Kenny Stabler's Still the Greatest Raiders' Quarterback of All-Time

Today, Derek Carr passed Kenny Stabler as the Raiders' all-time passing leader. In the second quarter of today's game against the Chiefs, he completed a pass for a 16-yard gain, which gave him 19,079 career passing yards, putting him past Raiders' legend Kenny Stabler. That's great for Carr, but does anyone seriously believe that he's accomplished more than Kenny Stabler? I hope not. Stabler played for the Raiders from 1971-1979, winning a Super Bowl along the way (1976/77). Carr hasn't come close (not yet, at least). Carr, in fact, has only played 5 full seasons for the Raiders, but somehow he's already surpassed Stabler in total passing yards. What's up?

What's up is how much the game has changed over the years. Rule changes in recent years have helped open up the passing game. For example, in 1978 the NFL freed up receivers by restricting contact beyond 5 yards downfield. At the same time, it permitted offensive linemen to extend their arms and open their hands on pass plays. To give a sense of the impact of the changes, consider that in 1977 the average number of passing yards per game equaled approximately 284 yards per game. By 1980, it climbed to 392! And more changes were implemented in 1994 that helped the passing game (Hail Mary: How 1994’s pass-friendly rule changes saved a moribund league and created the modern NFL).

All of this simply highlights why, in my opinion, it's hard, if not impossible, to compare players across eras. Derek Carr's been good. I'm a fan. But he's not as great as Kenny Stabler (at least not yet).

President Trump: A Christian Phenomenon or a Southern Christian Phenomenon?

Much has been made of the support among Christians for President Trump, in spite of considerable evidence that Trump is anything but devout. However, much of Trump's Christian support comes from white evangelical Protestants, who certainly have not cornered the market on what it means to be a Christian (in spite of what they may claim). Consider, for example, the following graph which plots data collected as part of the 2016 American National Election Study. It indicates that slightly more than half of American Christians (51.54%) voted for Donald Trump, not exactly an overwhelming majority.

In fact, once you sort Christians into those who live in the South and those who don't, the story gets a bit more interesting (and more nuanced). Although more Christians living outside of the South voted for Trump than they did for Clinton, a higher percentage voted for someone other than Trump (51.24%) than for him.

Now, consider what happens when we sort Christians into broad categories or religious traditions, in particular, Mainline Protestants, white Evangelical Protestants, Black Protestants, and Roman Catholics. We can see that while a majority of Evangelical Protestants voted for Trump, a majority of Black Protestants and Roman Catholics did not.

Perhaps, the most surprising result is that more Mainline Protestant Christians voted for Trump than for Clinton. However, when we break the results down between those who don't live in the South and those who do, we can begin to make sense of the results.

As the graph above indicates, in the South, Mainline Protestants are virtually indistinguishable from white Evangelical Protestants. Outside of the South, however, they differ considerably. In fact, while more than half (55.57%) of Mainline Protestants voted for someone other than Donald Trump, more than half (54.41%) of white Evangelical Protestants voted for him. Perhaps even more striking is the fact that outside of the South, a higher percentage of all major Christian groups, except white Evangelical Protestants, voted for someone other than Donald Trump.

Of course, other factors almost certainly come into play in accounting for who voted for whom, but they don't change the fact that outside of the South, Trump's support among Christians is marginal at best. In fact, it's probably better to argue that Trump is more of a Southern Christian phenomenon than he is a Christian one. That, at least, is my story, and for now I'm sticking to it. 😇

Some People Don't Like Being Passed

A lot of folks don't like being passed. I happen to be one. It's no secret that I'm a bit hyper-competitive, which can lead me to "detect" competitive situations when none really exist. Like when I'm being passed. It does have its advantages, though. My competitiveness is a major reason why I played professional baseball, earned a blackbelt in Tae Kwon Do, and obtained a PhD from Stanford.

Hyper-competitiveness can also lead to rather humorous situations. I've noticed this when biking to and from one of my offices away from the office (i.e., various coffee shops in the area). When doing so, I usually take the Los Gatos Creek Trail, and I apparently bike fairly close to the "flow of traffic." That is, I do not pass or am passed by too many other bike riders. The exception to this are bikers on road bikes. Their bikes are much lighter, have thinner tires, and typically use higher quality derailleurs. Thus, they are far more likely to pass me than I am to pass them.

Interestingly, on those few occasions when I do pass a biker on a road bike, many of them seem to take offense, and as soon as they realize what has happened, they speed up and pass by me. Once they do so, however, it's not unusual for them to slow down, which means I eventually pass them again, leading them speed up once again so they can pass me. Recently, I caught and passed a gentlemen on a road bike, and predictably he soon sped up and caught up with me. He, however, didn't try to pass. Instead, he slid in close behind me (known as drafting) and stayed their for several miles. No doubt he rationalized his behavior as smart biking, but I'm pretty sure he just doesn't like getting passed.

Us vs. Them: When Winning Becomes Everything

Social identity theory, which I have written about before ("Uncivil Agreement: Social Identity and Political Polarization"), argues that we derive our sense of self-worth through a combination of our personal achievements and the accomplishments of the groups to which we belong. Because much of our self-worth is tied to our group affiliations, it’s quite easy to believe that our groups are superior to others and to favor in-group members over out-group members. It can also lead to the tendency to deride other groups that present a challenge to our own group. In fact, putting down members of other groups, such as political liberals making fun of Trump followers, can make us feel quite pleased about ourselves and our place in this world. All of this is somewhat captured in the graph below:

What’s more, it doesn’t take much to activate a sense of group identity. Social psychologists have run experiments where they’ve asked participants to perform a simple task, such as counting the number of dots on a screen or evaluating a paintings by different artists, and then randomly assigning them to groups but telling the participants that they’ve been assigned based on how they performed on the tasks. The participants are then asked to allocate some type of reward (e.g., money) to either members of their own group or members of another group, and most allocate more rewards to in-group rather than out-group members. This even occurred when the experiment was designed so that participants would walk away with more rewards if they didn’t favor in-group members. What’s interesting is that the participants typically didn’t know one another prior to the experiment, and after they’d been assigned to a group, they didn’t meet other members of their group (e.g., they were all assigned to different rooms). In fact, sometimes their group members were nothing more than a computer program.

Such experiments capture what is known as a minimal group paradigm; that is, they use minimal manipulations in order to trigger identification with a group. Imagine how much stronger one’s loyalty to a group and its members can be when we interact with other group members on a regular basis. Subcultural identity theory has been used to help explain prejudice and discrimination, why some religious groups thrive and others don’t, and the emergence of isolated terrorist cells that identify with groups such as ISIS or al-Qaeda.

An important implication of these studies is that sometimes “winning” becomes more important than choosing a course of action that benefits everyone: that is, not only members of your own group but also members of your opponents. And it isn’t just “winning.” Often it means beating down your opponents, punishing them, like shooting 3’s when you’re leading by 30 with a minute to go or stealing bases in the top of the 9th when you’re winning by 10 runs or more. Most of us have probably witnessed this in some of the organizations we have worked for. An office or department splits into two over one or more issues, and both sides seem more intent on winning than doing what is best. Of course, both sides convince themselves that what they’re doing to win really is what’s best for the organization. 

The importance of “winning” has been highlighted by the political scientist, Lilliana Mason, who draws on social identity theory to help explain the high level of polarization in American society today (“Uncivil Agreement: Social Identity and Political Polarization”). She presents evidence that although Republicans and Democrats are not nearly as far apart on policy issues as many assume they are, both sides (and she means both sides) are far more interested in winning (e.g., politically punishing the other side) than they are in compromising, even if the latter might be better for the nation as a whole. She sees no short-term solution for the current situation although she has hope for the long-term future. That said, I’d be willing to bet that electing less polarizing candidates and not making fun of our opponents would certainly help in the short-term. Whether we (and by “we,” I mean both sides) will do this or not, however, is very uncertain.

Is a World Series Win Inevitable for the Dodgers?

Is it inevitable that the Dodgers will win the World Series? Not necessarily, but the odds that they will are certainly high. Maybe not this year, but with their nose for finding talent, they'll probably have several chances to bring home a ring. As I've noted before, winning championships involves more than simply assembling a talented team. You also need to have a little luck. Sometimes luck runs against you (e.g., bad bounces, untimely injuries), sometimes it doesn't, which is why teams are far more likely to win championships if they consistently reach the playoffs, something the Dodgers have been doing in spades lately.

In baseball the St. Louis Cardinals have been the best at doing this historically. They're a small market team. They don't possess the payroll of the Yankees (or the Dodgers), but they always seem to be in the hunt for a playoff spot. In football, the Patriots have been great at doing this. Since 2001, they've reached the playoffs every year except 2002 and 2008, and of course they've won 6 Super Bowls. However, people forget there was a 10 year gap between their third (2004/2005) and fourth (2014/2015) titles. In basketball, the San Antonio Spurs come to mind. Unlike the Lakers for which recruiting talent hasn't ever been too difficult, the Spurs are in a small market and not the destination of choice for many NBA players. Still, at least since Gregg Popovich took over as head coach, they almost always reach the playoffs. In fact, this past season the Spurs matched an NBA record for most consecutive playoff appearances with 22. I have little doubt they'll beat the record next year.

Will the Dodgers follow suit? They are blessed to play in a large market and with a talented front office. Giants fans such as myself hope that by snatching Farhan Zaidi from the Dodgers, we may have weakened their front office somewhat. Still, it looks like we're at least a couple of years away from making another run at a championship, and that may not be soon enough to prevent the Dodgers from reaching (and finally winning) a World Series.

Retool or Rebuild: A Choice, Not a Question

Retool or rebuild. That's not a question. It's a choice. If championship teams don't constantly retool, they'll be forced to rebuild (or watch other teams take a run at the championship). In baseball, the St. Louis Cardinals are the quintessential team when it comes to retooling. They never appear to intentionally engage in a rebuild, but almost every year, they're in the hunt for a playoff spot. Given that winning championships always involve a bit of luck, the more times you can make the playoffs, the more likely you'll walk away as champs from time to time. It's no accident that the Cardinals have won 11 World Series titles, which ranks second only to the Yankees, a team that historically has operated with far larger budgets than the Cardinals.

Much to the chagrin of Giants fans, in recent years, the Dodgers have become experts at retooling. They've won six National League West titles in a row (2013-2018) and appear to be well on their way to a 7th. And while there has been some continuity in terms of players from year to year, there are only a couple on this year's team who were on the 2013 team. The only consolation for Giants fans in the face of this dominance is that the Dodgers have yet to claim a World Series title.

By contrast, the Giants have failed in their attempt to retool. They held on to players too long and traded away prospects for older players in the hope of making another run at a pennant. Now, they've been forced to rebuild, and will soon be unloading top pitchers like Madison Bumgarner and Will Smith with the goal of acquiring future prospects. Moreover, it looks like it won't be until 2021 that they become serious contenders again. It is possible that they could surprise everyone in 2020 if a few prospects pan out sooner and/or better than expected, but few of us are holding our breath. Then again, 2020 is an even year...

Pete Buttegieg Won't Save American Christianity, But He'll Probably Help It

Back when we lived in Bend, Oregon, in the 1990s, a proposition qualified for the state ballot that would've have limited the rights of gays and lesbians, and the "mainline" Bend ministerial association decided to put together a pamphlet opposing it. When I received a draft, I looked it over, thought it was fine, and passed it on to to the Associate Minister of the local United Methodist Church. After he read it, he handed it back to me and remarked, "There's nothing remotely Christian about this." And he was right. There were references to Franklin and Jefferson, but there was nothing about Jesus, which strikes me as bit odd if not sad. Buddhists routinely cite the Buddha, Muslims frequently quote the Prophet, but theologically-liberal Christians seem reluctant, almost embarrassed, to talk about Jesus. Perhaps it's because we're afraid of what others might think. Remember how the media sneered at George W. Bush who, after being asked who is favorite philosopher was, replied, "Jesus."? Such reluctance has led me to quip on more than one occasion that "we liberal Christians are more likely to quote Jefferson than we are Jesus."

This is too bad because so many Americans have absolutely no idea that not every one who calls him or herself a Christian believes God helped elect Donald Trump to make America great again. Instead, many of us consider Trump to be amoral at best and find the repeated attempts by some Christians to explain away his behavior as theologically troubling. But it's more than troubling. Explaining (or rationalizing) away Trump's behavior calls into question the very legitimacy of the Church. If Trump's behavior is fine, then what's "appropriate? It's no wonder that so many young Americans feel disaffected from the church.

And that's where Pete Buttegieg comes in. He's a theologically-liberal Christian who isn't afraid to talk about Jesus. As the Economist recently noted, he happily fuses liberalism with tradition. If asked, I don't know if he would name Jesus as his favorite philosopher, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did. And that, I think, is a good thing. More Americans need to know that not all Christians believe Trump's the greatest thing since sliced bread. In fact, many of us count ourselves among the majority of Americans who did not vote for him, think he's morally challenged, and is not making America great again. At best, he's turned us into a laughing stock. And while I don't think Mayor Pete will "save" the church, he'll almost certainly improve the perceptions that many people have of it.