 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 29th, 2009: Live from the Virginia Republican Convention
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I write to you from Richmond, Virginia, the place where the Republican Party of Virginia is holding its convention. Today work was small and of little contraversy. There were about 2k of the 11k people expected to show tomorrow. Still, its exciting that the convention is underway. Tonight, I will be hitting the convention party circuit, going toa party being put on by neighboring Prince William County. I live in Fairfax county, one of, if not the biggest delgations at the entire convention.
I got a lot of bumper stickers, not all of which will be going on my car. I refuse to have over 2 bumper stickers on my car, as I don't want to be the guy with 10 GOP bumper stickers. I may make an exception to my rule and put 3, since there are really only 3 serious GOP canidates to come out of this convention. For sure Bob McDonnell will get a spot. I may go double Mcdonnell, or I may go McDonnell and Bolling. On the AG race, I have yet to decide. I talked to John Brownlee himself on the phone Monday, and I am leaning his way. Brownlee has no political experiece, but if he gives a good convention adress, he will probably get at least a first ballot vote from me. Still, after talking to him on the phone, I have no worries currently that her could run a good campaign. Still, Ken Cuccinelli is right behind him and I could be convinced to vote Ken by a superior speech or some good convincing. I also have nothing agaist Dave Foster, but he trails the other 2 in my book. Truth be told, I am perfectly fine with any of the winning. On the RPV chairmen position, I have no opinion currently. I will listen to the speeches and decide. Should be an exciting night tonight. -Nic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 26th, 2009: Sotomayor Thoughts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a conservative, I don’t think we could have asked for a much better pick. Is she probably and anti-life justice? Probably. Does she “legislate from the bench” For sure. Still, Obama won and he is allowed to pick whoever he wants as long as they are qualified. To say Sotomayor is not qualified is a joke. She has been a federal judge for nearly 20 years. Here experience is unparallel. Her academic record speaks toward her intelligence. She can handle the job. Just because she made a horrible decision in the New Haven case, this does not mean she ought not to be put through. Clearly her gender and ethnicity were a factor, but so what? She is just as qualified as anyone else, and to pick her and her be a Hispanic and a women is a huge Obama bonus. Do want to note something that I hope bites the Dems in the butt. Remember Democrats trying to harp on the fact that McCain only met with Governor Palin once before she was picked as VP? Remember they all said how horrible it was that she did not know this and that she did not do that and everything. Well Obama picked Sotomayor after having a one hour face to face meeting with Sotomayor last week. Where is the outcry from these Democrats that Obama did not properly talk to Sotomayor. The truth is we don’t know how she is going to rule in a lot of these cases. Maybe, just maybe she will be a little more conservative than the Obama people bargained for. We shall see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 19th, 2009: The Zack Hample Regression Model
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who is Zack Hample? He is a really cool guy known for his ability to catch balls at major league baseball stadiums. He has caught 3,998 balls as of this post, and is expected to catch number 4,000 at his next baseball game in Los Angeles at the Dodgers stadium. His ball hawking skills are so good that he even wrote a book on the subject, which I read when I was like 15, when I used to read dozens of books over the summer. I found his tactics amazing at the time, and I still do now. I recall him noting little things such as to pre-bend the perforation on the ticket stub, so it is easier for the gatekeeper to rip it off so you can get to the seats first. This does not matter now with all MLB stadiums using electronic readers, but it was thinking about these kind of issues that amazed me at the time. His most well known tactic is what he calls the glove trick, which is a contraption he invented using a baseball glove, string and a sharpie in order to retrieve balls on the field that you can’t get to because they are out of reach.
Last year, I found that Hample has a blog (which I now read religiously) where he recounts all of his games now and a personal website with info on him and his baseball collection. This site includes list of every game he has went to, how many balls he caught at that game (including game balls), if there was Batting Practice at the game, what stadium the game was played at and what was the announced attendance at that game.
As a statistician, I decided to make a model that predicts how many balls Hample will get at a given game. I took all of his stats and moved them into Microsoft Excel, and cleaned it up a bit so I could import that into Minitab, a statistical software package. I was able to import the necessary info on 649 of the 722 games that Hample has been counting balls for. He has no data for the first games he went to from 1990-92, and there is no official attendance number for rainout games he attended, so those got thrown out of the model.
Here is the Regression Model:
Balls = 3.59 - 0.000098 Attendance + 2.00 BPCode + 0.369 Experience - 0.825 NY Stadium
Balls is the number of balls Hample catches at a given game. Here are some basic statistics on how many balls he gets in a given game
Descriptive Statistics: Balls
Variable Mean SE Mean StDev Minimum Q1 Median Q3 Maximum
Balls 5.835 0.142 3.654 0.000 3.000 5.000 8.000 28.000
So over his career, he averages about just under 6 balls a game. Let me go through the variables in the model and explain them:
Attendance- This is the paid attendance at the game. The average paid attendance at a Hample game is just a hair under 30,000 people. For about every 10k people at a game, hample is going to lose a ball, clearly as the number approaches zero, the amount of balls Hample gets goes up a lot more. For example, I am sure that the difference between a 10k filled stadium and a 20k filled stadium is a lot more than the difference between a 30k filled one and a 40k filled one. This is a simple linear regression model; I did not want to try fitting a different model because I have a real thesis to work on.
BPCode- Hample gets the majority off his balls from batting practice, so it helps when the guys are hitting them into the seats. If a team has batting practice, the model predicts hample grabbing 2 additional balls. I thought it would be more, but that is not the case. I assume that Hample is able to get that difference as low as he does because when BP is not happening, he is able to focus more on getting balls in ways other than off the bat.
Experience- If you look at the sum of Hample’s work, it is clear that he is much better at hawking balls now that he was in 1990. Every year that Hample gets older, he averages .369 balls more. This is his 19th year of hawking balls (remember real mathematicians start counting at 0, so Hample is 19 this year), and that nets him just over 7 more balls a game than what he pulled in 1990 under the same conditions (his 0 year).
NYStadium- Hample lives in New York, so naturally he goes to more NY Parks. I created this variable but establishing “yankee” “shea” and “Citi” as one set, and all other parks as another. I was not sure there would be, but there is a statistically significant difference in going to a New York park not accounted for by the attendance number alone. Hample can expect almost 1 less ball a game at a 40k crowd at Citi field than he can under the same conditions at a park outside of the Empire State.
So, what does this prove? Well we already knew that Hample is amazing at catching balls, but we now see how he is affected by Attendance, Batting Practice, Age and where the stadium is. I just know I am happy I got my 1st game ball on the fly at Nationals stadium last night off the Pirates catcher Cruz in the top of the 9th inning. It was a great game, where I got 2 balls during BP, 1 thrown by Ian Snell and another off the bend in the wall down the 3rd base line. But hey, at a game with only 14,549 paid attendance with BP outside of NY, Zach Hample would have got on average 11.18 balls at Nats Stadium. But Zach knows that he got his record, 28 balls, in his one appearance at Nationals Park, last year. I guess the model don’t factor in things like “perfect for the glove trick”
For you real stat nerds, here is some additional regression model info:
Regression Analysis: Balls versus Attendance, BPCode, ... The regression equation is
Balls = 3.59 - 0.000098 Attendance + 2.00 BPCode + 0.369 Experience
- 0.825 NY Stadium
649 cases used, 11 cases contain missing values
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
Constant 3.5948 0.4826 7.45 0.000
Attendance -0.00009789 0.00001131 -8.65 0.000
BPCode 2.0027 0.4085 4.90 0.000
Experience 0.36942 0.02550 14.48 0.000
NY Stadium -0.8248 0.2511 -3.29 0.001
S = 3.07974 R-Sq = 29.9% R-Sq(adj) = 29.4%
Analysis of Variance
Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 4 2602.67 650.67 68.60 0.000
Residual Error 644 6108.22 9.48
Total 648 8710.89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 18th, 2009: The Love of the Game
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
 Typically on opening day I like to write a post about how amazing baseball is. I missed that opportunity as opening day has come and past. In fact, my team, the Cleveland Indians, have been sucking it up for a month and a half. Still, while I am very excited about LeBron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers run, baseball will always be my first love. I have been to dozens, possibly hundreds of baseball games in my young life. The biggest game I ever was at was the infamous “Bug Game” between the Cleveland Indians and the New York Yankees in Game 2 of the American League Divisional Series in 2007. It is called the “bug game” because a swarm of midges took to the infield and were so annoying to Joba Chamberlin that they cause him to allow a run. Words can’t really do it justice, look at the picture on the right.I have been to other big games as well. I saw a no-hitter where the pitcher who threw it lost back in 1992 in the old Cleveland Stadium. Mostly though, I just love being at the baseball stadium. I have been at the Cleveland Indians former AAA team, the Buffalo Bisons as well as their AA team, the Akron Aeros. I have seen their High-A team play the Potomac Nationals just 15 min south of me in Woodbridge, VA. I saw for the first time the A team, the Lake County Captains, at Municipal Park vs the Hagerstown Suns this year.
In terms of MLB Stadiums, I have been to the following:
In addition I have been to the following minor league parks:
I have a long term goal of getting to all the major league parks in baseball. I am driving back to Cleveland for a wedding early next month, and I plan on stopping in Pittsburgh in order to add 1 more MLB stadium to my list. I found a man who has kept such great track of all the places he has been that I wanted to show him to all of you here. He has been to 990 professional baseball games, including 340 different professional baseball stadiums. He in fact rates every single one, which is really neat. I saw his web site and decided I wanted to do the same thing, so even though I have not tracked all the games I ever saw, I start this year. Here are my 1st seven this season.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 12th, 2009: Cell Phone only Households outnumber Landline only Households
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The CDC has been in the news of late in regards to the swine flu (sorry the H1N1). The polling world though is very grateful to the CDC though for a survey they do twice a year. They do this survey using in-person interviews, as opposed to telephone interviews, which is not really done today elsewhere. The CDC does this because they cannot take the chance of the cell phone problem that all the typically polling organizations do. The cell phone problem is that pollsters can’t call cell phones like they do with landlines.
The results of the CDC poll make sense on the face of it. The number of households who only use a cell phone went up, and the number of households that only use a landline went down. The amazing thing is that for the first time, the percentage of cell phone only households (20.2%) outnumbers the number of households with only a landline (17.4%). Look at the graph below
 The trend is clear. So is the problem for pollsters. They have been contacting people via landlines for basically 50 years without any huge mistakes. Still, the fault lines are breaking. In the 2008, there were a few mistakes. One can not forget the horrible call made by pollsters after the New Hampshire Primary. While I don’t believe the cell phone problem was the whole reason why pollsters got it wrong, it certainly was a factor. I think of this problem like a Jenga game. Pollsters are able to fix the problems in the sampling by using weighting. As that Cell Phone only number goes up, they are pulling out more bricks in the Jenga game. I hope that we are able to fix the problem without making a huge mistake like the 1948 election, but the history of polling says we won’t change until a bill egg is thrown on our faces. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 11th, 2009: Sick Sykes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Whitehouse Correspondents Dinner has become a red carpet event in Washington. Hollywood comes storming into DC wanting to be with the politicos, and the politicos love being around Hollywood stars. It really has a great tradition of a formal dinner with the President and the Press that covers him. Traditionally the President gives a monologue of humor, and President Obama did a great job in that role. After him, a big time comedian comes in and does a routine. The routine to follow Obama was Wanda Sykes, which is someone I never heard of before the weekend, but I confess I don’t know all the big comedians today. Well I know Sykes now. Listen to her sick attempt at humor here.
And you listen and there is little outcry today. All of the people who report on the President were there are few people are reporting this sick comment. The White House finally today would not endorse Sykes words, but they would not condemn her. Gibbs today said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks are a topic "better left for serious reflection than comedy." I am sorry, but this just does not cut it. You can dislike Limbaugh, but comparing him to Bin Laden? And the sad thing is that Obama laughed at this sick humor. There used to be a rule, don’t compare anyone to Hitler. Let’s add Osama Bin Laden to that list. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 8th, 2009: Obama Screws Creditors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is an issue I have wanted to write about but I have been doing my research on. Something did not smell right when Obama said the following words last week regarding the Chrysler bankruptcy:
“But while many stakeholders made sacrifices, some did not. In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds that hoped to hold out for a taxpayer-funded bailout. I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees, management and suppliers. I don't with stand with those who held out when everybody else made sacrifices.”
Ok, one needs to understand exactly what about is saying and doing here. Obama was asking senior creditors, who are supposed to be the 1st in line to be paid, to only take 29 cents on the dollar. The senior creditors rightfully balked at this proposal. If you lent someone money under the condition that you were the 1st person to be paid back, how would you feel if you just got screwed like this? The answer: not too good. Obama said that everyone made sacrifices in this planned bankruptcy, and this is true, but the sacrifices are not equal. These senior creditors were willing to sacrifice 50 cents on the dollar, when they deserved 100 cents on the dollar. Yet Obama is trying to demonize them as evil hedge funds. Obama is trying to use the bully pulpit in order to shove law out the window.
Doing this would be bad enough, but sadly there is a political bent here too. What Obama did was raise a junior creditor up in the process, the unions, and diverted money to them that would go to the senior creditors in a normal circumstance. The UAW is a huge supporter of Barack Obama, and now it is paying off. It is paying off and at the same time Obama is screwing up the bankruptcy process by changing where the money goes. Anyone who has read John Locke knows the importance of contractual law and Obama seems to have no regard for it. A say day indeed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 4th, 2009: Let the Man Pick!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of the buzz on the new Supreme Court pick is fun, but it really is pointless. The conventional wisdom saying that Obama is picking a woman. Probably so, but why does he have to? There is also a huge chorus that he will pick a Latino (or Latina). Again, very possible, but the man can pick whoever he wants, assuming that they are qualified. I do find it interesting though that there is finally some uproar about Latino balance as opposed to African-American balance. We hear all the time that there are not enough African-American {fill in the blank}. We rarely hear the same of Hispanics, even though they make up about the same percentage of the population.
While I think Obama should pick who he wants, I am also frustrated at these people who say if he picks someone on any basis other than ability to interpret the constitution, that Obama is doing a disservice. This is not the case either. The history of the court is littered with political picks, as David Paul Kuhn wrote today at Real Clear Politics. The man who sets to Gold standard in integrity, Abraham Lincoln, made his picks based on where he believed he need help to get re-elected. The whole problem I have with the court is how it is idolized today. The Supreme Court is not made up of 9 gods. The members of the Supreme Court are just human beings, and they make mistakes like any other. The court botched one of the biggest cases it ever had in the Dred Scott Decision, when they ruled that slaves were not people and thus could never be citizens of the United States. This is not an isolated case in the court.
Instead, we are taught in our schools that the court is the protector of human rights. This is clearly far from the truth. The court did not protect the rights of slaves (Dred Scott), they did not protect the rights of African Americans (Plessey v. Ferguson), and the court did not protect the rights of the unborn (Roe v. Wade). It is also true in lesser known cases when the court denied rights to Japanese-Americans (Korematsu v. United States). Sure, the court has made many good decisions as well and has push the ball toward the just action well before it would have happened in the legislature as well. Conservatives who don’t acknowledge this are just trying to hold ground for the sake of holding it.
My point is that these are mere men (and women). They make mistakes. If you hold these 9 people to be the ultimate protector of human rights, you will be disappointed. Obama has an important pick to make with Justice Souter leaving. As winner of the Presidency, he is entitled to pick someone based off of the qualifications he deems important. As long as that person, man, woman, Latino, black, white, Jew, Evangelical, Catholic or Atheist is qualified to do the job, that person ought to be confirmed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|