Reviewing my 2012 Predictions

Let's do some navel-gazing as 2012 closes and see how well my predictions stacked up against reality:

Politics:

* Mitt Romney wins the GOP Nomination.  He finishes in the top 3 in Iowa, which neither Gingrich nor Perry can do.  After Super Tuesday, he has such a large lead (and his opponents split among too many candidates) that it will be impossible to stop him.

===>  Pretty much true.  Rick Santorum hung around a while, but Romney was never in serious danger of losing the nomination.

 

* He picks Tim Pawtenly as his VP nominee, though rumors abound that he considers Condaleeza Rice

 ===>  Wrong here- Paul Ryan was the VP nominee

 

* President Obama retains Joe Biden as his VP, despite rumors of a swap with Hilary Clinton

===>  Pretty much right- there was talk of a swap, but it never amount to much.

 

* In November, the Romney/Pawtenly ticket wins the Presidency.  The House flips to the Democrats, while the Senate flips to the GOP, continuing a gridlocked government.

===>  More than wrong here.  I still don't understand how anyone can look at the last four years and think Obama deserves re-election.  Then again, I may be the only person who became a bigger fan of Romney as the year went on, so my opinions probably aren't a good analogue for the rest of the country.

Sports:

* The Green Bay Packers beat the Baltimore Ravens in Super Bowl XLVI.

===>  Wrong.  The New York Giants beat the New England Patriots.

 

* The Miami Heat win the NBA title over the Memphis Grizzlies, and about 19,000,000 stories will be written about LeBron James 'overcoming his personal demons' to win.

===>   Wrong on the opponent, but Right about the deification of James. 

 

* The LA Angels, having spent enough money on Albert Pujols to buy the salaries for the Boston Red Sox AND the Texas Rangers for next year, still won't make the playoffs. 

===>  Right on the nose here.  Heck, the Angels finished third!

 

* The New York Yankees will beat the Philadelphia Phillies in the World Series

===>  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  The San Francisco Giants swept the Detroit Tigers

Games and Entertainment:

* Despite having no good reason to continue, the United States ban on online poker will remain

===>  Sadly still true.

 

* At Wrestlemania 28, John Cena will defeat the Rock, while CM Punk will retain the WWE title against a heel Daniel Bryan

===>  Wrong on both.  Rock beat Cena, Punk fought a heel Jericho.

 

* 'Avengers' will be good but not great.  'The Dark Knight Rises' will be lacking compared to the first two movies.

===>  Wrong here.  The Avengers turned out to be a great movie.  'The Dark Knight Rises' was a fitting end to the trilogy.

Other:

* The world will not end on December 21st.  Mayan experts will be quoted as saying, "Oops."

===>  Well- we're still here.  

 

* I will go through a two month period without posting anything, then post six times within a two week period.  Both of the people who read this blog will appreciate it.

 ===>  Pretty much.  I skipped all of March, then went on a binge in August.  

===================================================
Overall, not that good.  And this is why you should not bet based on my prognostications.

A completely Justified Rant About Sports...

Hi- I just want to borrow a minute of your time to get something off my chest.

Now, I used to be a giant sports fans.  Baseball, Basketball, Football, you name it.  I can quote Berman, Patrick and Olbermann the way a music lover can quote Dylan, Lennon, and Page.  I have shelves full of books from the 1985 Chicago Bears to analyzing the baseball season of 1991 to the history of the ABA, which folded three years after I was born.  For all of the money I spent on clothes, tickets, books, and cheap tchotchkes that broke three days later, I should be driving a brand new Ferrari.

Before I moved to Cleveland I was a Cubs fan, and after I moved here became a fan of the Indians, Browns, and Cavs.  If you’re not a sports fan, consider yourself lucky.  If you are, then you know that my entire psyche is made up of emotional scar tissue from heart-breaking defeats, betrayals, and losses.  I have more emotional trauma from sports than anything my ex-girlfriends delivered, and there’s a long story why I don’t talk to people named ‘Beverly’.

I can handle losing.  I have 30 years of experience on that.  I can even tolerate a team run by a bunch of idiots who don’t know what they are doing.  Again, 30 years of experience.   But I finally realized was that I was investing time and money into an industry that goes out of my way to spit in my face, and I’ve gotten sick and tired of being their personal piss bucket.

If it’s not the player leaving his hometown to go check out the bikini-clad models on South Beach, it’s the coach gets upset that you point out that he’s really bad at his job.  And even once I stop buying the stuff myself, my money still goes to them because the owner cries poverty unless we spend our tax dollars buying them a state-of-the-art stadium with ticket prices far more than anyone I know can afford.

You know what I enjoy watching?  Pro Wrestling.  Now, people always cry that it’s fake.  My response used to be that so is the TV show ‘Homeland’, but people don’t seem to mind that.

But you know something?  Yes, Pro Wrestling is fake.

That’s.  The.  Damn.  Point.

You see in so-called ‘real’ sports, people can act like complete jackasses to the fans, because they have their contract.  They know that, because of fate or genetics or whatever, they can shoot or throw or run better than 99.99% of the world.  And that, apparently, gives them a license to make obscene amounts of money and lord it over the rest of us without suffering any consequences.

But in wrestling?  Sure, there are good guys and bad guys.  The bad guys want people to boo them, which is different that treating the fans like dirt.  The fans know wrestling is ‘fake’, and the wrestlers know the fans know.  So even when the heels are acting like bad guys, there’s always this wink that the wrestlers give than lets everyone’s in on the act.  But if you are a complete jerk, the fans will tune you out.  And there, it doesn’t matter if you’re the biggest, the strongest, the fastest, the greatest pro-wrestler ever- if the fans don’t like you, you won’t succeed.  

So Professional Wrestlers HAVE to treat the fans with respect.  They understand that, without the fans, they don't have a career.

Which is more than more sports stars know.

The Rebuilding Process

Romney lost. It wasn't an epic loss, and people are already coming up with 10,000 excuses why he lost and how he could have been a better candidate if he had just done A, B and C.

I liked Romney- still do, and still think he would have been a better President than a candidate. But he lost, and he won't be running in 2016, and I wish him a long, happy, and healthy life.

As for the GOP, we have some serious tactical problems. This isn't like 2008, when we knew we were toast. Given the economic conditions, the voters should have thrown out the incumbent. They didn't, in large part because the Democrats made assumptions about the voters that were correct, while the GOP were wrong.

I'll leave the tactical problems to the James Carvilles and the Karl Roves and the Lee Atwaters of the world. I'm seeing that the GOP has another, more fundamental problem: What does the GOP stand for?

In the 80's, there was the Reagan Coalition- the three legs of the Economic Conservatives, the Social Conservatives, and the Foreign

Policy Conservatives. The problem is, the issues facing us in 2012 are not the same issues facing us in 1978, and what it means to be a Conservative- on any of these legs- is different now than it was 35 years ago.

One at a time:

　

Economic Conservatives: The basic concept of economic conservatism in the Reagan years was a combination of low taxes, a military buildup (which was a Keynesian plan), and a strong dollar. In the late 70's, we were dealing with high inflation and a bad economy leading to high unemployment. Reaganomics worked in that it tamed the inflation and led to an economic boom.

Well, in 2012, we still have a bad unemployment and slow economy- but inflation (as of this moment) isn't an issue, and the interest rates are already so low that there is no place to cut them. The income taxes are much lower now than in the 70s. In addition, we have a high deficit and debt, ones that are increasing rapidly.

To most voters, they associate the GOP with low taxes for the rich. I believe high taxes hurt the economy, but in terms of both philosophy and messaging the GOP needs to be associated with other economic ideas other than standing on a tax Maginot Line.

My own wish list:  I'm willing to trade higher taxes for significant spending cuts, and adopting deficit reduction as the core of our economic program. It's easy to paint the Democrats are spending our children's inheritance- but not if the GOP is as bad as they are. The problem is, any deal typically has the taxes enacted now while the spending cuts happen sometime in the future- you need some way of guaranteeing the cuts (maybe agree that the tax increases occur one years after the spending cuts are enacted?)

We cannot afford to get into a battle with the Democrats over who can provide the most goodies- it's a battle we can't win. But we can be the party of the economic adults. To do that, we need to start acting like economic adults.

Social Conservatives: In the 70's, "Social Issues" were crime and gun control. Most voters are for tougher criminal sanctions and believe they should be allowed to be armed, so "Social Issues" were in the GOP's favor.

Today, if you asked most voters about "Social Issues", they would answer about Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Birth Control (Apparently, social issues are now all about sex). These issues tend to favor Democrats. And they have successfully painted the GOP as the party of the old white male trying to prevent women from having sex.

There is a place in the party for Social Conservatives- we have some serious moral problems in this country (the divorce rate and number of broken homes are issues that aren't solved with a check). But the GOP needs to decide what social issues they want to push- and how to avoid the issues that turn off voters.

My own wish list:  Embrace federalism. Abortion, Gay Marriage, Legalized Marijuana, Gambling? These are state issues, not federal issues. If North Dakota wants to be a Puritan Utopia while South Dakota is the State of All Vices, more power to them! We're the federal government- we have enough issues to deal with. Leave this to the states.

　

　

Foreign Policy Conservatives: In the 70s, we had the Cold War. The Soviet Union and the US were locked in a titanic struggle, and every other country was a pawn to the Cold War.

Well, we won... in 1989, the Soviet Union split up.

Now what?

In a way, the foreign policy issues were simpler in the Cold War Days. The basic issue was if it was better to be aggressive to stand up to the Soviet Union or not. Now, there is no other Superpower- but a score of nations and groups, all armed enough to hurt the US, but not an existential threat like the Soviet Union was.

Sometimes we've fought back, to the point that we have invaded other countries (Iraq, Libya). Other times, we've been hands off (Syria, Iran) or tried to negotiate a peace (North Korea).

The Democrats ran on a program in 2008 of being against the tactics of the Bush administration- then adopted those exact same tactics. At this point, I don't know what voters think about either party. And I don't know if there is a clear line where either party can say "We stand here, they stand over there, vote for us."

My own wish list:  Damned if I know. Sometimes I think we need to become Isolationist, and leave the rest of the countries to their fate. Then I imagine a dozen mini-genocides in third world countries, and wonder if we have become the world's policemen, the only nation capable of holding back the Barbarians. I don't have a good answer here- I wish I did.

Post-Election Recovery

Well... that was disappointing.

I'm not going to deny it- I thought Romney was going to win, I expected him to win, and he didn't. The popular vote was close, but Obama won every close state to dominate the electoral vote count- which is the one that matters. Congratulations to him.

Some thoughts as I recover:

1) The more I learned about Romney, the more I liked him. I really thought he'd do better at governing the country than winning the election- even be the GOP's version of Clinton, without the potential for scandal. Whereas last year Romney was choice because he was electable, by Nov. 6th I had become a fan of his, and I think the US will miss out on a possible great President.

2) We live in a strange place where a large percentage of the population doesn't think the President has much influence over the economy but is paramount on issues regarding issues about sex. Given how bad the economy has been (high unemployment... a $16 trillion debt... high gas prices), I thought no President could survive re-election. Maybe my priorities are different than most voters.

3) The issue that concerns me the most? The Supreme Court. Four Justices are over 74 years old. There is a chance for the next President to radically alter the direction of the Court for a generation.

4) The GOP is about to go to war with itself. There are several factions within the GOP, and each faction will claim their side that if people had just listened to them, they would have won. You have the Establishment/Bush wing of the GOP, the Tea Party wing of the GOP, the Libertarian wing of the GOP, the Social Conservative wing of the GOP- expect a lot of infighting over the next 2-4 years.

I can list my own items of what I think the GOP should do- embrace a "No bailouts, no subsidies" financial philosophy, stop fighting gay marriage (in fact, get in front of it; married couples vote GOP more than single people- we should want more happily married couples, regardless of gender), frame the abortion debate better (someone should have found a loophole to drop Akin from the ticket, and I say this as a firm pro-lifer)... but everyone who is a Republican will have their own wish list. We'll fight it out and determine the direction.

((For the record, I think the next time the Democrats lose, they'll also have interparty fighting; like the GOP under George W, they are sticking together under the President. Once they lose that, expect the factions to start fighting))

5) We went into this election with a Democratic President, a Democratic-controlled Senate, and a GOP-controlled House. We left this election with the exact same makeup. Is the message we really want to send to the politicians "You're doing a great job- keep it up!"???

6) In the end, I want the country to do well. I don't agree with the President philosophically, and I still retain that he does not have the experience or skillset of actually running the country. But he has the job until 2016, so here's hoping he makes the correct decisions.

2012-2013 NBA Predictions

Eastern Playoff Teams:

1. Miami

2. Indiana

3. Boston

4. Philadelphia

5. Atlanta

6. Chicago

7. Brooklyn

8. New York

Eastern Playoffs:

Miami over New York; Indiana over Brooklyn; Boston over Chicago; Philadelphia over Atlanta

Miami over Philadelphia; Boston over Indiana

Miami over Boston

Eastern Notes:

If Miami keeps all three of their top guys healthy (which is a big if), they have a relatively easy path to the Finals. Every other team has significant weaknesses. Boston's the stronger possible foe, but they need Sullinger and Melo to step up. The team that might catch Miami napping is the 76ers, but barring injury, the Heat are the team everyone has to deal with.

　

　

　

Western Playoff Teams:

1. Los Angeles Lakers

2. OKC

3. San Antonio

4. Denver

5. Los Angeles Clippers

6. Houston

7. Dallas

8. Utah

Western Playoffs:

Lakers over Utah; OKC over Dallas; Houston over San Antonio; Denver over Clippers

Denver over Lakers; OKC over Houston

OKC over Denver

Western Notes:

I'm taking a reach here. But I think Denver's run and gun can shock the Lakers. The Lakers, like the Heat, are a top-heavy talented team with a weak bench. But unlike the Heat, half of the Laker's core are past their prime.

Unfortunately for Denver, OKC can also run and gun. Trading Harden hurts them, but they have a full year to (a) see how martin and Lamb work out and (b) make a trade for any final pieces for their puzzle.

Finals:

OKC over Heat, 4-3

OKC learned a lot in the Finals. I suspect that, in a rematch, they'll be able to handle things better. Both teams should be exhausted after having their stars play in the Olympics and playing in the Finals last year- but I think the younger OKC team will have a little more in the tank.

　

Other predictions:

Top three in the lottery: 1) Golden State 2) Orlando 3) Charlotte

Team that gets blown up at the trading deadline: Memphis

My beloved Cavs? 30 wins, tied for 9th in the East. Zeller turns into a good player, and Irving is an all-star, possibly this year. but the team will rise and fall with the inconsistent play of Dion Waiters and Tristan Thompson

Harden to Houston

Oklahoma City traded James Harden to the Houston Rockets.

I understand this deal the reasoning behind this deal.  OKC decided they couldn't afford Harden, after signing Durant and Westbrook. Harden would be a restricted free agent after this year, and someone would make him an offer that OKC wouldn't match.  Instead of letting the situation fester (see Dwight Howard, Carmelo Anthony), why not trade him now, get some useful players that have a full year to learn OKC's system, and move on?

But Harden was one of the key players to the team that made it to the Finals, and were the favorite to return to the Finals this year.  I would have rolled the dice, kept him for this year to win the title, then risk losing him in the offseason.   

In addition, I liked the players OKC got from Houston.  Martin is serviceable, but Lamb shows a lot of potential, and three draft picks will give OKC some talent to fill in any holes.  I think OKC did much better than Orlando did trading away Dwight Howard.








Is Harden worth a max contract?  I've heard different people argue on that.  I don't know if he's one of the best 30 players in the NBA, but I think a reasonable case can be made.

OKC has always been aggressive and smart.  They may have bungled this move, but given their track record, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.  

As for Houston, they've been trying to trade for a franchise player for a while now.  In Harden, they think they have him.  They may be right.

To sum up- I wouldn't have done it, but I can see why they did it, and I won't rake them over the coals for it. 

My rant about baseball

The MLB playoffs started today, and I don't really care at all.

It wasn't like this.  I grew up a Cub's fan, and was in my first fantasy league in 1986 at the age of 14.  I can still give you the starting lineup of the '84 Cubs.  Between being a Cubs and Indians fan, I can think of four absolutely heartbreaking endings (1984/1997/2003/2007) that I suffered through.

And maybe that's my problem- get beaten down enough, and you stop caring.  Lord knows I've earned the scars.  

But baseball itself has some serious problems- and regardless of the status of my teams, the sport needs to be fixed.  Here's what I see as the problems and the solutions.

Problem:  Baseball is too imbalanced between the high-payroll teams and the low-payroll teams.

OK, here's where I get the soapbox and rant about how the Yankees pay $200 million and most teams don't pay half of that.  Go ahead and take a look.  Players are always going to favor certain markets.  But only in baseball have they given up trying to balance things between the large market teams and the small market teams.  

And hey- baseball claims they're making money.  The small market teams make a profit, the large market teams get the glory and the higher ticket prices.  Maybe everyone wins- unless you're a fan of the small-market teams.  In which case there are three choices:

1)  Accept It
2)  Stop watching altogether
3)  Embrace it and become a fan of a Large-Market team

Solution:  If they do want to fix it, besides a salary cap and floor, they need revenue sharing.  Now, for tickets at the ballpark they already have revenue sharing.  But where the large-market teams make their fortune are in the cable deals- which are not shared with the other teams.  

But again- maybe baseball has calculated that they do better with six superteams and 24 jobber teams.  And if that's what they want, enjoy.  I'm just not participating anymore.


Problem:  Too many playoffs

People were celebrating how 'exciting' the end of the season was.  Basically, they were watching a race between the fifth and sixth best teams.  Oooh.   Ahhh.

Now, if we went back to the pre-1969 days of no divisions, every game would count, and it would have come down to the last day of the season to see who'd go into the World Series.  Even the two-division days would have been exciting.

The rule of thumb:  The more playoffs there are, the less exciting the regular season is.  By adding so many teams to the playoffs, you've made the regular season less and less relevant.  

Solution:  On this one, I'm ideally a purist- get rid of the divisions.  Two leagues, no interleague play, winners face in the World Series.  I doubt I'll get my wish, but if we could go back to two divisions, I'd be happy.



Problem:  Moneyball.

The problem with the 'Moneyball' philosophy is not that it failed.  It's that the philosophy (get players with hig On-Base Percentage and Power to generate the greatest number of runs) succeeded.  29 teams in baseball now try to emulate this style of baseball.  Seattle is the only exception, and sadly they don't do well enough to challenge the model.

The problem is, the Moneyball style, while being the most efficient style to win games, is also... what's the word I'm trying to say...  boring.  Hitters wait and try to draw walks and wear down pitchers, leading to long, slow boring innings.  Less contact, more walks and strikeouts, very few stolen bases.

I don't blame the teams- they are trying to win.  The problem is, the way baseball is set up, the best way to win is also the most monotonous.

I grew up in the 80's.  You had teams that won with power (86 Mets).  That won with speed (85/87 Cardinals).  That won with Pitching (85 Royals).   George Brett could hit .390 one year, then another year Rickey Henderson would steal 130 stolen bases.   Different styles could succeed- and that made the game better.


Solution: Expand the strike zone, encourage more parks that favor pitchers and discourage home runs... if necessary, deaden the ball.  I don't want to go back to the pitching-dominated 60's... just to the sweet spot that we had in the 80's.



Maybe if we did these things I'd go back and proudly call myself a fan again.  Sadly, at this moment in my life, I'm not.  And I'm not sure if I'll be going back anytime soon.