2007 MLB MVP/CY awards, part 2

The semi-long list of NL MVP candidates are, in OPS order (and excluding pitchers):

Chipper Jones
Matt Holliday
Prince Fielder
Albert Pujols
Chase Utley
Miguel Cabrera
David Wright
Hanley Ramirez
Ryan Howard
Adam Dunn
Jimmy Rollins

First, let's knock off Dunn and Howard, who are having nearly identical seasons that are not quite as good as Prince Fielder's. Next let's unfairly knock off a few people due to circumstances largely beyond their control: Cabrera and Ramirez, because their team sucks, and Pujols and Fielder, either of whom could have won the MVP if their team won the NL Central (and if Pujols hadn't been hurt). Next, we knock off Holliday, because while he's having an incredible season at Coors Field, he's been terrible just about everywhere else (and played absolutely no role in the sweep of the Padres).

I really have no complaints with the last four. Maybe you don't choose Rollins, despite his other outstanding numbers, because of his low OBP; maybe you don't choose Utley or Jones because they spent considerable time on the DL, despite the fact that the Phillies only win when Utley's in the lineup and Jones has had one of his best years; maybe you don't choose Wright because he's otherwise so unobjectionable. Maybe you bring Cabrera, Pujols, and/or Fielder back into the discussion, and I have no complaints with that, either. As I say, I don't envy the voters this year.

2007 MLB MVP/CY awards, part 1

I don't envy the voters. The NL Cy Young and AL MVP races should be sewn up, and the only drama remaining should be who the runners-up to Peavy and Rodriguez will be (unless, of course, the Yankees catch Boston, in which case AL MVP should go to Gagne in a Yankees uniform ;-).

The AL Cy Young and NL MVP are... complete messes. Let's start with the AL Cy Young; the semi-long list, by ERA, is:

Fausto Carmona
John Lackey
Dan Haren
Josh Beckett
Erik Bedard
C.C. Sabathia
Johan Santana
Kelvim Escobar
Justin Verlander
Chien-Ming Wang

This is basically the top eight in ERA, plus Verlander and Wang. Let's start by knocking out Bedard, since he's been injured. Next, let's knock out Wang, since he's a similar pitcher to Carmona (induces an incredible number of ground balls), but Carmona is having a better year. Next, let's knock off Verlander, who has pitched very well in some games but also laid a lot of stinkers. Next, let's knock off Haren, whose ERA has risen in every single start from June 9 to September 22, Escobar, who has been terrible in September, and Santana, who has had a lot of tough-luck losses but also allowed 4 or more earned runs in 5 of his last 6 starts.

I don't have any real complaints about the "top four". Maybe you don't pick Carmona because he's a rookie; maybe you don't pick Lackey because he doesn't have "star power"; maybe you don't pick Beckett because you hate the Sox; maybe you don't pick Sabathia because... well, actually, I'd probably put him first on my ballot this year.

Fun with Afni

Today I received a COLLECTION NOTICE from Afni, Inc., for a "remaining balance from the original creditor for services associated with the previous telephone number listed below". A quick poke on Google showed that a lot of people are experiencing the same; the theme I've picked out is that Afni bought old debt cheap and is trying to collect on it, partly by snail-mail spamming people unassociated with the original accounts. Another problem is that in many cases, the "debts" appear to be billing mistakes by the "original creditors". Yay. Just what I wanted to spend time on today.

What to do? Well, I went to afnicollections.com, just to see how I might "manage my account online". There they want the Account # on the collection notice and the last four digits of your SSN. Hm. Well, I sure as hell ain't gonna give them anything they haven't already proven they know. No SSN on the collection notice, so online account management is out.

There's a toll-free telephone number for Afni listed on the notice; should I call and try to get this straightened out? Well, no. The overwhelming advice I've read is that you do /not/ want to get on the phone with someone whose primary motivation is to get money from you. Seems obvious, but there is definitely an urge to get on the phone/internet and "settle the problem" quickly.

So, it's the snail-mail route for me. These hits were helpful to me in writing a letter: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/271/RipOff0271533.htm#254990 http://complaintwire.org/Complaint.aspx/BL6ADlQfXwAGogjJkKUatA My letter went out in the mail today, Certified, Return Receipt Requested. We'll see what turns up!

The best part of all this? Further down on the Google search was the website for the company that "remove[s] negative information from the first pages of Search Engines and replace[s] the bad links with positive information." The internet is a beautiful thing; it's caused even the companies who harass people for a living to need "protection".

The Enemy of My Enemy is...

This weekend was tough with the Diamondbacks playing the Dodgers, and the Padres sandwiched in between in the standings. Do you root for the Dodgers to win, hoping the Padres will take the division? Do you root for the Diamondbacks to win, because you'd rather they win the division over the Padres than see the Dodgers go to the playoffs? Or do you just hope they split the games?

Clearly, the latter two options are the only acceptable ones (rooting for the Dodgers under any circumstances being unthinkable), and frankly, I'm torn. If Dodgers/Dbacks split games and the Padres just win, you get a little of the best of both worlds, but if Arizona wins, then at least the Padres are that much closer to the playoffs with the Dodgers knocked back in the standings (the Rockies are almost certainly out of it, and the Phillies are just teasing). And, given the recent success of wild card teams, just getting back to the playoffs seems like a good deal.

In any case, the Padres still just need to go out and win games. Go Jack Cassel!

Lastly, here are the cumulative games over .500 by division after games of 9/16; there's not going to be much change from here on out:

            ALE  ALC  ALW  NLE  NLC  NLW
2007-09-16     6   -5   21   -4  -47   29

Taking out the trash

A recent article in Seven Days (the local "indie" paper) reported on the debate over a bill that would add a dollar to the cost of each tire sold in Vermont, which would then go towards the costs of collection and disposal. An opponent of the bill is quoted as complaining about why tires are singled out. “It’s computer stuff, couches, TVs, shopping carts, all kinds of things. Do we now tax a dollar on every TV that’s sold . . . on and on? Or do we try to enforce the current laws?”

Well, actually, putting the costs of collection and disposal up front, when the consumer buys the item, and providing "free" disposal when the consumer wants to throw the item out, makes a whole lot more sense than collecting fees at disposal time and spending money trying to enforce largely unenforceable laws against illegal dumping. Simply take away the "rational" incentive to illegally dump (boy, it's expensive for me to properly dispose of these tires/tvs/etc; I'm just gonna dump 'em in the river/woods and no one will know the difference), and you'll just be left with the vandals (heh-heh, wouldn't it be cool to push a shopping cart down this hill?) to try to catch and prosecute.

The challenge of creating a system in which the costs of collection and disposal are put up front (without creating a more horrible bureaucracy) is left as an exercise to the reader; given the existence of state sales taxes, the collection aspect isn't particularly important. Instead focus on the problems of proper assignment of the cost of disposal for items -- clearly a tire costs more to dispose of than a plastic potato chip bag, but how exactly should you assign costs? (a straight percentage might work; then again, a $40 dvd player probably costs as much to properly dispose of as a $300 one, and a lot more to dispose of than the packaging for $40 worth of organic green tea) -- and the problem of out-of-state and online purchases (solve this latter problem, and you've also solved a similar problem for sales taxes... good luck).

Fun with (X)ubuntu, non-power user edition

I first started to work on unix-type operating systems as an undergraduate, in my sophomore year of 1991-1992, and used them almost exclusively for 4 years while a graduate student. Mind, I had nothing to do with maintenance of these systems (we had a great sysadmin for that), but was a pretty experienced user by 1998. Then I moved to Chicago to work for SPSS, Inc, spent all my time at work on Windows (NT, then 2K, now XP), and my unix skills atrophied. I made a couple of attempts around 2000-2001 to play with a couple different linux distros and freeBSD, but I really just didn't care to spend that much time installing and tooling with my OS, especially when all the great free unix-y apps were being ported to Windows (bring out the GIMP!).

Then, last summer we got a new desktop at home, and I could do whatever the heck I wanted with the old one. My brother-in-law (Ankara) turned me on to Ubuntu, and I toyed around with the Dapper Drake version in my (sadly limited) spare time. The real problem was that the Gnome and KDE desktops felt slow on the old PIII. However, SPSS was now going to ship a Linux client version, so working with my linux box was actually useful for work (the surest way to learn anything is to have a practical goal), so I made do with the Gnome interface most of the summer.

Within the last month, however, I started poking around Xubuntu and decided I really liked how the xfce desktop ran. A co-worker then promptly pointed out Fluxbuntu for older computers, but I think I'll stick with Xubuntu until Fluxbuntu is a little more mature -- not that Xubuntu doesn't have its share of growing pains, the A-#1 for me being the lack of "native" browsing on networked Windows machines. Thank goodness for ubuntuforums.org and google, which revealed this and that.

Win the games you can

Cumulative games over .500

Week        ALE  ALC  ALW  NLE  NLC  NLW
2007-09-09    8   -8   22   -5  -47   30

The competition in the NL West is absolutely brutal (see above), and you have to just win the games you can win, and not worry about the rest. This past week Jake Peavy made a start on 3 days rest, but for Ed Whitson's sake, why?!!?

Sure, Arizona had taken the previous game and would take the division lead with a win on Wednesday, but that single game would hardly make or break the Padres' playoff chances, so there's no need for Peavy to even try to be heroic. I could understand if pitching Peavy on Wednesday would allow Bud Black to slate him in for an extra start by the season's end, but looking ahead, that can't happen. Jack Cassel pitched all right in his previous start, so it's not like Stauffer or Hensley would have to be out on the mound. Saving Peavy for Friday gives him, Maddux, and Germano good rest for the weekend series against Colorado and Chris Young a full week between starts (not to mention the luxury of pitching at Dodger stadium instead of Coors and against a weaker lineup**), and gives you the best chance to win the games you can win. Squeezing Peavy in against a team you're tied with when there are 20 games left is a little panicky.

There's a little bit of hindsight here, because I'm writing after the disastrous weekend results, but that's how I felt on Tuesday -- I just don't like modern pitchers working on 3 days rest without a good reason.

** Young was looking a little healthier in the game against the Rockies than in his previous two starts; here's hoping he's good to go for the playoffs

Still learning...

We took our 3-year-old, Connor, to an "organized" playgroup with native Chinese speakers yesterday to see if he would have fun. Sort of, it was okay, he actually said his name aloud to the group and seemed comfortable clapping and singing in Mandarin. We'll be back there next week to give it another try.

Today we went to an "organized" pre-school soccer group to see if he would have fun. About halfway in to the 40-minute session, he sat on the side while other ran around and kicked soccer balls. No fun, but we'll be back there next week to give it another try, since one of his buddies is also going.

After soccer, we went with a friend to Mount Philo, a local 980' hill, and walked the trail (carrying Connor part of the way in a child carrier backpack) to the summit. After a little picnic, we met an ornithologist who was watching hawks migrating south. He had cool binoculars, and Connor loved looking for birds in the sky (even though he didn't get to use the binoculars), and the ornithologist was happy to talk to us and point out turkey vultures and kestrels (and some other flying things, like dragonflies and swallowtail butterflies :-). We didn't see very many while we were there, he explained to his enraptored audience, because the winds were blowing out of the south, so it was bad weather for winter migrating. After looking for more birds (and the ornithologist was impressed with the fact that Connor found one before he saw it!), and sighting a couple of pirate ships on the lake, we went back down the hill and back home.

So what we've discovered again today is that the best thing to do is to simply go hang out where cool people are and not worry too much about "organizing" fun and learning.

The "Other" Paperback Reutter

Before choosing this moniker for my blog, I ran through several other ideas and promptly discarded them after quick searches to determine that they were already in use by thousands of other people. But then I remembered that my friend Randi referred to me as "Paperback" Reutter in her link to my grad student website from her grad student website, and there just aren't very many Reutters out there... so a search on paperback reutter on Google revealed paperbacks by Mark Reutter (no relation) and, about 15 hits down, Randi's old website! Whee! I love seriously out-of-date personal pages that never get taken down. So the way seemed clear and here we are.

Uh-oh. But if you run a search on "paperback reutter", you get the newsletters for Nate & Ruth Reutter, missionaries to Brazil (also no relation). Actually, the links from the Google hits appear to be broken, so you have to go to their main site at http://www.reutterfamily.com/ and navigate from there to find their "Paperback Reutter" newsletters.

At any rate, while I feel like I've arrived at the ball wearing the same dress as another debutante, I'm confident in knowing that Randi's ancient website distinguishes me as the "original" paperback Reutter on the web. ;-)

Light in August

I'm pretty sure Faulkner is my favorite mid-20th century American writer, in any genre. My first exposure to his writing was in my 12th grade AP English course; we read As I Lay Dying and Absolam! Absolam!, and I absolutely loved the tragic tale of the Sutpen clan. Faulkner has an absolute gift for creating strong and unusual characters with odd problems who are inextricably entwined in a godawfully convoluted set of relationships, all of which is laid bare bit by bit over the course of the novel, with each surprising and tawdry revelation holding the promise of changing how you feel about the characters.

What I dislike about Light in August is the backstory. Or perhaps backstories. The novel begins with Lena Grove, who, on her own qualities and because of the nature of her predicament, is absolutely fascinating. As she approaches Jefferson, her story merges with those of the other "outsiders" of the town of Jefferson, culminating with the murder and burning of the house. It's absolutely beautiful and terrible, and everything is moving along just dandily, and then the narrative is simply cut off to tell the woeful backstory of Joe Christmas (jeez, with that of murder victim thrown in for free!). When we pick up again in the present, the novel rights itself, but why burden an otherwise good book with a salvage operation? I feel as if everything I learned during Christmas's backstory could have been transmitted more skillfully with much less verbiage. The good parts are still really good, though.

West is the Best?

Here are the cumulative games over .500, by division, after games of 2007-09-02

       AL   NL
East    4   -9
Cent   -5  -38
West   23   25

I don't often read about comparisons between divisions, but this seems like a reasonable rough-and-ready statistic; clearly, the NL Central is a terrible division, so everyone wondering whether the Cubs playing barely above .500 is due to the NL Central being a "competitive" division can lay those worries to rest -- maybe they're competitive with each other, but compared to other divisions, not so much. What is mildly surprising is the dominance of the western divisions in each league. Oh, certainly, a more comprehensive metric would be needed to compare divisions across leagues, since there is a 22 game differential between the AL and NL, and I'm certainly annoyed that the AL West and NL Central are unbalanced in the the number of teams in those respective divisions (this really, really, really needs to be addressed), but I'm still happy with cumulative games over .500 as a quick check on the strength of divisions.

Siblings without Rivalry

Yesterday I finished Siblings without Rivalry: How to Help Your Children Live Together So You Can Live Too by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish. It's a pretty useful guide to avoiding some of the common pratfalls of parenting more than one child. My brother and I didn't actually fight very much as kids; from the get-go we were allies "against" our parents, so the cardinal assumption of the book -- that your kids will be at each other's throats -- made it hard for me to relate to the text at first; however, when I stopped to remember that the vehicle for telling the book's "story" is a series of help sessions for parents whose children are fighting... okay, I can get behind that. The book's strength lies in its relative simplicity, so I won't dwell on the fact that it doesn't delve far into some of the subtleties and gray areas (and to their credit, the authors willingly admit this) except for one issue that, as I read it, comes close to being an internal inconsistency, and really needed to be resolved within the book.

At any rate, later in the book is a section on roles, and how parents will create roles for children, other children will create roles for children, and children will create roles for themselves... and how it isn't healthy for your children's relationships for their to be a "smart" one, "athletic" one, and "musical" one; they should all be equally encouraged to be smart and athletic and musical -- the problem here is that there is an earlier chapter on how damaging it can be to try to treat your kids equally; for example, when they ask "who do you love best?" you don't answer "I love all of you equally," you tell them how you love them individually. There is a fine line here between not putting your kids into roles and not trying to treat them perfectly equally.

Based upon my first reading (and having returned the book to the library, I can't go back for a second reading right now, so the problem might not be there), it needs to be clarified in the section on roles that your children should all be encouraged to be as smart and athletic and musical as they can individually be, to make there be a connection between these lessons/sessions rather than a near-inconsistency.