Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Apple
With Fall comes certain inevitabilities: Fallen leaves, Joe Buck, and truckloads of new Apple products at your local retailer. Today I've decided to review the 2011 New York Jonagold, which is a modern spin on the retro Macintosh. I first spotted it by the annual Apple Gala here in Yorktown, and got my hands on a model fresh from the box (some of the previous floor models seemed worse for wear). At first glance you might not even be able to tell the difference between the two, but trust me, the interior has been jazzed up with stylistic taste. It comes only in classic Apple white (with optional red skin) and features the same even, rounded contours as most contemporary Apple offerings, eschewing the more top-heavy designs of older models.
I'm happy to report that the Jonagold is a star ready for consumption by savvy consumers in the Empire state. Its performance profile is similar to its Macintosh roots, but with slightly more bite in its output. The single-core design lends itself to consumers looking to take their Apple on the go (perhaps to Rome or Mt. Fuji!)
Contrary to recent Apple pricing trends, this Jonagold was manufactured here in NY, so there's a steep retail discount locally compared to its competitors' products. I recommend heading down to the Apple store and trying one out today.
I'm happy to report that the Jonagold is a star ready for consumption by savvy consumers in the Empire state. Its performance profile is similar to its Macintosh roots, but with slightly more bite in its output. The single-core design lends itself to consumers looking to take their Apple on the go (perhaps to Rome or Mt. Fuji!)
Contrary to recent Apple pricing trends, this Jonagold was manufactured here in NY, so there's a steep retail discount locally compared to its competitors' products. I recommend heading down to the Apple store and trying one out today.
Monday, October 10, 2011
BF3 UI notes
This is what greets you the moment you load into Operation: Metro on defense. (Please click through to each screenshot. The narrow blog column clipped and rescaled the thumbnails.)
I had limited BC2 screenshots, so please forgive the smoke grenade in the middle of the image. Note the solid, opaque minimap with far more visibility and terrain detail. Note the fatter triangles off in the distance. Note that I even see my squad's green icons with kit indicators instead of triangles. Note how not every square inch of screen is covered by obstacles or bushes.
Operation: Metro's interior sections somehow manage to make the UI visibility problems even worse. I don't think there's a shade of blue left for them to integrate into the metro tunnels.
This is a pretty typical metro screenshot, with blue lighting and shadows, cover everywhere and yet probably about to get sniped through that doorway just ahead. Unfortunately I didn't think to get some shots of the central platforms, but it's mostly just this in lighter shades of blue (and even some white!). Needless to say, it's hard to spot targets.
Cyan on cyan! I also failed to get a picture of the chatbox, which would normally appear below the kill register on the upper-right. It's an opaque black box with microscopic arial narrow white text. It's virtually unreadable without literally stopping your gameplay and trying to parse it. Contrast with BC2's chatbox, which is color-coded with a readable text AND has convenient easily-read tags for server vs. team chat.
It's not clear to me why I took this shot, but it's the only one I had showing red and blue text. I also want to point out here that that red diamond on the minimap is an MCOM, the main objective of the rush mode. There are always two per base, A and B. You can see that the BC2 version has its MCOM clearly labeled on the minimap. When your squadmate shouts "I'm arming A!" you can immediately discern where you need to place yourself to cover it. Scroll back up and see how much more confusing it is in BF3 when the minimap has no such labels.
The menu and other non-gameplay screens are perhaps even worse, in terms of design disasters. We'll start with the end-of-round score screens.
This is BF3. Compare with BC2:
How high up the management chain do you think "Guys, let's make it smoke on a black background, because that looks awesome!" came from? I think BC2 captured a lot of the flavor of the game by including those panoramic vistas in the load, end of round, and respawn screens. BF3 eschews all of that for...black. I also like BC2's text more, and the rank insignias. And, most importantly, there's that EXIT GAME button in BC2 that BF3 lacks. That's right, your stats don't save and you can't exit until you spawn into the next game, which means 35 seconds of staring at particle smoke effects and another 10 seconds of loading and another 5 seconds of pre-game countdown.
You can't even edit your game options in BF3 unless you're spawned into a game, by the way. There's no main menu screen per se, because you join a game via a browser-based server menu. There's no main executable. I think even the single player mode is launched from your browser. So you can't dick around with options until you're in the middle of a game.
Once you are in a game, you have the option to deploy or pick your "class" and equipment load. You do so from the following screen.
That sure is a lot of empty space on the right, so it's a good thing we have lots of smoke to fill it with useful graphical detail. Now you might think "Ok, this is a PC game, so surely I can just click on the weapons to change them." You would also then be operating under the assumption that anything in this game makes sense from a usability standpoint. Not only are you not even given text hints about what those equipment icons actually are, you have to enter a wholly different screen to swap them around. Click the LOADOUT button and we're brought to:
Couldn't this have just been on the right side of the previous screen? And why do we have to navigate weapons and gear via scroll arrows? This is a fucking PC game. I have 1680x1050 pixels to render a goddamn grid. I have a mouse to click boxes. Each category should be expanded automatically upon opening this screen if you're dedicated to having this customization screen separated from the kit selection screen before it. And this isn't even the extent of the customization. This screen doesn't address weapon accessories. Click another button, and:
What the flying fuck is this shit? I need three different screens to pick my gear? Look at all the empty space. This could easily be condensed to one screen. There's a hundred different ways to have made this more usable. But apparently there's only one way to MOAR SMOAK. The whole time you're navigating this clusterfuck and deciding whether you want the 4x scope or the 3.8x scope, you're receiving no game information, no ticket scores, no scoreboard, no maps, no squad status, no chat window. It's mindbogglingly poor design.
The beta closes today so this is it for screenshots. In closing, I want to show you two images, from BF3 and BC2, that neatly summarize the design differences between the two games. You can figure out which represents which game rather easily on your own, if you've paid attention.
And here it is again slightly later when you've picked a bush to squat in.
Primary gripe: The translucent blue minimap. Given the rich environmental textures of BF3, it must be a real surprise to DICE that making the minimap translucent renders its visibility to essentially zero. I feel that this was just one of a dozen design decisions made at middle-management level to deliver an "awesome!" image without really thinking through the usability. Also relevant to these images, you can see the tiny blue triangles of my teammates off in the distance. If you squint really hard. And press your face to the screen. And if you're not looking at something in the blue-green spectrum in the background. I would describe them more as slivers than triangles. Enemy spotting is accomplished with an orange shade of the same small cluster of pixels, easily missed while scanning a horizon full of bushes. For comparative purposes, I'm going to show you the BC2 UI:
Operation: Metro's interior sections somehow manage to make the UI visibility problems even worse. I don't think there's a shade of blue left for them to integrate into the metro tunnels.
The menu and other non-gameplay screens are perhaps even worse, in terms of design disasters. We'll start with the end-of-round score screens.
You can't even edit your game options in BF3 unless you're spawned into a game, by the way. There's no main menu screen per se, because you join a game via a browser-based server menu. There's no main executable. I think even the single player mode is launched from your browser. So you can't dick around with options until you're in the middle of a game.
Once you are in a game, you have the option to deploy or pick your "class" and equipment load. You do so from the following screen.
What the flying fuck is this shit? I need three different screens to pick my gear? Look at all the empty space. This could easily be condensed to one screen. There's a hundred different ways to have made this more usable. But apparently there's only one way to MOAR SMOAK. The whole time you're navigating this clusterfuck and deciding whether you want the 4x scope or the 3.8x scope, you're receiving no game information, no ticket scores, no scoreboard, no maps, no squad status, no chat window. It's mindbogglingly poor design.
The beta closes today so this is it for screenshots. In closing, I want to show you two images, from BF3 and BC2, that neatly summarize the design differences between the two games. You can figure out which represents which game rather easily on your own, if you've paid attention.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The beta version of a BF3 beta review
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was my first significant experience in the genre of competitive online multiplayer shooters, so it's destined forever to color how I feel about my future experiences with FPS games. Having established that, here are some quick thoughts on the BF3 beta.
The Graphics
I enjoy coffee. I drink it a great deal; at minimum one or two cups per day, and generally more on the weekends. Some years back when I was temporarily living with my grandmother, she would routinely make me coffee in the mornings and after dinner. That was great, thanks nonna. However, she didn't really make coffee so much as coffee-like quantities of espresso, brewed in batches just big enough to eventually give me either an ulcer or enough acid reflux to debilitate me for a solid week. Similarly, whenever she asked if I'd like "a pretzel" and I stupidly mumble "sure", this resulted in six hours of dough-kneading, baking, and fifteen pounds of fennel pretzels that I'd be forced to grudgingly consume in quantity with every meal and drink for the next five years.
I like graphics. Well-designed environments are pretty. Rendered autumn leaves are nice to look at while I'm crawling through a bush trying not to get sniped by Commander_Fartcupper. The dynamic lighting and raw fidelity of the Frostbyte 2 engine are very impressive. This is the first game I've played where there's no visual or operational difference between interactable objects/environments and static background scenery. Even with the graphics dialed down for the beta client, it's truly awesome to behold. The shadows casted by an RPG rocket flying down a darkened subway tunnel are beyond textual representation. This is the best looking thing I've ever seen on my PC.
And I absolutely hate it.
It's too pretty. It's too distracting. Fleshing out bushes means I can't see Corporal McBallsinyourface squatting in them. Every meticulously detailed branch and leaf and locker and scaffold is just another thing to look at and shoot when you're trying to shoot bad guys. I'm hopelessly lost in the scenery whenever I play. I can't find enemies. They're just giant amorphous shadows with assault rifles. It's even worse in the outdoor settings, where snipers set up from seventeen miles away and still headshot you after you've spent ten minutes crawling from your spawn camp, where you somehow avoided being killed before the screen finished loading. When you try to find those snipers later, it's just explosions and rubble and individual motes of dust and eventually the killcam when he puts another bullet through your face while you were scanning the horizon for a quarter of a second.
The interior of the Operation: Metro map isn't much better, since with the crazy lighting engine comes crazy-ass darkness that I under no circumstances can see though, but that doesn't seem to prevent the other team from pinpoint accuracy. Bad Company 2's lighting is mostly static outdoor settings with shaded but even interiors. BF3 interiors are cones of light piercing a vast evil void where I might as well not even bother moving through because I'm going to get punished by somebody who I can only assume is physically wearing night vision goggles inside his home, at his computer. Enemies in BC2 are always dark on a light background. When they stand up in the middle of a field, you see them. In BF3, they're (to my eyes) indistinguishable from the minute details of the objects and scenery behind them.
The Sound
I have a sense that the sound engine is only half-finished, given that it seems to default to mono in the game settings. Certain sounds like sniper fire breaking off flecks of stone cover are amazing, with full 3D direction. Footsteps, however, are woefully static and non-directional. And you only hear your own (where BC2 sometimes gave you enemy foot traffic when they walked through branches or on wooden floorboards). I've only played with two or three weapons, so I can't report on the diversity of weapon pitches. I'm just going to assume the final product will be a marginal increase from the previous BF game.
The Gameplay
In comparison to BC2, I hate almost everything about it. Almost every change has been to the detriment of what I liked about the previous game. It takes fewer bullets to die, so engagements for most normal players seem to just be games of peekaboo while laying on the floor. For me, it usually means moving two feet from my spawn location and being the subject of an impromptu Top Shot competition by the opposing team. Rockets and grenades seem to be abused just as much as before since even a glancing blow by either explosion can still kill you.
Medic revive timers are nearly half the duration of BC2's. If a teammate dies and he wasn't standing immediately next to you, it's virtually impossible to run over to a different location, kneel down (because paddles and standing miss 90% of the time), and electrocute his balls in the scant few seconds you're permitted to make the attempt. On the flip side, if you're the one that died, the killcam timer has increased, and so has the respawn timer. So you're out of the game longer, and you're forced to watch xXxDeezButzxXx teabag you for long enough to actually physically leave the computer, enter the kitchen, make actual tea, and return with your beverage without missing much action.
There are these things called "tactical lights" which in effect are broad-beam lasers of death. You can put them on your guns and flip them on and off, flashing them in the eyes of your foes. The effect is to whitewash 50% of your screen with searing would-burn-your-plasma-display white, so you can't see anything in that direction of the map. The effective range is measured in parsecs. A flashlight is the deadliest weapon in the game.
There are "mobile spawn points" which can be placed down anywhere on the map and serve as the name would indicate. They're roughly the size of a small packet of mustard, and black so you can't see them against most floors, and certainly not in the depths of the metro tunnel. One recon can sneak behind the defensive spawn, put one of those down in the tracks, and suddenly have an endless spawn point aimed directly at your back at all times. Last night one of our own recons inadvertently put down a defensive mobile spawn adjacent to an offensive one, and I spent five or six lives fruitlessly exchanging close-range deaths with a full squad of dudes while hunting a tiny black box nestled in the darkness.
Attacker spawns are vulnerable to defensive fire and camping at all times. In BC2 the attacking team was usually awarded a slightly shielded spawn point so you couldn't die immediately upon loading. This is now gone, and snipers can and will kill you within 5 seconds, if the engineer who's sitting behind your spawn zone doesn't get you first.
I'm making myself angry just typing about it. I'll have more to say later. I want to address some display and HUD issues with screenshots.
The Graphics
I enjoy coffee. I drink it a great deal; at minimum one or two cups per day, and generally more on the weekends. Some years back when I was temporarily living with my grandmother, she would routinely make me coffee in the mornings and after dinner. That was great, thanks nonna. However, she didn't really make coffee so much as coffee-like quantities of espresso, brewed in batches just big enough to eventually give me either an ulcer or enough acid reflux to debilitate me for a solid week. Similarly, whenever she asked if I'd like "a pretzel" and I stupidly mumble "sure", this resulted in six hours of dough-kneading, baking, and fifteen pounds of fennel pretzels that I'd be forced to grudgingly consume in quantity with every meal and drink for the next five years.
I like graphics. Well-designed environments are pretty. Rendered autumn leaves are nice to look at while I'm crawling through a bush trying not to get sniped by Commander_Fartcupper. The dynamic lighting and raw fidelity of the Frostbyte 2 engine are very impressive. This is the first game I've played where there's no visual or operational difference between interactable objects/environments and static background scenery. Even with the graphics dialed down for the beta client, it's truly awesome to behold. The shadows casted by an RPG rocket flying down a darkened subway tunnel are beyond textual representation. This is the best looking thing I've ever seen on my PC.
And I absolutely hate it.
It's too pretty. It's too distracting. Fleshing out bushes means I can't see Corporal McBallsinyourface squatting in them. Every meticulously detailed branch and leaf and locker and scaffold is just another thing to look at and shoot when you're trying to shoot bad guys. I'm hopelessly lost in the scenery whenever I play. I can't find enemies. They're just giant amorphous shadows with assault rifles. It's even worse in the outdoor settings, where snipers set up from seventeen miles away and still headshot you after you've spent ten minutes crawling from your spawn camp, where you somehow avoided being killed before the screen finished loading. When you try to find those snipers later, it's just explosions and rubble and individual motes of dust and eventually the killcam when he puts another bullet through your face while you were scanning the horizon for a quarter of a second.
The interior of the Operation: Metro map isn't much better, since with the crazy lighting engine comes crazy-ass darkness that I under no circumstances can see though, but that doesn't seem to prevent the other team from pinpoint accuracy. Bad Company 2's lighting is mostly static outdoor settings with shaded but even interiors. BF3 interiors are cones of light piercing a vast evil void where I might as well not even bother moving through because I'm going to get punished by somebody who I can only assume is physically wearing night vision goggles inside his home, at his computer. Enemies in BC2 are always dark on a light background. When they stand up in the middle of a field, you see them. In BF3, they're (to my eyes) indistinguishable from the minute details of the objects and scenery behind them.
The Sound
I have a sense that the sound engine is only half-finished, given that it seems to default to mono in the game settings. Certain sounds like sniper fire breaking off flecks of stone cover are amazing, with full 3D direction. Footsteps, however, are woefully static and non-directional. And you only hear your own (where BC2 sometimes gave you enemy foot traffic when they walked through branches or on wooden floorboards). I've only played with two or three weapons, so I can't report on the diversity of weapon pitches. I'm just going to assume the final product will be a marginal increase from the previous BF game.
The Gameplay
In comparison to BC2, I hate almost everything about it. Almost every change has been to the detriment of what I liked about the previous game. It takes fewer bullets to die, so engagements for most normal players seem to just be games of peekaboo while laying on the floor. For me, it usually means moving two feet from my spawn location and being the subject of an impromptu Top Shot competition by the opposing team. Rockets and grenades seem to be abused just as much as before since even a glancing blow by either explosion can still kill you.
Medic revive timers are nearly half the duration of BC2's. If a teammate dies and he wasn't standing immediately next to you, it's virtually impossible to run over to a different location, kneel down (because paddles and standing miss 90% of the time), and electrocute his balls in the scant few seconds you're permitted to make the attempt. On the flip side, if you're the one that died, the killcam timer has increased, and so has the respawn timer. So you're out of the game longer, and you're forced to watch xXxDeezButzxXx teabag you for long enough to actually physically leave the computer, enter the kitchen, make actual tea, and return with your beverage without missing much action.
There are these things called "tactical lights" which in effect are broad-beam lasers of death. You can put them on your guns and flip them on and off, flashing them in the eyes of your foes. The effect is to whitewash 50% of your screen with searing would-burn-your-plasma-display white, so you can't see anything in that direction of the map. The effective range is measured in parsecs. A flashlight is the deadliest weapon in the game.
There are "mobile spawn points" which can be placed down anywhere on the map and serve as the name would indicate. They're roughly the size of a small packet of mustard, and black so you can't see them against most floors, and certainly not in the depths of the metro tunnel. One recon can sneak behind the defensive spawn, put one of those down in the tracks, and suddenly have an endless spawn point aimed directly at your back at all times. Last night one of our own recons inadvertently put down a defensive mobile spawn adjacent to an offensive one, and I spent five or six lives fruitlessly exchanging close-range deaths with a full squad of dudes while hunting a tiny black box nestled in the darkness.
Attacker spawns are vulnerable to defensive fire and camping at all times. In BC2 the attacking team was usually awarded a slightly shielded spawn point so you couldn't die immediately upon loading. This is now gone, and snipers can and will kill you within 5 seconds, if the engineer who's sitting behind your spawn zone doesn't get you first.
I'm making myself angry just typing about it. I'll have more to say later. I want to address some display and HUD issues with screenshots.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Today's Good Read
There's no part of this story that isn't fantastic.
On Friday, the [Waffle House] mobile command center—an RV named EM-50 after Bill Murray's urban-assault vehicle in the 1981 movie "Stripes"—headed north from the Norcross, Ga., headquarters.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Lilith
Absent anything to do for the next 38 minutes, I'm going to type a little bit about my Borderlands siren. I spent the entirety of PT1 and most of PT2 in perpetual ammo scavenger mode, since my SMGs (especially the double anarchy) chew through whatever I can carry. Having gone through two playthroughs and 2 DLC runs without seeing a single ammo regen mod, I instead shifted to a less bullet-intensive build the moment I got my hands on a Maliwan Hellfire.
I'm using a slightly scaled down version of this. The basic strategy is to throw up as many DoT effects on as many enemies as possible while shooting only as much as necessary to spread the Hellfire DoT. A corrosive artifact handles acid, the Hellfire for fire, Radiance for electricity, and Phoenix for a bonus stackable fire DoT. With four damage effects on every enemy in the encounter, stuff dies. Everytime something dies, with my mod, I get a 11% shield regen boost over five seconds (Girl Power). Between that and 70% damage resistance for a few seconds coming out of phasewalk (Silent Resolve), I'm mostly immune to damage once I'm into the attack sequence.
This becomes more powerful in a few more levels since I'll be able to flesh out Blackout, which is a phasewalk cooldown reduction every time I kill something. Once that's 5/5 I'll pretty much constantly be popping phasewalk and will always either be totally immune or effectively immune to bullets.
On top of all that, being effectively 9 ranks into Phoenix also gives me a 45% chance to not consume SMG bullets. So ammo's no longer a problem when I'm rocking this Firefly build.
Its major weakness is any boss fight, since they can't be ignited (or have any DoT effects), and my Lilith isn't optimized for single-target non-elemental damage. It's not a build that works for Crawmerax, and it makes me only a half-contributor to Knoxx fights (though it'd be great for the run up to Knoxx).
I'm using a slightly scaled down version of this. The basic strategy is to throw up as many DoT effects on as many enemies as possible while shooting only as much as necessary to spread the Hellfire DoT. A corrosive artifact handles acid, the Hellfire for fire, Radiance for electricity, and Phoenix for a bonus stackable fire DoT. With four damage effects on every enemy in the encounter, stuff dies. Everytime something dies, with my mod, I get a 11% shield regen boost over five seconds (Girl Power). Between that and 70% damage resistance for a few seconds coming out of phasewalk (Silent Resolve), I'm mostly immune to damage once I'm into the attack sequence.
This becomes more powerful in a few more levels since I'll be able to flesh out Blackout, which is a phasewalk cooldown reduction every time I kill something. Once that's 5/5 I'll pretty much constantly be popping phasewalk and will always either be totally immune or effectively immune to bullets.
On top of all that, being effectively 9 ranks into Phoenix also gives me a 45% chance to not consume SMG bullets. So ammo's no longer a problem when I'm rocking this Firefly build.
Its major weakness is any boss fight, since they can't be ignited (or have any DoT effects), and my Lilith isn't optimized for single-target non-elemental damage. It's not a build that works for Crawmerax, and it makes me only a half-contributor to Knoxx fights (though it'd be great for the run up to Knoxx).
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
On the recline.
Living without internet for three days has been a revelatory experience, in that I've learned a lot about my entertainment consumption habits and existing in a space not defined by its proximity to my keyboard. For example, I am powerless against the narcotic lure of a television while laying down on a couch. When I'd normally be awake until 2am on a computer, that TV makes me pass out by 10:30. I just physically can't resist.
Also, to whoever sees this in Buzz or something, I'm not answering e-mails because I can't check e-mails. Cablevision has no timetable for restoring service to my area.
Also, to whoever sees this in Buzz or something, I'm not answering e-mails because I can't check e-mails. Cablevision has no timetable for restoring service to my area.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Today's fun read.
This quasi-meta attempt to pin longstanding habits of argumentative mitigation upon meta-writer David Foster Wallace, as champion of the insecure intellectual.
USPS
The USPS and its solvency issue is a case of particular interest to me, as a confluence of politics, business, and economics. You'll likely hear an increasing number of news stories on the subject as we approach a September 30 deadline, where the USPS is unlikely to have cash on hand to make a legally-obligated $5.5 billion prefunding payment to its retiree health benefits fund.
Any other company (or government entity) would just issue bond debt and make the payment, but the USPS is legislatively restricted to increasing its debt by only $3 billion annually. Any other company would close all its non-profitible branches, but the USPS has a mandate to deliver mail to every square inch of the country (except my front door, which is too close to the post office to receive mail delivery) and can't just write off the state of North Dakota. In a period of declining mail demand, substantial price increases may just make their financial situation worse. Unless congress steps in to pay off substantial amounts of USPS debt, or otherwise loosens pension/compensation/benefit funding regulations, or just starts direct federal subsudy of the service, there's no simple inside-the-box solution here.
I happened across some WaPo letters to the editor on the subject, and wanted to touch briefly on some of the presented ideas.
Any other company (or government entity) would just issue bond debt and make the payment, but the USPS is legislatively restricted to increasing its debt by only $3 billion annually. Any other company would close all its non-profitible branches, but the USPS has a mandate to deliver mail to every square inch of the country (except my front door, which is too close to the post office to receive mail delivery) and can't just write off the state of North Dakota. In a period of declining mail demand, substantial price increases may just make their financial situation worse. Unless congress steps in to pay off substantial amounts of USPS debt, or otherwise loosens pension/compensation/benefit funding regulations, or just starts direct federal subsudy of the service, there's no simple inside-the-box solution here.
I happened across some WaPo letters to the editor on the subject, and wanted to touch briefly on some of the presented ideas.
The e-letter would be most advantageous to commercial users who seek to reach large numbers of homes with printed messages. The letter’s content and a list of addresses could be sent to the Postal Service electronically. The letter would be routed to the post office nearest the addressee, where it would be printed and sorted to the individual carrier route to be delivered with other mail....For the USPS, the advantages would be (1) lowering operating costs, as it would not be necessary to ship these pieces of paper across the nation via planes and trucks and (2) producing less pollution from vehicles, in keeping with the USPS’s green efforts.In terms of operating costs, using 2011 Q3 data, completely eliminating highway and air freight expenses would only represent 8.16% of total operating costs, or 81% of the projected operating shortfall. This also doesn't factor in the costs of mass-printing and envelope stuffing at the USPS branch level, or implementing the computing systems and hardware necessary. It'd also require USPS customers to either used some generic web tool, or otherwise have access to a scanner at home or a local USPS branch. Either way, it likely reduces your client base, by making it that much harder to deliver the document you want to deliver.
Offer an online bill-paying service. The USPS is losing revenue because more and more people are paying their bills online. The USPS should consider establishing a free online billing service that would compete with private-sector services, and it should fund the service through advertising. If the system proves secure, Americans will use it.Again, this requires implementing whole new systems and infrastructure, just to compete with services that most banks and investment firms (the places that actually hold your money) already offer for free (without advertising).
Reduce the cost of printing stamps by selling software (and the accompanying materials) that would enable customers to print first-class stamps at home. Users could purchase and download new postal designs as they become available. This would allow post offices to concentrate on higher-value services, such as Priority and Express mail.(1) Priority and Express mail represent 1% of total shipping volume. It's not clear to me what improvements can be made at the post office level that would let them "concentrate" on promoting a line of industry that represents only 1% of total demand. Granted that 1% generates 14% of USPS revenues, but they're stuck in competition with other package services, whereas they have the monopoly on first class and standard mail services, and should probably work on milking that cow. Also, (2) it's called Pitney Bowes. Printing coils of stamps strikes me as literally the smallest operating expense the USPS incurs, somewhere below their Deer Park water delivery. (Maybe USPS should start selling water door to door?)
Friday, August 19, 2011
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Eidolon experiments
I've been toying around with 20th level builds for no particular reason. After giving up on understanding why the Magus spell list is populated with polymorph spells that prevent spellcasting and armor bonuses, I shifted to the Summoner, since the Eidolon point-buy system makes for interesting time-killing.
Brutus
Form: Biped
Str: 42 Dex: 16 Con: 22 Int: 7 Wis: 10 Cha: 11
AC 40 = 10 base + 16 armor + 11 natural + 3 dex
HP: 15d10 + 90
Feats: Power Attack, Improved Natural Attack: Claw (five times), Combat Reflexes, Stand Still
Evolutions:
Huge (10)
Limbs (2)
Limbs (2)
Claws (1)
Claws (1)
Resistance: Fire (1)
Push (1)
Improved Natural Attack: Claw (1)
Improved Natural Armor (1)
Improved Natural Armor (1)
Magic Attacks (1)
Spell Resistance (4)
Attacks:
15 BAB + 16 Str - 4 power attack = +27
+27/+27/+27/+27/+27/+27 @ 12d6 +24 damage (each)
The combination of huge size, the natural attack evolution, and five stacking natural attack feats brings his claw attack form, of which he has six, up to 12d6 damage. They're all at max attack bonus because they're all primary attacks. He also has 15' reach, which with Combat Reflexes means one or more attacks on most foes who try to get to attack range, which with Stand Still means they lose the ability to move. Which in most cases translates to a total loss of a turn. The ones that do manage to close the distance just get pushed back the next round. Further buffed by virtually every buff spell, and he could use an amulet of mighty fists for +1 enhancement and flaming/frost/shock/corrosive, for 16d6.
I bulked his defenses a bit, though I'm not sure how well AC 40 holds up at level 20. This can be supplemented up with Summoner buffs (Shield, Protection from ____, Barkskin, Cat's Grace, etc). I guess this build hinges on the reading of whether the improved natural attack stuff is kosher, where improving attack "forms" applies to all claw attacks, with "claw" being a form. I read it that way since there are other evolutions and feats and spells that explicitly affect only one attack, and figured they'd have repeated that language if they'd intended it that way.
Ranged touch attacks and will saves would eat him alive, hence the spell resistance and fire resistance, which would help mitigate incoming spells. On top of all this you have a 20th level summoner shooting out infernal dire storks.
Brutus
Form: Biped
Str: 42 Dex: 16 Con: 22 Int: 7 Wis: 10 Cha: 11
AC 40 = 10 base + 16 armor + 11 natural + 3 dex
HP: 15d10 + 90
Feats: Power Attack, Improved Natural Attack: Claw (five times), Combat Reflexes, Stand Still
Evolutions:
Huge (10)
Limbs (2)
Limbs (2)
Claws (1)
Claws (1)
Resistance: Fire (1)
Push (1)
Improved Natural Attack: Claw (1)
Improved Natural Armor (1)
Improved Natural Armor (1)
Magic Attacks (1)
Spell Resistance (4)
Attacks:
15 BAB + 16 Str - 4 power attack = +27
+27/+27/+27/+27/+27/+27 @ 12d6 +24 damage (each)
The combination of huge size, the natural attack evolution, and five stacking natural attack feats brings his claw attack form, of which he has six, up to 12d6 damage. They're all at max attack bonus because they're all primary attacks. He also has 15' reach, which with Combat Reflexes means one or more attacks on most foes who try to get to attack range, which with Stand Still means they lose the ability to move. Which in most cases translates to a total loss of a turn. The ones that do manage to close the distance just get pushed back the next round. Further buffed by virtually every buff spell, and he could use an amulet of mighty fists for +1 enhancement and flaming/frost/shock/corrosive, for 16d6.
I bulked his defenses a bit, though I'm not sure how well AC 40 holds up at level 20. This can be supplemented up with Summoner buffs (Shield, Protection from ____, Barkskin, Cat's Grace, etc). I guess this build hinges on the reading of whether the improved natural attack stuff is kosher, where improving attack "forms" applies to all claw attacks, with "claw" being a form. I read it that way since there are other evolutions and feats and spells that explicitly affect only one attack, and figured they'd have repeated that language if they'd intended it that way.
Ranged touch attacks and will saves would eat him alive, hence the spell resistance and fire resistance, which would help mitigate incoming spells. On top of all this you have a 20th level summoner shooting out infernal dire storks.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Inquisitor full build
Str: 22 (15+1 level +2 human +4 enhancement) [7]
Dex: 20 (15 +1 level +4 enhancement) [7]
Con: 13 [3]
Int: 13 [3]
Wis: 20 (15+1 level +4 enhancement) [7]
Cha: 8 [-2]
Weapon: +2 corrosive large greatsword (18000)
Armor: +3 mithral breastplate (13000)
Belt of Giant's Strength +4 (16000)
Boots of Dexterity +4 (16000)
Headband of Inspired Wisdom +4 (16000)
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 (8000)
Cloak of Resistance +3 (9000)
Ring of Force Shield (8500)
Wand CLW (375)
3125 gp
Feats:
H1: Martial Weapon Proficiency: Greatsword
L1: Weapon Focus: Greatsword
L3: Power Attack
I3: Outflank (T)
L5: Cleave
I6: Paired Opportunists (T)
L7: Furious Focus
L9: Vital Strike
I9: Precise Strike (T)
L11: Improved Critical: Greatsword
I12: Swap Places (T)
Contemplating swapping out vital strike or cleave with combat expertise.
Inquisitor abilities:
-Domain: Good
Touch of Good (Sp): You can touch a creature as a standard action, granting a sacred bonus on attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks, and saving throws equal to half your cleric level (minimum 1) for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
Holy Lance (Su): At 8th level, you can give a weapon you touch the holy special weapon quality for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your cleric level. You can use this ability once per day at 8th level, and an additional time per day for every four levels beyond 8th.
-Judgment x4 day. Pick 2 of:
-+6 morale bonus on intimidate and sense motive checks
-Add wisdom on initiative checks
-Detect alignment at will
-+6 to survival while tracking
-Auto-qualify for teamwork feats
-Bane: 12 rounds, 4d6
-Discern lies: 12 rounds
-Stalwart: Evasion on fort and will saves
Spells known:
0: Detect Magic, Read Magic, Light, Create Water, Guidance, Acid Splash
1: Divine Favor, Shield of Faith, True Strike, Wrath, Interrogation, Cure Light Wounds
2: Hold Person, Resist Energy, Howling Agony, Cure Moderate Wounds, Flames of the Faithful
3: Cure Serious Wounds, Dispel Magic, Ward the Faithful, Halt Undead
4: Stoneskin, Divine Power, Hold Monster, Greater Invisibility
Spells per level:
1: 7
2: 6
3: 5
4: 4
Hit calculations:
9 BAB
6 strength
2 weapon enhancement
1 weapon focus
-2 weapon size =
+16/+11 base
Optional hit:
3 sacred (judgment)
3 or 4 luck (divine favor, divine power)
3 morale (wrath)
2 weapon enhancement (bane)
4 flanking
4 opportunity attack
-3 power attack (on secondary attacks only)
= +13-35 hit, depending on positioning and buffs
Damage:
9 strength
2 enhancement
+1d6 acid
= +11 +1d6
Optional damage:
9 power attack
5 sacred (judgment)
3 or 4 luck (divine favor/power)
3 morale (wrath)
2 weapon enhancement (bane)
+2d6 bane
+2d6 holy (good domain)
+1d6 precision (flank)
+1d6 fire (flames of the faithful) [+1d10 on crit]
+3d6 vital strike
= damage range: [4d6+11] to [13d6+33]
Max crit: [16d6+1d10+66] on a 17-20 range.
AC:
10 base
6 armor
3 armor enhancement
5 dex
2 natural armor
2 shield
4 deflection (shield of faith)
= 32
Saves:
Fort: 12 (15) = +8 base + 1 con + 3 resistance (+3 sacred)
Ref: 12 (15) = +4 base + 5 dex + 3 resistance (+3 sacred)
Will: 16 (19) = +8 base + 5 wis + 3 resistance (+3 sacred)
Skill point allotment (96):
Knowledge Religion: 12
Perception: 12
Spellcraft: 12
Sense Motive: 12
Survival: 10
Stealth: 11
Knowledge Planes: 6
Knowledge Nature: 2
Knowledge Dungeoneering: 2
Knowledge Arcana: 2
Bluff: 3
Climb: 3
Swim: 3
Ride: 3
Heal: 3
HP: 12d8 +24
CMB: 15
CMD: 31
Dex: 20 (15 +1 level +4 enhancement) [7]
Con: 13 [3]
Int: 13 [3]
Wis: 20 (15+1 level +4 enhancement) [7]
Cha: 8 [-2]
Weapon: +2 corrosive large greatsword (18000)
Armor: +3 mithral breastplate (13000)
Belt of Giant's Strength +4 (16000)
Boots of Dexterity +4 (16000)
Headband of Inspired Wisdom +4 (16000)
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 (8000)
Cloak of Resistance +3 (9000)
Ring of Force Shield (8500)
Wand CLW (375)
3125 gp
Feats:
H1: Martial Weapon Proficiency: Greatsword
L1: Weapon Focus: Greatsword
L3: Power Attack
I3: Outflank (T)
L5: Cleave
I6: Paired Opportunists (T)
L7: Furious Focus
L9: Vital Strike
I9: Precise Strike (T)
L11: Improved Critical: Greatsword
I12: Swap Places (T)
Contemplating swapping out vital strike or cleave with combat expertise.
Inquisitor abilities:
-Domain: Good
Touch of Good (Sp): You can touch a creature as a standard action, granting a sacred bonus on attack rolls, skill checks, ability checks, and saving throws equal to half your cleric level (minimum 1) for 1 round. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
Holy Lance (Su): At 8th level, you can give a weapon you touch the holy special weapon quality for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your cleric level. You can use this ability once per day at 8th level, and an additional time per day for every four levels beyond 8th.
-Judgment x4 day. Pick 2 of:
- +5 sacred bonus to damage rolls
- Fast healing 5
- +3 sacred bonus on attack rolls, +6 to confirm criticals
- +5 sacred bonus to concentration checks and caster level checks vs. SR
- +3 sacred bonus to saving throws, +6 against curses, diseases, and poison
- DR 3/evil
- Energy resistance 10
- Weapon imbued with alignment type and adamantine qualities
-+6 morale bonus on intimidate and sense motive checks
-Add wisdom on initiative checks
-Detect alignment at will
-+6 to survival while tracking
-Auto-qualify for teamwork feats
-Bane: 12 rounds, 4d6
-Discern lies: 12 rounds
-Stalwart: Evasion on fort and will saves
Spells known:
0: Detect Magic, Read Magic, Light, Create Water, Guidance, Acid Splash
1: Divine Favor, Shield of Faith, True Strike, Wrath, Interrogation, Cure Light Wounds
2: Hold Person, Resist Energy, Howling Agony, Cure Moderate Wounds, Flames of the Faithful
3: Cure Serious Wounds, Dispel Magic, Ward the Faithful, Halt Undead
4: Stoneskin, Divine Power, Hold Monster, Greater Invisibility
Spells per level:
1: 7
2: 6
3: 5
4: 4
Hit calculations:
9 BAB
6 strength
2 weapon enhancement
1 weapon focus
-2 weapon size =
+16/+11 base
Optional hit:
3 sacred (judgment)
3 or 4 luck (divine favor, divine power)
3 morale (wrath)
2 weapon enhancement (bane)
4 flanking
4 opportunity attack
-3 power attack (on secondary attacks only)
= +13-35 hit, depending on positioning and buffs
Damage:
9 strength
2 enhancement
+1d6 acid
= +11 +1d6
Optional damage:
9 power attack
5 sacred (judgment)
3 or 4 luck (divine favor/power)
3 morale (wrath)
2 weapon enhancement (bane)
+2d6 bane
+2d6 holy (good domain)
+1d6 precision (flank)
+1d6 fire (flames of the faithful) [+1d10 on crit]
+3d6 vital strike
= damage range: [4d6+11] to [13d6+33]
Max crit: [16d6+1d10+66] on a 17-20 range.
AC:
10 base
6 armor
3 armor enhancement
5 dex
2 natural armor
2 shield
4 deflection (shield of faith)
= 32
Saves:
Fort: 12 (15) = +8 base + 1 con + 3 resistance (+3 sacred)
Ref: 12 (15) = +4 base + 5 dex + 3 resistance (+3 sacred)
Will: 16 (19) = +8 base + 5 wis + 3 resistance (+3 sacred)
Skill point allotment (96):
Knowledge Religion: 12
Perception: 12
Spellcraft: 12
Sense Motive: 12
Survival: 10
Stealth: 11
Knowledge Planes: 6
Knowledge Nature: 2
Knowledge Dungeoneering: 2
Knowledge Arcana: 2
Bluff: 3
Climb: 3
Swim: 3
Ride: 3
Heal: 3
HP: 12d8 +24
CMB: 15
CMD: 31
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
What Needs to Happen in Borderlands 2
Gearbox and 2K Games just officially announced what everybody's long assumed, that Borderlands 2 is in development. Of the four people who might see this blog entry, two have already played the original, but for posterity I'll attempt to summarize Borderlands: Fallout meets Diablo meets Firefly. It's a lighthearted RPG-shooter hybrid with random loot generation and skill trees, set on a western-styled colony planet in an otherwise advanced spacefaring world.
This is the list of improvments that would help make Borderlands 2 one of the greatest games of all time.
1: Drop Gamespy as the multiplayer manager.
If a dinky little game like Magicka can whip up its own in-game server browser and manage its own connections, Borderlands should be able to coordinate co-op without having to sign up for a shitty external service.
2: Fix the level scaling and multiplayer scaling issues.
The original Borderlands is composed of two and a half playthroughs, incorporating three different level-scaling schemes, which may have worked for just the vanilla game. It immediately became broken with the DLC, which itself had its own level scaling issues, but then threw off the vanilla game balance between playthroughs, forcing you to essentially abandon a full vanilla playthrough the second time around. This can probably be simplified to two schemes: Zone-based level ranges during the first PT, level-based scaling during the second, for all content. The end.
Also, while I appreciate that adding more players dramatically increases the game difficulty, some things were overlooked. Enemy vehicles scaled up in damage and defense, but player vehicles didn't, which often resulted in frustrating 1-shot deaths. Enemy gun damage scaled up multiplicatively with the number of PCs, resulting in frequent 1-shot deaths because your shield and HP pool were scaled for single-player content. These things can be smoothed for better balance.
3: AA
Borderlands had no anti-aliasing options. While you could trick the game into it via advanced Nvidia or ATI control tools, that's an unnecessary step. Just put it in the damn game. Other things that would be nice to have in the game options without having to tweak the configuration files directly: FOV adjustments, mouse smoothing disable, microphone disable, advanced keybinds, VSync, lighting and shadow quality.
4: More story, more storytelling.
Borderlands was light on the plot, which to a degree worked in its breezy favor. I still feel that there's room for a more aggressive plot with more moments of voice-acted storytelling, cutscenes, or other Mass-Effect-inspired moments of storytelling that don't involve dialogue trees. Even a simple step such as having NPCs voice-act quest text would go a long way towards establishing a more effective plot, since it's something you could absorb while on the move.
5: Fix Brick
The four original class types scale very differently as you level up. Brick is a beast in the first playthrough but eventually his melee and rocket damage output curve falls off in comparison to the raw death Mordecai and Lilith put out, especially in multiplayer with the beefed up difficulty and enemy HP pools.
6: Armor slots
There was only one non-weapon equipment slot, for class mods, which were generally super-duper powerful and had four or five different effects in eight different distribution types per class. Why can't those five bonuses be given out over multiple armor pieces? This is precisely the kind of game where more loot is ok, so I'd be happy to see helmet/chest/glove/boot slots with the same kind of variability and quality options of the weapons. Given the meticulous graphical detail afforded the five different components of each gun, individually modeled, it shouldn't be hard to whip up a system for changing other aspects of character appearance to match equipment choices.
And here's the list of additions that should definitely not happen:
Weapon crafting
Weapon durability
Mutliple ammo types within one gun-type
Dialogue trees
Armor
Equipment enchantment
MP
Consumables
This is the list of improvments that would help make Borderlands 2 one of the greatest games of all time.
1: Drop Gamespy as the multiplayer manager.
If a dinky little game like Magicka can whip up its own in-game server browser and manage its own connections, Borderlands should be able to coordinate co-op without having to sign up for a shitty external service.
2: Fix the level scaling and multiplayer scaling issues.
The original Borderlands is composed of two and a half playthroughs, incorporating three different level-scaling schemes, which may have worked for just the vanilla game. It immediately became broken with the DLC, which itself had its own level scaling issues, but then threw off the vanilla game balance between playthroughs, forcing you to essentially abandon a full vanilla playthrough the second time around. This can probably be simplified to two schemes: Zone-based level ranges during the first PT, level-based scaling during the second, for all content. The end.
Also, while I appreciate that adding more players dramatically increases the game difficulty, some things were overlooked. Enemy vehicles scaled up in damage and defense, but player vehicles didn't, which often resulted in frustrating 1-shot deaths. Enemy gun damage scaled up multiplicatively with the number of PCs, resulting in frequent 1-shot deaths because your shield and HP pool were scaled for single-player content. These things can be smoothed for better balance.
3: AA
Borderlands had no anti-aliasing options. While you could trick the game into it via advanced Nvidia or ATI control tools, that's an unnecessary step. Just put it in the damn game. Other things that would be nice to have in the game options without having to tweak the configuration files directly: FOV adjustments, mouse smoothing disable, microphone disable, advanced keybinds, VSync, lighting and shadow quality.
4: More story, more storytelling.
Borderlands was light on the plot, which to a degree worked in its breezy favor. I still feel that there's room for a more aggressive plot with more moments of voice-acted storytelling, cutscenes, or other Mass-Effect-inspired moments of storytelling that don't involve dialogue trees. Even a simple step such as having NPCs voice-act quest text would go a long way towards establishing a more effective plot, since it's something you could absorb while on the move.
5: Fix Brick
The four original class types scale very differently as you level up. Brick is a beast in the first playthrough but eventually his melee and rocket damage output curve falls off in comparison to the raw death Mordecai and Lilith put out, especially in multiplayer with the beefed up difficulty and enemy HP pools.
6: Armor slots
There was only one non-weapon equipment slot, for class mods, which were generally super-duper powerful and had four or five different effects in eight different distribution types per class. Why can't those five bonuses be given out over multiple armor pieces? This is precisely the kind of game where more loot is ok, so I'd be happy to see helmet/chest/glove/boot slots with the same kind of variability and quality options of the weapons. Given the meticulous graphical detail afforded the five different components of each gun, individually modeled, it shouldn't be hard to whip up a system for changing other aspects of character appearance to match equipment choices.
And here's the list of additions that should definitely not happen:
Weapon crafting
Weapon durability
Mutliple ammo types within one gun-type
Dialogue trees
Armor
Equipment enchantment
MP
Consumables
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Revisiting Lawrie
At this point my obsession with tracking Brett Lawrie's call-up is approaching something unhealthy. I monitor his references in Twitter, have a Google Alert to e-mail me news and blog mentions in realtime, and refresh our fantasy league page at least fifteen times a day looking for news or updates. Now that he's back on my roster it's unnecessary, but I continue the unyielding vigilance.
Like my earlier frustrations over missing out on Hosmer and Trout on day 1, I have an unrealistic mental picture of what's going to happen when Lawrie makes it into the Blue Jays lineup. I'm unable to shake the nagging feeling that he's going to defy every odd and statistic about rookie batters and just obliterate the ball, steal twenty bases in two months, knock in forty runs, and make me feel good about my desire to remove both Crawford and Teixiera from my keeper list.
This is, of course, not going to happen, but I think even a tempered outlook is still generally positive for fantasy purposes. By most accounts he'll end up batting "in the middle third" of the lineup, so 4-6, which is nice. He has some power, some speed, and most importantly qualifies at second base right now. Who could have anticipated a Rickie Weeks injury? I'd had a hunch last weekend that the call-up was pending, so I'm glad to see increasing rumors regarding a promotion next weekend. And I know it's a rumor on the rise because I've witnessed literally every twitter comment, random dark-internet subforum post, and regurgitated fantasy blog entry on the matter, and could meticulously detail its crescendo.
With Lawrie and maybe one trade to solidify my pitching, I'd feel fairly confidant heading into the H2H playoffs. Here's to hoping some owners check their teams or e-mail this week.
Like my earlier frustrations over missing out on Hosmer and Trout on day 1, I have an unrealistic mental picture of what's going to happen when Lawrie makes it into the Blue Jays lineup. I'm unable to shake the nagging feeling that he's going to defy every odd and statistic about rookie batters and just obliterate the ball, steal twenty bases in two months, knock in forty runs, and make me feel good about my desire to remove both Crawford and Teixiera from my keeper list.
This is, of course, not going to happen, but I think even a tempered outlook is still generally positive for fantasy purposes. By most accounts he'll end up batting "in the middle third" of the lineup, so 4-6, which is nice. He has some power, some speed, and most importantly qualifies at second base right now. Who could have anticipated a Rickie Weeks injury? I'd had a hunch last weekend that the call-up was pending, so I'm glad to see increasing rumors regarding a promotion next weekend. And I know it's a rumor on the rise because I've witnessed literally every twitter comment, random dark-internet subforum post, and regurgitated fantasy blog entry on the matter, and could meticulously detail its crescendo.
With Lawrie and maybe one trade to solidify my pitching, I'd feel fairly confidant heading into the H2H playoffs. Here's to hoping some owners check their teams or e-mail this week.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Brief Reminder
I wrote the following in January:
Would a brief period of interest default necessarily cause 2008 Round 2? No. The chances are, however, nonzero, and any government official who even thinks about daring to risk the consequences should be immediately (forcibly?) removed from office.
This will impact foreign governments, foreign and domestic banks, mutual funds, variable insurance products, tank the bond markets, raise interest rates (making future debt even more expensive), everything. The stability of US government debt is a cornerstone of global finance.
When we do hit the limit, and we don't raise it, this is what happens. Let me put it in some familiar context: Do you remember the 2008 crash? The whole thing about the derivative debt fiasco, fraudulent credit ratings, write-downs forcing some of the world's biggest banks to declare bankruptcy overnight, forcing even Republicans to support TARP and multi-billion dollar bailouts, etc? And how it brought the stock markets crashing down, killed retirement accounts, yadayadayada? Let's have a quick refresher course.Even a downgrade of AAA to AA could have catastrophic global consequences. Surely you've read about how Greece and Spain's debts are killing Eurozone banks and other EU governments who own portions of that debt? Global holdings of US debt is like that times a thousand.
Housing bubble leads to lots of mortgages, given to people with questionable resources, but seem affordable because rising housing prices artificially inflates the equity value and keeps a variable interest rate low. Wall Street discovers that if they bundle mortgages together, then chop them up into chunks again, they can trick credit agencies into rating them AAA while claiming absurd rates of return. Wall Street gobbles up mortgages and sells them off as collateralized debt obligation vehicles (CDO) to any pension fund manager, mutual fund, institutional investor, and other bank who'll throw money at at. It's all AAA debt. Housing bubble bursts. Home prices crash. Bad mortgages have their interest rates increased. Homeowners default on payments. CDO revenue stream starts drying up. Panic. Credit agencies forced to reassess CDOs at lower ratings. Triggers reserve clauses at banks, who now A) need to have more cash on hand to balance the bad debt and B) need to write off the loss of market value. Banks start to go bankrupt. CDO values nosedive. Anbody holding a CDO is now sitting on a pile of steaming shit and doesn't know what's inside. Mutual funds drop 45%. State and institutional pensions experience catastrophic loss. Stock market crash. Banks disappear. Investment vehicles underwritten by those banks disappear. Global fucking meltdown. Etc.
Ok, so this happened because CDO/CMOs, a relatively modern invention, had a sudden credit-worthiness shock, which set off the domino chain.
Now imagine how many investors worldwide, how many banks and firms, pensions and IRAs, are holding US Treasury bills right now. Way more than were holding mortgage-based CDOs, right? And guess what happens to the AAAAAA++++++!!!!!111eleven credit rating of United States paper when we hit the debt ceiling and have to start missing interest payments and defaulting on government-issued debt.
Take a wild fucking guess.
Would a brief period of interest default necessarily cause 2008 Round 2? No. The chances are, however, nonzero, and any government official who even thinks about daring to risk the consequences should be immediately (forcibly?) removed from office.
This will impact foreign governments, foreign and domestic banks, mutual funds, variable insurance products, tank the bond markets, raise interest rates (making future debt even more expensive), everything. The stability of US government debt is a cornerstone of global finance.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Draft Analysis conclusion
Speeding this up because it's become agonizing to transcript player stats across pages when it takes 15 seconds per player page just to load. I'm not sure why we pay for Optimum Boost when all our web traffic gets channeled through a proxy that roughly approaches dial-up speeds.
Now I can't even load player pages. Fuck this, I'm winging the last three rounds with no stats.
Round 19
14: (12) Michael Pineda - SP - (Stew)
13: (6) Erik Bedard - SP - (Chris T)
12: (7) Bud Norris - SP - (Owen)
11: (9) Russell Martin - C - (Fabian)
10: (2) Brian Fuentes - RP - (Mike)
9: (4) Mitch Moreland - 1B - (Joe)
8: (1) Chase Headley - 3B - (Tom)
7: (14) Placido Polanco 2B/3B - (Chris J)
6: (3) Luke Gregerson - RP - (James)
5: (13) Carlos Lee - 1B/OF - (Austin)
4: (8) Joel Pinero - SP - (Paul)
3: (11) Hideki Matsui - OF - (Kyle)
2: (5) Marco Scutaro - SS - (Ryan)
1: (10) Brian Roberts - 2B - (Shawn)
Round 20
14: (13) Scott Baker - SP - (Mike)
13: (9) Logan Morrison - OF - (Chris T)
12: (3) JP Arencibia - C - (Stew)
11: (14) Derek Lowe - SP - (Tom)
10: (1) Chris Sale - RP - (Chris J)
9: (8) Scott Rolen - 3B - (Owen)
8: (7) Dexter Fowler - OF - (Paul)
7: (11) Kyle Drabek - SP - (Joe)
6: (12) Joaquin Benoit - RP - (James)
5: (5) Derrek Lee - 1B - (Shawn)
4: (6) Juan Gutierrez - RP - (Fabian)
3: (4) Darren O'Day - RP - (Kyle)
2: (2) Ian Stewart - 3B - (Austin)
1: (10) Bobby Jenks - RP - (Ryan)
Round 21
14: (6) Jordan Walden - RP - (Chris T)
13: (2) Freddie Freeman - 1B - (Mike)
12: (3) Stephen Strasburg - SP - (James)
11: (8) Clayton Richard - SP - (Paul)
10: (1) AJ Pierzynski - C - (Tom)
9: (7) Jack Cust - OF - (Owen)
8: (11) Kerry Wood - RP - (Kyle)
7: (12) Jon Garland - SP - (Stew)
6: (13) Adam Laroche - 1B - (Austin)
5: (5) Juan Uribe - INF - (Ryan)
4: (10) JA Happ - SP - (Shawn)
3: (9) Clay Hensley - RP - (Fabian)
2: (14) Desmond Jennings - OF - (Chris J)
1: (4) Brad Emaus - 2B - (Joe)
Final Scores
1: Owen (175) [+1]
2: Chris T (174) [+1]
3: Chris J (169) [-2]
4: Stew (153) [+1]
5: Mike (152) [+2]
6: Tom (146)
7: Austin (141) [-3]
8: Paul (127) [+2]
9: Kyle (123) [-1]
10: Shawn (118) [-1]
11: Fabian (113) [+1]
12: Ryan (112) [-1]
13: James (99)
14: Joe (88)
Now I can't even load player pages. Fuck this, I'm winging the last three rounds with no stats.
Round 19
14: (12) Michael Pineda - SP - (Stew)
13: (6) Erik Bedard - SP - (Chris T)
12: (7) Bud Norris - SP - (Owen)
11: (9) Russell Martin - C - (Fabian)
10: (2) Brian Fuentes - RP - (Mike)
9: (4) Mitch Moreland - 1B - (Joe)
8: (1) Chase Headley - 3B - (Tom)
7: (14) Placido Polanco 2B/3B - (Chris J)
6: (3) Luke Gregerson - RP - (James)
5: (13) Carlos Lee - 1B/OF - (Austin)
4: (8) Joel Pinero - SP - (Paul)
3: (11) Hideki Matsui - OF - (Kyle)
2: (5) Marco Scutaro - SS - (Ryan)
1: (10) Brian Roberts - 2B - (Shawn)
Round 20
14: (13) Scott Baker - SP - (Mike)
13: (9) Logan Morrison - OF - (Chris T)
12: (3) JP Arencibia - C - (Stew)
11: (14) Derek Lowe - SP - (Tom)
10: (1) Chris Sale - RP - (Chris J)
9: (8) Scott Rolen - 3B - (Owen)
8: (7) Dexter Fowler - OF - (Paul)
7: (11) Kyle Drabek - SP - (Joe)
6: (12) Joaquin Benoit - RP - (James)
5: (5) Derrek Lee - 1B - (Shawn)
4: (6) Juan Gutierrez - RP - (Fabian)
3: (4) Darren O'Day - RP - (Kyle)
2: (2) Ian Stewart - 3B - (Austin)
1: (10) Bobby Jenks - RP - (Ryan)
Round 21
14: (6) Jordan Walden - RP - (Chris T)
13: (2) Freddie Freeman - 1B - (Mike)
12: (3) Stephen Strasburg - SP - (James)
11: (8) Clayton Richard - SP - (Paul)
10: (1) AJ Pierzynski - C - (Tom)
9: (7) Jack Cust - OF - (Owen)
8: (11) Kerry Wood - RP - (Kyle)
7: (12) Jon Garland - SP - (Stew)
6: (13) Adam Laroche - 1B - (Austin)
5: (5) Juan Uribe - INF - (Ryan)
4: (10) JA Happ - SP - (Shawn)
3: (9) Clay Hensley - RP - (Fabian)
2: (14) Desmond Jennings - OF - (Chris J)
1: (4) Brad Emaus - 2B - (Joe)
Final Scores
1: Owen (175) [+1]
2: Chris T (174) [+1]
3: Chris J (169) [-2]
4: Stew (153) [+1]
5: Mike (152) [+2]
6: Tom (146)
7: Austin (141) [-3]
8: Paul (127) [+2]
9: Kyle (123) [-1]
10: Shawn (118) [-1]
11: Fabian (113) [+1]
12: Ryan (112) [-1]
13: James (99)
14: Joe (88)
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Draft Analysis pt5
Round 16
14: (3) Carlos Beltran - OF - .282/.372/.486 42-53-3 (Stew)
13: (8) Ryan Madson - RP - 15 SV, 34K, 2.03/1.19 (Owen)
12: (1) Neil Walker - 2B/3B - .248/.320/.381 41-51-4 (Chris J)
11: (9) Jon Rauch - RP - 7 SV, 23K, 4.05/1.17 (Chris T)
10: (12) Ryan Theriot - 2B/SS - .293/.344/.350 32-28-4 (James)
9: (4) Angel Pagan - OF - .263/.346/.371 28-24-13 (Kyle)
8: (14) Juan Pierre - OF - .262/.320/.306 35-20-11 (Tom)
7: (10) Rajai Davis - OF - .234/.263/.347 28-17-18 (Ryan)
6: (13) Andres Torres - OF - .222/.321/.357 28-13-8 (Mike)
5: (2) Kurt Suzuki - C - .217/.289/.324 23-18-2 (Austin)
4: (6) Hisanori Takahashi - SP/RP - 0 SV, 29K, 3.41/1.28 (Fabian)
3: (7) Octavio Dotel - RP - 1 SV, 25K, 4.35/1.35 (Paul)
2: (5) Jeff Niemann - SP - 2-4, 24K, 5.58/1.41 (Shawn)
1: (11) Chone Figgins - 2B/3B - .190/.239/.255 21-14-8 (Joe)
This awful round is brought to you by everybody listening to the "get stolen bases cheap" advice of fantasy baseball publications near you. Like "don't pay for saves", that strategy isn't working out so well. I had significant issues ranking everything from Pagan down, so those four outfielders could probably go in any order.
Kudos to Owen again for finding (and lucking into) a gem, and similarly Stew for taking the risk nobody wanted to take until the reserve rounds.
Round 17
14: (13) Anibal Sanchez - SP - 6-2, 111K, 3.30/1.19 (Austin)
13: (12) Mike Adams - RP - 1 SV, 41K, 1.17/0.65 (Stew)
12: (1) AJ Burnett - SP - 8-7, 91K, 4.12/1.26 (Tom)
11: (14) RA Dickey - SP - 4-7, 74K, 3.68/1.34 (Chris J)
10: (3) Jake Peavy - SP - 4-1, 36K, 4.47/1.08 (James)
9: (5) Matt Capps - RP - 13 SV, 21K, 4.63/1.11 (Ryan)
8: (6) Tyler Clippard - RP - 0 SV, 59K, 1.91/0.85 (Chris T)
7: (10) Brian Duensing - SP/RP - 6-7, 68K, 4.25/1.46 (Shawn)
6: (11) Carlos Ruiz - C - .254/.355/.348 21-18-0 (Kyle)
5: (9) Denard Span - OF - .294/.361/.385 32-15-4 (Fabian)
4: (8) Bronson Arroyo - SP - 7-7, 61K, 5.49/1.42 (Paul)
3: (7) Magglio Ordonez - OF - .209/.284/.281 11-11-0 (Owen)
2: (2) David Aardsma - RP - 0, 0, N/A (Mike)
1: (4) Hong-Chih Kuo - RP - 0 SV, 13K, 9.72/2.04 (Joe)
Round 18
14: (13) Gavin Floyd - SP - 6-8, 77K, 4.17/1.20 (Mike)
13: (7) Koji Uehara - RP - 0 SV, 50K, 2.13/0.79 (Paul)
12: (14) Sergio Romo - RP - 0 SV, 38K, 2.36/0.86 (Tom)
11: (1) Ivan Nova - SP - 8-4. 51K, 4.12/1.47 (Chris J)
10: (2) Alfonso Soriano - OF - .264/.306/.485 30-37-1 (Austin)
9: (6) James McDonald - SP - 5-4, 74K, 4.40/1.59 (Fabian)
8: (10) Carl Pavano - SP - 5-6, 49K, 4.19/1.30 (Ryan)
7: (11) Derek Holland - SP - 6-4, 75K, 5.10/1.54 (Joe)
6: (5) James Loney - 1B - .281/.322/.360 23-31-3 (Shawn)
5: (9) Luke Scott - 1B/OF - .223/.305/.408 24-22-1 (Chris T)
4: (8) Brandon Belt - 1B - .211/.328/.281 7-4-2 (Owen)
3: (3) Evan Meek - RP - 0 SV, 12K, 4.40/1.88 (Stew)
2: (4) Rafael Soriano - RP - 1 SV, 10K, 5.40/1.73 (Kyle)
1: (12) John Lackey - SP - 5-8, 45K, 7.47/1.63 (James)
Skimping on the text commentary because I don't have much to say. Obvious lucky picks are obvious, obvious goats are obvious.
Updated scores:
1: Chris J (150) [+1]
2: Owen (145) [-1]
3: Chris T (134)
4: Austin (128)
5: Stew (120) [+3]
6: Tom (117) [+3]
7: Mike (115) [-2]
8: Kyle (109) [-1]
9: Shawn (108) [-4]
10: Paul (104)
10: Ryan (104) [+1]
12: Fabian (95)
13: James (75) [+1]
14: Joe (71) [-1]
14: (3) Carlos Beltran - OF - .282/.372/.486 42-53-3 (Stew)
13: (8) Ryan Madson - RP - 15 SV, 34K, 2.03/1.19 (Owen)
12: (1) Neil Walker - 2B/3B - .248/.320/.381 41-51-4 (Chris J)
11: (9) Jon Rauch - RP - 7 SV, 23K, 4.05/1.17 (Chris T)
10: (12) Ryan Theriot - 2B/SS - .293/.344/.350 32-28-4 (James)
9: (4) Angel Pagan - OF - .263/.346/.371 28-24-13 (Kyle)
8: (14) Juan Pierre - OF - .262/.320/.306 35-20-11 (Tom)
7: (10) Rajai Davis - OF - .234/.263/.347 28-17-18 (Ryan)
6: (13) Andres Torres - OF - .222/.321/.357 28-13-8 (Mike)
5: (2) Kurt Suzuki - C - .217/.289/.324 23-18-2 (Austin)
4: (6) Hisanori Takahashi - SP/RP - 0 SV, 29K, 3.41/1.28 (Fabian)
3: (7) Octavio Dotel - RP - 1 SV, 25K, 4.35/1.35 (Paul)
2: (5) Jeff Niemann - SP - 2-4, 24K, 5.58/1.41 (Shawn)
1: (11) Chone Figgins - 2B/3B - .190/.239/.255 21-14-8 (Joe)
This awful round is brought to you by everybody listening to the "get stolen bases cheap" advice of fantasy baseball publications near you. Like "don't pay for saves", that strategy isn't working out so well. I had significant issues ranking everything from Pagan down, so those four outfielders could probably go in any order.
Kudos to Owen again for finding (and lucking into) a gem, and similarly Stew for taking the risk nobody wanted to take until the reserve rounds.
Round 17
14: (13) Anibal Sanchez - SP - 6-2, 111K, 3.30/1.19 (Austin)
13: (12) Mike Adams - RP - 1 SV, 41K, 1.17/0.65 (Stew)
12: (1) AJ Burnett - SP - 8-7, 91K, 4.12/1.26 (Tom)
11: (14) RA Dickey - SP - 4-7, 74K, 3.68/1.34 (Chris J)
10: (3) Jake Peavy - SP - 4-1, 36K, 4.47/1.08 (James)
9: (5) Matt Capps - RP - 13 SV, 21K, 4.63/1.11 (Ryan)
8: (6) Tyler Clippard - RP - 0 SV, 59K, 1.91/0.85 (Chris T)
7: (10) Brian Duensing - SP/RP - 6-7, 68K, 4.25/1.46 (Shawn)
6: (11) Carlos Ruiz - C - .254/.355/.348 21-18-0 (Kyle)
5: (9) Denard Span - OF - .294/.361/.385 32-15-4 (Fabian)
4: (8) Bronson Arroyo - SP - 7-7, 61K, 5.49/1.42 (Paul)
3: (7) Magglio Ordonez - OF - .209/.284/.281 11-11-0 (Owen)
2: (2) David Aardsma - RP - 0, 0, N/A (Mike)
1: (4) Hong-Chih Kuo - RP - 0 SV, 13K, 9.72/2.04 (Joe)
Round 18
14: (13) Gavin Floyd - SP - 6-8, 77K, 4.17/1.20 (Mike)
13: (7) Koji Uehara - RP - 0 SV, 50K, 2.13/0.79 (Paul)
12: (14) Sergio Romo - RP - 0 SV, 38K, 2.36/0.86 (Tom)
11: (1) Ivan Nova - SP - 8-4. 51K, 4.12/1.47 (Chris J)
10: (2) Alfonso Soriano - OF - .264/.306/.485 30-37-1 (Austin)
9: (6) James McDonald - SP - 5-4, 74K, 4.40/1.59 (Fabian)
8: (10) Carl Pavano - SP - 5-6, 49K, 4.19/1.30 (Ryan)
7: (11) Derek Holland - SP - 6-4, 75K, 5.10/1.54 (Joe)
6: (5) James Loney - 1B - .281/.322/.360 23-31-3 (Shawn)
5: (9) Luke Scott - 1B/OF - .223/.305/.408 24-22-1 (Chris T)
4: (8) Brandon Belt - 1B - .211/.328/.281 7-4-2 (Owen)
3: (3) Evan Meek - RP - 0 SV, 12K, 4.40/1.88 (Stew)
2: (4) Rafael Soriano - RP - 1 SV, 10K, 5.40/1.73 (Kyle)
1: (12) John Lackey - SP - 5-8, 45K, 7.47/1.63 (James)
Skimping on the text commentary because I don't have much to say. Obvious lucky picks are obvious, obvious goats are obvious.
Updated scores:
1: Chris J (150) [+1]
2: Owen (145) [-1]
3: Chris T (134)
4: Austin (128)
5: Stew (120) [+3]
6: Tom (117) [+3]
7: Mike (115) [-2]
8: Kyle (109) [-1]
9: Shawn (108) [-4]
10: Paul (104)
10: Ryan (104) [+1]
12: Fabian (95)
13: James (75) [+1]
14: Joe (71) [-1]
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Draft Analysis pt4
Round 13
14: (10) Jair Jurrjens - SP - 10-3, 55K, 2.07/1.14 (Shawn)
13: (6) Gio Gonzalez - SP - 7-5, 99K, 2.38/1.24 (Chris T)
12: (1) Jordan Zimmerman - SP - 5-6, 67K, 2.85/1.11 (Tom)
11: (12) Hiroki Kuroda - SP - 5-9, 77K, 3.10/1.25 (Stew)
10: (14) Michael Cuddyer - INF/OF - .286/.351/.454 33-30-7 (Chris J)
9: (13) Ervin Santana - SP - 3-8, 92K, 4.08/1.28 (Austin)
8: (7) Jorge De La Rosa - SP - 5-2, 52K, 3.51/1.19 (Owen)
7: (9) Kelly Johnson - 2B - .213/.292/.420 43-34-8 (Fabian)
6: (3) Wade Davis - SP - 7-5, 43K, 4.32/1.44 (James)
5: (5) Torii Hunter - OF - .242/.313/.372 32-39-2 (Ryan)
4: (8) Frank Francisco - RP - 8 SV, 26K, 4.50/1.64 (Paul)
3: (11) Vernon Wells - OF - .219/.251/.386 31-26-2 (Kyle)
2: (4) Joe Nathan - RP - 3 SV, 17K, 7.27/1.56 (Joe)
1: (2) Javier Vazquez - SP/RP - 4-8, 59K, 5.83/1.58 (Mike)
I'm making Vazquez the goat over Nathan because the impact of a poor starter is more severe than the impact of a poor reliever. It's interesting to note how many injury gambles were made this round, and how differently they generally turned out.
De La Rosa was having himself a fine season, so it's a shame that he's out for the year. This could easily have been a top-3 pick for the round. His two good months earn him enough credit over Kelly Johnson and the crap brigade. Also, sneaky-good late pick of Cuddyer, eligible at 2B, putting up decent rate stats with enough stolen bases to justify playing him. If the Twins ever stop being awful, he could put up even more numbers.
Round 14
14: (7) Asdrubal Cabrera - SS - .292/.342/.495 52-46-12 (Paul)
13: (8) Ian Kennedy - SP - 8-2, 97K, 3.01/1.09 (Owen)
12: (3) Adam Jones - OF - .294/.339/.488 38-46-5 (Stew)
11: (1) Tim Stauffer - SP/RP - 3-5, 82K, 3.09/1.21 (Chris J)
10: (13) Bobby Abreu - OF - .288/.402/.381 30-32-13 (Mike)
9: (9) Brandon Morrow - SP - 3-4, 81K, 4.90/1.37 (Chris T)
8: (4) Edwin Jackson - SP - 4-6, 81K, 4.13/1.48 (Kyle)
7: (10) Brett Myers - SP - 3-6, 75K, 4.65/1.32 (Ryan)
6: (5) Jason Kubel - OF - .310/.355/.465 20-30-1 (Shawn)
5: (6) Jose Tabata - OF - .265/.351/.354 39-15-14 (Fabian)
4: (14) Austin Jackson - OF - .252/.316/.371 41-22-13 (Tom)
3: (12) Tsuyoshi Nishioka - 2B/SS - .206/.270/.265 2-4-1 (James)
2: (2) Fernando Rodney - RP - 3 SV, 18K, 4.09/1.41 (Austin)
1: (11) Brian Matusz - SP - 1-3, 16K, 6.85/1.84 (Joe)
Owen, I think either the Cabrera and Kennedy picks were bigger than even the Montero one. Asdrubal has taken Hanley Ramirez's numbers. Ian Kennedy has been, what, the second best pitcher taken since round 5? Just behind Jurrjens, and only barely thanks to the strikeout differential.
Mike gets bonus points for taking the fourth outfielder of the round and getting the second best one. Morrow has been a disappointment, but in terms of value, he's put up those strikeouts in far fewer starts than his contemporaries. Like last year, I have high hopes for his second half, but at this pace even a 4.50 ERA would be better than my non-Verlander roster. Thanks, Greinke & JJ Putz!
Round 15
14: (2) James Shields - SP - 8-4, 117K, 2.29/0.96 (Mike)
13: (6) David Ortiz - DH - .311/.391/.581 48-48-1 (Chris T)
12: (13) Johnny Cueto - SP - 5-2, 48K, 1.84/0.94 (Austin)
11: (14) Brandon League - RP - 21 SV, 21K, 3.58/1.10 (Chris J)
10: (1) Kyle Farnsworth - RP - 16 SV, 22K, 2.20/0.89 (Tom)
9: (11) Erick Aybar - SS - .287/.324/.437 33-33-16 (Kyle)
8: (9) Justin Masterson - SP/RP - 5-6, 75K, 2.98/1.32 (Fabian)
7: (10) Carlos Zambrano - SP/RP - 6-4, 74K, 4.38/1.34 (Shawn)
6: (5) Yadier Molina - C - .289/.337/.418 24-29-1 (Ryan)
5: (12) Daniel Bard - RP - 1 SV, 36K, 2.39/0.85 (Stew)
4: (7) Gordon Beckham - 2B - .229/.292/.338 31-21-2 (Owen)
3: (8) Manny Ramirez - OF - 0.59/0.59/0.59 0-1-0 (Paul)
2: (3) Aroldis Chapman - RP - 0 SV, 20K, 6.60/1.87 (James)
1: (4) Jake McGee - RP - 0 SV, 2K, 5.14/2.00 (Joe)
The key to success in fantasy baseball is to strike gold in round 15, apparently. Shields is an even better pick than Cabrera and Kennedy last round. Fuck you, Mike.
The bottom three requires a brief explanation. Manny Ramirez, obviously a waste of a pick, at least had the good graces to a) leave early and b) be up front about being your OF3 or U batter, so expectations had to be tempered making the selection. Chapman's been hyped since before he entered the country, and drafting him here represents some severe speculation on both his and Francisco Cordero's performance, which has obviously not worked out for James (like almost everything else this season). However, at the very least, he got you 20 strikeouts, and Cordero wasn't taken in the very same round. Jake McGee went three picks after the actual Tampa closer (though nobody knew at the time how it'd work out in that bullpen), a direct challenge to Tom's superior decision-making. He flamed out just as quickly as Manny, but with the added burden of failed promise and prospect buzz, plus you were strategically depending on him for one specific category he would never deliver.
Updated scores:
1: Owen (125)
2: Chris J (116)
3: Chris T (110) [+1]
4: Austin (99) [-1]
5: Mike (93) [+1]
5: Shawn (93) [+2]
7: Kyle (92) [-2]
8: Stew (90) [+1]
9: Tom (85) [+2]
10: Paul (84) [-2]
11: Ryan (80) [-2]
12: Fabian (77) [+1]
13: Joe (62) [-1] Aggregate points this update: 4
14: James (54)
14: (10) Jair Jurrjens - SP - 10-3, 55K, 2.07/1.14 (Shawn)
13: (6) Gio Gonzalez - SP - 7-5, 99K, 2.38/1.24 (Chris T)
12: (1) Jordan Zimmerman - SP - 5-6, 67K, 2.85/1.11 (Tom)
11: (12) Hiroki Kuroda - SP - 5-9, 77K, 3.10/1.25 (Stew)
10: (14) Michael Cuddyer - INF/OF - .286/.351/.454 33-30-7 (Chris J)
9: (13) Ervin Santana - SP - 3-8, 92K, 4.08/1.28 (Austin)
8: (7) Jorge De La Rosa - SP - 5-2, 52K, 3.51/1.19 (Owen)
7: (9) Kelly Johnson - 2B - .213/.292/.420 43-34-8 (Fabian)
6: (3) Wade Davis - SP - 7-5, 43K, 4.32/1.44 (James)
5: (5) Torii Hunter - OF - .242/.313/.372 32-39-2 (Ryan)
4: (8) Frank Francisco - RP - 8 SV, 26K, 4.50/1.64 (Paul)
3: (11) Vernon Wells - OF - .219/.251/.386 31-26-2 (Kyle)
2: (4) Joe Nathan - RP - 3 SV, 17K, 7.27/1.56 (Joe)
1: (2) Javier Vazquez - SP/RP - 4-8, 59K, 5.83/1.58 (Mike)
I'm making Vazquez the goat over Nathan because the impact of a poor starter is more severe than the impact of a poor reliever. It's interesting to note how many injury gambles were made this round, and how differently they generally turned out.
De La Rosa was having himself a fine season, so it's a shame that he's out for the year. This could easily have been a top-3 pick for the round. His two good months earn him enough credit over Kelly Johnson and the crap brigade. Also, sneaky-good late pick of Cuddyer, eligible at 2B, putting up decent rate stats with enough stolen bases to justify playing him. If the Twins ever stop being awful, he could put up even more numbers.
Round 14
14: (7) Asdrubal Cabrera - SS - .292/.342/.495 52-46-12 (Paul)
13: (8) Ian Kennedy - SP - 8-2, 97K, 3.01/1.09 (Owen)
12: (3) Adam Jones - OF - .294/.339/.488 38-46-5 (Stew)
11: (1) Tim Stauffer - SP/RP - 3-5, 82K, 3.09/1.21 (Chris J)
10: (13) Bobby Abreu - OF - .288/.402/.381 30-32-13 (Mike)
9: (9) Brandon Morrow - SP - 3-4, 81K, 4.90/1.37 (Chris T)
8: (4) Edwin Jackson - SP - 4-6, 81K, 4.13/1.48 (Kyle)
7: (10) Brett Myers - SP - 3-6, 75K, 4.65/1.32 (Ryan)
6: (5) Jason Kubel - OF - .310/.355/.465 20-30-1 (Shawn)
5: (6) Jose Tabata - OF - .265/.351/.354 39-15-14 (Fabian)
4: (14) Austin Jackson - OF - .252/.316/.371 41-22-13 (Tom)
3: (12) Tsuyoshi Nishioka - 2B/SS - .206/.270/.265 2-4-1 (James)
2: (2) Fernando Rodney - RP - 3 SV, 18K, 4.09/1.41 (Austin)
1: (11) Brian Matusz - SP - 1-3, 16K, 6.85/1.84 (Joe)
Owen, I think either the Cabrera and Kennedy picks were bigger than even the Montero one. Asdrubal has taken Hanley Ramirez's numbers. Ian Kennedy has been, what, the second best pitcher taken since round 5? Just behind Jurrjens, and only barely thanks to the strikeout differential.
Mike gets bonus points for taking the fourth outfielder of the round and getting the second best one. Morrow has been a disappointment, but in terms of value, he's put up those strikeouts in far fewer starts than his contemporaries. Like last year, I have high hopes for his second half, but at this pace even a 4.50 ERA would be better than my non-Verlander roster. Thanks, Greinke & JJ Putz!
Round 15
14: (2) James Shields - SP - 8-4, 117K, 2.29/0.96 (Mike)
13: (6) David Ortiz - DH - .311/.391/.581 48-48-1 (Chris T)
12: (13) Johnny Cueto - SP - 5-2, 48K, 1.84/0.94 (Austin)
11: (14) Brandon League - RP - 21 SV, 21K, 3.58/1.10 (Chris J)
10: (1) Kyle Farnsworth - RP - 16 SV, 22K, 2.20/0.89 (Tom)
9: (11) Erick Aybar - SS - .287/.324/.437 33-33-16 (Kyle)
8: (9) Justin Masterson - SP/RP - 5-6, 75K, 2.98/1.32 (Fabian)
7: (10) Carlos Zambrano - SP/RP - 6-4, 74K, 4.38/1.34 (Shawn)
6: (5) Yadier Molina - C - .289/.337/.418 24-29-1 (Ryan)
5: (12) Daniel Bard - RP - 1 SV, 36K, 2.39/0.85 (Stew)
4: (7) Gordon Beckham - 2B - .229/.292/.338 31-21-2 (Owen)
3: (8) Manny Ramirez - OF - 0.59/0.59/0.59 0-1-0 (Paul)
2: (3) Aroldis Chapman - RP - 0 SV, 20K, 6.60/1.87 (James)
1: (4) Jake McGee - RP - 0 SV, 2K, 5.14/2.00 (Joe)
The key to success in fantasy baseball is to strike gold in round 15, apparently. Shields is an even better pick than Cabrera and Kennedy last round. Fuck you, Mike.
The bottom three requires a brief explanation. Manny Ramirez, obviously a waste of a pick, at least had the good graces to a) leave early and b) be up front about being your OF3 or U batter, so expectations had to be tempered making the selection. Chapman's been hyped since before he entered the country, and drafting him here represents some severe speculation on both his and Francisco Cordero's performance, which has obviously not worked out for James (like almost everything else this season). However, at the very least, he got you 20 strikeouts, and Cordero wasn't taken in the very same round. Jake McGee went three picks after the actual Tampa closer (though nobody knew at the time how it'd work out in that bullpen), a direct challenge to Tom's superior decision-making. He flamed out just as quickly as Manny, but with the added burden of failed promise and prospect buzz, plus you were strategically depending on him for one specific category he would never deliver.
Updated scores:
1: Owen (125)
2: Chris J (116)
3: Chris T (110) [+1]
4: Austin (99) [-1]
5: Mike (93) [+1]
5: Shawn (93) [+2]
7: Kyle (92) [-2]
8: Stew (90) [+1]
9: Tom (85) [+2]
10: Paul (84) [-2]
11: Ryan (80) [-2]
12: Fabian (77) [+1]
13: Joe (62) [-1] Aggregate points this update: 4
14: James (54)
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Draft Analysis pt3
Round 10
14: (4) Josh Beckett - SP - 6-2, 79K, 1.86/0.92 (Kyle)
13: (11) Jhoulys Chacin - SP/RP - 8-5, 92K, 3.10/1.15 (Joe)
12: (9) JJ Putz - RP - 21 SV, 32K, 2.65/0.94 (Chris T)
11: (1) Jeremy Hellickson - SP - 7-7, 66K, 3.18/1.16 (Chris J)
10: (2) Francisco Cordero - RP - 15 SV, 26K, 1.57/0.84 (Austin)
9: (6) Carlos Pena - 1B - .227/.348/.462 35-42-0 (Fabian)
8: (13) Mike Napoli - C/1B - .221 /.344/.493 24-25-1 (Mike)
7: (3) Ian Desmond - 2B/SS - .227/.266/.318 31-22-20 (Stew)
6: (5) Nick Markakis - OF - .277/.329/.360 32-30-6 (Shawn)
5: (8) Pablo Sandoval - 1B/3B - .290/.333/.435 15-16-1 (Owen)
4: (14) Vladimir Guerrero - OF - .282/.314/.388 25-28-0 (Tom)
3: (12) Casey McGehee - 3B - .227/.280/.316 23-33-0 (James)
2: (7) Jason Bay - OF - .234/.312/.313 25-16-6 (Paul)
1: (10) Phil Hughes - SP - 0-1, 3K, 13.94/2.23 (Ryan)
The length of Sandoval's injury hurts his ranking here, though he looks to be heading into a decent second-half. I just can't justify putting him ahead of Markakis given the difference in the counting stats and that Owen's playing him at first base. Conversely, Napoli will theoretically be plugged into Mike's catcher slot, where he sees a value boost.
The Desmond ranking feels high, but the stolen bases are significant given current middle-infield output, and the rest of the list below him is equally poor (or hurt, in Sandoval's case). Putz over Cordero for the extra saves and getting him later in the round, but these were two decent closer grabs.
Round 11
14: (2) Adam Lind - 1B/OF - .314/.362/.580 33-49-1 (Mike)
13: (7) Craig Kimbrel - RP - 21 SV, 61K, 2.77/1.15 (Owen)
12: (14) Drew Storen - RP - 19 SV, 32K, 2.90/0.99 (Chris J)
11: (8) Mark Reynolds - 3B - .227/.356/.463 38-38-5 (Paul)
10: (5) Chris Pérez - RP - 19 SV, 20K, 2.45/1.23 (Ryan)
9: (11) Leo Nunez - RP - 21 SV, 35K, 3.31/1.22 (Kyle)
8: (6) Colby Rasmus - OF - .260/.346/.421 48-29-5 (Chris T)
7: (12) Matt Garza - SP - 4-6, 88K, 4.07/1.33 (Stew)
6: (3) Matt Weiters - C - .262/.316/.408 26-33-0 (James)
5: (10) Aaron Hill - 2B - .247/.291/.339 19-30-10 (Shawn)
4: (1) Brad Lidge - RP - 0 SV, 0K, N/A (Tom)
3: (13) Ryan Franklin - RP - 1 SV, 17K, 7.90/1.76 (Austin)
2: (4) Pedro Alvarez - 3B - .208/.283/.304 12-10-1 (Joe)
1: (9) Brandon Lyon - RP - 4 SV, 6K, 11.48/2.40 (Fabian)
Like many of Mike's serendipitous draft picks, Lind was a late steal. The developing Mark Reynolds resurgence is nice for Baltimore and Canada. Of course my pick stopped hitting after April and is probably going to get benched next week for the other outfielder I have who himself was just temporarily benched by his manager for similarly not hitting in June. It only goes down from here.
Lidge over Lyon because at least Lidge on your DL didn't destroy your stats for three weeks. The bottom four were nearly interchangeable, with the major difference being the degree of media schadenfreude on display during their respective collapses or absences.
Round 12
14: (7) Ricky Romero - SP - 7-7, 96K, 2.74/1.16 (Paul)
13: (1) Miguel Montero - C - .277/.349/.471 37-40-1 (Chris J)
12: (8) Daniel Hudson - SP - 9-5, 87K, 3.58/1.19 (Owen)
11: (5) Carlos Quentin - OF - .258/.358/.534 34-49-1 (Shawn)
10: (4) Jaime Garcia - SP - 6-3, 88K, 3.06/1.22 (Kyle)
9: (6) CJ Wilson - SP - 7-3, 97K, 3.17/1.23 (Fabian)
8: (11) Michael Bourn - OF - .282/.351/.390 50-26-33 (Joe)
7: (2) Howie Kendrick - 2B/OF - .301/.358/.479 38-26-8 (Austin)
6: (13) Joel Hanrahan - RP - 22 SV, 31K, 1.24/0.94 (Mike)
5: (10) Kevin Gregg - RP - 14 SV, 24K, 3.26/1.45 (Ryan)
4: (3) Jonny Venters - RP - 3 SV, 51K, 1.29/0.94 (Stew)
3: (12) Grady Sizemore - OF - .225/.294/.445 23-20-0 (James)
2: (14) Aubrey Huff - 1B/OF - .244/.293/.387 24-39-3 (Tom)
1: (9) Rafael Furcal - SS - .212/.246/.273 7-5-2 (Chris T)
It frustrates me to now fully understand how good this draft round was, and how I essentially wasn't part of it. I wanted to take a pitcher this round, but after seeing all the top names go immediately before me (including the crushing Hudson pick) I think I let myself get flustered, and made a panicked positional fill instead of getting someone good. I could have had Hanrahan and maybe halved my blown save total on the year. I am now angry.
Updated scores:
1: Owen (100)
2: Chris J (84) [+3]
3: Austin (76) [-1]
4: Chris T (75) [-1]
5: Kyle (72) [+5]
6: Mike (68) [+3]
7: Shawn (66)
8: Paul (63) [+4]
9: Ryan (62) [-3]
9: Stew (62) [-2]
11: Tom (59) [-7]
12: Joe (58) [+1]
13: Fabian (57) [-2]
14: James (43)
Consider this the ASB, midway through the contest. Owen has a commanding lead, but will it hold up in the second half? Will Tom halt his freefall into the draft dumpster? Who drafts a Cy Young candidate in round 13 and how many more points does he earn than Mike's pick? (Hint: the answer is 13)
14: (4) Josh Beckett - SP - 6-2, 79K, 1.86/0.92 (Kyle)
13: (11) Jhoulys Chacin - SP/RP - 8-5, 92K, 3.10/1.15 (Joe)
12: (9) JJ Putz - RP - 21 SV, 32K, 2.65/0.94 (Chris T)
11: (1) Jeremy Hellickson - SP - 7-7, 66K, 3.18/1.16 (Chris J)
10: (2) Francisco Cordero - RP - 15 SV, 26K, 1.57/0.84 (Austin)
9: (6) Carlos Pena - 1B - .227/.348/.462 35-42-0 (Fabian)
8: (13) Mike Napoli - C/1B - .221 /.344/.493 24-25-1 (Mike)
7: (3) Ian Desmond - 2B/SS - .227/.266/.318 31-22-20 (Stew)
6: (5) Nick Markakis - OF - .277/.329/.360 32-30-6 (Shawn)
5: (8) Pablo Sandoval - 1B/3B - .290/.333/.435 15-16-1 (Owen)
4: (14) Vladimir Guerrero - OF - .282/.314/.388 25-28-0 (Tom)
3: (12) Casey McGehee - 3B - .227/.280/.316 23-33-0 (James)
2: (7) Jason Bay - OF - .234/.312/.313 25-16-6 (Paul)
1: (10) Phil Hughes - SP - 0-1, 3K, 13.94/2.23 (Ryan)
The length of Sandoval's injury hurts his ranking here, though he looks to be heading into a decent second-half. I just can't justify putting him ahead of Markakis given the difference in the counting stats and that Owen's playing him at first base. Conversely, Napoli will theoretically be plugged into Mike's catcher slot, where he sees a value boost.
The Desmond ranking feels high, but the stolen bases are significant given current middle-infield output, and the rest of the list below him is equally poor (or hurt, in Sandoval's case). Putz over Cordero for the extra saves and getting him later in the round, but these were two decent closer grabs.
Round 11
14: (2) Adam Lind - 1B/OF - .314/.362/.580 33-49-1 (Mike)
13: (7) Craig Kimbrel - RP - 21 SV, 61K, 2.77/1.15 (Owen)
12: (14) Drew Storen - RP - 19 SV, 32K, 2.90/0.99 (Chris J)
11: (8) Mark Reynolds - 3B - .227/.356/.463 38-38-5 (Paul)
10: (5) Chris Pérez - RP - 19 SV, 20K, 2.45/1.23 (Ryan)
9: (11) Leo Nunez - RP - 21 SV, 35K, 3.31/1.22 (Kyle)
8: (6) Colby Rasmus - OF - .260/.346/.421 48-29-5 (Chris T)
7: (12) Matt Garza - SP - 4-6, 88K, 4.07/1.33 (Stew)
6: (3) Matt Weiters - C - .262/.316/.408 26-33-0 (James)
5: (10) Aaron Hill - 2B - .247/.291/.339 19-30-10 (Shawn)
4: (1) Brad Lidge - RP - 0 SV, 0K, N/A (Tom)
3: (13) Ryan Franklin - RP - 1 SV, 17K, 7.90/1.76 (Austin)
2: (4) Pedro Alvarez - 3B - .208/.283/.304 12-10-1 (Joe)
1: (9) Brandon Lyon - RP - 4 SV, 6K, 11.48/2.40 (Fabian)
Like many of Mike's serendipitous draft picks, Lind was a late steal. The developing Mark Reynolds resurgence is nice for Baltimore and Canada. Of course my pick stopped hitting after April and is probably going to get benched next week for the other outfielder I have who himself was just temporarily benched by his manager for similarly not hitting in June. It only goes down from here.
Lidge over Lyon because at least Lidge on your DL didn't destroy your stats for three weeks. The bottom four were nearly interchangeable, with the major difference being the degree of media schadenfreude on display during their respective collapses or absences.
Round 12
14: (7) Ricky Romero - SP - 7-7, 96K, 2.74/1.16 (Paul)
13: (1) Miguel Montero - C - .277/.349/.471 37-40-1 (Chris J)
12: (8) Daniel Hudson - SP - 9-5, 87K, 3.58/1.19 (Owen)
11: (5) Carlos Quentin - OF - .258/.358/.534 34-49-1 (Shawn)
10: (4) Jaime Garcia - SP - 6-3, 88K, 3.06/1.22 (Kyle)
9: (6) CJ Wilson - SP - 7-3, 97K, 3.17/1.23 (Fabian)
8: (11) Michael Bourn - OF - .282/.351/.390 50-26-33 (Joe)
7: (2) Howie Kendrick - 2B/OF - .301/.358/.479 38-26-8 (Austin)
6: (13) Joel Hanrahan - RP - 22 SV, 31K, 1.24/0.94 (Mike)
5: (10) Kevin Gregg - RP - 14 SV, 24K, 3.26/1.45 (Ryan)
4: (3) Jonny Venters - RP - 3 SV, 51K, 1.29/0.94 (Stew)
3: (12) Grady Sizemore - OF - .225/.294/.445 23-20-0 (James)
2: (14) Aubrey Huff - 1B/OF - .244/.293/.387 24-39-3 (Tom)
1: (9) Rafael Furcal - SS - .212/.246/.273 7-5-2 (Chris T)
It frustrates me to now fully understand how good this draft round was, and how I essentially wasn't part of it. I wanted to take a pitcher this round, but after seeing all the top names go immediately before me (including the crushing Hudson pick) I think I let myself get flustered, and made a panicked positional fill instead of getting someone good. I could have had Hanrahan and maybe halved my blown save total on the year. I am now angry.
Updated scores:
1: Owen (100)
2: Chris J (84) [+3]
3: Austin (76) [-1]
4: Chris T (75) [-1]
5: Kyle (72) [+5]
6: Mike (68) [+3]
7: Shawn (66)
8: Paul (63) [+4]
9: Ryan (62) [-3]
9: Stew (62) [-2]
11: Tom (59) [-7]
12: Joe (58) [+1]
13: Fabian (57) [-2]
14: James (43)
Consider this the ASB, midway through the contest. Owen has a commanding lead, but will it hold up in the second half? Will Tom halt his freefall into the draft dumpster? Who drafts a Cy Young candidate in round 13 and how many more points does he earn than Mike's pick? (Hint: the answer is 13)
Draft Analysis pt2
Round 7
14: (6) Rickie Weeks - 2B - .290/.360/.498 56-33-7 (Chris T)
13: (13) Trevor Cahill - SP - 8-5, 80K, 3.09/1.29 (Austin)
12: (10) Starlin Castro - SS - .325/.355/.446 43-37-10 (Shawn)
11: (1) Heath Bell - RP - 21 SV, 25K, 2.53/1.13 (Tom)
10: (3) Madison Bumgarner - SP - 4-9, 77K, 3.84/1.36 (James)
9: (7) Jonathan Papelbon - RP - 14 SV, 40K, 3.90/1.17 (Owen)
8: (2) Ryan Dempster - SP - 5-6, 92K, 5.31/1.49 (Mike)
7: (8) Clay Buchholz - SP - 6-3, 60K, 3.48/1.29 (Paul)
6: (4) Stephen Drew - SS - .271/.343/.417 42-42-4 (Joe)
5: (5) Alexei Ramirez - SS - .284/.341/.413 46-35-3 (Ryan)
4: (9) Chad Billingsley - SP - 7-6, 90K, 4.22/1.49 (Fabian)
3: (14) Ted Lilly - SP - 5-7, 68K, 4.63/1.26 (Chris J)
2: (11) Wandy Rodriguez - SP - 5-4, 69K, 3.21/1.31 (Kyle)
1: (12) Alex Rios - OF - .224/.275/.332 36-20-5 (Stew)
I'll take the victory lap here for the middle infielder slugging .500 ahead of a monster lineup. This is an interesting round for the shortstop comparisons, to note how Ramirez and Drew are basically the same player right now. Starlin Castro is the surprise of the group clearly, though I'm not sure he can sustain the BA that's sustaining his OBP.
I hated Austin's Cahill pick at the time, but it's looking like a worthwhile investment after the fact, especially considering my later pick of Brett Anderson and how that's worked out. Based on preseason ranks, Alex Rios should have been the steal of the round, so I'm happy to see karmic comeuppance for Stew's Bautista pick.
Ryan Dempster may look high on this list when comparing his ratio stats to the other pitchers, but I've decided that the 20-30 strikeout difference is significant now and will be more significant when he ends the year at his usual 200 K. He's also been better lately than at the start of the season, so that gets the nod over an injured Buchholz and the borderline guys at the bottom of the round.
Round 8
14: (1) Curtis Granderson - OF - .276/.360/.572 68-55-12 (Chris J)
13: (14) Michael Young - 2B/3B - .323/.358/.481 34-53-4 (Tom)
12: (2) Shane Victorino - OF - .292/.359/.498 47-29-12 (Austin)
11: (8) John Axford - RP - 20 SV, 46K, 2.55/1.33 (Owen)
10: (5) Huston Street - RP - 23 SV, 32K, 3.53/1.18 (Shawn)
9: (13) Colby Lewis - SP - 6-7, 77K, 4.44/1.26 (Mike)
8: (12) Drew Stubbs - OF - .255/.326/.404 54-32-23 (James)
7: (3) Martin Prado - 2B/3B - .277/.324/.438 36-33-2 (Stew)
6: (7) Francisco Rodriguez - RP - 20 SV, 41K, 3.65/1.46 (Paul)
5: (10) BJ Upton - OF - .224/.311/.390 40-41-20 (Ryan)
4: (11) Ricky Nolasco - SP - 4-4, 77K, 4.44/1.37 (Joe)
3: (9) Brett Anderson - SP - 3-6, 61K, 4.00/1.33 (Chris T)
2: (4) Andrew Bailey - RP - 5 SV, 7K, 0.96/0.75 (Kyle)
1: (6) Edinson Volquez - SP - 4-3, 75K, 5.77/1.68 (Fabian)
Not much to say here, other than that being hurt (Anderson, Bailey) is still better than actively harming your team (Volquez). In overall fantasy Anderson hasn't been awful, since he compiled those strikeouts fairly quickly without destroying my ratios, and has allowed me to start other people in the weeks he's missed. As a singular pick, however, there's obvious disappointment, and who knows whether he'll recover to be useful again this season.
I'm crediting Chris with the best pick despite being at the top of the round because Granderson wasn't an obvious choice. In overall value, I think the guys slugging .480 are always just a little better than mid-tier closers, but Axford and Street weren't bad picks at all. Colby Lewis was my big question mark in terms of ranking. I gave Mike a little extra credit for picking at the back end of the round, and I think his category contributions narrowly edge those of Stubbs and Upton.
Round 9
14: (11) Ben Zobrist - 2B/OF - .271/.351/.481 52-40-7 (Kyle)
13: (14) Chris Young - OF - .257/.324/.486 51-42-9 (Chris J)
12: (5) Tim Hudson - SP - 6-6, 70K, 3.51/1.11 (Ryan)
11: (10) José Valverde - RP - 18 SV, 32K, 2.43/1.23 (Shawn)
10: (7) Jonathan Sanchez - SP - 4-5, 92K, 3.81/1.42 (Owen)
9: (6) Aramis Ramirez - 3B - .289/.337/.446 39-37-0 (Chris T)
8: (8) Billy Butler - 1B - .302/.402/.435 33-34-1 (Paul)
7: (13) Corey Hart - OF - .271/.355/.480 25-22-2 (Austin)
6: (9) Brett Gardner - OF - .281/.360/.420 39-18-16 (Fabian)
5: (12) John Danks - SP - 3-8, 65K, 4.21/1.35 (Stew)
4: (4) Geovany Soto - C - .227/.322/.416 22-18-0 (Joe)
3: (1) Jorge Posada - C - .234/.327/.411 17-25-0 (Tom)
2: (2) Matt Thornton - RP - 2 SV, 27K, 3.86/1.79 (Mike)
1: (3) Delmon Young - OF - .256/.281/.324 21-20-1 (James)
Brutal first four picks down there at the bottom. I ranked the catchers above Thornton and Young because they still have some room for improvement, at a scarce position. Hart's coming into some nice stats but is penalized for missing a quarter of the season (and I'm kicking myself for not picking him up when I had the opportunity).
This list probably looks different five games ago (or even yesterday) when Aramis Ramirez's SLG was at .409 instead of .446. That said, he's a notorious second-half batter, and his contributions at a battered position still beat Butler's at 1B, or Gardner.
Updated scores:
1: Owen (70)
2: Austin (56) [+3]
3: Chris T (54)
4: Tom (49) [+3]
5: Chris J (48) [+6]
6: Ryan (46) [-1]
7: Stew (44) [-5]
7: Shawn (44) [+7]
9: Mike (40) [-1]
10: Kyle (39) [-2]
11: Fabian (38) [-7]
12: Paul (36)
13: Joe (35) [-5]
14: James (31) [-1]
14: (6) Rickie Weeks - 2B - .290/.360/.498 56-33-7 (Chris T)
13: (13) Trevor Cahill - SP - 8-5, 80K, 3.09/1.29 (Austin)
12: (10) Starlin Castro - SS - .325/.355/.446 43-37-10 (Shawn)
11: (1) Heath Bell - RP - 21 SV, 25K, 2.53/1.13 (Tom)
10: (3) Madison Bumgarner - SP - 4-9, 77K, 3.84/1.36 (James)
9: (7) Jonathan Papelbon - RP - 14 SV, 40K, 3.90/1.17 (Owen)
8: (2) Ryan Dempster - SP - 5-6, 92K, 5.31/1.49 (Mike)
7: (8) Clay Buchholz - SP - 6-3, 60K, 3.48/1.29 (Paul)
6: (4) Stephen Drew - SS - .271/.343/.417 42-42-4 (Joe)
5: (5) Alexei Ramirez - SS - .284/.341/.413 46-35-3 (Ryan)
4: (9) Chad Billingsley - SP - 7-6, 90K, 4.22/1.49 (Fabian)
3: (14) Ted Lilly - SP - 5-7, 68K, 4.63/1.26 (Chris J)
2: (11) Wandy Rodriguez - SP - 5-4, 69K, 3.21/1.31 (Kyle)
1: (12) Alex Rios - OF - .224/.275/.332 36-20-5 (Stew)
I'll take the victory lap here for the middle infielder slugging .500 ahead of a monster lineup. This is an interesting round for the shortstop comparisons, to note how Ramirez and Drew are basically the same player right now. Starlin Castro is the surprise of the group clearly, though I'm not sure he can sustain the BA that's sustaining his OBP.
I hated Austin's Cahill pick at the time, but it's looking like a worthwhile investment after the fact, especially considering my later pick of Brett Anderson and how that's worked out. Based on preseason ranks, Alex Rios should have been the steal of the round, so I'm happy to see karmic comeuppance for Stew's Bautista pick.
Ryan Dempster may look high on this list when comparing his ratio stats to the other pitchers, but I've decided that the 20-30 strikeout difference is significant now and will be more significant when he ends the year at his usual 200 K. He's also been better lately than at the start of the season, so that gets the nod over an injured Buchholz and the borderline guys at the bottom of the round.
Round 8
14: (1) Curtis Granderson - OF - .276/.360/.572 68-55-12 (Chris J)
13: (14) Michael Young - 2B/3B - .323/.358/.481 34-53-4 (Tom)
12: (2) Shane Victorino - OF - .292/.359/.498 47-29-12 (Austin)
11: (8) John Axford - RP - 20 SV, 46K, 2.55/1.33 (Owen)
10: (5) Huston Street - RP - 23 SV, 32K, 3.53/1.18 (Shawn)
9: (13) Colby Lewis - SP - 6-7, 77K, 4.44/1.26 (Mike)
8: (12) Drew Stubbs - OF - .255/.326/.404 54-32-23 (James)
7: (3) Martin Prado - 2B/3B - .277/.324/.438 36-33-2 (Stew)
6: (7) Francisco Rodriguez - RP - 20 SV, 41K, 3.65/1.46 (Paul)
5: (10) BJ Upton - OF - .224/.311/.390 40-41-20 (Ryan)
4: (11) Ricky Nolasco - SP - 4-4, 77K, 4.44/1.37 (Joe)
3: (9) Brett Anderson - SP - 3-6, 61K, 4.00/1.33 (Chris T)
2: (4) Andrew Bailey - RP - 5 SV, 7K, 0.96/0.75 (Kyle)
1: (6) Edinson Volquez - SP - 4-3, 75K, 5.77/1.68 (Fabian)
Not much to say here, other than that being hurt (Anderson, Bailey) is still better than actively harming your team (Volquez). In overall fantasy Anderson hasn't been awful, since he compiled those strikeouts fairly quickly without destroying my ratios, and has allowed me to start other people in the weeks he's missed. As a singular pick, however, there's obvious disappointment, and who knows whether he'll recover to be useful again this season.
I'm crediting Chris with the best pick despite being at the top of the round because Granderson wasn't an obvious choice. In overall value, I think the guys slugging .480 are always just a little better than mid-tier closers, but Axford and Street weren't bad picks at all. Colby Lewis was my big question mark in terms of ranking. I gave Mike a little extra credit for picking at the back end of the round, and I think his category contributions narrowly edge those of Stubbs and Upton.
Round 9
14: (11) Ben Zobrist - 2B/OF - .271/.351/.481 52-40-7 (Kyle)
13: (14) Chris Young - OF - .257/.324/.486 51-42-9 (Chris J)
12: (5) Tim Hudson - SP - 6-6, 70K, 3.51/1.11 (Ryan)
11: (10) José Valverde - RP - 18 SV, 32K, 2.43/1.23 (Shawn)
10: (7) Jonathan Sanchez - SP - 4-5, 92K, 3.81/1.42 (Owen)
9: (6) Aramis Ramirez - 3B - .289/.337/.446 39-37-0 (Chris T)
8: (8) Billy Butler - 1B - .302/.402/.435 33-34-1 (Paul)
7: (13) Corey Hart - OF - .271/.355/.480 25-22-2 (Austin)
6: (9) Brett Gardner - OF - .281/.360/.420 39-18-16 (Fabian)
5: (12) John Danks - SP - 3-8, 65K, 4.21/1.35 (Stew)
4: (4) Geovany Soto - C - .227/.322/.416 22-18-0 (Joe)
3: (1) Jorge Posada - C - .234/.327/.411 17-25-0 (Tom)
2: (2) Matt Thornton - RP - 2 SV, 27K, 3.86/1.79 (Mike)
1: (3) Delmon Young - OF - .256/.281/.324 21-20-1 (James)
Brutal first four picks down there at the bottom. I ranked the catchers above Thornton and Young because they still have some room for improvement, at a scarce position. Hart's coming into some nice stats but is penalized for missing a quarter of the season (and I'm kicking myself for not picking him up when I had the opportunity).
This list probably looks different five games ago (or even yesterday) when Aramis Ramirez's SLG was at .409 instead of .446. That said, he's a notorious second-half batter, and his contributions at a battered position still beat Butler's at 1B, or Gardner.
Updated scores:
1: Owen (70)
2: Austin (56) [+3]
3: Chris T (54)
4: Tom (49) [+3]
5: Chris J (48) [+6]
6: Ryan (46) [-1]
7: Stew (44) [-5]
7: Shawn (44) [+7]
9: Mike (40) [-1]
10: Kyle (39) [-2]
11: Fabian (38) [-7]
12: Paul (36)
13: Joe (35) [-5]
14: James (31) [-1]
Monday, June 27, 2011
2011 Fantasy Draft Analysis, hindsight version (pt1)
I've got an empty afternoon, so I've decided I'm going to determine who had the best and worst draft.
Methodology: Going round by round, I'll list the current 2011 stats of each player taken, and rank them in the subjective order I believe represents best to worst. Player availability and positional scarcity/relativism will be factored in, so snagging Jose Bautista early in round 1 (4) doesn't necessarily guarantee the best pick in the round, since somebody later on could have made a smarter choice within the remaining player pool (however with lower overall stats). Top pick gets 14 points, next 13, next 12, down to one point. The highest aggregate sum will be the "winner" of the draft and earn himself receipt of some mild trash talking if he isn't in first place in the hybrid standings.
Format
[points earned]: (number of pick within round) Player Name - Position - [BA/OBP/SLG R-RBI-SB] or [W-L or SV, K, ERA/WHIP] (owner)
Round 4
14: (8) José Reyes - SS - .341/.385/.514 61-32-28 (Owen)
13: (3) José Bautista - OF/3B - .325/.468/.655 60-48-5 (Stew)
12: (9) Justin Verlander - SP - 10-3, 124K, 2.38/0.84 (Chris T)
11: (1) Kevin Youkilis - 1B/3B - .275/.394/.494 46-55-1 (Chris J)
10: (7) Victor Martinez - C - .333/.383/.494 35-44-0 (Paul)
9: (2) Andrew McCutchen - OF - .285/.388/.463 45-39-15 (Austin)
8: (11) Andre Ethier - OF - .317/.389/.461 38-37-0 (Joe)
7: (6) Ryan Howard - 1B - .253/.352/.484 39-62-1 (Fabian)
6: (12) Hunter Pence - OF - .315/.356/.490 35-52-4 (James)
5: (13) Ian Kinsler - 2B - .235/.352/.393 52-25-15 (Mike)
4: (4) Matt Cain - SP - 7-4, 89K, 3.22/1.11 (Kyle)
3: (10) Jayson Werth - OF - .228/.334/.399 36-27-10 (Ryan)
2: (14) Brandon Phillips - 2B - .291/.345/.405 48-41-4 (Tom)
1: (5) Buster Posey - C/1B - .284/.368/.389 17-21-3 (Shawn)
José Bautista is obviously playing out of his mind, but in the hindsight analysis I'm having a hard time crediting Stew for the pick more than Owen's gutsier selection of Reyes in the middle of the round. After multiple injury-plagued and power-depleted seasons, Owen (after not keeping him) went back to the well one more time, and is being rewarded with a mess of stolen bases on top of OBP/SLG production from the SS slot higher than the first basemen and outfielders that went in the same round.
I struggled with the Matt Cain pick because while Cain's having a very nice Cain-like season, he came off the board ahead of Verlander. Yahoo's ranking system has him sandwiched between Brian Wilson and Josh Johnson, on the second page. Between RP and DL is no place for your best pitcher.
However, using the hindsight rule, the Cain pick still works out better than Jayson Werth, Brandon Phillips, and Buster Posey, all of whom I think are playing at free agency levels or worse right now.
Round 5
14: (7) Jacoby Ellsbury - OF - .303/.366/.461 55-39-25 (Owen)
13: (2) Jered Weaver - SP - 9-4, 106K, 1.97/0.93 (Mike)
12: (1) Cole Hamels - SP - 9-4, 108K, 2.49/0.96 (Tom)
11: (12) Shaun Marcum - SP - 7-2, 86K, 2.95/1.06 (Stew)
10: (6) Zack Greinke - SP - 7-2, 80K, 4.77/1.16 (Chris T)
9: (9) Brian McCann - C - .300/.379/.512 27-43-2 (Fabian)
8: (10) Yovani Gallardo - SP - 9-4, 94K, 3.92/1.41 (Shawn)
7: (5) Mat Latos - SP - 4-8, 76K, 4.22/1.40 (Ryan)
6: (13) Ichiro Suzuki - OF - .273/.319/.326 40-21-19 (Austin)
5: (3) Roy Oswalt - SP - 4-6, 42K, 3.79/1.33 (James)
4: (11) Carlos Marmol - RP - 16 SV, 45K, 2.62/1.28 (Kyle)
3: (4) Dan Uggla - 2B - .177/.244/.334 33-27-1 (Joe)
2: (14) Derek Jeter - SS - .260/.324/.324 39-20-7 (Chris J)
1: (8) Kendrys Morales - 1B - .000/.000/.000 0-0-0 (Paul)
This was a strange round, neatly divided into seven good picks and seven poor ones, made easier by ranking from the bottom up. Morales is clearly the goat of the draft, after having another season-ending surgery. There was a fierce battle between Jeter and Uggla for next worst, but I decided that at least Uggla still has some upside, whereas this is probably the true value of Jeter to fantasy. Ichiro and Marmol had another contest of futility, with Ichiro's speed winning versus the fact that there were 31.5 remaining closers available.
Kudos to Owen for winning the round yet again by listening to the tintinabulation of his giant steel balls and taking Ellsbury way before every single draft guide suggested he should go. Perhaps he's benefitting from unsustainable half-seasons, but until Ellsbury stops hitting homeruns and Reyes pulls six hamstrings he'll be enjoying Ethier-level rate stats along with league-leading stolen base totals.
Mike and Tom benefitted more from draft position than sage picks but I still had to credit them for the right calls (making up for last round's second basemen) above the other pitchers and positional players taken this round. Greinke's ERA looks awful, but under the hood his peripherals are great, and he's already matched Marcum's win/strikeout/WHIP production despite missing a month. Marcum still gets the higher nod for the ERA and the later pick, though.
Round 6
14: (10) Paul Konerko - 1B - .324/.395/.588 39-60-1 (Ryan)
13: (4) Jay Bruce - OF - .274/.346/.507 46-49-6 (Kyle)
12: (8) Mike Stanton - OF - .259/.341/.533 39-44-1 (Owen)
11: (6) Elvis Andrus - SS - .278/.323/.347 45-30-22 (Fabian)
10: (11) Mariano Rivera - RP - 20 SV, 26K, 1.78/0.99 (Joe)
9: (2) Brian Wilson - RP - 23 SV, 35K, 2.50/1.36 (Austin)
8: (14) Jimmy Rollins - SS - .260/.332/.378 46-31-15 (Tom)
7: (3) Max Scherzer - SP - 9-3, 83K, 4.61/1.44 (Stew)
6: (9) Carlos Santana - C - .228/.359/.407 34-33-3 (Chris T)
5: (1) Neftali Feliz - RP - 14 SV, 19K, 3.18/1.31 (Chris J)
4: (7) Joakim Soria - RP - 13 SV, 31K, 4.24/1.26 (Paul)
3: (13) Nick Swisher - OF - .245/.366/.412 35-38-1 (Mike)
2: (5) Francisco Liriano - SP - 4-7, 61K, 4.98/1.37 (Shawn)
1: (12) Jonathan Broxton - RP - 7 SV, 10K, 5.68/1.89 (James)
With the closer rush in a full and desperately early swing, I had a hard time evaluating what I think were relative values beween RP and all other positions. The sucktitude of the closer rush battled with the mediocrity of some of the positional picks here.
Ryan is the clear winner with Konerko, getting elite production at a now-depleted position. Stanton and Bruce are perfectly decent power outfielders with tons of upside to improve upon their already serviceable numbers. Andrus is good counting stats at a weak position. The rest of the round is kind of a mess.
Scores after rounds 4-6:
1: Owen (40)
2: Stew (31)
3: Chris T (28)
4: Fabian (27)
5: Austin (24)
5: Ryan (24)
7: Tom (22)
8: Mike (21)
8: Kyle (21)
8: Joe (21)
11: Chris J (18)
12: Paul (15)
13: James (12)
14: Shawn (11)
Methodology: Going round by round, I'll list the current 2011 stats of each player taken, and rank them in the subjective order I believe represents best to worst. Player availability and positional scarcity/relativism will be factored in, so snagging Jose Bautista early in round 1 (4) doesn't necessarily guarantee the best pick in the round, since somebody later on could have made a smarter choice within the remaining player pool (however with lower overall stats). Top pick gets 14 points, next 13, next 12, down to one point. The highest aggregate sum will be the "winner" of the draft and earn himself receipt of some mild trash talking if he isn't in first place in the hybrid standings.
Format
[points earned]: (number of pick within round) Player Name - Position - [BA/OBP/SLG R-RBI-SB] or [W-L or SV, K, ERA/WHIP] (owner)
Round 4
14: (8) José Reyes - SS - .341/.385/.514 61-32-28 (Owen)
13: (3) José Bautista - OF/3B - .325/.468/.655 60-48-5 (Stew)
12: (9) Justin Verlander - SP - 10-3, 124K, 2.38/0.84 (Chris T)
11: (1) Kevin Youkilis - 1B/3B - .275/.394/.494 46-55-1 (Chris J)
10: (7) Victor Martinez - C - .333/.383/.494 35-44-0 (Paul)
9: (2) Andrew McCutchen - OF - .285/.388/.463 45-39-15 (Austin)
8: (11) Andre Ethier - OF - .317/.389/.461 38-37-0 (Joe)
7: (6) Ryan Howard - 1B - .253/.352/.484 39-62-1 (Fabian)
6: (12) Hunter Pence - OF - .315/.356/.490 35-52-4 (James)
5: (13) Ian Kinsler - 2B - .235/.352/.393 52-25-15 (Mike)
4: (4) Matt Cain - SP - 7-4, 89K, 3.22/1.11 (Kyle)
3: (10) Jayson Werth - OF - .228/.334/.399 36-27-10 (Ryan)
2: (14) Brandon Phillips - 2B - .291/.345/.405 48-41-4 (Tom)
1: (5) Buster Posey - C/1B - .284/.368/.389 17-21-3 (Shawn)
José Bautista is obviously playing out of his mind, but in the hindsight analysis I'm having a hard time crediting Stew for the pick more than Owen's gutsier selection of Reyes in the middle of the round. After multiple injury-plagued and power-depleted seasons, Owen (after not keeping him) went back to the well one more time, and is being rewarded with a mess of stolen bases on top of OBP/SLG production from the SS slot higher than the first basemen and outfielders that went in the same round.
I struggled with the Matt Cain pick because while Cain's having a very nice Cain-like season, he came off the board ahead of Verlander. Yahoo's ranking system has him sandwiched between Brian Wilson and Josh Johnson, on the second page. Between RP and DL is no place for your best pitcher.
However, using the hindsight rule, the Cain pick still works out better than Jayson Werth, Brandon Phillips, and Buster Posey, all of whom I think are playing at free agency levels or worse right now.
Round 5
14: (7) Jacoby Ellsbury - OF - .303/.366/.461 55-39-25 (Owen)
13: (2) Jered Weaver - SP - 9-4, 106K, 1.97/0.93 (Mike)
12: (1) Cole Hamels - SP - 9-4, 108K, 2.49/0.96 (Tom)
11: (12) Shaun Marcum - SP - 7-2, 86K, 2.95/1.06 (Stew)
10: (6) Zack Greinke - SP - 7-2, 80K, 4.77/1.16 (Chris T)
9: (9) Brian McCann - C - .300/.379/.512 27-43-2 (Fabian)
8: (10) Yovani Gallardo - SP - 9-4, 94K, 3.92/1.41 (Shawn)
7: (5) Mat Latos - SP - 4-8, 76K, 4.22/1.40 (Ryan)
6: (13) Ichiro Suzuki - OF - .273/.319/.326 40-21-19 (Austin)
5: (3) Roy Oswalt - SP - 4-6, 42K, 3.79/1.33 (James)
4: (11) Carlos Marmol - RP - 16 SV, 45K, 2.62/1.28 (Kyle)
3: (4) Dan Uggla - 2B - .177/.244/.334 33-27-1 (Joe)
2: (14) Derek Jeter - SS - .260/.324/.324 39-20-7 (Chris J)
1: (8) Kendrys Morales - 1B - .000/.000/.000 0-0-0 (Paul)
This was a strange round, neatly divided into seven good picks and seven poor ones, made easier by ranking from the bottom up. Morales is clearly the goat of the draft, after having another season-ending surgery. There was a fierce battle between Jeter and Uggla for next worst, but I decided that at least Uggla still has some upside, whereas this is probably the true value of Jeter to fantasy. Ichiro and Marmol had another contest of futility, with Ichiro's speed winning versus the fact that there were 31.5 remaining closers available.
Kudos to Owen for winning the round yet again by listening to the tintinabulation of his giant steel balls and taking Ellsbury way before every single draft guide suggested he should go. Perhaps he's benefitting from unsustainable half-seasons, but until Ellsbury stops hitting homeruns and Reyes pulls six hamstrings he'll be enjoying Ethier-level rate stats along with league-leading stolen base totals.
Mike and Tom benefitted more from draft position than sage picks but I still had to credit them for the right calls (making up for last round's second basemen) above the other pitchers and positional players taken this round. Greinke's ERA looks awful, but under the hood his peripherals are great, and he's already matched Marcum's win/strikeout/WHIP production despite missing a month. Marcum still gets the higher nod for the ERA and the later pick, though.
Round 6
14: (10) Paul Konerko - 1B - .324/.395/.588 39-60-1 (Ryan)
13: (4) Jay Bruce - OF - .274/.346/.507 46-49-6 (Kyle)
12: (8) Mike Stanton - OF - .259/.341/.533 39-44-1 (Owen)
11: (6) Elvis Andrus - SS - .278/.323/.347 45-30-22 (Fabian)
10: (11) Mariano Rivera - RP - 20 SV, 26K, 1.78/0.99 (Joe)
9: (2) Brian Wilson - RP - 23 SV, 35K, 2.50/1.36 (Austin)
8: (14) Jimmy Rollins - SS - .260/.332/.378 46-31-15 (Tom)
7: (3) Max Scherzer - SP - 9-3, 83K, 4.61/1.44 (Stew)
6: (9) Carlos Santana - C - .228/.359/.407 34-33-3 (Chris T)
5: (1) Neftali Feliz - RP - 14 SV, 19K, 3.18/1.31 (Chris J)
4: (7) Joakim Soria - RP - 13 SV, 31K, 4.24/1.26 (Paul)
3: (13) Nick Swisher - OF - .245/.366/.412 35-38-1 (Mike)
2: (5) Francisco Liriano - SP - 4-7, 61K, 4.98/1.37 (Shawn)
1: (12) Jonathan Broxton - RP - 7 SV, 10K, 5.68/1.89 (James)
With the closer rush in a full and desperately early swing, I had a hard time evaluating what I think were relative values beween RP and all other positions. The sucktitude of the closer rush battled with the mediocrity of some of the positional picks here.
Ryan is the clear winner with Konerko, getting elite production at a now-depleted position. Stanton and Bruce are perfectly decent power outfielders with tons of upside to improve upon their already serviceable numbers. Andrus is good counting stats at a weak position. The rest of the round is kind of a mess.
Scores after rounds 4-6:
1: Owen (40)
2: Stew (31)
3: Chris T (28)
4: Fabian (27)
5: Austin (24)
5: Ryan (24)
7: Tom (22)
8: Mike (21)
8: Kyle (21)
8: Joe (21)
11: Chris J (18)
12: Paul (15)
13: James (12)
14: Shawn (11)
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Either For or Against
I read an interesting article this afternoon on the NYT's Sunday Magazine site about a family vacation to Disney World from the perspective of an academic Generation Y stoner. The article itself touches on the ruthless ideology and probably illegal backroom dealings required to establish a corporate and social behemoth like Disney World, the disjunction of parenting interests vs. child entertainment, and the neurotic demands of drug addiction and its chemical fulfillment under the auspices of hostile park security. Under the hood there's an interesting duality of adult vs. child leisure and wish fulfillment, and some parallels between the marijuana consumption culture and the Disney consumption culture, and some notes on the theme of modern parenting. This is how I read it, and it was engaging on multiple levels.
Above the hood, a reader not looking for nuance would note that the article was about a pothead father who couldn't go two hours without smoking up, and risked his security and the happiness of his children to sate his lazy stoner needs, and that any mention of the history of Walt Disney's political maneuvering is just filler between paragraphs explaining the best locations in the park to blaze. On a lark, I clicked on the comments thread for the article to gauge the responses, and they seemed to universally fall into two camps: Pro-weed acolytes who thought this was a lyrical American masterpiece, and uptight parents who were shocked, SHOCKED at both the casual disinterest in the author's/subject's family's wellbeing and that the Times would promote weed culture in any medium but a police blotter.
The duality of extreme pro- and con- has been standard practice in political debate for quite a while now, but it's interesting to see it pop up in so many incidental places. For example, earlier this week, Arstechnica released their review of the new Duke Nukem Forever game. While it's been universally panned for poor gaming performance and bad mechanics, Ars writer Ben Kuchera went a step further to decry the tenor of the comedic attempts in the game. I'm just going to assume anybody who reads this is familiar with the original Duke games and doesn't need to be brought up to speed. Kuchera goes a step further and calls 3D Realms and Gearbox to task for substituting offensive references for humor.
Conversely, some posters crawled out from the shadows to defend the author and explain that while the original Duke, with all his objectification of women and glorification of murder, was still amusing, this new Duke is a step too far. That it's horrific and unfunny and that celebrating it reveals some deep psychological issues on behalf of the game's loudest advocates.
Again, I ended up taking a middle (nuanced, snobbish?) road here, responding to both sides with:
Above the hood, a reader not looking for nuance would note that the article was about a pothead father who couldn't go two hours without smoking up, and risked his security and the happiness of his children to sate his lazy stoner needs, and that any mention of the history of Walt Disney's political maneuvering is just filler between paragraphs explaining the best locations in the park to blaze. On a lark, I clicked on the comments thread for the article to gauge the responses, and they seemed to universally fall into two camps: Pro-weed acolytes who thought this was a lyrical American masterpiece, and uptight parents who were shocked, SHOCKED at both the casual disinterest in the author's/subject's family's wellbeing and that the Times would promote weed culture in any medium but a police blotter.
The duality of extreme pro- and con- has been standard practice in political debate for quite a while now, but it's interesting to see it pop up in so many incidental places. For example, earlier this week, Arstechnica released their review of the new Duke Nukem Forever game. While it's been universally panned for poor gaming performance and bad mechanics, Ars writer Ben Kuchera went a step further to decry the tenor of the comedic attempts in the game. I'm just going to assume anybody who reads this is familiar with the original Duke games and doesn't need to be brought up to speed. Kuchera goes a step further and calls 3D Realms and Gearbox to task for substituting offensive references for humor.
Just in case you didn't feel like the game had adequately rubbed your nose in its horrific depiction of women, Duke arrives at a point where two nude ladies promise to lose their pregnancy weight from bearing their alien children, and they plead with you to let them live. (These are the same characters who performed fellatio on you during the beginning sequences of the game.)Funny? I guess that depends on whether you're a Ted Nugent fan or not. I've watched gameplay videos, including the above referenced section of the game, and I feel rather safe labeling it as significantly unfunny. Perhaps it says something about my delicate sensibilities, but I have difficulty finding room for laughs in a mass-alien-rape-lair, even though in the past I've enjoyed other outlets wrestling humor from war, genocide, murder, and torture. Reading the comments on this article, I apparently fall into the same camp as Kuchera and all the "PC pussies" who need to grow up and learn to love the Duke. That I apparently don't get the series, don't understand why it's funny, that it's all ok if it's absurd, that over-the-top is inherently belly-aching fun on its own merits. There's a whole subculture of these folk, the kneejerk anti-PC cult.
The only way past this section of the game is to kill both women.
In another scene, a woman sobs and asks for her father. You see, the women in the alien craft are being forcibly impregnated by the aliens, and during your journey, you hear a mixture of screams and sexual noises. After I accidentally blew up a few of these female victims in a firefight, Duke made a joke about abortion.
Conversely, some posters crawled out from the shadows to defend the author and explain that while the original Duke, with all his objectification of women and glorification of murder, was still amusing, this new Duke is a step too far. That it's horrific and unfunny and that celebrating it reveals some deep psychological issues on behalf of the game's loudest advocates.
Again, I ended up taking a middle (nuanced, snobbish?) road here, responding to both sides with:
I think what tends to be missed, generally by the segment of the gaming audience that gets off on the anti-PC preening, is that the original Duke Nukem was, in addition to being grotesque and crude, also somewhat clever. It effectively lampooned a major cultural trend at the time, the Hollywood machismo movement. Part of its success is that it was simultaneously over the top AND bitingly subversive.In a thread with 300 responses, the only ones that referenced my words were "Well said" and "QFT" without further engagement. Perhaps searching for deeper meaning in a Duke Nukem game was a fool's errand, but I retire comfortably knowing there were at least two people reading Ars who walked my same moderated middle road, and hopefully more silent ones who similarly refrained from bringing judgment down upon a smoker dad and his summer vacation in a vaguely fascist wonderland.
If Duke Nukem 3D was Scream, then something like Bulletstorm is its Scary Movie, which makes DNF a Uwe Boll sequel: Something that manages to steal superficial elements of previous genre successes and then totally miss the point of the exercise by not having any kind of message beyond id-fueled explosions and masculinity.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
EA vs. The World
Recent news indicates that EA is pulling its AAA titles from Valve's online distribution system (Steam) and offering them exclusively on EA's new digital download service, Origin. Before explaining why I desperately hate this development, I want to briefly describe the interesting history of Origin's origin.
It began as a game developer founded by the Garriott brothers in 1983 after they severed ties with Sierra On-Line to continue publishing their Ultima line. Over the next fifteen years, they became one of the darlings of PC gaming, creating some of the most memorable titles of the era: Ultimas 3-Online, Wing Commander, Privateer, and System Shock. The uncommon success of the company was likely due to the roster of developers they had in-house that resembled something like the mid-90's Expos: John Romero (id Software), Raymond Benson (MicroProse), Tom Chilton (Blizzard), and Warren Spector (Ion Storm) being the most notable names.
Like many successful gaming ventures, the company was bought out by EA and pulverized into dust. Once they tasted the sweet nectar of subscription fees, EA limited Origin to only supporting the Ultima Online series. By this point most of the talent had fled to greener pastures. Origin was shut down in 2004, some few months before Tom Chilton's release of World of Warcraft, which changed the face of online gaming.
The name has now been revived as EA's Steam-like download service. They even kept the spirit of the original logo, a curiously thoughtful touch on an otherwise ruthless industry move to leverage EA's publishing catalog to corner the digital download market. Crysis 2 has been pulled from Steam (precisely one year after EA's Crysis sale in the summer of 2010) and they've made announcements indicating that major titles like Battlefield 3, Fifa 2012, and possibly Mass Effect 3 will all be exclusive to the Origin service.
Fuck that noise.
Let me state that I'm not against EA opening their own store with their own desktop app. EA and Stardock and whoever else feels like dipping their toes into the digital pool can go have fun. However, the exclusivity bothers the fuck out of me, and there are many arguments for why I refuse to download BF3 through Origin:
1) I happen to like Steam, and my entire gaming library is now seamlessly integrated into Steam, so I'm not using another service. Steam is convenient. It offers viable voice chat. It's unobtrustive and just works, unlike (say) the EA Download Manager, which wormed its way into my startup config files and required constant manual removal. I have no faith that Origin will Just Work, and zero faith that it'll only run when I want it to.
2) EA has demonstrated a willingness to shut down its online servers the moment that game stops selling retail. I have no faith that Origin will permit lifetime redownloads, or that they'll decrypt your library if the service shuts down. This is not a company which prioritizes customer service.
3) EA is a festering pile of shit. They're already carving up BF3 into retailer-exclusive bonuses. Unlike when they did this for Dragon Age, this will materially affect online multiplayer competitive balance. Snipers with a flash suppressor will have a measured advantage in a large battlefield. And now they're withholding major title releases from the biggest distributors in the business? As much as I'm salivating for BF3 and ME3, I'd refuse to buy just out of spite. Or, perhaps better, I'll wait a few months and buy used, so they don't see a single fucking dime of my money.
I'm hoping that the internet backlash against these practices will put EA games back on Steam, but I suspect (and I suspect EA suspects) that nerd internet rage won't prevent them from shelling out $60 on launch day, boxed, digital, or otherwise. Even hardened Steam zealots will find a way to justify buying Mass Effect 3.
I guess I can always buy a physical copy...
It began as a game developer founded by the Garriott brothers in 1983 after they severed ties with Sierra On-Line to continue publishing their Ultima line. Over the next fifteen years, they became one of the darlings of PC gaming, creating some of the most memorable titles of the era: Ultimas 3-Online, Wing Commander, Privateer, and System Shock. The uncommon success of the company was likely due to the roster of developers they had in-house that resembled something like the mid-90's Expos: John Romero (id Software), Raymond Benson (MicroProse), Tom Chilton (Blizzard), and Warren Spector (Ion Storm) being the most notable names.
Like many successful gaming ventures, the company was bought out by EA and pulverized into dust. Once they tasted the sweet nectar of subscription fees, EA limited Origin to only supporting the Ultima Online series. By this point most of the talent had fled to greener pastures. Origin was shut down in 2004, some few months before Tom Chilton's release of World of Warcraft, which changed the face of online gaming.
The name has now been revived as EA's Steam-like download service. They even kept the spirit of the original logo, a curiously thoughtful touch on an otherwise ruthless industry move to leverage EA's publishing catalog to corner the digital download market. Crysis 2 has been pulled from Steam (precisely one year after EA's Crysis sale in the summer of 2010) and they've made announcements indicating that major titles like Battlefield 3, Fifa 2012, and possibly Mass Effect 3 will all be exclusive to the Origin service.
Fuck that noise.
Let me state that I'm not against EA opening their own store with their own desktop app. EA and Stardock and whoever else feels like dipping their toes into the digital pool can go have fun. However, the exclusivity bothers the fuck out of me, and there are many arguments for why I refuse to download BF3 through Origin:
1) I happen to like Steam, and my entire gaming library is now seamlessly integrated into Steam, so I'm not using another service. Steam is convenient. It offers viable voice chat. It's unobtrustive and just works, unlike (say) the EA Download Manager, which wormed its way into my startup config files and required constant manual removal. I have no faith that Origin will Just Work, and zero faith that it'll only run when I want it to.
2) EA has demonstrated a willingness to shut down its online servers the moment that game stops selling retail. I have no faith that Origin will permit lifetime redownloads, or that they'll decrypt your library if the service shuts down. This is not a company which prioritizes customer service.
3) EA is a festering pile of shit. They're already carving up BF3 into retailer-exclusive bonuses. Unlike when they did this for Dragon Age, this will materially affect online multiplayer competitive balance. Snipers with a flash suppressor will have a measured advantage in a large battlefield. And now they're withholding major title releases from the biggest distributors in the business? As much as I'm salivating for BF3 and ME3, I'd refuse to buy just out of spite. Or, perhaps better, I'll wait a few months and buy used, so they don't see a single fucking dime of my money.
I'm hoping that the internet backlash against these practices will put EA games back on Steam, but I suspect (and I suspect EA suspects) that nerd internet rage won't prevent them from shelling out $60 on launch day, boxed, digital, or otherwise. Even hardened Steam zealots will find a way to justify buying Mass Effect 3.
I guess I can always buy a physical copy...
Friday, June 10, 2011
Cultural Momentum
I listened to Adele's chart-storming single "Rolling in the Deep" this afternoon while driving to acquire lunch. Given the track's surging popularity and my general affinity for that style of cross-genre music that's not surprising. What's surprising is that this was on 101.9 WRXP, an otherwise 100% red-blooded rock station. They also played Rolling in the Deep on my morning commute, and there's a decent chance I'll catch it at 5pm also. This is the kind of station that wouldn't dream of playing The National and their brand of melodic folk rock, or (say) The Decemberists, or even KT Tunstall, but they're all-in on Adele right now.
WRXP has entered this territory before, temporarily expanding their otherwise narrowly focused rock library for specific track exemptions that surpass a certain mainstream popularity threshold, provided the existence some tenuous link to the larger caucasian musical culture despite a much heavier genre influence by rap, R&B, or soul. They experimented for a whle with Eminem (white), Gnarls Barkley (half-white), and there was a 3-month period where Bob Marley (pot culture) was in heavy rotation. No NERD though, no Roots, no Lil Wayne doing his rock thang.
Adele is an interesting test case for mainstream popularity because 1) she doesn't fit the typical female starlet mold and 2) she had already won a Grammy for her debut album in 2008 but didn't seem to catch any kind of major zeitgeist presence until Rolling in the Deep in 2011, so she wasn't carrying the hipster groundswell that blessed Feist an Apple commercial. So she's not the Hot New Thing. Why such sudden interest, then?
If forced to guess, I think it's based purely on the raw power of her singing voice in Rolling in the Deep. It feels unprocessed and unedited, a stark departure from the autotuned nightmare on any pop or Top40 station. She's a singer with a voice so astounding that even rock addicts who leave WRXP fixed on the car radio have to take notice.
In terms of collective cultural comprehension, that's a big fucking deal, no? How many times has somebody done one particular thing so well that knowledge and appreciation of the performance broke through the popular boundaries of the event's normal audience?
WRXP has entered this territory before, temporarily expanding their otherwise narrowly focused rock library for specific track exemptions that surpass a certain mainstream popularity threshold, provided the existence some tenuous link to the larger caucasian musical culture despite a much heavier genre influence by rap, R&B, or soul. They experimented for a whle with Eminem (white), Gnarls Barkley (half-white), and there was a 3-month period where Bob Marley (pot culture) was in heavy rotation. No NERD though, no Roots, no Lil Wayne doing his rock thang.
Adele is an interesting test case for mainstream popularity because 1) she doesn't fit the typical female starlet mold and 2) she had already won a Grammy for her debut album in 2008 but didn't seem to catch any kind of major zeitgeist presence until Rolling in the Deep in 2011, so she wasn't carrying the hipster groundswell that blessed Feist an Apple commercial. So she's not the Hot New Thing. Why such sudden interest, then?
If forced to guess, I think it's based purely on the raw power of her singing voice in Rolling in the Deep. It feels unprocessed and unedited, a stark departure from the autotuned nightmare on any pop or Top40 station. She's a singer with a voice so astounding that even rock addicts who leave WRXP fixed on the car radio have to take notice.
In terms of collective cultural comprehension, that's a big fucking deal, no? How many times has somebody done one particular thing so well that knowledge and appreciation of the performance broke through the popular boundaries of the event's normal audience?
Friday, June 3, 2011
Quiz Time
1) The following consecutive slash lines demonstrate which statistical or mathematical concept?
.274/.340/.436
.274/.348/.454
.285/.346/.451
.354/.415/.677
A: Benford's Law
B: Unusual number
C: Collatz conjecture
D: Statistical outlier
2) Which player demonstrated significant offensive growth after arriving at Las Vegas and playing in the PCL?
A: Eric Hosmer
B: Domonic Brown
C: Dustin Ackley
D: Brett Lawrie
3) Which of the following players are, in all seriousness, out-performing Brett Lawrie in the PCL in terms of OPS?
A: Ian Stewart
B: Chris Davis
C: Wily Mo Pena
D: All of the above
4) Precisely how high are Chris's hopes about winning the call-up lottery and getting the equivalent of Evan Longoria?
A: High
B: Very High
C: Unrealistically High
D: _______________________
So today's supposedly imminent promotion of Brett Lawrie to the Blue Jays roster has me irrationally exuberant, thanks largely to my desire to replace Aramis Ramirez in my lineup. Aramis is currently slugging somewhere in the vicinity of his OBP and has produced enough runs and RBI in an anemic Cubs offense to equal the fantasy output of the #13-15 catchers baseball. Crossing my fingers that he experiences another second-half renaissance is less fun than speculating on the latest minor league lottery ticket.
I picked up Lawrie the second I saw Owen pick up Dustin Ackley. Normally I'd attempt to wait until the very last second to make this sort of add (see: Hosmer, and Posey/Santana last year) but I didn't want to risk it here with evidence that at least one other owner was both aware of minor league activity and willing to gamble early on a player. I think the Yahoo fantasy article on Lawrie had just come up that day or the one prior, also, so the cover was blown.
As you may have gleaned from the slash lines above, Lawrie's having something of a career year in AAA. After startlingly similar serviceable stretches in multiple leagues from 2009-2010, he's become a sudden 4-tool stud in the PCL, with 15 homeruns and 11 steals in 12 attempts. It's easy to dismiss this as the inflated stats of a PCL batter in dry desert air. It's far more fun and self-serving to dig around for scouting reports that justify your inner desires.
.274/.340/.436
.274/.348/.454
.285/.346/.451
.354/.415/.677
A: Benford's Law
B: Unusual number
C: Collatz conjecture
D: Statistical outlier
2) Which player demonstrated significant offensive growth after arriving at Las Vegas and playing in the PCL?
A: Eric Hosmer
B: Domonic Brown
C: Dustin Ackley
D: Brett Lawrie
3) Which of the following players are, in all seriousness, out-performing Brett Lawrie in the PCL in terms of OPS?
A: Ian Stewart
B: Chris Davis
C: Wily Mo Pena
D: All of the above
4) Precisely how high are Chris's hopes about winning the call-up lottery and getting the equivalent of Evan Longoria?
A: High
B: Very High
C: Unrealistically High
D: _______________________
So today's supposedly imminent promotion of Brett Lawrie to the Blue Jays roster has me irrationally exuberant, thanks largely to my desire to replace Aramis Ramirez in my lineup. Aramis is currently slugging somewhere in the vicinity of his OBP and has produced enough runs and RBI in an anemic Cubs offense to equal the fantasy output of the #13-15 catchers baseball. Crossing my fingers that he experiences another second-half renaissance is less fun than speculating on the latest minor league lottery ticket.
I picked up Lawrie the second I saw Owen pick up Dustin Ackley. Normally I'd attempt to wait until the very last second to make this sort of add (see: Hosmer, and Posey/Santana last year) but I didn't want to risk it here with evidence that at least one other owner was both aware of minor league activity and willing to gamble early on a player. I think the Yahoo fantasy article on Lawrie had just come up that day or the one prior, also, so the cover was blown.
As you may have gleaned from the slash lines above, Lawrie's having something of a career year in AAA. After startlingly similar serviceable stretches in multiple leagues from 2009-2010, he's become a sudden 4-tool stud in the PCL, with 15 homeruns and 11 steals in 12 attempts. It's easy to dismiss this as the inflated stats of a PCL batter in dry desert air. It's far more fun and self-serving to dig around for scouting reports that justify your inner desires.
Based on his track record, and what I saw Sunday afternoon, I am convinced that Brett Lawrie has everything needed to be a superstar.They say the same thing on American Idol, I'm told.
Lawrie has always shown me good bat speed when I've seen him, but he's taken that up a notch this year. He's closed his stance slightly compared to previous observations, and his bat looks even quicker now. He is working counts MUCH more effectively than when I've see him in the past.Could it be that he's taken The Leap? I hope so. One of the author's responses in the comment thread was to label Lawrie as (potentially) the next Ryan Braun. This is absurd praise for someone who's never even seen a major league pitch, but I have a chip on my shoulder after missing out on Hosmer by an hour because of a dinner date, and because Carl Crawford, and dropping Bedard, and my litany of blown saves and pitching meltdowns, and I'd really just like to win one of these free agency decisions this year, so I'll take whatever outlandish projections I can get.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Cavalier
Yes, it's been a slow month at work. Here's another superficial look at another combat character. I'm finding that each of these builds forces me to look at a different set of feat chains, and today it's charging stuff. Now that I'm actually trying to piece together attack strategies, mounted combat is actually rather confusing. For example, regarding a maneuver like overrun, do both rider and mount need the related feats to avoid attacks of opportunity? If the mount has it, is the target allowed to attack the PC? Even though it's technically the mount doing the overrun? Can the mount take Improved Overrun and the PC take Greater Overrun and have the mount's overrun action technically also qualify as the PC's? I'm sure this is answered somewhere on the web, but my search capability is currently limited.
Is it the horse doing the overrun, or is it the rider's action spurring the horse onward as his mobile platform? Can the PC use his CMB in that case?
If you charge with your horse with a lance, you have reach, so you *have* to attack from 10' away. But your horse only has reach 5'. Can a horse not attack as part of your combined charge action? Or do you get the lance in first and the horse continues movement to melee range if desired?
Greater Overrun causes the target to provoke AoO upon going prone. Does that include the rider who just knocked him down? And the mount? If so, does the lance reach prevent the rider from making an attack the moment the AoO is declared, while target, mount, and horse all occupy the same square?
For now, I'm operating under the following assumptions, in order of ascending uncertainty:
1) Rider and mount get independent AoO eligibility.
2) Overrun can be done in addition to charge attacks ("as part of a charge")
3) Overrun while charging allows horse/rider to continue moving after the charge attack when Ride-By Attack is utilized.
4) If Trample is eventually taken, that extra mount attack would be in addition to the charge attacks and the AoOs.
5) Greater Overrun prone provokes AoO from both rider and mount, in addition to the charge attacks
6) The mount is the one using his CMB for combat maneuvers, but with feat bonuses from the rider.
7) The rider (PC) utilizes the appropriate maneuver feats, and they apply to both rider and mount while together. The mount doesn't require the feats unless the PC has dismounted and the horse still wants to trample things.
8) Rider and mount attack actions don't need to resolve at the same time, in order to accomodate reach complications. The rider can attack from 10' away while the mount is continuing to move into 5' range, and then the mount can attack. The rider can also resolve any overrun AoO while moving away from the occupied square, to accomodate reach. Alternatively, the rider could be considered to be attacking from the back square, while the mount attacks from the front square.
If anybody with greater knowledge or understanding of mounted combat rules wants to clarify or correct anything I've typed, please feel free.
Class: Cavalier 6
Order: of the Lion
Race: Human
Str: 20 (17) [13]
Dex: 13 [3]
Con: 13 [3]
Int: 13 [3]
Wis: 8 [-2]
Cha: 14 [5]
Gear: +1 lance, +1 full plate, +1 heavy shield
Horse gear: +1 breastplate barding (medium)
H1: Power Attack
L1: Improved Overrun
C1: Paired Opportunists (or maybe Coordinated Maneuvers)
L3: Mounted Combat
L5: Ride-By Attack
C6: Spirited Charge
E7: Greater Overrun
Concept: Cavalier focuses on setting up mounted charge situations, stacks up on associated overrun feats. When making a charge, he gets his main charge attack (at a x3 multiplier), his horse gets a primary bite attack, then overrun resolves. If successful, target may be knocked prone, which triggers AoOs from both PC and horse at normal multipliers (at +4 bonus because target is prone, but not the +4 from charging because the charge attack has already been resolved. This can improve to +8 if the PC uses his Tactician ability to share his teamwork feat with the horse.).
Horse companion:
Str: 20
Dex: 15
Con: 17
Int: 3
Wis: 12
Cha: 6
Special qualities/abilities: Scent, low light vision, combat trained, light armor proficiency, medium armor proficiency (feat), link, evasion, devotion
H1: Medium Armor Proficiency
H2: Combat Reflexes
H5: Bodyguard
Concept: Not having to take the overrun feats allows him to stack up on offensive or defensive options instead. Here, I've used his one free bonus stat point to give him a 3 int, which lets him choose freely from all feats he qualifies for. Bodyguard lets the mount use an AoO for a defensive aid-another whenever the rider is targeted by an attack, which gives the rider up to two attacks at an almost automatic +2 AC. If he continues to get feats as PCs do in the E6 environment, he can continue into dodge, mobility, and improved natural armor for self-defense.
Cavalier hit:
5 str
6 BAB
1 weapon enhancement
1 higher ground (against medium and smaller creatures)
1 morale (Banner ability)
-2 power attack
= +12
Optional hit:
+4 charge
+4 AoO
+1 competence (Lion's Call)
Cavalier damage:
7 str
6 power attack
1 weapon enhancement
= +14
Optional damage:
+6 challenge
Cavalier AC:
10 base
9 armor
1 armor enhancement
1 dex
2 shield
1 shield enhancement
2 bodyguard bonus
(2 dodge vs challenge target, -2 vs non-challenged targets)
= 26 (28/24)
Horse hit:
5 str + 4 BAB + 1 morale (banner) = +10
+12 on charge
Additional +1 competence during Lion's Call
Horse damage: 5 str
Horse AC:
10 base
6 armor
2 dex
8 natural armor
= 26 (24 on charge)
Full attack line: +12/+7 [1d8+14] lance
+10 [1d4+5] bite
+5 [1d6+2] hoof
+5 [1d6+2] hoof
Charge: +16 [3d8+42] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
Charge + challenge: +16 [3d8+60] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
Charge + successful overrun knockdown:
+16 [3d8+42] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
+14 CMB overrun
+16(20) [1d8+14] lance
+14(18) [1d4+5] bite
Charge + overrun + challenge:
+16 [3d8+60] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
+14 CMB overrun
+16(20) [1d8+20] lance
+14(18) [1d4+5] bite
Is it the horse doing the overrun, or is it the rider's action spurring the horse onward as his mobile platform? Can the PC use his CMB in that case?
If you charge with your horse with a lance, you have reach, so you *have* to attack from 10' away. But your horse only has reach 5'. Can a horse not attack as part of your combined charge action? Or do you get the lance in first and the horse continues movement to melee range if desired?
Greater Overrun causes the target to provoke AoO upon going prone. Does that include the rider who just knocked him down? And the mount? If so, does the lance reach prevent the rider from making an attack the moment the AoO is declared, while target, mount, and horse all occupy the same square?
For now, I'm operating under the following assumptions, in order of ascending uncertainty:
1) Rider and mount get independent AoO eligibility.
2) Overrun can be done in addition to charge attacks ("as part of a charge")
3) Overrun while charging allows horse/rider to continue moving after the charge attack when Ride-By Attack is utilized.
4) If Trample is eventually taken, that extra mount attack would be in addition to the charge attacks and the AoOs.
5) Greater Overrun prone provokes AoO from both rider and mount, in addition to the charge attacks
6) The mount is the one using his CMB for combat maneuvers, but with feat bonuses from the rider.
7) The rider (PC) utilizes the appropriate maneuver feats, and they apply to both rider and mount while together. The mount doesn't require the feats unless the PC has dismounted and the horse still wants to trample things.
8) Rider and mount attack actions don't need to resolve at the same time, in order to accomodate reach complications. The rider can attack from 10' away while the mount is continuing to move into 5' range, and then the mount can attack. The rider can also resolve any overrun AoO while moving away from the occupied square, to accomodate reach. Alternatively, the rider could be considered to be attacking from the back square, while the mount attacks from the front square.
If anybody with greater knowledge or understanding of mounted combat rules wants to clarify or correct anything I've typed, please feel free.
Class: Cavalier 6
Order: of the Lion
Race: Human
Str: 20 (17) [13]
Dex: 13 [3]
Con: 13 [3]
Int: 13 [3]
Wis: 8 [-2]
Cha: 14 [5]
Gear: +1 lance, +1 full plate, +1 heavy shield
Horse gear: +1 breastplate barding (medium)
H1: Power Attack
L1: Improved Overrun
C1: Paired Opportunists (or maybe Coordinated Maneuvers)
L3: Mounted Combat
L5: Ride-By Attack
C6: Spirited Charge
E7: Greater Overrun
Concept: Cavalier focuses on setting up mounted charge situations, stacks up on associated overrun feats. When making a charge, he gets his main charge attack (at a x3 multiplier), his horse gets a primary bite attack, then overrun resolves. If successful, target may be knocked prone, which triggers AoOs from both PC and horse at normal multipliers (at +4 bonus because target is prone, but not the +4 from charging because the charge attack has already been resolved. This can improve to +8 if the PC uses his Tactician ability to share his teamwork feat with the horse.).
Horse companion:
Str: 20
Dex: 15
Con: 17
Int: 3
Wis: 12
Cha: 6
Special qualities/abilities: Scent, low light vision, combat trained, light armor proficiency, medium armor proficiency (feat), link, evasion, devotion
H1: Medium Armor Proficiency
H2: Combat Reflexes
H5: Bodyguard
Concept: Not having to take the overrun feats allows him to stack up on offensive or defensive options instead. Here, I've used his one free bonus stat point to give him a 3 int, which lets him choose freely from all feats he qualifies for. Bodyguard lets the mount use an AoO for a defensive aid-another whenever the rider is targeted by an attack, which gives the rider up to two attacks at an almost automatic +2 AC. If he continues to get feats as PCs do in the E6 environment, he can continue into dodge, mobility, and improved natural armor for self-defense.
Cavalier hit:
5 str
6 BAB
1 weapon enhancement
1 higher ground (against medium and smaller creatures)
1 morale (Banner ability)
-2 power attack
= +12
Optional hit:
+4 charge
+4 AoO
+1 competence (Lion's Call)
Cavalier damage:
7 str
6 power attack
1 weapon enhancement
= +14
Optional damage:
+6 challenge
Cavalier AC:
10 base
9 armor
1 armor enhancement
1 dex
2 shield
1 shield enhancement
2 bodyguard bonus
(2 dodge vs challenge target, -2 vs non-challenged targets)
= 26 (28/24)
Horse hit:
5 str + 4 BAB + 1 morale (banner) = +10
+12 on charge
Additional +1 competence during Lion's Call
Horse damage: 5 str
Horse AC:
10 base
6 armor
2 dex
8 natural armor
= 26 (24 on charge)
Full attack line: +12/+7 [1d8+14] lance
+10 [1d4+5] bite
+5 [1d6+2] hoof
+5 [1d6+2] hoof
Charge: +16 [3d8+42] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
Charge + challenge: +16 [3d8+60] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
Charge + successful overrun knockdown:
+16 [3d8+42] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
+14 CMB overrun
+16(20) [1d8+14] lance
+14(18) [1d4+5] bite
Charge + overrun + challenge:
+16 [3d8+60] lance
+12 [1d4+5] bite
+14 CMB overrun
+16(20) [1d8+20] lance
+14(18) [1d4+5] bite
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)