Borderline Plays

The post-season baseball play is starting to become interesting. The Chicago Cubs have not won a World Series since 1945, and the Boston Red Sox have not won any since 1922. Further, I was near Chicago, studying for my doctorate in mathematics, in 1969 when the Cubs led most of the way, only to falter to the Mets near the end of the season. So I started looking at the games. To me the most interesting plays are the borderline plays.

These are plays that are close to the borderline to being other plays. An example of what I mean is a batted ball that bounces just along the left foul line and stays fair. This could be a single. Just a little bit, an epsilon (mathematicians use this Greek letter to denote a small quantity) to the left and it's a foul ball. A single and a foul ball have vastly different effects on the game. So this is a borderline play. In this case the border is physical: the foul line. On the other hand, a long fly to center is caught by the center fielder. If it veers in any direction about a foot way from this, the center fielder would still catch it. So this play is "in the middle", and is not a borderline play.

There have been several borderline plays in the pennant playoffs. One Yankee hit a long fly ball that was caught at the fence by one of the outfielders for an out. A little epsilon higher, and this Yankee would have had a home run. In another case, with bases loaded and one out, a grounder was hit to the shortstop, who threw to second baseman, who threw to first. The throw to second resulted in an out, but the throw to first was just a microsecond too late. A run scored, nearly tying the game.

The biggest one happened though on the night of 2003 October 14. The first batter flied out, and the second (Pierre) doubled. Castillo hit a foul ball right on the boundary of the stands. Into the stands, and it's a foul ball, a strike. Within the ballpark, if fielder Alou could catch it, it's an out. Alou just barely made the catch, only to have a fan strike the ball and deflect it away. The result was an eight-run Marlin outburst. Here is the play by play:

Flyout 000 (0) 1
Double Juan Pierre 010 (0) 1
controversial foul ball deflected by fan
Castillo walk 110 (0) 1
Wild pitch advances Pierre 101 (0) 1
Rodriguez singled in run 110 (1) 1
Cabrera grounder errored by Gonzalez 111 (1) 1
Derrek Lee double scores two 011 (3) 1
Lowell walk intentional 111(3) 1
Conine sacrifice fly 011 (4) 2
Hollinsworth intentional walk 111 (4) 2
Double Mordecai scores all the runners 010 (7) 2
Pierre single scores Mordecai 100 (8) 2
Castillo popped out 100 (8)

My notation 010 (1) 2, for example, means no runner on first, a runner on second, no runner on third, one run scored in the inning, and two out. Now what would have happened had Alou caught Castillo's ball?

Flyout 000 (0) 1
Double Juan Pierre 010 (0) 1
Castillo fouls out to Alou 010(0)2
Wild pitch advances Pierre 001 (0) 2
Rodriguez singled in run 100 (1) 2
Cabrera grounder errored by Gonzalez 110 (1) 2
Derrek Lee double scores one 110 (2) 2
Lowell walk intentional 111(2) 2
Conine flyout ends inning 111 (2) 3

Now the Marlins score only two runs, and quite likely the Cubs would have won the game. But is that so? How do we know the Marlins would then be scoreless in the ninth and the Cubs in the eighth? Here the butterfly effect occurs. If there are a lot of borderlines, the system becomes unstable and unpredictable. The stepping on a butterfly in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. For that matter, would Lowell have been walked if the fan had not interfered? With runners on first and second, two out, there is a play at any plate. What advantage is there in getting one at home, too? If Lowell had been pitched to, then maybe he would have hit and scored runners, and the Marlins would have won anyway.

So if you tiptoe over the borderline, the whole universe goes awry and may not seem what you think. In particular, it is not necessarily true that the fan's interference with the ball lost the Series for the Cubs.

The Nine Dwarfs

I recently heard a debate among the nine Democratic challengers to George Bush for the Presidency in 2004. My opinion is that any of these candidates would make a good replacement for Bush for 2005-2008 and therefore my vote will go for any of these if they are nominated. I wanted to see which ones I liked best, though. I prefer a candidate who will get us out of Iraq and who opposed the war in the first place. However, all of these candidates opposed the invasion. That makes it hard to choose. After some deliberation, here is what I came up with, based on this debate only:

Carol Moseley-Brown: Good candidate, who seems to have some caring and personable characteristics, as well as having a solid platform. I give her a B.

Al Sharpton: Like his name. A sharp candidate, asking if Judy Woodruff is costing him time. Needs to have some ability to manange and lead a governmental body. C+.

Gen. Wesley Clark. Opposed the war in Iraq and has stands similar to the other Democrats. I would have liked to have seen him run as a Republican and challenge Bush for the nomination. This could have toppled Lichtman Key 2, improving chances of a Democrat winning the presidency. He may have charisma; if so, his nomination would topple Key 13. However, I felt his performance this night was somewhat lackluster. B

John Kerry. Generally good performance, agreeing with the others. B

Howard Dean. Somewhat disappointing. He definitely does not have charisma; his more liberal views attracted people to his meetups earlier. He got into an argument with Kucinich in which he said that we need to hold our troops in Iraq until they can handle themselves. Not what I would like to hear, but it's sad to say that we may have to do just that. B

Dennis Kucinich. Looks like a scrappy youngster, with two bright ideas. One is to pull all the troops home now from Iraq. OK if the US really needs them here, but we don't want an Islamic republic to be set up there. His other idea is really interesting: a Department of Peace. That would give the US a more congenial view to the world and help dispel some of the hatred that people have for Americans. However, absolutely no military can come into such a department, lest it becomes a 1984ian Ministry of Peace in a future Orwellian administration. A

Dick Gephardt. Performed much better than I expected. At one time he was able to rattle off a complete program for his presidency. He had good answers to most of the questions and to many of the statements of the other candidates. He is older than the other candidates, and I think the extra experience may be having an effect. A

John Edwards. I can see where he gets his charisma. But he seems to have a scrappy boy face, something that I did not like about either Don Beyer or George Allen in Virginia - but I voted against both of these for other reasons. His program is much like the others, and he had a few good answers once in a while. But he does not distinguish from the other candidates. B

Joe Lieberman. Another surprise. Much better than I expected. He reminds me of a history professor in both his appearance and manner. I liked his statement that any of the other 8 would make a good candidate against George Bush. He is somewhat more conservative than the other candidates, and I fear he may go in a Bush-like direction if elected, but in general I regard him highly. B+

In reviewing my reviews, I find that I am attracted to the older candidates - Gephardt and Lieberman. This may reflect my preference for the compromising Silent Generation (1925-1942) over the more strident Boomer generation (1943-1960). My feeling is that there is a crisis in the near future, that these two candidates would better handle it than any of the others.

Which one has the best chance against Bush? Probably Wesley Clark, but only if he is charismatic. The Lichtman Key model tells me that this is the only characteristic that matters in a challenging candidate. So my favorite candidates right now are Clark, Dean, Kucinich, and Gephardt, in about that order.

Pledge of Allegiance to be Heard

Today the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear the case of the California doctor who did not want her child to hear the Pledge of Allegiance at her school because it contained the words under God. This case came to light around 2002 June, when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled that the doctor was correct: the Pledge in school is unconstitutional because it says under God.

It is official policy in this country, codified in the First Amendment, that church and state are to be kept separate. One of the reasons is that religious beliefs are not provable and thus are subject to utterance as decrees by the government in which ever way the government feels. For this reason, Islamic states don't work very well. Our country does not have a religion, contrary to what many on the Religious Right think. Besides, espousing a religion constitutes a form of discrimination against those with other religious beliefs. Assuming the existence of God in a public place makes atheists and agnostics into second-class citizens, as though they somehow don't belong. This is not the American way, as was demonstrated when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of a bus.

So this is one ruling that should be supported by the Court. I did not have hope that the Court will support the 9th Circuit Court, but a piece of good news did come out today. Justice Antonin Scalia took himself out of the decision citing a conflict of interest. This makes a tie possible, and a tie upholds the 9th's decision. So to defeat the 9th requires 5 justices out of 8 - only 4 are needed to support it. So there is some hope that 4 justices will see the light and choose to support the ruling.

As far as the pledge itself? It does very well without "under God"; that was the original pledge. Or consider this version, which corresponds more with my personal philosophy of "Just add one.":

I pledge allegiance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands:
One nation, beyond God, indivisible,
With liberty and justice for all.

Even better is this one by the singing group Relative Viewpoint:

I pledge allegiance to the people of this country
And of all the world
And to the republic which lends a hand.
One planet under peace,
With liberty and Justice for all.