Link City #4

Baseball

Bradley Woodrum writes about Mo'ne Davis. While I never got a chance to actually see her pitch, I think all of the attention she is getting (and how she is handling it) is and will be a good thing for baseball. This is also amusing.

David Kagan talks about the physical limitations of replay reviews. A lot of technical talk here.

TechGraphs looks like it's going to be awesome and David G. Temple's first post does nothing to dispel that.

Drew Fairservice writes about pitcher hitting and it's impact on this year's playoff races. This is another thing that I have always wondered about. Not so much on how it impacts a playoff race, more of just in a general sense. How good of a bat does a bad pitcher need to be worth keeping on a roster? Just like aging hitters who can no longer field a position every day become DHs, could an aging pitcher who just doesn't have the same stuff he used to be a valuable pitcher if he has a decent bat?

Magic: The Gathering

Josh Silvestri discusses how slow play can change the outcome of a match. I don't usually mind slow play myself, sometimes you just need to sit and think about your options for a minute. That said, I never really thought about how much time shuffling and taking a mulligan can waste. I will for sure be more mindful of this in the future.

Luyman's Terms #16: Lets Make Fun of My Draft Skill

Today is my birthday, so today will be a quick post. While I like to think I'm pretty good with reading and manipulating board states. I'm pretty much the worst drafter that ever drafted.

Went 1-2. Yep.

Luyman's Terms #15: Learning WPA and WE with Goofy

In my post on Monday, I mentioned that I would expand upon the How to Play Baseball video with Goofy. I thought it might be fun to take the video and learn a couple new stats and how they work together. Those two stats are Win Probability Added (WPA) and Win Expectancy (WE). These are hardly stats that are predictive, but they are fun to play around with. They do a good job telling the story of a particular game, and outline "clutch" plays quite well.

To understand how these stats work, we must first understand the concept of "context neutral" statistics. Context neutral stats are stats that do not care about about the situation in which they are trying to quantify. Like my pieces about the value of hitters in the batters box. Tat stat didn't care about if the batter came to the plate with runners on 1st and 3rd with nobody out or if there was only a runner on 2nd with 1 out or nobody on and 2 outs. All it cared about was the outcome of the at bat.

Most stats are context neutral. Batting average only cares if a batter got a hit, OBP only cares if a batter got on base, and fielding percentage only cares if a defender didn't make an error on a play. Context neutral stats are great for large sample sizes. Unfortunately, context does matter during an individual game of baseball. Not every single is created equal. Some singles score runs if runners are on base, others don't.

Enter WPA. this is a statistic that is entirely depends upon context, and quantifies the difference between singles that score runs and singles that don't (as well as any other batting event). WPA uses what are called Win Expectancy Matrices to determine the change in a teams probability of winning. Now that we have a rough idea of what WPA is, lets learn how to calculate it piece by piece. I used this tool to determine win expectancy

We join our game already in progress with the Blue Sox up by 3 in the bottom of the ninth. At this point, the Blue Sox are a 99.443% favorite to win (and I imagine a little extra since the batter has two strikes). This means that the home team only has a 0.557% chance of winning. Our pitcher is pretty pleased with himself, and gives the crowd a bow.

 He unleashes his next pitch...and the batter ends up Bill Bucknering the third baseman and ends up on first with a single.

As a result of this play, our team now has a 98.854% chance of winning, and the home team now has a whopping 1.146% chance! Since RedGoofy1 was the batter who hit the single, he is credited with .00589 WPA for that plate appearance. Immediately after RedGoofy1 gets into a run down and ends up stealing second!

As a result of this play, our team now has a 98.924% chance to win, and the home team has a 1.076% chance. After the steal of second, RedGoofy1 is credited with - .00007 WPA. Bringing his total WPA for the inning to .00589 - .00007 = .00582 WPA. So why did RedGooy1's WPA drop after a steal of second? He's in a much better position to score! Shouldn't it go up?

This is one of the problems of dealing with small samples. If we take a closer look into amount of times this particular situation has come up, we see that a total of 1208 games had this exact game state. That may sound like a  lot, but that is 1208 games out of a 112620 game sample. That translates to 1.0726% of total games played. That isn't very many.

Let's go back to our game. After RedGoofy1 steals 2nd base, our hero pitcher gets so salty that he cracks the next batter right in the face! 

That leaves runners on first and second and with our team at a 96.234% chance of winning! This leaves the home team at a 3.766% chance to win and RedGoofy2 is credited with .026934 WPA. With the tying run coming up to bat, I'm still feeling pretty good about our teams chances of a victory! The feeling doesn't last very long as RedGoofy3 drops a bunt, wacky cartoon hijinks ensue, and the bases are suddenly loaded.

This brings our team with a 91.12% chance of winning and the home team with a 8.86% chance of winning. RedGoofy3 is credited with .05094 WPA. It should be noted that while the batters are gaining WPA, our pitcher is losing it as a result. WPA is a zero sum stat, meaing that for every positive value incurred, there is an equal negative value somewhere else. Our pitcher has a WPA for the third of an inning of -.00589 (single) + .00007 (stolen base) - .026934 (HPB) - .05094 (bunt) = -.083694 total WPA, meaning he is charged with costing his team of losing 8.3694% of a win since recording the 2nd out of the inning.

So even with the bases loaded, and the winning run at the plate, I'm still feeling pretty good about our team's chances of winning. The next batter hits a long fly ball to center, more wacky cartoon hijinks ensue and our teams finally records the third out! We win! A fight breaks out, because baseball, and we are left to celebrate out victory.

After the dust settles, RedGoofy4 is credited with -.0886 WPA since he dropped his team's chances of winning down to 0%. Our pitcher is credited with .0886 WPA since he raised his team's chances of winning up to 100%. That brings his total WPA since the second out was recorded to -.00589 (single) + .00007 (stolen base) - .026934 (HPB) - .05094 (bunt) + .0886 (third out) = .004906 WPA.

It should be noted, again, that this is hardly a predictive statistic. WPA has a weak year-to-year correlation of .414 which means that only 17% of year X WPA informs a players year X+1 WPA. Which means that 83% of WPA comes from somewhere else. Most likely it is the amount of chances a player has to come to bat in high leverage situation and how often they succeed in those situations. If a player has a lot of chances, they are more likely to have a high WPA. If a player does not get those opportunities, their WPA will suffer.

Link City #3

Baseball

Brett Talley asks if fantasy owners are putting too much stock in pitcher matchups. This is something that I have always thought about, and my conclusion has always been the same as his (even if I've never looked into any data). In my leagues, I almost never change my starters before June or July and only then if my pitchers are up against an exceptionally good or bad team.

Learning baseball with Goofy and Bradley Woodrum. I will expand on this Wednesday.

This conspiracy runs pretty deep.

Chris Gigley wrote a piece on some of the players from the Staten Island Yankees, the New York Yankees short-season single-A affiliate. I almost always enjoy pieces on minor league baseball players. It never ceases to amaze me how their major league counterparts make hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year, while they make less than I do. And everyone seems to be alright with that.

Nick Ashbourne writes about how outstanding Aroldis Chapman's year has been. This is mostly another "this player is even better than you thought" piece, but I'm a big Red's fan and I need something to be happy about.

Miscellaneous

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Mark Rosewater's article from last monday. I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another about the block format as far playing is concerned. I've only been playing Magic for a few months and by the time the change starts happening I will not know any different.

The Boston Globe and Retale.com show us what everyone in America is doing at this exact moment. I've kept this running in a tab for a few days now, I find it incredibly fascinating.

Andrew Wheeler talks about the effects of changing a superhero's costume. I'll let this one speak for itself.

Luyman's Terms #14: Rabble Red

Today, I just want to show you guys my version of the "Rabble Red" deck that become so popular recently. I've seen quite a few different lists, and to be honest I'm not sure which list is the best. Mine is set up to still be legal post rotate, mostly because 99% of my cards are from Theros block and M15. Here is the list:

• Creature (20)
View Image 4
×
• 4 Frenzied Goblin
• 4 Foundry Street Denizen
• 4 Goblin Rabblemaster
• 4 Satyr Firedancer
• Instant (16)
• 4 Lightning Strike
• 4 Magma Jet
• 4 Searing Blood
• 4 Stoke the Flames
• Sorcery (4)
• 4 Act on Impulse
• Land (20)
• 20 Mountain
• Sideboard (4)
• 4 Harness by Force
• Maybeboard (4)
• Chandra, Pyromaster
• Generator Servant
• Krenko's Enforcer
• Aggressive Mining

There are a few cards that I have in my list that I have not seen on any others, and I want to take some time and tell you why they are included:

• Satyr Firedancer is a great way to burn out my opponents early drop creatures if they are trying to out-aggro me, and even a great way to get rid of big late game creatures. There have been a couple instances where I have burned my opponent for 5-7 with various cards and taken out a high toughness creature in the process. If one of those cards is a searing blood I can usually take out another creature as well. This almost always leads to a victory.
• Frenzied Goblin is also nice to have in almost any stage of the game. It's a one drop creature that I can start turning sideways quickly and its ability is quite relevant in the late game when I'm trying to get in the last few points of damage and I don't have my Firedancer/burn spell combo.
• Act on Impulse is a card good only in the late game, but it does its job very well. When I first started playing this deck I found myself without a hand after turn 5 or 6 fairly often. My opponent would be at 2 and I would be begging for the top of my deck to be a burn spell. Since I've put Act on Impulse in, I've not once had this problem. There have been a couple times where I draw the card in my opening hand or early in the game and it sits in my hand while I die, but I think that is acceptable given that the number of times it has drawn me that last burn spell I need is much bigger than the times it just sits in my hand. 

This deck has been a blast for me to play. My win percentage with it is over 70%! Barring some new amazing archetype out of Khans of Tarkir, I will probably be playing Rabble Red for the foreseeable future. What do you guys think? Could my list use a tweak here or there? Do you wish this deck would die? Let me know!

Luyman's Terms #13: When Pinch Hitting Works

For this post, I will be using data from the 2008 and 2009 seasons because it is the most recent data I have at the moment. I am having issues updating my database and I hope to have more recent data in the near future.

When I first sat down to write this, all that I knew was that I wanted to do some sort of a post on pinch hitting. Pinch hitting strikes me as one of the most complicated parts of a baseball game, while also being one of simplest. If you're pitcher is having a bad day on the mound and it's his turn in the order to bat, you pinch hit for him. If the home team is down in the bottom of the ninth and it's the pitcher's turn to bat, you pinch hit for him. These are both easy decisions.

What complicates matters is if a team is down one or two runs late in the game, or even if a team is down five or six runs. What if you're down 6-1 in the 5th and the pitcher's spot is up? Is it worth it to pinch hit in such a low leverage situation? What if you're down 1-0 in the 7th and it's the pitchers turn to bat? Do you pinch hit for the pitcher to try to score and hand the ball off to a potentially worse pitcher? 

In all of the following charts, sheet one will be reserved for starters, sheet two will be reserved for pinch hitters, and sheet three will be your cheat sheet for determining which hitter type was worth more runs. According to my data, there were a total of 9718 plate appearances by pinch hitters in those two seasons opposed to 358137 plate appearances by players that started the game. This means that a little over 2.6% of plate appearances were by pinch hitters.

Here is the expected number of runs generated by hitters while hitting in a given out state:

 

It makes sense to see that the runs generated goes down as the number of outs goes up. If you have more outs, then you have fewer chances to score runs. What's interesting is that pinch hitters are worth more than non-pinch hitters in situations where they come to the plate with one or two outs recorded, but starters are worth more when no outs have been recorded. Let's see if we can figure out why.

To do this, we will have to break our data into more, smaller pieces. With smaller pieces it will be easier for us to identify exactly when/why our data shifts. Lets take a look at how  Here is the expected number of runs generated by hitters separated by base/out state:

According to this, there are four instances (out of a possible 24) where pinch hitters are worth more than non-pinch hitters when they come to the plate with no outs, but only two instances when they come to the plate with one or two outs. This seems backward since we determined that pinch hitters were worth more when they came to the plate with one or two outs in the first chart. These tables seem to tell us the opposite. Lets take a look at the data from a different perspective. What do the number look like when we take into account how many runs a team is down or if the score is tied when they send a pinch runner to the plate?

It should be noted that this is far from a complete chart. The score of a game of baseball often differs by more than four runs, but these situations were by far the most common, and I didn't want the results skewed by a small sample size. In every situation but three, pinch hitters were worth more than starters. Two of those three situations are when the batter comes to the plate with no outs, which helps confirm our first chart. It looks like its a good idea for a team to pinch hit if they are in a position to do so. What about when a players team is up when a that player pinch hits?

Same disclaimer as above, these were simply the most common situations and I didn't want the results skewed by a small sample size. Here, we see similar results to when a team is down when they pinch hit. The only situation in which a starter was worth more was when he came up to bat with no outs recorded, which also helps to confirm our first chart. It also seems as if even if a team is up it is advantageous for them to send a pinch hitter to the plate if they are in a position to do so.

So what about that second chart that seems to contradict everything else? Lets take another look at the data. This time, sheet three will show the number of times a pinch hitter came up to bat in those situations:

Now this is interesting. Most notably when a pinch hitter came up to the plate with runners on 1st and 2nd and one or two recorded outs. As you can see, there is a sizable increase in pinch hitters in those situations. Those also happen to be the situations in which pinch hitters were more valuable than starters. This may simply be a coincidence, but nonetheless explains why that chart seems to contradict all of the others.

According to all of this data, if a team has an opportunity to pinch hit, they probably should. It seems as if the fresh bat is worth more than the tired bat, especially as pressure increases due to outs being recorded or if the game is close. That said, I'm not convinced that this data is at all definitive. It might be worth looking into how much the handedness of a pinch hitter compares to the handedness of the batter he is replacing as well as how much pinch hitting for a pitcher vs pinch hitting for a position player changes the data. I think this is a good stopping point for today though and will give us something to chew on for awhile.

Link City #2

Here's a list of things that I found interesting this week!

Baseball

Jeff Sullivan attempts to explain how the Orioles are beating their projections. Unsurprisingly, he fails. That said, the Orioles are having a heck of a year. And while I'm not a huge fan of results-oriented thinking (I do not think that being in first place makes the Orioles a good team, or vice versa), results are what matter and the Orioles have them.

Drew Fairservice takes a look at Mike Trout and why his value on the basepaths has taken a dip this season. It's interesting to look back on Trout's (short) carrer, and how he has changed so much as a hitter. He's no longer as valuable on the base paths (and this article suggests that that fact might be up for debate), but just keeps getting better with his bat to offset the decline. If nothing else, I think this article serves as a nice reminder on the merits (or lack thereof) of small sample sizes.

Dave Cameron writes about pitch framing and how it may or may not impact his vote for NL MVP. While I see the merits of pitch-framing and have no trouble seeing it's value to a team. I'm not sure if that skill alone is worth considering a player for the MVP ballot. That said, I love Cameron's willingness to entertain all options and really put some thought into something like this. Defense is part of the game too, and preventing runs is probably just as important as creating them.

Magic: The Gathering

Reid Duke explaining What is Magic? I think this is both a perfect primer for a new player to the game, as well as a good way of explaining what the game is for people who just don't understand. 

Marshall Sutcliffe explaining the his and Brian Wong's "Quadrant Theory" for drafting. I think like it a lot more than BREAD. The quadrant theory makes you think more about a card than "is it good", which is all I have found myself doing when I consider BREAD while drafting. The quadrant theory makes you consider WHEN a card is good. Which I think will lead to more synergy throughout a draft deck and, therefore, a better draft deck.

Mike Linnemann explaining some of the real-world inspiration for Khans of Tarkir. If you like to dabble in being Vorthos (as I do), this is the article for you. 

Nick Vigabool shows some statistics on how M15 has impacted standard. As for me, M15 has led to many different deck ideas (with varying levels of success). My favorite of which was a mono-red deck featuring Goblin Rabblemaster, which I was delighted to see pop-up at Pro Tour M15. My deck is built slightly different from the one Jeremy Dezani and the like ran, but that is because I have set mine up for post-rotation. I've had quite a bit of success with it nonetheless. Here is a decklist if you're interested.

Miscellaneous (a.k.a. reading about Batman)

I spent a lot of time this week looking at Comics Alliances's posts on Scott Snyder and the Batman: Zero Year story arc. There were several different interviews with Snyder that took place in different times throughout the arc, but my favorite by far was the last interview that took place after the story was over. It gave me a whole new outlook on the story, and gave me a better appreciation of both the story itself, and the choices the creative team made.

I also enjoyed this post from Andrew Wheeler on the story from the perspective of a new reader. I don't really have anything to say about it, I just like to read new and different perspectives on things I've been involved with for a long time. 

Luyman's Term's #12: M15 Limited Report

This past July, I attended my first ever Magic pre-release event. Since it was my first, I set a simple goal for myself of not leaving with a losing record. I walked in with a decent idea of how I would accomplish this. I thought that a WU aggressive would perform pretty well, so I thought I would try that. To give myself the best chance at this, I decided to pick blue as my color because I felt it was stronger than white overall, and I wanted to be able to have a decent back up plan in case WU didn't work out. I thought that blue paired with any other color would be stronger than white paired with any other color. Also, I really wanted to run Ensoul Artifact on an Ornithopter for the dream 5/5 flier on turn 2.

Well, What Did You Open?

I opened my packs and immediately went for the rares. I found myself looking at the following:

1. Ob Nixilis, Unshackled
2. Sliver Hive
3. Sliver Hivelord
4. Chasm Skulker
5. Shield of the Avatar
6. Mercurial Pretender
7. Ob Nixilis, Unshackled II

I found myself slightly underwhelmed, as I was hoping that I would open at least 3 rares in either white or blue. I decided all was not lost, as I still had a slew of common and uncommon cards to look through. I went ahead and sorted everything by color, and counted how many cards were in each pile. I don't remember exactly how many cards I had in each color, but I do remember my white cards numbered in the single digits. There was absolutely no way I was going to be able to run my dream WU deck. Once again, I found myself slightly underwhelmed. My black looked to be pretty good though, so I decided to go UB.

What Did You Build?

Here is the deck I ended up running:

• Creature (17)
• 1 Accursed Spirit
• 1 Aeronaut Tinkerer 
• 1 Amphin Pathmage
• 1 Black Cat
• 1 Chasm Skulker
• 1 Child of Night
• 1 Gravedigger
• 1 Mercurial Pretender
• 1 Ob Nixilis, Unshackled
• 1 Ornithopter
• 1 Rotfeaster Maggot 
• 1 Shadowcloak Vampire
• 2 Typhoid Rats
• 1 Xathrid Slyblade
• 1 Witch's Familiar
• 1 Zof Shade
• Non-Creature Spells (4)
• 1 Turn to Frog
• 1 Caustic Tar
• 1 Ensoul Artifact
• 1 Sign in Blood
• Artifact (2)
• 1 Shield of the Avatar
• 1 Rogue's Gloves
• Land (17)
• Swamp 10
• Island 7
• Sideboard
• I decided not to bother. To be perfectly honest, I forgot I had one. I was just so nervous since it was the biggest event I had ever been a part of and I was just ready to play Magic.

While my dream of a WU aggro deck didn't quite pan out, I would have the opportunity for the Ensoul/Ornithopter dream to come to fruition and I was fine with that. I thought I might be able to steal a game or two with that combo (and that I did). I felt pretty confident in my deck, thinking that my main win-con would be just to stay alive until I could make Chasm Skulker/Ornithopter huge, or make things unblockable with the Pathmage. 

While I don't remember exactly how each of my rounds played out (in my defense, this was 6 weeks ago), I do remember how the deck performed overall...which was underwhelmingly. It was inconsistent at best, and a typical newby build at worst. I'm almost certain I fell into the trap of playing as many rares as possible, as Mercutial Pretender was almost always a 6-drop Typhoid Rat. I'm sure I could have put just about anything else in that spot and been better off.

How Did You Do?

I ended up going 2-2-1 in matches and 8-6-1 in games. Both matches I lost went to three games, so I consider the night a success. I've since participated in one other sealed deck event (going 2-2) and an M15 draft (2-1). I remember a lot less about these two events, but I do remember I ran WB in both and that I opened 2 Souls of Theros and a Liliana Vess in the sealed pool. So, overall I have a winning record in M15 limited, which is a lot more than I can say for JBT limited. I think I'm getting better, but the sample size is probably too small to know for sure. What do you think of my deck build? Do you think I fell into the trap of trying to play too many of my rares? What do you think were cards I could have sided in/out against decks I was weak against?

Luyman's Terms #11: The Value of a Bat, Part 2

In part 1, I discussed the concept of run values, and how we can use them to quantify a players offensive value to his team. I concluded the post saying that Jermaine Dye being worth 0.168 runs with his bat was a good thing, despite looking less than impressive. So why is 0.168 runs a good thing? What if I told you that that the average MLB player was worth -0.777 runs with his bat over the course of the 2002 season?

I understand if that strikes you as counter-intuitive, if the average player was worth negative runs to his team how did anyone score? The answer is simple: while this metric scores an out as a negative event, an out does not result in runs (literally) being taken off of the scoreboard. This explains why a player can be worth negative runs to his team, even though a "negative run" is not a thing the scoreboard measures.

What follows is a list of all MLB players who ended the 2002 season with 300 or more plate appearances. Sheet 1 contains the raw number of times each even occurred for each player. Sheet 2 contains the number of runs each player produced with each event. The last column of sheet 2 contains the total number of runs produced by that player (note that all of the "value" columns measure value in runs):

I explained where these numbers came from in part 1, but it's been a couple months so I will explain again. Each "value" column is calculated by taking the count of a certain event and multiplying by how many runs that particular event is worth. Let's so a sample calculation using Jim Thome and singles:

Jim Thome hit into 73 singles in 2002

A single was worth .475 runs in 2002

73 singles * .475 runs = 34.675 runs generated by singles by Jim Thome in 2002

Add up all of the non-out values for each player and you get the "hit value" for each player. This number is the total number of runs generated by that player's hits.

Unfortunately, we cannot stop our analysis here. While score is kept by only counting up, the value that a player provides for his team is certainly not only positive. This is why we must also include the value of the outs a player generates as well. To account for the full value of a player, all we have to do is add his hit value and out value:

Jim Thome Hit Value = 162.777 runs

Jim Thome Out Value = -99.866 runs

Jim Thome Offensive Value = 162.777+ -99.866 = 62.911 runs

I started this piece by saying that Jermaine Dye's 0.168 runs of offensive value being a good thing, that number seems to the dwarfed by the offensive value generated by Jim Thome! In fact, there are quite a few players who dwarf the value put up by Jermaine Dye! How is 0.168 runs of offensive value a good thing? Well, even with the massive values put up by the top of our list, the players at the bottom of the list also played in the major leagues. We must also consider their contribution.

To find the average value of a player with his bat, all we have to do is add up the total offensive value for each player, and divide by the total number of players in the sample (or, in this case, let the spreadsheet do it for us). The total offensive value for the group was -210.508 runs, spread over all 271 players means that the average player was worth -0.777 runs to his team with his bat. If Barry Bonds is removed from the sample (which I will do, since he is such an outlier), the number goes all the way down to -1.169 runs.

Using the average player as benchmark, we can see that Jermaine Dye is ever so slightly above average. He actually ranks 105th out of the 270 players in the sample (remember, we are excluding Bonds)! What this tells me is that an average player is actually quite valuable, even if the average player doesn't seem so good on the surface.

Are there any burning questions you have about baseball that you would like for me to attempt to answer using math (poorly)? The next topic I will attempt to answer will be pertaining to pinch hitting in some form or fashion, but I would love to hear what you guys would like to see analysed!

Link City #1

I'm back! Did you miss me? It has been a couple interesting months. After I posted the first part of my offensive values post, I realized that I had no idea what I was doing. I had just kind of jumped into the deep end and hoped I could swim. I didn't fully realize all the time I would need to fully research and understand the data I was messing with and then be able to flesh out an article that was interesting to read and I could feel proud of. My hope is that now I am comfortable enough with my data and that I have figured out how to better manage my time to I can both put out timely writings and have them be meaningful.

My goal for the foreseeable future is to post three times a week. I want to have a post full of interesting links (and maybe some commentary) on Mondays, a post on baseball/sabermetrics on Wednesdays, and a post about whatever (more than likely MTG) on Fridays.

Here are some things on the internet I have read in the last couple weeks that I have found interesting:

Baseball

First, is an article from Tom Verducci on the merits of banning the shift in baseball. While I can understand his position, he seems to focus quite a bit on one type of player and his stats seems to be a bit too cherry picked for my taste. While it is indisputable that offense is down as a whole across MLB, the shift is just a scapegoat I think.

Here is an article from Johnathan Judge as well as a quick post from Dave Cameron here explaining that Verducci's methodology may be over-simplified. They do a much better job of explaining why than I could.


Magic: The Gathering

I happened upon an interesting way to separate Magic cards from Reddit user u/alexpwalsh. I spent an hour or so constructing the separators, and I think they look great!

Over on Channel Fireball, Frank Karsten takes at look at "the optimal mana curve" for both constructed and limited decks using computer simulations. He even goes so far in one case to take a look at when you should mulligan your opening hand. It should be noted that his methods are completely context neutral, and are probably not super useful in practice. But it's certainly an interesting read, and definitely an interesting place to start if you're trying to build "the perfect deck."

Also on Channel Fireball, Owen Turtenwald tell us all about his Pro Tour M15 experience. Watching his reaction when he found out he made top-8 was something I will never forget. I hope some day that something will make me jump around like a kid again with a big grin on my face the way he did.

Miscellaneous?

I think that will be it for this week. Something quick just to get back into the swing of things!

Luyman's Terms #10: The Value of a Bat, Part 1

Over the history of competition, observers have been trying to separate the good from the bad, and the great from the good. We crown champions, and we wonder how those champions became to be. We realize that some competitors are simple better than others, but what is it that makes them better? In baseball, the most popular way of determining this has been to look at a players batting average.

While batting average is nice, it is very seldom a good way to measure the batter of a hitter. A double is clearly better than a single, but batting average weights them both the same. What we need is a metric that weights doubles more than singles. slugging % tries to compensate by giving doubles twice the value over single, triples three times the value, and home runs four - but is that a good way to go about it? It a double really worth 2 singles?

Lets think about that for a minute. A double puts a man on second base, but 2 singles put men on both first and second! 2 singles is clearly better than a double, so slugging % is not as good of a metric as we originally thought. What we need is a metric than can weigh 2 singles better than a double, but also have a double weigh more than a single. Enter: run values.

The concept of run values is simple: each event in baseball has an expected number of runs. As plays begin to unfold in a game, a team can expect to score a certain amount of runs depending on how the plays turned out. This notion is hardly more than common sense, but by using run values it is possible to quantify exactly how much a hit or an out is worth.

For this post (and for the rest of this series), I will use the values given in The Book by Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin for the 1999-2002 seasons:

By counting each individual event for each player, we can determine just how much value he gave his team with his bat over the course of a season. Let's do a sample calculation with Jermaine Dye's 2002 Season:

1. Dye hit 71 singles in 2002, good for (71*.475) = 33.725 runs
2. Dye hit 27 doubles in 2002, good for 20.952 runs
3. 1 Triple for 1.07 runs
4. 52 Walks (2 intentional) for 16.508 runs
5. He was hit by 10 pitches for 3.52 runs
6. Add all of these run values for a total of 109.303 runs "created" by Jermaine Dye's bat

This sounds pretty good! All Jermaine Dye has to do is never get out, and he will be worth 109.303 runs to his team!. Except, Jermaine Dye will get out. In fact, he got out 365 times in 2002. We need to make another calculation:

1. 365 outs, good for -109.135 runs
2. 109.303 runs from hits + -109.135 runs from outs = 0.168 runs total

This means that in reality, Jermaine Dye was good for 0.168 runs with his bat, which doesn't look so good upon first glance. In my next post, I'll show you why this is actually a pretty good thing.

Luyman's Terms #9: Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

This is just going to be the week of short posts. I have no idea what I'm doing.

I've spent the last couple days building a Retrosheet database, and it looks like I have been successful. I now have 5.75 GB of baseball data on my computer reaching all of the way back to 1950. The problem now is that I have no idea how to traverse though it to get anything useful out of it. Enter SQL.

This is how I will be spending the next couple days. I thought I would be done with teaching myself computer speak after I switched out of Computer Engineering for Math, but I guess it's not quite done with me. If you guys have any tips for beginners of SQL I would greatly appreciate reading them!

Luyman's Terms #8: Leaning the Ropes

Another short post today, I very much underrated how much work goes into number crunching and this is the first time I have tried to do something on this big of a scale. But that's why I'm doing this blog, it's a learning experience for me (and hopefully for you as well). Here is a look at what I've been working on for the last couple days:



Super interesting right? I'm not sure I'm satisfied with my methodology up to this point, but my results have been interesting nonetheless. Would you guys be interested in post simply detailing my results? Or would you be more interested in process? Both? Let me know.

Luyman's Terns #7: What?

Quick post today, it was a long weekend.

Yesterday, I went to the Lexington Legends game with my dad to celebrate Father's Day. They, of course, lost 10-3. I lost interest sometime around the 7th inning when I finally got up to get a sno-cone, but my interest was piqued in the bottom of the ninth when I got to see the most bizarre play I have even seen in a baseball game. Something that doesn't show up in the box score.

Situation: Down 10-3 in the bottom of the ninth with a runner on first and one out, Chad Johnson attempts to steal second base.

This is hardly an extraordinary play. The base was successfully stolen without a throw and everyone was getting ready for the next pitch. How was Mr. Johnson preparing for it? HE WAS TROTTING BACK TO FIRST BASE! Everyone around me thought that we missed a foul tip (turned out there wasn't even a swing), suddenly the catcher realizes what is going on and chucks the ball to first. The runner gets caught in a rundown and is tagged out.

Laughter ensued, as everyone tried to figure out just what the heck happened. The runner was never credited with the stolen base (which he did get), and the game log does not do justice as to what actually transpired. But now, there is a record of it (such as this blog is a record of anything). Hopefully, Chad Johnson is a major league player one day, and my dad and I can say "I remember him when..." If nothing else, it was definitely a memorable Father's Day.

Luyman's Terms #6: The Evolution of a Deck, Part 2

If you're just now joining us, read part one here

The feedback I received on the deck from part one was pretty consistent. Those who commented were mostly in the camp that the deck was not so good, and cited reasons ranging from "looks to be a slow deck" and "too many lands" to one Reddit user commenting that "sh*t deck remains a sh*t deck."

Turns out, the deck fared pretty well, I won probably 65-70% of my total matches with this deck. That percentage goes up to around 80% if you exclude matches against control decks, and jumps up again to around 85-90% if I drew into 2 Plains and 2 Forests (since a third of my spells have double colored pips).

While it is true that the main goal of my deck was to draw the game out (my two favorite win-cons were bestowing a Boon Satyr onto a Dawnbringer Charioteer and, of course, activating Elspeth's ultimate ability), the deck was no slouch in the early game, and had no trouble being aggressive if it needed to be. In matches against other slow (non control) decks, I would often have a Boon Satyr and a Master of Diversion on the battlefield after turn 4 and then bestow another Boon Satyr onto one of those creatures on turn 5 and swing for lethal on that same turn or the next.

In games against aggressive decks board stalls were not uncommon. Pacifism and Ajani's Presence were incredibly useful in these situations, and I decided to bring in Archetype of Courage for it's first strike ability to help in those situations as well. These are the matches where I could play the long game and bestow any enchantment creature onto my Dawnbringer Charioteers and swing away happily.

The only games I was losing consistently were against Esper Control decks, and a Mono Black deck a buddy of mine ran which featured creatures with lifelink, Staff of the Death Magus, and Sanguine Bond. While beating the Mono Black was a simple matter of swapping out the 4 Sedge Scorpions for 4 Naturalize in the sideboard, Esper Control has proven to still be a problem (Supreme Verdict was pretty much a game ender). Here is the updated deck:

• Artifact (2)
• 2 Bow of Nylea
• Creature (24)
• 2 Archetype of Courage
• 4 Boon Satyr
• 4 Dawnbringer Charioteers
• 4 Elvish Mystic
• 2 Hopeful Eidolon
• 4 Leafcrown Dryad
• 4 Master of Diversion
• Enchantment (4)
• 4 Pacifism
• Instant (4)
• 4 Ajani's Presence
• Land (26)
• 12 Forest
• 13 Plains
• 1 Temple of Plenty (Lucky pull from booster pack)
• Planeswalker (2)
• 2 Elspeth, Sun's Champion
• Sideboard (12)
• 2 Angelic Wall
• 2 Hopeful Eidolon
• 2 Oreskos Sun Guide
• 2 Battlewise Valor
• 4 Naturalize

I was stuck here for about a week, and I was pretty happy with my results. The only bad match up I had was against the before mentioned Esper Control deck, and I was OK with that. I think it's best to just stay vulnerable to one deck and good to most others, as opposed to having a deck that is mediocre against all decks.

As for my new creatures, I was decidedly underwhelmed. The Elvish Mystics we fine if I needed an extra green mana source in the early game, but once I drew my third forest they became useless in the late game. Archetype of Courage was nice to have in games against aggro decks, but did next to nothing in any other situation. While my deck wasn't doing any worse with my new creatures, it wasn't doing any better either. I thought I had hit the peak with this deck, and started on something else.

While trying out my new deck, I was looking around for cards that it would be weak to. As I was doing that, the card that I needed for this deck revealed itself to me: Fleecemane Lion. I have not had a chance to really play with it yet, but it looks good on all fronts. It's great in an aggro game since it's a 3/3 for 2. It can get bigger with its monstrous ability, and with that same ability can stay on the battlefield even after Supreme Verdict.

I'm incredibly excited to get back out to the shop and play with this new deck. How do you guys think it will do? I'm thinking about cutting down to 24 lands and swapping out another Forest and 2 Plains for 3 more Temple of Plenty. Do you guys think it would be worth the money?

Luyman's Terms #5: The Evolution of a Deck

If only these were still available!

As of today, there are around 1,500 unique cards in standard (with that number set to grow by 250+ late next month). That number grows and grows as you begin to look at different MTG formats culminating at just under 14,000 total unique cards in all of MTG! This means there is practically an endless amount of ways to construct a deck and, as a result, is not an easy thing to do. I thought I would tell you about my first foray into deckbuilding, and how my deck has evolved. While I wasn't naive enough to think that I knew what I was doing, I did think that my deck would be able to hold its own. Here is that deck:

• Artifact (4)
• 4 Bow of Nylea
• Creature (18)
• 4 Bladetusk Boar
• 4 Boon Satyr
• 2 Golden Hind
• 4 Sedge Scorpion
• 4 Sigiled Skink
• Instant (16)
• 4 Colossal Heroics
• 4 Fall of the Hammer
• 4 Lightning Strike
• 4 Magma Jet
• Land (28)
• 13 Forest
• 4 Gruul Guildgate
• 11 Mountain
• Sorcery
• 2 Portent of Betrayal

My theory behind the deck was to burn my opponent directly early, and block my opponents creatures with the Sedge Scorpions. I could then get a Bladetusk Boar or 2 onto the battlefield, and swing in for the last 6-9 points of damage. If the game ended up going long, I would cast Portent of Betrayal and kill my opponent with his/her own creatures

No surprise that I was wrong. With 28 lands, mana flood was not uncommon. Not only would I usually not last long enough to get a have a boar swing for more than two turns, I simply played the deck wrong, and used my burn spells to always attack the player as opposed to using them as removal, which is what I probably should have been doing. I was incredibly vulnerable to creatures with flying, and pretty much any creature with power > 2 (spoiler alert: there are a lot of them). 

I also learned that only one legendary-subtype card of a given name can be on a players side of the battlefield, so I had to rethink how many copies of the Bow of Nylea were worth running. This was also the point where I decided I really wanted to get into MTG, and allowed myself to splurge on a couple cards. That lead to this deck:

• Artifact (2)
• 2 Bow of Nylea
• Creature (18)
• 4 Boon Satyr
• 4 Leafcrown Dryad
• 2 Nyxborn Rollicker
• 4 Sedge Scorpion
• 4 Setessan Oathsworn
• Instant (20)
• 4 Colossal Heroics
• 4 Lightning Strike
• 4 Magma Jet
• 4 Searing Blood
• 4 Shock
• Land (20)
• 4 Boros Guildgate
• 5 Forest
• 4 Gruul Guildgate
• 3 Mountain
• 4 Selesnya Guildgate
• Planeswalker (2)
• Elspeth, Sun's Champion

I ran with this for about two hours before I realized how terrible it was. My thought was that if I could stall until I get to Elspeth, I could just keep generating soldier tokens and then give them flying after 3 or 4 turns. This turned out to be a viable strategy when in games in which I both had Elspeth in my hand and the mana to cast her. However, that just didn't happen very often, and this deck just did what my first deck did and I lost a lot. I decided R/G was not working out for me, and that I needed to try something different.

I decided that neither the Sedge Scorpions nor the Nyxborn Rollickers were pulling their weight. While having a 1/1 for 1 with some upside is a nice creature on turn one or two, but neither deathtouch nor a cheap bestow that essentially just gives a creature a counter were all that great in the late game when I was ready to be on offense. I knew I liked Elspeth, and the Boon Satyr was quickly becoming a favorite of mine, so I decided to go G/W. That decision yielded the following deck:

• Artifact (2)
• 2 Bow of Nylea
• Creature (20)
• 4 Boon Satyr
• 4 Dawnbringer Charioteers
• 4 Hopeful Eidolon
• 4 Leafcrown Dryad
• 4 Master of Diversion
• Enchantment (4)
• 4 Pacifism
• Instant (8)
• 4 Ajani's Presence
• 4 Colossal Heroics
• Land (26)
• 11 Forest
• 11 Plains
• 4 Selesnya Guildgate
• Planeswalker (2)
• 2 Elspeth, Sun's Champion
• Sideboard(15)
• 3 Angelic Wall
• 4 Bassara Tower Archer
• 4 Oreskos Sun Guide
• 4 Sedge Scorpion

I brought in the Hopeful Eidolon to fill in the void that taking the Sedge Scorpions and Nyxborn Rollickers left behind. I really like being able to play a creature on turn one, and I thought that the Hopeful Eidolon's bestow ability would be enough to make it relevant in the late game. How do you guys think this deck performed? What changes do you think should be made? I'll tell you how the deck actually performed and what changes I made in my next post. 

Luyman's Terms #4: A Beginners Look at MTG Round 2, Drafting

Before I get into my post, I want to say a quick thank you that read my first post on MTG and came back for another. Around 600 people from all over the world visited my blog in the two days that followed that post, and only a little more than a third of that came from /r/MagicTCG, which was the only place I posted a link. So thank you to you guys that spread the word about my blog, and I hope everyone got something out of it and will continue to do so!

A little over a week ago, I attended my first MTG draft (JOU/BNG/THS). Ever since I learned about the format, I have been listening to the Limited Resources podcast, and have become familiar with 70% or so of all of the cards in the block. I decided that it was time to go ahead and dive into something new.

The draft had a pretty even split between new players (it was a first draft for one other player, and only the second or third for two others) and veterans, and the standings reflected that. I ended up going 1-2 and finishing 6th, but the experience I gained and the things I learned about the format were well worth the entry fee.

So, How Did it Play Out?

We started a little late, and as a result I probably had a little more nerves built up than I normally would. I was visibly shaking as I opened my first pack and started looking through my cards, and spent more time trying to stop that than looking to see what my cards were. I tried to remember everything I had learned up to that point about drafting and deckbuilding:

 - try to stay in two colors
 - try to stay open to colors/don't let one pick you make influence another pick    too soon in the draft
 - settle into your two colors fairly early, but not too early

Those three pieces of information alone became too much for me to handle, and my draft went horribly. Each piece of information seemed to contradict the other two, and it was hard for me to decide when was a good time to follow one piece as opposed to the other two. I ended up drafting Underworld Coinsmith first, which set the tone for the rest of my draft.

When the next pack was passed to me, I thought I was all set to go with a white/black enchantment deck, and I could use the Underworld Coinsmith's ability to deal damage to my opponent with the life that I received from my other enchantments. I picked up the pack, and the cards within were incredibly underwhelming in both white and black. I could choose from Bloodcrazed Hoplite, Ajani's Presence, Lagonna-Band Trailblazer, or Reprisal. None of those cards had me excited to stay in either white or black, so I ended up drafting Eidolon of the Great Revel, which opened me up to red. I hoped that from this point forward I could draft in two colors, and build a solid deck. The cards thought differently however, and the trend continued. After draft pack one, I had 6 white cards, and 4 cards each of red and black.

At this point, I actually felt pretty good about how the draft had progressed. I thought I was still following the three points above, and I thought I had a decent card base from which to build any combination of two-color decks depending on what cards I would be passed. I thought I would be able to pin down which two colors I would be about halfway through draft pack two, and I could fill any holes my deck had from that point on.

Boy, was I wrong on all counts. Even though I probably did have a decent base from which to build a good two-color deck, I still could not decide which two to go with. Halfway through the draft pack, I had 10 white cards, and 6 each of red and black. At the end of the draft pack, I had 12 white cards and 8 each of red and black.

Now, I'm starting to really panic. I only know one of my colors and we only have one pack left! My mind is scrambling, and trying to think about all of my options. The two options I settled on are:

1) I can play all three colors, and winning the games in which I get a good draw, and losing the games that I don't.
2) Draft a few cards early in either red or black, decide on running a white/red or white/black deck, then attempt to fill some holes

When I opened the pack, I decided I was not comfortable trying to play three colors. I have never played with more than two in any format, and I didn't want to both be trying a new color combination and a new format. Even with that decision, the third draft pack went a lot like the first two. My final count was 18 white cards, 13 black cards, and 11 red cards (how I managed to end up with nothing out of color, I will never know). I decided to go with my original plan of white/black and tried to build the best deck I could with what I had.

Nothing at all exciting happened in any of my matches. Most of my creatures were cheap 1/1s and 2/2s with heroic triggers, and most of my spells were removal so I couldn't target them to make them stronger. Once my opponent was able to resolve a creature with flying, or something with more than 2 toughness, the game was pretty much over for me. It was more than a little pathetic.

In the time since the draft, I have learned much more about the format, as well as been able to think about what I learned from the draft itself. In my next draft, I will look to use BREAD extensively and try to pare down to two colors a lot sooner.

So what do you guys think? Which mistake do you think was the biggest? Do you think I did anything right? What can I try to do to make my draft go more smoothly?

Luyman's Terms #3: When Pinch Hitting for a Pitcher Might be a Bad Idea

Yesterday my father and I, along with 24,000 or so of our closest friends (and 3 girls behind us who just would not stop talking) attended a baseball game in which the San Francisco Giants defeated our Cincinnati Reds 6-1. The game was pretty much over by the fourth inning, but being the dutiful fans my father and I are, we endured the grueling heat so we could root for the Reds to make a comeback (we have the sunburns to prove it). As we sat there and watched Madison Bumgarner make fools out of the Reds hitters, there was a situation that arose from the game that simply puzzled me.

Situation: Down 6-1 with two outs in the bottom of the fifth inning, Roger Bernadina pinch hits for pitcher Mike Leake.

To most baseball fans, I would imagine this seems like a no brainer. I can already hear some of you thinking:

The pitcher has already given up 6 runs, and should be taken out of the game. His slot in the order is up to bat, now should be the perfect time to pinch hit and try to get some offence going!

That is a perfectly reasonable line of thought, and one that I would agree with probably 90% of the time. However, this situation falls into the other 10%

Let me give you some more context: Roger Bernadina has a .176/.323/.235 slashline through 63 PAs this season. Mike Leake has a .120/.120/.280 slashline though 28 PAs. While both players have woefully small sample sizes, I think we can all agree that both are hitting like a pitcher two months into the season, and only one of them should be. Given this situation, why have Bernadina pinch hit for Leake? To me it feels as if Bryan Price is shooting himself in the foot. Not only is he pinch hitting in an extremely low leverage situation, he is giving himself fewer options for when a high leverage situation might come up.

Even though Bernadina has an OBP 200 points better than Leake, he is not a significant upgrade in this particular situation. For the sake of this argument, lets say that Bernadina takes a walk and trot on down to first base. Not only is that incredibly unlikely, since Bumgarner has walked 5% of the batters he has faced this year (he didn't give up a single walk yesterday), but guess who's coming up to bat next with two outs? Mr. .261/.296/.348 Billy Hamilton. Don't get me wrong, I love Billy Hamilton. He's a treat to watch when he gets on base, and he scores a lot of the time he gets on. The problem lies in that he just doesn't get on very often. I would much rather Hamilton lead off an inning (or at least bat with no outs) than bat with two outs.

From my perspective, there seems to be a lot of merit to letting the pitcher go ahead and bat in his lineup spot, then go ahead and bring in a reliever in the next half inning anyway. At this point, the game is still winnable. There are still 3 more innings to play, and it's not impossible to score five or six runs over the span of three innings (the Giants did it that very game). Why not leave an extra bat on the bench for a possible high leverage situation? While Bernadina is not a major upgrade batting over Mike Leake, he would be a major upgrade batting over whichever pitcher relieves Leake after his hypothetical AB.

There could be a hundred different reasons why Leake didn't bat for himself in the fifth yesterday. Maybe he was sore, and either he or Price decided it was better not to risk his health for an AB that would likely mean nothing. Maybe Price really thought Bernadina was the right guy for the situation. He very well may have been right, Price knows his players a lot better than I do. My guess is, however, that Leake was pinch hit for just because that is the thing that happens when a pitcher is being pulled from the game and his lineup spot is up to bat. Perhaps this is a thing that should be looked into further.

Luyman's Terms #2: A Beginner's Look at Magic: The Gathering

For the uninitiated, Magic: The Gathering (MTG) is a card game where two (sometimes more) players (called Planeswalkers) battle each other using 60+ card decks to bring his/her opponent's life total down to zero (players start at 20 life). There are several ways for Planeswalkers to accomplish this task. They can summon mighty creatures to attack and kill their opponents. They can also cast spells directly on their opponents. They can even call upon other Planeswalkers to aid in their fight. There are five different colors of cards in MTG, and Planeswalkers can use any combination of cards in any combinations of colors to take down their opponents.

While playing the game is fun, I have found myself enjoying other aspects of the game much more. The most fun I have had with MTG is the process of building decks. Deckbuilding might sound simple at first, but spend just a little bit of time looking at a few cards and you will soon see that it is actually quite a daunting task. Which 60 card combination is the best? Currently, there are 1507 cards in standard. That number gets much bigger when you get into the modern and legacy formats. How in the heck is someone supposed to whittle that number down to 60, much less figure out the best 60 card combination?

For me, the answer is simply that you can't, at least not in the amount of time I am willing to put into MTG. The amount of variance involved with MTG is nothing short of astounding. In the month or so I have been playing and deckbuilding, I have been overwhelmed by the amount of cards in the game, and the intricacies of how one card will work one way when it goes up against one card and loses, and will work a completely different way against another card and win. This concept it referred to as the "metagame" among players, and there are many writings and thoughts about how to solve it.

I'd read a few of these thoughts and, as a result, thought I knew what I was doing. To make sure, I went to a local MTG shop (which also happens to be my local comic shop) for a casual day. For those that don't know, casual day at an MTG shop is a day where players just show up and play. Records are kept for the so you can compare results, but they are destroyed at the end of the day as they mean nothing. That last part was a very good thing for me, as I ended up not winning a single match and I finished dead last.

I ran a Red and Green deck with as much burn as I could get in. My thought behind it was that I could be either aggressive or I could control the board depending on the situation. Even with the best draws the deck could give me, it was only great at dealing the first 10-15 points of damage, but always lacked in trying to get in the last five or so. I'm not sure if I was just playing the deck wrong, or it if was just a terrible deck. Regardless, I felt like someone who reads a book about how to play Blackjack and was ready to take on Vegas. Just like that person, I lost, and it didn't feel very good.

Since that first day, I have learned a lot about the game. My decks now focus on doing one thing very well, as opposed to trying to do two or three things somewhat well. As a result, I am now able to win a lot more games (except against Esper Control. Friends don't let friends play Esper Control), and I have a lot more fun playing Magic. So if you're reading this and you happen to be a new Magic player, just remember to have fun with it. You will play people that are better than you and you will lose. The trick is to not let it get to you, and learn from it.

Luyman's Terms #1: Thoughts on Comics, Card Games, and the Color Purple (just the color, not the Alice Walker novel)

The reader may or may not know this now, but I love numbers. To those of you that know me, this doesn't come as some great shock. My earliest grade school memory is getting ready for math class in my first grade year, and being told that I had to leave the room as one of my teacher's assistants took me by the hand and led me out. As we leaving, my young mind couldn't grasp what was happening, I thought I had done something wrong and was being sent to the Principal's office. Next thing I know, I'm being dropped off in a second grade classroom and was handed a purple workbook. It was explained to me that my teacher thought I was too smart to do the math we were doing in first grade, and that I would be doing second grade math instead.

And so began the scariest hour of school I would ever have.

Older kids? Bigger kids? Smarter kids? Where are all of my friends?

I think that workbook is still in my parent's house somewhere, tucked away with all of my other grade school things. Turns out, that little purple workbook might be the item that has had the most profound impact on my life. From the time I was handed that notebook, until I graduated high school, I was labeled "one of the smart kids."

And I loved it. Almost always, I would feel like the smartest person in the world (or at the very least could trick myself into thinking I was) and I loved (still do) it. Usually, I think, that label goes hand in hand with "nerd," and I went to great lengths to make sure everyone knew I wasn't one. I would never pass up the chance to talk about sports loudly so all of the pretty girls could hear, or to crack a joke at the guy reading Batman, or the people in the corner playing Magic.

Then, once I started college, something changed. I was no longer the smartest person in the room, or even able to convince myself otherwise. As a result, I started going out less, and by the end of my first semester I left UK not sure if I could bring myself to go back since I didn't have many friends. I did of course go back, but I do not look back on my first year of college fondly.

Not much changed over the next year or so, not until my second semester of my Sophomore year when I walked into a comic book store for the first time. I was out with my family for my dad's birthday and we stopped to get something to eat. I had not gotten my dad a present yet, so I wandered into the shop thinking I could buy him some of the comics he used to read growing up. I looked around the shop, and I couldn't stop thinking about just how cool everything looked!

Less than a year later, I have a pull list consisting of around 20 titles a month, my collection is well over 200 books (my current list is 8-12 titles a month, and my current collection is 1171 single issue comics according to my database (that's right, I keep a database for my comics now). Not to mention all of the Trade Paperbacks and Hardcover collections (referred to as graphic novels in book stores and libraries, a term which I happen to hate) I have picked up), and I can talk about a topic, and not feel bad for not being the most knowledgeable about it. The only downside is I can no longer crack jokes at the guy reading Batman. I could still crack jokes about the people in the corner playing Magic though, and I wasted no time in doing so.

Still more time passed, and I found myself allowing myself to become interested in what is being played on the table tops in my comic shop. I had been wanting to try it out for awhile, but there was always something stopping me from giving it a go. I'd always been either too intimidated by either the complexity of the board state, or by the personalities of the players themselves.

My usual route when faced with this problem is to get on Reddit, and find out more about the subject. For the first time, I am faced with a new problem: Magic (actually called Magic: the Gathering or MTG) is a game. You cannot play a game by yourself and get better at it, you need to play with other people. Since I would always be put off by the people I would run into at the comic shop that played, that was enough for me to just never bother trying it in the first place.

About a month ago, one of my best friends finally convinced me to play. We got online and we hastily put together a couple decks and put them to the test. I loved every minute of it. We played four or five games that night, and even though I only won one (and was lucky to win that one) I wanted more. I went out immediately the next day and bought a Born of the Gods intro pack (Death's Beginning) and the next day found out that a new expansion was being released, and bought a Journey into Nyx intro pack (Fates Foreseen).

Over the past month, I have competed in a couple casual tournaments, as well as a couple DCI sanctioned events and I've had a blast doing so. I've built six or seven decks in the process, and have improved them over multiple iterations. The only downside is I can no longer crack jokes at those people in the corner playing Magic. (But at least I don't play in the corner! Right?)

I've made it though this entire post so far without writing the word baseball. I love baseball, my dream job is to be hired by a MLB team to scout players and/or do statistical analysis (I told you, I love numbers). Since I was introduced to MTG, I have watched only one whole baseball game, and only because I happened to be in attendance.

This is obviously an "about me" post, but I don't think it's doing a very good job of telling you about me. I think it's a nice start though, and I hope that you will stick around to learn about me as I learn more about myself. My hope is to post at least every other day, and that soon, there will be different sections/series of posts on topics ranging from sports to comics to technology to whatever new thing I find I enjoy.

I lied when I said I could no longer crack jokes about the guy reading Batman, or the people playing Magic in the corner. I just happen to be the subject now. Please don't laugh too hard.