THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

My dads a lawyer :(

Yet another shallow piece of analysis published at ESPN. Reilly says Rava is sue happy, but provides no context. Is he sue happy in relation to all lawyers his age and in his district?

What is his SARL (suits above replacement lawyer)?

Nick: is your father bothered by the less-than-positive view that a large segment of people views lawyers?  I seem to remember seeing a chart comparing lawyers to used car salesman in terms of service people that people least trust.

http://career.jobboom.com/workplace/challenges/2007/12/19/4732266-ca.html

Maybe there shouldn’t be so many stupid laws.  Then we wouldn’t have so many stupid lawyer lawsuits.

This reminds me of the judge from a few years ago who sued a dry cleaning store for like $2 million because they lost a pair of his pants.

He raised such a fuss about it that he was eventually stripped of his position for making a mockery of the legal process.

I’m a little shaky on the details, so if anybody else remembers better than I do, feel free to give the details of the story

Pants:

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/satisfaction_guaranteed_or_uh_54_million/

I see his point.  I have a Barry Zito-designed tie that I got at the A’s game on Father’s Day (my dad doesn’t wear ties, so I kept it.) Everybody got a Barry Zito tie.  There’s no good reason to restrict another giveaway.

I myself wouldn’t sue - I’m all too aware of my white male privilege to think it would justified - but Unruh exists to protect everybody. 

Ronald Reagan opposed Unruh, and said “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has a right to do so.” I cringe at statements like that, and I would cringe at a statement that used “Whites” instead.  I don’t agree with Bakke, though I think there does come a point where even white men are unfairly discriminated against. 

We’ll have to hear a lot more about things like this as Judge Sotomayor defends her membership in an all-women secret society.

Judge Sotomayor defends her membership in an all-women secret society: Sounds like Augusta.

***

Does anyone here have any problem with kid’s giveaways at the ballpark?

Or senior citizen discounts and student discounts?

I didn’t think so.

***

Ball teams always have promotions, and if they have one for mother’s day, I’m quite certain they’d have one for father’s day too. 

It’s not that the promotion discriminates against men, but that the promotion was split between men and women, such that women can claim their prize on one day, and men on the other.

***

I’ll bet this lawyer will sue the captain of an ocean liner that would dare put “women and children” first.  He’s like that scum in Titanic that boarded the boat when the crew wasn’t looking.

"Does anyone here have any problem with kid’s giveaways at the ballpark?

Or senior citizen discounts and student discounts? “

Tom, you’d be shocked.  I did some calling for a local politician a few years ago who proposed free bus passes for anyone under-18 and over-65.  I had to call the over-65 group.  You could not imagine the negative response (a lot of “get off my lawn you damn kids").  What was particularly interesting is that a huge number of people over-65 told me that they already get free bus passes from the government (veterans, the disabled, former transit employees and their families); they saw this as being rightfully theirs, whereas free passes for teenagers amounted to freeloading off the government.

In the other direction, we hear constant attacks on the Big 3’s generous retirement packages (referred to by the ex-pres as “Solid-Gold Retirement") and on the need to reduce Medicare and Social Security outlays.  So a significant portion of the population can be whipped up into a fury against something that appears to be “special treatment” for old people.

I went to the Titanic exhibit when it was in San Francisco a couple of years ago.  It claimed that people boarded lifeboats roughly based on income/class.

"I’ll bet this lawyer will sue the captain of an ocean liner that would dare put women and children first.”

And I’ll support that lawyer. In a live or die situation, where is it decreed that women and children have more moral authority than a man? It’s fine to have social mores such as men opening doors for women, etc. But there is a point where that stuff is simply of little relevance, according to the inherent laws of nature and survival. When it comes to a man choosing to die so that some woman or child he doesn’t even know can survive while he dies painfully, that’s not bravery, that’s insanity. I’m not talking about a cop or firefighter who has pledged to take that risk, or a man who chooses that alternative to save his family, etc.

There is a point where it’s truly, and properly, “every man (person) for himself”. To pretend otherwise is stupid and almost obscene.

This is classic case of where we need to draw a distinction between what is immoral and what should be illegal. While many forms of discrimination are abhorrent, I think that a private person or business should be free to discriminate when hiring or providing services. So I don’t cringe when I read the Reagan quote Hawerchuck provides; he was absolutely right. Now, if a place did discriminate against blacks I wouldn’t go near it and I would hope no one else would either, but I would be against anyone suing the business.

Note: I don’t think giving away floppy hats, excuse me, “fishing” hats exclusively to women is immoral. I don’t have any problem with a promotion like this.

"And I’ll support that lawyer. In a live or die situation, where is it decreed that women and children have more moral authority than a man?”

This is the height of cowardice. The hermaphroditing of America, as it were.

Aaron/12: I think you’ve lost sight of your white male privilege (I’m assuming you’re white and male; I apologize if I’m wrong).  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbid discrimination in voting, public accomodations (hotels, restaurants), schools, on the job and by the government. 

There was (and is) a very real problem in this country with discrimination.  It’s easy to say, as someone who is not routinely discriminated against (and I apologize if you believe that you are), that you’d just boycott such-and-such establishment.  But imagine a city where every establishment refused to serve you.  That’s what life was like for most minorities prior to the introduction of various civil rights acts (not that it immediately improved afterwards.)

I’m surprised that anyone supports housing discrimination, but maybe you just haven’t thought about its impact before.

I am actually quite shocked that people, especially on those board (where they tend to be intelligent and reasonable), would think that discrimination in the private sector should not be illegal.  I guess they want us to go back to the days when blacks were not allowed to sit at the front counter in a restaurant or had to use a different water fountain in a store or were not allowed to swim with whites in, say, a private swimming pool open to the public.

Absolutely shocked.  In fact, let me get this straight.  There are actually intelligent, non-racist people who think that the government should have no interest (in terms of legislation) in helping to eradicate hatred, bigotry, and racism?

I guess that is truly how we have f***ed situations in otherwise civilized nations, as we did in this country prior to the 1960’s and 1970’s or whenever you want to say that the civil rights movement started.  So-called intelligent and educated people with f***ed up logic.  Yes, I consider the notion that private business and private people should be free to discriminate, be bigoted, racist, etc., to be an extremely f***ed up way of thinking.  As Hawerchuck says, for those of you who think that way, I wish nothing else but that you could be brought back to the South pre-civil rights and turned into a poor (or any, for that matter) black person. There is exactly zero chance that your tune would not change.  And that should be the only reference point.  A non-discriminated against person should NOT get to choose whether there should be laws against discrimination.

As Tango likes to say when it comes to womens’ issues and things like that, you have no chance to have a reasonable opinion on something unless you can walk in the shoes of someone whom that something affects…

"This is the height of cowardice… The hermaphroditing of America...”

Well, I’m so glad that you explained your logical thinking in such detail, as opposed to just throwing out insults, Einstein.

"This is the height of cowardice… The hermaphroditing of America...”

I don’t mind one sentence or otherwise terse comments, as we don’t have any “rules” for posting here, other than the usual, “Keep it civil,” etc.

However, I have no idea what that means…

Tango- My dad thinks that the general view of lawyers is well deserved.  He told me that many of the other lawyers he worked with are manipulative and use the loopholes in the law to their advantage.

My sister is a lawyer and she was telling me about the legality of private enterprises being allowed to do whatever they wanted.  I never thought about it, and she didn’t really convince me it is correct.

I can understand private clubs wanting certain qualifications.  For example, if I had a sabermetric club, I’d want to make sure the participant at least loved baseball and would not be put off if I talk negatively of RBI.  If the WNBA wants to exclude men, I’m ok with that (on the understanding that men would have an equal or better league they can compete in).  If the U-18 teams want to have only players under 18, great (on the understanding that anybody 18 and over have an equal or better league to compete in).

What I have a problem with is when the door is closed, but there is not equal or better door to walk through.  Augusta saying that women can’t join is a problem, if Augusta is considered the best club to join and women have nothing comparable to join.

It’s when it gets humiliating and insulting that I have a problem.

Tango,

A bit tangential, but I’ve always wondered why women play softball instead of baseball (and have to wear shorts instead of pants.) Or why women played ringette in Canada instead of hockey?  I’m glad to see that one went away.  Women’s hockey and Lacrosse are also non-contact, which seems odd given that (as far as I know) women play rugby under the same rules as men. 

Tennis, too.  It’s basically true for soccer and basketball (smaller ball?) and for golf (despite the women’s tees.)

I think I’ve played with or against women in every sport (even football) so I’ve never understood the restrictions.

MGL, of course I don’t want segregation to return nor do I believe that the government should have zero interest in fighting discrimination. Rather, I was objecting to the notion that the blunt force of the government should be used anytime someone doesn’t get treated exactly the same as others.

Yes, my opinion of how discrimination should be dealt with has been colored by where and when I grew up, and if I had lived in the South in the first half of the 20th century my view may be very different. I’m willing to reconsider my position with that in mind. However, can we stop with the notion that only certain people are allowed to have opinions on a given subject? Such a claim is typically not meant to advance debate but simply to shut down debate. Whites are capable of having reasonable, informed viewpoints on issues of race and discrimination. They may need to be more careful about rushing to a firm conclusion and should consult with those affected by discrimination, but I reject any claim that they can’t be part of the conversation and have some say in the matter.

Aaron,

White people in America, and white males in particular, proved singularly incapable of guaranteeing the rights of women and minorities over the last 200+ years.  This is indisputable, and it’s why we ultimately needed equality enshrined in law. 

You say that “Whites are capable of having reasonable, informed viewpoints on issues of race and discrimination.” I do not doubt this.  I think MGL and I are suggesting that your views are insufficiently informed and hence not reasonable.  I am pretty sure that an African-American person would judge you far more harshly.

I wonder if you’ve ever been to a chain grocery store or a bank in a minority neighborhood.  You’ll immediately notice the difference between there and where you live.  Of course, in the absence of anti-discrimination laws, there were no chain grocery stores and no major banks in minority neighborhoods.

"However, can we stop with the notion that only certain people are allowed to have opinions on a given subject? Such a claim is typically not meant to advance debate but simply to shut down debate. Whites are capable of having reasonable, informed viewpoints on issues of race and discrimination. They may need to be more careful about rushing to a firm conclusion and should consult with those affected by discrimination, but I reject any claim that they can’t be part of the conversation and have some say in the matter. “

That is all true (of course they can have an opinion and can and should be part of the discussion) and the proper response is what Hawerchuck said above…