Quick Thoughts about the U.S.-England Match

1. How come England had so many odd-man rushes in the second half? I realize that they started playing with three forwards, but that doesn't explain why the U.S. had so much trouble getting men back to defend. Was England faster, fitter, or both?

2. Everyone watching realized that Tim Howard had to make a few clutch saves to keep the U.S. level--what is less clear is how these chances arose. I didn't see anything other than the same telecast y'all saw, but for my money it seemed like there were communication problems in the back. This is quite disconcerting when you consider that the U.S. seemed to rely heavily on the offside trap. Now, maybe the U.S. won't employ this tactic against its next two opponents--the trap is typically used by the inferior team as a way to neutralize the more skilled team's talent, and the U.S. is on paper more talented than Slovenia or Algeria--but if Bradley sticks with it, we could find ourselves in a familiar spot--holding our breath as Howard has to bail us out. Hopefully, the next striker finishes as poorly as Heskey did today, but "we can't take that chance!"

3. Landon Donovan played a tremendous game today. He delivered great balls off of set pieces (corner kicks and free kicks were the only consistent way for America to threaten the English defense), got back on defense, and played with more poise than his teammates. While Onyewu was blasting the ball away instead of playing it back to Howard ("when in doubt, kick it out" stopped being a viable strategy after sophomore year in high school), Donovan played with aplomb and pace.

4. What's the deal with ESPN having an English play-by-play guy? I know he's distinguished and respected, but can't we get an American voice for the U.S. games? Am I the only one who misses Jack Edwards?


(The Gus Johnson of soccer features prominently in this video.)

5. If Rooney keeps performing like he played today, he won't be hugging the queen anytime soon. (I don't even need a hyperlink...by now y'all have seen the ad.) "But the U.S. locked him down!" Yeah, so what--if America can take him out of the game, what do you think Italy's gonna do?

6. I'm not looking forward to waking up at the crack of dawn to watch the next game, haha.

Personal Jurisdiction

("Personal Jurisdiction" is part 2 of an ongoing attempt to bore y'all to tears.)

Before we dive into this, let me say one thing: although it may be counter-intuitive, a state court in, say, Georgia can apply Alabama's, Florida's, or any other state's law to a claim. This is a fairly common stumbling block for people trying to get a handle on personal jurisdiction--just trust me when I tell you that State 1 can hear a case between two parties who live in State 2 (or between two parties who live in State 1) and apply State 2's law to the claim.

One other thing: we're only worried about state courts here, because federal courts have a lower hurdle to clear with respect to personal jurisdiction.


Okay, so, the court you're trying to appear in front of has the right to hear the type of claim that you're presenting. (In other words, it has proper "subject-matter jurisdiction" over the claim.) Congratulations! However, proper SMJ is necessary but not sufficient. The court must also have personal jurisdiction (also known as "territorial jurisdiction") over the parties.

Personal jurisdiction deals with the right of a court to adjudicate the rights of a person (or thing, if the dispute is, say, over a piece of property but let's not worry about that). This is a common-sense concept: a state court in Maine shouldn't have any power to enforce a judgment over an Oregonian in a dispute between two Oregonians that concerns a car crash that occurred in Portland (unless we're talking about Portland, ME...). Yet, if the only hurdle to proper jurisdiction were subject-matter jurisdiction, the Maine court would have this authority (because the Maine state court can hear this type of case). That's why we need another protection, and that comes in the form of personal jurisdiction.

Now, our Maine court (or any other, obviously--we'll stick with Maine as the example) must have proper personal jurisdiction over both the plaintiff and the defendant, but since personal jurisdiction is waivable, the plaintiff is deemed to have waived any potential objection to the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him when he files the suit in the Maine court.

The far more important question is this: when does the Maine court have personal jurisdiction over the defendant?

(1) The defendant can waive his objection to personal jurisdiction, typically by making a "general appearance" in court. If the defendant makes a general appearance, there goes his right to dispute the personal jurisdiction issue. So, a savvy defendant will make a "special appearance" in court, which basically tells the court, "look, I don't think you have any rights over me (ie, 'I don't think you have any personal jurisdiction over me') but in order to persuade you of this, I have to be here to explain my side. So, look, I'm only here for purposes of disputing your potential personal jurisdiction over me. I'm not waiving the defense."

You waive your objection to personal jurisdiction when you don't mind litigating in Maine (maybe you got a great deal at a bed-and-breakfast in Falmouth). Unfortunately, winning on the personal jurisdiction issue doesn't let you totally off the hook--the plaintiff will just re-file, this time in Oregon. That's why defendants will sometimes waive their objections.


(2) If the defendant gets served with a summons in the state in which the lawsuit was brought (here, Maine), the ME court has personal jurisdiction. That's kind've a harsh rule but it's been around for a while and it looks like it's here to stay for the foreseeable future.




3. The last way for a court to have proper personal jurisdiction is the most confusing. Long story short: the defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state (here, Maine), the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant must be reasonable, and the Maine statute must authorize the exercise of personal jurisdiction (this is rarely a problem because many states give their courts as much reach as possible).

No one really knows exactly what "minimum contacts" means, but if the defendant has purposefully contacts with the state of Maine, Maine probably has personal jurisdiction. So, clearly the Maine court has no personal jurisdiction over the Oregonian defendant in our car crash example, but if the defendant were, say, a corporation from Oregon who advertises and sells its products in Maine and purposefully avails itself of the benefits of being present in Maine, then that Maine court will have personal jurisdiction.


I know I just said a lot...maybe this analogy will help:

Let's say that you just moved out of the house and found a full-time job, and to celebrate you got your first tattoo (to your mom's noticeable chagrin). When you return home for Thanksgiving, she scolds you for getting the tattoo and threatens to ground you. Here, your mom has no personal jurisdiction over you. She can't enforce a punishment against you because you no longer live under her roof or take money from her. You have "insufficient contacts" with her. Now, if your younger sister (who's still in undergrad) had gotten that same tattoo, your mom would be able to enforce a punishment over her by taking away her tuition money or kicking her out of the house or whatever.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

**We interrupt this "sports and poker" blog to bring you an important message about civil procedure.**

I just hit you with my car, and now you want to sue me. You cannot choose to sue me in whichever court you please, though--that would give you unfair strategic advantages and would thus violate my constitutional right to due process. You still get some flexibility, though. So, how do we decide whether a court is appropriate for your litigation? Well, in order for a specific court to be the proper place for your claim, that court must have both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. (There are other requirements as well, but they are less important so we can save them for a later date.)

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction:

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction is simply the right of a court to hear the type of case that you're presenting. If you're trying to sue me in a state court, you've got nothing to worry about. Most state courts are courts of "general jurisdiction"--they can hear claims that have to do only with state law (like torts) and they can typically hear claims that concern federal law. (Again, there are some small exceptions but they're small enough that we needn't worry about them.)

If you're trying to sue me in federal court (perhaps you think that a federal court is more likely to get you a favorable outcome), that's going to be a more difficult challenge for you. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction--that means they need jurisdiction conferred on them by both the Constitution and by Congress. (The Constitution is pretty liberal with its grants of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, so we're really only worried about statutory authorization.) There are three basic ways for you to get your claim into federal court: (1) if the cause of action concerns a "federal question" (basically, if federal law is implicated in either the original claim or a defense to the claim); (2) if there is diversity jurisdiction, or (3) if supplemental jurisdiction exists.

Diversity Jurisdiction is very simple to explain: if you're black/Hispanic/Asian and I'm white, the federal courts are more interested in our litigation--cuz nothing say "compelling drama" like an interracial dispute--so they get to hear the claim.





Naw, just kidding...by "diversity" we mean "diversity of residence:" if you're domiciled in California and I'm domiciled in Texas, it putatively wouldn't be fair to you if you were forced to litigate in TX (and it wouldn't be fair to me if I had to defend myself in front of a hippie jury in California). So, the U.S. constitution lets us go to a theoretically more impartial location, a federal court. This rule made more sense in the 19th century, when certain states did not get along well with others--now it seems like a bit of an anachronism. Plus, we don't wanna clog up the federal courts with insignificant personal injury claims--that's the job of drug offenses! So, the plaintiff has to be suing for at least $75,000. (In legal terms, we need an "amount in controversy" of at least $75k.)

[Aside: it gets more complicated when you have co-plaintiffs and co-defendants--do we need complete diversity or will partial diversity suffice? What if we're suing a corporation instead--where is the corporation domiciled? Etc.]

[Second Aside: being in a federal court doesn't mean that federal law applies...that'd be way too easy, haha. For example, if you're suing me for driving negligently, there's no federal law on negligence, so a federal court (who again is allowed to hear this case because there is diversity jurisdiction) would still be applying state law. But TX state law or CA state law?! Trust me, you don't want me to get into that.]

Supplemental jurisdiction is more confusing, so let me just give you the Chicago-Kent School of Law version: supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to decide a claim--even when the federal court has no other basis for jurisdiction over the claim--when the claim is closely linked to another claim that the same federal court does have independent jurisdiction over. Supplemental jurisdiction exists because it (theoretically) facilitates efficiency in the judicial system and conserves resources.

So, if you and I are both from, say, Illinois and I hit you with my car, you typically can't get yourself into federal court. There's no federal question implicated here (negligence is state law) and there's no diversity of citizenship. BUT if you somehow had both your negligence claim and a related federal question claim against me, the negligence claim could "piggyback" its way into federal court.

Supplemental jurisdiction is muddled in many ways, AND it's discretionary--the federal court can choose to say, "Nah, we don't want this case" and we'd have to go back to state court. (A federal court might pass on the case if, for instance, it thinks the jury will get confused by the two claims.) So, we're not gonna get into it further--at least you know it exists.


I think this post is already too long, so we'll leave personal jurisdiction for the next time.

Preventing a Downswing

I've played poorly the last few times on Stars, and it's almost 100% attributable to the fact that I've not been thinking through the hands enough. Basically, the cycle starts like this: you have a losing day despite playing well (you get unlucky or run KK into AA or whatever), so the next time out you chase losses a bit by adding more tables than you normally play. This causes you to have less time to think, so you make the occasional fundamental error, which means more losing, which means more tables (or maybe longer sessions, which also leads to more mistakes), and so it goes.

If you catch this problem early enough, it's not a huge deal--as the cliche goes, "poker is measured in years, not days." A few bad days, or even a bad week, is just a bump in the road when you've been playing as long as I have. That said, it's obviously important to right the ship as quickly as you can.

What follows probably the best example of this downward spiral--I threw this hand in here (with a bit of explanation) because it's a mistake that many players will make and I want you to avoid this spot.



Poker Stars $2/$4 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players

SB: $283.90
BB: $400.00
UTG: $400.00
UTG+1: $400.00
UTG+2: $410.75
MP1: $488.00
MP2 (Tight-aggressive regular): $449.00
Hero (CO): $655.50
BTN: $1385.25

Pre Flop: ($6.00) Hero is CO with 9 9
4 folds, MP2 raises to $12, Hero raises to $36, 3 folds, MP2 calls $24


This is standard play here with the 99. You can argue for a smooth call or even a fold, but you're probably wrong, haha. I'm not gonna get into it here because it'll take forever to hash out the various alternatives and that's not the point of this post.


Flop: ($78.00) 4 5 4 (2 players)
MP2 checks, Hero checks

This is the ideal flop for us. When MP2 called our reraise out of position, we safely assign him a range of a big ace or a medium pocket pair. So, unless he has 55 (unlikely) or 44 (exceedingly unlikely), we're winning. I suppose he could have TT but we may be able to persuade MP2 to fold TT if we bet hard enough.

If MP2 has overcards, he probably will be done with the hand if we bet here. If he has a medium pocket pair, he's probably not going to fold to a bet here because he's still skeptical that we have him beat. (For what it's worth, we probably do have him beat.) I like to say that the opponent "needs convincing" that we have something like AA or KK, and it usually takes more than a flop bet to meet the burden of persuasion. That's a good thing, though--what typically happens is that we bet the flop, he calls (skeptically), we bet the turn, and--assuming the turn didn't help him--he folds (reluctantly). We end up winning more money than we would have had he simply folded on the flop.

Our hand is vulnerable to lots of overcards, so we probably would be content with a fold from our opponent. This isn't always the case, of course--if we had AA we'd want our opponent to stick around.

So, for all these reasons, we should certainly be betting this flop. We'll fold out overcards and we'll continue our story that we have a huge pocket pair. Clearly, checking here (as we did) is a mistake.

For what it's worth, I probably checked this flop here because I was feeling a bit exploitable/vulnerable. When you're losing, you realize just how easy it is for someone to bully you out of a pot. Rarely do I get it all-in against a regular without a very strong hand, so it'd be quite easy for MP2 to check-raise me and get me to fold. Now, of course, MP2 very rarely will make this play because he's more worried about stacking fish than getting into "regwarz" (fights with other regulars) and because if I have something like KK or AA he just threw away $400. It's very unhealthy for your poker bankroll if you're playing like a "catastrophist" (always assuming the worst), because it turns you tentative at very inopportune times.

Turn: ($78.00) A (2 players)
MP2 checks, Hero bets $52, MP2 asks for time, deliberates, and calls $52

I don't dislike this bet. Our opponent probably has us on a big ace or a pocket pair. When we checked the flop, he probably put us on a big ace because most pocket pairs would bet that flop. So, betting the ace (as a bluff, obviously--we don't want MP2 to call us here) continues our story that we have the opponent beat.

In this specific hand, MP2 "time-banked" before calling...that's often a sign of indecision. So, good try--we bet the turn hoping he'd fold, but he called. Oh, well--time to cut our losses and move on, right?

River: ($182.00) 2 (2 players)
MP2 checks, Hero bets $116, MP2 calls $116


I hate this river bet, and here's why: we tried on the turn to convince the regular that we had him beat. We almost persuaded him (he time-banked, after all), but we didn't convince him. So, after the river (the most harmless of cards), we try again to convince him? What an egregious mistake. Our chance to convince him came and went--firing on this river is akin to lighting money on fire.

No regular worth his salt will call the turn and then fold the river in a spot like this where the river changed nothing, because you have to play consistently if you want to win. This is actually a common mistake that losing regulars make too often--they call the turn to see what the opponent will do on the river...this is a losing play because you're merely putting off the decision or, alternatively, you're spending too much money on purchasing additional information (the additional information here is how the hero acts on the river).

**Note: this hand is not a perfect example because the opponent himself had an unbeatable ace, so he wasn't really deliberating so much as trying to induce a bluff from us on the river. It doesn't matter whether he had AK or JJ, though: we still should not ever be betting this river on a bluff. Once he called the turn we pretty much know he's going to be calling the river.

Final Pot: $414.00
MP2 shows K A (two pair, Aces and Fours)
Hero shows 9 9 (two pair, Nines and Fours)
MP2 wins $411.00
(Rake: $3.00)


Okay, so that hand was a disaster, but at least we learned from it.

A Hand I'm a Little Too Proud Of

Through his poker literature, David Sklansky taught me (and my coworkers) that the point of poker is to win money, not to win pots. With that in mind, let's examine a recent hand played on Stars. (By the way: I used a converter to change the raw hand history into something more legible. Among other changes, a player's position is used in lieu of that person's screen name.)



This first hand is merely background information:


Poker Stars $3/$6 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players

UTG+1: $600.00
Fish: $213.00
MP1: $706.20
MP2: $548.30
CompetentRegular: $1161.00
Hero (BTN): $642.30
SB: $679.00
BB: $600.00
UTG: $609.00

Pre Flop: ($9.00) Hero is BTN with A 9
2 folds, Fish calls $6, 2 folds, CompetentRegular raises to $18, 3 folds, UTG+2 calls $12

Flop: ($45.00) 6 K 6 (2 players)
Fish checks, CompetentRegular checks

Turn: ($45.00) 7 (2 players)
Fish checks, CompetentRegular checks

River: ($45.00) 2 (2 players)
Fish checks, CompetentRegular checks

Final Pot: $45.00
Fish shows 4 3 (a pair of Sixes)
CompetentRegular shows 8 Q (a pair of Sixes - King+Queen kicker)
CompetentRegular wins $42.75
(Rake: $2.25)

Notice a few things here: Fish open-limped with a very marginal hand, and CompetentRegular ("C.R.") made an isolation raise in position with a similarly marginal hand. Fish put up very little resistance throughout the hand, even after C.R. seemed to have given up on winning the pot. From this hand and other bits of information, we can glean that Fish is both loose and passive. This read is far from bulletproof, but in the world of online poker--where you'll see a player for 15 minutes, then never see him again--you have no choice but to extrapolate reads from tiny bits of information.

Now, on to the main hand (if it's not clear, "Fish" and "C.R." from Hand 1 are the same players as "Fish" and "C.R." in Hand 2)...



Poker Stars $3/$6 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players

MP1: $600.00
Fish: $471.70
CO: $667.20
BTN: $716.30
CompetentRegular (C.R.): $1158.75
Hero (BB): $630.30
UTG: $541.85
UTG+1: $600.00
UTG+2: $621.00

Pre Flop: ($9.00) Hero is BB with J J
4 folds, Fish calls $6, 2 folds, C.R. raises to $18, Hero calls $12, Fish calls $12


This is unorthodox preflop play on Hero's part. With JJ, Hero is certainly beating the range of his two opponents' holdings, so you'd think that a preflop reraise would be in order. A re-raise will almost certainly take down the pot, so Hero would win Fish's $6 + C.R.'s $18 + Hero's own big blind of $6, for a total of $30...this is obviously not a horrendous result, but keep in mind that we want to maximize the amount of money we can win. (If you can't tell by now, "we" are in the role of Hero.) Merely winning the pot is not sufficient.

So, Hero instead decides to smooth-call C.R.'s raise. There's one overriding reason for merely calling--Hero wants to keep Fish in the hand.* Hero is not scared of C.R., because Hero has seen C.R. raise with a wide range of hands in spots like this one. Plus, C.R. is a winning regular but he won't get too cute in spots like this one. In other words, if C.R. flops a monster, Hero will pick up on that quickly and minimize the money he loses. If everything works out as planned, Hero will outflop C.R. and Fish and will be able to get more money out of his JJ than he would were he merely to reraise and take down the pot preflop.




Flop: ($54.00) 5 6 7 (3 players)
C.R. checks, Hero bets $30, Fish calls $30, C.R. folds


Hero should like this flop, for a few reasons: most obviously, Hero still has an overpair to the board and is likely beating both of these players. Less obviously but no less importantly, it's quite likely that Fish (who has a history of playing raggedy cards) has caught a piece of this flop--either with something like middle pair or a straight draw. The only bad part about this flop is that it has possibly hit C.R., but if C.R. flopped a strong hand he'd probably bet out and Hero could then proceed with caution.

Once C.R. checks, Hero feels great about his hand. He knows that Fish is passive and likely won't bet a marginal hand like middle pair, so Hero takes the lead. This is somewhat risky because the general idea is that the first person to act after a bet in a multiway pot usually has to have a fairly strong hand to call (because this player has to worry about the people still to act behind him in addition to the bettor), but it's still the best play because we want to extract value from Fish and also get C.R. out of there as soon as we can.

Happily for us, this is just the result we get. We accomplished our two main goals: have Fish put more money into the pot and get C.R. out of the hand before he catches his Ace or his gutshot or whatever. Now that it's just us and a loose, passive opponent, it becomes a very easy situation for us to play.


Turn: ($114.00) 7 (2 players)
Hero bets $42, Fish calls $42

At first glance, Hero probably dislikes this card because Fish can easily be holding a 7. Upon further consideration, however, there are lots of cards that we'll hate, for various reasons (lots of low cards hit Fish's potential draws, and lots of overcards either hit Fish, scare us, and/or freeze Fish from putting in any more money). Besides, the 7 counterfeits any small two pair that Fish could potentially hit AND from Fish's standpoint, he's thinking, "well, if I felt good enough about my hand to call on the flop, the turn changes nothing. I didn't have him on a 7 on the flop or I'd have folded, so why should I be scared of another 7?"**

River: ($198.00) 3 (2 players)
Hero checks, Fish checks

I personally think Hero should be betting this river. Against a more aggressive fish, this is a great spot to check and then snap-call any bet, because we want to give the player a chance to bluff the river with his missed draw and we (very) generally don't like to bet when a raise will "make you throw up." This particular fish, however, will likely not bluff because he's a passive player, and the 3 is not a very scary card.

Final Pot: $198.00
Fish mucks J 5
Hero shows J J (two pair, Jacks and Sevens)
Hero wins $195.00
(Rake: $3.00)


The Takeaway:

1. Even when you're multitabling, it's important to pay attention to the action on all the tables whenever possible, especially when the hand involves an unknown player. If Hero had not noticed the first hand, he would not realize that C.R. was raising so lightly. Thus, Hero would probably have re-raised with JJ and would have missed out on significant value as a result.

2. Poker is often about finessing the fish--you want to isolate him whenever possible, but this is not always easy to do. As we saw, Hero couldn't isolate Fish preflop because there was no amount that Hero could re-raise to that would result in both (1) Fish calling and (2) C.R. folding. So, Hero had to bide his time and wait for a better spot (here, on the flop) to isolate.

3. Playing correct poker means worrying about winning money (as opposed to worrying about taking down pots). Sometimes this means that you have to sacrifice a sure win for a shot at a bigger payday. Hero was 98% likely to take down the pot preflop if he had re-raised, but it was a pot barely worth winning, so he decided to take a, say, 70% chance at winning a healthy pot. That's the mathematically correct decision, but sometimes it's hard to do when you're, say, down a few buy-ins and just need to take down a pot to steady the ship.

3a. "Better to win a small pot than to lose a big one." This poker cliche, while obviously true in its smallest sense, is misleading and not proper strategy.





*Were this hand to take place in a casino, Hero (being a crafty veteran) would undoubtedly steal a glance at Fish before deciding how to proceed. If Fish has already uncapped his cards and is merely waiting to fold, Hero would choose to re-raise instead of smooth-call, because Hero would know that Fish is out either way and once Hero knows this the proper play is to put in the re-raise in position against the competent regular. Inversely, if Fish is in the process of counting out the chips to call the bet, Hero can smooth-call with confidence that Fish will be coming along for the ride. The quick, peripheral glance to your left when the action is on you is probably the most powerful tool you have for figuring out your opponents' likely actions.

**Maybe I'm giving Fish too much credit with his thought process here, but it's likely he's thinking something along these lines...though if you asked him to articulate his thought process, he probably would struggle.

Professional Responsibility

I've got my first final on Thursday, and it covers my Professional Responsibility class. It shouldn't be too arduous to study for it, cuz it's only a two-credit course. As the joke goes...

Layperson: "Hey *UT Law Student*, I hear you're required to take a professional responsibility course in order to graduate."

UT Law Student: "Yeah, we hafta take 86 credits in total, two of which must cover ethics and a lawyer's responsibilities to his client."

Layperson: "Yeah, that sounds about right."


Anyways, in reviewing for the test, I remembered an anecdote (or perhaps merely an old joke) that our professor told us in the process of explaining both the obligations a lawyer owes his client and limitations on these obligations: "An attorney was defending a man on trial for manslaughter. The case ended up going to trial, and the man was found guilty on all charges. After the foreman finished reading the verdict, the man turned to his lawyer and said, 'well, what do we do now?' The lawyer replied, 'well, now you go to jail and I go home to my family.'"

Most everyone in the class laughed. I have no larger point to make, but I wonder how many of us would have laughed had we been told that joke a few months before we had started our 1L years.

A Surprising Line

According to the scores application on my phone, Vegas had the Thunder as a one point favorite in the Zombie Sonics' Game 6 matchup versus the Lake Show. Now, I'm well aware that Kobe is past his prime and has an arthritic finger. I'm also aware that Durantula is unguardable, that Artest is overrated, that Fisher couldn't start for most teams, and that Westbrook is faster than any player this side of Derrick. Plus, the rolling Thunder were playing at home.

All that said, does it surprise anyone else that OKC was favored? You, the guy who likes OKC, have to worry about Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant in an elimination game, and yet someone's making you give up a point? Weird. I wonder what the Lakers think about this line?




(The Lakers ended up winning by 1 point, thanks to Gasol's tip-in. I guess the linemakers know what they're doing--big surprise.)

Strikeouts

Disclaimer: I write this knowing nothing about sabermetrics or the like. This is my attempt to derive an understanding of a topic...it'll certainly fall short, but at least it'll get me thinking.

My roommate (Quigs) and I were talking yesterday about the various ramifications of the recent Ryan Howard contract extension. (For those of you who don't follow baseball....start following baseball.) Quigs, a big Brewers fan, was interested in comparing Howard's stats to his Milwaukee counterpart, Prince Fielder. He put the two side-by-side and we noticed that very little separated the two apart from age (Fielder is significantly younger) and the number of times each struck out (Howard had far more K's than Fielder).

Quigs--a guy who knows his sports--pointed out the discrepancy, gave the edge to Fielder, and moved on, but I didn't. Rather, I asked him to explain why the difference in strikeouts, by itself, gives Fielder an edge. (In his defense, I had just asked Quigs to defend a position that he hadn't expressly advocated...this would be unfair--or good strategy, I guess--if I were trying to "win" an argument, but here I was just trying to get an academic treatment going. In other words, he and I are not at odds, except to the extent that he's playing devil's advocate to further the discussion.) I don't remember exactly how Quigs made his points, so at this point I'm going to turn this history into historical fiction. Let's pretend, quite reasonably, that he started with this:

1. "Strikeouts are an out. Outs are bad. All other things equal (namely, at-bats), the more outs you make, the worse a batter you are." Well, yes, but this can be attacked on multiple grounds. Most pressingly, we have already accounted for outs made when we compared their batting averages and similar statistics. If Fielder and Howard each get a hit one out of three times, who cares how they got out the other two times? Click on--or really just mouse over--the hyperlink to cheat.> This leads us to point number two.

2. "Not all outs are equal." No argument there. The strikeout doesn't put the ball in play, whereas flyballs, groundouts, etc. will force the defense to make a play. This will lead to the occasional error. Put differently, if Player A strikes out 100 times, he'll reach first base maybe twice (on the account of a dropped third strike). If Player B hits 100 balls right at fielders, he'll reach base maybe 5 or so times (my best guess).

But wait, there's more! Groundouts and flyouts can advance a runner, while a strikeout adds nothing to this. (Yes, a runner can advance on a strikeout if the ball passes the catcher, but unless the swing-and-miss led to the catcher misplaying the ball, the fact that you struck out did not cause the runner to advance.) This is true, but you have to wonder how often Fielder and Howard move up runners. If I'm managing either of these sluggers, I'm not telling them, "Hey, there's a runner on second with no outs...try to chop a grounder to the first baseman." I'm telling them, "find a pitch you like and drive it." In this case, it helps that both Fielder and Howard are leftys and, as such, will end up advancing runners fortuitously.** I've gotta tip my hat to Quigs on this one...it seems like the added benefit of advancing the runners is significant.



(Random Shawon Dunston pic to break up the wall of text.)



My brother also took up the "Strikeouts are worse than other outs" argument, and he floated a few ideas that were off the beaten path but worth considering:

3. "Batters who strike out frequently are less likely to be intentionally walked." Well, that may or may not be true, but let's assume it is true. (It's beyond the scope of this post to support this statement, and it sounds reasonable.) Do you even want your best hitter to be walked intentionally in a big situation (I'm thinking 2nd and 3rd with one out)? Unfortunately, my lack of knowledge limits us here--I don't know whether it's more desirable to have your best hitter batting with 2nd and 3rd or to have (presumably) your second-best hitter batting with the bases loaded. In fact, I suggested to my brother that it might be a detriment to have your best hitter strike out less cuz that means he's more likely to be passed intentionally in these situations, and he responded with, "So, your argument is basically that Howard is better than Fielder (all other things equal) cuz the other team would rather face Howard than Fielder? That doesn't make a lick of sense." He's got a point.

4. "Strikeouts are psychological rally-killers." Interesting idea. I guess he's right to some extent--nothing takes the air out of a stadium like a strikeout with the bases loaded. Well, except for a double play with the bases loaded, which I suppose is more likely to occur when the batter who strikes out less is at the plate (assuming the two batters of equal batting averages, etc). The GIDP argument is one of the few in support of the strikeout, and I'm not sure how much water it holds.

5. "Strikeouts make you seem human." I like this point better. Being prone to striking out is such a conspicuous chink in the armor that it makes the hitter seem vulnerable. I can picture a fan saying something like this: "Wait, you mean he hits .320, hits for power, and he never strikes out? Jeez, does he have any weakness whatsoever?!" I can also picture that fan saying about a different player: "Yeah, he hits .320 and he hits for power, but at least he strikes out a lot." Now, it obviously makes no difference what the fans think of an opponent, but maybe pitchers are subject to similar fallacious reasoning and that their pitching suffers as a result.


Interesting stuff.





**I've said it before, but I'll say it again (to no one in particular): "Fortuitous" means "happening by chance; accidental." It does not mean "fortunately lucky." That's why we have the word, "serendipitous." If you happen to run into your friend at the mall, that is fortuitous. If you accidentally run your car into your friend's car at that same mall, that is also fortuitous.

LeBron James is the new Willis Reed

SportsCenter reports that the elbow "injury" that LBJ suffered during Game 5 against the Bulls won't cause the Akron Hammer to miss any time. Oh, really? You mean the tremendous pain that forced 'Bron to shoot a meaningless free throw (up by 4 with 6 seconds left) with his left hand after making the important free throw with his right hand isn't serious enough to force him to miss a playoff game? Imagine that.

Ryan Howard deal

Cubs fans gotta love the Howard deal...it's gonna indirectly get Fielder out of the Central and force St. Louis to overpay Pujols.