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.

The Joys of a Misclick

So, most successful online poker players play multiple tables at the same time. This maximizes the number of hands they play, thus maximizing their profits. It's normal for a player to play 10, 14, or even 24 tables at once. (I fluctuate between 16 and 20 myself.) The online poker rooms have excellent software for so called multi-tablers where the tables will come to the forefront (there's surely a technical term for this, but it escapes me) one at a time, but even the best of us will occasionally misclick (the fold, call, and raise buttons are close together) in the flurry of negotiating our 20 or so tables. This is aggravating, of course, because you can accidentally fold AA or raise with rags. I'm pretty good about not misclicking, but I have definitely folded a few big hands due to the dreaded misclick and I once made a raise to $42 or something preflop with complete garbage (and lost the hand, of course). Goodbye, nice dinner!

Anyways, the following hand demonstrates how an opponent's serendipitous misclick can pay off big for you. There's little strategy involved here, so just sit back and enjoy the ride.


To set the scene, I'm at a table with 6 other "regulars"--guys who play tons of hands and likely make a living from online poker--and 1 fish. This is less than ideal, but sometimes when games are slow you have to make due. At the least, it's better than quitting and doing hw, haha. Even though there's only one guy here who's undeniably worse than I am--all of us Regulars are pretty much the same in terms of talent--it's still a good spot for me because I have position on the one fish. I act immediately after him on almost every hand, so I can wait for him to enter a hand, then reraise to isolate the fish from the sharks who, like me, smell blood and are circling. Moreover, this guy was the best type of fish--he was aggressive and would put lots of money in with marginal hands.

Oh, I obviously multiplied the actual dollar amounts by a factor to keep camouflaged how little/much I actually play for. Plus, with all this money out there, it ramps up the drama! The scale is the same, though, and that's all that matters.


Seat 1: Regular1 ($20,000 in chips)
Seat 2: Fish ($21,760 in chips)
Seat 3: Billy ($20,546.70 in chips)
Seat 4: Regular2 ($20,550 in chips)
Seat 6: Regular3 ($27592 in chips)
Seat 7: Regular4 ($27,591 in chips)
Seat 8: Regular5 ($29,470 in chips)
Seat 9: Regular6 ($23297 in chips)
Regular5: posts small blind $100
Regular6: posts big blind $200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Billy [Ah As]
Regular1: folds
Fish: raises $800 to $1000

What a dream scenario: Fish has a hand he likes and we have the best hand in the game. Let's raise small to get everyone else out of the hand so I can go one-on-one with Fish.

Billy: raises $1000 to $2000
Regular2: folds
Regular3: raises $1000 to $3000

Okay, this play makes no sense. It's a minraise (raising the absolute minimum allowed) by a competent player. The minraise here would never be performed by someone competent, so this guy is either (1) way drunk or (2) the victim of a misclick. Either way, we're ecstatic.


Regular4: folds
Regular5: folds
Regular6: folds
Fish: calls $2000

Sweet, Fish is sticking around. I was a bit concerned that my raise and Regular3's reraise would scare him away, but since the raises (both of 'em) were small, he's gonna stick around. If he put $2k in, he'll probably put more in, so let's re-raise to get Regular3 out of the way and to get Fish to put in more money preflop. The more money he puts in to see a flop, the more committed he is to putting the rest in if he catches a piece of the flop. We don't wanna raise too big, though, lest we scare him away.

Billy: raises $7400 to $10400
Regular3: folds
Regular3 said, "fn misklick"

Misclick confirmed. Thanks for the extra $3k, Regular3.

Fish: calls $7400

Beautiful. Fish has about half of his stack invested--he's gonna have a hard time folding.

*** FLOP *** [Td Ks 9s]
Fish: bets $11,360 and is all-in

Yup, here he goes. This isn't a great board for AA, but there is no way we ever fold to such a reckless, loose player with so much money already invested.

Billy: calls $10,147 and is all-in
Uncalled bet ($1213) returned to Fish (Since Fish has us covered, he gets a slight refund on his bet.)
*** TURN *** [Td Ks 9s] [Qs]
*** RIVER *** [Td Ks 9s Qs] [6d]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Fish: shows [9h 8h] (a pair of Nines)
Billy: shows [Ah As] (a pair of Aces)
Billy collected $44,293 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $44,296 | Rake $3
Board [Td Ks 9s Qs 6d]
Seat 2: Fish showed [9h 8h] and lost with a pair of Nines
Seat 3: Billy showed [Ah As] and won ($44,293) with a pair of Aces



Now, just how clutch was that misclick? Well, in addition to the $3k of dead money, it gave us a chance to put in another preflop raise. If Regular3 had folded, like he intended, Fish would have just called our bet and he'd have most of his stack left. On that flop, he'd be more cautious with so little money in the pot and so much money still in his stack. He'd probably check the flop (instead of shoving all in) and maybe call a flop bet from us; however, he'd probably fold after the turn, given our showing of strength throughout the hand and his relatively scant holdings (unless his hand improved, in which case we'd be losing). So, we'd miss out on about $15k in value by having him fold. That misclick made us $18k richer (Fish's $15k + Regular3's $3k).

So, what exactly is Conflicts of Law?

Good question. Conflict of laws "encompasses several related areas of law: choice of law, constitutional limitations on choice of law, jurisdiction of courts, [and] recognition of sister-state judgments..." Brilmayer xxvii.

We're gonna be focused on choice of law, cuz it's the hardest (for me, at least), but to explain some of the others briefly (again, "explain" means "tell y'all what I think it means," not "tell y'all what it means"):

*Jurisdiction of courts: Does a federal court have jurisdiction over a state claim? Does a TX court have jurisdiction over an IL resident? Does a TX court have jurisdiction over a British corporation? (etc.) This obviously is not a definition but rather a listing of examples, but that's cuz a definition is beyond the scope of this blog.

*Recognition of sister-state judgments: Does an IL court have to give "full faith and credit" to a decision that a TX court reached? (Basically, yes.)



Okay, so what is choice of law? Maybe a (not so) hypothetical situation will help elucidate it:

Mr. Carroll is a citizen of Alabama. He works as a brakeman on a railroad. The RR he works for is an Alabama corporation that runs a train from TN through AL into MS. Carroll works on the part of the line between Birmingham, AL, and Meridian, MS. On the train somewhere in MS, a link between two traincars breaks, and Carroll gets hurt. What happened? One of the RR's employees failed to inspect the train links while the train was still in Alabama. (This employee was "negligent," which is typically a cause for action.) Neither AL state law nor MS state law, however, allows Carroll to recover money from his employer (the RR) for negligence on the part of an employee. So, Carroll is out of luck, right? Well, wouldn't you know it, there's a statute in Alabama called the Employer's Liability Act of Alabama, which might allow Carroll to recover some money. MS, however, lacks such a statute.

So, I think you can see where we're going with this. If the court decides to apply MS law, Carroll loses. If the court decides to apply AL law, Carroll has at least a chance of winning. (At this point you may be asking, "well, which court is hearing this case--an AL state court or a MS state court?" Surprisingly, I'm pretty sure that the answer to this question is immaterial for our purposes...counter-intuitive, no?)

Okay, this fact pattern actually did happen once upon a time. I took the facts from an 1892 case. The judge in this case applied a "traditional" approach to this issue of choice of law that is now outdated in a majority of states. But still, the prof wanted us to read this case and he knows more about teaching Conflicts than I do, so I'm gonna post it.


Before I get into the holdings of the case, try to decide which law you'd apply (and why). I know that thinking critically sucks when the answer is just around the corner, but, uh, do it anyways.



.
.
.




The judge held that MS law applies. He held that there can be no recovery in one State (AL) for injuries to the person sustained in another State (MS) unless the infliction of the injuries is actionable (that is, if you have grounds to sue on) under the law of the State in which they were received (MS). So, if MS had this Employer's Liability Act, a MS court could award damages to Carroll. Hell, an Alabama court--applying MS law--could award damages to Carroll. (Yes, State 1 can and often does apply State 2's law.) But, our court cannot award damages because it must apply MS law and MS has no law that would allow Carroll to recover damages.

Why does the judge care so much about where the injury occurs? After all, the negligence took place in Alabama. If our boy Carroll had gotten hurt in MS "normally" (i.e., in a manner not caused by negligence), he'd have no right to sue cuz he'd have no action (i.e., no law to sue on). Sure, the injury in MS is a necessary prerequisite of the lawsuit, but so is the negligence in AL!

Here's my best understanding of what the judge was thinking: "Look, a negligent action without an injury isn't Negligence. If I drive my Corvette negligently and almost hit your car parked on the street (you're sitting in your house and are unaware of what happened), you can't sue me because you haven't suffered any damages.* Failing to inspect the train became actionable when Carroll suffered an injury."

The court treats as dispositive (being a deciding factor--comes from the fact that if a court decides this issue, it can dispose of the lawsuit) this question: "Where did the last event necessary to make someone (allegedly) liable for a tort occur?" This is nice because it makes our job easier...you figure out where the last even occurred, look at that state's laws, and apply those laws. The end. But, is that fair?

Later, we'll be talking about choices of law with respect to intentional torts. (Negligence is not an intentional tort.) Btw, a tort is "a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained, usu. in the form of damages." (Black's law dictionary.) Should the fact that I meant to hurt you affect our choice of law? Stay tuned!






*I say "parked car" to avoid murky questions of emotional distress, etc. that might arise if I narrowly avoid hitting you while we're both driving. Also: yes, they did have Corvettes in 1892.

Conflicts of Law

So, I was riding the elevator up to the library with some 3L's a few nights ago. One of 'em espied my Conflicts of Law casebook, turned to me, and said, "so, you're gonna be a Chancellor, huh?" (A Chancellor is someone who has one of the top 16 GPAs in his class of 400 or so.) If I had my wits about me, I woulda said something like, "I think I'm already mathematically eliminated from contention." (Instead, I kinda just laughed and issued a generic denial.)

The point of this anecdote, however, is not to give myself a virtual do-over. Rather, it's to impress upon y'all the reputation that Conflicts has among the law school. It's reputed to be the most challenging course--my peers cringe when I mention that I'm taking it--and, what's worse, only the best and brightest take it, generally. (Is that because the best and brightest like to challenge themselves academically? Well, maybe, but it's also an essential course for someone looking to land a judicial clerkship after graduation. I'll let you decide for yourself whether your typical law student is extrinsically or intrinsically motivated.)


Now, before we go any further, let me stress that I am neither the best nor the brightest. I'm not looking for a clerkship, either. I took the course because (1) I didn't believe the hype, (2) the material seemed interesting, and (3) I like the professor (had him for Civil Procedure).


Okay, so why bring this up? Cuz we just got into the meat of the course and I'm gonna use this blog as a means for studying. I figure that if I can translate the lectures and cases into something that you (an intelligent reader, no doubt, but one who likely has little training in the law) can comprehend, I'll learn the material more thoroughly and flesh out my own misunderstandings, etc, along the way.

Please note that I cannot warrant that my understanding of the material is accurate. This is a relatively unvarnished look at a 2L's attempt to grasp some very confusing concepts, that's all.

Things I Learned Today

I like this topic, so I'm gonna stick with it until it has run its course.

*I learned that "riparian" means "of, on, or relating to the banks of a natural course of water." In a similar vein, I also learned that "effluent" means "something that flows out or forth, especially (among other things) a stream that flows out of a body of water. [Note: all definitions are coming from thefreedictionary.com.]

Context: Reading for Environmental Law, of course.


*I learned that Sheryl Crow sold her catalogue for $10 million. Not bad. I should probably say something like "All she wants to do is have some fun, amirite?!?!" but I'm above that.

Context: Listening to the radio in my CD-playerless car.

*I learned that tundra is a biome (an area, essentially) whereas permafrost is the actual soil that stays below 32 degrees year-round. At least, that's my understanding as of now--I could have that mixed up.

Context: Ironically, this has nothing to do with Environ Law. I was watching Cash Cab and this question arose (my best approximation): "What soil or surface covering 70% of Alaska is known for staying at or below 32 degrees year-round?" I guessed tundra, it was permafrost (which sounds obvious when you read the question with the word perma-frost in your head).

*I learned that "[i]t is not always easy to decide what is heads and tails on a given coin. Numismatics (the scientific study of money) defines the obverse and reverse of a coin rather than heads and tails." (from random.org) and here I've been saying "heads" and "tails" like a sucker!

Context: $10k flips to get unstuck after a bad session, obviously.

*Finally, I learned that Tracy (no one we knew, of course) should probably never use facebook again.

Context: 2p2

(Some of the) Things I've Learned Today

School has resumed and my cup now runneth over with knowledge. Today, I learned the following things:


*I learned that "anthropogenic" means "caused by humans." (Used when discussing pollutants and other bad things that man has produced.) I discovered this while doing my reading for Environmental Law.

*In a related matter, I learned that Environmental Law is going to be a boring course.

*I learned that back in the day, motorists driving into a state different from their domicile were once required to pull over near the border and execute a consent to be sued. Why? Well, this is most easily explained with an example, so let's say you're driving from IL into WI. (Let's assume that there's something worth seeing in Wisconsin...a stretch, I know.) Let's also say that you crash into a Wisconsinite in his home state. This Wisconsinite wants to sue you--a dirty FIB--for negligence. Let's also say that we're all living in 1880. Finally, Wisconsinite wants to sue you in a Wisconsin state court. Well, the Supreme Court said in Pennoyer v. Neff (1878) that a state court has "personal jurisdiction" over you only if you are within the State. So, if you are back in Illinois, Wisconsinite cannot bring the suit in a Wisconsin court.

In short, Pennoyer premised personal jurisdiction on presence. So, if you were stupid enough to go back to Wisconsin, you could get served in Wisconsin and then all of a sudden you hafta appear in front of a Wisconsin state court. Oops! Anyways, Pennoyer mighta made sense when it was written, but with the advent of automobiles and whatnot, the test (of presence) made less sense. So, for a short time, motorists had to sign those consent forms (waiving their objections on the grounds of personal jurisdiction, essentially). Later, courts came up with the legal fiction that motorists, by driving across state lines, impliedly consented to being served via a State official. Finally, we just trashed Pennoyer (more or less) and came up with a different standard.

Confused? Yeah, same here. That's not all, either: there's also "subject-matter jurisdiction" issues. For example: can a federal court hear a breach of contract claim? (Breaches of contract are purely state matters.) Can a state court hear a case concerning federal legislation? There's also some sick, sick stuff about determining whether a state court should apply its own state law or a different state's law, but I have no idea how that stuff works, haha. Stay tuned, I guess.

*I learned that "Doin' Time" is a loose cover of a Gershwin song (covered here by Janis Joplin...I probably should have known this by now, but I guess I cut that day of 'Sublime Songs 101'.

*Back to vocabulary quickly, I learned that "factitious" means "lacking authenticity; a sham". I only throw that in here cuz the definition is kinda counterintuitive (maybe it's not if you're an etymology major).

*I finally learned what "Cap and Trade" means...it's not confusing at all, but I never bothered to look it up. Thanks, Environ Law!

*I learned that China pollutes more than we do, but that we have more pollution per capita. On the other hand, in terms of pollution per unit of GDP, the U.S. is just chilling in the middle of the pack. U-S-A! (Btw, guess where I learned that?)

*I learned that both sides of the political aisle are framing the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES) as a "jobs bill." (Obama's words, but echoed by a Republican congressman.)

*I learned that Denis Clemente could probably beat me in HORSE (basketball, not poker, haha).

3 AM and I Kant Sleep

People have an unhappy habit of conflating legality with morality. I recently admonished my cousin for trash-talking his brother (these are young kids--his insult and my subsequent scolding were both innocuous). His reply? "The Constitution gives us all a right to free speech." (Yes, this kid is too precocious for his own good.) This is a simplistic example of a straw-man argument that you'll hear throughout your life. Don't fall for it. Yes, we should theoretically have a legal system that embodies our morality, but that's not the case. (For one, whose morality should we embody?) There are numerous examples of actions which are largely accepted as immoral that (rightly so) remain legal: lying* and committing adultery come to mind. I'm having a tougher time thinking of affirmatively moral actions that are illegal...that's probably a good thing that few if any examples exist. Admittedly, there are a healthy number of amoral actions that are illegal: antitrust laws, speeding laws, maybe even statutory rape laws. ("Statutory rape" as defined in a penal code is arguably way too broad to be classified as wholly immoral. I hate to qualify that statement but it's 3 AM and I could be thinking nebulously.)



*You don't have to be Kant to realize that there are some situations in which lying is immoral. No, I didn't reference Kant in order to tie the post back to the title. I swear.

Poker, Math, and Theory (continued)

Okay, a quick update on the previous post: I consulted with my braintrust, two respected and feared poker players with healthy experience at the stakes I play. Here are there thoughts and my reactions:

(1) Jaconda felt I unfairly discounted the chance that Carl would flat-call my 4bet. She's right in that I should have given that possibility more weight; however, I think it's a weird play to flat a 4bet for a total of 25% of your stack. Also, we have to remember that Carl is out of position (OOP). Position is extremely important in poker and even more so in no-limit games like the one we're playing. Players out of position like to negate their disadvantage by getting the money in preflop if possible. Putting the money AIPF (all-in preflop) means that the player OOP won't be forced to make difficult decisions without the advantage of seeing how his opponent has acted.

Additionally, what is he gonna flat with here? I can see flatting AA and KK maybe but Carl has to think that we have a big hand and are gonna be c-betting virtually every flop (if only cuz we have such a strong image and the pot is so big). Would he flat AK? No way...he doesn't wanna play a flop with two big cards. What about TT, etc? Again, no way...he's not gonna wanna do this because he's gonna have such a hard time with a large number of flops. Unless Carl is setting up an elaborate and bizarre bluff, I can't imagine him flatting here. Even if he has QQ+, he's gonna wanna get it AIPF cuz my hand range loses so much strength after a flop and Carl wants to maximize value.

(2) Both Jaconda and Eltrain think that we should be folding to a 5bet shove. This disagreement comes from the fact that they're giving Carl credit for a much stronger range than I am. This is something that cannot be resolved, unfortunately, because only Carl knows what he would 5bet shove here. Assuming arguendo that his range is much stronger than I think (and that Carl is either gonna fold or shove to our 4bet), Jaconda and Eltrain are correct in that it doesn't matter what our cards are because we're folding to his shove. Ideally, we'd like to have an ace in our hand, only because that makes it less likely that Carl has an ace, which means that he's more likely to fold. Complicated, I know, but that's (online) poker.



By the way: I folded preflop, fwiw. No me gusta variance, haha.