8/27/12: Space Case

Proposition: Jake will visit space by January 1, 2085.

Odds: Even

Stakes: $1,000

Bettors: Me, Jake

***

Easy, convenient, cheap space travel seems to always be around the corner. We fantasized a future built around it with the Jetsons in the 1960s and stretched our imaginations with Star Wars in the 1970s. Then we got personal computers in the 1980s, the internet in the 1990s and smart tech in the 2000s and...well, even with all our progress, space travel seems as far away to most Americans as it was back when Astro and George were getting stuck on that doggy treadmill in the sky.*

Ironically, much of this is due to NASA, the people that got us out of the atmosphere in the first place. NASA's budget, which during the Space Race in the 1950s and 1960s was enormous relative to GDP, has plummeted; though we still send billions of tax dollars down to Houston and Cape Canaveral every year, it's but a tiny slice of the federal pie. And yes, though we've gotten fairly good** at sending robot vehicles into space, we're still limiting space travel to all but the hardiest, brightest, best-trained souls.***

What, then, needs to change? Two things, primarily: Increased funding by the private sector, and the decrease in cost of sending people into space by orders of magnitude. It probably costs, all told, millions of dollars to send a person into space--and we've been doing this for fifty years! Jake won't make it up there until it costs mere thousands to do the same thing. And who's going to send him? Again, it won't be NASA--it'll be some company trying to make a buck or two off intrepid souls who want to spend an afternoon circling the Earth.

If we've made barely any progress in the last half-century of space travel, what makes Jake so optimistic about the next fifty years? I'm not sure. One theory is that the space travel industry will really take off (pun intended) when we figure out how to mine asteroids for rare-Earth metals, something the Chinese have a monopoly on and which we desperately need for all that cool tech we've spent the last few decades inventing. Pure speculation, of course, but a plausible scenario. Another theory: self-assembling nanobots will give us space elevators that make space travel easy and affordable, but not even the most forward-thinking future junkies see this happening any time soon.

And so, for now, we wait. (Cue Elton John's "Rocket Man.")

*Why did anyone think it would make sense to live in pods miles above the Earth? I guess for the same reason we thought it would be cooler to just have an oven use its large gloved robot hands to sprinkle some water on a cube and turn it into a chicken dinner.

**That is, when the robot vehicles don't break and become useless on landing, as one did just a few years back.

***And millionaires like Dennis Tito, and gay millionaires like the dude from N'Sync.

8/25/12: Life, Uninterrupted

Proposition: By January 1, 2050, the average life expectancy of an American will be at least 100 years.

Odds: Even

Stakes: $100

Bettors: Me, Jake

***

Life expectancy made huge strides over the course of the 20th century; in America alone it jumped about thirty years from 1900 to 2000. Of course, that doesn't mean that people weren't living a long time in 1900--it just means that many more people died young, mostly from lack of adequate medical care and poor nutrition. Now that we've effectively plucked that low-hanging fruit with stuff like antibiotics and sterilized medical equipment and the South Beach diet, it will be increasingly harder to add years to our collective life without some sort of major leaps in technology.

Essentially, Jake is betting that some sort of game-changing medicine is coming down the pipe, and he may have reason to be optimistic. A world where robots diagnose disease, stem cells fight aging, and genetic treatment is standard is not so very far off. Still, even with our medical progress over the last three decades, we've only been able to add about 10 years to our national life expectancy, which stands at about 80 for women and a few years less for men. If we continued at our current pace, by 2050 we'd be several years shy of that magical century mark.

This is one of those bets where I win either way; I'll make $100 or be happy knowing that we've made huge strides in medical technology. Hooray!

8/22/12: Even Stephens

Proposition: Stephen Strasburg will finish the 2012 season with a K/IP rate over 1 and an ERA below 3.

Odds: Even

Stakes: $20 

Parameters: If Strasburg doesn't meet both qualifications--if he has a high enough K/IP rate but an ERA over 3, for example--the bet is a push. 

Bettors: Me, Jake

***

We made this bet at the very beginning of the season. Jake has the under on both, and right now things are looking pretty sweet for him. After yesterday's dominant 10 strikeout performance against the dangerous Braves, Strasburg is averaging a gaudy 1.26 K's per inning pitched and there's little doubt Jake will win that half of the bet. His ERA, on the other hand, is a bit closer: at 2.73, and with Strasburg scheduled to make at least 5 more starts* before the end of the season, I can still get a push out of this.

My major concern here is entirely unrelated to our bet: I own Strasburg in my fantasy league, and he anchors what is already a deep and talented rotation.** Still--without him, a fantasy win looks increasingly improbable. I therefore beseech the powers that be to keep Strasburg to a reasonable 5 innings per start until the end of the season. 

In general my baseball bets this season have not been paying off. I took the under on 10 Yu Darvish wins and the under on 24 Adam Dunn HRs, not to mention the over on whether Manny Ramirez would make it back to The Show. On the other hand, my over on 30 HRs for Pujols is looking pretty solid, as is my bet that Josh Hamilton will finish with more HRs than Joey Bats. So I guess it could be worse. 

*Unless he reaches 180 innings before then, in which case the Nationals will shut him down. Pussies.

**Felix Hernandez, Matt Moore, Tim Hudson, Edwin Jackson and Craig Kimbrel. Also: Clay Buchholz.

8/20/12: Double Dutch

Proposition: How many times Mitt Romney will invoke Ronald Reagan at the first presidential debate on October 3rd in Denver.

Odds: Even

Stakes: $5

Parameters: Over/Under three mentions (three being a push)

Bettors: Me, Moot

***

Did you know conservatives LOVE Ronald Reagan? He's like catnip for Republicans. Which is why I believe Moot is a fool for thinking that Romney will mention the Gipper fewer than three times during the first debate. Moreover, I did some cursory research and found that the first debate is on domestic policy--and, since Reagan oversaw one of the briskest economic recoveries in modern history, you can be sure the Mittster will try to remind us of this as many times as possible. That Moot money is as good as mine.

Have you ever wondered why it is that conservatives all rally around Reagan, but liberals don't do the same for their *great* presidents? You don't commonly hear liberals waxing rhapsodic about FDR, JFK, LBJ. I think the closest you'll find to this phenomenon on the left are people longing for the days of Bill Clinton. Remember those heady times? There was pets.com and the Spice Girls and Eddie Murphy was still making funny movies. We even impeached a guy for having oral sex! Good times. It just seems like conservatives have a much clearer intellectual tradition, an uninterrupted line of wealthy, freedom-loving thinkers stretching from Edmund Burke to Ayn Rand. Yeah, I guess liberals have Martin Luther King, Jr. and Christopher Hitchens. Hmm.

Anyhow, all of this is to say that people who love freedom love Ronald Reagan. Also, did you know that Reagan raised taxes? 

8/18/12: What a Catch

Proposition: This catch (from the Canada vs. Mexico first round game of the Little League World Series) will be the ESPN Sportscenter Top Play of the day on Friday, 8/17.

Odds: Even

Stakes: $5

Bettors: Me, Magic Mike

***

Mike won this bet--the catch was indeed the Top Play of yesterday--and, looking back on it, I have no idea why I wagered against it/him. August is one of those weird months where there just isn't a whole lot to care about in the world of sports; football is still in preseason mode, basketball and hockey are months away from returning and baseball's pennant races won't heat up for another few weeks. Networks try to fill the void by drumming up enthusiasm for second- and third-tier events like the Hall of Fame Game and the PGA Championship.* Oh, and the Little League World Series, the premier baseball event for prepubescent boys. Anyway, at this time of year, when an Asian kid from Calgary** lays out for a fly ball, ESPN takes notice.

It's not that I don't understand why something like the Little League World Series exists; it's just that I don't understand why I should care about it. One of the great things about Major League Baseball is that, in the words of Jake, these guys are the best in the world at what they do. And isn't that why we ultimately care about sports in the first place? For the opportunity to see people do things that nobody else on Earth is better at doing? My point being that seeing eleven year olds throw from a 45 foot mound is not impressive. Even I can touch 55 on a gun.***

So the upshot of all of this is that Mike is letting me go double or nothing on the Redskins game tonight. Finally, a reason to care about preseason football!

*Yes, I'm aware that some people care about golf and meaningless football games.

**I have no idea where he's from.

***I did this at Citi Field but still lost the bet because I thought I could hit 60. Nobody--not even the little kids in line behind me--was impressed with my speed.

8/17/12: Carl on Duty: Black Cops

Proposition: Carl Crawford's lifetime OPS+

Odds: Even

Stakes: $10

Parameters: Over/Under: 110

Bettors: Me, Jake

***

I took the under and won--incidentally, Carl Crawford's career OPS+ is currently 105. This seemed low to both of us, actually. (Even though I took the under I regretted doing so all the way up to the moment we learned that I'd won the bet, at which point I became much happier about my choice.) Apparently, in his first two seasons in MLB Crawford OPS+'d under 80, probably because he was only 20 and 21 in those seasons and, while certainly a precocious talent, was clearly not in the mold of the Harpers and Trouts of the world. His propensity to get injured has also hurt him; he's turned in a couple of sub-100 seasons since being traded to the Red Sox.

There isn't much more to say about this bet so I thought I'd make a list of my favorite Tampa Bay (Devil) Rays players over the last ten years:

Rocco Baldelli--number one because of his mitochondrial disorder that actually just turned out to be laziness and also because he shares a first name with one of my favorite animated wallabies.
Grant Balfour, because he's Australian.
Evan Longoria
Fred McGriff, briefly.
James Shields
Sam Fuld, because he's Jewish but never had a Bar Mitzvah, and you know what? That's okay.
Desmond Jennings, because he makes me think of Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Wade Boggs...sike!

That is all.

Definitely NOT B.J. Upton

8/16/12: America's Pastime

Proposition: A best-of-seven World Series of Super Baseball Simulator 1.000 for the SNES.

Odds: Even

Stakes: $20

Parameters: Players can use Ultra League Teams and all Ultra Plays. Using an Ultra Play against the opposing team's pitcher costs the bettor a dollar per pitch. 

Bettors: Me, Jake

***

This is our sixth World Series of SBS1.000. A quick recap:

World Series #1: Jake wins every odd-numbered game en route to a narrow 4-3 Series victory. Real World Series analogue: Pirates over Yankees, 1960

World Series #2: Jake sweeps in 4 games. A real yawner of a Series as Jake's Power Team carves up my pitching. Reds over Athletics in 1990.

World Series #3: A more dominant Jake sweep, as every game is a blowout. Yankees over Padres in 1998.

World Series #4: I win in six; the final game features a bottom of the ninth walk off homerun that basically sets the standard for thrilling conclusions to baseball games and establishes me, newly settled in as captain of the Heroes Squad, as one of the premier managers of our time. Blue Jays over Braves, 1992.

World Series #5: This time Jake takes it in six, out-dueling me in the last two games to eke out a win. Braves over Indians, 1995.

So far WS6 is tied at one game apiece. The first game featured a strong showing by my bullpen, as four pitchers combined to hold Jake's prodigious sluggers to a couple of runs. In the second game Jake fired back with a three-run seventh, giving him a narrow but ultimately insurmountable lead. Games three through five will be held at Jake's home ballpark which features deep dimensions to all parts of the outfield and a dirt infield which slows down ground balls. 

If you're keeping score at home, you've noticed that Jake currently owns a 19-10 advantage in WS matchups, which might make you wonder why the odds are one to one. The answer: ever since I took over Heroes Squad my record against Jake is 7-7, making the odds much more reasonable. 

Games continue today, tomorrow and Saturday if necessary.