Hall of Fame pitcher question

So I think it's a foregone conclusion that Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux, and Randy Johnson are first ballot Hall of Famers (barring any moralistic steroids stuff on Clemens).

I'm pretty sure that Tom Glavine will be a first ballot HOFer too because of his 300 wins

I think John Smoltz and Curt Schilling will make it but I'm not sure if they're first ballot guys.

What do you think?
Glavine has 300 wins but fewer than 3000 strikeouts (2607)
Schilling has more strikeouts than Smoltz (3116 to 3011)
Schilling has more wins that Smoltz (216 to 210)
Smoltz has more saves (154 to 22)
Smoltz has a lower ERA than Schilling or Glavine (3.26 to 3.46 and 3.54 respectively)
Schilling has a lower WHIP than Smoltz or Glavine (1.14 to 1.17 and 1.31 respectively)
Playoff W-L-ERA for the three are
Schilling 11-2 2.23
Smoltz 15-4 2.65 (and 4 saves)
Glavine 14-16 3.42

Schilling has an NLCS MVP and a World Series MVP (which probably should've been only Randy Johnson's since he won 3 games in the series and saved Curt's ass in game 7)
Smoltz has 1 Cy Young, 1 Rolaids Relief award, and 1 Silver Slugger (1 NLCS MVP)
Glavine has 2 Cy Youngs and 4 Silver Slugger awards (1 World Series MVP)

From these numbers, honestly I would have to say that John Smoltz is easily the most Hall worthy of the 3 with Curt probably just eeking out Glavine (although the Cy Youngs make it tough). The sad part is that because of win total Glavine will cruise in and the other two will probably make it with less wiggle room.

What do you think? Who's the best of these three? Who's the worst? Do they all belong in the HOF?

Chipper Jones a first ballot HOFer? Awesome

Ok, so I read a column on ESPN today about 3rd basemen and a comment was made that Chipper Jones was a first ballot Hall of Famer. This made me happy as a Braves fan and when I looked at the numbers I realized how few and far between good third basemen have been.

Even though Chipper has an extensive injury history his numbers still stack up against Hall of Fame third basemen. He currently has a higher OPS than all of the notable modern day third baseman. I compared him to Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Eddie Mathews, Wade Boggs, and Brooks Robinson for HOFers and threw in Gary Gaetti, Graig Nettles, Ron Santo, and Scott Rolen for good measure.

Chipper's .955 OPS leads the group with Schmidt's .908 the only other to top .900

Only Chipper, Boggs, and Brett walked more than they have struck out during their careers.

Only Brett, Schmidt, and Mathews have more extra base hits (altough he'll probably pass Mathews this year)
Only Brett and Robinson have more doubles
Only Schmidt and Mathews have more homers
He and Schmidt are the only two to have 400 doubles and 400 homeruns

With 3 more runs and 12 more RBIs Chipper will have 1400 R and 1400 RBI
Only Brett, Schmidt, and Mathews are in that exlusive third basemen group
If Chipper is moderately healthy this year and next he'll join Brett and Schmidt as the only members with 1500 R and 1500 RBI

Only Chipper, Schmidt, Brett, and Robinson have won MVPs
Only Boggs, Brett, and Chipper have batting titles

Only Boggs and Brett have more hits (well he still needs 8 to tie Mathews but that seems neglible)

Basically, there are very few things that he's the best at, but he excels at everything. He, unlike any hitters in this group except maybe George Brett, has no discernible weakness. Chipper is basically George Brett with less durability but more power.

This is reassuring for a braves fan who's always pulling for Chipper.

Why do we still ask beauty contestants questions?

So I finally saw the Miss California gay marriage answer that I'd heard was a big deal and Perez Hilton's response (video clips at the bottom). Here's my take:

I agree with Perez that it was an incredibly dumb answer regardless of ideology. Opposite marriage? In my country and in my family I think I believe? That is just a trainwreck of platitudes and attempts at an answer.

That being said, I think Perez is incredibly touchy and over reacting because he is gay. But then again, is that what the hilton's do? They just run their mouth about people to grab headlines but they're really just high school-esque petty morons?

And back on the contestant's answer. Aren't you supposed to stop using "that's the way I was raised" after you graduate high school? I'm not saying you have to change your opinion, I'm just saying you have to forge an opinion, support it, and buy into it yourself because you're an adult now. If you think it's immoral, say so, but don't hide behind this weak minded "that's how I was raised." If I want to know how you were raised I'll ask your parents. Grow up and start thinking for yourself.

And can't we just stop asking beauty pageant contestants questions or having a talent portion? They're in a beauty pageant. That means they're not that bright or talented. Otherwise they wouldn't be in a beauty pageant. These girls know they're going to have to speak in public and they still sound like a 'D' student in a freshman english class. I guess the students who sound like they graduated with a 'C' are the 'geniuses' of the competition.

The supermarkets are starting to get it!

I went to a Stop and Shop recently and I love this!


I've seen prototypes of this done by the IDEO product developers during an MIT Sloan exec ed course I was coordinating. It came up when they were working on redesigning the shopping cart and I couldn't imagine why this hadn't caught on yet.

You scan your own groceries as you shop and add and subtract things as you see fit. It tells you your running total at all times so there doesn't need to be any more embarassing moments at a register of putting something back.

From the store's perspective this seems to have very little downside outside the occasional thief but most, if not all stores, have the security gates that will go off if something hasn't been scanned anyway. Other than that, here's the benefits I see the store getting out of this:
1. Fewer cashiers needed to ring things up so lower labor costs. You have to repair machines once in a while but it is much closer to a fixed cost.
2. Since checkout, and the entire shopping experience, is probably shorter you can get more customers through and make more money
3. This 'no hassle' shopping will probably just outright attract customers, like me, who are tired of getting stuck behind the indecisive, once a month shopper buying 900 items who thought something was on sale but didn't realize s/he was looking at the price tag on the shelf above and the new cashier who doesn't know how to do something.

This may require more training for your employees but it still requires less of them and that's what I call progress.

All I can say is...It's about time!

Vegan morality

I just listened to some Propagandhi for old times sake last night. For those who don't know them they're veganarchists (vegan anarchists). I have no problem with anarchism. It usually has quite a bit of truth to it but I just can't understand how people can be moral about being vegetarian or vegan.

I have no problem with vegetarianism or veganism as a health or personal taste choice but Propagandhi frames veganism as an animal rights issue. If someone is going to take that stance then they better start arresting all members of the animal kingdom who kill and eat other animals because it happens all the time. It's usually for food but...that makes sense. If you're a meat eating animal, killing another animal makes sense if you want to eat.

And before anyone says "Yeah, well humans don't have all sharp fangs so we can't be carnivores." That's right, we have a lot of flat, grindy teeth and a few pointed ones on the top and the bottom. Do you know what that means? OMNIVORE.

This, to me, is the problem with being too self righteous about your causes (and I am very guilty of this too) is that you often look just as crazy as the extremist on the other side.

Blast you fast food chains!

I crab about these all the time but it's about time I just rant it out.

I used to be a huge fast food consumer and I still grab it every now and again when I'm traveling. When I first saw the display screens in drive-thrus years ago (you know the ones that let you confirm they are entering what you are ordering) I was ecstatic. This improves my life because it improves the quality of my orders and gets the employees less grief. I would assume it gets them less grief because people can politely correct them at order time as opposed to being pissed when they return. I would at least assume they wouldn't be getting more grief and they'd be getting happier customers.

But here comes the anger part: NO ONE USES THEM ANYMORE! Why do they bother spending the money to basically buy tvs they are going to put outside to improve their service if they're not going to use them?! This, to me, doesn't even seem like a case by case lack of use. It just seems like everyone stopped using them at once and it irritates the living crap out of me. I'm back to getting the same crappy service with no ability to check if they're actually hearing me or not and now I also have a wonderful piece of unused technology in front of me just mocking me.

On a related note I also feel like fast food employees are getting less good at their jobs. This could also just me getting older and crankier or spending time in areas with crappy service. Here's what I mean by worse service though: when I used to place an order I would get this pleasant "that will be $X at your first drive thru window" or something like that. It lets me know how much money it's costing me so I don't have to look at the useless receipt (and if it's way off that's also another check on poor order taking) and it lets me know that we're good to go and telling me which window to stop at. These may seem like minor things but it just seems like common sense. Most places have at least two windows and I want the person at the other end to know we're all set. GRRRRR! Damn you fast food chain!

Progressives vs. Free Trade

I must say that I am saddened that it seems that progressives are adamantly against the idea of free trade entirely. As a self proclaimed progressive this doesn't sit well with me.

Free trade may be a misnomer in either what we're referring to or what we actually have but the idea of markets and trade is a very good idea that helps society progress. I take my opinions from a lot of different sources (Stiglitz, Krugman, Rodrik, Charles Derber) and I think we all have similar desires and share common threats.

Here's what I see, competition (honest and fair competition, that is) spurs innovation and lowers cost. That's a great thing. It also evolves our economy and pushes us out of certain labor markets. When a country develops and becomes more technologically advanced it usually prices itself out of the low income labor market. This is bad for unskilled laborers but good in the sense that we are "getting better" and becoming more profitable as a nation.

Here are the problems that I see:
1. LARGE corporations (not business in general) tend to dominate markets which may seem good if they are the best but it means competition isn't good enough. These corporations form effective monopolies (become "too big to fail") or share in an oligopoly. This stifles innovation and defeats the purpose of competition and markets offering lower prices. Not all large corporations do this but enough do that it's hurting our economy

2. Our shifting economy either creates large unemployment or protectionism. Neither of these are good for the economy or businesses in general. Businesses want the unemployment (cheaper labor for them) but don't realize that without any sort of unemployment job retraining they are getting less useful employees.

3. Politicians don't understand this problem, are unwilling to take a stand, or are summarily voted down so they match patchwork half ass accomplishments that are usually a mix of protectionism and bailouts.

We need a massive restructuring and maybe this economic crisis is the time to do it.