At least in Florida, all of the candidates were on the ballot, which gives that vote the aura of legitimacy. Clinton, however, was the only major candidate on the Democratic ballot, beating “Uncommitted” 55% to 40%. You can’t give all of the “Uncommitted” votes to Obama, because there is no way to know how many of those votes would have gone to Obama. You also can’t give Clinton all of the votes that she got in Michigan, because she was the only candidate Michiganders could vote for, and people generally like to have their vote count.

So, what do you do? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer, or even moderately difficult answer. Every answer is going to anger one, or both, of the campaigns.

The first thing you must do is seat the delegations, and start with that as a baseline. National Convention delegates tend to be party leaders within the states, and activists who hold every dinner party, bake sale, and voter registration drive they can. You can’t piss off the most fervent, organized, and dedicated supporters you have in two of the largest swing states. Not seating Florida or Michigan could have the very real consequence of giving both states to McCain.

Secondly, you have to understand that no candidate will agree to a deal that puts their chances at the nomination in jeopardy. That means that there is no way Clinton will agree to seating both full delegations with a 50/50 split for each candidates, because that solution takes away two of her better chances of closing the gap between her and Obama, and reduces the number of superdelegates Obama needs to get the nomination. Obama will not let the Florida and Michigan votes dictate the seating, because both advantage Clinton and close the pledged delegate gap, a gap Obama needs to maintain in order to convince superdelegates that a vote for Clinton is a vote against the people.

Quick recap: we have to seat both delegations, but we can’t seat them in a way that is unfair to both. Could we seat them in a way that is fair to both, slightly unfair to Florida voters, and totally crazy?

Here’s the plan: all delegates are “superdelegates” that come out of Michigan. Michigan gets its full delegation, but each member of that delegation gets to vote for whomever they choose at the convention. Florida’s vote is split – half of the delegates are tied to the vote in Florida, half the votes are “superdelegates” that are on their own.

There are some clear advantages to this plan. First, both delegations get seated. Second, most of the delegates are not tied to sham elections. Third, both candidates have an equal shot at these superdelegates, which is more fair. Fourth, pledged delegates can change their minds, anyway, so it is kind of a false bonus for those who make it to the convention, but it seems like Michigan and Florida are getting something extra out of this. Fifth, these delegates are chosen by the people of Florida and Michigan (I am assuming – that’s how it is done in many other states) through a tiered election process; if you get elected in your precinct, you go to the county convention, then to state if you make it out of the county, and then to the national convention if you win at the state level.

There are some clear drawbacks. The main one is that the vote in Michigan still doesn’t count, and the Florida vote only counts for half – I’m not sure if Clinton would go for it. That is why I have half the vote counting in Florida, for the Clinton buy-in, but I don’t know if that is enough. There is also the issue of pissing off the delegates from other states who want the kind of autonomy delegates from Michigan and Florida will get. Finally, the chaos of having well over 100 additional “superdelegates” that disrupts the candidate’s math and the confidence voters have in the process (see my earlier post: Nana and the Superdelegates”).

If you have a better idea, let me know, and it will get posted. Or, just tell me why I am wrong – always love to hear that, as well.

P.S. Someone should tell the Florida Democratic Party that the headline “Democrats see chance to unseat 3 Cuban-Americans” is probably not the best move in Miami. Even if it is from some newspaper, don’t post it on your website. Just don’t.

Sweet Onion Fantasies

For those who don’t know, I have taken this New Year’s resolution farther than I originally anticipated. Instead of posting on just one blog, I have been posting on two! Along with a college buddy of mine, we started “The Sweet Onion Fantasy Report” which primarily examines fantasy sports (our tagline is “Peeling back the layers of conventional analysis to make sure this season doesn’t bring tears to your eyes). I’m using this post as a plug for the site, and to give you an example of the content. Below are two posts of mine, one about the upcoming NCAA basketball tournament, and one about a young Los Angeles Dodger outfielder that has caused much consternation amongst fantasy baseball players. Enjoy (or skip, if it’s not your thing)!

Bubble Guide
March 12, 2008

I wanted to take a step back from baseball, in part because I am still decompressing from my latest draft, and give you a quick guide to the NCAA Tournament bubble. Joe Lunardi on ESPN.com does a pretty good job of giving a breakdown of each team’s chances to make the tournament, so I will give a more general overview of what factors to look at to determine whether your team will make the Big Dance.

Taking on Goliath

The more good teams that you have beat, the better your chances of making it off the bubble. These wins are separated into two categories: Wins against the RPI Top 25 and against the RPI Top 50. Three wins in the latter is almost a must for a BCS conference school, and getting near a .500 record in these games is also a bonus. Multiple wins against the Top 25 won’t guarantee a ticket to the Dance, but it is usually a point for a bubble teams that most other bubble teams won’t have.

Strength Away from Home

The NCAAs take place at neutral sites, and the Committee prefers teams that have shown they can succeed away from home against quality competition. Teams that rely almost exclusively on what it did on its home floor to make its case will often lose out to teams that maybe did a little less, but did more on the road.

Polls

They don’t matter. Ignore, ignore, ignore.

RPI

The RPI matters a lot less than people think, in large part because there a still a lot of kinks to work out of the system. Arizona State has an RPI in the 70s right now, and is squarely on the bubble. Missouri State had an RPI of 21 a few years ago, and didn’t make it.

Head-to-Head

If two bubble teams are vying for one of the last spots, if one team dominated the head-to-head matchups, or won the last matchup decisively (or on a neutral floor in a conference tournament), that could very well be the tiebreaker. “We beat them by 30, and they only beat us by two in double-overtime,” however, will not matter.

Conference Records

How a team fairs in its conference matters more than people give it credit. The Committee looks at how teams have done later in the season, and conference records are usually based on the back half of a team’s schedule. However, this applies primarily to teams in the Top 10 conferences. Davidson, which went 22-0 in its conference this season, was still on the bubble until it received the Southern Conference’s automatic bid. Kentucky, meanwhile, has basically overcome a disastrous non-conference schedule with a 12-4 SEC record.

Conference Tournaments

By far, the most important games for the Committee when it comes to determining both entry to the Dance and seeding. Neutral floor, high-powered teams, bubble foes, conference records – conference tourneys have it all. Lose early, and seemingly safe teams may find themselves in the NIT. Make it to the championship, and a seemingly poor profile might all of a sudden just enough.

Will your team make the cut? Ask us.

Player Analysis: Matt Kemp
February 26, 2008

Will, I am treating your question as an opportunity to “answer” why Matt Kemp is rated so high, or low, depending on your point of view.

A little background is in order here. I have done four mock drafts so far, and Kemp has hung around well past the 66th pick in all of them. Then, today I looked at the mock draft done by experts for ESPN.com, and Kemp goes 51st. So, ESPN.com seems to be rating Kemp significantly higher than the general public.

One of the reasons Kemp’s value has climbed this year is because he is actually going to play full-time. Last year, AARP member Luis Gonzalez patrolled the outfield along with Andre Ethier and Juan Pierre. The Dodgers signed Andruw Jones to play centerfield, pushing Pierre into a battle with Ethier over the leftfielder job. Kemp, by all accounts, has rightfielder sewn up, and should get more than the 292 AB he got last year.

A quick look at Kemp’s stats raise two red flags. First, Kemp only walked 16 times and struck out 66 times. The strikeout rate is not bad, but when compared to his walk rate it is awful. Last season, 280 players had at least 300 PA. Kemp finished 248th in BB/PA, and 266th in BB/K. Basically, his plate discipline is horrible.

Second, Kemp had 100 hits last season. For a guy who is 6′2″, 230 lbs., you would think that he would have a ton of power. However, 73 of those hits were singles. So, he may have gotten inordinately lucky last year.

So, is Kemp headed for a significant slide in 2008? Well, first, let’s take a closer look at the first red flag, his plate discipline. Kemp actually showed great improvement in his K% between 2006 and 2007. If he is able to further cut down on his strikeouts, he will just be a guy who puts the ball in play almost all the time. Looking at his K% in the minors, improvement is very possible. If that K% holds, or goes up, without the BB% improving, be on notice that a sophomore slump could be coming.

What about Kemp getting lucky when he puts the ball in play? Actually, Kemp has had a knack for hitting it where they ain’t for the last two years. Kemp’s BABIP has been over .370 in the minors the last two years, regardless of the level he’s played. Therefore, while I expect a regression from the insane .417 he hit last season, his BABIP should still be very high. His line drive % should also go up from 17.9% last year.

Kemp’s value will be higher in leagues where AVG is a category instead of OBP, but he should remain an asset in both. At least this season he should still be largely a singles hitter. However, with his job safe, a .310/20/85 year with 15 SBs is definitely not out of the question.

So, where does a .310/20/85 season put Kemp amongst the other outfielders? In a single season league, ESPN.com has Kemp 19th:

16. Bobby Abreu 17. Manny Ramirez 18. Torii Hunter 19. Matt Kemp 20. Hunter Pence 21. Corey Hart 22. Adam Dunn

I think this is fair, although I personally think Hunter is a huge risk to take at that point in the draft. However, looking beyond Kemp, we see three outfielders who have virtually the same value. Once you get past Alex Rios at 15, the value of the following outfielders is very similar. Therefore, I wouldn’t use a sixth round pick on Kemp, which is what you would have to use to get him at 66.

The keeper league analysis is different. At 23, Kemp has a long career ahead of him, and he could challenge for batting titles while hitting 30 HR and getting 20 SB. Is that his ceiling? Maybe, but it would not be too much to expect Kemp to turn into a top 12 outfield in two years. You could do much worse with a fourth or fifth round pick.

 

Obama’s Unfair Advantage

Would Obama be the leader for the Democratic nomination if he was white? Geraldine Ferraro, Walter Mondale’s running mate in 1984 and member of the Clinton finance committee, believes she has the answer:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position… And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Ferraro has continued to defend her remarks, despite the Clinton camp distancing themselves from the comments (although they are defending Ferraro by attacking her attackers).

First, there have been three African-Americans elected to the U.S. Senate since Reconstruction. Would Ferraro seriously argue that Obama’s race has been an advantage up to this point?

Second, this is a disturbing addition to the narrative that continues to spill out of the Clinton campaign, which began with Bill Clinton’s comments that Obama’s campaign is a “fairy tale.” Oh, you may say, that comment was taken out of context. I reply with the 3 am phone call advertisement. The sarcastic (and funny) stump speech where Clinton mocks Obama’s message. Clinton’s new line that Obama’s entire campaign is based on his speech against the Iraq War in 2002. Clearly, Clinton is trying to paint the Obama experience as not serious and a mirage. Ferraro’s comments unfortunately fit rightin with that narrative.

However, let’s assume, for a minute, that Ferraro is right, and Barack Obama’s race is such a huge advantage that he would not be the Democratic leader without it. Is that such a bad thing? Presidential politics is about more than simply who has the best five-point plan on medical records. It is about inspiring the nation, and a candidate who crosses racial lines is more able to bring varied constituencies into the fold, and build broader coalitions to put the necessary pressure on other politicians to advance a Democratic agenda. Furthermore, African-Americans, as I stated in my previous post, have been subject to such a sordid history in this country that there is a strong sentiment that disenfranchisement and racism are the norm; an Obama victory would go a long way to eliminating the cynicism that pertains in this community. There is also the notion that America electing a racial minority to the presidency would be a powerful visual to the whole world that this is not the country of George W. Bush, at least anymore.

What do you think? Would Hillary be able to do similar things because she is a woman? Is Obama’s racial advantage merely electoral, and would not help when it comes to advancing policy?

UPDATE: Ferraro resigned today from the Clinton campaign, but continues to display a remarkable lack of contrition.

Nana and the Superdelegates

No, this is not the name of my neo-retro bubblegum pop band.

I was in QFC on Friday, buying Lean Cuisine TV dinners and Vitamin Water (the two essentials of my diet during my second year of law school), when I got a call from my grandmother, known in my family as simply “Nana.” Nana, an Obama-turned-Hillary-turned-Obama supporter (she’s a little fickle), was very concerned about these “superdelegates” and wanted to know what they were all about. After two minutes of explaining what they were to the best of my ability, Nana was none-too-pleased. We went back and forth for the next ten minutes, agreeing with each other that the superdelegates were undemocratic and unfair to those who voted in the primaries and caucuses. We ended the conversation with Nana frustrated with her Democrats (she believes Republicans are evil), and I was lost in QFC (also known as “in the produce section”).

The conversation got me thinking: what if Hillary won? At this point in the race, what would be the consequences of a Clinton victory in the Democratic primary? After a fair amount of consideration, I have concluded that a Clinton victory would be borderline catastrophic for the party.

Let’s first look at how Clinton would get the nomination. At this point, she will not catch Obama in pledged delegates. That means going into the convention, Obama will be ahead on delegates decided by the voters. Therefore, Clinton will have to rely on superdelegates and/or some pledged delegates switching in order for her to get the nomination. If, and this is a huge if, Clinton has managed to capture the popular vote, then this scenario will be difficult for the party, but not incredibly damaging. If Obama goes into the convention with the popular vote and pledged delegate lead, lookout. To delve deeper into the problems, both in the short-term and long-term, let’s take a look at the constituencies that will end up as the losers in a Clinton victory.

African-Americans. Black voters have a disenfranchisement complex to begin with, and rightly so (see: Florida, Ohio, and the first 230 years of U.S. history). Ever since the Civil Rights Act and the Southern Strategy, African-Americans have been the most reliable constituency for either party in terms of percentage. Now, try telling black voters that the party they have supported for the last 40+ years is going to take the first black candidate to reach the precipice of a major party nomination, who has more votes and more delegates than the white candidate, and a bunch of party insiders are going to go against the majority of voters and nominate the white candidate. I’m sure that will go over real well.

Young voters. Many Obama supporters, and far more than for Clinton, have voted for the first time this Democratic primary. After Robert Kennedy’s assassination and the 1968 Democratic Convention, Eugene McCarthy failed to capture the nomination despite strong support from college students, the country watched as a whole generation of liberals largely checked out from politics, and an era of conservatism was born. Introducing young voters to a process where a handful of power-brokers are able to nominate a candidate other than their own, and counter to the pledged delegate and popular vote counts, could be equally as damaging. Especially when Democrats seem on the cusp of a new, persistent majority.

Nana. I know Hillary dominates the wise-woman vote. Nana, though, embodies another constituency altogether, those who are more aligned with what the Democratic Party stands for than a particular candidate. For Nana, superdelegates seem like something the Republicans would do, a top-down, hierarchical system where the will of the masses doesn’t matter in comparison to the will of the powerful and influential. This constituency is equally at risk of becoming disillusioned by a process where party insiders overrule a majority of voters and pledged delegates, and will simply not vote in November.

Democrats need African-Americans, the young, and Nana, both in November and beyond. They would be well-advised to ensure that these constituencies are protected, not dismissed.

Lazarus?

I hope you political junkies didn’t have any plans for the spring…

I stayed up late on Tuesday, with a half-hour presentation due the next day, to make sure I watched the results from Texas come in. As a Steve-o-come-lately to the Obama camp (I supported Senator Biden until he dropped out), the slow but steady diminishing of Obama’s lead, followed by Clinton taking over and gradually increasing her lead, was not exactly the capper to the night I was looking for. Now, Clinton is back in the race, even though she still has an uphill climb to get the nomination. The real question we should ask, now that Clinton has begun a comeback in earnest is…

Should I gloat? Obama clearly played the prevent defense, spending several days in both Texas and Ohio leading up to March 4. This strategy became clear during Obama’s speech, where he barely acknowledged Clinton and proceeded directly to a contrast between him and McCain. Clinton only made a net gain of a handful of delegates, so why shouldn’t Obama be the presumptive nominee now?

Answer: Clinton beat him. She got more votes in Texas and Ohio. That’s it. A more complicated analysis will be ignored by the American people and, less surprisingly, the mainstream media. Now, CNN and MSNBC will continue to keep their strong, election-year ratings as this “neck-and-neck” race continues to Pennsylvania and beyond. If Obama had just concentrated on Texas and gained two points, he wins there and, for all intents and purposes, the campaign is over. Now? Seven weeks of weathering continued attacks from Clinton, seven weeks of trying not to make a mistake, and seven weeks of getting defined as a wet behind the ears rhetorician with no substance by two well-financed, well-organized campaigns. Awesome.

Let the Monday morning quarterbacking commence.

Quick Post

I am very busy through Wednesday, so look for a large post on Thursday detailing the results of Tuesday’s primaries in Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island.

I do want to give you a couple of links.  Bill Simmons, the Sports Guy on ESPN.com, posted two sets of e-mails from fans of our beloved basketball team, the Seattle Supersonics, and other NBA fans who are outraged that the team may be moved to Oklahoma City.  I just ask that you check it out.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080228&sportCat=nba

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080229&sportCat=nba