One From the Krugman Archives.

Alan Simpson is "this cantankerous, potty-mouthed individual, who evidently feels not a bit of empathy for those less fortunate."

In other words, a crank and a sociopath.

Today's Terse Testimony

Shorter Paul Krugman:

David Brooks is an idiot.

That is all.

Update:

On further review, it's not all.  Some piling on

Brad Delong.

LGM.

Tigers Mid-month Update, Part 2 - Pitching

Here are some Tigers pitching stats, after last night's game.

When Verlander has the highest ERA on the starting staff, and is 4th in K/9, I'd say things are going rather well.

Coke pitched a 1-hit scoreless 9th in Boston last night.  If he can keep turning things around, the future will look very bright, indeed.



For part 1, see here.

Tigers Mid-month Update

Tigers have the day off, and I have a jam packed weekend, so now, with a few spare moment I'll make a brief update.

At the end of April, the Tigers were averaging 4.52 runs per game and giving up 4.13 - a scant 0.39 average differential.

Now, for the season to date, these numbers stand at 4.89 and 3.64, respectively, a much healthier differential of 1.25.

Looking at May only, for these 13 games the Tigers are averaging 5.54 runs per game, while giving up only 2.77 - an astounding 2.77 run differential.  Coincidentally, the Tigers have exactly doubled up on their opponents' scoring during the month. 

Graph 1 shows Tigers scoring by inning, for May (blue) and for season to date (red.)

 

Graph 1

The strong 4th inning has gotten stronger, at the expense of the 3rd.  The good news is how late scoring has picked up.  Other innings haven't changed much.  There have been no extra inning games so far this month.

Graph 2 shows runs allowed per inning, for May and for season to date.

Graph 2

Innings 1, 2, 4, and 6 are down, 3 and 7 close to unchanged, 5 and 9 are up a bit.  The 5th inning jump is largely due to Verlander's 5-run inning on Tuesday, when the Tigers were up by 6.

Note these two graphs are on the same scale.  That in itself shows how dominating the Tigers have been.

Their 24-12 record (.667 win percentage) is the best in the majors, and projects to 108 wins for the season. They've played the fewest games of any team in the majors, with 3 to 6 games in hand relative to their division mates.  Interestingly, the allegedly weak A L Central as of Monday was 24-14 against the allegedly strong A L East.

Tigers are in Boston for 3 this weekend, then move on to play 3 against division rival Cleveland. After that, the Rangers are in town for 4.

For pitching stats, see part 2.

I'll have more detail at the end of the month.

Cabrera Update After Game 28

In the 3rd game of the season, Miguel Cabrera went 4 for 5 with a home run and 3 RBIs.  But by game 16, all his stats were at all time lows.  Since then, he's recovered dramatically.  Here it is in a couple of graphs.

Graph 1 shows batting stats - batting average, on base percentage, and slugging percentage.

Graph 1

This vertical scale is compressed to accommodate the high slugging average after game 3, so the impressive batting average increase from .206 after game 16 to .293 after game 28 doesn't look as dramatic as it should.  But note how slugging stepped up after game 16, and actually kept slowly rising from that point.  In game 28 last night, he had a double and a home run, so slugging moved up another notch to .466.  It will be interesting to see if he can maintain this apparent higher level.  This should happen, since he finished last year with a slugging percentage of .636.  This included a dramatic decline at the end of the season when he was injured.  Slugging for September was a sluggish .313, dragging the season number down from .688 on August 26. This year, his 4 home runs to date equal last years total after 28 games, but then he hit 2 in game 29 on May 3rd at Houston.  There is still a lot of room on the upside.

Graph 2 shows batting average, overall, with a split after inning 6, and for the last 8 games.

Graph 2

Never mind the early games, here I've expanded the scale a bit to put more emphasis on the improvement since game 16.  The big jump is most noticeable in the black line, showing average over the last 8 games. 

As the red line indicates, late inning performance lags overall performance.  But here's something amazing.  Overall, He's achieved 23 RBIs on 34 hits, an RBI for every 1.48 hits.  Through inning 6, it's an RBI for every 2.00 hits.  After inning 6, it's an astounding RBI for every .900 hits.  Late in games, when his batting average is lower, he has more RBI's than hits. That is some gonzo clutch hitting.   For perspective last year he had 137 RBIs on 193 hits, or 1.41 hits/RBI - not far off from where he is this year to date.

Based on the last 8 game numbers, it looks like Cabrera is back at, or close to, last year's mid-season form, before the injuries dragged him down.

If he can stay healthy, the future of this season looks pretty bright.

What is a Good Batting Average?

I think we'd all agree that .300 is a good batting average, and that .200 isn't.   Also, that 280 is pretty good and .220 is pretty poor.  But where do you draw the line?  Let's say that a good batting average is anything above the mean for the league in that year, and the degree of goodness is defined by the difference from the mean.  Similarly, poor batting is hitting below the league mean.

Fortunately, mean batting average data is available at Baseball Almanac, going back to 1901, so the comparisons are easy to make.  "These totals include every player, every at-bat and every hit during the season listed."

Graph 1 shows the mean batting average for each league from 1901 through 2013.

Graph 1

There have been some pretty big changes over time as the tide shifts in the battle between hitters and pitchers.  Within the broad sweeps, there are also year to year variances that tend to run more or less parallel in the two leagues.  So, in general, whatever is happening, happens in both leagues.

To get a clearer picture of the broad sweeps, I took 13 year moving averages for both leagues [Yes - averages of averages of averages.]  This can be seen in Graph 2.

Graph 2

This clarifies two things - times when either pitchers or hitters were gaining on the other, and times when one of the leagues had either better hitting or better pitching.   Batters became increasingly more dominant from the mid 19-teens through the early thirties.  Then pitchers took over until the early to mid seventies.  Afterward, batters gained ground until 2007.  That trend may now be reversing. 

Back in the early days, the performances in the two leagues was, in gross terms, nearly identical.  There were big differences between the leagues in individual years, but a lot of year-to-year flipping eliminated dominance by one league over the other.  Since about 1950, there have been some robust separations. Graph 3 shows this in detail.

Graph 3

From 1901 until 1938, a  difference of .013 or more between the leagues was fairly common, occurring 8 times in those 37 years, 4 with the AL on top, and 4 with the NL on top.  Over that span the AL grand average was .002 above the NL average.  Since 1938 there have only been 3 occurnces of a .013+ difference.

From 1943 to 1972 the NL batters did better, by an average of .004 per year.  The greatest difference was .016 in 1966.  Since 1973 the AL has done better, out hitting the NL by an average of .007 per year, with peaks of .014 in 1989 and .015 in 1996.  These average differences in the three eras are indicated with heavy blue horizontal lines. The yellow line is the average difference for the entire data set.  Since 2007, as batting averages in both leagues have dropped by large margins, the gap between the leagues has gotten smaller.

It occurred to me that a good batter should be above the mean by some margin, and standard deviation ought to be a useful number.  I got the data here for the 2013 season, and arbitrarily eliminated players with fewer than 200 at bats.  The mean batting average of the 170 qualifying players was 0.2568, as compared to 0.2558 for the every player, every at bat method cited above.  The standard deviation was .030.

So, if you're lenient, a good batting average in the American League was anything over .257.  If you want to be more strict, use .287.  For 2 Std Devs above the mean, it's .317.

Miguel Cabrera's league leading batting average of .348 for 2013 was a full 3 standard deviations above the mean.  Here is a list of all the qualifying AL players with batting averages over .300 in 2013.

Five full season Tigers were on that list of 15 names.  They picked up Iglesias at the End of June, 2013 then lost Peralta and Infante over the winter.  Iglesias is now out with stress fractures in both legs, and will miss the entire 2014 season.  He is expected to make a full recovery.

Afterthought: 2007 was the year MLB got serious about enforcing bans on PEDs.  Since then mean batting averages have dropped by about 20 points.  Coincidence?  I don't think so.

This is for Mike Shupp

I'm not any kind of Red Sox fan, but I think Dustin Pedroia is pretty cool.

He hit his 100th HR tonight, a grand slam that bounced off the top of the monster.

The whole event just seems perfect.

Phooey.  The vid won't embed.

Here's the link.

Tigers April Wrap-Up

Tigers have yet another travel day today, off to KC for a week end series with the Royals.  After 23 games, they're atop the Central Division at a rather impressive14-9, or .609.  This would project to a hefty 98 to 99 wins over the season.  Last year at this time, they were 15-10, for an even .600.

Because of several travel days and 3 games postponed due the weather, they have played from 1 to 6 (!)  fewer games than their division mates.  Chicago, with the most games completed, also has 14 wins, but 6 more losses than the Tigers.  The second place Royals also have 14 wins, against 12 losses.  These games in hand give the Tigers a chance to build some separation, if they can take advantage.  After the 3-game Royals series, they have 4 at home against the hapless Astros, so the near future looks pretty bright.

Last year at this time, with 25 games completed, the Tigers had scored 125 runs, averaging an even 5.00  per game.  Scoring is a bit off so far this year, with 104 runs in, or 4.52 per game.  Defense is a bit off as well, with 4.13 runs allowed per game, vs 3.92 after last April.

An average run differential of 0.39 is not a robust recipe for success.  Both offense and defense need to improve.

Deep Stupid #24 - Georgia on my Mind

The Georgia take-a-gun-anywhere law, signed by Governor Nathan Deal last Wednesday, takes affect in July.

The Atlanta Braves have a home stand against the Phillies, Marlins and Padres from the 18th through the 28th of July.

Suppose during one of those games the Braves have a man on third, and a crazed gun man in the stands shoots the opposing pitcher while he is on the rubber and makes a motion associated with his pitch, but is not able to complete the delivery because he's been shot.

Here is my question: is the pitcher charged with a balk that allows the run to score?

.

A Song of Jaime and Cersei

There's been a great deal of commentary on this week's GoT episode, Breaker of Chains, and a disproportionate amount of it, along with associated reader commments,  has been focused on a certain 51 second long incident involving everyone's favorite set of incestuous twins.

Here is a particularly forceful condemnation.

There was no ambiguity to the scene. Cersei repeatedly said no. She said, “Stop.” She said, “Not here.” She said, “This is not right.” She resisted Jaime’s efforts, to no avail. The scene was unequivocally a rape scene and it was not merely shocking. It was thoroughly senseless.

But Roxane Ray is wrong.  Cersei never says, "No."  She says the other things that are actual quotes, but she never says, "No."  Further the scene is not glamorized as her article's  title claims.  Nor is it sensationalized, as she claims in the text.  Neither of these assertions makes any sense, as far as I can see.

Ms. Ray's final paragraph is revealing.

Rape is used to create drama and ratchet up ratings. And it’s rare to see the brutality and complexity of a rape accurately conveyed on-screen. Instead, we are treated to an endless parade of women being forced into submission as the delicate and wilting flowers television writers and producers seem to want them to be.

She has a beef that reaches far beyond the world of Westeros and Essos.  This distorts her view of what is happening in GoT.  And if she thinks the women in GoT are delicate and wilting, someone should introduce her to Olenna, Margaery, Catelyn Stark, Arya, Osha, Ygritte,  Danaerys, or - wait for it - Cesei.  In fact, the only prominent female in GoT who comes close to resembling this false description is Sansa, who is traveling her own trope-defying character arc.  But, alas, Ms. Ray isn't alone in her beliefs.  Here is a particularly stupid example.

The Heritage Heritage

Here is a compendium of my posts on the lying liars at the Heritage Foundation.  [Titles are hot links]

Republicans: All Wrong, All the Time, Pt. 12 - Taxes and Revenues    2/25/10 [Reposted 4/21/14]

Riddikulus! Pt 2 -- Ludicrous                                                                  4/11/2011 

Another Lie From The Lying Liars at The Heritage Foundation         6/12/2011

More on the Lying Liars at the Heritage Foundation                              6/5/2013              

They never fooled me even once.  Don't let them fool you.

As I said, responding to a comment here, "When I disagree with someone who deserves my respect, I do it respectfully. But tools, fools, and liars get the contempt they so richly deserve."

Republicans: All Wrong, All the Time, Pt. 12 - Taxes and Revenues

While mucking around in the archives, I somehow made this old post from 2/25/10 inaccessible.

So, I'm reposting it now, because it has important information.

________________________________________


 The liars at the Heritage Foundation will tell you that lowering taxes increases federal Revenues.

A New York Times article, Deficit Spending Can Help Republicans, by Daniel Altman, shows that old, wrong assumptions die hard. The article reports that:

"From the beginning of 2001 through the third quarter of 2002, the federal government leapt from a surplus (including Social Security) amounting to 2.3 percent of gross domestic product to a deficit of the same size. By itself, the current deficit is not terribly threatening. Indeed, running a modest deficit during an economic downturn can be useful, as long as the policies behind the deficit — lower taxes and higher spending — benefit consumers and businesses."

The article then claims that the 1980s Reagan tax cuts failed to increase tax revenues;

"The White House says lower tax rates will lead consumers to work more and businesses to expand, resulting in higher tax revenues and eventually closing the budget gap. That notion, chided as "voodoo economics" by critics, turned out to be false when it was last in vogue, during the 1980's."

However, the numbers, crunched by Heritage's Brian Riedl, show otherwise (see chart below). In 1980, the last year before the tax cuts, tax revenues were $956 billion (in constant 1996 dollars).
Revenues exceeded that 1980 level in eight of the next 10 years. Annual revenues over the next decade averaged $102 billion above their 1980 level (in constant 1996 dollars).

They even offer this chart as proof!  (Click the link, expressed in constant 1996 dollars.)  But the real Voodoo is in achieving an actual reduction in revenues, as they did according to the Heritage Foundation figures in 1982 and (quire dramatically) 1983, in the context of an economy that has achieved 3.7% annual growth for 200 years!

And that is key.  Every year the population grows.  Almost every year the economy grows.  There is inflation in the background, most of the time.  In fact, the compounded annual growth rate of federal tax revenues from 1970 through 2008 was just slightly over 7%.   (Current dollars, not inflation adjusted.)

Here is reality, presented in non-inflation adjusted dollars   Data from the Congressional Budget Office.

Actual revenues are shown on the broken red and blue line, with segments color-coded to indicate the party of the White House occupant.  The purple curved line is the 7% growth line, starting in 1970.   The pink line is the best-fitting straight line.  Each President's term has also been overlayed with a best fitting straight line. In retrospect, these straight lines don't tell us much of anything. 

One interesting facet of this display is that most of it lies well above the 7% growth curve.  This is entirely due to increases during the Carter and Clinton administrations, as a visual inspection reveals, and we will also prove mathematically.

Here is the compounded  annual growth rate of tax revenues, by President, over the 1970 to 2008 period.

Well, Nixon and Ford managed to top the long period average by a slight margin, but they were not under the thrall of Voodoo Economists.  Neither was Clinton.  Bush I wasn't either, but he inherited Reagan's vultures.  Look at Reagan's revenue growth rate: 5.35%.  Consider that average inflation over Reagan's years was 4.56%, and GDP growth averaged 3.4%.  Under those circumstances, revenue growth should have been at least 7.96%, not a paltry 5.35%.  The average compounded growth in constant 1996 dollars, using the Heritage Foundation table is 2.38%.  This is more than a full percentage point below real GDP growth. 

Bush II's revenue growth rate was 3.01%.  But inflation averaged 2.84% and GDP growth averaged an anemic 2.16.  Together they total 5.0%.  So, Republican tax revenue growth cannot even match the inflation adjusted level of growth in the economy.


Many years ago, my dad told me that figures don't lie, but liars sure know how to figure.  The bullshit you get from the Heritage Foundation is exactly what he was talking about.  It's another example of the conservative ploy of willfully denying reality.

Which is just one more reason why WE ARE SO SCREWED.
.