So, the Yankees made some moves, and everyone is convinced that they've now punched their ticket into heaven, or whatever.
I'm less convinced.
These are good moves for the Yankaroos, of course. I think they're a better team for it, maybe the class of the League now. My problem is, over the last few years, being the best team in baseball has consistently proven to be quite a bit less than enough.
I mean, unless you missed my entire October and December, the St. Louis fucking Cardinals won the World Series. Before that, the San Francisco Giants, who, I'm pretty sure, were holding their bats by the barrel when they did it.
The MLB Playoffs are just too randomized. The game itself is too random- bad hops and blown calls and missed tags and lucky pokes and a hundred other things, but at least over a 162 game season, some rationality creeps in (not enough, though, which is why I advocate a 500 game season). In the playoffs, with 19 games AT MOST, that doesn't happen.
And I'm not bitching about that! That's what makes the playoffs exciting, anything can happen. If it doesn't help us determine who the academically "best" team is, well, who gives a shit? As I said before, arguing over that is what makes sports fun. It's not like any of this "really matters", so let's at least keep it exciting.
But to bring it back to what we're talking about, it means that the Yanker Sores should NOT, necessarily, be crowned already. Even if they've now become a better team than they were, even if they've now become a better team than everyone else, that doesn't mean they can win three out of five games against a team with "grit" and "heart" and "hustle" and "scrap" and a bunch of other euphemisms for "small slow white guys getting lucky".
They'll be good again. They'll make the playoffs again, and from there, they've essentially bought a lottery ticket. And this is different than every other year with the Yankees in no way.
Monday, January 16, 2012
The Greg Jennings Argument
I wasn't going to weigh in on this because, well, the title of this Deadspin post is right, I really DON'T have any idea if Jennings was down or not, and anyway, Doesn't really fucking matter, does it? Even if the call WAS blown, it wasn't enough to keep RAHDJAHS! from spending Super Bowl weekend watching old WWF videos and crying.
But goddamn, this is a wrong-headed post.
First of all, if that is "the definitive camera angle" (an assertion I'm not sold on, hence why I still have no idea what happened), and if that ball really is out there, then no, I don't buy that maybe his ankle was down or his calf was grazing the turf or whatever. I mean, I guess a doctor can weigh in if he wants (he won't), but that seems like the human body acting in a way pretty unrecognizable to humans.
Second, so, what is the point, exactly? That since instant replay won't get everything right every time for ever and ever amen, we just shouldn't bother with it? I mean, it won't, no one's claiming it will. But so what? "Better" is still pretty cool. It's totally making the perfect the enemy of the good.
(Blog Conquistador Mike thinks the guy's point is just that the ref's were doing the best they could, and everyone should calm down. That's enough of a possibility that I'm going to voice it right here. But I'm not sold. The tone is too mocking, too contemptuous of IR, and anyway, starting with "shut up" is usually a poor strategy for calming people down).
And that leads me to the third, most important thing: telling everyone to shut up about the play is idiotic. Why try to shut down the debate here? Arguing about this stuff is what makes sports FUN. Listen, I'm going to lay this out right now, and it's going to be one of the main ideas of all the bullshit I write about sports: If we're just going to accept the plays on the field as the final word on EVERYTHING, then sports fandom can just be one big accounting exercise. There'd be no reason to root for a different baseball team than the Yankees. No reason to follow any QB other than Drew Brees this year. Hope you like Crosby and Ovechkin, because if this is how we're going to view things, you like Crosby and Ovechkin.
But that is already not how we do things in sports fandom, and we're not going to change how we do things, either. We already find 100 different reasons to root for one guy and hate on another that have nothing to do with their ability and accomplishments. We already disbelieve our lyin' eyes.
I mean, some things ARE just facts. The St. Louis Cardinals really did win the World Series last year, and I will fight anyone who says otherwise right in the crotch. But was Holliday really tagged out at third in Game Six? Again, I will fight your crotch. Brett Favre has the most career TD passes. But is he the all-time best Q-KAAAAAKKKK, I couldn't even get that out, sorry guys. The point is, trying to force a definitive answer on some of this stuff makes sports a lot more boring.
Now, there's some evidence that this post is just contrarian pot-stirring, and that's fine. If I'm saying that debates make sports fun, I can't really say someone shouldn't try to rustle one up, right? But then again, if you're trying to get a debate going, you don't usually start with "shut up". The post is saying that since we'll never fully know the answer, we shouldn't bother arguing about it. But I think that's horseshit. It's fun- and maybe even necessary- to argue about it precisely BECAUSE we'll never fully know the answer.
But goddamn, this is a wrong-headed post.
First of all, if that is "the definitive camera angle" (an assertion I'm not sold on, hence why I still have no idea what happened), and if that ball really is out there, then no, I don't buy that maybe his ankle was down or his calf was grazing the turf or whatever. I mean, I guess a doctor can weigh in if he wants (he won't), but that seems like the human body acting in a way pretty unrecognizable to humans.
Second, so, what is the point, exactly? That since instant replay won't get everything right every time for ever and ever amen, we just shouldn't bother with it? I mean, it won't, no one's claiming it will. But so what? "Better" is still pretty cool. It's totally making the perfect the enemy of the good.
(Blog Conquistador Mike thinks the guy's point is just that the ref's were doing the best they could, and everyone should calm down. That's enough of a possibility that I'm going to voice it right here. But I'm not sold. The tone is too mocking, too contemptuous of IR, and anyway, starting with "shut up" is usually a poor strategy for calming people down).
And that leads me to the third, most important thing: telling everyone to shut up about the play is idiotic. Why try to shut down the debate here? Arguing about this stuff is what makes sports FUN. Listen, I'm going to lay this out right now, and it's going to be one of the main ideas of all the bullshit I write about sports: If we're just going to accept the plays on the field as the final word on EVERYTHING, then sports fandom can just be one big accounting exercise. There'd be no reason to root for a different baseball team than the Yankees. No reason to follow any QB other than Drew Brees this year. Hope you like Crosby and Ovechkin, because if this is how we're going to view things, you like Crosby and Ovechkin.
But that is already not how we do things in sports fandom, and we're not going to change how we do things, either. We already find 100 different reasons to root for one guy and hate on another that have nothing to do with their ability and accomplishments. We already disbelieve our lyin' eyes.
I mean, some things ARE just facts. The St. Louis Cardinals really did win the World Series last year, and I will fight anyone who says otherwise right in the crotch. But was Holliday really tagged out at third in Game Six? Again, I will fight your crotch. Brett Favre has the most career TD passes. But is he the all-time best Q-KAAAAAKKKK, I couldn't even get that out, sorry guys. The point is, trying to force a definitive answer on some of this stuff makes sports a lot more boring.
Now, there's some evidence that this post is just contrarian pot-stirring, and that's fine. If I'm saying that debates make sports fun, I can't really say someone shouldn't try to rustle one up, right? But then again, if you're trying to get a debate going, you don't usually start with "shut up". The post is saying that since we'll never fully know the answer, we shouldn't bother arguing about it. But I think that's horseshit. It's fun- and maybe even necessary- to argue about it precisely BECAUSE we'll never fully know the answer.
One More Note About the NFL Playoffs...
Thank god the Ravens are still alive. Once the Steelers were knocked out, I was afraid there would be no player I could accuse of criminal activities in a bullshit and morally dubious attempt to discredit his entire team and justify my rooting interests (which are, in actuality, usually based on how pretty the uniforms are). Problem solved.
A Comprehensive Theory on NFL Schadenfreude
This is an easy one: There is a strong, direct correlation between the grandiosity of a player's "victory" celebration and your joy in seeing him defeated.
This is why the games this weekend were so awesome. There was no discount double check from RAHDJAHS! There was no Tebow-ing from Tebow (and I don't give a shit about his sincerely held faith, it's a fucking touchdown dance. You don't need to talk to Jesus every time you score like a potty-trained child calling his parents every time he successfully flushes. Anyway, Jesus, being Arab, is way more into football than football). I don't know what Brady and Manning's touchdown celebrations are- fucking some model and crying alone in a dark room, respectively, if I had to guess- and that's kind of exactly my point.
Now of course, there is a limit to this. Once you get to TO or Ochiocinco levels of insanity, it loops back around, and you'd be glad to see that again. For instance, I wouldn't spray fire retardant foam on the Milwaukee Brewers if they were trapped in a tire fire, but this is just delightful. But those kinds of celebrations are usually isolated and unique, one-time things done in the hopes of getting a viral video.
This is why the games this weekend were so awesome. There was no discount double check from RAHDJAHS! There was no Tebow-ing from Tebow (and I don't give a shit about his sincerely held faith, it's a fucking touchdown dance. You don't need to talk to Jesus every time you score like a potty-trained child calling his parents every time he successfully flushes. Anyway, Jesus, being Arab, is way more into football than football). I don't know what Brady and Manning's touchdown celebrations are- fucking some model and crying alone in a dark room, respectively, if I had to guess- and that's kind of exactly my point.
Now of course, there is a limit to this. Once you get to TO or Ochiocinco levels of insanity, it loops back around, and you'd be glad to see that again. For instance, I wouldn't spray fire retardant foam on the Milwaukee Brewers if they were trapped in a tire fire, but this is just delightful. But those kinds of celebrations are usually isolated and unique, one-time things done in the hopes of getting a viral video.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Flaccomania!!!
Tebus hath forsaken us. Where is our Tebow now, God?
Honestly I'm not sure how to continue to exist in a world where there isn't a single professional football player remaining in the playoffs with belief in a higher power. But God helps those that help themselves, so I will persevere, and I will read the sacred scriptures (or stats, whatevs), and I will find another plucky underdog that "all he does is (mostly) win".
Tebow as a starter this regular season:
Record: 7-4
Completion Percentage: 46.5
QB Rating: 72.9
TDs: 12
INTs: 6
Okay, so we need to find stats that meet or exceed that, right? That's what we're talking about, isn't it? On-field performance? Our other two candidates:
Joe Flacco, regular season:
Record: 12-4
Completion Percentage: 57.6
QB Rating: 80.9
TDs: 20
INTs: 12
Alex Smith, regular season:
Record: 13-3
Completion Percentage: 61.3
QB Rating: 90.7
TDs: 17
INTs: 5
Here we go, two guys with better records, better accuracy, more TDs, and one with less interceptions. I mean, I realize they may not have led as many come from behind victories where they single-handedly scored ALL of the winning points by themselves, but down the stretch they have actually performed better on the field and won more games, sometimes without the need for a come from behind victory because they played better football for the entire 60 minutes. By any metric then we should happily embrace them as our new messiahs, and give them all of the acclaim and love we gave to Tebow...right?
I mean, that's why Tebow was such a star, right? Because of his on-field play? Because of his performance? And if we love him for his performance we should love better performers even more...right? I mean otherwise we'd have to admit we're totally hyping him up for some other reason, holding him up as an amazing player for something other than how he plays. We'd never do that...right?
Just In Case...
...you were hoping that the Patriots' victory last night would tie a bow on the Tim Tebow saga (figuring, probably correctly, that defenses are going to figure him out during the offseason), I'd like to point out...
...that the QB who dismantled the Broncos last night grew up outside of San Francisco, plays in Massachusetts, has a side job as a male model, married a foreign (female) model, fathered a child out of wedlock, and is coached by the most Machiavellian motherfucker this side of Rahm Emmanuel.
Oh yeah. The culture war skirmish around Tim Tebow is alive and well, baby. It's just entered the Sarah-Palin-Esque, We've-Already-Lost-And-Now-We-Just-Resent-The-Hell-Out-Of-It Phase.
...that the QB who dismantled the Broncos last night grew up outside of San Francisco, plays in Massachusetts, has a side job as a male model, married a foreign (female) model, fathered a child out of wedlock, and is coached by the most Machiavellian motherfucker this side of Rahm Emmanuel.
Oh yeah. The culture war skirmish around Tim Tebow is alive and well, baby. It's just entered the Sarah-Palin-Esque, We've-Already-Lost-And-Now-We-Just-Resent-The-Hell-Out-Of-It Phase.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
OH THANK GOD.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/spring-training-reporting-dates-30-teams-143413257.html
Fuck this no baseball shit, I want some fucking baseball!
This brings up a good question, and I'll crowdsource it amongst this blog's three readers: Why do the teams start at different times? Seems like the competitive edge goes to those with more time, so why would any team give themselves LESS?
Fuck this no baseball shit, I want some fucking baseball!
This brings up a good question, and I'll crowdsource it amongst this blog's three readers: Why do the teams start at different times? Seems like the competitive edge goes to those with more time, so why would any team give themselves LESS?
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Calling it now
Mavs are one and done champs. OKC edges them in the West.
Bulls use their depth in a compressed schedule with lots of back to backs to build the best record in the East. They may not can beat the Heat in a series, but they will win more regular season games on depth alone. They meet the Heat in the Eastern Conf Finals, and they win it in 7 with home court advantage.
Bulls use their depth in a compressed schedule with lots of back to backs to build the best record in the East. They may not can beat the Heat in a series, but they will win more regular season games on depth alone. They meet the Heat in the Eastern Conf Finals, and they win it in 7 with home court advantage.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
The Chicago Bulls Have Locked Up Derrick Rose for the Next Five Years: Money Buys My Happiness
Holy balls, a basketball post!
Okay, first, let's just recap that title: The Chicago Bulls have locked up reigning MVP Derrick Rose for the next five years with a contract worth roughly $94 million. I'm happy enough with this; I'm a Bulls fan, and Rose is fun to watch. I wish he had another move besides "drive the line, float the ball over everyone's head", but hey, so far, can't argue with results.
I bring this up solely because it illustrates a interesting, but misunderstood aspect of wealthy, large market teams: that their money even buys stability with their current roster.
You've probably heard some of what I'm talking about before: fans saying their team didn't BUY their success because Player X, Y, or Z is home grown. And it's not even usually some ridiculous third-stringer; Yankees fans, for example, always point to Jeter and Rivera. And that's true! But last time out, the Yankees spent $50 million for the last three years of Jeter's career (oh, crap, spoilers!) and $30 million for two more years of 'Mo.
The thing is, everyone is home grown somewhere. Starting your career with a team doesn't mean much; Shaq started with the Magic. Pujols ack erk sob sob sob. But they moved, because someone else was willing to pay up. It's not just about finding talent, it's about keeping talent, and if you've got money, you've got one more tool to help you do that.
Which brings us back to the Bulls and Rose. The Bulls are a wealthy franchise, and so they can afford to lock up their top player. The NBA complicates this a little, in that it has max contracts, but still, the Bulls can afford to hand out more max contracts than other teams. And anyway, the NBA's olive branch to "home growing" its players is that a player's first team can actually offer him MORE money.
My point is, money doesn't just give a team free agency options. It lets it avoid free agency just as much.
UPDATE: Friend of the blog Chip adds in some details on the NBA's max salary rules under the new collective bargaining agreement: "The new CbA allows teams lucky enough to draft the MVP (or other qualified examples I can't remember just now) to give Them something like 30% of the salary cap as a max, and an extra year. It's rare to have an MVP so young and it is great luck for the bulls. But also very interesting from the contract / CBS standpoint."
I'd heard about this, but didn't think about including it because, y'know, shitty blogger. But it's real, and some people have even taken to calling it the Derrick Rose Rule. My theory above holds true, though- a wealthy team still has more of an ability to exercise this option, even if all teams would be allowed to do so.
Okay, first, let's just recap that title: The Chicago Bulls have locked up reigning MVP Derrick Rose for the next five years with a contract worth roughly $94 million. I'm happy enough with this; I'm a Bulls fan, and Rose is fun to watch. I wish he had another move besides "drive the line, float the ball over everyone's head", but hey, so far, can't argue with results.
I bring this up solely because it illustrates a interesting, but misunderstood aspect of wealthy, large market teams: that their money even buys stability with their current roster.
You've probably heard some of what I'm talking about before: fans saying their team didn't BUY their success because Player X, Y, or Z is home grown. And it's not even usually some ridiculous third-stringer; Yankees fans, for example, always point to Jeter and Rivera. And that's true! But last time out, the Yankees spent $50 million for the last three years of Jeter's career (oh, crap, spoilers!) and $30 million for two more years of 'Mo.
The thing is, everyone is home grown somewhere. Starting your career with a team doesn't mean much; Shaq started with the Magic. Pujols ack erk sob sob sob. But they moved, because someone else was willing to pay up. It's not just about finding talent, it's about keeping talent, and if you've got money, you've got one more tool to help you do that.
Which brings us back to the Bulls and Rose. The Bulls are a wealthy franchise, and so they can afford to lock up their top player. The NBA complicates this a little, in that it has max contracts, but still, the Bulls can afford to hand out more max contracts than other teams. And anyway, the NBA's olive branch to "home growing" its players is that a player's first team can actually offer him MORE money.
My point is, money doesn't just give a team free agency options. It lets it avoid free agency just as much.
UPDATE: Friend of the blog Chip adds in some details on the NBA's max salary rules under the new collective bargaining agreement: "The new CbA allows teams lucky enough to draft the MVP (or other qualified examples I can't remember just now) to give Them something like 30% of the salary cap as a max, and an extra year. It's rare to have an MVP so young and it is great luck for the bulls. But also very interesting from the contract / CBS standpoint."
I'd heard about this, but didn't think about including it because, y'know, shitty blogger. But it's real, and some people have even taken to calling it the Derrick Rose Rule. My theory above holds true, though- a wealthy team still has more of an ability to exercise this option, even if all teams would be allowed to do so.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The Economics of Albert Pujols
I was in St. Louis this weekend, accompanied by a bunch of people who couldn't give a baker's shit about the Cardinals (and one guy who would pay good money to see Busch Stadium burn to cinders in a tire fire, but we'll set him aside for now). The subject of Pujols' free agency of course came up.*
*-And while I've got you here, let's just clear up that that's exactly WHY pro athletes get away with outrageous contracts- because we all secretly LOVE them. Here we were, in the city that just won the World Series, talking about the TEAM that just won the World Series, and we're talking contract negotiations. We can bitch all we want about greed and money and how we'd play for free if someone would let us, but it's all horseshit. We LOVE talking and thinking about this stuff.
Anyway. Pujols. My companions asked me where he was going, and given the latest news about the Marlins and the MYSTERY TEAM, it's obviously a good question. Too bad my answer is so shitty- I JUST DON'T KNOW.
It all comes down to this: Will someone significantly outbid the Cardinals? The Cardinals' latest offer is HUGE- 10 years, $220 mildos. And by all accounts, Pujols likes the Cardinals, likes St. Louis, likes toasted ravioli, etc. So, is some other team going to go significantly above and beyond that?
There's significant evidence that they'd be pretty dumb to do so. In 2011, Albert Pujols started to look vaguely human, which is to say he merely hit the shit out of the ball with a baseball bat, as opposed to raping the psyches of opposing pitchers with his terror (Albert Pujols led the league in RPs in 2004, 2005, and 2007. Tim McCarver won the award in other years, but for other reasons.) He had nagging injuries. His production was noticeably down. He had some mental lapses. And of course, he's 31 years old (or 57 years old, if you believe every baseball pundit out there, though they have absolutely nothing to prove it).
So, essentially, if you pay out more than 10 years for Pujols, you're probably buying at least 4 shitty years, and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do so. Why in god's name would you do that?
See, there's this thing in economics called the "Efficient Market Hypothesis", which is essentially that if the free market has all the proper information, it will correctly value something- y'know, put it at the exact right price point to balance out supply and demand, or whatever.
But if you think that smells like bullshit, your nose is in fine working order. I'm a big fan of what Larry Summers said about that: "THERE ARE IDIOTS. Look around." Markets are all just made of people, and people are dumb. We get distracted, we get emotional, we get suckered, we don't do proper research. We basically suck, it's just that we've got the thumbs, so the rest of the planet can sit the fuck down.
That brings us to the Miami Marlins. It is almost certainly NOT in their best interest to offer Albert Pujols more money than the Cardinals are offering him. They've already overpaid for Heath Bell, and maybe Jose Reyes. And Friend of the Blog Ozzie Guillen will make them pay out a lot more, either in league fines or player blood. And Pujols has all of those downsides listed above.
BUT...that doesn't mean the Marlins won't do it anyway. They want to make a big splash in the free agent market, to go along with their shiny new stadium, fiery new manager, and...new uniforms. So, just 'cause they SHOULDN'T offer Pujols more money than the Cards, doesn't mean they won't.
Stay tuned. Look around.
*-And while I've got you here, let's just clear up that that's exactly WHY pro athletes get away with outrageous contracts- because we all secretly LOVE them. Here we were, in the city that just won the World Series, talking about the TEAM that just won the World Series, and we're talking contract negotiations. We can bitch all we want about greed and money and how we'd play for free if someone would let us, but it's all horseshit. We LOVE talking and thinking about this stuff.
Anyway. Pujols. My companions asked me where he was going, and given the latest news about the Marlins and the MYSTERY TEAM, it's obviously a good question. Too bad my answer is so shitty- I JUST DON'T KNOW.
It all comes down to this: Will someone significantly outbid the Cardinals? The Cardinals' latest offer is HUGE- 10 years, $220 mildos. And by all accounts, Pujols likes the Cardinals, likes St. Louis, likes toasted ravioli, etc. So, is some other team going to go significantly above and beyond that?
There's significant evidence that they'd be pretty dumb to do so. In 2011, Albert Pujols started to look vaguely human, which is to say he merely hit the shit out of the ball with a baseball bat, as opposed to raping the psyches of opposing pitchers with his terror (Albert Pujols led the league in RPs in 2004, 2005, and 2007. Tim McCarver won the award in other years, but for other reasons.) He had nagging injuries. His production was noticeably down. He had some mental lapses. And of course, he's 31 years old (or 57 years old, if you believe every baseball pundit out there, though they have absolutely nothing to prove it).
So, essentially, if you pay out more than 10 years for Pujols, you're probably buying at least 4 shitty years, and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to do so. Why in god's name would you do that?
See, there's this thing in economics called the "Efficient Market Hypothesis", which is essentially that if the free market has all the proper information, it will correctly value something- y'know, put it at the exact right price point to balance out supply and demand, or whatever.
But if you think that smells like bullshit, your nose is in fine working order. I'm a big fan of what Larry Summers said about that: "THERE ARE IDIOTS. Look around." Markets are all just made of people, and people are dumb. We get distracted, we get emotional, we get suckered, we don't do proper research. We basically suck, it's just that we've got the thumbs, so the rest of the planet can sit the fuck down.
That brings us to the Miami Marlins. It is almost certainly NOT in their best interest to offer Albert Pujols more money than the Cardinals are offering him. They've already overpaid for Heath Bell, and maybe Jose Reyes. And Friend of the Blog Ozzie Guillen will make them pay out a lot more, either in league fines or player blood. And Pujols has all of those downsides listed above.
BUT...that doesn't mean the Marlins won't do it anyway. They want to make a big splash in the free agent market, to go along with their shiny new stadium, fiery new manager, and...new uniforms. So, just 'cause they SHOULDN'T offer Pujols more money than the Cards, doesn't mean they won't.
Stay tuned. Look around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)