My Two Cents

For the record, I have no problem with the Russians taking the lead on the whole Syria situation.  All these people who worry that the United States is ceding its leadership or damaging its international prestige should relax: They're right!  And this is truly not a bad thing.  Sure it gives Vladimir "Pecs" Putin the opportunity to tweak the US in the pages of The New York Times--but as we all know, Times readers are all latent Communists anyway.  More importantly, though, this could avert war and give American leaders the opportunity to refocus on domestic needs.  Like that'll happen.  But a guy can dream.

In Case You Missed It

I just found out that today was "Positive Thinking Day."  I suppose it would have been more useful to know this earlier, as I've already spent the entire day exuding a miasma of ill-will and sarcasm.

"But Solipsist, if today is Positive Thinking Day, then when can we celebrate our inner pessimist?"

Ah, that would be "Negative Thoughtsmas."

"And when is Negative Thoughtsmas?"

Oh, my child, every day is Negative Thoughtsmas.

Well, I Know What They MEAN

Today, as I worked through some more of this massive editorial project, I came across this sentence: "The administration practices openness and full disclosure when possible."  Am I the only one who sees a problem with that statement?  Particularly the phrase, "full disclosure when possible."  To me, that sounds like you're saying, "We'll always tell you the truth except for when we have to lie to you."

Random Baseball Wednesday

I'm sitting here watching a baseball game, just trying to zone out and find momentary respite from the thoughts ever-churning in my head, when on the screen flashes a statistic about the two teams' relative success in one-run games--and I'm off to the races again.

 
Because, I mean, what is this statistic supposed to mean?  Yes, I know what it means! I'm not an idiot!  It refers, of course, to the teams' respective won-loss records in games decided by one run or less.

(WOS: Um. . . How many games are decided by less than one run?)

(SOL: Totally not the point!  Leave me alone!)

What I'm getting at, though, is what is this statistic supposed to mean, exactly?  My point, though, is what exactly is a statistics-obsessed baseball fan supposed to glean from this data point?  If a team is successful in one-run games, does this suggest a superior bullpen with a dominant closer?  Conversely, does a losing one-run record mean that the bullpen is constantly failing--or is it more an indictment of an offense that can come close but just can't quite get the job done?

Indeed, I suspect that a team's record in one-run games will track fairly closely its success in all games.  Here, for example, are the current records of National League East teams:

Atlanta             Overall: .600    One-run: .585
Washington      Overall: .524    One-run: .543
Philadelphia     Overall: .463    One-run: .521
Metsies             Overall: .444   One-run: .458
Florida              Overall: .375   One-run: .387

With the exception of the Phillies, the difference between win percentage in one-run games and all games is less than two percent.  You can pretty well predict how well a team will do in close contests simply by seeing how they do overall.  The only interesting revelation here is that all but one of the teams does better in one-run games than in other games--which somehow seems to defy logic--not that a team would do better in one-run games, but that most teams do better in one-run games.  Of course, ultimately this just proves the truism that if a team keeps a game close, it gives itself a better than average chance of winning.  But who needs truisms when you've got obsessive statisticians?

Oh, and one other thing, is it my imagination, or does it seem to other people like the Yankees play the Red Sox, like, 984 times a year?

I Believe in the Easter Bunny, Too

I guess it's good news that we may not have to bomb Syria after all--although I must say, it's been a stressful few weeks, and a little vicarious wanton destruction would have done this weary soul some good.  Still, I find the whole proposed workaround a bit dubious.  If I'm understanding things properly, Russia has suggested--and Syria has at least not out-of-hand rejected--the idea that a military solution can be avoided as long as Syria promises to let international inspectors check out--and eventually remove or destroy--Syria's chemical weapons.  I mean, if the goal is to thwart Syria's ability to launch chemical weapons attacks on its own or other people, this sounds like an eminently reasonable solution.  As long as you trust Syrian authorities to be forthright with international inspectors about the condition and location of all its chemical weapons' facilities--you know, those facilities that up until about, oh, an hour and a half ago, Syria was claiming didn't exist.

Whatever.  The whole realm of international politics--and domestic politics, for that matter--depends for its continued functioning on a certain willing suspension of disbelief--a willingness to accept things at face value despite all evidence to the contrary (the US doesn't torture, the members of Congress are motivated solely by a desire to help the American people, everyone has an equal voice in society regardless of wealth--you get the idea).  If accepting this empty promise keeps America out of yet another war, I guess that's a price worth paying.

Tonight's Post. . . .

. . . has been preempted due to grading and car trouble.

Opening Day Thoughts

A few random thoughts on this, the first full day of the 2013 NFL season:

--Watched the Raiders-Colts game.  The Raiders lost, as one would expect, but they displayed some promise.  I must say, I was impressed by Oakland quarterback Terrelle Pryor: Yes, he threw a game-ending interception, but he also fairly shredded the Indianapolis run defense.  Who knows?  Maybe the Raiders will be watchable this year.

--Kansas City beat Jacksonville 28-2.  Somehow, I think that '2' is even more embarrassing than a shutout would have been.

--The Jets won!  OK, they won as a more or less direct result of a ticky-tack penalty being called on Tampa Bay in the final minutes--BUT THEY WON!  And, hey, if we're going to start complaining about the Jets winning only due to another team's incompetence, well then we're just going to have to complain about, like, every Jets win in the history of ever!

--Dear Eli: Throw to the guys in BLUE shirts!