Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Whew, Canton seems to be picking up the pace; six players inducted last year, and seven this year! It's exactly what was needed; too many of these players had been clogging up the list and making it hard to get in. This year's inductees:
Derrick Brooks, Linebacker, Tampa Bay (1st year of eligibility): No questions asked Hall of Famer. A defensive player of the year award, 11 Pro Bowls and 5 All-Pro seasons.
Walter Jones, Tackle, Seattle. Nine Pro Bowls and 4 All-Pros.
Andre Reed, WR, Buffalo. A fine player, at the position most clogged these days. Marvin Harrison and Tim Brown didn't get in this year, but they are inevitable picks eventually. I would have taken Harrison first out of this trio, but Reed has been waiting the longest.
Michael Strahan, NYG, DE. Another easy pick.
Aeneas Williams, DB, AZ-StL. Great player, glad to see him get the recognition he deserved.
Ray Guy, P, Oak. Certainly one of the greatest punters of all time. By the way, I remember the announcers well into the 1980s telling us that he had never had a punt blocked; according to Pro Football Reference this is untrue; two were blocked in 1978 and one in 1979.
Claude Humphrey, DE Atl-Phi. Vaguely remember him from the Philly days, but Atlanta in the 1970s didn't get much national TV.
Morten Andersen. Most points ever, most games ever, most field goals ever. He's the kicker on the Pro Football Hall of Fame's 1980s and 1990s team. Certain to get in sometime in the next couple of years.
Roger Craig, RB, SF-Oak-Min. One of my favorite players ever. He put every ounce of effort into every run. The signature play during the 49ers run from 1984-1989 was Roger Craig catching a screen pass from Joe Montana and barreling around end to punish some hapless DB at the end of the play. What got me was that Craig never seemed to look back for the pass; he would just put up his hand and Montana would hit it.
Terrell Davis, RB, Den. Another great player with a similar career to Craig--somewhat short, but oh, how sweet.
Overall, I am very encouraged that the NFL seems to have broken up the logjam at the Hall of Fame. The pace of inductions means that some of the quality players who have missed out for years, will finally get in, and we can have a meaningful dialogue about those who remain.
Wednesday, July 02, 2014
Bill Chadwick, aka the Big Whistle, was a color man for the New York Rangers TV broadcasts during my youth. Prior to his broadcasting career, he was a longtime NHL referee, although I see by his Wikipedia page
that there was a ten-year gap between the two jobs.
Chadwick was an aggressive "homer" and in his last few years became noted for his exhortations to Rangers defenseman Barry Beck, to "Shoot the puck, Bawwy!" He had the Elmer Fudd speech defect in which all his "R"s became "W"s. This caused some amusement when the Rangers came up with a player named Mario Marois, whose name he pronounced with evident difficulty as Mawio Mawa.
I didn't particularly like Chadwick; like all old people (now including me) he tended to dwell too much on how much better things were in the past. I do find it interesting that he almost lost both his eyes while playing hockey, and that he experienced some discrimination as the first American-born ref in the NHL.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
My Irritation Gets Some Aggravation
Okay, been following the goofball protests at various universities over commencement speakers? Well, so had Princeton's former president
, who took his speech at Haverford U as an opportunity to speak out against the kooks:
“I am disappointed that those who wanted to criticize Birgeneau’s
handling of events at Berkeley chose to send him such an intemperate
list of `demands,’” Bowen said Sunday.
“In my view, they should have encouraged him to come and engage in a
genuine discussion, not to come, tail between his legs, to respond to an
indictment that a self-chosen jury had reached without hearing
The problem that Birgenau had was that despite being at Berkeley (yes, that Berkeley), he was insufficiently deferential to the Occupy Wall Street kooks. So far, so good, but:
Bowen also said Birgeneau had “responded intemperately, failing to make
proper allowance for the immature, and, yes, arrogant inclinations of
some protesters. Aggravated as he had every right to be, I think he
should be with us today.”
Aggravated means "made worse." I am pretty sure that Bowen intended to say "irritated," which Birgenau certainly had every right to be. The former president of Princeton can't get that right?
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Too Young For the Communism Debates...
And thus still a communist. The New York Times gushes
Thomas Piketty turned 18 in 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, so he was spared the tortured, decades-long French intellectual debate about the virtues and vices of communism.
Yes, I'm sure he was. Unless his parents were commies themselves. DOH!:
Mr. Piketty — pronounced pee-ket-ee — grew up in a political home, with
left-wing parents who were part of the 1968 demonstrations that turned
traditional France upside down. Later, they went off to the Aude, deep
in southern France, to raise goats. His parents are not a topic he wants
Fair enough; does he want to talk about the goats? Actually he wants to talk about the usual Marxism that he was too young to debate:
As for the Gulf War, it showed him that “governments can do a lot in
terms of redistribution of wealth when they want.” The rapid
intervention to force Saddam Hussein to unhand Kuwait and its oil was a
remarkable show of concerted political will, Mr. Piketty said. “If we
are able to send one million troops to Kuwait in a few months to return
the oil, presumably we can do something about tax havens.”
Wasn't he 20 or 21 during the first Gulf War? Suddenly he's old enough to learn lessons, whereas the fall of the Soviet Union taught him nothing? And what does he suggest we do about tax havens; invade them?
The rest of the article goes on to decry income inequality. Paul ($225,000 a year to not lecture at NYU) Krugman:
Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel in economic science and a columnist
for The New York Times, wrote that it “will be the most important
economics book of the year — and maybe of the decade.” Remarkably for a
book on such a weighty topic, it has already entered The New York
Times’s best-seller list.
I'm going to make a guess that the author is not going to donate his royalties to pay the bills of the less fortunate, and thus strike a blow against income inequality.
Tuesday, January 07, 2014
This twenty-somethings-should-embrace-communism piece over at Rotting Stump
has already been mocked relentlessly in the conservo-sphere, but I did want to focus on this bit:
Make everything owned by everybody.
Hoarders blow. Take, for instance, the infamous one percent, whose ownership of the capital stock of this country leads to such horrific inequality. "Capital stock" refers to two things here: the buildings and equipment that workers use to produce goods and services, and the stocks and bonds that represent ownership over the former. The top 10 percent's ownership of the means of production is represented by the fact that they control 80 percent of all financial assets.
This detachment means that there's a way easier way to collectivize wealth ownership than having to stage uprisings that seize the actual airplanes and warehouses and whatnot: Just buy up their stocks and bonds. When the government does that, it's called a sovereign wealth fund. Think of it like a big investment fund that buys up assets from the private sector and pays dividends to all permanent U.S. residents in the form of a universal basic income. Alaska actually already has a fund like this in place. If it's good enough for Levi Johnston, it's good enough for you.
No, Alaska didn't buy up all the stocks and bonds of its citizens. It just has excess funds left over from the oil pipeline that it refunds to its citizens.
More important, the idea that the government could buy up everything in the country--buildings, equipment, stocks and bonds, etc., is ridiculous. The market value
of all publicly traded stock in the USA is $18 trillion. And the key word in there is "publicly"; lots and lots of buildings and equipment are privately owned. To give just one example, the Duck Dynasty empire is all owned by the Robertson family.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
I Am Not a Country Fan
Not a country hater either, but holy crap:
Her voice goes past 11. Way past.
Saturday, August 10, 2013
I played a couple games of Yahtzee with family members during a recent vacation, and realized that many (perhaps most) people play the game without realizing the correct odds on certain rolls.
For example, one of the objects in the game is to roll the long straight--either 2 to 6 or 1 to 5. Suppose that you roll four of the required numbers on your first throw, say 1,2,3,4. You have one die left, but two rolls. What are the odds that you will roll the five? Obviously on the next roll it's 1 in 6 and the same applies for the final roll, so your odds are 2 in 6 or 1 in 3, right?
Nope. Sometimes it helps to look at the odds against something happening. In this case, the odds that you don't roll the 5 are 5/6 on each roll. If we multiply those two together, we can see that the odds that you won't roll the 5 are 25/36. Which means that the odds that you will roll the five are only 11/36, or slightly less than 1/3.
This is obviously counter-intuitive, so let's list all the possible rolls:
If you count them up, there are 11 out of rolls with at least a 5, although there are 12 5s overall. The key is that 5,5 roll; that second five is as useful as nipples on men.
There are similar mistakes in statistics on other possible rolls. For example, both my sister and I were exasperated at the number of times we'd roll three of a number, then fail to get the fourth (or fifth) of that number on the two succeeding chances. Again, it seems like the odds are 2/6 twice, or 4/6 (about 67%).
But in fact, they aren't that good. We've already seen that the odds of rolling against rolling any specific number with two dice are 25/36, so all we have to do to find out the odds against it with two rolls are to square that number. It comes out to 625/1296, so the odds of getting that fourth one are 671/1296, which is about 52%.
Suppose you are at the very end and you need to roll three or more of some particular number in order to get your bonus. What are the odds that you will do just that? Unlike in the above cases I am not able to calculate the odds directly, so I set up a spreadsheet where I generated five random numbers. If any of the numbers was a 6, I told the spreadsheet to leave it alone, but otherwise to reroll. Once again I checked for 6s and rerolled any that weren't. Overall I was a little surprised. The percentage of three 6s or better bounced around a bit, but generally was around 35.5%. The percentage of four 6s or better was around 10.4%. And the percentage of Yahtzees (five 6s) was only about 1.3%.