The Next 5+ Years of MLB Hall of Fame Voting

Under the most basic of circumstances, predicting hall of fame voting of any sort is a futile exercise.  Yet the upcoming 5 years or so of MLB Hall of Fame voting will feature players that played in an era that was anything but "basic" or "normal" when compared to the historical mean.

This crop of retired players who are or soon will be eligible for Hall of Fame consideration played between the early 1990s and mid to late 2000s.  This era is so heavily associated with performance enhancing drugs that some want the statistics for these 10 to 15 years to be either rubber-stamped with asterisks or completely eradicated from all historical record.  Ultra traditionalists go so as far as branding this era as immoral and unethical.  "Purge the inflated numbers like the contagion they are!", some cry.  Anyway, you get the point that this is still fresh in people's minds 7-plus years after mandatory drug testing was implemented.

Which brings me back to the Hall of Fame. Starting next year, more and more players will be on the ballot from the 1990s era.  So here is what I think the voting will look like from 2012 to 2017.  There is nothing scientific about my methodology although I tried to take into account the typical voter's "passionate" viewpoint on the players in question. The only prerequisite is that I started with the Top 10 vote getters in 2011 as the starting list in 2012.  Here is what I came up with along with a few carry-overs from year to year.

You'll notice that I don't have Schilling or Pedro Martinez voted in.  Not because they are not deserving but because they're are other players who I believe will be voted before them.

2012

Barry Larkin    3rd    62.1%    YES
Jack Morris    13th    53.5%    YES

Lee Smith    10th    45.3%    NO
Jeff Bagwell        2nd    41.7%    NO
Tim Raines    5th    37.5%    NO
E. Martinez    3rd    32.9%    NO
Trammell    11th    24.3%    NO
Walker        2nd    20.3%    NO
McGwire    6th    19.8%    NO
Mcgriff        3rd    17.9%    NO

2013

Legitimate hold-overs from 2012 who have a good shot:

Bagwell        YES
Lee Smith    NO

Bonds        NO
Clemens    NO
Piazza        Maybe
Sosa        NO
Schilling        Maybe
Biggio        YES

2014

Legitamate hold-overs from 2013

Schilling    NO
Piazza        Maybe

Maddux        YES
Thomas        YES
Glavine        YES

2015

Legitamate hold-over from 2014

Piazza        Maybe

R. Johnson    YES
P. Martinez     NO
Smoltz        YES
Sheffield        NO

2016

Legitamate hold-over from 2015

Piazza

Ken Griffey, Jr    YES
Billy Wagner     NO
Trevor Hoffman    YES

2017

M. Ramirez    NO

(assumming they retire at the end of 2011)

Vizquel        YES
Thome        YES

High Temperatures above 95 since 1980

This graphic tells it all.  Most of these days occurred in the drought summer of 1988. We should easily make it above 95 today.  Already 90 and its only 11AM.

June 15th to July 17th Temperatures Since 1991

We are in the midst of our first heat wave across northern Ohio.  Temperatures will stay above 90 for several days until the heat pushes back to the west late this weekend.  Is this type of heat across the country common or a rarity?  Below is a plot of temperatures compared to normal for JUNE 15th through JULY 17th for each of the last 20 years starting with this year.  Warmer colors indicate temperatures above normal.

Check out 1998 and 1994.  The heat looks very similar to what has been going on most of this summer.

Notice the core of the heat in Oklahoma and Texas

Heat last year was along the East Coast, Washington, D.C.

Two year ago, the heat was once again over Texas

Heat in 2008 was along the West Coast. Cooler in the Great Lakes

Heat in 2007 in the Pacific Northwest

2006 featured heat in the norther tier and out West

2005 heat:  Central Plains

Very little heat here

Cooler temps from Texas to New York

Heat across the northern 1/2 of the US

Heat out west in 2001

Heat in the deep south/cooler north

Heat in New england, cooler in the deep south

Look familiar? Heat across Texas and Oklahoma

Temps stayed near normal

Heat over Texas; cooler in the Great Lakes

Well below normal out west; heat in Canada

Look familar? Heat in Texas, New Mexico and in New England

In 1993, heat was located East

Temps well below normal across most of the US

Heat across the Great Lakes; cooler than normal out west

Local Flooding in Ohio...Technical Issues This Morning

Today was a very busy day on multiple fronts.  First shortly after the start of the 4:30AM show, the news server went down and went down hard.  Without going into too many technical details, you only need to know that we had no video, no audio, no stories, no flashy animations.  Basically, the anchors had to read the news on camera for several hours. In between stories, they dutifully filled the space with clever banter sometimes hinting at the difficulties of the morning.  Needless to say, it was an exercise in mental toughness not only for the anchors but for the producers and countless other behind-the-scenes people who painstakingly found ways to get the long show on the air.  Of course, inclement weather such as flooding and storms make the show a bit easier to produce.  When all else fails or you run out of options, toss it to the weatherguy, right?  Today though, it was out of necessity and it was actually necessary.  Bottom line, all worked out fine.  The shows went off surprisingly smooth.  As of this writing, the server is almost at 100%...maybe not.

Back to the flooding and storms.  A cluster of storms/heavy rain began to develop over the lake around 11PM.  By 2PM, it had dropped an inch of rain in Cleveland.  By 9AM, more than 6 inches of rain fell in some areas in southern Summit county, northern Stark county. A few reports near Strongsville also reported around 6 inches.

The lightning around 4:30AM was equally as impressive

Temps are climbing with another 90 possible.....

Heat is heading for Ohio..But For How Long?

I was "off the grid" for a week and a half resting and spending time with the family.  In the midst of some badly needed R&R, the heat in the center of the country has slowly expanded north and slightly east.  So far, Northeastern Ohio has only had 5 days above 90 through July 17th.  As the heat slides east this week, it isn't a question of weather or not we hit 90 but how many times.

More than 10 states are under "excessive heat warnings" Monday, July 18th

The 100+ degree heat is almost to the Canadian border

...and south into Texas

Heat index readings of at least 120 will be common

The forecast high temps for all of us in Northeastern Ohio are still high...and climbing by the end of the week. A few storms might reduce the temps a bit but not much

The "heat ridge" is still strong as show below

By early next week, the projections pushes the heat back west which should allow daytime highs to stay in the mid 80s for most of northern Ohio.  So if you are getting married next week or if you are finishing up baseball season or heading out for "two-a-days" for football, the oppressive heat should not be as much of a problem

Are 450 foot homers a thing of the past?

Remember the cool summer of 2009? Arctic Oscillation was historically low

Two summers ago was cool compared to this and last summer.  The arctic was responsible for that abnormally "not hot" summer.  More on the rest of this summer later this week!

First Tropical System of 2011

Tropical Storm Arlene is still hanging around in the western Gulf of Mexico drifting into central Mexico.

Forecast continues to drive this west over the next several days

The National Hurricane Center concurs

Since the water temperatures are above normal, we can expect more tropical storms in the weeks ahead

The Atlantic is very quiet due to dust from Africa spreading west

Movement on any tropical waves will be westward.  Unless a storm develops in the Gulf, the Caribbean storms should stay away from the US

We are still looking at an above normal year of tropical storms.  If you are vacationing along the east coast or Florida, your chances of being affected by a tropical storm/Hurricane this year is increasing.

Fastball speeds increasing in recent years

Is Forecasting the Weather Art or Science?

In this technological world that we live in where the resources for weather related information are readily available for ANYONE in seconds, it still surprises me how many of us still hang onto the belief that simply because we have "super-fast computers", weather forecasting should be a science that is an already mastered discipline. In the minds of most, because of advancements in technology, forecasting should be an old science relic that should have been perfected by now. 

I am a firm believer that weather foreacsting is made up of two parts:  Science and Art.  The science encompasses objective observation and analysis. The art deals with formulating your forecast so it best fits everyones "perception" of what is happening--  a poor-man's exercise in psycho-analysis.  More on that in a moment.

First the science:

Contrary to what many believe, forecasting accuracy is MUCH BETTER than it was 10 or 15 years ago.  This is in part to several factors:  The first is the development and implementation of satellite data. The second is faster computers. The third is more advanced weather simulations (called computer models)

Satellites monitor each and every square inch of the planet. Soil moisture, ground temperature, atmospheric temperatures, infrared radiation, wind profiles, pollution, dust, pressure, ice coverage...you name it.  All of this data is compiled and shuttled onto websites each second of each day.  The first decade of the 2000s will be remembered as the time when volumes of satellite data became available on the internet to most everyone. Want to analyze ocean surface temperatures? You can do it.  Want the dataset for ozone over Antarctica?  Its right there!  Our understanding of the oceans and atmosphere is so much greater with this library of satellite data so readily available.

Computers are much faster and getting smaller each year.  A personal computer from 2006 is grossly outdated. In 2015, the best and faster computer in 2011 will be a turtle in comparison.  Faster computers means faster and more detailed computer simulations of thunderstorms, hurricanes, ocean currents and other patterns. Combine the faster computers with more detailed data and you get a much better simulation on what the specific weather will be for a certain area. 

That said, simulations have and will ALWAYS have limitations.  First, simulations by their very nature are not exact answers.  They are approximations. The complex math that describes the atmosphere is one big approximation.  Factor these inexact simulations created by humans with super-fast computers, also made by humans and you get two things: MUCH better forecasts that still have some degree of error.

Now the art (psychology):





Weather accuracy is highly subjective.  If you mention on the air that "90% of the area will get thunderstorms today" and 90% of the area gets rain and storms, your accuracy is pretty darn good.  Yet for the 10% who didn't get any rain, you are the worst forecaster in history!  

Your "weather reality" is what is over your head at any given time.  Much of the public as a whole views the weather around them with a biased lens. Substitute this "weather reality" with politics, the economy, religion, crime, your friends, it doesn't matter. We are all biased to some extent.  That's what makes us human.  Its our built in selective perception of the weather and events around us that gives us perspective.  The art of forecasting is formulating your words based on how people will "perceive" what is going to happen. 

20 years ago, the only sources of weather were:  television, radio, newspaper and word of mouth.  Now, add real-time Internet and smart phone updates, 24 hour cable.  Its and endless bombardment of weather both beautiful and destructive.  We are all conditioned partly with this overflow of information to gauge the weather events as something new.  How many times have we heard "I've never seen anything like this before!" after a weather event?  The most recent weather is overemphasized because its fresh in our minds. This shapes our viewpoint on weather a few days to a few weeks in the future.

Most outside of the field of weather find it very difficult to grasp the fact that the weather is one big approximation. Weather should be exact; we all want a forecast that fits a nice and neat one-size-fits-all package.  I'd like to say that I make a forecast whether short or long term with a cold, rational eye rather than my biased, emotional side.  But I don't.  I take into account how the general public will react to my EVERY word knowing that most selectively perceive the weather to fit their "sphere of reality".  I learned that quickly years ago.  For all of the simulations, super-computers, highly detailed satellite data, it doesn't matter how exact your forecast is or what scientific reasoning you used in coming to your conclusion, people will ignore the facts and the data that disagree with their perceptions and will "rationalize" what they want and react accordingly. More often than not, the reactions are negative.  Worse still, its accumulative.  The more we selectively perceive the weather to fit our negative connotation, the more negative our reaction and the more rigid our bias becomes.  Its a vicious circle that feeds on itself. 

This is called the Disconfirmation Bias. Its the tendency to accept supportive evidence of a belief uncritically, but to discount evidence that challenges that belief.

Here is an example:  Go back to last winter.  The first big snowstorm forecast calls for "4-8 inches" for the following day.  In your backyard, you get 3 inches yet 80% of the area received 6 inches.  You say "what happened to the 4-8 inches?"  Second snowstorm, the forecast calls for "6 to 10 inches".  You get 6 inches.  The majority of the area received 9 inches.  You say "what happened to the "6 to 10 inches?".  By the third snowstorm, you are already frustrated by the "lack of accuracy" so you are primed to think negatively. The forecast calls for 5 to 10 inches.  You get 5 inches and you say "what happened to the other 5 inches?" 

The forecast was accurate given the range in the snowfall prediction.  Since you were preconditioned to believe the forecast would be way off because of your established bias, no amount of evidence in the world will break you of that bias!

Weather is an old science. Weather forecasting is a field that continues to grow.  But the heart of a forecast lies in molding the science to fit the psychology.  Human nature is tough and stubborn.  I'll try to be better sculptor.