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.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
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.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Take off your Hawks and Jacket: The third
8:04 - Boss Hoss has them Jacket boys in a whole heap of pickle.
8:09 - I kinda feel Mason's pain.
8:28 - Obviously Mason's let some by him tonight, but the announcers sitting here saying "Columbus needs to go get a goalie" is a bit of a cheap shot, imo.
8:29 - Speaking of cheap shots...
8:09 - I kinda feel Mason's pain.
8:28 - Obviously Mason's let some by him tonight, but the announcers sitting here saying "Columbus needs to go get a goalie" is a bit of a cheap shot, imo.
8:29 - Speaking of cheap shots...
Hawks v BJs: 2
7:09- man, I kinda feel bad for Mason on that. Not that I wanna give the goal back...
7:23- this is more what I was expecting tonight
7:27- Niemi says no! Wait...
7:23- this is more what I was expecting tonight
7:27- Niemi says no! Wait...
Hawks v BJs: 1
6:11- iPad is already acting weird. I am not sure what is worse, our power play or apple autocorrect.
6:13- did we just forget which net is ours?
6:22- evidence that goals don't need to be pretty.
6:28- what happened to our damn penalty kill? Though to be fair that was probably more on Crawford.
6:30- I submit that getting scored on by a guy named Clitsome is acceptable.
6:32- this I vow, dear reader, I will drink a beer for every goal scored on us.
6:38- urg, more pretty passing followed by no shot on goal.
6:44- this is why we love Tazer, this in includes you
6:13- did we just forget which net is ours?
6:22- evidence that goals don't need to be pretty.
6:28- what happened to our damn penalty kill? Though to be fair that was probably more on Crawford.
6:30- I submit that getting scored on by a guy named Clitsome is acceptable.
6:32- this I vow, dear reader, I will drink a beer for every goal scored on us.
6:38- urg, more pretty passing followed by no shot on goal.
6:44- this is why we love Tazer, this in includes you
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
NHL Alternative Power Rankings
So here I am going over ESPN's latest power rankings http://espn.go.com/nhl/powerrankings and I'm noticing how from week to week some of the teams wildly fluctuate. Which makes me wonder what the hell good these weekly rankings are. So over the course of a beer I get thinking "well what if we averaged the rankings, would that give us a better idea than week to week?" And that led to a lot of paper scratching, some smart phone calculator usage, and the following four (yes four) power rankings. Below their description:
1) Complete Average - I used all 6 weeks of ESPN's power rankings, including their pre-season rankings before any games were played. This not only gives a sense of completeness, but also factors in the opinion of better sports minds than me on how teams were being evaluated at the outset based on coaching staffs, talent levels, and before injuries, suspensions, and schedule strength mucked with things. I added up each team's rankings over the 6 weeks, divided by 6 to get a single score, and then ranked the teams from lowest score (highest rank) to highest score (lowest rank). So if a team was ranked 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, and 5 over 6 weeks, they would've got a total of 13/6 = 2.17. This would rank them higher than any team with a higher score. Some teams divided out to identical scores, so I ranked them as tied in a single ranking spot.
2) Playtime Average - I did the same thing, but excluded the pre-season rankings and divided by 5. This ranking only reflects weeks in which teams actually played.
3) Recent Average - Same thing, but this time I only used the last three weeks divided by 3. This doesn't reflect early success, only how teams have been playing the past couple weeks.
4) Weighted Average - I took the 5 week total, then added the three week total in again, and divided by 8. This still gives teams a benefit for early success, allowing for a team with a hot start to enter a slump they can dig out of, but does weight recent success as a better indicator of how a team will perform right now.
Full Rankings below the jump...
1) Complete Average - I used all 6 weeks of ESPN's power rankings, including their pre-season rankings before any games were played. This not only gives a sense of completeness, but also factors in the opinion of better sports minds than me on how teams were being evaluated at the outset based on coaching staffs, talent levels, and before injuries, suspensions, and schedule strength mucked with things. I added up each team's rankings over the 6 weeks, divided by 6 to get a single score, and then ranked the teams from lowest score (highest rank) to highest score (lowest rank). So if a team was ranked 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, and 5 over 6 weeks, they would've got a total of 13/6 = 2.17. This would rank them higher than any team with a higher score. Some teams divided out to identical scores, so I ranked them as tied in a single ranking spot.
2) Playtime Average - I did the same thing, but excluded the pre-season rankings and divided by 5. This ranking only reflects weeks in which teams actually played.
3) Recent Average - Same thing, but this time I only used the last three weeks divided by 3. This doesn't reflect early success, only how teams have been playing the past couple weeks.
4) Weighted Average - I took the 5 week total, then added the three week total in again, and divided by 8. This still gives teams a benefit for early success, allowing for a team with a hot start to enter a slump they can dig out of, but does weight recent success as a better indicator of how a team will perform right now.
Full Rankings below the jump...
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Chicago Blackhawsk @ St. Louis Blues
7:10- That last game, the one against the collection of misshapen British smiles known as the Vancouver Canucks, almost killed me. I wanted to hurt myself and others. Well, with this blog tonight, I'm taking care of the "others" part.
7:14- With the NBA locked out, Comcast Chicago has taken to showing classic JOrdan-era Bulls games. That... will work, Comcast. That will do just fine.
7:19- Did it The Blues just learn about the Lokomotiv tragedy this afternoon? Because seriously, this could've been scheduled a lot better.
7:21- Pat Foley- "It's a little late, but who cares?" I care. I mean, I'm a post 9-11 American, I get fetishizing tragedy. But goddammit, two months after that, the Yankees were playing their games on time.
7:36- The Blues' new head coach- Alfred Hitchcock, or some damn thing- admits that putting Kane and Toews on separate lines messes up his plans on how to defend them. How nice of him, to reveal that he only planned for one circumstance.
7:23- Is the anthem singer holding a hat? Will he pass it later for donations?
7:24- This guy is shifting keys more than that little guy at the end of the second Matrix movie.
7:27- Wait, why the fuck are the 'Hawks in their home sweaters? Is the Scott Trade center actually in East St. Louis?
7:33- The Blues' forwards might try receiving a pass, rather than just limply swatting at it as it bounces past them.
7:38- Sobotka scores for the Blues. Guess he finally got the port of Baltimore dredged.
7:42- And Carcillo's picked a fight. FIGHTS TOTALLY PUT POINTS ON THE BOARD, RIGHT?
7:50- The announcers are telling us how John Scott has it switching between offense and defense. The only thing worse than watching John Scott skate is listening to the Ballad of John Scott.
8:25- Right now, the 'Hawks look like dirt that's been fucked by an elephant. BUT OH, THEY'VE GOT GRIT, NOW.
8:28- Finally, the 'Hawks get a PP. Oh, wait, their PP is a horrifying spiraling descent into my most depressing nightmares.
8:31- That was the Stephen King's "The Shining" of Power Plays. That third clear was the elevator full of blood.
8:34- I hate few things more than I hate these tequila commercials. Why is this 34 year old douchebasket talking like the Shit My Dad Says guy?
8:40- The last five minutes of this game have been so terrible, I think one of these stumblefucks stepped on MY dick.
8:45- Did someone coat the ice with anal lube?
8:48- This game is worse than that "Party at the Top of the World" song.
8:51- We're through 40 minutes, and the 'Hawks look worse than Lindsay Lohan is going to look in her Playboy pictorial.
8:52- Yeah, "pictorial". 'Cause it's the classy way to show folks your tatties.
9:12- Pat Foley makes a joke about "magnetic boards", indicating that the players are really pinned to the boards. Steve Konroyd is following up on that like it's actually a thing.
9:31- OH GEE LOOK, THE GAME ENDED EARLY. Time to watch the New Girl.
7:14- With the NBA locked out, Comcast Chicago has taken to showing classic JOrdan-era Bulls games. That... will work, Comcast. That will do just fine.
7:19- Did it The Blues just learn about the Lokomotiv tragedy this afternoon? Because seriously, this could've been scheduled a lot better.
7:21- Pat Foley- "It's a little late, but who cares?" I care. I mean, I'm a post 9-11 American, I get fetishizing tragedy. But goddammit, two months after that, the Yankees were playing their games on time.
7:36- The Blues' new head coach- Alfred Hitchcock, or some damn thing- admits that putting Kane and Toews on separate lines messes up his plans on how to defend them. How nice of him, to reveal that he only planned for one circumstance.
7:23- Is the anthem singer holding a hat? Will he pass it later for donations?
7:24- This guy is shifting keys more than that little guy at the end of the second Matrix movie.
7:27- Wait, why the fuck are the 'Hawks in their home sweaters? Is the Scott Trade center actually in East St. Louis?
7:33- The Blues' forwards might try receiving a pass, rather than just limply swatting at it as it bounces past them.
7:38- Sobotka scores for the Blues. Guess he finally got the port of Baltimore dredged.
7:42- And Carcillo's picked a fight. FIGHTS TOTALLY PUT POINTS ON THE BOARD, RIGHT?
7:50- The announcers are telling us how John Scott has it switching between offense and defense. The only thing worse than watching John Scott skate is listening to the Ballad of John Scott.
8:25- Right now, the 'Hawks look like dirt that's been fucked by an elephant. BUT OH, THEY'VE GOT GRIT, NOW.
8:28- Finally, the 'Hawks get a PP. Oh, wait, their PP is a horrifying spiraling descent into my most depressing nightmares.
8:31- That was the Stephen King's "The Shining" of Power Plays. That third clear was the elevator full of blood.
8:34- I hate few things more than I hate these tequila commercials. Why is this 34 year old douchebasket talking like the Shit My Dad Says guy?
8:40- The last five minutes of this game have been so terrible, I think one of these stumblefucks stepped on MY dick.
8:45- Did someone coat the ice with anal lube?
8:48- This game is worse than that "Party at the Top of the World" song.
8:51- We're through 40 minutes, and the 'Hawks look worse than Lindsay Lohan is going to look in her Playboy pictorial.
8:52- Yeah, "pictorial". 'Cause it's the classy way to show folks your tatties.
9:12- Pat Foley makes a joke about "magnetic boards", indicating that the players are really pinned to the boards. Steve Konroyd is following up on that like it's actually a thing.
9:31- OH GEE LOOK, THE GAME ENDED EARLY. Time to watch the New Girl.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Hawks/Panthers: period 3
8:28- dude when even Tazer is owning u....give up
8:29- hey errybody let's play my favorite game: how much ofnthe hawks pp will be spent on hawk side of the ice
8:30- Hossa shoulda shot that.
9:13- for the record crawsome has 41 saves, and it still went to shootout
8:29- hey errybody let's play my favorite game: how much ofnthe hawks pp will be spent on hawk side of the ice
8:30- Hossa shoulda shot that.
9:13- for the record crawsome has 41 saves, and it still went to shootout
Hawks v Panthers: period the first
6:42 - forecheck is looking good
6:44 - glad to see Tazer telling Kane he might get all the poon, but he won't get all the goals
6:49- for the record, Mayer just showed you all how to kick some ass.
6:51- I think he learned that style from Ben Walker trying to keep John Scott off the ice.
6;53- last time I saw Ed go thru someone like taxer just did he put a finger up their ass
6:54- is it bad I still get nervous when Crawford goes behind the net?
6:55- good save. #crawfordoccupiesmyheart
6:57- I have seen stronger one touches on my floor hockey team than that chip by brunette
7:00- I am always impressed with our passing but we get too cute sometimes
7:14- good period. Panthers lose 67% of games they are down after the first period.
6:44 - glad to see Tazer telling Kane he might get all the poon, but he won't get all the goals
6:49- for the record, Mayer just showed you all how to kick some ass.
6:51- I think he learned that style from Ben Walker trying to keep John Scott off the ice.
6;53- last time I saw Ed go thru someone like taxer just did he put a finger up their ass
6:54- is it bad I still get nervous when Crawford goes behind the net?
6:55- good save. #crawfordoccupiesmyheart
6:57- I have seen stronger one touches on my floor hockey team than that chip by brunette
7:00- I am always impressed with our passing but we get too cute sometimes
7:14- good period. Panthers lose 67% of games they are down after the first period.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)