Hillsdale College: Flourishing Without Government Funds

A recent issue of Imprimis, a monthly one-article publication from Hillsdale College with a wide distribution and readership, gave a very readable history of the college. As an atheist I really have no interest in the school's religious aspects (it was formed by Freewill Baptists in 1844, though has been "non-denominational" since its inception). But what I find praiseworthy and remarkable about the school is its refusal to accept government funding -- neither direct federal aid or even indirect aid in the form of student aid from the government. As a result, it remains free of government interference as well. This proves that it is possible to do: always has been possible and remains possible today. This article in Imprimis tells their tale nicely... keep up this principled stand Hillsdale!

Photosynth, Part 2

Even though I only two days ago posted about the cool, amazing new technology called PhotoSynth, I've since learned a bit more about it and just gotta share.

First, if you haven't yet seen the video from the TED conference, do so here or here.

Then if you want to play with a trial of this yourself, you can do so at http://labs.live.com/photosynth/default.html (Note: there are minimum system requirements to do so). And there is more than one collection you can play with -- click the collections to see more.

Then to learn more about the project, see the videos at this page.... the first two are particularly worthwhile.

This is something out of a futuristic sci-fi movie. Question: when will see this used on an episode of 24, or a big movie? I bet pretty soon...

Another thing I wonder about here... so far, what we are seeing is mostly focused on buildings, and buildings that aren't changing much. But of course buildings do change over time, so that would throw a complication into the mix -- you could have photographs from two years, where part of the building is the same in each, but say a corner has been remodeled in one because it was taken a year later after some construction work. So if both photos were in the dataset or collection, then I wonder what would happen to the 3D model created? There would be this conflict from these two photos I think.

Another thing that occurs to me is... wouldn't it be great to have a photosynth collection from something that doesn't exist any more? Some building or place that doesn't exist any longer (a favorite sports stadium that has been demolished, or main street of Deadwood in the late 1800s, or whatever), and if you had enough photos of it from a certain time period where there was enough consistency for it to work (per question above), then you could reconstruct a 3D space from those photos pretty accurately using this photosynth technology.

I'm quite sure some really creative people are going to find really interesting applications for this in the near future, stuff I can't even imagine. And could there be uses for it... in business? in the military? Lotsa possibilities I think...

The Waiting Lines in Canada

I regularly hear about the long waiting-lines for health services, especially things like surgery, in countries like Great Britain and Canada. Hearing that from angry patients is one thing -- that is just anecdotal evidence and could easily be quite biased: who doesn't want faster service? So actual data on this is what is needed. And fortunately, the Frasier Institute in Canada has put out an annual report of health care waiting-lines in Canada for 16 years now. Check out the 2006 version of their Waiting Your Turn publication, which is 90 pages of data and analysis on this issue. Just a quick scan of the graphs at the back show a general trend that is not positive. And here are a few paragraphs taken from their Executive Summary section:

Canada-wide total waiting time increased slightly in 2006 (continuing to hover near the 18-week mark)--and its level is high, both historically and internationally. Compared to 1993, waiting time in 2006 is 91 percent longer. Moreover, academic studies of waiting time have found that Canadians wait longer than Americans, Germans, and Swedes (sometimes) for cardiac care, although not as long as New Zealanders or the British.

The promise of the Canadian health care system is not being realized. On the contrary, a profusion of research reveals that cardiovascular surgery queues are routinely jumped by the famous and politically connected, that suburban and rural residents confront barriers to access not encountered by their urban counterparts, and that low-income Canadians have less access to specialists, particularly cardiovascular ones, are less likely to utilize diagnostic imaging,
and have lower cardiovascular and cancer survival rates than their higher-income neighbours.

This grim portrait is the legacy of a medical system offering low expectations cloaked in lofty rhetoric. Indeed, under the current regime--first-dollar coverage with use limited by waiting, and crucial medical resources priced and allocated by governments--prospects for improvement are dim. Only substantial reform of that regime is likely to alleviate the medical system's most curable disease--waiting times that are consistently and significantly longer than physicians feel is clinically reasonable.

According to them, average waiting times in Canada have increased by 90% since 1993... and waiting times are even longer in Great Britain! Ouch... no pun intended.

Our health care system in America is very flawed, no doubt about it. But the debate is not on that general question, but rather what should be done to improve it. The next time you hear folks arguing that we should move to a socialized medicine regime, consider all of this data provided by FI on waiting lines in Canada. And then consider that those in countries like Canada and Great Britain, who avoid those waiting lines by coming to the USA and paying for faster health services, won't be able to do so any longer if we have a system similar to theirs. The waiting lines in Canada and Great Britain would then become even longer (and or the wealthy and powerful would work harder to jump the lines). Even worse for Americans though would be this question: where would we then go to obtain faster, perhaps life-saving, health services when we most desperately need it? Nowhere it would seem.

2007 Baseball HOF: Ripken and Gwynn

Today was the 2007 Baseball Hall of Fame induction ceremony. The headliners were Tony Gwynn and Cal Ripken, two class acts who are well-deserving of their HOF status (even their speeches today were classy). They both played their entire careers with one team (Padres and Orioles, respectively), something that is increasingly rare. And they were both fan favorites for that reason, amongst others.

Local sports columnist Bob Mathews wrote a column discussing Cal Ripken recently, in anticipation of the induction ceremony today. Cal has a connection with Rochester, as he played for our Red Wings, who at that time were the AAA affiliate for the Orioles. People around here are big fans of Ripken, and generally know about him than the average fan around the country (minus those in Baltimore of course).

So it was natural for the local sports editor to write a column considering where Ripken ranks amongst HOF Shortstops. He rates Ripken second, behind only Honus Wagner. Choosing Wagner first is a no-brainer, as he clearly remains the all-time best SS. If Alex Rodriguez hadn't switched positions to 3B, one could at least begin asking the question if he might surpass Honus someday, but the point seems moot at the moment.

Is Cal the second best SS all-time? That is far more debatable. To compare with Bob's selections, lets consider Bill James' list from 2001 in The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract. Mr. James is, after all, arguably the most well-respected author in the area of baseball player analysis. He of course rates Honus tops amongst SS, but then he surprisingly has Arky Vaughn rated second (and he notes this was even a surprise to him). Mathews ranks Arky fourth, which is a solid ranking to be sure, behind Ripken and Ernie Banks. Whenever I think about this issue I always note that both Wagner and Vaughn played for the Pirates for most of their careers... meaning that the Pirates have arguably the top two, or at least the top and another in the top five, SS of all time. That is pretty amazing.

James does rate Ripken third though, so Mathews rating of him as second best is not out of line really. James then lists Yount as 4th and Banks as 5th, which means that since Mathews has Yount as 5th, they have the same top five all-time SS -- just in a different order after Honus at the top.

While James makes as good a case for Vaughn as he can, I guess my own list would have them switched. I'd go with Wagner, Ripken, Vaughn, Banks, Yount. The thing about Banks and Yount is that they played a lot fo their careers at other positions, 1B for Banks and OF for Yount. But if you don't subtract points for that too much, they deserve to be 4th and 5th here.

I don't think any non-HOF shortstops would be good enough to crack this top five. Some who are eligible and not yet in the HOF are clearly better than some who are (Alan Trammell is better than Travis Jackson for instance). Barry Larkin is arguably a HOFer, but not a top-five SS of all-time. If A-Rod returns to SS, then he could shake up this list when he gets into the HOF. And Derek Jeter? Could he end up with a better career than Vaughn, Banks, or Yount? Quite possibly I think.

Audio Version of The Economist Now Available

One thing that I've long looked forward to is the ability to get entire magazines or newspapers as high-quality audio files. While some articles are things that I really need to focus on (whether read or heard), others are things I could listen to while doing something else: either because the content is less demanding or I'm relatively less interested in it. The ability to listen to such content rather than read it makes it possible to do simple tasks like checking email or other computer tasks, light housework like dusting, exercise (jogging!), or even eating meals with something smarter than most TV is. Can't do that while reading the print versions (except eating, but even that is kind-of a hassle and can be messy).

So I learned recently that my dream in this area is starting to come true. In particular, The Economist is now offering complete audio of every issue. It looks like they just started this a few issues ago, unless I am not seeing an older "archive" link. Regardless, I am delighted that they are now offering this. I gave it a try today -- downloading the lengthy Special Report they had on Iran in the 7/21 issue. The process was easy, and the quality was very good! the files are MP3, so you can listen to them on your computer, your portable device, burn to CD, or whatever. You have to either be a subscriber to the print version, or buy each audio issue online for $8 each. Since I already subscribe to the print version, there is no extra cost for me.

So now I'm eager to learn if other print content providers already offer their entire contents, in a timely manner, and with high-production quality results. I'll be checking into Wired, Wall Street Journal, and others in this regard soon. But my first choice for this would have been The Economist, since they have the most words per page and are hence the slowest to read through each week. I'm not a fast reader, so this new audio edition is wonderful for me!

John Stossel Responds to Michael Moore

Several recent columns by John Stossel refer to an interview he had with Michael Moore for an upcoming 20/20 piece on health care. In these columns Stossel responds to several of Moore's claims and views, and as always he makes some great points and does so in an enlightening way. The three columns are: Live and Let Live, Freedom and Benevolence Go Together, and Michael and Me. All three are good reads. I'll quote a just a few bits here:

Michael Moore may not have thought about it, but there are only two ways to get people to do things: force or persuasion. Government is all about force. Government has nothing it hasn't first expropriated from some productive person.

In contrast, the private sector -- whether nonprofit or a greedy business -- must work through persuasion and consent. No matter how rich Bill Gates gets, he cannot force us to buy his software. Outside government, actions are voluntary, and voluntary is better because it reflects the free judgment of creative, productive people.

The italics there are mine... what a great line that is! This was from the first column linked above, which doesn't actually spend much time responding to Moore. This is from the second column linked above:

Moore added, "I watch your show and I know where you are coming from. ..."

He knows I defend limited government, so he tried to explain why I was wrong. He began in a revealing way: "I gotta believe that, even though I know you're very much for the individual determining his own destiny, you also have a heart."

Notice his smuggled premise in the words "even though." In Moore's mind, someone who favors individual freedom doesn't care about his fellow human beings. If I have a heart, it's in spite of my belief in freedom and autonomy for everyone.

Doesn't it stand to reason that someone who wants everyone to be free of tyranny does so partly because he cares about others? Wishing freedom to one's fellow human beings strikes me as a sign of benevolence. But Moore and the left don't see it that way.

Moore thinks respecting others' freedom means refusing to help the less fortunate. But where's the connection? All it means is that the [advocate of capitalism] refuses to sanction the use of physical force (which is what government is) to help others. Peaceful methods -- like voluntary charity -- are the only morally consistent methods. I give about a quarter of my income to charities because I've seen that private charity helps the needy far better than government does

That was a good catch by Stossel... the smuggling use of "even though". Stossel continues on, and catches Moore with another smuggled premise:

Surprisingly, he did show an understanding of the importance of the libertarian philosophy to America. "John, your way of thinking actually was great for this country. I mean it; it helped to found the country. It helped build us into one of the greatest nations, perhaps the greatest nation, that the earth has ever seen. Limited government, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, every man for himself, forward movement, pioneer spirit. That's why a lot of people in these other countries really admire us, because there's this American get up and go."

I interrupt here to point out another smuggled premise. Did you catch that "every man for himself" line? America was never about every man for himself. A free society is about voluntary communities cooperating through the division of labor. [A free society] is far from "every man for himself."

After acknowledging that limited government helped make America great, Moore went on to say, "But I don't think that what you believe is what's going to allow us to survive."

He means that if government does not assure people health care and food, our society will disintegrate.

But why would a philosophy that was good enough to build a successful society be unsuited to sustaining that society? Individual freedom, with minimal government, made it possible for masses of people to cooperate for mutual advantage. As a result, society could be rich and peaceful. As the great economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, "What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. . . . A preeminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions."

Freedom and benevolence go hand in hand.

And then the third column includes this excellent bit of Moore-refutation as well:

America's medical system has problems, but profit is the least of it. Government mandates, overregulation and a tax code that pushes employer-paid health insurance prevent the free market from performing its efficient miracles. Six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties. That kills the market. Patients rarely shop around, and doctors rarely compete on price or service.

Moore told me, "Government can do things right. ... My dad gets his Social Security check every month. Comes not only every month, it comes on the same day through the so-called 'dilapidated' U.S. mail. ... [A]sk your grandparents what they think of Medicare. Although it has its flaws, although it may be underfunded, it's a much better program than the HMO that somebody has."

Underfunded? Medicare has a 75-year $34 trillion unfunded liability! Its costs are growing faster than inflation.

Social Security has a 75-year $5 trillion unfunded liability. These are Ponzi schemes that will be bankrupt before Moore reaches retirement age. The U.S. mail manages to deliver his dad's checks, but compare its performance to FedEx or UPS. The Post Office said it wasn't possible to deliver packages overnight.

I want FedEx health care: innovation, new cancer treatments, hip replacements and pain relief. We get that from private-sector competition, not government lethargy.

Moore said, "You don't introduce profit into your city water department."

He's wrong about that, too. As I wrote in "Give Me a Break", Jersey City, New Jersey's water tasted foul and failed safety tests. City workers said there wasn't much they could do. In fact, water prices would have to be raised ... just to maintain the lousy service they had.

So Jersey City turned its water system over to a for-profit company. Within months it had fixed the pipes government workers said couldn't be fixed, and for the first time in years, Jersey City's water met the highest cleanliness standard. Taxpayers saved $35 million.

The private company could do it better and cheaper because their skills were honed by constant competition.

Private competitors innovate or die. Government workers do what they did last year. That's why I want the private sector to provide my health care. Pursuit of profit will give us our best medicines and medical devices.

I love the very specific New Jersey water example here, as that is a direct response to Moore's rhetorical jab. And then the comparison between the private sector and government employees, which I've marked with italics, is a nice line too.

ONN: Internet Crash

One of the best Onion News Network video clips has to be this one that describes how one man's overuse of his computer caused a disaster. Check it out... and as with all ONN clips, watch it twice, the second time with the volume low or off so you can focus on the crawl at the bottom as those are generally pretty funny too.

Other ONN videos are funny, though I find them to be inconsistent. And some are quite adult in their content, so the humor isn't for everyone. A few other favorites of mine include Study: Multiple Stab Wounds May Be Harmful to Monkeys... and ... Live from Congress: Rep. Ingersoll's Murder of a Hobo... and ... 70 Percent of all Praise is Sarcastic... and ... even the hard-to-be-straight-faced video Al Qaeda Also Fed Up With Ground Zero Construction Delays.

Hey You... Report For Jury Duty!

As if getting the dreaded envelope with "Jury Summons" on the outside wasn't bad enough. How about you are out and about, perhaps shopping at your favorite store, and up comes a police officer who gives you a summons -- for an hour from now, mind you -- and when you protest he says "be there or you'll be in contempt". Yikes! Surely that would only happen in communist, fascist, dictatorial, or any other variety of heavily statist country, right? Why no... it happens here in the USA!

About this time last year I wrote a blog post titled Not a Fan of the Jury System. I won't restate my points and arguments again now, but I encourage you to check it out if you didn't read it last year.

I'd also like to comment on two other things, noted in this article, that the US government is doing to combat the shortage of jurors. One step being taken is:

In New York state, occupational exemptions to jury service have been eliminated, so doctors, lawyers, firefighters, police officers and even judges can no longer get out of jury duty.

As I noted in my post last year, this is a very bad state of affairs. It is bad enough when the average person is taken away from their productive work in whatever job they have. But doctors, firefighters, and police officers are being taken away from potentially saving lives. "Sorry, Mrs. Johnson. I can't perform your husband's heart surgery tomorrow, as I have jury duty." Extreme case, but it serves to illustrate my point. The vast majority of us are not well-suited to be jurors (we aren't well-educated in the law, some folks are too easily swayed by emotion or irrational arguments, etc.) and serving as a juror takes us away from our productive work (or our well-earned time off).

And then consider this one from that same article as well:

In Florida, court officials use a poster of Harrison Ford, star of the movie "Presumed Innocent," to encourage people to report for jury duty. The poster was part of a 2005 public service campaign developed by the ABA. "If a picture of Harrison Ford helps us be a more democratic society, then I'm all for it," said Greg Cowan, a court official in Leon County, Fla.

The problem with this sentiment is that we are not a democratic society. This is a point you hear all the time, but apparently it continues to bear repeating. We are a republic, not a democracy. Other roles in the judicial system are voted for: judges, district attorneys, etc. Why couldn't professional jurors also be voted for? Or why couldn't they be appointed by others in the government who we do vote for (mayors, governors, congressmen, judges, whoever). Professional jurors would be far better suited to the task, and everyone else would be left alone. Those on trial would be better off, and those of us who are law-abiding could continue with our lives un-interrupted. We already do this in some kinds of courts, in some areas of the country -- why not apply this approach to all courts?

Amazing "Photosynth" Technology

Check out this video (or see it here at YouTube). Pretty impressive! The ability to zoom in so far on so much photographic data at once was amazing enough. But then when he switches to the ability to generate massive photographic images from dozens or hundreds of related images from Flickr, well, that is when the jaw hits the floor. If you can grok all of what he is saying while displaying this and afterwards (play it a few times if necessary), then you can see the potential that he sees for this kind of technology. Simply amazing!

Hallmark's Hoops and YoYo

A friend at work introduced me to the characters "Hoops and YoYo", created by Hallmark. I don't know what these cartoon characters are supposed to be exactly, but what they quite often are is amusing. Check out their homepage at www.hoopsandyoyo.com right now and get their summer update special, where they talk about overweight people ("muffin-tops"), Gouda cheese, and other topics. They talk fast -- like some over-caffeinated morning radio hosts that leap from one topic to the next. But they are kinda clever -- while kids might be interested, the humor works for adults too. After the homepage, you can check out more of their animated videos. Some of the e-Cards are clever, but what I really like are the short items called "Manners Matter". My favorite is probably "wash your hands!". Or if you liked the current homepage a lot, you can also see past homepages. There is a lot of content here, so enjoy.

Classic Humor, Part 13: Children's Books

Here is another in my series of classic humor bits from the Internet (here is Part 12), which I'm posting as I clean out my old Humor email box. This listing dates back to 2000:
CHILDREN'S BOOKS THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT:
1. You Are Different and That's Bad
2. The Boy Who died from eating all his vegetables
3. Dad's New Wife Timothy
4. Fun four-letter Words to Know and Share
5. Hammers, Screwdrivers and Scissors: An I-Can-Do-it-Book
6. The Kids' Guide to Hitchhiking
7. Kathy Was So Bad Her Mom Stopped Loving Her
8. Curious George and the High-Voltage Fence
9. All Dogs go to Hell
10. The Little Sissy who Snitched
11. Some Kittens Can Fly
12. That's it, I'm putting You Up for Adoption
13. Grandpa Gets a Casket
14. The Magic World Inside the Abandoned Refrigerator
15. Garfield Gets Feline Leukemia
16. The Pop-Up Book of Human Anatomy
17. Strangers Have the Best Candy
18. Whining, Kicking and Crying to Get your Way
19. You were an Accident
20. Things Rich Kids Have, But You Never Will
21. Pop! Goes the Hamster...And Other Great Microwave Games
22. The Man in the Moon is Actually Satan
23. Your Nightmares are Real
24. Where Would You Like to be Buried?
25. Eggs, Toilet Paper, and Your School
26. Why Can't Mr. Fork and Ms. Electrical Outlet be Friends?
27. Places Where Mommy and Daddy Hide Neat Things
28. Daddy Drinks Because You Cry

WHS Goes to RTM

Microsoft is, for once, staying on schedule. Last week they finished work on the RTM-release for Windows Home Server. I am still as excited about this product as I was back in January when I wrote this blog posting, and then on June 19 when I wrote that WHS Will Be the Next Big Thing. I am really looking forward to later this year when I can get my hands on a WHS integrated hardware/software device, from HP or another vendor.

For a clearly written, official document that describes the features of WHS, see the WHS Reviewer's Guide.

For a description of interesting third-party add-ins already developed, see here. For me, the Tivo one is of most interest. For folks that use Flickr, that one could be very useful too.

Baseball Lists, Part 9: Lists of Teammates

Here is Part 9 in my series of baseball entries that note what I am finding interesting as I go through the newly released SABR book The SABR Baseball List & Record Book (available at Amazon). (Here is a link to Part 8 in this series.)

List 305 is "Batters with 200 Hits and Less than a .300 Batting Average". This been done 8 times, by 8 different players. The lowest average was Juan Pierre with .292 and 204 hits just last year. Before that the most recent was Bill Buckner with .299 and 201 hits in 1985. It happened three times in the 1970s: Buddy Bell (1979, .299, 200 hits), Ralph Garr (1973, .299, 200 hits), and Matty Alou (1970, .297, 201 hits). It happened twice in the 1960s, as these have the highest hit totals on the list: Lou Brock (1967, .299, 206 hits) and Maury Wills (1962, .299, 208 hits). Before that it happened just once, as Jo-Jo Moore hit .295 with 201 hits in 1935.

List 334 is "Most Home Runs by Three Teammates in a Season". This list shows the top 5 trios. Can you name them? I'll give the answers at the bottom of this post.

List 339 is "Most Career Home Runs by Two Brothers (Each having at least one)". All long-time baseball fans know the initially tricky answer to this question. Its the Aaron brothers of course, since Tommie Aaron belted 13 to go with brother Hank's 755. That isn't very satisfying though. So what about a list of the top brother HR duos where each brother has at least 100? The top five (only five?) are shown as part of this list. Can you name them? Again, I'll list them at the end of this post.

List 356 is "Teams with Most Batters with 100 RBI in a Season". An interesting list. There have been 24 teams that have had 4 batters with 100+ RBI. But only once has a team had five such hitters: the 1936 Yankees. They had Gehrig (152), DiMaggio (125), Lazzeri (109), Dickey (107), and the less well known George Selkirk (107). Studying 25 teams with 4 or more 100+ RBI hitters, we can again see the rise and fall of offensive eras over time. From 1922 - 1940 there were 12 such teams. From 1941 - 1995 there were only 2 such teams -- and those weren't until the 1977 Red Sox (Rice, Hobson, Fisk, Yaz) and the 1982 Brewers (Coopers, Yount, Thomas, Oglivie). Then from 1996 - 2006 there have been the other 11 such teams. 1999 was a particularly big year in this regard, as five teams managed this feat: Indians, Yankees, Rangers, Diamondbacks, and Rockies. That is pretty incredible.

List 357 is similar, as it is "Teams with Most Batters with 200 Hits in a Season". There have been 10 teams with three such players, but only two have had four such players. The first was the 1929 Phillies: Lefty O'Doul (254), Chuck Klein (219), Fresco Thompson (202), and Pinky Whitney (200). Remember Fresco Thompson? No? He was the 2B for the club, but only played four full seasons in the majors. And Pinky Whitney not ring a bell? He played mostly 3B for the Phillies and the Boston Braves, and had a pretty good career: .295 Avg, 4 seasons with 100+ RBI even with limited power, and had 200+ hits twice. And O'Doul's total of 254 that year is of course impressive. He was an interesting case. After not making it as a big league pitcher, he made a comeback as an outfielder starting at age 31, and had several fine years. He ended up with a .349 career average, and that 1929 season was impressive: 254 hits, 152 runs, 32 HR, 122 RBI, and a .398 average.

The other time four teams had four 200 hit batters was the 1937 Tigers: Gee Walker (213), Charlie Gehringer (209), Pete Fox (208), Hank Greenberg (200). And again, considering the 12 teams on this list, I note that 9 of them were from the years 1920 - 1937. The other three were 1963 Cardinals, 1982 Brewers (again!), and the 1991 Rangers.

OK, now for the trivia answers. First, I'll admit that list 334 was a bit of a trick. The most HRs by three teammates in a season? Naturally it is 143 by the 1961 Yankees' Maris (61), Mantle (54), and Skowron (28). But then the next three on this list are also from the 1961 Yankees, just substituting other players for Skowron: Berra (22), Blanchard (21), Howard (21). That team hit a lot of Homers! Then fifth is, as you might have guessed, the 2001 Giants with 132 HR from Bonds (73), Aurilia (37), and Kent (22).

And the other question I posed was for list 339, limiting it to most career homeruns by two brothers who each had 100+. Top on this are Joe and Vince DiMaggio, who had 361 and 125, respectively (by the way, Dom had only 87). Then next are Ken and Clete Boyer, with 282 and 162. Then Bret and Aaron Boone, who through 2006 had 252 and 115. Then Roberto and Sandy Alomar who have 210 and 112. And fifth on this list are Bob and Irish Meusel with 156 and 106.

Classic Humor, Part 12: Learning from Movies

Here is another in my series of classic humor bits from the Internet (here is Part 11), which I'm posting as I clean out my old Humor email box. This listing dates back to 2000:

Things You Learn From the Movies:
1. Large, loft-style apartments in New York City are well within the price range of most people--whether they are employed or not.
2. At least one of a pair of identical twins is born evil.
3. Should you decide to defuse a bomb, don't worry which wire to cut. You will always choose the right one.
4. Most laptop computers are powerful enough to override the communications system of any invading alien society.
5. It does not matter if you are heavily outnumbered in a fight involving martial arts: your enemies will wait patiently to attack you one by one by dancing around in a threatening manner until you have knocked out their predecessors.
6. When you turn out the light to go to bed, everything in your bedroom will still be clearly visible, just slightly bluish.
7. If you are blonde and pretty, it is possible to become a world expert on nuclear fission at the age of 22.
8. Honest and hard working policemen are traditionally gunned down three days before their retirement.
9. Rather than wasting bullets, megalomaniacs prefer to kill their arch enemies using complicated machinery involving fuses, pulley systems, deadly gasses, lasers, and man-eating sharks, which will allow their captives at least 20 minutes to escape.
10. All beds have special L-shaped cover sheets that reach the armpit level on a woman but only to waist level on the man lying beside her.
11. All grocery shopping bags contain at least one stick of French bread.
12. It's easy for anyone to land a plane providing there is someone in the control tower to talk you down.
13. Once applied, lipstick will never rub off--even while scuba diving.
14. You're very likely to survive any battle in any war unless you make the mistake of showing someone a picture of your sweetheart back home.
15. Should you wish to pass yourself off as a German or Russian officer, it will not be necessary to speak the language. A German or Russian accent will do.
16. The Eiffel Tower can be seen from any window in Paris.
17. A man will show no pain while taking the most ferocious beating, but will wince when a woman tries to clean his wounds.
18. If a large pane of glass is visible, someone will be thrown through it before long.
19. If staying in a haunted house, women should investigate any strange noises in their most revealing underwear.
20. Word processors never display a cursor on screen but will always say: Enter Password Now.
21. Even when driving down a perfectly straight road, it is necessary to turn the steering wheel vigorously from left to right every few moments.
22. All bombs are fitted with electronic timing devices with large red readouts so you know exactly when they're going to go off.
23. A detective can only solve a case once he has been suspended from duty.
24. If you decide to start dancing in the street, everyone you meet will know all the steps.
25. Police departments give their officers personality tests to make sure they are deliberately assigned a partner who is their total opposite.
26. When they are alone, all foreign military officers prefer to speak to each other in English.

Jokes with a Guitar

Watch the very funny 15-video at YouTube, titled "The Jokes with Guitar". Thanks Demetri Martin for the laughs! The first few minutes are slow, but then it picks up. My favorite jokes were the ones about pirates, batteries, battery types, nicknames, sort-of, nostalgia, conditional identity, video game, food naming, vitamins, animal naming, washing machine, paperclip, bottle notes. Well, that is about half the material... hard to choose favorites I guess!

Baseball Lists, Part 8: Many Seasonal Records

Here is Part 8 in my series of baseball entries that note what I am finding interesting as I go through the newly released SABR book The SABR Baseball List & Record Book (available at Amazon). (Here is a link to Part 7 in this series.)

In list 158 "Four Home Runs in a Game", I learned that twice when this happened it was in a losing effort. Imagine that?! Ed Delahanty on July 13, 1896 (when HR weren't even that common!), and then when Bob Horner did it on Jul 6, 1986.

In list 179 "Most At-Bats in a Season, since 1893", I learned that Willie Wilson was still the leader here with his 705 at-bats in 1980 for the Royals. I knew he had the record at that time, but didn't realize that he still had it 25+ years later. Ichiro Suzuki came as close as you can in 2004 when he had 704 at-bats, and then last year Juan Pierre had 699.

In list 184 "Most Plate Appearances in a Season, since 1893", I learned that Wilson's 1980 season of many at-bats doesn't rank very well in terms of plate-appearances -- not even in the top 25. He didn't walk much at all, so his total PA that year was "only" 745. The all-time record here is 773, by Lenny Dykstra for the Phillies in 1993. Second is Pete Rose's 771 from 1974. Ichiro Suzuki's 2004 campaign mentioned earlier resulted in 762 total PAs, good enough for fifth all-time.

List 259 "Most Intentional Walks in a Season, since 1955". Ouch... Barry Bonds leads here by an insane amount. His 120 in 2004 is almost twice his 68 from 2002, or his 61 from 2003. Then in distant fourth place is Willie McCovey's 45 from 1969.

List 260 "Batters with 20 Doubles, 20 Triples, and 20 Home Runs in a Season". What a fascinating list. Just five players have done this. I highly doubt anyone could name all five. I'll list them at the bottom of this post... think it over!

List 262 "More Walks Received than Games Played in a Season (min. 100 Walks)". Of course Babe Ruth (2), Ted Williams (5), and Barry Bonds (4) appear more than once on this list. But the other players who have done this are not as obvious: Mark McGwire in 1998, Jack Clark in 1987, Mickey Mantle in 1957, and Eddie Joost in 1949.

List 270 "Batters Who Led the League in Hits and Walks in the Same Season". Another good one for trivia purposes! There are six players who have done this (one time each). Can you name any of them? Given information above, one might be easy. Again, see the bottom of this post for the answers.

List 282 "Most Consecutive Games with an Extra-Base Hit". How did I miss this record-tying event last year? Chipper Jones had 14 consecutive games with an extra base hit, from June 26 through July 16. That tied Paul Waner's record (from June 3 to Jun 19 in 1927). I must have missed SportsCenter the day Jones tied it!

List 283 "Longest Consecutive Game On-base Streaks". We all know about Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak. But who has the longest on-base streak? Not Joe it turns out, he ranks second with a 74 game streak. The record is held by his rival, the great Ted Williams who had an 84 game streak in 1949. Williams also had a 69-game streak in 1941, which is third all-time. Then old-timer Bill Joyce is fourth with his 64-game streak from 1891. Then, surprising to me, is Orlando Cabrera with a 63-game on-base streak from last year -- I also don't remember hearing about that on SportsCenter either!

List 288 "40 Home Runs and 200 Hits in a Season". This list, as well as anything I've seen, demonstrates the rise and fall of baseball statistics throughout the decades. Any serious baseball fans know that the past 15 years or so have seen an explosion in offensive numbers, and that there have been other eras that also had offensive-statistics inflation (e.g., the 1930s). So for this list, we see that 40 HR/200 Hits was achieved 17 times in the 17 seasons from 1921-1937 and 11 times in the 11 seasons from 1996-2006. But it was only accomplished 4 times in the 58 seasons from 1938-1995. Wow... that is very impressive. Also of note is that Babe Ruth did this 3 times, but Lou Gehrig did it 5 times. It looks like the only other players to do it twice were Chuck Klein, Jimmie Foxx, and Mo Vaughn.

List 291 "50 Doubles and 30 Home Runs in a Season". This has been 19 times through 2006. An assortment of all-time great hitters have done it, with only three players having done it twice. Chuck Klein had 59 D and 40 HR in 1930 and then 50 D and 38 HR in 1932. Through 1994 this had been done only 8 times, with the other 11 times coming since then. During that span Todd Helton did it in 2000 and 2001, and then Albert Pujols in 2003 and 2004. The great Pujols could easily do it again, which would leave him alone at the top of this particular category.

OK, now for the answers to the two I left for you to think about. For list 260, we have George Brett in 1979; Willie Mays in 1957, Jeff Heath in 1941, Jim Bottomley in 1928, and Frank Schulte in 1911. I was especially surprised to see someone from 1911 make this list! And then for list 270, the perhaps easy one was Lenny Dykstra from 1993, since I had previously mentioned that he set the record for the most plate appearances that year. Before him were Carl Yastrzemski in 1963, Richie Ashburn in 1958, Rogers Hornsby in 1924, and then old-timers Billy Hamilton in 1891, and Ross Barnes in 1876.

Classic Humor, Part 11: Instructions

Here is another in my series of classic humor bits from the Internet (here is Part 10), which I'm posting as I clean out my old Humor email box. This listing dates back to 1998:

20 lines from Star Wars that can be improved if you substitute the word 'pants'.
1. A tremor in the pants. The last time I felt this was in the presence of my old master.
2. We've got to be able to get some reading on those pants, up or down.
3. She must have hidden the plans in her pants. Send a detachment down to retrieve them. See to it personally, Commander.
4. These pants may not look like much, kid, but they've got it where it counts.
5. I find your lack of pants disturbing.
6. These pants contain the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it.
7. Han will have those pants down. We've got to give him more time!
8. General Veers, prepare your pants for a surface assault.
9. Lock the door. And hope they don't have pants.
10. I used to bulls-eye Womp-rats in my pants back home.
11. Governor Tarkin. I should have recognised your foul pants when I was brought on board.
12. You look strong enough to pull the pants off a Gundark!
13. That blast came from those pants! That thing's operational!
14. Don't worry. Chewie and I have gotten into a lot of pants more heavily guarded than this.
15. Maybe you'd like it back in your pants, your highness.
16. Jabba doesn't have time for smugglers who drop their pants at the first sign of an Imperial Cruiser.
17. Yeah, well short pants are better then no pants at all, Chewie.
18. Attention. This is Lando Callrissean. The Empire has taken control of my pants. I advise everyone to leave before more troops arrive.
19. I cannot teach him. The boy has no pants.
20. You came in those pants? You're braver then I thought.

RIP: JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories

The Q&A piece in the June 11 issue of US News and World Report is titled "The Final Verdict" and is a brief interview with Vincent Bugliosi, author of a new and massive book about the Kennedy assassination titled Reclaiming History. This interview summarizes his views on the matter, and really does seem convincing. Assuming the 1,696 pages of his book fully backup his views, it seems there can really be no question here. Not that this will silence all the conspiracy theorists (since likely nothing will!).

Recent Baseball Items from Sports Illustrated

The June 18 issue of Sports Illustrated had a nice cover story about Omar Minaya, the GM of the Mets. I didn't know much about him, and this article does a nice job giving his story, rising from the Dominican Republic, quite steadily, to eventually reach his current lofty and powerful position. And Minaya sounds like quite an interesting person -- "one of the good guys" you could say. I especially liked this paragraph:

The tide had shifted. Teams were hiring Ivy League grads to be their G.M.'s, lawyers and businessmen and statmongers who'd never hit fungoes to a flock of skinny 16-year-olds and picked out the weed that would bloom five years later. O's frustration grew. "Look, if you want paperwork, I'm not your guy," he'd tell his inquisitors. "I see the job in bigger terms. Paperwork, that's false hustle. It takes away creativity. People who are into paperwork are into covering their asses, so if things go wrong they can point to all the work they did. They're thinking more about failure than success. The more paperwork the opposition does, the better my chances are. Know what I'm sayin'?"

That is a great perspective!

Then in the June2-9 double issue there is "The Beautiful Losers: An Oral History of the Philadelphia Phillies." After a brief introduction, there are a few dozen quotations about the historically dreadful Phillies. Perhaps my favorite of these quotes was this one:

"Vince DiMaggio hit a pinch grand slam, yet the Phillies still got beat by the Pirates. Vince led the National League in strikeouts that season despite missing almost all of September with an injury. It figures we got Vince, and not Joe or Dom. When brothers played in the majors, the Phillies usually wound up with the one who produced less. We had Harry Coveleski instead of Stan, Irish Meusel instead of Bob, Frank Torre instead of Joe, Ken Brett instead of George, Mike Maddux instead of Greg, Rick Surhoff instead of B.J. and Jeremy Giambi instead of Jason. If there had been a Zeppo Alou, the Phillies would have signed him."
-- Harold Herman, 90-year-old fan

Then also in that issue there is a good story in the "Where Are They Now?" section about Mario Mendoza, the player who has been forever immortalized via the reference "Mendoza Line" -- which for those who don't know refers to a .200 batting average, which is quite low. Hence being "below the Mendoza Line" is a bad thing.

Classic Humor, Part 10: Instructions

Here is another in my series of classic humor bits from the Internet (here is Part 9), which I'm posting as I clean out my old Humor email box. This listing dates back to 1998:

ACTUAL PACKAGING INSTRUCTIONS:
(Do we need help or are we really this stupid?)

• On a hairdryer instructions: Do not use while sleeping.
• On a bag of Fritos: You could be a winner! No purchase necessary. Details inside.
• On a bar of Dial soap, it says: Directions: Use like regular soap.
• Frozen dinner that says: Serving suggestion: Defrost.
• On a hotel-provided shower cap in a box: Fits one head.
• On Tesco's Tirimisu dessert: Do not turn upside down. (Printed on the bottom of the box)
• On Marks & Spencer bread pudding: Product will be hot after heating.
• On packaging for a Rowenta iron: Do not iron clothes on body.
• On Boots' children's cough medicine: Do not drive car or operate machinery.
• On Nytol: Warning: may cause drowsiness.
• On a Korean kitchen knife: Warning: keep out of children.
• On a string of Chinese-made Christmas lights: For indoor or outdoor use only.
• On a Japanese food processor: Not to be used for the other use.
• On Sainsbury's peanuts: Warning: contains nuts.
• On an American Airlines packet of nuts: Instructions: open packet, eat nuts.
• On a Swedish chainsaw: Do not attempt to stop chain with your hands.

Baseball Lists, Part 7: Career HR Oddities

Here is Part 7 in my series of baseball entries that note what I am finding interesting as I go through the newly released SABR book The SABR Baseball List & Record Book (available at Amazon). (Here is a link to Part 6 in this series.)

List 140 gives the three players retired with fewer than 200 career home runs but who hit 40+ in a season. Can you name them? I wouldn't have been able to. I'll give them at the end of this post.

List 141 is similar and also has three members. Which players had fewer than 300 career home runs but managed to hit 50+ in a season? Hint: they all have 200+ career HR. I would have been able to guess all three here, as I consider this a much easier scenario to guess than List 140 is. Again, see bottom of this post for the answers.

List 142 is "Most Career Home Runs Without Ever Hitting 20 In a Season". Number one on the list is Ron Fairly, who hit 215 over 21 seasons for the Dodgers, Expos, and other teams. His top HR total was in his second to last season, in 1977, when he hit 19 as a DH/1B/OF for the Blue Jays.

Next on the list is Yankees great 2B Tony Lazzeri with 178. A key member of the late 1920s - 1930s Yankees dynasty, Lazzeri had 100+ RBI seven times, but never had more than 18 HR in a season (a total he managed four times).

Third and fourth on this list are a couple of fine-hitting first-basemen, neither of whom had a lot of power: Bill Buckner (174) and Mark Grace (173). They each had 15+ HR four times, but never topped 20 in a season.

The rest noted in this list are also interesting: Tim Raines (170), Enos Slaughter (169), Jose Cruz Sr. (165), Claudell Washington (164), Bill Madlock (163), Keith Hernandez (162), Pete Rose (160), Dan Driessen (153), Carney Lansford (151), Shawon Dunston (150).

List 144 is similar: "Most Career Home Runs without ever Hitting 30 in a Season". The top two on this list were slightly surprising to me. First is the great Al Kaline with 399. He had 29 HR twice, and 27 HR four other times, but never belted 30 in a season. Next is Harold Baines who had 384, and 11 times had 20+ HR in a season, but never reached 30. That is pretty amazing.

There is then a big dropoff for third place, so far less surprising to me are Rickey Henderson (297), Paul O'Neill (281), Craig Biggio (281), Brian Downing (275), Brook Robinson (268), Joe Morgan (268), George Hendrick (267), Tim Wallach (260), Vada Pinson (256), Kirk Gibson (255), John Olerud (255), and Robin Yount (251). Some great players there, but none of them are people I would have guessed had ever hit 30+ HR in a season.

And list 145 is also similar: "Most Career Home Runs without ever Hitting 40 in a Season". The top two here I could have guessed. Eddie Murray was a great hitter, belting 504 HR in his career. He had between 25-33 in a season 12 times, but never had 34, let alone 40. Fred McGriff ended up with 493 in his career, and did have some higher totals, as he six times hit 34-37 in a season -- but never 40.

More surprising is Stan Musial with 475 appearing on this list. If you'd asked me I would have guessed he would have hit 40 at least once. He did hit 39 in 1948, and hit 30+ five other times. Next up is someone who I consider more like Murray and McGriff in this regard: Dave Winfield with 465. He only had 30+ three times, hitting 20+ another 12 times. Then fifth is of course Cal Ripken with 431, followed by Al Kaline making this list as well with his 399. The others listed are Joe Carter (396), Graig Nettles (389), Dwight Evans (385), Harold Baines (384), Carlton Fisk (376), Gary Gaetti (360), Yogi Berra (358), Lee May (354), Chili Davis (350).

OK, so now the answers to the earlier ones I turned into trivia questions. For list 140, the three guys are Al Rosen with 192 HR and hit 43 in 1953, Jim Gentile with 179 HR and hit 46 in 1961, and Davey Johnson with 136 HR and hit 43 in 1973. For list 141, the three guys are Roger Maris with 275 HR and hit 61 in 1961, Hack Wilson with 244 and hit 56 in 1930, and Brady Anderson with 210 HR and hit 50 in 1996.

On the Costs and Benefits of Health Care Regulation

The latest issue of The Economist has both an editorial and then a one-page article on America's health-care system, and the costs and benefits of the tangled maze of regulations we have. The editorial begins by noting that Milton Friedman argued that the FDA was unreformable and hence should be abolished. While I agree with that, those at the Economist do not. But their editorial does go on to make some interesting and sensible reform suggestions:

The starting point is that the FDA and its counterparts across the world need to move from a risk-obsessed, "one size fits all" approach to a more flexible system that considers the risks and benefits of new therapies. Rather than asking drugs to undergo many years of costly trials in the vain pursuit of medicines that are safe for all in all circumstances, regulators should allow speedier conditional approvals. This is especially true for the growing number of targeted therapies, such as several excellent new cancer treatments, made possible by advances in genomics--a science that identifies which genetic groups will benefit from a drug.

If initial tests and sophisticated computer modelling show promise, innovative new drugs should proceed to small human trials. Ultimately, the drug could be approved for use by a wider part of the general population deemed (through genetic testing and other screening methods) to be at relatively low risk or more likely to benefit from the therapy.

Safeguards can counterbalance this relaxation. Faster approval of new drugs in humans should be matched by more rigorous post-launch testing and surveillance. At the moment, the FDA does not have the money or authority to do this properly. Scores of post-launch studies of drugs safety have been requested by regulators, but remain undone or ignored by firms. And yet there is reason to think such post-launch surveillance, if bolstered by the use of electronic records and "data mining" techniques, could save many lives. When Vioxx, a blockbuster pain remedy made by Merck, turned out to be dangerous for some patients, private health-management organisations with excellent electronic patient records spotted the problem months before the FDA did. The second safeguard is for all drugs trials done anywhere in the world--failed or successful--to be made public and the data published online. Consumers would have the information they need to choose whether to take a drug, weighing benefit against risk. Companies would benefit from a cheaper and faster approvals process, and a lower risk of litigation.

By cutting the costs of approval, lighter regulation should help move the industry away from blockbusters towards niche products. A reformed FDA might thus speed the arrival of the long-promised age of personalised medicine. Even if it survived, Friedman would surely approve.

The article in this issue then discusses three recent studies that give real evidence that Friedman's view of the FDA is correct: namely that it does far more harm than good. And we are talking about real physical harm here folks: people's lives would be saved if the FDA didn't do the things it did. See the graph in this article that indicates the total costs and benefits for five major areas of regulation of the US health care system: medical torts, the FDA, insurance regulation, and the certification of health professionals, and health facilities. It even indicates the components of the costs that come from State vs. Federal regulations. In all five of these areas, the costs outweigh the benefits. While medical tort and insurance regulation have greater total costs, this graph indicates that the relative costs vs. benefits are worst for the FDA.

Citing a second reference (a forthcoming paper by Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute), the article notes the important problem with the FDA:

Citing the best evidence to date on the costs and benefits of FDA regulation, Mr Cannon argues that the agency "is too slow and demands too much testing", ultimately harming consumers. He points out that drugs regulators can make two broad types of errors. First, they might approve a drug too quickly, only to find out after its launch that it is dangerous or even deadly. Second, they could delay the launch of a highly innovative drug by demanding onerous or unnecessary trials and thereby deny many needy patients a new therapy.

Proper regulation requires balancing these two risks, but the pitch may be queered by bureaucratic self-interest. If the regulator allows even one drug to slip through the approval process that later proves harmful to some people some of the time, a hue and cry is sure to follow. Look no further than the recent public backlash against the FDA after several deaths were linked to Vioxx, a blockbuster pain remedy made by Merck.

And yet the second (and probably bigger) risk of leaving people untreated because of restrictions on drugs rarely gets the regulators into trouble. As Mr Cannon puts it, "no FDA official has ever been fired or faced a congressional inquiry for delaying the approval of a promising new drug, however unjustified the delay." What is more, he speculates, big drug firms may quietly acquiesce to this burdensome red tape because it acts as a barrier to entry against newcomers without the cash or lobbying power to navigate the FDA.

That is a key point. I'd love to see FDA officials grilled by members in Congress with questions like "Because you took five years to approve drug XYZ, it is estimated that 10,000 people died that would have otherwise lived. How can you defend your slow bureaucracy?" That would be precious... but I'm not holding my breath.

I hope that the FDA will be reformed for the better, though I fear it won't be or that changes will only make the situation worse.

Gas Taxes vs. Gas Profits

On June 6 John Stossel provided another great item, "Why is Profit a Dirty Word?" (thanks to Shawn Klein for this link). He begins as follows:

At a recent press conference Sen. John Kerry was upset as he snarled, "Oil companies in America are reporting record profits. Record profits."

When did profit become a dirty word?

I wish the oil executives would face the media.

They could say something like:
"What are you complaining about? What do you think we do with our profits? Buy fancy cars and homes? Well, we do, actually, but nearly all the money goes to looking for more oil and following environmental rules that you want us to follow. You should want us to make more profit. Anyway, we make less profit per gallon than your beloved government takes in taxes."

This is something I have thought about often: the lack of proper argumentation from those in business when they are attacked by the press or by politicians. And the point Stossel makes here is so ripe for use in response to the likes of John Kerry! "Can you explain your record profits?"... countered by "Sure I can. But if I do will you explain why you feel it necessary to take more in oil and gas taxes than we do in profits?" LOL... the look on the politician's face at that moment would be priceless.

From a Former Fanatic

Here is an interesting piece in The Daily Mail titled "I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist" (thanks to Shawn Klein for the link). Written by a former member of what he calls the "British Jihadi Network", the author argues that the primary reason for Islamic terrorism is not the foreign policy of the USA/Western countries, but rather Islamic theology (or at least their interpretation of it). This is of course a vital perspective, and runs counter to what so many on the left argue (and sadly, a great many libertartians, like Ron Paul in the Republican debates a while back). So often we hear that "they hate us because of our foreign policy". Well, the US and other Western countries have certainly made many foreign policy mistakes over the years, and the current Bush administration obviously has too. But people like this author make the point quite clear that these actions are not the primary engine of their violent ways -- their ideology is. The primary issue is cultural/philosophical, not foreign policy.

Baseball Lists, Part 6: More Fun HR Lists

Here is Part 6 in my series of baseball entries that note what I am finding interesting as I go through the newly released SABR book The SABR Baseball List & Record Book (available at Amazon). (Here is a link to Part 5 in this series.)

List 115 is "Teammates Hitting Home Runs Most Times in the Same Game". If asked this as a trivia question, I would have gotten the first three, though perhaps not in this order as it is surprisingly close: Aaron/Mathews 75, Gehrig/Ruth 73, and Mays/McCovey 68. But then right after them was a surprise for me: Hodges/Snider 67. And it would have taken me a while to guess then next several pairings as well: Santo/B.Williams 64, Killebrew/B. Allison 61, Mathews/J. Adcock 56, Rice/Dw. Evans 56. I would have likely guessed the 9th pairing higher than many of those, that being Mantle/Berra 55. And the highest active combination through 2006? Coming in a tie for 9th on the list is Chipper Jones and Andruw Jones with 55. Other active combos include Edmonds/Pujols 46 and Ramirez/Ortiz 42. What about Ruth and someone not named Gehrig? He does appear again at 14th with 47, paired this time with Bob Meusel.

List 116 is "Players with 100+ Home Runs for Three Different Teams". Can you name them? I consider two to be somewhat easy, but the third not at all. I'll give the answer at the bottom of this posting, so think about it before scrolling down.

List 118 is "Best Career Strikeout to Home Run Ratio (Min. 250 HR)". Has anyone had 250+ HR and had more HR than strikeouts? According to this source, the answer is no. But Joe DiMaggio came the closest, histting 361 HR and striking out only 369 times, which is a 1.02 SO/HR ratio. Second is another Yankee great, Yogi Berra whose ration was 1.16. Ted Kluszewski is third with a 1.31 ratio, and then Ted Williams is 4th at 1.36 -- making him the highest on this list who is in the 500 HR club. The active players on this list (top 21) are Albert Pujols 1.58, Vladimir Guerrero 1.99, Barry Bonds 2.03, Gary Sheffield 2.13, and Todd Helton 2.40 -- though at this point we are pretty far removed from the 1.02 ratio that DiMaggio had!

List 119 is "Most Career Extra-Inning Home Runs". Willie Mays ranks first with 22, Babe Ruth and Frank Robinson are tied for third with 16, and then Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Mantle, and Hank Aaron are tied for fifth with 14. But amongst these all-time HR leaders, who comes in second with 18? Jack Clark -- and don't tell me you guessed that!

List 120 is "Most Career Grand Slams". I've long know that Lou Gehrig is the all-time leader here with 23. And I've also known that Eddie Murray was up there with 19, Willie McCovey with 18, and the surprising-to-some Robin Ventura with 18. But what I didn't realize was that Manny Ramirez was now second all-time with 20 (through 2006). So that is a record that could be broken soon.

List 121 is "Most Career Leadoff Home