The Odds Have Changed, Even for the Cubs

Two of the favorites tonight have held serve, but the Cubs did not. Even though the odds overall were in the Cubs' favor, most knowledgeable knew that beating Brandon Webb at home was a tall order. Although the Cubs odds of winning have gone down with this loss, I still think that they'll probably win the next two of three games, as originally predicted.

Boston and Colorado now have commanding odds of winning their series, while we wait for the Yankees to do their bit tomorrow.

Click the image to enlarge it. A win for the first game of each series received a 1, and losing a 0 (for the chances of winning, which are now definite).

Maybe for the Next Four Weeks I Call This Illumi-Baseballrati...

This will be a cross-post with Big Shoulders Sports.

Two years ago on Big Shoulders Sports, I blogged about the postseason chances of the White Sox. Re-reading prior to this post surprises me that I was so accurate (I predicted a Sox victory)--perhaps I need to call a bookie!

In any case, my method is to use a combination of Bill James' Pythagorean Theorem and his Log5 Theorem for one-game win probability. My little wrinkle is using home/away numbers instead of totals, and then to total up all the probabilities adding up to 3 wins (win-win-win, win-loss-win-win, win-loss-loss-win-win, etc.). Because probabilities are additive, the chances of any scenario can just be added up (where the total equals 100%).

So what do the numbers show?


(Click to enlarge image)

The Yankees hold an advantage over Cleveland, Boston looks very tough to beat by the Angels in the AL. In the NL, the Cubs should win the first playoff series over the Diamondbacks, and the Rockies have a slight edge over the Phillies.

Now, I know what you're saying: how can your numbers show the Cubs having such an advantage over the team with the best record in the league? It's simple, the D-backs have a below-.500 pythagorean record, which is almost unheard of in the playoffs. The Cubs have a decent home-field advantage and are far better on the road--this will translate into an NLDS victory for the North Siders.

As the games are played, I will update this table and post it here (and on Big Shoulders), since the odds will change with each victory and loss.

A Quick One About My Baseball Blog Posts...

As you may have seen in one of my earlier posts, I also do a Stats-type Baseball Posting on an Ex-Pat Chicago Sports Web site.

It's always nice to be appreciated, as my Season Predictions proved highly accurate, my fellow blogger posted about that.

I love Bill James' Sabermetric work, and I used his Win-Shares formula to see how the off-season would add up for the Cubs. Turns out I was only off by one game (I predicted the Cubs would win only 84 or 85 games).

My mid-season prediction was eerily similar to my pre-season prediction, and the eventual outcome. I should say that the Pythagorean Theorem was particularly accurate, because I didn't devise this, Bill James did, with only a little programmatic application that I did which was to include the season as it unfolds and the dwindling number of opportunities, along with the OPI (over-performance index). This prediction also made my Yankees-loving friends extremely happy. Most interesting in this prediction was the fact that I had the Cubs winning the division even though their performance at that time had resulted in an under-.500 record and Milwaukee was winning at a high clip.

I will be cross-posting my play-off predictions here and on Big Shoulders Sports.

Caveat Rector: Wannabe President Beware--You Will Be Found Out!

Since a friend pointed me to the story of WikiScanner early last week, I've been reminded of my previous post of helping politicians technologically: If you've done something stupid, it will catch up to you. And so caveat rector, literally, ruler beware, but this will apply more to the wannabe rulers out there. Add WikiScanner as an additional nightmare for politicians and their PR people, along with current nightmares of YouTube and Viral Videos.

What kind of information will Wikiscanner divulge about Wiki entries? Will we learn that Hilary's camp was "correcting" Obama's name to Osama? Will we discover that Rudy Giuliani has edited the postings on transgender information? It's a brave new world, isn't it?

What Virgil Griffith has done is not in fact new: most IT people and otherwise technologically-capable Internauts knew that you could Whois an IP or DNS fairly easily. But Griffith has just democratized a little slice of the Web, and particularly, the already democratic Wikipedia. Now, not only can more people look at this little-used information, but it will be easier to read and compile for everybody, and it will allow various other Web mash-ups to take this information and create even more useful links: like anyone who made a Wikipedia edit and to whom they've contributed money (WikiScanner + OpenSecrets.org?).

Since the news broke, we've learned that the CIA doesn't have anything better to do than to troll Wikipedia and occasionally make edits; that Diebold employees helped out their CEO with some revisionist history; and that a South African government worker apparently believes that HIV/AIDS is not a problem in his country.

I have a feeling that as people start using WikiScanner, that we will be hearing about a lot of different conflicts of interest, slander, etc.

iPhony or iPhonetastic? An Early Adopter Explains Why He'll Wait on This One Until Gen2.0

Last night, The Wife and I were near the Apple Store on 5th Avenue around Midnight. We thought we would check out the latest electronic gadget. It would not surprise anybody to know that the writer of a blog titled what this one is would be what is called in the business an Early Adopter. Not only am I an early adopter, I'm also an Early Proseletyzer, because if I like the gadget, everyone I know certainly will know about it.

So did I buy the iPhone?

The answer, surprisingly, is no. Why?

The iPhone is beautiful, simply put. The technology packed into this tiny, thin, lightweight device is alluring, in a digital way, of course. But I'm not going to buy it. These are some reasons why:

• I want to listen to music and I have a big collection, over 30GB of mp3s. Why would I want an iPod that only holds 4GB or 8GB? I like being able to put my entire collection on there and listening to anything I feel like. This does not replace my 2nd generation iPod (which replaced a 1G iPod of course).



• I can't use it with the really fast Verizon network I'm currently enjoying with my Motorola Q (which I early adopted and proseletyzed to many, including my boss at GMHC). Web pages looked great on the iPhone, way better than my Q, but they were a lot slower-loading than I'm used to.



• I use my Q for work email, which means it has to work with Exchange Server. Also, my Q syncs with Outlook (and Entourage). There is no mention anywhere of a seamless synchronization with these important workplace technologies.



• Even though my current contract with Verizon finished just this month, and I did not have to pay a cancellation fee, and even though I already pay $99/m for my plan, it is really not worth paying $600 for a new phone or iPod, or iPhone plus iPod.

This morning I read the review in the New York Times by David Pogue who seemed to be dead-set against the iPhone. His main arguments were the battery life, lack of a physical keyboard, and the AT&T plan. I think the battery life problem is really not a big deal, because if it's a phone, who's going to keep it more than two years, really?

Mossberg also mentioned the physical keyboard, as did Michael Robertson, formerly of Linspire and MP3.Com, in one of his self-serving broadcast emails ostensibly trying to be "helpful" to potential iPhone purchasers. Having used it, I don't think it will be much of a problem--people will get used to it. Also, I believe that it will become far less of a liability once voice dial becomes a feature. Not only that, it's probably too short-sighted to claim something like this will be the "downfall" of the iPhone--user-interface design is changing user interaction rapidly, and Apple has been at the forefront since the beginning of the digital revolution, so I don't buy this argument.

Cost, though, that might do it for some people. I'm not exactly frugal--but something has to be a life-changing purchase for me, either by allowing me to listen to a large music collection on the go, check my email, check that I'm still leading my fantasy baseball team (thank you, Q!), use Google Maps and gmail, and put it all in my regular phone, that will do it, and my Q at $149 was somewhat expensive. But I really can't justify $600 plus all that New York City tax to go to slower plan.

You know what I will buy, though? An 80GB iPod that looks exactly the same as the iPhone, without the phone features, but with 802.11g Wireless technology. For $350.

And next year's 2nd gen iPhone, when my Q becomes two years old!

NOTE: first image by Mary S. Butler, Q photo, on msb_nyc Flickr.com; second image by me using the iPhone at the Apple Store

Yes, I Like Baseball...

I do not have a Techology post, but here is one of my seemingly never-ending blogs on another blog about baseball. Go to Big Shoulders Sports to see this post utilizing Bill James' Pythagorean Wins theorem...

Politicians Caught in the Web

It wasn't very long ago that a politician could derail his campaign with a badly-timed photo op (or paparazzi shot): Gary Hart on the boat with a jeans model, Dukakis in a tank (I see this one in my nightmares), or even very recently with Kerry windsurfing. You think to yourself, "Knowing the scrutiny they were getting in the middle of a campaign season, how could they let themselves be caught in so unflattering a manner?"

Well, now it is 2007. A politician can be so lucky as to have a gaffe only caught in a picture in a newspaper. Post-George Allen, it is a Brave New World. Not only will a pol have to be "on" (as they say in acting) all the time, but they will have to be vigilant of who is in the vicinity in their least guarded moments (take heed John Edwards, and lay off the spittle, Wolfowitz!). And in the wake of the Hilary Big Brother (Sister?) viral video, controlling the message just got a lot more difficult. I offer this as a primer for the technologically inept politicians of how they can try to do their best at controlling their image (and words!).

"Macaca" Meltdown Moderation:

• Assume you are being taped at all times. Why?


• Digital Video camcorders are ubiquitous and tiny--they fit in pockets


• Most telephones now have digital video/audio capabilities and nearly everyone has one


• Resist the urge to try to be funny; remember: you're a politician, not a comedian


• If you're making a TV appearance, remember there's a camera in every room

Control the Message:

• When a viral video breaks, make sure you have a response: just like the old publicity saw goes, "any publicity is good publicity"--you need to use it to your advantage.


• If the video of you serenading a coat rack at an orgy becomes a huge hit on YouTube, well then you might have to get creative (I don't know how to get out of that one, maybe hire Mel Gibson's agency!)

Online Polls:

• Online polls are the worst sort of polls--there is no scientific sampling whatsoever: NEVER QUOTE THESE


• Never put these on your site, either


• On the other hand, when you're on a sympathetic Web site, you definitely need to have a high total, because it does mean that Internauts are paying attention; this information might help in fundraising and knowing where to put ad money

A final point: your history is pretty much publicly available. As you have no doubt seen in the last few months, the charities, political groups, and organizations to whom you've contributed is freely available on the Web, and "mash-ups"--so called because they mash together information from many disparate sources into one (from the hip-hop/dance mash-ups putting different songs together and still forming one beat) are really changing the political environment. They have caused Rudy Giuliani, to his credit, to run a basically honest campaign--that is, he at least can't lie about his support for gay rights and pro-choice (the record on terrorism: the jury is still out!).

So if you're going to run, you should definitely 'fess up about any cyber-skeletons in the cyber-closet, because otherwise, the Blogosphere will own you.