The Foul Pole

Anyone else wonder if Clemensitis is contagious?

2008-02-27T12:39:00.000-08:00

In response to the potential of Roger Clemens facing perjury charges, Rusty Hardin, Clemens's attorney, stated, "These matters are now going to be decided in court and by the ultimate lie detector -- a jury. I am comfortable that when a jury hears this case ... they will conclude that Roger did not use steroids or growth hormone and he is telling the truth and that McNamee's allegations are totally false." (See the Boston Globe story here.) So, let's recap...Clemens may have lied to a House committee. He may be brought up on perjury charges that carry the potential of jail time. The trial will turn on whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, Clemens knowingly mislead investigator and the House Committee while under oath. And, yet, Clemens's attorney expects to get a verdict on whether Clemens used performance enhancing drugs. Sure, I suppose the jury will simply explain to the judge that they decided to ignore their instructions, the relevant charges against Clemens, and the burden of proof. Instead, they will render a decision that says that Roger Clemens never ever used performance enhancing drugs. To steal a line from A Few Good Men, perhaps Mr. Hardin was sick the day they taught law at law school.

I understand that Hardin is waging a two-front battle: a public relations campaign and a legal dispute. But, perhaps Mr. Hardin has spent too much time around his client and developed Clemensitis (the inability of the mind to ground claims in reality and the belief that no one will notice). Adopting Clemensitis as a legal strategy will not going to do much for your client. It is time for Team Clemens to drop the hyperbole and begin to take seriously what is at stake. Clemens's reputation is already in the tank. His liberty may follow. Clemens should do himself a favor and hire someone who is less concerned with the public relations campaign and more about keeping their client out of jail.

Lies, Damn lies, Clemens, and Jail Time?

2008-02-25T14:36:00.000-08:00

The New York Times is reporting that the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform asked the Department of Justice to begin a criminal investigation into whether Roger Clemens committed perjury when he testified before it earlier this month. As noted here (and everywhere else), Clemens lied in his testimony and now it appears that Congress may hold him accountable. Clemens's arrogance may finally cost him but an equally interesting question will be whether it costs him part of his baseball legacy. The New York Times hosted a "Who's The Greatest Pitcher of All Time" forum and it was amazing to see how little Clemens's name surfaced. In fact, when it did surface, "untenable" was also in the sentence. Just a few years ago, Clemens was widely considered the best right handed pitcher of the contemporary era (although some people inevitably pointed to Pedro's run from 1997-2002 as evidence of his superseding brilliance). Now, he is a pariah. Someday, when I tell my children about the "great pitchers" I saw pitch (back in the day), I will mention Pedro, Greg Maddux, Mariano Rivera, and, maybe even Jonathan Papelbon and Josh Beckett but I doubt I'll talk much of Clemens despite seeing him pitch in Boston and New York. I'll save Clemens for cautionary stories about the cost of lying.

McCain, the Social Right, and the Problem of Judges

2008-02-24T20:50:00.000-08:00

Carl Hulse has a fascinating article in Monday's New York Times. The article posits that McCain's role in avoiding the so-called nuclear option (i.e. destroying the filibuster to ensure nominations to the federal bench would get a confirmation vote) is now hurting his support among social conservatives. The article is worth the read but I have a few additional thoughts...

1. If the article is correct, then the social right seems to have abandoned hope of achieving their objects through traditional political venues. I, and many others, have long argued that the social right's agenda has been "deferred" to the courts. The politics of the social right have been transformed into a politics of conservative jurisprudence, which leaves the economic wing free to focus the Republican Party's energy on its agenda--be it deregulation, terrorism, or tort reform. Under this paradigm, the social right has been marginalized but, seemingly, they have not realized the degree to which they've been marginalized (although the strength of Huckabee's campaign may speak to a growing consciousness). However, they may have been willing to play along so long as nominees to the Supreme Court looked more like Samuel Alito and less like Harriet Myers. McCain, already suspected by the social right of not being particularly orthodox, jeopardizes the old paradigm as he placed institutional maintenance (i.e. senatorial filibuster) ahead of judicial conservatism. Now that social conservatives are so very close to having five jurists they believe to be orthodox on issues like school prayer and abortion, taking a chance on the "centrist" McCain and a Democratically controlled Senate is akin to Sherman turning around just as he sees Atlanta on the horizon. (Odd analogy, I know...)

2. This could be troubling times for the Republican Party. When original agreements breakdown, coalitions often disintegrate. The social right must feel it can not win politically absent a "new awakening". Now, their party is causing conservatives to doubt its commitment to a legal victory. When a party no longer provides the proper incentives for its members to continue its loyalty, you see either demobilization or defection. The latter is unlikely given that there is no where to go (unless a third conservative party movement occurs but those are usually quite short lived). But demobilization is notable as social conservatives were the driving force behind Bush's 2000 and 2004 electoral successes. Given that the Democratic Party is highly mobilized and you have the potential to have a demobilized wing of the Republican Party, the Dems could be on the verge of a major victory in November.

However, to prevent such a catastrophe, look for McCain to find religion on conservative judges and spend some time assuaging folks like James Dobson and Pat Robertson. But, as Hulse points out, this is a harder task for McCain than most Republican presidential nominees in the recent past.

Francona Extended

2008-02-24T12:43:00.000-08:00

Good news out of Fort Myers. The Sox and Terry Francona agreed to a contract extension of three years with an additional two years in team options. From time to time, I complain about Francona's in game management (particularly his bullpen usage) but I think most of these disagreements are on the margins. Admittedly, even when I disagree with Francona, I often wonder if he is operating on information that the public simply does have (like Papelbon having a migraine or Timlin having a sore shoulder). And, at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter if I disagree with Francona or not, he has led the Sox to three playoff appearances and two World Series championships in his four years with the Sox. It is hard to argue with such impressive results even with the Sox's payroll.

The Big Dig in Pictures

2008-02-23T14:07:00.000-08:00

The New York Times has a story-in-pictures on the completed Big Dig project in Boston. Like many other millions of people, I lived in Boston during a few years of the two decade long renovation process. The end results are worth a look.

Manny Switches Agents...Who Cares?

2008-02-23T08:25:00.000-08:00

News out of Fort Myers is that Manny Ramirez switched agents to the much maligned (by the public) Scott Boras. Boras is arguably the best agent in baseball for players if we measure "best" as getting the biggest paycheck from MLB teams. The Sox have their share of Boras clients on the roster (Varitek, Drew, Cora, Ellsbury--although Ellsbury has not had the opportunity to negotiate a contract with Boras as his agent). No doubt this will cause some gnashing of teeth in Red Sox Nation but the development doesn't strike me as anything particularly problematic.

Boras doesn't seem to have as much leverage with Manny as he has had with other major players. Manny is reaching the autumn of the baseball years and, though quite productive, he isn't going to get a five year contract somewhere (unless a team loses its mind). Given that the Sox have a $20 million dollar option, they can essentially ask if they think they can negotiate the yearly output downward but be on the hook for longer. It makes some sense for both sides to agree to a $15-17 million deal over three years. The Sox will shave off three or four million dollars from the option and Manny will have the security of a large paycheck until he is 40.

Now, I have no idea whether either side is interested in such a scenario ($15 million may be low, especially if Manny has a good year) but the Sox are negotiating from a position of strength since they have an option at the end of the year. The one year option gets them a year closer to having power bats come through the system (Lars Anderson, Will Middlebrook, and/or, maybe, Jason Place although he has yet to catch fire in the minors). It also gets them one year closer to having a cheap rotation that will include Lester, Buchholz, and Masterson/Bowden, which enables the Sox to spend on established talent (e.g. Carl Crawford--although the Rays have an $8.5 million option, which I would think that even the cheap-ass Rays would exercise). The point is that the Sox are in a decent position to negotiate with Manny and Boras. If I'm a betting man, I'd say that, after a big year by Manny, the Sox exercise their option and have $20 million coming off the books for an impressive 2010 free agent market.

Spring Training Preview: The Bullpen

2008-02-14T17:46:00.000-08:00

As noted before, the Red Sox have the roster largely set. However, the bullpen is somewhat up in the air. Schilling's injury may shuffle the bullpen further as, should one of the other five starters go down during spring training, Julian Tavarez may well start the season in the rotation. Since there are so many variables, I'm going to break this out into four sections: 12 pitchers; 11 pitchers; the Tavarez corollary; and the Lou Merloni-PawSox Shuttle.

12 Pitchers:

If the Red Sox start the season with seven relief pitchers, then there are five locks and two near locks. The locks are Papelbon, Delcarmen, Okajima, Timlin, and Tavarez. Snyder and Lopez are also likely sure things since it seems unlikely that the Sox would have bothered to sign them in the off-season if they weren't in the 2008 plan. (Yes, Sox fans, that means we get another year of a left-hand specialist who is lights out against righties but can't get lefties out. Nice LOOGY...) Those are the seven bullpen spots.

11 Pitchers:

If, for some reason, the Sox decided that they need a fifth outfielder (likely someone to spell Drew in right field), then they have a choice. Keep Snyder on the roster, who, in my opinion is more likely to be picked up off the waiver wire, or keep Lopez because you want another lefty on the staff (but, again, he doesn't get lefties out consistently enough to be a LOOGY). For the record, they make virtually identical salaries. I'd drop Snyder in favor of Lopez just because I think I can get him through waivers. I actually like Snyder more but I think the demand for a middle inning right hander is less than any lefty--even one that struggles against left hand hitters.

The Tavarez Corollary:

Should one of the starting five get hurt, Tavarez will likely start the season in the rotation. This opens up a slot that the Sox would likely fill with another pitcher. Spring training will likely prove who the next in line is but let me review the suspects. First, the Sox traded for David Aardsma in the off-season. Aardsma was a first round draft pick in 2004 out of Rice who didn't pan out the way the Giants (later the White Sox) hoped. (This is a trend with relief picthers out of Rice University. Sox fans will recall Bryce Cox's struggles in the minors last year.) Yet, Aardsma's stuff is quite good and the Red Sox obviously liked his potential. (Oh, and his sister is the former Miss Teen Colorado...so there's that.)

Second, the Sox invited Dan Kolb and Jon Switzer to training camp. Switzer is kind of a train wreck so he'd have to have one great spring training. Kolb is slightly more interesting as he has had a few good seasons in the past and he might be a solid option for getting right handed hitters out.

Third, Bryan Corey has performed fairly well in a Sox uniform and many Sox fans thought he should have made the post-season roster last year. He doesn't have dominating stuff so it is a harder case to make but his track record (and a strong spring training performance) could earn him an a slot. If you need the lefthanded version of Corey, Craig Breslow (who actually does get lefties out--at least in Pawtucket) is your man.

If I had to handicap this group, I'd go Corey 3:1, Aardsma 5:1, Kolb 8:1, Breslow 17:1; Switzer 28:1.

Lou Merloni-PawSox Shuttle:

The Sox have a few possibilities in AAA. Criag Hansen, who has yet to live up to the initial hype that surrounded him, was diagnosed with sleep SOMETHING and had surgery in the off season to correct it. Should this enable Hansen to rediscover the stuff that made him so highly touted out of college, he would be a candidate for promotion. Edgar Martinez struggled in AAA but, given that last year was only his third year pitching, we may see Martinez take another step forward and, if it is a big step, get a chance with the Sox.

On the whole the bullpen looks solid. But, to a large extent, this will depend on whether (1) Papelbon stays healthy; (2) Delcarmen continues to improve; and (3) Okajima doesn't regress greatly from last year.

Happy Pitchers and Catchers!!

2008-02-14T11:29:00.000-08:00

The unofficial start of spring training is upon us as pitchers and catchers have reported. The Globe already has a pictorial up and you can almost smell the freshly cut grass. (For those of us who live in places without much grass, this takes greater imagination.) And if you are bored, see if you agree with me that the Globe misidentifies a player as Manny Delcarmen (in the picture with Craig Hansen). I'm not 100% positive as the player is out of focus but I think it is Edgar Martinez. If I'm right, the Globe should offer me a job. (If I’m wrong, I’m sure my vast readership will let me know.)

Lies, Damn Lies, and Clemens

2008-02-13T16:53:00.000-08:00

Andy Pettitte "misremembers." Pettitte's wife must also misremember or she is lying to help her husband. Clemens claims Toronto Blue Jay's medical doctor, Ron Taylor, gave him bad medicine. His nanny similarly misremembers being at Jose Canseco's house. Clemens agents and lawyers were to blame for his silence during Mitchell's investigation. And, of course, Brian McNamee is about Clemens despite being generally honest about Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch and risking jail time by concocting a story about Clemens. Not surprisingly, in The World According to Roger, everyone is to blame except Roger.

Too many fine baseball writers have and will be penning columns about today's events in DC so I'll simply point to Tom Verducci's piece over at SI and Dan Shaughnessy's piece in The Globe. (Note to readers: I will almost never link to a CHB article--I think he is spreads far too much dissention by ignoring too much evidence or just failing to investigate--but I thought he did a decent job today so there it is.) However, since this is one of the rare moments when politics and baseball collide, I wanted to make two claims. First, the clear divide among the Committee members--pro-Clemens (who tended to be Republicans) and anti-Clemens (who tended to be Democrats)--might best be explained by understanding their baseline for judging guilt and innocence. Second, today's congressional hearing made courts look pretty good.

Quite clearly, most members of the House Committee made up their minds about whether Clemens is telling the truth or lying before the hearing. Those supporting Clemens attacked McNamee regularly and, at times, quite viciously. Those suspicious of Clemens attempt to impeach the numerous inconsistencies in his public and private statements. Oddly, the split in the committee was largely along party lines, which was bizarre in and of itself. However, it became clear that the pro-Clemens and anti-Clemens faction were using different baselines from which to judge Clemens. The pro-Clemens faction seemed to be relying on the character of Brian McNamee as the baseline for judgment. An evaluation of McNamee's character will find shady dealings, lies, criminal activity, etc. There is little in Clemens's past (besides the use of performance enhancing drugs...I mean alleged use of PEDs) that would cause one to hold Clemens in the same regard as McNamee (unless you are a Red Sox fan). So, if you are using character as the baseline, Clemens wins. Particularly useful here, note how little those sympathetic to Clemens raised Pettitte's damning statements. (And, by the way, one doesn't "misremember" when a friend tells them they used illegal drugs to gain an advantage in their shared profession. This is akin to subverting the rules that those in the profession are supposed to play by. If one of my friends and colleagues at UNLV came to me and informed me that they plagiarized an article that was recently accepted for publication at a top journal, I'm going to remember the event quite vividly.)

On the flip side, those skeptical of Clemens's stories seemed to use the totality of the evidence as the baseline of evaluation. McNamee alone wasn't enough. Nor was Pettitte. Nor was the medical testimony. Nor were lots of circumstantial evidence. But, if you do the math, the totality of the evidence casts a large, dark shadow of guilt over Clemens. If you read the transcripts, you see those hostile to Clemens are all over the map in their lines of attack. (If you want to read the most sophisticated, interesting, and thoughtful line of questioning, read Representative Elijah Cumming's questions--both rounds. Truly insightful.) The disjunction in the lines of inquiry makes sense if they were concerned with multiple data points as the best way to come to a conclusion.

Finally, as a scholar of law and courts, I couldn't help thinking that the congressional hearings made courts look good. Most members of the committee had come to a conclusion before the hearing. (The fact that Clemens met with 19 committee members before the hearing likely explains this predisposition and raises ethical questions.) Several of the committee members asked irrelevant and/or ill-informed questions. They seemed more concerned with protecting specific interests than with realizing the truth or, perhaps more importantly, using the hearings as a means of crafting future policy. I complain regularly about the shortcomings of adjudicative institutions but, today, I found myself feeling better about judicial competency, if only in comparison.

Capital Area Primaries (with a splash of Sox)

2008-02-11T21:48:00.000-08:00

Two of my former domiciles (Maryland and DC) host primaries on Tuesday. I think Obama looks very strong in Virginia and DC but I'm not as certain about Maryland. Given the large number of African American voters in The Free State, Obama should do well but Clinton seems to have done well in the "bluest" of states, which would include Maryland.

On the Republican state, I think it will be very interesting to watch Virginia. Southern Virginia might as well be included in the Bible Belt and should favor Huckabee. However, Virginia is a good military state (think the Hampton Roads cities--Norfolk, Newport News, Hampton, etc., etc.) and they may pull heavily for McCain. The balance may rest in Northern Virginia, which is the most moderate part of the state, and the Independents that reside therein. (Virginia has an open primary system.) I think McCain likely takes Virginia (and I'd be stunned if he doesn't take Maryland and DC) but it will be an interesting race to watch.

As to the Sox...In Tuesday's Globe, Eric Wilbur had a nice synopsis of the difference between the Sox teams entering 2005 and 2008 and how this is a general sign of health. Wilbur notes that the Sox will likely have an opening day roster where "a little less than a third of the roster will be homegrown talent." I count 28% (including Youkilis, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Lester, Buchholz, Papelbon, and Delcarmen). If you think Moss will make the opening day roster then it would make 32% but I don't think there is much chance of that unless Crisp gets traded since there aren't enough roster slots to carry five outfielders unless you carry only 11 pitchers.

Happy Truck Day!! (More on Schilling)

2008-02-08T21:15:00.000-08:00

Happy Truck Day! (For those of you not familiar with Truck Day, it is the day the equipment truck leaves Fenway Park for Fort Myers.) But Truck Day eve brought a rather odd report from the Boston Globe that there is significant disagreement about the extent of Schilling's injury. The report casts a pitched battle between Schilling's personal surgeon, Dr. Craig Morgan, and the Red Sox medical staff. Dr. Morgan argues that resting and rehabbing Schilling’s shoulder has no chance of success as the shoulder has too much structural damage and must be repaired surgically. He also contends that, if Schilling has the surgery, he would be back around the All-Star game. The Red Sox maintain that surgery will end Schilling’s season. Because of the disagreement, the Sox and Schilling are using a third-party doctor for another opinion. Schilling has posted his side of the story but he seems willing (or required?) to go along with the Sox’s wishes.

I have nothing to offer in the way of analysis since I’m not a medical doctor, but this story is sufficiently bizarre that I find it troubling. Schilling’s doctor spoke directly to the Boston Globe, there seem to be leaks coming from the front office, and the story pits Schilling against the management. The story is sufficiently distasteful that it reminds me of the kind of stories in 2005 that concluded with Theo Epstein in a gorilla suit and an extended vacation. John Henry and Theo put the kibosh on the old front office culture but, when these stories break in this way, they echo back to a chapter that is best left closed.

Shoulder Shelves Schilling

2008-02-07T17:20:00.000-08:00

Word from the Boston Globe has Curt Schilling ailing (perhaps significantly) from a bum right shoulder. There seems to be some measure of dispute over whether he will require surgery but, if he does, then his season will likely be finished before the first game of the regular season. Schilling's injury places two recent front office moves in sharper focus. First, as noted a few posts ago, the Sox took Jon Lester off the table in the Santana negotiations. With the injury to Schilling, the move makes more sense than a sudden epiphony about the degree of Lester's talents. Second, the Sox recently signed Bobby Kielty to a minor league contract, which, at the time, was explained by an "if Crisp is traded" addendeum. At the time, trading Crisp looked unlikely but now the Sox have a "need" for more starting pitching. (Need is relative and I'll elaborate below.) It appears more likely now that Crisp will be packaged in a trade that brings another starting pitcher to the Sox. You may be asking why the Sox would "need" more starting pitching given that Buchholz easily slides into the rotation and, arguably, improves the rotation (at least early in the season). Keep in mind that Theo Epstein has said many times that he learned from the 2005 season that there is no such thing as too much pitching and success usually depends on having more than five capable starters on which to rely throughout a season. Last year, the Sox entered with Lester in the minors. This year, the plan (I think) was for Buchholz to start in the minors. There is no clear sixth starter in Pawtucket unless David Pauley or Devern Hansack start pitching lights out or Justin Masterson dominates his way to AAA early in the season.

So, in The World According to Theo, the Sox need more pitching. The question becomes who is available for what the Sox are willing to part with. Obviously, Crisp is on the table as is Jed Lowrie who is blocked in the infield and unlikely to see much time unless Julio Lugo is totally unproductive. The Sox could also part with either Masterson or Michael Bowden although such talent would have to net significant return talent. Nick Hagadone is an intriguing chip given that the Sox have much less invested in him and his outstanding performance in low-A last year. So, what would a Crisp, Lowrie, and Masterson/Bowden/Hagadone trade net the Sox?

Joe Blanton(?)

Blanton is intriguing for several reasons. The Sox would get a power righty that could easily fill the number 3 or 4 position left open by Schilling. Blanton is also a fairly reasonable pitcher at roughly $18 million over the next three years (give or take depending on arbitration). And, the A's have let it be known that Blanton is available for the right offer? Is this the right offer? I'm not sure. Personally, I think the inclusion of Bowden or Masterson is probably too much and, quite likely, the Sox would have to pick up some of Crisp's salary. But, the A's need a quality center fielder on the cheap. They also need a middle infielder that can back up the oft injured Bobby Crosby and fill in at second to spell Mark Ellis. Crisp and Lowrie fit the bill quite well. And, the inclusion of a quality minor league arm helps the A's in their rebuilding effort. On the whole, it looks like the deal would be possible but, of course, this is just speculation. But I rather like the deal for both teams.

Roger's Rules of Evidence

2008-02-06T13:15:00.000-08:00

The Associated Press is reporting that Brian McNamee turned over physical evidence linking Clemens to the use of performance enhancing drugs. The evidence includes vials (containing traces of steroids and HGH), blood stained syringes, and gauze pads. As I've noted before on The Foul Pole, I believe that Clemens used performance enhancing drugs and think that both on-field and off-field evidence makes a very solid case against Clemens. At first blush, should the DNA evidence verify that the blood belonged to Clemens, then it will be one more drop in the cascading flood of evidence. Yet, despite being a Clemens-hater, I'm particularly uncomfortable with this development. Brian McNamee has kept physical evidence against his avowed friend for seven years because (quoting the AP) "he feared Clemens would deny illicit drug use if the matter was ever investigated." Wow. That is some serious foresight on the part of McNamee. So, he anticipated a congressional (or other significant government) inquiry, his implication in the use of performance enhancing drugs, Clemens's implication and his denial, the potential for incarceration, and the need to produce evidence? Maybe he did. McNamee obviously kept some old stuff that most medical professionals throw away immediately after use. But, the link between Clemens blood and the vials of PEDs seems easily fabricated. Any lawyer would have a field day with physical evidence that appears in the hands of the person who has the greatest interest in proving the validity of his statements and, oh, by the way, the evidence is seven years old and likely kept in conditions unfavorable to the preservation of physical evidence.

The decision to produce the materials in the first place is likely a reflection of the value society places on physical evidence. It is considered neutral, disinterested, scientific, and, often, definitive. Yet, physical evidence can only tell part of the story and, in this case, the part of the story to be told (that Clemens used PEDs) doesn't seem particularly aided its production. I may be jumping the gun here since I don't know the full nature of the materials produced. But, I find the development a bit troubling as it sets up an easy target for Team Clemens to knock down and, in so doing, casting doubt on some of McNamee's stronger claims. In so doing, Clemens may be aided by McNamee's production of "corroborative physical evidence" rather than further indicted.

Super Tuesday: Yes We Can

2008-02-05T07:32:00.001-08:00

Super Tuesday has finally arrived. Go out and vote if you live in a Super Tuesday state.

Oh, and...Yes we can.

Sox Spring Training Preview: The Rotation

2008-02-05T06:31:00.000-08:00

We have entered the worst time of year for sports. Football is finished (and, no, the Pro Bowl doesn't count). Baseball has yet to begin. (Basketball and hockey are in the middle of very long seasons so their games feel unimportant to the casual fan.) March madness is still weeks away. During such times, raved sports fans look for signs of hope and The Foul Pole gladly brings you some: pitchers and catchers report in one week.

Ah, pitchers and catchers...It is one of the best times of the year. Hope springs eternal as leather and wood is flashed under the Florida and Arizona skies. For many teams, there is less discussion of who will make the team out of spring training but there is often a few slots up for grab that lead to extended discussions in bars and bodegas across the country (or, at least, in those parts of the country where baseball is king). To that end, I thought I'd start a series of rather uninsightful pieces that highlight the roster battles on the Red Sox. There are only three that are up in the air (and the uncertainty is much less with the Sox than most teams): Starting Rotation (Lester v. Buchholz), Bullpen (carrying 6 or 7 relievers and who those people should be), and Bench (there is only a personnel debate if the Sox carry 5 on the bench because of carry 11 pitchers).

Let's start with the rotation: Spring training performance could determine whether it is Lester or Buchholz who starts the season in the rotation. Going in to spring training, Lester has to be the favorite. Rumors coming out of the Santana trade stated that the Sox increasingly did not wish to part with Lester and, given his experience in the rotation last year, he will likely get the nod. The biggest knock on Lester is his inconsistency. His K/BB ratio was 1.61 last year and not pounding the zone tends to limit the number of innings Lester can complete. No one doubts his stuff and, if he shows greater consistency, he'll be a lock for the rotation.

However, should Lester start in the majors, it can be argued the second best arm on the Sox will start in Pawtucket. Baseball Prospectus recently rated Clay Buchholz the second best prospect in all of baseball and his no-hitter last season spoke to how good his stuff is. Buchholz has also added some meat to his frame in preparation of being in the rotation all season. The Sox may want to start him in the minors to limit his innings so that he will be relatively fresh for the second half of the season. And, given that the Sox have two 40+ year old starters, there is certainly a possibility that injury could bring Buchholz to the rotation earlier than July.

Likely Rotation on Opening Day: Beckett, Matsuzaka, Schilling, Wakefield, and Lester.

Graber on KNPR: Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil

2008-02-01T09:45:00.000-08:00

Mark A. Graber appeared on KNPR's State of Nevada yesterday and spoke about his recent book, the need for constitutional compromise, and the price of constitutional peace over constitutional justice. I strongly encourage you to give a listen to a profoundly topic by a truly interesting and engaging scholar of American constitutional politics. The audio is available here.

Top 100 Prospects, the Sox, and the Santana Deal

2008-01-31T13:22:00.000-08:00

Kevin Goldstein over at Baseball Prosectus published his list of the Top 100 Prospects (subscription required) and there is great news for Sox fans. The Red Sox have the most prospects on the list with seven (the Rays and Braves were second with six; the Yankees had five). They also have a nice mix of high and low ranked, which indicates talent is dispersed throughout the various levels of the minor league system and will likely pay dividends over time. It is also heartening to see a healthy mix of positions. The Sox boast three pitchers (Buchholz, Masterson, and Bowden), two centerfielders (Ellsbury and Kalish), a shortstop (Lowrie) and a first basemen (Anderson).

I found the high ranking of Kalish (#60) a bit surprising. His performance last year at such a young age was clearly worthy of note. Scouts and quants alike love this kid. But, given that Oscar Tejeda, who did not make the list, arguably had a better offensive season (Kalish is supposed to be an outstanding defender, which I've not yet heard about Tejeda) and that Kalish had limited at-bats all in low-A, I expected Goldstein's enthusiasm to be more tempered (see, for example, Lars Anderson's ranking at #100).

If the list is any indiciation, the Rays may still have the best system as they have six prospects but five of those prospects are in the top 25.

Finally, these rankings tell us something about the Johan Santana trade. The Mets traded Carlos Gomez, Phil Humber, Kevin Mulvey, and Deolis Guerra. Both Gomez and Guerra made the list (Humber and Mulvey were likely ineligible but I doubt either would have made the list) but were ranked 65 and 79 respectively. If you look at some of the offers made by the Red Sox and Yankees, you realize how little the Twins received in return for Santana. Twins fans should be apoplectic that so much high level talent was on the table at one point yet they ended up with so little.

Kenyan Troubles and the Western Response

2008-01-31T06:10:00.000-08:00

I thought I'd add a quick note on the on-going troubles in Kenya. Admittedly, I'm no expert on African politics but the degrading social and political situation in Kenya is tragic. For decades, Kenya has been one of Africa's greatest successes and cause for hope. Kenya was relatively prosperous and peaceful (although there has always been strife among competing ethnic groups). Kenya has also been an economic and political ally of the West, to the point of making it a target for antiwestern terrorist groups.

Yet, the fallout of a contested election in December that saw President Mwai Kibaki hold power in the midst of widespread claims of electoral tampering has set off violence that is only growing. Earlier in the week, Melitus Mugabe Were, an opposition leader who sought to quell the growing unrest, was seemingly assassinated in front of his house. Another member of the opposition party was shot and killed on Thursday although the details are still a bit unclear. Each murder has spawned riots across Kenya.

Former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Anan is in Kenya attempting to broker peace between the factions. The New York Times reports that current Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon will head there tomorrow. But more needs to be done in the West. Too often, the United States sits on its hands as African nations degrade into chaos rather than attempting to aid them when aid is still possible. The United States is not a panacea but if President Bush is looking toward his legacy, aiding an ally in their time of need is a legacy good enough for any president.

Santana and the Value of Young Talent

2008-01-29T22:19:00.000-08:00

The New York Mets landed Johan Santana (assuming that they can work out a contract over the next several days). Given that I hoped for this outcome (see my post from 1/28), I am quite pleased. Yet, the deal that brings Santana to the Mets is quite stunning in one way: the Mets gave up very little to land the best left handed starting pitcher in the game. There can be little doubt that Minnesota Twins GM Bill Smith miscalculated, thinking that he could create a bidding war between the Red Sox, Yankees, and the Mets that would land the Twins top flight pitching prospects and everyday players. However, when the Sox and Yankees refused to put more on the table following the Winter Meetings, the market for Santana seemed to shrink rapidly to the point where the Mets were able to get Santana for fairly marginal prospects.

The Santana escapade seems to signal the rise of a new era in baseball operations, a paradigm shift, if you will: a reassessed value for prospects relative to proven talent. Once upon a time in baseball, you would hear the following (fairly convincing) argument: Unproven talent is unproven and you should trade unproven talent for proven talent when the opportunity presents itself. There were exceptions of course but teams with larger payrolls were willing to use their minor league talent to land major league talent and open up the checkbook to pay the salaries.

What the Red Sox and Yankees did (and they are by no means the first teams to do so) was show a willingness to stick with the possibility that the talent within their minor league systems will prove more valuable to the franchise than landing the likes of Johan Santana. Santana costs his sizable salary plus the cost of losing cost-controlled players (i.e. the developing talent controlled by a team for six years once placed on the MLB roster). Santana should prove extremely productive to the Mets but the question for teams like the Sox and Yankees was whether Santana's value outweighed the cost of losing the talent and financial advantage of players like Jacoby Ellsbury, Jon Lester, Phil Hughes, or Melky Cabrera. Such analysis is difficult at best but, much in the way baseball sees fewer and fewer ace pitchers hitting the free market, we may see fewer and fewer teams willing to swap highly regarded, young, affordable talent--even among the teams that can afford high priced talent--for more established big leaguers. This may be a story of economics; it may be a story of finding better means of predicting success for minor leaguers at the major league level; it may just be another "Moneyball" shift in the marketplace. But whatever the case, for tonight, I don't care. I'm buying an Ellsbury jersey.

We the People Enjoy the Irony (at least this Person does)

2008-01-28T19:27:00.000-08:00

President Bush concluded his final State of the Union address by contrasting the Articles of Confederation opening reference to "We the undersigned delegates of the States" with the Constitution's "We the People". Bush used the change as a call to arms to do the People's business--always a useful reminder whenever there is a lame duck president and the opposition party controls Congress. However, as is so often the case, Bush seems to have missed the point. "We the People" had everything to do with undermining the authority of the existing state-dominated regime by creating direct appeals to the sovereign people and, in so doing, undercutting the authority of state legislatures. Ratification was to be done by state conventions, not by state legislatures. I have no problem with the occasional rhetorical flourish but there is a certain irony in a president who campaigned for the White House as a strong federalism (i.e. states-rights) conservative invoking, in what is likely the last major speech of his presidency, one of the original mechanisms used to overcome the authority of states.

Starting Fresh

2008-01-28T10:04:00.000-08:00

Without intending to do so, I committed the sin that befalls so many blogs: I stopped posting. Unfortunately, this cost me my only reader but I trust that I can win her back with a return to regular posting. (Right, Amy?) And, since we are only one week away from Super Tuesday and two weeks away from pitchers and catchers reporting to spring training, it is the perfect time to get The Foul Pole back up and running. To that end...

Baseball: First, congratulations to the 2007 World Series Champion Red Sox. Much has been made of this and I don't need to comment further other than to say that, in a world that is sometimes trying, it is an utter and total delight to watch the team that you love win the World Series. And, yes, it was as sweet as 2004, if only a different kind of sweetness.

Second, I will add a few words regarding Johan Santana despite so much ink already being dedicated to that subject (the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that Santana will be on the move within the next ten days). There have been a number of rumors that the Red Sox were the front runners for Santana; then the Yankees; now the Mets. Do I want the Sox to land Santana? Yes. But not as much as I want the Yankees not to land Santana. (The Sox have a major advantage in starting pitching to start the season--Tom Verducci has a nice article on this edge--but adding Santana to the mix would level out the balance such that it would not be difficult to argue that the Spanks are the better team.) The package of players the Sox have offered is impressive and costly. There are two packages: one centered on Jacoby Ellsbury (along with Justin Masterson, Jed Lowrie, and according to some sources, Ryan Kalish) and one with Jon Lester (including Coco Crisp, Masterson, Lowrie, and Kalish). With either deal, the price of acquiring Santana is quite high. The Twins would reap major benefits in developing talent with the added benefit of cost control. In turn, the Sox would have the most dominant left handed pitcher in the game and a rotation that would--assuming average health--dominate the AL East for the next three to four years (potentially much longer).

Despite the degree to which the Sox would benefit from acquiring Santana, I would be quite happy to see Santana go to the Mets. Why? Because I love the young talent in the Sox system and would like to see many of the players mentioned above in Sox laundry someday. Ellsbury demonstrated his significant potential during September and October of 2007. Lester's maturity--on and off the field--along with his talent speaks to why pitching coach John Ferrell thinks he will turn into a consistent 15-17 game winner. Masterson, Lowrie, and Kalish had extremely impressive seasons in the minors. In terms of on-field production, these are not good enough reasons not to make the trade with the Twins should they want it and that is why good ol' cold, hard logic convinces me that the Sox should pull the trigger. However, my heart isn't so cold and I want to cheer for these guys in the years to come. I want to give a friend of mine a Red Sox "Ellsbury" jersey even if its only because she thinks he hunky. I want to skip out of work early the day the Sox call up Masterson to start the front half of a day-night doubeheader. I want an excuse to visit my friend in Portland when Kalish gets promoted to the Sea Dogs. These aren't good baseball-operation reasons, but, as a fan, you can't help but hope that certain deals don't happen.

Third: Despite the fact that the Sox are arguably better going into 2008 than 2007, look for the Detroit Tigers to be the dominant "expert's pre-season World Series pick". They added pitching and offense (though not defense) and look to be pretty darn good soup to nuts. The AL Central is going to be stacked this year given the improvements by Chicago and Cleveland's ascendence last year.

Fourth: He That Shall Not Be Named got his during the off-season. He was unconvincing on 60 Minutes. He was unconvincing on his taped phone conversation. He tells an unconvincing story as to why Brian McNamee would lie. He is as unsavory as ever and has become our generation's Pete Rose (a great talent that ruined his legacy and will never recover). The only person walking away from this story that looks good is Dan Duquette...and that says something about this story.

Politics: I'll write more as we progress towards Super Tuesday but the Democratic Party needs to have a long debate over whether Clintonian politics is worth while. There seem to be very profound reasons to both admire and revile the Clinton Way. Matt Bai had an outstanding article in the New York Times Magazine back in December that detailed the nature of Clintonian politics and its uncertain legacy. However, the debate over whether the Party is really prepared to accept this unique (and somewhat successful) form of politics speaks to the nature of Party itself. It may be that Democrats don't want the more congenial politics that Barack Obama regularly references in his speeches. It may be that Democrats like winning in a way that only (Bill) Clinton was able to do with any consistency (at least since Lyndon Johnson). Yet, the costs are notable too. The Clinton years were marred by scandal and the failure to achieve all that could be achieved. Unfortunately, this legacy follows Hillary and to ignore it--or hope that it will not happen--does the Democratic Party no favors.

More soon...

Justice Stevens and Silly Statutes

2007-09-23T22:28:00.000-07:00

The New York Times Magazine has an interesting article on Justice John Paul Stevens written by Jeffrey Rosen. Stevens, who was interviewed for the article, actually said a few things of substance, which makes this the first article from a sitting Supreme Court justice in recent memory that can boast such a claim. I particularly enjoyed when Justice Stevens described Congress's ban on late-term abortions as a "silly statute." I wish more Americans realized how much of what ends up on the Supreme Court's docket is a result of silly and (largely) symbolic legislation. (Too often, the biggest fights in American politics is akin to counting cats in Zanzibar.) Several things I found fascinating (if not altogether surprising):

1. Stevens openly questions the value of unanimity on the Court.
2. Stevens questions whether Brennan's style of lobbying was effective or whether he benefited from four other like-minded justices. (This speaks to the question of how fixed justices are in their preferences.)
3. Stevens fancies himself a conservative despite the degree to which the political spectrum has shifted.
4. Stevens emphasizes how vital the writing process is to parsing difficult questions/problems. Maybe he should try blogging...
5. Stevens believed that some of the most important decisions he makes are with regard to assigning opinions--not writing them.
6. Stevens calls out Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade and states that the doctrine doesn't make sense.
7. Stevens lays out an interesting argument about how to use history in constitutional interpretation. I'm unclear on how taking all of American history into account could be used with much rigor but it is interesting distinction from his originalist colleagues.
8. Finally, Stevens explains why he ruled the way he did in Bush v. Gore (or at least a major influence on his decision) and he points to good old fashion rule of law considerations.

The Senate, Article V Amendment, and Entrenchment

2007-09-20T06:42:00.000-07:00

On Monday, Sandy Levinson gave a fine Constitution Day lecture before an audience of roughly 150 people on the UNLV campus. Prof. Levinson presented a streamlined, if slightly refined version, of his most recent book: Our Undemocratic Constitution. Many of my students were in attendance and have subsequently wanted to know more about the possibility of altering our constitutional system and the appropriate mechanisms for doing so. In particular, many of my students are quite sympathetic to Levinson's critique of the Senate. (I find their support particularly notable since they reside in a state that would certainly receive less federal monies under a system that based its upper house on proportional representation.) Yet, from a rule of law standpoint, altering the Senate is the most constitutionally troubling of Levinson's proposals.

The last sentence of Article V states, "and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." To decrease the democratic deficit, the Senate would need to be reapportioned in such a way as to reflect population. The first provisions of Article V provides that supermajorities can impose their constitutional will on the rest of the country so reapportioning the Senate would seem possible. However, under my reading of the final sentence of Article V, the Senate is exempted and protected. The language seemingly requires each and every state to consent to a change to the Senate. I find it highly unlikely that North Dakota, Wyoming, and, even, Nevada will consent to losing their equal representation. (The entrenchment provision is likely yet another vestige of the original compromise between free and slave states. Mark Graber's Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil is a must read!)

Unanimity clauses are not new in American constitutional history. The Articles of Confederation required all states to consent to amendments (see Article XIII) and the Constitution of 1787 was ratified despite this provision (although they avoided the issue when the Constitution was ultimately ratified by every state). Yet, Levinson seems to be trying to work within the strictures of Article V. Unfortunately, I did not ask Prof. Levinson how reformers get around Article V's entrenchment provision but it strikes me as highly problematic for the effort.

Variance or Suckitude?

2007-09-19T08:39:00.000-07:00

The Red Sox have managed to lose enough recently such that their lead in the AL East is now 2 1/2 games over the surging Yankees. All Red Sox fans are now remembering 1978 and every other collapse in the long history of Red Sox Nation. During times when the Nation stands on the precipice wondering whether to jump or not, it is worth trying to gain some perspective (perspective on baseball--none of that "it's just a game crap," anyone who says that doesn't understand the nature of identity). So, here's a thought:

Baseball is a game of percentages, variance, and distribution. Smart general managers can predict with high levels of confidence approximately how many wins their team will have at the end of the year. However, this tells general managers (and, more importantly for this post, fans) the nature of how those wins will be distributed throughout a season. If a team is likely to win 91-94 games (at, say, a 95% confidence interval) and manages to win 53 during the first half of the season, the second half is going to be a let down. At one point in the first half, the Sox were on pace to win 105 wins. On the flip side, the Yankees were on pace to win about 83. I knew both of these were absurd but, as a fan, I still wanted both to happen. Baseball is self correcting and, while painful to watch sometimes, tends to end up pretty much where you thought it would. Which is to say, that Sox fans shouldn't be surprised that they are running neck and neck with the Spanks at the end of the year.

Of course, none of this explains why Francona didn't have Papelbon up in the eighth inning given that Eric Gagne gives up runs like a pitcher in a t-ball game. But, that's why Sox fans have Sons of Sam Horn: To call for Francona's (proverbial, I hope) head on a platter.

The New York Times Finally Gets it Right

2007-09-18T07:21:00.001-07:00

The New York Times announced that it will abandon the subscription program it began a little over two years ago. The Times gave free access to its news stories but charged for its op-ed page, blogs, and subscriptions. But the Times was finally smart enough to realize that you can make more money off of advertising than subscription fees. I, for one, welcome the change. After all, if the New York Times wants to continue to be the "paper of record" for the nation, it is preferable if the nation has access to all its content.

Happy Constitution Day

2007-09-17T09:04:00.000-07:00

For those of you not paying attention to the calendar, today is Constitution Day! Sanford Levinson gives the annual Constitution Day Lecture at UNLV tonight at 7:30 PM in the Barrack Auditorium. (Admission is free.) Please join us as Prof. Levinson's talk promises to be both provocative and entertaining! Besides lecturing on the Constitution and attending Levinson's lecture, I plan to fix myself the most American of celebratory beverages: Bourbon. (I think I'll go with Blanton's.)

A Few Thoughts on the Weekend Series

2007-09-17T08:48:00.000-07:00

I'm an optimist despite being a Red Sox fan. I tend to focus on the positive and assess from there. Despite dropping the weekend series to the Yankees, Sox fans have much to be optimistic about come the post-season and a potential clash with the team from The Borough that Also Ran.

1. The Sox crushed Pettitte and Wang who are likely the numbers 1 and 2 starters for the Yanks.

2. The Sox got to Chamberlain. There is no mystification in this rivalry.

3. The Sox are still get to Mariano Rivera.

4. The Sox rookies showed they can play in tight situations. Jacoby Ellsbury is a must for the post-season roster...he's unflappable...Pedroia was once again solid in the clutch. Matsuzaka pitched well on Friday night. (Just need to straighten out Okajima by getting him some rest down the stretch.)

5. 2007 Beckett looks like 2003 Beckett, except better.

Finally, I should note that I'll watch Eric Hinske crush Jorge Posada about 100 times this off-season. (Nice job to hang on to the ball but, man, does Posada get absolutely devastated. It obviously had an effect, too, since he utterly failed to tag Ellsbury during another play at the plate later in the game.)

Not what I wanted out of the series but, on the whole, I'll take it as a positive. The Magic Number for the Sox is 9.

Teaching Civil Liberties: Cases without Proper Context

2007-09-12T08:56:00.000-07:00

Every political science department in the country offers some variety of courses on constitutional law and civil liberties. Sophisticated undergraduate students often raise a complaint about these courses, they are taught that constitutional doctrine changes but they aren't terribly clear on why the change occurs. Of course, this is an area in which political scientists speak with some authority and I try to work in discussions of constitutional development and theories of judicial decision-making. However, in courses such as constitutional law and civil liberties, the curricular demands of covering several hundred cases make significant tangents difficult, even tangents that are vital to contextualizing doctrinal change. Worse, by abridging some of these narratives and theories, students may get more of a caricature than "thick description."

The question is why do political scientists still offer case-intensive courses rather than those that focus on their expertise (i.e. theories of judicial decision-making or constitutional development). Undergraduate demand may be another explanation. Constitutional law courses are wellsprings for FTEs and therefore can generate significant resources for a political science department (depending on any given college's method for allocating resources). Political scientists may also enjoy playing junior law professors. After all, case law is fun to teach and the constitutional canon of cases is interesting, sexy, and, often, topical. Finally (without prejudice to other explanations), there is likely some degree of path dependence here. When political science formed as a discipline, it was closely tied to constitutionalism. As we progressed through the twentieth century, issues of constitutionalism (rightly or wrongly) were tied ever more closely to the courts. Thus, constitutionalism became conflated with constitutional law and political science followed suit (or, perhaps, played a co-developmental role--see the works of Edward S. Corwin).

For those seeking more perspective and context to understand constitutional development and change, both through judicial decree and outside of it, read Mark Tushnet's latest paper on The Rights Revolution in the Twentieth Century.

Farm Country: Year End Awards

2007-09-10T10:29:00.001-07:00

Since the regular season of minor league baseball is officially over (at least until the start of the Arizona Fall League), I thought I would break out the end of season awards. Coming from me, these are essentially meaningless but I like to fancy myself knowledgeable enough to bestow name-only-awards to minor league players in the Sox system.

First, an ad hoc rule. I eliminated any farmhand who spent time with the big league club. This is wholly unfair and largely unwarranted but just about every baseball fan knows who Clay Buchholz is and most have heard of Jacoby Ellsbury AND since each player could easily have won awards, I thought I'd just exclude them and give accolades to other deserving, less well know players.

Offensive Player of the Year:

Josh Reddick--Reddick had a monster year for Greenville. He posted .306/.352/.531 with 18 HRs and 72 RBIs. At 20 years of age, Reddick looks like a player that could rise to AA next year and reach the bigs by 23.

Honorable Mention: Jed Lowrie, Lars Anderson, Bubba Bell, Oscar Tejeda, Ryan Kalish (pre-injury), Aaron Bates, Jon Still, Zack Daeges

Marginal to Mainline:

Jed Lowrie---Last year, Lowrie was a bust. This year, Lowrie arguably had the best offensive season of any minor league shortstop. Lowrie hit .298 and slugged .501 with AA Portland and hit .300 and slugged .506 with AAA Pawtucket. Lowrie may have made the decision regarding a utility man next year much more difficult given Cora's woeful production this year. If the Sox choose to go another route, Lowrie will likely be good trade fodder since he is blocked by Pedroia and Lugo.

Honorable Mention: Bubba Bell, Brandon Moss (yes, including Moss violates my rule but since he didn't actually win, I;m making an exception)

Starting Pitcher of the Year:

Justin Masterson---Masterson went from a promising prospect to a legitimate contender for the 2009 Sox starting rotation. (Beckett, Matsuzaka, Buchholz, Lester, and either Bowden or Masterson). He has a lethal combination of a heavy sinking fastball and the ability to miss bats. He will likely start at Portland next season but, hopefully, be promoted to Pawtucket within two months.

Honorable Mention: Michael Bowden, Dustin Richardson, Nick Hagadone

Relief Pitcher of the Year:

Hunter Jones---An position that was once a wellspring of talent for the organization appeared much thinner this year. Bryce Cox regressed and Craig Hansen only found his stride toward the end of the season. Edgar Martinez was OK. And, on the upside, Manny Delcarmen graduated to become a go-to guy in the Sox pen. But, Hunter Jones showed a good deal this past year, particularly after he was promoted to AA Portland. He posted a 2.69 K/BB and posted a respectable 1.21 WHIP. He could become a serviceable reliever if he continues to build off what he started this season.

Honorable Mention: Mike James

Player I'm most excited to watch next year:

Oscar Tejeda---OK, this isn't really an award but Tejeda exploded on the scene as a 17 year old. His numbers in the Gulf Coast League and brief stint with the Lowell Spinners make comparisons to Hanley Ramirez easy. He's a five tool player who seemed to improve as he moved from the GCL to the New York-Penn League. It will be interesting to see where the organization starts Tejeda next year but I'd guess he'll play for the Drive.

Vegas Style Victory and the Flutie Factor

2007-09-09T09:00:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to pass along congrats to the UNLV football team that came within 2 minutes of defeating the #5 ranked Wisconsin Badgers last night. (Story here.) They ended up losing on a 29 yard touchdown scramble by Badgers quarterback Tyler Donovan. Now, it may seem odd to congratulate the losers but the sports books gave UNLV four touchdowns, which is a massive spread. UNLV did more than cover. They established themselves as a team to pay attention to. The squad looked excellent with an impressive defense and a spread offense that moved the ball well. UNLV's football program has been terrible over the last several years but, if this game is any measure, the squad looks like it will shake up the Mountain West this year.

Beyond being happy for the kids on the football team, I have a vested interest in the team doing well. The publicity generated by a successful sports team (specifically football or basketball) is virtually unmatched. Many schools have experienced increases in applications and enrollment in years following a successful football or basketball season. (This is referred to as the "Flutie Factor" after Doug Flutie who led Boston College to a miracle victory over the University of Miami.) The Flutie Factor may not justify the millions spent on having sports programs that can compete at the national level but, as Stephen Elkin once told me, so long as the sports teams are improving at the same rate as the academic standards and reputation of the institution, it's all good. UNLV, despite its occasional struggles, is heading upward academically and athletically and it's all good.

Quote of the Day

2007-09-08T10:01:00.000-07:00

Baseball players regularly give inane answers to inane questions. Bull Durham sardonically highlighted the "just here to help the team win" answer. But, every now and then, there is a player who actually tells you what they think. Dustin Pedroia, the Red Sox rookie second baseman and my choice for the AL Rookie of the Year (although Brian Bannister should also get careful consideration), called out Daniel Cabrera after Cabrera threw a pitch at his head. Said Pedroia, "The guy's an idiot...I was upset they took him out of the game. He's good to hit. He's 9-15. The guy [stinks]." Not exactly playing it close to the vest. Pedroia should provide great press for years to come.

Drinking the Koolaid: Buchholz With Three Appearances and Three Wins

2007-09-07T09:34:00.000-07:00

Clay Buchholz, in his third official appearance in a Red Sox uni, picked up his third win last night. Momentarily, he showed that he is, indeed, human when he gave up two walks and a hit to load the bases with no outs against the Baltimore We-Wish-We-Were-As-Good-As-the-Black-Sox Orioles. But Buchholz found another notch. He got Miguel Tejada to bounce into a 5-2-3 double play and struck out Kevin Millar to end the inning.

What is particularly notable is that Buchholz has limited experience in relief. Unlike Jonathan Papelbon who closed in college, Buchholz has been a starter throughout his amateur and professional career. Yet, Buchholz seems to have the mental make-up (no questions on the physical) to handle a stint in the pen. The real question is how good will Buchholz be down the stretch? Will the Sox get a lift similar to the one they received from Papelbon in 2005 or similar to the one the Cardinals received from Adam Wainwright last year? Fortunately for the Sox, their bullpen is already the best in baseball so they may not need Buchholz all that much down the stretch or in the playoffs. But, what was already a stocked pen just got better and that could be trouble for opposing teams in October.

Oh, and if you think I'm the only one drinking the Koolaid, The Yawkey Way store already is selling Buchholz jersey shirts despite knowing that Buchholz will likely change his number next spring when he enters the Red Sox rotation. (Maybe he won't since #61 must bring some good luck but picking a lower number is a long tradition in professional baseball.) Buchholz is clearly in demand. The question for me is how long I'll hold out before buying one to go with my Ortiz and Papelbon jerseys. And should I really buy a Buchholz jersey before a Pedroia? Tough call.

Positive Development--Darfur Peace Talks

2007-09-06T13:37:00.000-07:00

Rebel leaders in Darfur will hold UN-backed peace talks. The New York Times story is here. Between peacekeeping forces being sent to the Sudan and now peace talks among rebel leaders, perhaps there is finally reason to hope that positive change is occurring.

What Does Blogging Tell Us About Academic Departments?

2007-09-06T07:29:00.000-07:00

As a nascent--and not terribly good--blogger, I've noticed that there are a lot of really interesting and active blogs by legal academics but very few from political scientists. In fact, there are so many law-themed blogs that I find it rather difficult to keep up with them. I check in on four or five regularly (Balkinization, Volokh Conspiracy, Legal Theory Blog, Sports Law Blog, and Concurring Opinons) but there must be thirty or so that I don't bother to read because of their specific areas of focus (e.g. health law). If one searches for a political science blog to compare to, say, Balkinization, one is likely to encounter a good deal of frustration. PolySigh is a blog that hosts an outstanding cast of contributors (e.g. Paul Frymer, Philip Klinkner, Jacob Hacker, etc.) but the mosts there are very infrequent and tend to be short without much analyses. Stephen Taylor does a nice job at Poliblog. But Poliblog is a one-person show so it lacks some of the flavor that is gained by many voices posting to one blog. (Of course, this holds true of The Foul Pole, too.)

So why are blogs run by academic lawyers so much more successful than blogs run by political scientists? A few thoughts:

1. The Community: It may be the legal academy was/is quicker to embrace new technologies and new mediums for communication. Blogs are not journals so their value must be measured in ways different than citations counts, impact scores, etc., which is the way political scientists usually demonstrate their scholarly prowess.

2. Institutional Incentives: Being a good institutionalist, I tend to seek answers in the institution. There has long been an adage that while it is difficult to break into the legal academy, once in, tenure is relatively easy to get. I am not claiming that this is actually true--I have no idea what the tenure standards are in law schools around the country and, as with political science, I'm quite certain there is significant variance from school to school. However, the journals are, largely, not peer reviewed making publication much easier. (And, since I've published in a law review I feel qualified to say that my experience publishing there in was much easier than publishing in a reputable political science journal.) Additionally, the teaching load at your average law school seems to be quite managable. Two/two loads seem commonplace--although this observation is entirely anecdotal. Managable teaching loads mean more time for research and writing and, therefore, more time for posting to a blog.

3. Finally, I should note that political scientists have done a poor job of engaging the community. Legal academics are much closer to the public sphere than political scientists. When law professors speak, members of the public (i.e. practicioners, media, etc.) may actually be listening. When political scientists talk, to often we speak only to our students and peers. Thus, blogging may naturally seem quite foreign to a political scientist who could realistically wonder if anyone will read their posts.

Whatever the case, political scientists may yet find that blogging has something to offer. Our academic brethren in the law schools have turned blogging into an fascinating forum for the exchange and development of new ideas. We would be well served to follow their path.

The ability to publish articles more quickly and secure tenure more readily

The Advent of "Law Talk"

2007-09-06T07:17:00.000-07:00

A new Podcast is up and available on the Concurring Opinions blog. Nate Oman will be hosting Law Talk: The Legal Scholarship Podcast. As a good academician, I welcome the addition of any podcast that seeks to host scholars!

Baseball and Religion

2007-09-04T10:43:00.000-07:00

Bradford Pilcher has a rather amusing take on why American Jews should love the Red Sox and hate the Yankees. The piece is a bit old but I just ran across it. It's rather amusing and shows the degree to which Red Sox fans are nuts. (Thanks to Ilyn Somin for originally posting the link at the Volokh Conspiracy.)

New Troubles in Darfur

2007-09-03T09:30:00.000-07:00

Jeffrey Gettleman of the New York Times reports a new and troubling development in Darfur. Despite the UN's authorization of peacekeeping forces, Darfur continues to experience significant violence and chaos. One wonders the extent to which the continued strife in Darfur is an example of institutional failure--both domestically and internationally.

Preview of Levinson's Constitution Day Lecture

2007-09-03T08:36:00.001-07:00

Sandy Levinson, the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood Jr. Centennial Chair Professor of Government at the University of Texas School of Law, will be giving the annual Constitution Day Lectureship at the University of Nevada Las Vegas on September 17. He offers a preview today on Balkinization. I share Prof. Levinson's concerns regarding "veneration" of our Constitution but hold more hope for the impact, if any, of Constitution Day. The Byrd Amendment essentially empowered academic constitutionalists to express our understanding and reservations regarding the Constitution and its modern operation. Many of us hold deep reservations about certain aspects of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, while Byrd may have visualized a form of celebratory teaching, we have the freedom to teach skepticism about the institutions and framework crafted in Philadelphia in 1787. And now, thanks to Senator Byrd, we have the means of securing funding so that Prof. Levinson can explain why he despairs about our constitutional fate.

Thoughts on Former Sox: Gabbard and Pena

2007-09-02T17:03:00.000-07:00

As I watch the Rangers-Angels game on ESPN, Kason Gabbard is pitching pretty well once again. For those of you unfamiliar with Gabbard, he is a former Red Sox prospect who made his MLB debute last year and worked his way into the Sox rotation in 2007. The Red Sox traded him (along with David Murphy and Engel Beltre) to the Rangers for Eric Gagne. Likely, the Sox won't know if this trade was a success until the playoffs but it is clear that the Rangers picked up a quality starting pitcher. Gabbard is what has become known as a "soft tossing lefty" and was likely undervalued by the fact that he doesn't throw above 91 MPH. However, Gabbard just keeps winning by pounding the strike zone, keeping his pitches down, and changing speeds effectively--particularly his off-speed stuff.

So this begs the question, since in my last post I emphasized how young pitching may be the new key to success in MLB, did the Sox fail to truly appreciate how good Gabbard was/could be? It's likely too early to tell but since that isn't an interesting answer, I'll try to dissect things further. The Sox have (at least) five starting pitchers for the 2008 starting rotation: Beckett, Matsuzaka, Wakefield, Lester, and Buchholz. They also have Justin Masterson and Michael Bowden waiting in the wings (much as with Papelbon in 2005, Lester in 2006, and Buchholz in 2007). However, should one of the "slated" starting five go down early in the season, the Sox could be short handed and Sox fans likely don't want to see another version of Julian Tavarez in the rotation for more than a start or two. Gabbard certainly could have made for a nice safety net in the 2008 season. However, to answer my own question, the Sox were right to trade Gabbard. The goal of any MLB club is to win a championship and Theo Epstein made a reasonable assertion that Gagne would help the Sox achieve that end. (Gagne's performance to date makes this less than certain but it is difficult to fault him for not being able to predict Gagne's massive regression to date.) Gabbard was not in the long term plan for the Sox because they have better arms both in the rotation and in the system. Thus, I'll maintain that trading Gabbard was for the best despite Gabbard's continued success. And, I'll continue to cheer for Gabbard except when he is pitching against the Sox.

I also wanted to call attention to the season that Carlos Pena is having for the D-Rays. (Pena played briefly for the Sox in 2006 and continues to help the Sox by utterly destroying the Yankees today.) If he played for a team that was remotely close to a .500 winning percentage, then he would probably get more attention for the AL MVP. To me, he seems like a lock for the AL Comeback Player of the Year. And, most importantly, Pena is a fellow Huskie and I love seeing a fellow alumnus represent NU so well in The Show.

Craig's Interrogation and the On-going Problem of Racism

2007-09-02T13:00:00.000-07:00

Over on the Volokh Conspiracy, Dale Carpenter makes an important observation about Senator Craig's interrogation and police tactics that raise serious questions about institutionalized racism. The police officer who interviewed Craig, attempts to persuade Craig to admit wrong doing by associating Craig's obstructive behavior with people "from the hood" (i.e. young, black males). Carpenter notes that the officer is attempting to shame Craig by casting his actions as those consistent with the actions of the other. Carpenter is extremely informative here and I can add nothing nearly as insightful as he.

Instead, I wonder about the state of racial politics in the country. Other than Carpenter's post, I have seen nothing on the police officer's comments. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have voiced much on such a widely publicized event. Both have significant incentives to do so. Democrats can play to their base. Republicans could do a good deal to bolster Craig's position that he did nothing wrong by casting the investigation in less than favorable terms. However, the disincentives, provided by the state of contemporary politics, appears to be too be too great. Democrats seem unwilling to take provocative stances that might jeopardize their standing as the party-less-hated and Republicans long ago sold out on questionable interrogation techniques. Any change in that policy now would look absurd.

Of course, what all this means is that real conversations about race and power in the United States is not currently possible--at least in political circles. Perhaps the rest of us can carry on the conversation whilst our leaders continue to watch Rome burn.

Clay--mation

2007-09-02T11:18:00.000-07:00

The no-hitter thrown by Clay Buchholz is, in many ways, the best way to begin my blogging. There is something particularly special about a no-hitter that isn't matched by any other event in baseball. Walkoffs are tremendous but they are solely at the end of the game. From about the fourth inning on, a no-hitter works its way through the crowd. By the sixth inning, everyone knows what NOT to talk about. By the seventh, the crowd applauds too long and too loud for even the most routine out. When a pitcher throws a no-hitter, it is perfectly acceptable to hope that the pitcher's offense doesn't do anything so that the pitcher doesn't have to sit too long. As a fan, you refuse to change anything so that you don't jinx the no-no. (I refused to move from the middle cushion on my couch as, if I did, there's no way Dustin Pedroia makes THAT play.) And, when Clay stuck out Nick Markakis--a very good young hitter--to end the game, I jumped around my living room like a little kid as Sox fan across the Nation did the same.

While it is easy for Sox fans to boast all about the present and future of Buchholz, there is something even more interesting about what Clay symbolizes about MLB and its future. Not that long ago, teams with means spent too little time developing talent within their organization. Instead, they relied on the market to score much of their talent. However, smart GMs have realized that good pitching simply costs too much. MONEYBALL tell us that smart general managers will exploit market inefficiencies to their advantage. (If you haven't read Moneyball and you are a baseball fan, do yourself a favor and read it. There is so much more to the book than the characture presented by baseball's talking heads.) As more and more GMs recognized the value of certain stats (e.g. OBP, OPS, TB, etc.), the drive to find cheap talent turned away from free agents and toward internal development. Of course, this is one of the oldest strategies in baseball but it is also the wave of the future. Teams are now holding on to their pitching prospects like they are made of gold. And, these prospects are having a major impact. Sox fans saw this in 2005 and 2006 with the rise of Jonathan Papelbon. The Yankees are having their own success with reliever (for now) Joba Chamberlain and, if less so this year, starters Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy. Joel Zumaya was absolutely dominant for the Tigers last year. The Twins' Scott Baker came close to throwing a perfect game on Friday night. The list is quite long and it goes to show that teams are both developing young pitching talent and willing to throw them out in the middle of a pennant race.

In short, what Buchholz did was truly special but it may be emblematic of a new paradigm in baseball. Free agents may matter less (although they will still matter) as teams move more aggressively in the amateur draft and international free-agent markets. I think this could be a very good thing for baseball. There is something special about having one of "your guys" take to the mound and throw a no hitter or make a game saving defensive play. Yankee fans have embraced Chamberlain in a way that most free agent signees never experience. After years of being forced to "rooting for the laundry" perhaps the youth movement in MLB echoes back to a day when a given player wore the same laundry for the most important years of their career. I hope this is true but, for today, I don't really care. Clay Buchholz threw a no-hitter and I got to dance around my living room like I was a kid again.