Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Better than You think

I wanted to post this prediction before the first game of the regular season especially since I seem to be going against the grain.

For years, since I was a child in the Ryan/Tanana days, I have predicted the Angels to win the world series whether I had really believed it or not.  But back in the days, even when the Angels hit below .240 as a team, I still believed, on day one of the regular season, that the Angels would be in first on October 1.

Even as a more rational adult, I probably still grade the Angels better than they would be, but this year, I really think the Angels will contend for the division title, and for the World Series championship.

I thought the experts would see it the same way this year, but apparently not. The consensus is that the AL West will be a two team race between Houston and Texas with no regard for the other three teams.  I found one prognosticator predicting the Angels would finish in second, but by and large, the Angels are not even thought of as an afterthought for many baseball "experts."  One writer predicted that the Angels will post the worst record in the American League, and another basically made fun of the lower half of the projected Angels lineup.

They say Mike Trout is really the true offensive weapon the Angels have, and that Richards cannot carry the starting rotation.

While Trout may be the most potent offensive player the Angels have, I really don't see much weakness in the Angels offensive. Conversely, I see them as a very balanced team.  Last year, they were good at getting on base; they just weren't very good at scoring those runners.  They very rarely sacrificed last year (If I had to guess, take out Aybar and the pitchers in inter-league games, the Angeles probably sacrificed less than five times the entire season). I believe this has been corrected this year.

Here is my take on the Angels offensively.

1. Escobar is will a great leadoff hitter. He will hit for average and get on base.
2. Calhoun can hit for power and average and can run. He can fit anywhere between 2 - 5 on any team's lineup and even hit leadoff on some teams, as he has done in the past with the Angels.
3. Trout  - do I need to say more?
4. Pujols - Had foot surgery last November, and yes, getting older.  I know he wants to, but he will probably play less first base this year and DH more. This will save his energy, and I think he will have the best offensive year he has had since joining the Angels.
5. Cron - had a great 2015 spring, and a good second half of the season.  He had a good spring this season. I think this year, he will have a good full season this year. Also has power.
6. Simmons hasn't matured offensively as people expected when he first came up with the Braves, but he's had a good spring, and I think he will have a really good offensive year also.
7. Perez/Soto.  Both of these guys are capable of hitting for power and average.
8. Nava/Gentry - When Nava is in the game, he will probably hit second, but both these guys are also very capable, offensively.
9. Giavotella - can bat first or second when needed. Hits for average, and has some pop in the bat.

So, there you have it, according to my thoughts.  I think up and down the lineup, the Angels have good hitters. They have a nice combination of speed and power, and batters who might bat in the lower third of the lineup who could on any given day, bat at the top of the order.

Here is my take on Angels defensively.

1. Perez/Soto -No shame here. Soto is a veteran, but this is Perez' third year, and the first two were behind Chris Ianetta, but this year, people will get to know Perez and how appreciate how good of a player he is.
2. Cron - Admittedly, I'll still take a less mobile Pujols over the younger Cron, but Cron has improved a lot at first, and will continue to improve defensively the more he plays. And Pujols, though known for offense, knows how to play the position, and is one f the best defensive first basemen in the league.
3. Giavotella - worked a lot in the off season and they say his defense has improved a lot as a result. But even with lapses last year, he showed good range and play making talent.
4. Simmons - no questions on defense here, regarded as one of the best defensive shortstops, if not the best.
5. Escobar - strong arm and good range. Quality third baseman.
6 - 8. Outfield: Trout, Calhoun, Nava/Gentry - Best outfield in the majors.

And on pitching. I think they have a great starting rotation. Much better than what most experts give them credit for.

1. Richards - one of the best young arms in the game, watch him revert back to 2014 form.
2. Heaney - another great young arm. Watch him have a breakout year.
3. Santiago - would have lapses at inopportune times.  He has sped up his game this year, and I think this will help him a lot. Watch him have a big year as well.
4. Weaver - so he has lost a lot of velocity over the past few years, but he is still great and changing speeds and still one of the great curveballs in the game.
5. Shoemaker - remember, he won 16 games his rookie season. Still has a great forkball/split finger. I think he needs another "outpitch." On many other teams, I'd have him as the third starter.

On top of this, Tyler Skaggs is still recovering from Tommy John surgery. He is also one of the great young arms the Angels have. And CJ Wilson, though inconsistent at time the last couple of seasons, is still a quality pitcher and one of my favorite players in the game.

Am I being a little bit overly positive? Maybe. But it is the first full day of the regular season.  And more importantly, I really do believe the Angels are fielding a very good team this year, and will be in the running to win the World Series this year.

Rubio/Cruz ticket for GOP in 2016?

This is copied and pasted from the blog I maintain on my author website.  I normally blog from here and then export to other sites, but when I blog from my author site, it doesn't  export to here, so...

Here is the blogpost:

Last weekend, I made several predictions about how the 2016 presidential campaign will play out.  I was waaaay wrong about Jeb Bush, which was my out of the world prediction - that he would be the GOP nominee.  But I do think he dropped out too soon. He should have waited until Super Tuesday because the field is still crowded enough and enough delegates are still up for grabs for him to make an impact while not hurting Rubio enough. Despite their "feud," Rubio, I believe would be his answer to the question, "If you couldn't be the nominee, who would you like to see as the nominee?"

Okay, one of my predictions is that Ted Cruz would the kingmaker at a brokered GOP convention.  I think this is more realistic now, and I think what will happen is that the GOP insiders will play "campaign games" to see what combination will have the best chance of winning the election.

I think no matter who the GOP nominee is, he will win the rural vote.  However, between Trump/Cruz/Rubio, I believe Rubio will be the best choice to challenge the Democrats in the urban areas.  I think Trump refuses to budge, and Cruz, despite all his fights with the GOP establishment, backs down and asks his delegates to support Rubio on a subsequent ballot.

So, here is my edit to one of the predictions I made last week.  Rubio will be the GOP nominee

As a reward, Cruz is asked what he wants.  I'm not sure if he would want this, but if he wanted to be the VP candidate, I'm pretty sure it would be his for the asking.

A Rubio/Cruz ticket would probably the most volatile since Kennedy/Johnson became running mates, but most of the time,  the presidential candidate and vice-presidential candidate are from two different constituencies (philosophically like Reagan/Bush, Geographically like again. Reagan/Bush, or vocationally like Clinton/Gore (Governor and Senator))  And in this case, it would bring marry two factions of the Republican party - and the only question would be how well they could bring in the libertarian faction of the party into the fold.

As I write this, Nevada is deciding on their choice for the Republican nominee and Rubio seems to be getting the bulk of endorsements from the establishment - it was as if the establishment was waiting for either Rubio or Bush to drop out, and now that Bush has suspended his campaign, it was like an invitation for them to endorse Rubio.

For the Democratic side, it seems what I predicted, that Sanders must decidedly defeat Clinton in several states, is getting more coverage.  Clinton has the Democratic establishment backing her and she may win the Democratic nomination even if she enters the convention with less pledged delegates from the popular voting.

So, super Tuesday is next week. Lets see how far off I am.

Thoughts on How the 2016 Presidential Elections Will Play Out

I generally stay out of political discussions, and the following is not an endorsement of any candidate. One of the best exercises for writers is that of "What If," and over the last couple of days, I was doing this with this year's candidates.  Nostradamus, I'm not, but I'd like to record some predictions.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but if I'm right, it'd be nice to have a record of my predictions before the fact. So, here goes. - I am writing this on February 16, 2016

1. Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination.

The Clinton supporters probably said, "Duh," but the Sanders supporters probably said, "No way!"  I think the most recent polls show the two candidates in a dead heat.  When everything is all over and done with, Sanders might end up with more pledged delegates at the convention.

The following has been mentioned, but won't get much airtime until the convention because it wont't come into play unless the candidates are within about 10% of each other at that time.  That is the role of superdelegates.  Super-delegates in the Democratic party will make up about 15% of  the delegates at the convention.  These delegates are party leaders and officials, and are not bound to vote for the candidate who "won" the primary or caucus in the state from which he/she is from.

In a tight race, if one candidate has the support of a vast majority of these superdelegates, then that candidate, even losing the "popular" vote during the primary season, could win the Democratic party nomination.  And, at this time, it seems Hillary Clinton will be getting a vast majority of these votes.

So, the primary and caucus voting will be tight, Sanders might even have more pledged delegates when the convention starts, but Hillary Clinton will win the nomination.

2. The Republican Nominee Will be the result of a Brokered Convention, and Ted Cruz will be the King-Maker

Donald Trump may possibly win the plurality of primary and caucuses, and show up with the most delegates, but he needs 50%, and he will be far from it.  I think he'll probably end up with about 30 - 35% of the pledged delegates.  And I don't think any of the current candidates will be dropping out.

The Republican version of Super-delegates, the unpledged delegates make up less than 10% of the total, and I don't think they will be voting for Trump as long as Rubio and Bush are in the race.

So, let's say the following will be at the time of convention.
A.  Trump 35%
B. Cruz 25%
C. Rubio 25%
D. Bush 10%
E. Others 5%

I think Carson will drop down to the "also rans," as the primary season progresses.

So, no one gets the nomination on the first ballot, and the dealing begins.  I doubt Trump will get any of the Bush/Rubio supporters, so his defectors have to come from Cruz.  But I don't think Cruz will drop out. Bush/Rubio would probably negotiate and one or the other would combine their delegates. That gives them 35%, plus about 10% of the non-pledged delegates. I think the Carson votes will go to Trump, and the Kasich votes go to Rubio/Bush.

This leaves Trump and Rubio/Bush with about 40% of the votes each, and Cruz with 25%, but lets say 20%, since the superdelegates will dilute his share.

So, by second ballot, it will be

A. Trump 40%
B. Rubio/Bush 40%
C. Cruz 20%

Cruz will be king maker and the candidate he supports will win the nomination.  It will be the one who is feuding with him the least.

I don't know who it will be, but if I had to stick my my neck out, it would be Jeb Bush.  I think currently Rubio might be the establishment favorite, but 1. Ted Cruz might say he would support Bush, but not Rubio for the candidacy; 2. the really big donors might favor Bush - and with these two reasons, Rubio might agree to defer to Bush for the nomination. If this happens, then Rubio will almost be assured to choose whether he wants to be the VP candidate, which he may or may not want.

3. It Doesn't Really Matter if Trump Runs as an Independent.

After not getting the nomination, Trump may run as an independent.  At first, it may seem that this will hurt the Republican candidate, but I think it's more complicated than that. Regardless of what Trump decides, a good number of Republicans who voted for Trump in the primaries will end up voting for the Republican candidate, so I don't think it hurts the Republicans in this respect.

As for the Republicans who vote for Trump as an Independent, I think he will be able to pull enough Democrats over to his side to even things out.  However, I think what would happen is that in the more liberal states, the Republicans will vote for the nominee, and Democrats will not cross over to Trump.  In the more conservative states, Trump pulls from the Republican candidate, but also gets cross over from the Democrats. I think it evens out.

If Trump doesn't run as an independent, a lot of his supporters would sit out the election.

4.  If Trump Makes  A Big Impact, Jeb Bush will be the Next President, but I highly doubt this will happen.

If Trump wins enough states to prevent either party from enough electoral votes, then the election goes to the House, in which case, the Republicans will win since they have the majority.

4. Of Course, there is a way for Trump to get enough electoral votes to send the election to the House.

After the 2000 elections, several states, including California (a large state), made a change to who their electoral votes will go to. Instead of the candidate who wins the state, the electoral votes will go to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally. At least in California, I believe this went into effect in 2008, and California voters voted for the same candidate who won the popular national vote. However,what would happen if Donald Trump gets the most popular votes nationally by finishing in second in many states?  He could get a significant number of electoral votes by not even winning a state.

5.  If Bush and Clinton Get the Nominations, it will be a Proxy Vote between Bill Clinton and George W. Bush

Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton will run as individuals, but invariably it will turn into a popularity contest between the Bill Clinton and George W, Bush administrations.  I think people have fonder memories of the Bill Clinton years and thus, Hillary Clinton will win.

So, that's my prediction for this election year.  There are so many variables tat have not played out, yet, including Hillary Clinton's email issue, and Ted Cruz' citizenship issues, and other issues that may or may not pop up.  But given the situation today, I think it will play out in a way that Hillary Clinton will be our next president.

When I first starting writing this piece, I was sure I'd conclude that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee, that Marco Rubio would be the Republican nominee, and Donald Trump wouldn't make a difference whether he ran as an independent or not. I'm pretty confident that Hillary will win the Democratic nominee, and the Republicans will have a brokered convention, but other than that, I think this is how it will play out, but I'm not too sure.

As they say in sports, "That's why you play the game.  You never know how it will turn out."

Toe Up to 10K wins Gold Medal in 2015 Reader's Favorite Book Awards

My book on my journey of recovery from spinal cord injury, Toe Up to 10K,  has won a Gold Medal in the 2015 Reader's Favorite Book Awards.

Alternate dimensions and alternate universes

Recently, I came across an article on a theory which stated that there are alternate universes and they all interact which each other, and that because some actions were different at some point, things turned out differently.

I think the article stated that such theories have been around since the 1950's.

I first came across this in the comic book world. - DC comics having re-did all their Golden Age heroes into the Silver Age, decided to have them enter each other's universe. In the DC Universe, this became known as Earth-1 and Earth-2.  Although stories almost always revolved around the interaction between Earth-1 and Earth-2, there was Earth-3, Earth-4, and so on, and actually an infinite number of Earths, out of which came a mini-series, "Crisis on Infinite Earths."

In some of these worlds, the same person would be the same hero - Clark Kent was Superman for both Earths, but Jay Garrick is the Flash in Earth-1, while Barry Allen is Flash in Earth-2.  Everything was a little bit different.

Although I don't (didn't) watch these show, I think Dr. Who and the 90's tv show Sliders, also are plays on the alternate universe theory.

I can't remember where I read this, and I think the subject was dimensions, but I have come to apply it as the way I understand universes and dimensions: Within a dimension, there are an infinite number of universes.  Visually, a dimension is like  a hotel.  Each room in a hotel is a separate universe. The rooms don't interact with other, but sometimes they do - maybe the door might be open between connecting rooms; maybe the guests in one room visit guests in another room.  So, they are separate, but there is a chance that a visitor from one universe may enter another universe - like Earth-1 and Earth-2.

If each hotel room is a separate universe within a dimension, then each dimension is a separate hotel.  And separate hotels would have different rules.  It would be a little bit harder for interactions to take place - after all, guests in one hotel would rarely walk into another hotel (except in Las Vegas, and other gambling jurisdictions - but that would be the casino, restaurants, etc - not the hotel part). But sometimes one party might decide to stay in different hotels, thus visit each other.  This is kind of the way I see the supernatural - and actually, the show, Twilight Zone played on this thought. On that show, it was the dimension of imagination and shadows.

But what if ghosts, angels and demons were entities from another dimension that found their way into our dimension, and within a certain space in our dimension, use the rules of their own dimension.  I think I read this in the same place, but the author's point was that someone from a 2-D world could never comprehend a 3-D world, just like we couldn't comprehend a 4-D world.  I'll just add to this and offer, what if we entered a 2-D world and were able to use the rules of the 3-D world.  We might be seen as demons or Angels in their dimension.  

As I wrote this, I was trying to figure out what book my ideas came from (how accurately or well I understood those concepts in that book are another story).  But I found the book, it is titled, Warped Passages, by Lisa Randall, who is a renowned physicist.

Interesting stuff, especially for writers.

Stretching a Thought, But is There a Ghostly orb in this photo?

I  decided to scan an old photo of myself for a ThrowBack Thursday posting.  However, my scanner would scan in black and white, and something on the photo caught my eye.

I had always noticed in in the original color photo, but it is distinctive on the scanned black and white.

The photo is from 1989 taken with a film camera.

There is a white streak next to me, and if you follow that streak, both ways, it starts at the ceiling, and the ends with a white dot at the top right corner of the window.  I had always thought that dot was a street light, or the moon, but now that I look at the photo, I think the dot is indoors.  I can't tell whether the blinds are up or down -the flash from the camera is reflected, which I take as an indication that the blinds were still up. These aren't the metal blinds, but they were wood blinds, so I don't think they would reflect as well.

I had always thought the streak next to me was a scratch. But would a scratch have such a distinctive route?  Then I thought it was the camera moving. But if that were so, there should be other streaks. For instance, the light indicator on the smoke detector above the door. That is a green light, and if the camera moved, there should be a streak there also.  There are other white dots in the photo, but i think those are just scratches off the original photo.

I used to watch those ghost hunting shows, and they would talk about orbs a lot. Orbs look like dust particles, but instead of randomly floating around, they would have a "route."  And it seems that this streak has a route.

I'm not a professional photographer, so I don't know what other explanations there would be other than a scratch on the lens or the camera moving.

But it is fun to speculate that my friend who took my picture many years back also caught a ghostly streak coming out of my ceiling and going into my bedroom.

With that, I present a Throwback Thursday photo one day early.

Back to Tony Robbins

Over the weekend I decided to put in a cassette tape of one of Anthony Robbins programs which 1/2 the session consists of his topic and half consists of an interview he conducts with a self-help type of person.  I'm only two tapes in and he has spoken with Ken Blanchard of One Minute Manager and Charles Givens, the late personal finance guru. OK, so Givens has a less than desirable reputation to some people, but I never really understood the Florida fraud case in which he was sued for, and ultimately settled.

Just to go of tangent a little, from what I understand, he was sued for fraud because he advocated dropping whole life insurance in favor of term life insurance - and the deceased had cancelled his whole life insurance and he died before enrolling in term life insurance.  And this is fraud?

It's just advice.  Whether it is Ken Blanchard talking about corporate management, Charles givens talking about money management, or Tony Robbins talking about being positive - it's all just advice.  It's up to the recipient to process that advice and act or not act on it, and the manner to which to act.

Anyway, back to the Tony Robbins talks.  When I was a teen-ager, I read Jose Silva's The Silva Mind Control Method, Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking, and a bunch of other self-help books.  I jumped on the Anthony Robbins bandwagon in the early 1990's.

As I got further and further into my career, I continued to think positively and all, but I stopped reading and listening to these motivational speakers on a regular basis, and when i did, I would just do so on a shallow level.

In 2012, I came down with meningitis, which almost killed me, and left me a paraplegic for a few months.  I'm still recovering, and over the last 2 years, I've periodically re-read self help books such as Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich, and others, but with the same shallowness I had before my injury.

But last weekend, I put in the Tony Robbins tape, and something clicked.  As much as I try to maintain a positive outlook, I realized that being positive often needs tweaking, and listening to these tapes motivates me to tweak out the negatives that do build up and focus on the positives.

Sometimes they are referenced as coaches.  But they aren't, really.  You have to follow a coaches' order or get benched. These are just advisors, or consultants. You listen to them, and its up to you to take their advice, but their value is that they either bring a perspective that you hadn't thought of before, or they remind you  of a perspective you once had on a subject and move you towards re-considering that perspective.