My last dating post made note of how guys are superficial. That's true to an extent, but not as bad as it seems. Let me explain.
I've spoken to numerous guys and a few girls about how important looks are in a relationship and this is my impression. Both care about looks. The difference is how much weight they put on it.
Guys have what I like to call a threshold. What that means is that every guy has a certain level of looks that he can become attracted to. Anything below that threshold of (subjective) looks is off the table. But anything above it is ok. So technically looks are the most important (because they must pass the threshold) and least important (because anything past the threshold is enough) part of the girl.
Girls (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to consider looks in the entire package, meaning it is just another factor. They might be willing to give up on some looks in exchange for personality, maturity, intelligence, etc. There doesn't seem to be a threshold.
The threshold theory applies to most guys, but not all. Some guys do have a very high threshold, which I guess is fine if that's all they can (honestly) be attracted to. But many guys are just simply immature and expect to be attracted immediately to the girl. This expectation is unrealistic, unfair, and foolish. The threshold should not be high enough that the girl must pass it on the first look. That's not a threshold, but living in a dream world.
Girls who complain that guys are superficial should know it's not really true. They care about looks but only to a degree. And the ones who care about looks to the point where they will not give her looks a chance to grow on them are not guys girls should want to date anyway.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Mixed Weddings, Social Norms, And Friends
Harry Maryles' post about mixed weddings is a must read. It's a summary of a speech by Rabbi Rakeffet about the false religiosity inherent in the separate seating scheme.
Put simply, I agree. Let's be serious: in the 21st century most of us mix with the opposite sex for much of the day and seeing them at weddings is not going to bring out thoughts that aren't already there the rest of the day. This argument, as noted in the post, is precisely the argument of the Levush.
But on a broader scale, how do the changes in society affect the whole halachic framework of the mixing of the sexes? The Shulchan Aruch (via Frumteens) says:
"A person must stay far, far away from the women, and it is prohibited to signal with your hand, to hint with your eyes, to any prohibited women. It is furthermore prohibited to laugh together with them and to be frivolous in her presence, or to watch her beauty. Even to smell her perfume is forbidden...."
The Gemara says it's forbidden to say hello to a married woman, even through her husband. There's also the big requirement for married women to cover their hair. Do all these halachos apply in the same force today, given how society has changed?
One point Rabbi Rakeffet makes in his speech is the societal aspect of tzniyus. The Rambam holds that a woman must wear a "radid" which is some form of veil. Today no woman in a western country would do that. Why? Because society no longer considers that modest; it considers it crazy.
So if how society views modesty changed halacha in that case, does it change it in the other cases above? When men and women don't interact, then those mild interactions could have some meaning. But today almost everyone spends time with members of the opposite sex. Maybe other people are different, but I feel nothing when I say hello to my married friends' wives. It's the same with my female friends. Maybe I'm unique (or dishonest) but I doubt it.
Moreover, the prohibitions overlook the positives of a male-female relationship. Having a friend of the opposite gender allows a person to learn how the other gender thinks, acts, feel, etc. This valuable information comes in handy during dating and marriage. Moreover, in the past marriages were less compassionate (by that I mean they were less about forming meaningful relationships and more about fulfilling duties), so this type of information was not as necessary.
So while in the past the calculus of cost vs. benefit might have tilted in favor of prohibiting male-female contact, perhaps today, given the changes in what these interactions mean and how important male-female friendships are, perhaps they should no longer be prohibited.
These aren't halachic arguments, but more arguments of policy. I haven't looked at the sources, so I can't really give a halachic argument. But halahca recognizes changes based on social mores in some cases. I'm just wondering how far it goes.
Put simply, I agree. Let's be serious: in the 21st century most of us mix with the opposite sex for much of the day and seeing them at weddings is not going to bring out thoughts that aren't already there the rest of the day. This argument, as noted in the post, is precisely the argument of the Levush.
But on a broader scale, how do the changes in society affect the whole halachic framework of the mixing of the sexes? The Shulchan Aruch (via Frumteens) says:
"A person must stay far, far away from the women, and it is prohibited to signal with your hand, to hint with your eyes, to any prohibited women. It is furthermore prohibited to laugh together with them and to be frivolous in her presence, or to watch her beauty. Even to smell her perfume is forbidden...."
The Gemara says it's forbidden to say hello to a married woman, even through her husband. There's also the big requirement for married women to cover their hair. Do all these halachos apply in the same force today, given how society has changed?
One point Rabbi Rakeffet makes in his speech is the societal aspect of tzniyus. The Rambam holds that a woman must wear a "radid" which is some form of veil. Today no woman in a western country would do that. Why? Because society no longer considers that modest; it considers it crazy.
So if how society views modesty changed halacha in that case, does it change it in the other cases above? When men and women don't interact, then those mild interactions could have some meaning. But today almost everyone spends time with members of the opposite sex. Maybe other people are different, but I feel nothing when I say hello to my married friends' wives. It's the same with my female friends. Maybe I'm unique (or dishonest) but I doubt it.
Moreover, the prohibitions overlook the positives of a male-female relationship. Having a friend of the opposite gender allows a person to learn how the other gender thinks, acts, feel, etc. This valuable information comes in handy during dating and marriage. Moreover, in the past marriages were less compassionate (by that I mean they were less about forming meaningful relationships and more about fulfilling duties), so this type of information was not as necessary.
So while in the past the calculus of cost vs. benefit might have tilted in favor of prohibiting male-female contact, perhaps today, given the changes in what these interactions mean and how important male-female friendships are, perhaps they should no longer be prohibited.
These aren't halachic arguments, but more arguments of policy. I haven't looked at the sources, so I can't really give a halachic argument. But halahca recognizes changes based on social mores in some cases. I'm just wondering how far it goes.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
The Shidduch Date
Sweet Rose long ago posted her thoughts on the shidduch date from a female perspective. I just found her blog, so my post will seem a little late. But better late than never I suppose....
I'll try to give the guy's perspective of a shidduch date. For those unfamiliar with the term, a shidduch date is basically a blind date, where an intermediary (shadchan) set the parties up. Let's start from the beginning, shall we?
First phone call: In my circle (not quite sure what circle that is anymore), the standard procedure is for the guy, after receiving the go-ahead and phone number from the shadchan, to call the girl. Of course this phone call is completely forced and awkward. Thank G-d I'm not a nervous person, and I've developed the ability to speak with a complete stranger about whatever happens to enter my mind at the time. But it's not so easy for everyone. I've had friends ask me what to talk about, what type of conversation to have, what not to ask, etc. Before my first, first phone call I made a list of topics of conversation, but never got around to them. It's dumb to make the call any more rigid than it already has to be.
This phone call is supposed to last anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour. If the two parties make an effort the call should last 30 minutes without a problem (I mean seriously, there's so much to talk about because they don't know the first thing about each other). It's not advisable to spend too much time talking, which is why an hour should be the cap. The parties haven't met, so why waste anymore time with a person you might reject once you see them?
Getting Ready: Ok, so girls have it much harder here. Guys have to shave (which is not fun) and shower, put on clean clothes, brush their teeth, and maybe polish their shoes. Some guys put on cologne or some fancy deodorant (Axe). No idea why people do that, but it's sure easier than makeup or hair straightening.
Picking the Girl Up: There are numerous ways to go about doing this, and it really depends on the rules in each community. I don't own a car, and my driving is not really up to dating standards (unless I want to see how she acts under severe distress) so I usually meet the girl. Generally the meeting place is the date location (a restaurant or hotel lounge or lobby) but sometimes I'll pick her up at her apartment or dorm. I'm lucky.
Some guys have to drive to the girls house and then meet her parents. That's always an awkward moment especially when either the father or suitor is not exactly a social butterfly. In these communities the girl is "fashionably late", which means he has to make chit-chat with her parents, which adds to the pressure of making a good impression.
And then the girl comes out.... Sweet Rose claims that guys look the girl up and down. I've never (intentionally) done that, but I'm sure many guys have. For many guys (yes, guys are superficial!) this is an important moment. Many a dates have been decided at this point.
The Date: The date is just as bad or good for the guy as the girl. Both have to talk, fill in awkward gaps in the conversation, not make a mess of themselves while eating, etc. I personally enjoyed most of my dates, since I can talk for hours. Some guys feel a lot more pressure.
Some guys also make quicker decisions. They know really quickly that the girl isn't for them. In that case, they usually try to wrap the date up quickly. That's rude. Even when I know the girl isn't for me, I still keep the date at the normal length, which is between two and a half and three hours.
Ending the Date: A great moment. The guy is always required to end the date. He has to say something like, "it's getting late" or "look at the time!" Always a fun moment, but not worse than the drop-off. When the guy drops the girl off (whether at home, dorm, or subway), he can't ask her our again. It's a gross breach of the dating rules. So the guy can only tell her he had fun and good night. That's it. Makes it very awkward.
Go out again or not? The guy has to make the quicker decision because he's expected to make the call first. If he says yes, the girl is asked. If he says no, she's informed of his decision. So he can't just say "whatever she wants." This part is really annoying because I've had many dates where I wasn't sure whether I wanted to out again, but would have been perfectly happy if she said no.
Dating isn't fun for either gender.
I'll try to give the guy's perspective of a shidduch date. For those unfamiliar with the term, a shidduch date is basically a blind date, where an intermediary (shadchan) set the parties up. Let's start from the beginning, shall we?
First phone call: In my circle (not quite sure what circle that is anymore), the standard procedure is for the guy, after receiving the go-ahead and phone number from the shadchan, to call the girl. Of course this phone call is completely forced and awkward. Thank G-d I'm not a nervous person, and I've developed the ability to speak with a complete stranger about whatever happens to enter my mind at the time. But it's not so easy for everyone. I've had friends ask me what to talk about, what type of conversation to have, what not to ask, etc. Before my first, first phone call I made a list of topics of conversation, but never got around to them. It's dumb to make the call any more rigid than it already has to be.
This phone call is supposed to last anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour. If the two parties make an effort the call should last 30 minutes without a problem (I mean seriously, there's so much to talk about because they don't know the first thing about each other). It's not advisable to spend too much time talking, which is why an hour should be the cap. The parties haven't met, so why waste anymore time with a person you might reject once you see them?
Getting Ready: Ok, so girls have it much harder here. Guys have to shave (which is not fun) and shower, put on clean clothes, brush their teeth, and maybe polish their shoes. Some guys put on cologne or some fancy deodorant (Axe). No idea why people do that, but it's sure easier than makeup or hair straightening.
Picking the Girl Up: There are numerous ways to go about doing this, and it really depends on the rules in each community. I don't own a car, and my driving is not really up to dating standards (unless I want to see how she acts under severe distress) so I usually meet the girl. Generally the meeting place is the date location (a restaurant or hotel lounge or lobby) but sometimes I'll pick her up at her apartment or dorm. I'm lucky.
Some guys have to drive to the girls house and then meet her parents. That's always an awkward moment especially when either the father or suitor is not exactly a social butterfly. In these communities the girl is "fashionably late", which means he has to make chit-chat with her parents, which adds to the pressure of making a good impression.
And then the girl comes out.... Sweet Rose claims that guys look the girl up and down. I've never (intentionally) done that, but I'm sure many guys have. For many guys (yes, guys are superficial!) this is an important moment. Many a dates have been decided at this point.
The Date: The date is just as bad or good for the guy as the girl. Both have to talk, fill in awkward gaps in the conversation, not make a mess of themselves while eating, etc. I personally enjoyed most of my dates, since I can talk for hours. Some guys feel a lot more pressure.
Some guys also make quicker decisions. They know really quickly that the girl isn't for them. In that case, they usually try to wrap the date up quickly. That's rude. Even when I know the girl isn't for me, I still keep the date at the normal length, which is between two and a half and three hours.
Ending the Date: A great moment. The guy is always required to end the date. He has to say something like, "it's getting late" or "look at the time!" Always a fun moment, but not worse than the drop-off. When the guy drops the girl off (whether at home, dorm, or subway), he can't ask her our again. It's a gross breach of the dating rules. So the guy can only tell her he had fun and good night. That's it. Makes it very awkward.
Go out again or not? The guy has to make the quicker decision because he's expected to make the call first. If he says yes, the girl is asked. If he says no, she's informed of his decision. So he can't just say "whatever she wants." This part is really annoying because I've had many dates where I wasn't sure whether I wanted to out again, but would have been perfectly happy if she said no.
Dating isn't fun for either gender.
Belief Post
I reread my belief post and I'm not sure if it's clear. If it makes sense, let me know. If it doesn't also let me know.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Belief and Presumptions
Godol Hador and DovBear are ripping into each other about their reasons for believing in Matan Torah. GH makes the experiential argument, while DB argues that he's wired to believe in it.
I agree with DB's point (although GH's argument makes sense too). DB's basic point, without all the Hume stuff, is that given his background and upbringing, he believe in Matan Torah. His upbringing created this belief, and he sees no reason to shake it.
In other words, he grants his childhood beliefs a presumption of correctness, which in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, requires him to retain that belief.
This argument also works well with belief in G-d. We believe in G-d because we always have. A thinking person's belief system survived to this point, so we presume it's correct. And since the evidence against G-d is less than compelling, we believe.
Certainly the evidence for G-d is nothing more than filling in the gaps. A believer will say that the world is miraculous and therefore could have only been created by G-d. The nonbeliever will give an alternative explanation. But the evidence does not point either way, because it can be read differently by different people.
The presumption breaks the tie in my mind. Like in a trial, where one party bears the burden of persuasion and all the evidence proffered is completely balanced, the jury must return a verdict in favor of the other party, where a presumption exists favoring one side, that side wins if the evidence against it is not compelling.
The presumption doesn't work for certain elements of Judaism. The world being less than 6000 years old is an example. All of the evidence seems to go against this belief. Of course, people can just read the evidence anyway they want (Gosse theory), but that just doesn't seem plausible. Common sense dictates against it. Yes, common sense is not a philosophical tool, but life is too short for philosophical proofs (does anyone seriously consider whether we live in a Matrix unless they make a living off of it?).
I understand that whether an argument is plausible is a question of discretion. Different people will find different arguments plausible. And that's fine. I find the argument that G-d created the world plausible. I don't find the argument that the world is 5676 years old plausible. But that's me.
I agree with DB's point (although GH's argument makes sense too). DB's basic point, without all the Hume stuff, is that given his background and upbringing, he believe in Matan Torah. His upbringing created this belief, and he sees no reason to shake it.
In other words, he grants his childhood beliefs a presumption of correctness, which in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, requires him to retain that belief.
This argument also works well with belief in G-d. We believe in G-d because we always have. A thinking person's belief system survived to this point, so we presume it's correct. And since the evidence against G-d is less than compelling, we believe.
Certainly the evidence for G-d is nothing more than filling in the gaps. A believer will say that the world is miraculous and therefore could have only been created by G-d. The nonbeliever will give an alternative explanation. But the evidence does not point either way, because it can be read differently by different people.
The presumption breaks the tie in my mind. Like in a trial, where one party bears the burden of persuasion and all the evidence proffered is completely balanced, the jury must return a verdict in favor of the other party, where a presumption exists favoring one side, that side wins if the evidence against it is not compelling.
The presumption doesn't work for certain elements of Judaism. The world being less than 6000 years old is an example. All of the evidence seems to go against this belief. Of course, people can just read the evidence anyway they want (Gosse theory), but that just doesn't seem plausible. Common sense dictates against it. Yes, common sense is not a philosophical tool, but life is too short for philosophical proofs (does anyone seriously consider whether we live in a Matrix unless they make a living off of it?).
I understand that whether an argument is plausible is a question of discretion. Different people will find different arguments plausible. And that's fine. I find the argument that G-d created the world plausible. I don't find the argument that the world is 5676 years old plausible. But that's me.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Don't Worry, Girls Are Useful Too.... To Be Slaves
Over the past two weeks I've heard some interesting (some might term them "misogynistic") speeches. And strangely it's not only Lakewood where this stuff flies, but also the Upper West Side.
Last week I had the pleasure of spending Shabbos on the Upper West Side. My aunt's food is absolutely amazing, and she doesn't even read my blog, so I'm not just being nice. I davened Mincha at the Young Israel on 91st Street. Some guy, I think from Ner Yisroel, gave a speech where he spoke about how the Jewish people are slaves to G-d and that we shouldn't resent it because we need to subsume our identities and interests to G-d's will. OK, not exactly something too controversial. But it was his comparison of marriage to slavery that piqued my interest.
Apparently, he claimed, marriage is not a union between equals because men and women have different roles (odd that he would use the feminist understanding of equality). And the Gemara talks about how a man "captures" a woman, and how the act of marriage is similar to acquiring a slave woman. Even in the secular world, he argued, the woman gives up her identity and becomes part of the man's domain (apparently he's unaware that coveture went out of the window a hundred years ago). Just like we are supposed to give up our will to G-d, he implied, a woman is supposed to give up her will to her husband.
I'm still making fun of this speech when I tell it to people.
I spent this Shabbos in Lakewood. My cousin just had a baby girl (she's adorable) and my uncle's father-in-law gave a vort at the Kiddush. He started with a story from Rav Shach about a man who came to Rav Shach somewhat upset that he had a girl. Rav Shach told him a man once came to him extremely happy that he had a girl... and that was because it was his first child in ten years.
So I guess the moral of the story is that it's better to have a girl than to wait 10 years for a girl. What about a boy? Tzaruch Iyun....
Last week I had the pleasure of spending Shabbos on the Upper West Side. My aunt's food is absolutely amazing, and she doesn't even read my blog, so I'm not just being nice. I davened Mincha at the Young Israel on 91st Street. Some guy, I think from Ner Yisroel, gave a speech where he spoke about how the Jewish people are slaves to G-d and that we shouldn't resent it because we need to subsume our identities and interests to G-d's will. OK, not exactly something too controversial. But it was his comparison of marriage to slavery that piqued my interest.
Apparently, he claimed, marriage is not a union between equals because men and women have different roles (odd that he would use the feminist understanding of equality). And the Gemara talks about how a man "captures" a woman, and how the act of marriage is similar to acquiring a slave woman. Even in the secular world, he argued, the woman gives up her identity and becomes part of the man's domain (apparently he's unaware that coveture went out of the window a hundred years ago). Just like we are supposed to give up our will to G-d, he implied, a woman is supposed to give up her will to her husband.
I'm still making fun of this speech when I tell it to people.
I spent this Shabbos in Lakewood. My cousin just had a baby girl (she's adorable) and my uncle's father-in-law gave a vort at the Kiddush. He started with a story from Rav Shach about a man who came to Rav Shach somewhat upset that he had a girl. Rav Shach told him a man once came to him extremely happy that he had a girl... and that was because it was his first child in ten years.
So I guess the moral of the story is that it's better to have a girl than to wait 10 years for a girl. What about a boy? Tzaruch Iyun....
Friday, February 10, 2006
Stop With The Nazis Already
I'm sure by now everyone has heard of Amona. Everyone knows that a lot of violence broke out and whole bunch of people ended up in the hospital. So whose fault was it? I don't know, and while I usually trust the law enforcers over the law breakers, it seems that both sides went over the line.
But that's not the point. Two posts (here and here) I've seen recently comparing the Israeli policemen to the Nazis are really getting to me. One says this is the sickest thing he's seen since the Nazis. Apparently he needs to get out more. The other dubs them the "Israeli Gestapo" (but only the pre-1942 Gestapo). That makes me feel a whole lot better.
A few weeks ago I went to the Museum of the Jewish Heritage in Battery Park in The City (not a good date idea btw). I've been to a whole bunch of Holocaust museums in my life and have watched a whole bunch of movies, documentaries, and the like. But every time I see the pictures, watch the movies, or read the literature, I can't help but to feel this sickening feeling about man could be so completely brutal to his fellow man. How a modern civilization could use its superior knowledge to wipe out a whole group of people who they felt were inferior. The Nazi genocide is the worst act of human violence in history not just because of the scope of the horror, but also because of the intent behind it: to destroy a whole race of people.
We need to put things into perspective. Let's assume the settlers were right and the police came into Amona unprovoked and looking for blood. Let's say they beat completely defenseless people for no reason. Let's assume they did it happily, with glee.
How do we get from that to death camps? To forced marches through snow, rain, or blistering heat? To cattlecars? To forcing people to dig their own graves? To shooting babies for target practice?
I hear these comparisons from people all the time. The Palestinians have been using it for decades. But it hurts much more coming from people whose grandparents survived the Holocaust. I'd venture to guess most of the people making these obscene comparisons have grandparents who were affected in some way by the Holocaust. How would they think of their grandchildren trivializing their suffering?
But that's not the point. Two posts (here and here) I've seen recently comparing the Israeli policemen to the Nazis are really getting to me. One says this is the sickest thing he's seen since the Nazis. Apparently he needs to get out more. The other dubs them the "Israeli Gestapo" (but only the pre-1942 Gestapo). That makes me feel a whole lot better.
A few weeks ago I went to the Museum of the Jewish Heritage in Battery Park in The City (not a good date idea btw). I've been to a whole bunch of Holocaust museums in my life and have watched a whole bunch of movies, documentaries, and the like. But every time I see the pictures, watch the movies, or read the literature, I can't help but to feel this sickening feeling about man could be so completely brutal to his fellow man. How a modern civilization could use its superior knowledge to wipe out a whole group of people who they felt were inferior. The Nazi genocide is the worst act of human violence in history not just because of the scope of the horror, but also because of the intent behind it: to destroy a whole race of people.
We need to put things into perspective. Let's assume the settlers were right and the police came into Amona unprovoked and looking for blood. Let's say they beat completely defenseless people for no reason. Let's assume they did it happily, with glee.
How do we get from that to death camps? To forced marches through snow, rain, or blistering heat? To cattlecars? To forcing people to dig their own graves? To shooting babies for target practice?
I hear these comparisons from people all the time. The Palestinians have been using it for decades. But it hurts much more coming from people whose grandparents survived the Holocaust. I'd venture to guess most of the people making these obscene comparisons have grandparents who were affected in some way by the Holocaust. How would they think of their grandchildren trivializing their suffering?
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Why Is There A Shidduch Crisis?
I have no idea why I haven't been blogging. Part of it is less free time (thanks to dating, although I'm not sure I'm still "dating" at this point, after meeting her parents and all), but also just less interesting stuff on my mind. But I've had a few conversations about shidduchim recently, so here are my thoughts:
Let's assume there is a shidduch crisis, by which I mean perfectly normal girls (or guys) are having a difficult time getting married. Why? Here are the reasons I've heard. Feel free to add a few:
1) There are less guys than girls. It all comes down to supply and demand. I know girls who got offended by framing the issue this way, but I don't see any way around it. If there are two girls for every guy (I doubt there is) and guys know it, then guys can be picky. Then only the "better" girls get taken and the rest have a difficult time marrying. In the absence of polygamy, we'd have a very difficult time getting these girls married.
Why the imbalance? It's not like Orthodox guys fight wars. And we don't purposely abort boys like what goes on in China (except that's girls). So it makes no sense that there's a huge imbalance.
a) Some people argue that the imbalance stems from girls entering the market earlier. If guys start dating at 23 and girls at 20, assuming there's an equal number of both sexes, there would be three extra years of girls on the market. Put in numbers, let's assume there are 50 guys and girls entering the market every year. That would put 150 extra girls on the market, creating the imbalance.
A friend challenged this argument (if I understood her correctly). She contended that despite the extra years, there should still be no problems. The extra girls on the market are not really extra, because there are less older girls, say from 24-27, than guys at that age. In other words a 26 year old guy will have a range of girls from 20-26. While the bottom of the range will have a high number of girls, there will be less girls from 24-26 than guys. And while there will still be an imbalance because there are basically no guys on the market from 20-23, the 24-26 year old girls can marry guys who are 27+. So basically the numbers equal out.
I'm not sure I'm totally sold on this argument, but it seems plausible and I suck at math, so let me know if it makes sense.
b) This friend argued that the imbalance is solely a result of guys getting approached first. Guys get a lot more offers simply because they get the offers first and have the option of waiting. A girl who receives an offer has no choice but to respond within a reasonable amount of time. She cannot just wait to see if anything better comes up.
So there really is no shidduch crisis because it's all illusory. Guys might think there are many more fish in the sea, but in reality the numbers are fairly even. Personally I think that would make guys picky, because of all the offers they get, but if I recall correctly she disagreed with that point.
c) There are more "good girls" than guys. Check out Josh's post on this issue. He explains it really well.
Is there really a shidduch crisis? I believe there is. I've spoken to too many girls who complained that their friends are really really nice, good, pretty people, but can't get married. I'm going to spend Shabbos in the Upper West Side, the bastion of singles hoping to marry.
Can we do something about it? I don't know. That's the million dollar question.
Let's assume there is a shidduch crisis, by which I mean perfectly normal girls (or guys) are having a difficult time getting married. Why? Here are the reasons I've heard. Feel free to add a few:
1) There are less guys than girls. It all comes down to supply and demand. I know girls who got offended by framing the issue this way, but I don't see any way around it. If there are two girls for every guy (I doubt there is) and guys know it, then guys can be picky. Then only the "better" girls get taken and the rest have a difficult time marrying. In the absence of polygamy, we'd have a very difficult time getting these girls married.
Why the imbalance? It's not like Orthodox guys fight wars. And we don't purposely abort boys like what goes on in China (except that's girls). So it makes no sense that there's a huge imbalance.
a) Some people argue that the imbalance stems from girls entering the market earlier. If guys start dating at 23 and girls at 20, assuming there's an equal number of both sexes, there would be three extra years of girls on the market. Put in numbers, let's assume there are 50 guys and girls entering the market every year. That would put 150 extra girls on the market, creating the imbalance.
A friend challenged this argument (if I understood her correctly). She contended that despite the extra years, there should still be no problems. The extra girls on the market are not really extra, because there are less older girls, say from 24-27, than guys at that age. In other words a 26 year old guy will have a range of girls from 20-26. While the bottom of the range will have a high number of girls, there will be less girls from 24-26 than guys. And while there will still be an imbalance because there are basically no guys on the market from 20-23, the 24-26 year old girls can marry guys who are 27+. So basically the numbers equal out.
I'm not sure I'm totally sold on this argument, but it seems plausible and I suck at math, so let me know if it makes sense.
b) This friend argued that the imbalance is solely a result of guys getting approached first. Guys get a lot more offers simply because they get the offers first and have the option of waiting. A girl who receives an offer has no choice but to respond within a reasonable amount of time. She cannot just wait to see if anything better comes up.
So there really is no shidduch crisis because it's all illusory. Guys might think there are many more fish in the sea, but in reality the numbers are fairly even. Personally I think that would make guys picky, because of all the offers they get, but if I recall correctly she disagreed with that point.
c) There are more "good girls" than guys. Check out Josh's post on this issue. He explains it really well.
Is there really a shidduch crisis? I believe there is. I've spoken to too many girls who complained that their friends are really really nice, good, pretty people, but can't get married. I'm going to spend Shabbos in the Upper West Side, the bastion of singles hoping to marry.
Can we do something about it? I don't know. That's the million dollar question.
Monday, January 30, 2006
The Hamas/Hitler Comparison
The rise of Hamas to the leadership role of the PA has brought comparisons to Hitler's accession to German dictator. I believe this analogy is inapt, first of a basic level because Hamas is not the Nazi party. But the argument is made by people who don't believe Hamas is as genocidal as Hitler.
The basic argument, implied here, is that the idea that Hamas will moderate its stance and become sensible once in power was assumed in the past when Hitler won the elections in 1933. Therefore we should be much more worried about Hamas controlling the territory next to Israel.
While I'm sympathetic to this argument, because Hamas is run by a gang of psychopathic gangsters, the situation facing Hamas is quite different from the one that faced Hitler. Hitler restarted the German economy by rebuilding the war machine and built a military force capable of carrying out his express policies. Hamas, on the other hand, is nothing more than a terrorist gang, without an economy or military. Yes, Hamas can wreak havoc on Israel through suicide bombings and missiles, but it cannot invade and destroy the country. If I was Poland in 1933, I'd be pretty scared because Germany at full strength could take over the country in a matter of weeks.
Israel is more powerful than Hamas could ever dream. If Hamas continues with its terror attacks, Israel could destroy the PA infrastructure in a matter of hours. The PA can never touch Israel's military might. Plus, the PA is completely dependent on foreign aid to survive and that might force them to become more sensible. But if it doesn't, Israel is not facing a blitzkrieg.
The basic argument, implied here, is that the idea that Hamas will moderate its stance and become sensible once in power was assumed in the past when Hitler won the elections in 1933. Therefore we should be much more worried about Hamas controlling the territory next to Israel.
While I'm sympathetic to this argument, because Hamas is run by a gang of psychopathic gangsters, the situation facing Hamas is quite different from the one that faced Hitler. Hitler restarted the German economy by rebuilding the war machine and built a military force capable of carrying out his express policies. Hamas, on the other hand, is nothing more than a terrorist gang, without an economy or military. Yes, Hamas can wreak havoc on Israel through suicide bombings and missiles, but it cannot invade and destroy the country. If I was Poland in 1933, I'd be pretty scared because Germany at full strength could take over the country in a matter of weeks.
Israel is more powerful than Hamas could ever dream. If Hamas continues with its terror attacks, Israel could destroy the PA infrastructure in a matter of hours. The PA can never touch Israel's military might. Plus, the PA is completely dependent on foreign aid to survive and that might force them to become more sensible. But if it doesn't, Israel is not facing a blitzkrieg.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
For Your Pleasure
Taken down for the time being. Too much wasted time.
I'm moving this post to the top since it's getting buried under all my new (and cooler) posts. There are new posts under here, and when I find time, I'll put this post on the sidebar.
Let's see the high scores. Tell us in the comments. Do you go for a high score or higher levels?
I'm moving this post to the top since it's getting buried under all my new (and cooler) posts. There are new posts under here, and when I find time, I'll put this post on the sidebar.
Let's see the high scores. Tell us in the comments. Do you go for a high score or higher levels?
Hamas Victory
I went to sleep last night hearing that Fatah won the elections, with Hamas making a strong showing. Today, the news is that Hamas won.
The question is why would Palestinians vote for Hamas knowing that a Hamas victory would probably lead to severe international repercussions? Well, it's probably a mixture of a few factors. For some, Hamas represents a religious government and they feel an obligation to vote for Islam. Others believe that Fatah has done nothing for them and they want to give Hamas a chance. A few more might want to stick it to Israel and the world community and show that Palestinians are not influenced by pressure. And, of course, some are just lunatics who want to see Israel destroyed and see Hamas as the party best capable of carrying that out.
Is a Hamas victory a bad thing for Israel? Maybe not. On one hand it forecloses any option of negotiations in the near future, making peace more difficult. However it removes the pressure from the US and EU to work with the PA (both of which consider Hamas a terrorist organization). It also gives Israel a real excuse to retaliate against the PA whenever a terrorist attack occurs. Until now they blamed the PA for not stopping terror; now they can hold it responsible for carrying it out.
So Hamas in charge is really beneficial for Israel only if you believe that Fatah was not going to make peace with Israel in the near future. Israel was being pressured to work with Abbas, who either couldn't or wouldn't fight terror. Now, there will be no more pressure, and Israel will have an easier time responding to terrorist attacks.
On another note, how will Hamas' victory affect Israel's elections? I would have to guess it would help the right and really hurt the left, unless they change their platform. Not too many people in Israel are going to vote for a party that wants to give territory over to Hamas. I foresee the Israeli electorate moving to the right, with Likud and the far right parties picking up some seats at Labor's (and maybe Kadima's) cost.
Last point: Does anyone know what happens to Abbas now? He is President of the PA. Do legislative elections have anything to do with the executive branch? Or is the PA system more similar to Israel? Does anyone know? Are there even rules for this?
The question is why would Palestinians vote for Hamas knowing that a Hamas victory would probably lead to severe international repercussions? Well, it's probably a mixture of a few factors. For some, Hamas represents a religious government and they feel an obligation to vote for Islam. Others believe that Fatah has done nothing for them and they want to give Hamas a chance. A few more might want to stick it to Israel and the world community and show that Palestinians are not influenced by pressure. And, of course, some are just lunatics who want to see Israel destroyed and see Hamas as the party best capable of carrying that out.
Is a Hamas victory a bad thing for Israel? Maybe not. On one hand it forecloses any option of negotiations in the near future, making peace more difficult. However it removes the pressure from the US and EU to work with the PA (both of which consider Hamas a terrorist organization). It also gives Israel a real excuse to retaliate against the PA whenever a terrorist attack occurs. Until now they blamed the PA for not stopping terror; now they can hold it responsible for carrying it out.
So Hamas in charge is really beneficial for Israel only if you believe that Fatah was not going to make peace with Israel in the near future. Israel was being pressured to work with Abbas, who either couldn't or wouldn't fight terror. Now, there will be no more pressure, and Israel will have an easier time responding to terrorist attacks.
On another note, how will Hamas' victory affect Israel's elections? I would have to guess it would help the right and really hurt the left, unless they change their platform. Not too many people in Israel are going to vote for a party that wants to give territory over to Hamas. I foresee the Israeli electorate moving to the right, with Likud and the far right parties picking up some seats at Labor's (and maybe Kadima's) cost.
Last point: Does anyone know what happens to Abbas now? He is President of the PA. Do legislative elections have anything to do with the executive branch? Or is the PA system more similar to Israel? Does anyone know? Are there even rules for this?
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Finally!!!!
It took days and days (and all my blogging time) but I finally beat (well, actually shattered) the high score in Pacman. Now I never have to play that game again.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Bibi Courting Center
If Bibi's speech at the Herzliya Conference is serious, I'd support Likud's inclusion in the governing coalition, especially since his economic policies are so spot on. I don't agree with everything, which is why I wouldn't vote for Likud, but I'd much rather see Likud influence policy than Labor.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Scalia and Federalism
Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided Gonzalez v. Oregon, the assisted suicide case. At issue was the federal government's ability (through agencies) to regulate medical procedures. The Court ruled in favor of the state, thereby allowing Oregon's assisted suicide law to stand.
This case is complex and littered with administrative law questions. Let's leave it aside for the time being. Of note was Justice Scalia's conclusion about the status of the Court's commerce clause jurisprudence (the federal government's ability to regulate commerce and in reality its ability to pass laws about anything).
"The Court's decision today is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the Federal Government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position. The prohibition or deterrence of assisted suicide is certainly not among the enumerated powers conferred on the United States by the Constitution, and it is within the realm of public morality (bonos mores) traditionally addressed by the so-called police power of the States. But then, neither is prohibiting the recreational use of drugs or discouraging drug addiction among the enumerated powers. From an early time in our national history, the Federal Government has used its enumerated powers, such as its power to regulate interstate commerce, for the purpose of protecting public morality--for example, by banning the interstate shipment of lottery tickets, or the interstate transport of women for immoral purposes. See Hoke v. United States, 227 U. S. 308, 321-323 (1913); Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321, 356 (1903). Unless we are to repudiate a long and well-established principle of our jurisprudence, using the federal commerce power to prevent assisted suicide is unquestionably permissible."
It's difficult to hear a staunch federalist such as Scalia make such an argument. But it's hardly shocking. Last year he concurred in judgment in Gonzales v. Raich, permitting the federal government to ban medical marijuana over the state's objection.
So is Scalia a federalist? Professor Bainbridge thinks not.
Scalia is not a radical originalist. His support for precedent is well-known. He agrees with Bork's view that precedents that are rooted in jurisprudence should be upheld.
Yet, this is not a case of precedent. The case had nothing to do with the commerce clause. Hoke, Wickard, and all the other commerce clause cases are irrelevant.
What Scalia is saying is that the Court's jurisprudence has not just expanded the breadth of the commerce clause, but has created a much more powerful federal government. To return it to size (in accordance with originalism) would require a complete overhaul of the Court's view on federal power. That would require a fundamental change in how the could looks at federal power.
Did Scalia betray his principles? I don't think so. The horse already left the barn. They cannot rein in the federal government at this point. So if the agency's interpretation had a constitutional basis (I'm grossly ignorant on administrative law question), then it should be upheld. The original understanding of the clause cannot be applied without a massive reversal of case law on a scale we've never seen before.
This case is complex and littered with administrative law questions. Let's leave it aside for the time being. Of note was Justice Scalia's conclusion about the status of the Court's commerce clause jurisprudence (the federal government's ability to regulate commerce and in reality its ability to pass laws about anything).
"The Court's decision today is perhaps driven by a feeling that the subject of assisted suicide is none of the Federal Government's business. It is easy to sympathize with that position. The prohibition or deterrence of assisted suicide is certainly not among the enumerated powers conferred on the United States by the Constitution, and it is within the realm of public morality (bonos mores) traditionally addressed by the so-called police power of the States. But then, neither is prohibiting the recreational use of drugs or discouraging drug addiction among the enumerated powers. From an early time in our national history, the Federal Government has used its enumerated powers, such as its power to regulate interstate commerce, for the purpose of protecting public morality--for example, by banning the interstate shipment of lottery tickets, or the interstate transport of women for immoral purposes. See Hoke v. United States, 227 U. S. 308, 321-323 (1913); Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321, 356 (1903). Unless we are to repudiate a long and well-established principle of our jurisprudence, using the federal commerce power to prevent assisted suicide is unquestionably permissible."
It's difficult to hear a staunch federalist such as Scalia make such an argument. But it's hardly shocking. Last year he concurred in judgment in Gonzales v. Raich, permitting the federal government to ban medical marijuana over the state's objection.
So is Scalia a federalist? Professor Bainbridge thinks not.
Scalia is not a radical originalist. His support for precedent is well-known. He agrees with Bork's view that precedents that are rooted in jurisprudence should be upheld.
Yet, this is not a case of precedent. The case had nothing to do with the commerce clause. Hoke, Wickard, and all the other commerce clause cases are irrelevant.
What Scalia is saying is that the Court's jurisprudence has not just expanded the breadth of the commerce clause, but has created a much more powerful federal government. To return it to size (in accordance with originalism) would require a complete overhaul of the Court's view on federal power. That would require a fundamental change in how the could looks at federal power.
Did Scalia betray his principles? I don't think so. The horse already left the barn. They cannot rein in the federal government at this point. So if the agency's interpretation had a constitutional basis (I'm grossly ignorant on administrative law question), then it should be upheld. The original understanding of the clause cannot be applied without a massive reversal of case law on a scale we've never seen before.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Is Palestinian Violence The Only Way?
Some people like to argue that only through violence can the Palestinians realize their rights.
Let's think about this claim for a minute. Let's look at the 90s as an example.
The first Intifada was basically over by the time the Rabin was elected. Rabin was elected over Shamir.
In 1996, Hamas suicide bombings led to a Bibi victory over Peres.
In 1999, years of relative quiet led to Barak beating Bibi.
In 2001, the Intifada caused Sharon's election.
What is the common thread between these dates? Israelis vote for the Left when the Palestinians are nonviolent, and vote for the Right when they act violently.
Let's look at it even more. The biggest cession of land to the Palestinians was the Gaza withdrawal.
Did Sharon withdraw during the height of the Intifada? No. He waited until it was dead in its tracks.
When Bibi signed Wye and Hebron, were suicide bombins raging in the streets? Not at all. The violence was at a minimum.
When Barak offered basically all of the West Bank, was that after years of violence? No, it was after 1999, the year when not a single Israeli was killed by terror.
Violence just hardens the Israelis, making territorial compromises more difficult to acheive (of course that's perfectly logical). The smart move for the Palestinians is to not be violent.
Let's think about this claim for a minute. Let's look at the 90s as an example.
The first Intifada was basically over by the time the Rabin was elected. Rabin was elected over Shamir.
In 1996, Hamas suicide bombings led to a Bibi victory over Peres.
In 1999, years of relative quiet led to Barak beating Bibi.
In 2001, the Intifada caused Sharon's election.
What is the common thread between these dates? Israelis vote for the Left when the Palestinians are nonviolent, and vote for the Right when they act violently.
Let's look at it even more. The biggest cession of land to the Palestinians was the Gaza withdrawal.
Did Sharon withdraw during the height of the Intifada? No. He waited until it was dead in its tracks.
When Bibi signed Wye and Hebron, were suicide bombins raging in the streets? Not at all. The violence was at a minimum.
When Barak offered basically all of the West Bank, was that after years of violence? No, it was after 1999, the year when not a single Israeli was killed by terror.
Violence just hardens the Israelis, making territorial compromises more difficult to acheive (of course that's perfectly logical). The smart move for the Palestinians is to not be violent.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Blog Block
I'm sitting here trying to figure out something to write, but nothing is coming up. It happens to the best of the bloggers, including Ezzie and DovBear, so it's nothing to be ashamed of. And despite having tons of time, I've been doing other things besides blogging.
Well, for one thing, I made pasta in my apartment for the first time. Gave me something to eat before and after the fast. I was in Lakewood for a while, but am now back in The City.
How in the world did the Jets only get a 4th round pick for Herm Edwards? Did they even try? I feel like I could have done better. The Texas-USC game was great as college football games go.
Glad to see Sharon is recovering and even in his absence Kadima will be a power. Alito will be confirmed, even if Democrats try to portray him as the devil.
Dovbear and Chardal are going at it pretty seriously, although they made up.
Well, for one thing, I made pasta in my apartment for the first time. Gave me something to eat before and after the fast. I was in Lakewood for a while, but am now back in The City.
How in the world did the Jets only get a 4th round pick for Herm Edwards? Did they even try? I feel like I could have done better. The Texas-USC game was great as college football games go.
Glad to see Sharon is recovering and even in his absence Kadima will be a power. Alito will be confirmed, even if Democrats try to portray him as the devil.
Dovbear and Chardal are going at it pretty seriously, although they made up.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Really Tired
I've been busy and tired (no not because of school), so blogging has been down to a minimum. So here's an article about the differences between Aharon Barak and the late William Rehnquist in how they viewed judicial activism.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
PM Sharon Suffers Another Stroke
Today Ariel Sharon suffered what can be described as a major stroke. He is in serious condition and might not make it.
How will this affect the elections? I have no clue. But I know that elections are the last thing people should be thinking about.
How will this affect the elections? I have no clue. But I know that elections are the last thing people should be thinking about.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Yankees vs. Mets II
Yesterday we went through the position players. Today we'll take a look at the pitchers.
Starting pitchers:
Randy Johnson vs. Pedro Martinez
The better debate about these two would be career. But as it stands right now, Pedro is better.
Pedro made the smart move of moving to the NL where pitchers batting .150 have to hit and he's out of the game before the pinch hitters come in. Johnson moved to the AL, and his numbers took a hit. There are statistics that equalize AL and NL, but I don't have access to them and I'm not shelling out the bucks to get them.
Pedro went 15-8 with an 2.82 ERA and a .949 Walks and Hits Per Inning Pitched (WHIP). He also had 208 SOs in 217 innings. Johnson actually had a better record (17-8) but the Mets bullpen blew a bunch of games for Pedro. The Big Unit had a 3.79 ERA, a 1.126 WHIP, and 211 SOs in 225.7 innings. If you take into account the AL-NL disparity these numbers are not so different.
But this case is an example of numbers being deceiving. As someone who watched a bunch of Pedro and Johnson starts, I can tell you that Pedro was better. The question, though, is whether Johnson had a down year (he's done this before) and will bounce back. If he does, or Pedro goes down with an injury, this position is even. Since I've seen no evidence of that being the case, I'll give Pedro the edge.
Mike Mussina vs. Tom Glavine
These are two old school warhorses. The number differences are not as bad as I thought. The WHIP is pretty even (1.369 vs. 1.363). Mussina had a better record (13-8 to 13-13). Mussina had better SO numbers (142 in 179.7 innings to 105 in 211.3)
The biggest difference is ERA. Glavine had a 3.53, while Mussina had a 4.41. That's a huge gap, even with the league and park differentials. Assuming Mussina does not revert to his 2003 days, I'm giving Glavine a slight edge.
Here it gets tricky for the Yankees. They have a whole bunch of pitchers to fill the last two spots. I'm going to pick Chacon, Wang, and Pavano. For the Mets I'm going with Zambrano and Trachsel (am I missing a pitcher?).
Shawn Chacon vs. Victor Zambrano
There were two Shawn Chacons last year. The 1-7 one in Colorado and the one with a 2.85 ERA in NY. Last year was the first time Chacon got out of the deathly confines of Coors Field. And his numbers were much better. We're not quite sure what we'll get here, but it doesn't have to be that great considering the competititon.
Even when Chacon was pitching in Colorado, his WHIP and ERA were better than Zambrano (4.09 and 1.445 to 4.17 to 1.485). Zambrano had the better win-loss but that's a function of hitting and bullpen more than anything else (Roger Clemens anyone?). Zambrano had 112 SOs in 166.3 innings to 79 in 151.7 for Chacon. The walks were pretty close too (66 for Chacon, 77 for Zambrano).
Since I think we'll get something closer to the Yankees Chacon, I'm giving him a slight edge.
Chien-Ming Wang vs. Steve Trachsel
Wang pitched well but was hurt. 8-5 with a 4.02 ERA and a 1.246 WHIP. Trachsel didn't pitch much, so we'll look at his numbers for the year before. 12-13 with a 4.00 ERA and a 1.411 WHIP. Very little SOs for either pitcher, although Trachsel was better.
I think Wang will only get better and Trachsel is on his way down, so the edge goes to the Yankees.
Carl Pavano vs. ???
With Seo, Benson, and Heilman all being traded (if this deal goes through), who are the Mets going to start? And does it even matter considering how bad Pavano was last year? Well if the Yankees catch fire with either Pavano, Jaret Wright, or Aaron Small, someone will be better than the Mets' nonexistent 5th starter. Edge for the Yankees, pending the Mets actually getting someone to fill this spot.
So we have an advantage for the Mets with Pedro and Glavine and the Yankees an advantage the rest of the way down. Overall though, the Mets probably have a slight edge.
Relief Pitchers:
The Yankees really restocked their pen this offseason, acquiring Kyle Farnsworth, Octavio Dotel and Mike Myers. The Mets got Billy Wagner and Danys Baez if the trade goes through.
There are a lot of ifs here. Baez is not that good. He had 41 saves but a high 2.86 ERA and a 1.327 WHIP. Plus he's not a SO pitcher (51 in 72.3 innings), which is important for relievers.
Dotel might be out until May, but if healthy, he is quite the setup man (closer is a different matter). His last two seasons as a setman were so good the Astros traded Billy Wagner (two seasons with a sub 1 WHIP). Farnsworth had a great year, especially once he moved to Atlanta, but everyone is good on Atlanta.
The Mets bullpen is gutted if the trade goes through, and the Yankees only restocked (and have to get better considering what they out there last year). Let's call the bullpen even until this point.
Closer: Mariano Rivera vs. Billy Wagner
Rivera is the best closer of all time. His WHIP is constantly around 1. His ERA over the last three years is sub 2. He strikes out around a batter an inning. Wagner's number all almost as impressive. Rivera has the better ERA over the last three years but a higher WHIP. And Wagner has the better SO numbers.
Rivera has saved a whole lot more games over the last few years. I have to give the edge to Rivera solely based on his postseason numbers and clutch ability.
With the edge to Rivera, the bullpen edge goes to the Yankees.
Bullpen to Yankees, starting rotation to Mets. Overall the pitching is very close with a slight edge to the Yankees.
The Mets have a whole bunch of new players so chemistry might be a concern. The Yankees have the consumate professional in Derek Jeter, who runs the clubhouse well.
I'd go through the bench but that changes over the course of the offseason.
With a slight edge to the Mets in pitching and a big edge to the Yankees in position players, overall the Yankees are better.
Starting pitchers:
Randy Johnson vs. Pedro Martinez
The better debate about these two would be career. But as it stands right now, Pedro is better.
Pedro made the smart move of moving to the NL where pitchers batting .150 have to hit and he's out of the game before the pinch hitters come in. Johnson moved to the AL, and his numbers took a hit. There are statistics that equalize AL and NL, but I don't have access to them and I'm not shelling out the bucks to get them.
Pedro went 15-8 with an 2.82 ERA and a .949 Walks and Hits Per Inning Pitched (WHIP). He also had 208 SOs in 217 innings. Johnson actually had a better record (17-8) but the Mets bullpen blew a bunch of games for Pedro. The Big Unit had a 3.79 ERA, a 1.126 WHIP, and 211 SOs in 225.7 innings. If you take into account the AL-NL disparity these numbers are not so different.
But this case is an example of numbers being deceiving. As someone who watched a bunch of Pedro and Johnson starts, I can tell you that Pedro was better. The question, though, is whether Johnson had a down year (he's done this before) and will bounce back. If he does, or Pedro goes down with an injury, this position is even. Since I've seen no evidence of that being the case, I'll give Pedro the edge.
Mike Mussina vs. Tom Glavine
These are two old school warhorses. The number differences are not as bad as I thought. The WHIP is pretty even (1.369 vs. 1.363). Mussina had a better record (13-8 to 13-13). Mussina had better SO numbers (142 in 179.7 innings to 105 in 211.3)
The biggest difference is ERA. Glavine had a 3.53, while Mussina had a 4.41. That's a huge gap, even with the league and park differentials. Assuming Mussina does not revert to his 2003 days, I'm giving Glavine a slight edge.
Here it gets tricky for the Yankees. They have a whole bunch of pitchers to fill the last two spots. I'm going to pick Chacon, Wang, and Pavano. For the Mets I'm going with Zambrano and Trachsel (am I missing a pitcher?).
Shawn Chacon vs. Victor Zambrano
There were two Shawn Chacons last year. The 1-7 one in Colorado and the one with a 2.85 ERA in NY. Last year was the first time Chacon got out of the deathly confines of Coors Field. And his numbers were much better. We're not quite sure what we'll get here, but it doesn't have to be that great considering the competititon.
Even when Chacon was pitching in Colorado, his WHIP and ERA were better than Zambrano (4.09 and 1.445 to 4.17 to 1.485). Zambrano had the better win-loss but that's a function of hitting and bullpen more than anything else (Roger Clemens anyone?). Zambrano had 112 SOs in 166.3 innings to 79 in 151.7 for Chacon. The walks were pretty close too (66 for Chacon, 77 for Zambrano).
Since I think we'll get something closer to the Yankees Chacon, I'm giving him a slight edge.
Chien-Ming Wang vs. Steve Trachsel
Wang pitched well but was hurt. 8-5 with a 4.02 ERA and a 1.246 WHIP. Trachsel didn't pitch much, so we'll look at his numbers for the year before. 12-13 with a 4.00 ERA and a 1.411 WHIP. Very little SOs for either pitcher, although Trachsel was better.
I think Wang will only get better and Trachsel is on his way down, so the edge goes to the Yankees.
Carl Pavano vs. ???
With Seo, Benson, and Heilman all being traded (if this deal goes through), who are the Mets going to start? And does it even matter considering how bad Pavano was last year? Well if the Yankees catch fire with either Pavano, Jaret Wright, or Aaron Small, someone will be better than the Mets' nonexistent 5th starter. Edge for the Yankees, pending the Mets actually getting someone to fill this spot.
So we have an advantage for the Mets with Pedro and Glavine and the Yankees an advantage the rest of the way down. Overall though, the Mets probably have a slight edge.
Relief Pitchers:
The Yankees really restocked their pen this offseason, acquiring Kyle Farnsworth, Octavio Dotel and Mike Myers. The Mets got Billy Wagner and Danys Baez if the trade goes through.
There are a lot of ifs here. Baez is not that good. He had 41 saves but a high 2.86 ERA and a 1.327 WHIP. Plus he's not a SO pitcher (51 in 72.3 innings), which is important for relievers.
Dotel might be out until May, but if healthy, he is quite the setup man (closer is a different matter). His last two seasons as a setman were so good the Astros traded Billy Wagner (two seasons with a sub 1 WHIP). Farnsworth had a great year, especially once he moved to Atlanta, but everyone is good on Atlanta.
The Mets bullpen is gutted if the trade goes through, and the Yankees only restocked (and have to get better considering what they out there last year). Let's call the bullpen even until this point.
Closer: Mariano Rivera vs. Billy Wagner
Rivera is the best closer of all time. His WHIP is constantly around 1. His ERA over the last three years is sub 2. He strikes out around a batter an inning. Wagner's number all almost as impressive. Rivera has the better ERA over the last three years but a higher WHIP. And Wagner has the better SO numbers.
Rivera has saved a whole lot more games over the last few years. I have to give the edge to Rivera solely based on his postseason numbers and clutch ability.
With the edge to Rivera, the bullpen edge goes to the Yankees.
Bullpen to Yankees, starting rotation to Mets. Overall the pitching is very close with a slight edge to the Yankees.
The Mets have a whole bunch of new players so chemistry might be a concern. The Yankees have the consumate professional in Derek Jeter, who runs the clubhouse well.
I'd go through the bench but that changes over the course of the offseason.
With a slight edge to the Mets in pitching and a big edge to the Yankees in position players, overall the Yankees are better.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Yankees vs. Mets
Assuming this deal goes through, for the first time in a while, we could actually have an honest debate about which team is better: the Mets or Yankees.
Tonight we'll analyze the position players.
Let's go through it position by position:
1st Base: Jason Giambi vs. Carlos Delgado.
This matchup is actually pretty close. Let's look at the relevant numbers. Giambi had an on-base percentage (OBP) of .440 and a .535 slugging percentage (SLG). That makes his on-base plus slugging (OPS) .975. Delgado had a .399 OBP and .582 SLG for a .981 OPS. Pretty close. Delgado had narrowly more home runs, 33 to 32, but substantially more extra-base hits, 77 to 46. Those numbers are reflected in the SLG.
The biggest difference is RBI. Delgado had 115, while Giambi only had 87. That's a huge gap. But remember, Giambi started the season slowly and spent a large chunk of the season batting at the bottom of the order.
Defense and baserunning are a wash for these guys (although Giambi grounded into 7 double plays while Delgado bounced into 16). They both aren't very good.
I'd give Delgado the edge only because he's been much more consistent and Giambi is injury prone. But if Giambi is healthy these two players are even (and I might give the edge to Giambi because OBP is the most important statistic).
2nd Base: Robinson Cano vs. Miguel Cairo
While Cairo might get the edge in fielding, the hitting is no contest. Cano's OPS: .778. Cairo's: .621. And Cano should only get better. Big edge Yankees.
Shortstop: Derek Jeter vs. Jose Reyes
Reyes stole 60 bases in 75 tries. That's really good, especially for a guy who barely gets on 30% of the time. And Reyes should get better. But seriously, this position isn't even close. Jeter's OPS was .839. Reyes' was .686. Jeter won a gold glove and is one of the best baserunners in baseball. Huge edge Yankees.
3rd Base: Alex Rodriguez vs. David Wright
David Wright is a great player and will get a lot better, but he needs Albert Pujols numbers to make this position close. Big edge Yankees.
Catcher: Jorge Posada vs. Paul LoDuca
The big question is whether Posada had a down year or if he's declining because of age. If he had a bad year, the position isn't close. If these numbers are what should expect than the position is close.
Posada's OBP was .352 and his SLG .430 for a .782 OPS. LoDuca had a .334 OBP and a .380 SLG for a .714 OPS. Posada had more power and got on base more. Posada even threw out a higher percentage of baserunners.
At best this is even and that assumes Posada is in a serious decline and will get worse. But I don't see that so I'll give the position to the Yankees.
Left Field: Hideki Matsui vs. Manny Ramirez
Matsui is good, but Ramirez is much better and that takes into account baserunning and defense. Ramirez's OPS was .982 and Matsui's was .864. I can see Matsui's numbers improving but Manny is just much better. Big edge Mets.
Center Field: Johnny Damon vs. Carlos Beltran
Beltran is the superior fielder and basestealer, so the question really is whether he'll return to his Royals' form. If he hits like last year, Damon is the better player. If he goes back to his almost 40-40 days, when he had a .900 OPS, he's better. The Yankees' lineup is very impressive and Damon will only be better this year. So for the time being I'm going with Damon.
Right field: Gary Sheffield vs. Cliff Floyd
Sheffield's numbers were down last year. His OPS was .891, while Floyd's was .863. The numbers were closer than you think but Floyd had a big bounce back year, so we don't know what we're going to get. Edge to Yankees.
That's 6-2 Yankees, with big edges at 2nd, SS, and 3rd. The Mets have a big edge at LF, but that's it.
Tomorrow we'll look at the pitching staffs.
Update: Whoops, looks like the Yankees just got Miguel Cairo. Not sure who the Mets are going to play at 2nd now, but I don't think it matters. Big edge to Yankees.
Tonight we'll analyze the position players.
Let's go through it position by position:
1st Base: Jason Giambi vs. Carlos Delgado.
This matchup is actually pretty close. Let's look at the relevant numbers. Giambi had an on-base percentage (OBP) of .440 and a .535 slugging percentage (SLG). That makes his on-base plus slugging (OPS) .975. Delgado had a .399 OBP and .582 SLG for a .981 OPS. Pretty close. Delgado had narrowly more home runs, 33 to 32, but substantially more extra-base hits, 77 to 46. Those numbers are reflected in the SLG.
The biggest difference is RBI. Delgado had 115, while Giambi only had 87. That's a huge gap. But remember, Giambi started the season slowly and spent a large chunk of the season batting at the bottom of the order.
Defense and baserunning are a wash for these guys (although Giambi grounded into 7 double plays while Delgado bounced into 16). They both aren't very good.
I'd give Delgado the edge only because he's been much more consistent and Giambi is injury prone. But if Giambi is healthy these two players are even (and I might give the edge to Giambi because OBP is the most important statistic).
2nd Base: Robinson Cano vs. Miguel Cairo
While Cairo might get the edge in fielding, the hitting is no contest. Cano's OPS: .778. Cairo's: .621. And Cano should only get better. Big edge Yankees.
Shortstop: Derek Jeter vs. Jose Reyes
Reyes stole 60 bases in 75 tries. That's really good, especially for a guy who barely gets on 30% of the time. And Reyes should get better. But seriously, this position isn't even close. Jeter's OPS was .839. Reyes' was .686. Jeter won a gold glove and is one of the best baserunners in baseball. Huge edge Yankees.
3rd Base: Alex Rodriguez vs. David Wright
David Wright is a great player and will get a lot better, but he needs Albert Pujols numbers to make this position close. Big edge Yankees.
Catcher: Jorge Posada vs. Paul LoDuca
The big question is whether Posada had a down year or if he's declining because of age. If he had a bad year, the position isn't close. If these numbers are what should expect than the position is close.
Posada's OBP was .352 and his SLG .430 for a .782 OPS. LoDuca had a .334 OBP and a .380 SLG for a .714 OPS. Posada had more power and got on base more. Posada even threw out a higher percentage of baserunners.
At best this is even and that assumes Posada is in a serious decline and will get worse. But I don't see that so I'll give the position to the Yankees.
Left Field: Hideki Matsui vs. Manny Ramirez
Matsui is good, but Ramirez is much better and that takes into account baserunning and defense. Ramirez's OPS was .982 and Matsui's was .864. I can see Matsui's numbers improving but Manny is just much better. Big edge Mets.
Center Field: Johnny Damon vs. Carlos Beltran
Beltran is the superior fielder and basestealer, so the question really is whether he'll return to his Royals' form. If he hits like last year, Damon is the better player. If he goes back to his almost 40-40 days, when he had a .900 OPS, he's better. The Yankees' lineup is very impressive and Damon will only be better this year. So for the time being I'm going with Damon.
Right field: Gary Sheffield vs. Cliff Floyd
Sheffield's numbers were down last year. His OPS was .891, while Floyd's was .863. The numbers were closer than you think but Floyd had a big bounce back year, so we don't know what we're going to get. Edge to Yankees.
That's 6-2 Yankees, with big edges at 2nd, SS, and 3rd. The Mets have a big edge at LF, but that's it.
Tomorrow we'll look at the pitching staffs.
Update: Whoops, looks like the Yankees just got Miguel Cairo. Not sure who the Mets are going to play at 2nd now, but I don't think it matters. Big edge to Yankees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)