Road Rage #3 - Headlight Use

In my estimation, turning on the headlights is one of the easiest tasks to accomplish in a car.  This process of hitting/turning the headlight switch seems to be a problem for too many people.  The consequences of this inaction by drivers usually creates dire outcomes for the innocent people around them.  To give credibility to this headlight usage gripe, I present the State of Maryland's law on headlight use: "Turn your headlights on when visibility is poor and use wipers and headlights in inclement weather. Maryland law now requires headlights to be used whenever windshield wipers are used continuously because of visibility conditions."

I have created a list of situations where a driver should be courteous to others and turn on their headlights.  The main premise is that headlights should be turned on whenever the sky is devoid or partially devoid of light - taken from Merriam-Webster definition of dark.  The words that one must pay particular attention to in the definition of dark are "partially devoid".  Many people do not seem to understand this concept - they understand that headlights are supposed to be on when it is dark, but they do not understand that darkness does not only apply when light is completely absent, but also when light has been partially dimmed, obstructed, or blocked. 

Mandatory Headlight Use Times

1.  At Night - This is when the sun is down and the moon is up, plus it is dark outside, hence the need for headlights; any questions?  I didn't think so.

2.  At Dusk - This is when the sun is starting to go down and the moon is starting to go up.  Most people seem to think that headlights are not needed during this time period.  I beg to differ - if you are driving a gray, black, or dark blue car during dusk, it is difficult for other drivers to see you...but with headlights on, the car will be seen!!  Quite the concept, right?

3.  At Dawn - The antithesis of dusk - the moon is starting to go down and the sun is starting to go up.  Here is the only thing one needs to understand about dawn - "It is recognized by the presence of weak sunlight, while the sun itself is still below the horizon."  I guess people could say that the sunlight is present so I do not need my headlights, but they would be wrong since the sun is still below the horizon.

4.  Raining, snowing, sleeting, etc - If something is coming out of the sky, turn on your lights.  It's against the law to not have your lights on when it is raining...and if you have a brain, you would realize that snowing and sleeting are no different than rain, so turn on your headlights before you kill somebody.

5.  Foggy/Cloudy days -  Maybe this one isn't as clear cut for you as it is for me.  My stance - if you would like to avoid killing other people, then you should heed my warning and turn on your headlights when the skies have less than 100% sunshine due to clouds and fog.  

6.  My Personal Favorite - Turn on your headlights immediately upon starting your car.  I'm waiting for your angry response..."But that is unnecessary".  That may be partially true, but in my opinion, if you are too dumb to realize the aforementioned five situations, then you should take all of the guess-work out of the equation and turn on your headlights every time you start the car.

It's obvious to me that many people will continue to disobey the laws of the road (headlights in this instance).  I will continue to author and post these types of lists in an attempt to prevent deaths from occurring on the roads due to people's irresponsible behavior and blatant stupidity. 

Sports Gripe #1: Defensive Indifference

The term "defensive indifference" was coined by Major League Baseball in the 1920's. It refers to the situation where a base runner does not get credited with a stolen base after stealing a base.

Wait...that statement does not make any sense?!?! Does it? How can that be? Statistics are a major aspect of baseball, shouldn't all steals count? When is a steal not a steal? Who came up with this stupid rule?

Those are some of the common responses I would expect from viewers after hearing an announcer speak of "defensive indifference" while watching a steal occur during a nationally televised baseball game. I certainly said a few of those things when I first heard about this moronic concept years ago. I believe that a steal is a steal, no matter the situation - it is unfathomable that a player could steal a base and not get credit for their efforts on the stat sheet. Baseball fanatics and statistics gurus could probably argue the validity of this MLB rule, but the O's game from this past Saturday showcased a legitimate flaw in the "defensive indifference" rule of the MLB rulebook - 10.07(g).

I'm going to sum up the "defensive indifference" rule in one sentence:

Defensive Indifference occurs when one team is ahead by multiple runs in the 9th inning and allows the losing team to steal bases because they do not see the losing team's base runners as a threat to their victory (most common usage).

The actual rule (stated in bold text below) does not explain the rule accurately. The presence of a long rule comment (in italics below) signifies a rule where scorekeepers must use subjective judgment when applying the rule during a game - I'm not high on scorekeeper reliability when it comes to objectiveness. If you need a page to explain a rule, there is probably something wrong with the rule. Ignore the text below in italics - I put it here as a testament to how convoluted and over-stated the rule is in its current state.

(g) The official scorer shall not score a stolen base when a runner advances solely because of the defensive team's indifference to the runner’s advance. The official scorer shall score such a play as a fielder's choice.
Rule 10.07(g) Comment: The scorer shall consider, in judging whether the defensive team has been indifferent to a runner’s advance, the totality of the circumstances, including the inning and score of the game, whether the defensive team had held the runner on base, whether the pitcher had made any pickoff attempts on that runner before the runner’s advance, whether the fielder ordinarily expected to cover the base to which the runner advanced made a move to cover such base, whether the defensive team had a legitimate strategic motive to not contest the runner’s advance or whether the defensive team might be trying impermissibly to deny the runner credit for a stolen base. For example, with runners on first and third bases, the official scorer should ordinarily credit a stolen base when the runner on first advances to second, if, in the scorer’s judgment, the defensive team had a legitimate strategic motive—namely, preventing the runner on third base from scoring on the throw to second base—not to contest the runner’s advance to second base. The official scorer may conclude that the defensive team is impermissibly trying to deny a runner credit for a stolen base if, for example, the defensive team fails to defend the advance of a runner approaching a league or career record or a league statistical title.

Failure of the Defensive Indifference Rule:

Situation: Random Game in the Middle of the Season, O's at White Sox, July 18th, 2009, O's down 4-1 at the start of the 9th inning with closer Jenks coming in for the White Sox.
Phase 1: Mora doubles to lead off the 9th inning. Reimold singles to drive in Mora. White Sox still lead 4-2.

Phase 2: Wieters and Scott strike out. Reimold steals second...sorry...defensive indifference (see image from ESPN Play-by-Play below).

Phase 3: Roberts singles to drive in Reimold. White Sox still lead 4-3.
Phase 4: Markakis grounds into fielder's choice to 2nd. White Sox win 4-3.

MLB Explanation: According to the MLB rulebook, Reimold is not given credit for a stolen base because the opposing team did not make an attempt to get him out. The opposing team does not make an attempt to throw him out because his advancement to 2nd will not "change" the outcome of the game.

My Gripe: My reaction to the MLB Explanation - FALSE!! I would agree that the steal of 2nd base by Reimold did not have an impact on the final outcome of the game, but the steal can be justified as consequential because a note-worthy statistical impact occurred:
Positive Statistical Impact: Reimold - run scored
Negative Statistical Impact: Jenks - ERA increases because of run scored.

Reimold should receive credit for a stolen base since a statistical impact was present. A pitcher never wants extra runs scored on them (don't let them tell you otherwise). The "defensive indifference," or steal in my opinion, was the direct reason for an additional run being scored . If Reimold was on first when Roberts singles, no run is scored, and it is a first and third situation for Markakis. If Markakis were to still ground out, the third out would have been recorded with no additional runs being scored. Outcome still same, O's lose, 4-2 instead of 4-3, but Jenks' ERA stays a little bit smaller.

The "defensive indifference" rule is claiming that a run can be irrelevant if it does not affect the winner of the game. If the base runner will not effect the outcome of the game, then why not try end the game by throwing him out at second (and save your pitcher from throwing unnecessary pitches)? That seems to make logical sense to me, but I'm only one person.

In my opinion, baseball has become a game of statistics - every one of them should be counted equally - if one is discounted for another, then the validity of all statistics has been damaged exponentially. The best way to maintain the intergrity of Major League Baseball is to make all "steals"/"defensive indifferences" the same statistically no matter how small or large the impact is on the overall situation.

Road Rage #2: Advice for Left-Lane Riders

The biggest threat to all commuters - "the keepers of the speed" or left-lane riders. So who are these people you may ask? You might be surprised to find out that you are one of them. Please use this tool to determine whether you are a left-lane rider currently or have been one in the past. My advice would be to learn the warning signs of each Code Level and protect yourself by obeying the "best course of action" listed below each one.

Left-Lane Threat Levels

• Code Green - You are in the left-lane, the car behind you is less than a car-length away.
• Life is good at this point. No recognizable danger at the current moment.
• Best course of action is to proceed to the right-lane at the next possible safe opportunity.
  

• Code Yellow - You are in the left-lane, the car behind you is less than a car-length away and flashing their lights.
• You should be a little concerned at this point. Danger level has risen slightly.
• Best course of action is to proceed to the right-lane at the next possible opportunity.
  

• Code Orange - You are in the left-lane, the car behind you is less than a car-length away, flashing their lights, and beeping their car horn.
• You should be fairly concerned at this point. Danger level is at an elevated state.
• Best course of action is to immediately put on your right-turn signal and proceed to the right-lane even if it means cutting somebody else off.
  

• Code Red - You are in the left-lane, the car behind you is less than a car-length away, flashing their lights, beeping their car horn, and swerving from line to line (similar to a NASCAR driver keeping their tires warm before a race starts).
• You are facing an immediate threat on your life. Danger level is at an ultimate high.
• Best course of action is to speed up and use all possible methods to rid yourself of this car before harm is done to your car and/or body.
  

• Code Blue - You are no longer in the left-lane, the car behind you has pushed you and your slow car off the road.
• You have worn out the patience of the car behind you. You have ignored all previous warning signs and must now deal with the consequences. Because of your inability to remove yourself from the left-lane, damage has likely been made to you and your car. Whether it was your stubbornness or flighty nature that caused this accident is irrelevant - the fact of the matter is that you are annoying and disruptive to other drivers on the road.
• Best course of action is survival.

Project #1, Part C - Impact of Fielding Errors

Disclaimer: I am not a statistics professional. Statistics and such statements about those statistics that are published on this blog are not to be considered perfect. If you are looking for accurate research statistics based on absolute science, it is unlikely you will find those here. The ultimate goal of these posts is to see where a common person can use simplified data to find basic statistical trends in sports.

I complied the team batting averages for every MLB team from 2005 to 2008. Playoff and World Series batting average trends are noticeable, yet the overall validity of these trends is hard to measure due to scale issues. Finding an acceptable low, medium, and high batting average range between 2005-2008 was possible, but was made more difficult due to the high league batting average of 2006.

Expanded Questions:

1. Is defense (fielding errors) a better predictor of postseason success in Major League Baseball than pitching (ERA) and/or hitting (batting average)?
2. Which statement is more accurate? "defense wins championships" or "pitching wins championship"

Updated File - batting average and league averages added

Data Tab (see file above)

Breakdown Tab

Current MLB Playoff Trends between 2005-2008

Definite Trends (occurred every time)

1. World Series teams have average to great fielding.
2. World Series teams have average to great pitching.
3. World Series teams have average to great hitting.
4. Playoff teams have average to great pitching.
   

Common Trends (occurred 50% to 99% of the time)

1. World Series teams tend to have great pitching.
2. Playoff teams tend to have average to great fielding.
3. Playoff teams tend to have average to great hitting.

Common Trend: League-Defined

1. In the American League, playoff teams tend to have great hitting.
2. In the National League, playoff teams tend to have great pitching.
   

Question #1: Is defense (fielding errors) a better predictor of postseason success in Major League Baseball than pitching (ERA) and/or hitting (batting average)?

Answer: Defense is not the best predictor of postseason success in Major League Baseball based on 2005-2008 data. According to my research, pitching is the best predictor of postseason success or World Series qualification for the foreseeable future - see Common Trend #1. It is very unlikely that a team will make the World Series in the next few years with a poor pitching staff. Average to great hitting was necessary for a team to reach the World Series between 2005 and 2008, but fewer than half had great hitting - see Breakdown Tab.

Order of Postseason Importance: 2005-2008

1. Pitching (Earned Run Average)
2. Hitting (Batting Average)
3. Defense (Fielding Errors)
   

Question #2: Which statement is more accurate? "defense wins championships" or "pitching wins championship"

Answer: "Pitching wins championships" is currently a more accurate statement than "defense wins championships." Both are important, but great pitching has been more apparent in World Series teams than great defense over the past four years - see Common Trend #1. I feel as though it is unfair to say that one aspect of the game (fielding, pitching, hitting) is more important than the other when comes to postseason success and World Series championships. The research shows that a team needs all three aspects of the game to be successful in the postseason - see Definite Trends #1, 2, and 3.

Gripe Project #1 - Impact of Fielding Errors - Conclusion

1. Poor fielding teams only made the playoffs about 20% of the time between 2005-2008.
2. Playoff teams with a high number of errors in the regular season will usually field poorly in the playoffs and never reach the World Series.
3. Teams with great pitching will always have a better shot at winning the World Series than a teams with only great fielding.
4. Poor pitching teams did not make the playoffs once between 2005-2008.
5. A team must be average to great in all facets (fielding, pitching, and hitting) in order to reach the World Series.

Coming Soon...Gripe Project #2 - Playoff Predictor
(based on Gripe Project #1 findings)

GG MLB Power Rankings

Goal: MLB power rankings developed by websites like ESPN, CBS, and Fox tend to result in rankings by win-loss record with little variations. I wanted to develop a power ranking methodology that represents which teams are playing the best currently by incorporating statistics that measure past, present, and future performance.

Outcome: After working through multiple drafts, a power rankings methodology materialized that determines the teams a fan would want their team to play or not play in the near future.

Justification (formula file):
The GG MLB Power Rankings are calculated through the following seven factors:

Three Main Factors (20% x 3 = 60%):

• Overall: takes into account overall play for year through season win percentage.
  
• Future: uses the pythagorean theorem to give a prediction of the future through use of runs scored and runs against thus far.
• Recent: rewards 1% per win in the last 10 games to give credit for recent success.

Three Secondary Factors (13.3% x 3 = 40%):

• Fielding: gives half of a team's fielding percentage value
  
• Pitching: uses an adjusted ERA formula to give half the value for a team's low ERA
  
• Batting: breaks down a team's runs scored per game to a percentage of one and gives half the value
  

One Bonus Factor (+/- 10% Max):

• Current: gives a 1% increase for each straight win, or decrease by 1% for each straight loss, in a current steak.

Results

• Blue signifies a team that is not playing well.

• Green signifies a team that is playing at an average level.

• Red signifies a team that is playing very well.

How to Use the Results

Example:

Your Team:

Baltimore Orioles

Upcoming Opponent:

Boston Red Sox

Output from GG Value:

Baltimore Orioles = 67.3 (60-80 category)

Boston Red Sox = 77.4 (60-80 category)

Result: Equal

• Neither team has a decided advantage over the other currently
• Game or series could go either way
• Red Sox are playing slightly better by the #'s, but not at a level that is significantly better than the O's.

This is my first attempt at a power rankings formula, so please do not hesitate to use the comments section to voice concerns/flaws on my methodology.