The news blowup from US General McChrystal's disrespectful remarks (more from his staff than from him, really) about our civilian leadership gave President Obama a good opportunity to make some mid-surge course corrections.
McChrystal had already been warned about opening his mouth to the press, during the 2009 review which led to the decision to make the surge. The comments quoted in the Rolling Stone article were punishable under the military code. I thought, though, that Obama could've taken the opportunity to "show empathy" and forgive (though most people didn't).
I think the reason why he didn't is that the battle hasn't really been going well enough, thus far. The President has brought David Petraeus, the professor of counterinsurgency strategy, back in to replace McChrystal, the practitioner. He will have a chance to revise strategy, rules of engagement, and even the grand plan.
As I suggested before, my recommendation is that the US plan an offensive for the fall of 2011, just when the Taliban is going to think it's safe to come out of hiding with the Americans starting to leave. The objective of this surge, and of that offensive, would be to deal them a harsh blow, to weaken them for the next phase, when they would be permitted to live in peace in Afghanistan, and thus hopefully to prevent their dominating the country when we have substantially completed our departure (which must be by November, 2012).
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Isner-Mahut Marathon
For those among you who are not tennis fans (hard as it is to imagine), the news of the first week of the Wimbledon tennis championships was the five-set marathon between American John Isner and Frenchman Nicholas Mahut. There were five sets, and the score was roughly this: 6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 6-7, 70-68.
Wimbledon is one of the few tennis tournaments that has not gone to the tiebreaker for the final set (the French Open is another). The match goes on until someone wins by two games. The fifth set, then, was some three times as long as the rest of the match, and it was played on a knife-edge throughout: one service break game, and the match would be over (and that's what finally happened, after some 168 consecutive service games held, Isner broke Mahut's serve and the match was indeed over).
There were several admirable aspects of the match: really good serving by both players, incredible tenacity, physical endurance, patience, emotional stability, great bladder control (!) and good sportsmanship. Isner has risen to the top 20 in men's tennis with a powerful, accurate serve, and in this match, Mahut--a qualifier who's just outside the top 100--was close to his equal in serving. What it was not was exceptional tennis: the only reason a match would go on that long is because neither player could break the other's serve. Most of the points were aces, service winners, or at most a couple of shots long.
The long deadlock (basically seven hours of serve and re-serve, on Thursday: the match had been suspended for darkness on Wednesday after the first four sets, and the finale was "just" an hour and a half and 15 games or so on Friday) gradually caught the attention of the tennis world as it dragged on, and there were a ton of single-match records broken. Still, I wouldn't call it epic--the Federer-Roddick finals from last year was much more impressive (though similar in its fifth-set stalemate, just not lasting quite as long, but with much more at stake). The stakes were not really so high--it was a first-round match, and pretty much suicidal from the point of view of the tournament. After the three-day match threw off the schedule (that's pronounced "shedule"), Isner had to come back the next day and was promptly ousted from the tournament in a quickie, 6-0, 6-3, 6-2. It will be interesting to see how quickly Isner and Mahut recover from the marathon and return to full strength; also, to see how much commercial mileage they can make from their new fame.
It's perhaps surprising there hasn't been such a ridiculous fifth-set in the past--either in the decades (centuries?) that Wimbledon and the other majors had five-set matches without tiebreakers before it was invented in the 70's, or in the modern era when many men's matches feature few or no service breaks. It's only because there are so few tournaments which have this rule of playing to the bitter end, so the frequency is low.
If I were running Wimbledon, I would react to this extreme result by changing the rules a little--not radically, as we are English and traditional and all that, and not being just like everyone else. There are too many problems of scheduling, and fairness in the subsequent matches, to allow play without end. I'd set a maximum of about 20 games each before going to the tiebreaker in all the rounds except the final, in which the traditional rule would be maintained.
Wimbledon is one of the few tennis tournaments that has not gone to the tiebreaker for the final set (the French Open is another). The match goes on until someone wins by two games. The fifth set, then, was some three times as long as the rest of the match, and it was played on a knife-edge throughout: one service break game, and the match would be over (and that's what finally happened, after some 168 consecutive service games held, Isner broke Mahut's serve and the match was indeed over).
There were several admirable aspects of the match: really good serving by both players, incredible tenacity, physical endurance, patience, emotional stability, great bladder control (!) and good sportsmanship. Isner has risen to the top 20 in men's tennis with a powerful, accurate serve, and in this match, Mahut--a qualifier who's just outside the top 100--was close to his equal in serving. What it was not was exceptional tennis: the only reason a match would go on that long is because neither player could break the other's serve. Most of the points were aces, service winners, or at most a couple of shots long.
The long deadlock (basically seven hours of serve and re-serve, on Thursday: the match had been suspended for darkness on Wednesday after the first four sets, and the finale was "just" an hour and a half and 15 games or so on Friday) gradually caught the attention of the tennis world as it dragged on, and there were a ton of single-match records broken. Still, I wouldn't call it epic--the Federer-Roddick finals from last year was much more impressive (though similar in its fifth-set stalemate, just not lasting quite as long, but with much more at stake). The stakes were not really so high--it was a first-round match, and pretty much suicidal from the point of view of the tournament. After the three-day match threw off the schedule (that's pronounced "shedule"), Isner had to come back the next day and was promptly ousted from the tournament in a quickie, 6-0, 6-3, 6-2. It will be interesting to see how quickly Isner and Mahut recover from the marathon and return to full strength; also, to see how much commercial mileage they can make from their new fame.
It's perhaps surprising there hasn't been such a ridiculous fifth-set in the past--either in the decades (centuries?) that Wimbledon and the other majors had five-set matches without tiebreakers before it was invented in the 70's, or in the modern era when many men's matches feature few or no service breaks. It's only because there are so few tournaments which have this rule of playing to the bitter end, so the frequency is low.
If I were running Wimbledon, I would react to this extreme result by changing the rules a little--not radically, as we are English and traditional and all that, and not being just like everyone else. There are too many problems of scheduling, and fairness in the subsequent matches, to allow play without end. I'd set a maximum of about 20 games each before going to the tiebreaker in all the rounds except the final, in which the traditional rule would be maintained.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Themes from Imaginary Western Wins
In the Naked City of the World Cup's first round, there were 32 stories. There were several stories of dramatic merit, like the Slovenian Tragedy, the disaster epic that was France, and the commedia dell'arte farce of Italy (in which Buffon, so well-named for his role, inexplicably comes out of the play midway through the first act). The high-wire circus trapeze act Italy often provides in the first round ended this time with the Wallendas falling and just missing the net.
With the possible influence of parochial sentiments, though, nothing beat the melodrama--in three acts with an epilogue--of the USA. It's a saga awaiting its Homer, which should be written in rhyming couplets full of allusions--to Beowulf maybe, long-suffering Job, or the Iliad (Landon Donovan strides forward, without his shield and armor, to face the Algerian Hector--or maybe more geographically relevant, their Aeneas). Mostly, though, it would be some mythic Batman or Superman story, overcoming his nemesis--with Fate as the cruel Joker or as Lex Luthor, the weird ball as some sort of anti-kryptonite (power comes from having it near)--our hero(es) somehow escaping from certain doom in each episode to triumph just before the final commercial and credits.
The USA's rise against adversity in all three games--whether self-generated, through allowing cheap early goals, or through being denied gratification through the referee's ruling out legitimate goals--made for high drama and seat edge-sitting in all their encounters.
Fortune Favors the Brave
In my World Cup preview, I noted that there would be a certain opening, all the way to the semifinals, for some fortunate team that was not among the top-rated coming into the tournament. In this "top-left" quarter of the draw, I suggested that the Fortunate One could be England, France, or Germany. Well, France blew its chance quite spectacularly, England got nosed out on goal difference (largely due to their failure to break through and score against Algeria) and Germany--well, they did their part by losing to Serbia, but the Serbs failed to clinch first when they lost their last game to Australia. As a result, England and Germany are in the tough "top-right" bracket, for which Argentina should be the clear favorite to advance to the final four.
Instead, it is the USA which finds itself in the favored position--but, I should immediately point out, so do Ghana, Uruguay, and South Korea. None of them should be written off--if the first round has taught us anything, it is that there are no easy games, no easy teams this year. The Americans need to win against two moderate-level teams, overachievers like they, to get to the semis and a real tough matchup for which they should be overmatched (in order of probability, Brazil, Netherlands, Chile, or the unlikely Slovaks).
One Game Changes Everything--Almost
In the first round, a single game can change the outlook for the rest of the tournament, but it depends on the timing. The big surprise which could've affected everything to come was in the first set of games, when Switzerland surprised Spain, 1-0. The result was a bit of a fluke, in that Spain dominated posession, had most of the shots, but couldn't score, while the Swiss managed the winning goal in practically their only offensive threat.
Spain was set up to finish second and switch over to the dangerous "lower-left" bracket, with a round of 16 game against Brazil. The Spanish might even possibly have missed out entirely from the top two spots (one likely possibility, largely overlooked, was if the Swiss beat Honduras by a couple of goals, and the Spanish got nose out on goal difference by both Chile and Switzerland). In the end, though, Switzerland couldn't overcome its torpor, and Spain edged Chile (helped by a dubious early red card on a Chilean) and took its place at the top.
Of the five first-round games I identified as critical, four were on target: US-Slovenia, Spain-Chile, Portugal-Ivory Coast (the Portuguese showed their cautious nature, while the Ivorians missed their best chance to advance), and Germany-Serbia (which should've decided their group for Serbia, again, except for their failure to handle the Aussies). Greece-Nigeria was not critical in determining the second-place to Argentina--both teams failing to advance--because of South Korea's key 2-0 win over Greece in its first game.
In the end, though, results were not too surprising: France and Italy looked to disappoint; the only surprise was how completely (against weak groups). Five out of eight favorites won their groups, the exceptions being France, Italy, and England. The Africans had great challenges, and it is not surprising how few got through (though I didn't get the identity right). South America's success was expected, though it was surprising how complete it was (even the weaker qualifiers, like Paraguay and Uruguay, were undefeated).
The further West the team (starting from the Urals, roughly), the better the first-round result. The exceptions to this rule were Slovakia, in the positive sense, and Honduras and North Korea, in the negative one.
Forward-Looking Statements
I make excuses without apology for being a tad late--we drove 800 miles yesterday, and there's barely time to catch your breat between the first round and the second. For the record--and you'll have to trust me on this one--my pre-match prediction for Uruguay-South Korea would've been: "a tougher match for Uruguay than their fluffy first-round group--possibly a first goal allowed--but they advance".
Here are pithy, one-sentence previews for all the 15 remaining games:
US-Ghana: another tense encounter--the Ghanaians are tough, strong, and more dangerous offensively than they have shown--and another nail-biting success for the USA, 1-0.
Argentina-Mexico: Mexico will lose bravely, let's say 3-1.
England-Germany: Great second-round match: I'll go with the ascendant team (England's best game was its most recent, Germany's was its first), in extra time, or possibly even in penalty kicks, a shock for everyone based on historical performance--1-1 in regular time.
Netherlands-Slovakia: The Dutch catch a break with Italy's flameout, and have a fairly easy opponent, which they might just make harder than they should--1-0.
Paraguay--Japan: My biggest miss was underrating the Asians' chances, so I will try to make up by calling an upset here (any loss by a South American team to a non-S.A. is an upset, at this point)--2-1.
Brazil-Chile: The best match of this round (a shocker loss by Brazil is by no means impossible, and here, at least, a South American team must lose) though the Chileans will be missing some players due to the card-happy ref of their last game--2-1 Brazil.
Spain-Portugal: This Iberian Showdown is sure to disappoint, as Portugal will attempt to negate Spain's huge offensive potential with ugly negativity--0-0 in regular time, Spain finally logs a cheap win when the ref calls a penalty in extra time.
Quarterfinals:
US-Uruguay: My heart says "USA" but my brain says Uruguay will win out, 1-0.
Argentina-England: Malvinas Grudge Cage Rematch, on terms more favorable to the Argentines, 2-1. Some Englishman gets a crucial red card (I'd bet on Rooney).
Netherlands-Brazil: Best match of the entire tournament; I'll be among those disappointed by the outcome but encouraged by the quality, Brail 3-2.
Spain-Japan: What, no South American? I have no clue what to expect--Spain 1-0?
Semifinals:
I'm sticking with my preview prediction of Argentina-Brazil. Argentina over Spain, 3-1, in a wild one, and Brazil over Uruguay, 1-0, in a boring one.
Third-Place Game:
Who cares? Uruguay is more likely to care than Spain, 3-2.
Final:
I'm a bit shaky here, but I like Argentina to win it all. I'd feel better about this prediction if Chile, Netherlands, or Brazil's Cinderella semifinal opponent would do me a favor and take them out, but I don't feel "lucky" about that. Messi finally scores a goal himself, and it's the Cup winner, 2-1.
In his excitement and exhibitionist zeal, Maradona drops trow, and gets a coach's yellow card banishment for Argentina's next game (by which time, he will be long gone).
With the possible influence of parochial sentiments, though, nothing beat the melodrama--in three acts with an epilogue--of the USA. It's a saga awaiting its Homer, which should be written in rhyming couplets full of allusions--to Beowulf maybe, long-suffering Job, or the Iliad (Landon Donovan strides forward, without his shield and armor, to face the Algerian Hector--or maybe more geographically relevant, their Aeneas). Mostly, though, it would be some mythic Batman or Superman story, overcoming his nemesis--with Fate as the cruel Joker or as Lex Luthor, the weird ball as some sort of anti-kryptonite (power comes from having it near)--our hero(es) somehow escaping from certain doom in each episode to triumph just before the final commercial and credits.
The USA's rise against adversity in all three games--whether self-generated, through allowing cheap early goals, or through being denied gratification through the referee's ruling out legitimate goals--made for high drama and seat edge-sitting in all their encounters.
Fortune Favors the Brave
In my World Cup preview, I noted that there would be a certain opening, all the way to the semifinals, for some fortunate team that was not among the top-rated coming into the tournament. In this "top-left" quarter of the draw, I suggested that the Fortunate One could be England, France, or Germany. Well, France blew its chance quite spectacularly, England got nosed out on goal difference (largely due to their failure to break through and score against Algeria) and Germany--well, they did their part by losing to Serbia, but the Serbs failed to clinch first when they lost their last game to Australia. As a result, England and Germany are in the tough "top-right" bracket, for which Argentina should be the clear favorite to advance to the final four.
Instead, it is the USA which finds itself in the favored position--but, I should immediately point out, so do Ghana, Uruguay, and South Korea. None of them should be written off--if the first round has taught us anything, it is that there are no easy games, no easy teams this year. The Americans need to win against two moderate-level teams, overachievers like they, to get to the semis and a real tough matchup for which they should be overmatched (in order of probability, Brazil, Netherlands, Chile, or the unlikely Slovaks).
One Game Changes Everything--Almost
In the first round, a single game can change the outlook for the rest of the tournament, but it depends on the timing. The big surprise which could've affected everything to come was in the first set of games, when Switzerland surprised Spain, 1-0. The result was a bit of a fluke, in that Spain dominated posession, had most of the shots, but couldn't score, while the Swiss managed the winning goal in practically their only offensive threat.
Spain was set up to finish second and switch over to the dangerous "lower-left" bracket, with a round of 16 game against Brazil. The Spanish might even possibly have missed out entirely from the top two spots (one likely possibility, largely overlooked, was if the Swiss beat Honduras by a couple of goals, and the Spanish got nose out on goal difference by both Chile and Switzerland). In the end, though, Switzerland couldn't overcome its torpor, and Spain edged Chile (helped by a dubious early red card on a Chilean) and took its place at the top.
Of the five first-round games I identified as critical, four were on target: US-Slovenia, Spain-Chile, Portugal-Ivory Coast (the Portuguese showed their cautious nature, while the Ivorians missed their best chance to advance), and Germany-Serbia (which should've decided their group for Serbia, again, except for their failure to handle the Aussies). Greece-Nigeria was not critical in determining the second-place to Argentina--both teams failing to advance--because of South Korea's key 2-0 win over Greece in its first game.
In the end, though, results were not too surprising: France and Italy looked to disappoint; the only surprise was how completely (against weak groups). Five out of eight favorites won their groups, the exceptions being France, Italy, and England. The Africans had great challenges, and it is not surprising how few got through (though I didn't get the identity right). South America's success was expected, though it was surprising how complete it was (even the weaker qualifiers, like Paraguay and Uruguay, were undefeated).
The further West the team (starting from the Urals, roughly), the better the first-round result. The exceptions to this rule were Slovakia, in the positive sense, and Honduras and North Korea, in the negative one.
Forward-Looking Statements
I make excuses without apology for being a tad late--we drove 800 miles yesterday, and there's barely time to catch your breat between the first round and the second. For the record--and you'll have to trust me on this one--my pre-match prediction for Uruguay-South Korea would've been: "a tougher match for Uruguay than their fluffy first-round group--possibly a first goal allowed--but they advance".
Here are pithy, one-sentence previews for all the 15 remaining games:
US-Ghana: another tense encounter--the Ghanaians are tough, strong, and more dangerous offensively than they have shown--and another nail-biting success for the USA, 1-0.
Argentina-Mexico: Mexico will lose bravely, let's say 3-1.
England-Germany: Great second-round match: I'll go with the ascendant team (England's best game was its most recent, Germany's was its first), in extra time, or possibly even in penalty kicks, a shock for everyone based on historical performance--1-1 in regular time.
Netherlands-Slovakia: The Dutch catch a break with Italy's flameout, and have a fairly easy opponent, which they might just make harder than they should--1-0.
Paraguay--Japan: My biggest miss was underrating the Asians' chances, so I will try to make up by calling an upset here (any loss by a South American team to a non-S.A. is an upset, at this point)--2-1.
Brazil-Chile: The best match of this round (a shocker loss by Brazil is by no means impossible, and here, at least, a South American team must lose) though the Chileans will be missing some players due to the card-happy ref of their last game--2-1 Brazil.
Spain-Portugal: This Iberian Showdown is sure to disappoint, as Portugal will attempt to negate Spain's huge offensive potential with ugly negativity--0-0 in regular time, Spain finally logs a cheap win when the ref calls a penalty in extra time.
Quarterfinals:
US-Uruguay: My heart says "USA" but my brain says Uruguay will win out, 1-0.
Argentina-England: Malvinas Grudge Cage Rematch, on terms more favorable to the Argentines, 2-1. Some Englishman gets a crucial red card (I'd bet on Rooney).
Netherlands-Brazil: Best match of the entire tournament; I'll be among those disappointed by the outcome but encouraged by the quality, Brail 3-2.
Spain-Japan: What, no South American? I have no clue what to expect--Spain 1-0?
Semifinals:
I'm sticking with my preview prediction of Argentina-Brazil. Argentina over Spain, 3-1, in a wild one, and Brazil over Uruguay, 1-0, in a boring one.
Third-Place Game:
Who cares? Uruguay is more likely to care than Spain, 3-2.
Final:
I'm a bit shaky here, but I like Argentina to win it all. I'd feel better about this prediction if Chile, Netherlands, or Brazil's Cinderella semifinal opponent would do me a favor and take them out, but I don't feel "lucky" about that. Messi finally scores a goal himself, and it's the Cup winner, 2-1.
In his excitement and exhibitionist zeal, Maradona drops trow, and gets a coach's yellow card banishment for Argentina's next game (by which time, he will be long gone).
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Odds on Big Match-ups
First, the most hyped game in US soccer history. I intentionally gave it little discussion in my post on The Big Picture, because it shouldn't really matter in that sense: the loser still should have a good chance of advancing (if they don't let the loss get in their head too much).
I did neglect--both in this case and overall--the possibility/likelihood of draws, which occur in the first round only (in the knockout stages, they play extra time, then, if still tied, go to penalty kicks until a winner is decided). A draw would work well for both England and US in this game: it would set both teams up for wins against the other two teams in the group (Slovenia and Algeria) and both going through comfortably (the Group winner, in this case, would be the team with the superior goal difference in the other two games).
Given this fact, and the fact that both teams are wary of each other, I would expect the probability of a draw to be relatively high. The key will be the reaction of the team that falls behind (assuming a first goal): if the trailing team is persistent, but not heedless, patient, but aggressive, they can respond. After that, quite possibly, both teams would settle down and accept a tie.
If we think of the 90-minute game as divided in three 30-minute sections, I would expect little action and no goals in the first 30. The key section will be the middle 30, including the halftime break, which is when I expect goals to score. The last 30 minutes will be either frantic, if one team is behind, or extremely settled, if it's tied.
My probabilities are: one-sixth chance (16 2/3%) US victory; one-third (33 1/3%) draw; 50% England win. My specific prediction is a 1-1 tie (same as Ruud Gullit's).
Two of Three
Lakers and Celtics are 2-2 in the NBA finals. The fifth game is tomorrow night, but it's different in the finals: in the finals only, the fifth game is played at the home of the "underdog" and the last two games will be at the Lakers' arena. So, this game is critical for Boston, less so for Los Angeles.
I rate the odds--actually independent of the previous results--as 60% chance for Boston in Game 5, 70% chance for LA in Game 6, and 60% chance for LA in Game 7, if it goes that far. Working out the flows, this translates to a 39.6% chance for Boston to win the championship and 60.4% for LA. If Boston wins game 5, LA still has a 42% chance to win it; if Boston loses game 6, LA's chances to win one of the last two is 88%.
I did neglect--both in this case and overall--the possibility/likelihood of draws, which occur in the first round only (in the knockout stages, they play extra time, then, if still tied, go to penalty kicks until a winner is decided). A draw would work well for both England and US in this game: it would set both teams up for wins against the other two teams in the group (Slovenia and Algeria) and both going through comfortably (the Group winner, in this case, would be the team with the superior goal difference in the other two games).
Given this fact, and the fact that both teams are wary of each other, I would expect the probability of a draw to be relatively high. The key will be the reaction of the team that falls behind (assuming a first goal): if the trailing team is persistent, but not heedless, patient, but aggressive, they can respond. After that, quite possibly, both teams would settle down and accept a tie.
If we think of the 90-minute game as divided in three 30-minute sections, I would expect little action and no goals in the first 30. The key section will be the middle 30, including the halftime break, which is when I expect goals to score. The last 30 minutes will be either frantic, if one team is behind, or extremely settled, if it's tied.
My probabilities are: one-sixth chance (16 2/3%) US victory; one-third (33 1/3%) draw; 50% England win. My specific prediction is a 1-1 tie (same as Ruud Gullit's).
Two of Three
Lakers and Celtics are 2-2 in the NBA finals. The fifth game is tomorrow night, but it's different in the finals: in the finals only, the fifth game is played at the home of the "underdog" and the last two games will be at the Lakers' arena. So, this game is critical for Boston, less so for Los Angeles.
I rate the odds--actually independent of the previous results--as 60% chance for Boston in Game 5, 70% chance for LA in Game 6, and 60% chance for LA in Game 7, if it goes that far. Working out the flows, this translates to a 39.6% chance for Boston to win the championship and 60.4% for LA. If Boston wins game 5, LA still has a 42% chance to win it; if Boston loses game 6, LA's chances to win one of the last two is 88%.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
What's New?
On the political front, with the primaries in many states yesterday: nothing. On the blog front: we'll take it case-by-case, with references to previous post predictions.
Yesterday's primary results either confirmed what we already knew or suspected, or else provided results which have little consequence. A good example of the latter was incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln's win in the Arkansas Democratic primary runoff against Atty. Gen. Bill Halter--who was much-hyped by the left-wing bloggers and unions in an effort to punish Sen. Lincoln's pallid Democratic qualities. I don't deny her lameness at all, just question whether Halter had a chance to win in November. Neither do I think it real interesting whether Lincoln will win an uphill battle against her Republican opponent (little to be gained or lost, one way or the other).
The California results should help the economy--hundreds of millions will be spent in the statewide Senate and Governor's races--but the primaries don't change much, in my view. I think Barbara Boxer should be able to point to Carly Fiorina's shortcomings as CEO for Hewlett-Packard and, ultimately defeat her--though it will be expensive. I think it less likely that Democrat Jerry Brown will be able to win one for old times against ex-CEO of Ebay Meg Whitman in the governor's race.
I haven't changed my view--in the big picture, or even of any of the individual races--of the upcoming Senate battle since March's detailed analysis. Of course, my view of the chances for Democrats in such states as Illinois, California, Pennsylvania, and Nevada are a lot more optimistic than many other analysts'.
Sports Notes
I was a bit lax in failing to preview the NBA finals. Here we are near the end of the road, still not having answered either of the big questions from my preseason post--the Cavs didn't do well enough by Lebron to keep him, in my view, but he seems well disposed toward them and their efforts to please, failed though they were; and we still don't know if anyone can stop the Lakers.
Although I didn't like their chances much, the Celtics are probably the toughest team the Eastern Conference could put forward to face the Lakers, so I have to be happy with that. The emergence of Rajan Rondo as a game-changing force at point guard (despite weaknesses like poor free-throw shooting) has compensated for the decline of some of their veterans like Garnett and Ray Allen, their overall team size is adequate to compete with the Lakers, and their team concept remains strong. Of course, those (nor their win over the Lakers in 2008) don't mean they will prevail--I'd give them about a 25% chance; it's our best shot, though.
Chelsea announced today that they will let go three first-string players from last season's squad: Joe Cole, Juliano Belletti, and Michael Ballack. The truth is that all three are first-string quality, though they didn't necessarily start that much. Cole and Ballack often were injured, while Belletti was overlooked as a defensive starter once Bosingwa emerged, if the other usual starters were healthy. I can't say I'm eager to see any of them go, and I think the release of Cole, in particular, could haunt Chelsea in the future. Nevertheless, it will free up a lot of money, which will allow for the acquisition of some new, young talent, which is certainly important.
I continue to be thrilled by the strong run of the Cincinnati Reds this year. I didn't expect them to challenge the Cardinals for the division lead, as they are currently doing (we are now just past the one-third mark of the regular season): I see progress, but wasn't expecting them to rise to the top until next year and Dusty Baker's departure as manager. A key to their success has been the performance of rookie pitcher Mike Leake (who has done Stephen Strasburg-like feats since earning a spot this spring without ever playing in the minor leagues); even more, though, has been the production of their young, healthy hitters. I'll be satisfied with most anything--a winning season, for example, would be a great improvement.
International Affairs
The sanctions the U.N. approved today (in draft form, apparently) seem to follow the suggestions I made. President Obama's comments seem to indicate that the door is open for Iran to straighten things out and avoid more pain. We'll see.
As I suggested after the attack on the flotilla bringing aid to Gaza, the blockade was now due to change. Israel opened some restrictions on non-lethal aid (like snack foods and coriander), but that seemed to be opening the barn door after the animals were already out: Egypt found it intolerable to maintain its portion of the blockade and announced it was opening its border with Gaza.
It's great when events validate my calls, and absolutely essential for me to draw attention to it!
Yesterday's primary results either confirmed what we already knew or suspected, or else provided results which have little consequence. A good example of the latter was incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln's win in the Arkansas Democratic primary runoff against Atty. Gen. Bill Halter--who was much-hyped by the left-wing bloggers and unions in an effort to punish Sen. Lincoln's pallid Democratic qualities. I don't deny her lameness at all, just question whether Halter had a chance to win in November. Neither do I think it real interesting whether Lincoln will win an uphill battle against her Republican opponent (little to be gained or lost, one way or the other).
The California results should help the economy--hundreds of millions will be spent in the statewide Senate and Governor's races--but the primaries don't change much, in my view. I think Barbara Boxer should be able to point to Carly Fiorina's shortcomings as CEO for Hewlett-Packard and, ultimately defeat her--though it will be expensive. I think it less likely that Democrat Jerry Brown will be able to win one for old times against ex-CEO of Ebay Meg Whitman in the governor's race.
I haven't changed my view--in the big picture, or even of any of the individual races--of the upcoming Senate battle since March's detailed analysis. Of course, my view of the chances for Democrats in such states as Illinois, California, Pennsylvania, and Nevada are a lot more optimistic than many other analysts'.
Sports Notes
I was a bit lax in failing to preview the NBA finals. Here we are near the end of the road, still not having answered either of the big questions from my preseason post--the Cavs didn't do well enough by Lebron to keep him, in my view, but he seems well disposed toward them and their efforts to please, failed though they were; and we still don't know if anyone can stop the Lakers.
Although I didn't like their chances much, the Celtics are probably the toughest team the Eastern Conference could put forward to face the Lakers, so I have to be happy with that. The emergence of Rajan Rondo as a game-changing force at point guard (despite weaknesses like poor free-throw shooting) has compensated for the decline of some of their veterans like Garnett and Ray Allen, their overall team size is adequate to compete with the Lakers, and their team concept remains strong. Of course, those (nor their win over the Lakers in 2008) don't mean they will prevail--I'd give them about a 25% chance; it's our best shot, though.
Chelsea announced today that they will let go three first-string players from last season's squad: Joe Cole, Juliano Belletti, and Michael Ballack. The truth is that all three are first-string quality, though they didn't necessarily start that much. Cole and Ballack often were injured, while Belletti was overlooked as a defensive starter once Bosingwa emerged, if the other usual starters were healthy. I can't say I'm eager to see any of them go, and I think the release of Cole, in particular, could haunt Chelsea in the future. Nevertheless, it will free up a lot of money, which will allow for the acquisition of some new, young talent, which is certainly important.
I continue to be thrilled by the strong run of the Cincinnati Reds this year. I didn't expect them to challenge the Cardinals for the division lead, as they are currently doing (we are now just past the one-third mark of the regular season): I see progress, but wasn't expecting them to rise to the top until next year and Dusty Baker's departure as manager. A key to their success has been the performance of rookie pitcher Mike Leake (who has done Stephen Strasburg-like feats since earning a spot this spring without ever playing in the minor leagues); even more, though, has been the production of their young, healthy hitters. I'll be satisfied with most anything--a winning season, for example, would be a great improvement.
International Affairs
The sanctions the U.N. approved today (in draft form, apparently) seem to follow the suggestions I made. President Obama's comments seem to indicate that the door is open for Iran to straighten things out and avoid more pain. We'll see.
As I suggested after the attack on the flotilla bringing aid to Gaza, the blockade was now due to change. Israel opened some restrictions on non-lethal aid (like snack foods and coriander), but that seemed to be opening the barn door after the animals were already out: Egypt found it intolerable to maintain its portion of the blockade and announced it was opening its border with Gaza.
It's great when events validate my calls, and absolutely essential for me to draw attention to it!
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Imperfect Game
Whose 2010 single-game performance will be remembered in years to come: Armando Galarraga's or Dallas Braden's?* I think the story that will stay in baseball history will be Galarraga's perfect game that got away, due to a bad umpiring call at first base. So, while we should feel sympathy for Galarraga, and perhaps even for umpire Jim Joyce, who blew the call, it's not quite a tragedy for young Galarraga.
This will be true especially if, as now seems likely to me, the rules will be changed--largely as a result of this incident--on use of instant replay to allow it for calls at the bases--the "bang-bang" calls at first base (of which there are many, and they are difficult, though umpire Jim Joyce's call on Galarraga's 27th out was not all that close), and the extremely difficult calls on tag plays at the other bases.
One thing they will not do is open up the can of worms of umpires' ball/strike calls at home plate to the delays and overrides caused by instant replay. And, you can mark my words, there will be a case when a perfect game will be ruined by a questionable ball/strike call (causing a walk, or preventing one).
The thing that's a little surprising about the umpiring error was its direction: I would think it more likely that an umpire would tend to err in favor of the pitcher trying to complete his perfecto, rather than taking it away. But what do I know; I'm no umpire.
*Roy Halladay's perfect game is a different case; this is a top pitcher who could pitch a shutout anytime he goes out there, and he could even duplicate his feat before his career is over. As for Mark Buehrle, the jury is still out: was his perfect game last year totally out of his character, an indication of what he could yet become, or perhaps just indicative of a very promising but inconsistent pitcher?
This will be true especially if, as now seems likely to me, the rules will be changed--largely as a result of this incident--on use of instant replay to allow it for calls at the bases--the "bang-bang" calls at first base (of which there are many, and they are difficult, though umpire Jim Joyce's call on Galarraga's 27th out was not all that close), and the extremely difficult calls on tag plays at the other bases.
One thing they will not do is open up the can of worms of umpires' ball/strike calls at home plate to the delays and overrides caused by instant replay. And, you can mark my words, there will be a case when a perfect game will be ruined by a questionable ball/strike call (causing a walk, or preventing one).
The thing that's a little surprising about the umpiring error was its direction: I would think it more likely that an umpire would tend to err in favor of the pitcher trying to complete his perfecto, rather than taking it away. But what do I know; I'm no umpire.
*Roy Halladay's perfect game is a different case; this is a top pitcher who could pitch a shutout anytime he goes out there, and he could even duplicate his feat before his career is over. As for Mark Buehrle, the jury is still out: was his perfect game last year totally out of his character, an indication of what he could yet become, or perhaps just indicative of a very promising but inconsistent pitcher?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
