The Blog

Championships on the Cheap

2007-01-26T23:04:00.001-08:00

There are a few qualities that no amount of game-time statistics captures. Some are hackneyed terms such as "leadership", "poise", and "being a locker room guy".

However, one that I find to be very important, seems to get lost in the discussions. This trait is a star player's willingness to take a pay-cut.

We all feel bad for Kevin Garnett. Poor KG - he has no supporting cast. Poor KG - it isn't his fault. Well, it might not be his fault on the court, certainly. He is remarkably efficient and anchors a (surprisingly) good defense despite being the only strong defensive player on the team. Despite his mediocre clutch-time capacity, he is one of the top 5 forwards in the league. But off the court? I argue that some of his team's woes are his own doing. Garnett takes one of the highest salary's in the league and makes it very difficult to build either a deep team or hire many talented teammates. In fact, he holds the 3rd highest single-season salary record, and also has led the NBA in salary for 4 straight season. During that expensive run, his T-Wolves got out of the post-season once, and he also had a 13-18 playoff record (a terrible 41.9% win-loss record!).

Hogging up the salary cap seems to be a quick way to kill the development of your team. Of the top 40 highest paying seasons in NBA history, only Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, and Rasheed Wallace have won rings in any of those seasons. Certainly this is not inflation adjusted, but my point will eventually about Duncan (a player in the modern era) so things like inflation adjustments serve only to further demonstrate what little pay he takes.

Enter Duncan. He has 3 rings, 2 MVPs (should have 3), 3 Finals MVPs, and has been a perennial All-NBA and All-Defense Team member (only player in history to be on both each of his first 9 seasons in the NBA, and will likely make it 10 this season). His highest paying season ever comes ranked as #47 on the list at $15 million. More perspective. Chris Webber, Juwan Howard, Allan Houston, Penny Hardaway, J-Kidd, AI (yes I like his play, but his terrible contracts cost him talented teammates), Starbury, Kobe Bryant (yeah he sells jersey's, but call me back when he is on the same plateau as Duncan), and even Michael Finley have made more money and have enjoyed loftier contracts.

I think the irony is that of all the players on the list (except for Jordan, possibly...) Duncan is the one who least needed to purchase his own teammates. He can play up-tempo (remember when he wiped the floor with Nash, 4-1, playing fast two years ago) or the slow game - he defends extremely well in both situations, and is phenomenally offensively efficient. There is not another player on that list (other than Jordan) who can do this. Even today, if you were to pick 1 player to build a team around (the rest of your team is arbitrary/random) - Duncan would clearly be the consensus choice.

What is even more interesting is that - over the last 20 years - only 4 of the championship teams had the highest paid player. 2 were Jordan seasons (97, 98) and 2 were Shaq seasons (2000, 2006). That's it. End of story. It gets even more interesting if you start looking at percentage of maximal salary that the key player on a winning team held. The lesson learned is that unselfish players who are willing to give up 20-40% of there salary (like Duncan giving up $13 million relative to Garnett) are able to attract qualitity players. Just think, with $9 million he bought Horry and Brent Barry. Consensus is that Duncan is a better player at the end of the day than KG (who is also great). Now certainly Duncan + Horry + Barry + $4 million > KG, no?

Thus, in addition to being a great leader, clutch-performer, defensive stalwart, multiple-time MVP, and the most consistent player in the post-Jordan era - perhaps Tim's greatest virtue is his unselfishness - his willingness to concede $15 million year in and year out and instead opt for talented teammates while emphasizing that character matters a damn lot in a sport where most stars lack it.

MVP Race and All-Star Picks

2007-01-11T23:47:00.000-08:00

MVP Race
Name (PER, Roland Rating)

1. Dirk Nowitzki (29.9, 15.5)
2. Tim Duncan (27.3, 13.8)
3. DWade (30.4, 16.7)
4. Gilbert Arenas (27.1, 15.5)
5. Steve Nash (26.0, 11.3)
6. Yao Ming (29.1, 13.5)
7. LeBron James (26.6, 14.1)
8. Kobe Bryant (25.6, 10.1)

This list is not that controversial - though perhaps the ordering might be. First, we address why Tim Duncan is so high despite not being as flashy as Kobe, James, or Nash. Well, he flat out is a more efficient player - for one. And two, adding to the fact that he has the 6th best (or so) PER in the league, let us remind ourselves that PER is an offense-biased metric. Considered to be the best defensive big man in the league (aside from arguably Ben Wallace), Tim is having a phenomenal season both offensively and defensively (in terms of efficiency) despite playing diminished minutes. Of course, as usual he plays quality minutes and gets his team a comfortable lead whenever he is in the game by impacting both ends of the floor. The Spurs would not be where they are (this year or for any of the last 9 years) without TD. It seems that we have gotten too used to his stellar play to be willing to bestow upon him another MVP-type accolade.

Second, I've been asked why DWade is on this list. For some odd reason, people seem to think that an MVP must be on the best team in the league. Barkley even went as far as to say "When I won MVP ... sure Michael was the best player ... but I should have won ... we were rewarded for being the best team". He repeated the same argument about Malone. But the best team has a lot more to do with coaching, management and scouting. A great system goes a long way to sustaining a great team, without even having great players (remember the Kings of old?). Of course, great players can (and sometimes are) members of excellent systems, and this should not be held against them. The obvious example here is Tim Duncan. The Spurs are probably the best run organization in the league - their scouting record (especially international scouting) is absurdly impressive. They look for character of players. They are extremely well coached. Etc. But the Spurs' system hinges on the unique play of a gifted forward/center who is skilled at screen settings, passing out of doubles, is virtually unguardable, all while being the mainstay of one of the best defenses in the league. Does anyone else other than TD fit this bill? Possibly, possibly, KG comes close. And that's the end of the list. The point to take away from this is we ought not judge what player was the most valuable based on the system - we must judge based on his own play. Wade's Heat are 15-12 with him on the floor and have not won a game with him out. That's the difference between 5th/6th seed versus last place in the Eastern Conference. His PER is league-high, as is his Roland Rating. Why, then, do I put him only at 3? I will be the first to maintain that PER, RR, and other statistics are not without their own faults. While they give us powerful metrics to better understand the game, they are not the last word.

Third, Yao is so low because he is a little hurt and his team (thanks to in part to McGrady's sort-of resurgance) is doing ok. The Rockets seem to be doing fine for two reasons. First, McGrady is a brilliant, absolutely brilliant passer as well as scorer. But second, and much more importantly, JVG's system is working. The Rockets are the league's best defensive team this year - with or without Yao. Yao may now be the league's best center. Still, I am hard pressed to say he is more valuable to the Rockets than is Nash, Gilbert, TD, or Dirk to their teams.

All-Star Picks

Leastern Conference
C Dwight Howard
F Jermaine O'Neal
F LeBron James
G Gilbert Arenas
G Dwyane Wade
Chris Bosh
David Lee
Michael Redd
Caron Butler
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce
Chauncey Billups

Western Conference
C Yao Ming (injured - so we have 13 players instead of 12)
F Dirk Nowitzki
F Tim Duncan
G Steve Nash
G Kobe Bryant
Kevin Garnett (14.3 - Roland Rating)
Josh Howard (12.0)
Carmelo Anthony (9.4)
Tracy McGrady (9.1)
Tony Parker (8.7)
Amare Stoudemire (8.1)
Shawn Marion (7.4)
Allen Iverson (7.0 - adjusted for time in both teams)

A Case for HR 1498

2006-10-25T23:16:00.000-07:00

The United States trade deficit hit a record $69.9 billion in August, up from $68 billion in July. The deficit with China rose to $21.9 billion and China’s continual trade surpluses in 2006 indicate that the United States drives the road of ballooning trade deficits. US workers watch helplessly as their jobs drift overseas and domestic consumers increasingly purchase foreign goods as a result of the deficits. “Made in the USA” is no longer what it used to be.

To make matters worse, the Chinese government intentionally depreciates the value of its currency, the Yuan, by holding vast amounts of both US and other foreign securities. By purchasing and holding US treasury bonds, China has effectively pegged its currency to the dollar and consequently, keeps prices artificially low inside of its borders with an excess supply of Yuan in the market. China acquires $20 billion worth of foreign security holdings monthly and soon will surpass one trillion dollars of outside currency held. The amount China spends annually on depressing its currency is equivalent to one quarter of its exports worldwide, effectively a twenty-five percent export subsidy according Peter Morici, former chief economist at the US International Trade Commission. House bill HR 1498 reverses this trend, allowing the United States to curb the unfair Chinese measures that have let the deficit swell to its current size by justly taxing Chinese products.

China’s protectionist actions hurt US manufacturers already contending with low wage earning workers in China. In the globalized world, the effects of Chinese trade policy are not restricted to the manufacturing industry. Companies use undervalued labor to export services such as healthcare. X-rays and MRI scans of American patients are analyzed overnight by licensed doctors overseas and ready for American physicians in the morning to act on. Thus, as medical jobs are also outsourced, the impact of Chinese governmental policy resonates all over America, not solely in our factories.

These arguments are not new, nor are they unique to the United States; however, a notable solution for the United States lies within trade law. China’s twenty five percent export subsidy is tantamount to a tariff protectionist measure that lies outside of World Trade Organization (WTO) parameters for acceptable protectionism. HR 1498, the Chinese Currency Act, declares Chinese currency manipulation as unfair and encourages the US to take legal action against China under US trade law by imposing countervailing duties. This would allow the United States to tax incoming products from China to offset the effects of the subsidy. The bill helps the US by making it more expensive and ineffective for the Chinese government to pursue their currency devaluing practices.

This is not protectionism to shield infant industry from competition, nor is it protectionism to help gain first-mover advantage like the United States did with Boeing, or Europe with Airbus. Chinese trade practice is unjust and the United States is justified retaliating through the WTO. This administration has been unsuccessful in forcing China to abide by international trade standards, despite China’s membership in the WTO. HR 1498 gives the United States legal recourse to tax Chinese products, helping domestic producers and bringing much needed revenue to the government.

While counter tariffs may appear a short term solution, the effects of HR 1498 are long term. Other countries are currently inclined to follow China’s example and manipulate their currencies to maintain competitiveness in world markets. By taking a firm stand against unethical action by other governments, the United States signals to China and others that the United States and WTO members will not tolerate exploitative trade practices. Moreover, HR 1498 helps keeps jobs here at home in the United States for both manufacturing and the service industries by leveling the playing field. It helps preserve the legitimacy of WTO agreements by preventing individual countries from circumventing them. The bill helps the United States stand strong at a time when US political capital is scarce in the international community. The US needs to turn down the road of significantly reducing trade deficits, not allowing them to exponentially grow. HR 1498 is a step in that direction.

Thoughts/comments?
-Abhi

Bad Math in Economics

2006-10-06T17:49:00.000-07:00

I sometimes feel that economists go wrong when they try to over-apply mathematical theory to their problems. At times, they seem to force the issue.

Don't get me wrong. Math is a language beautifully suited to model many things. We all know that math is useful in physics - to the point that people seem to mistake mathematical models of physics as necessary truths as opposed to viewing them as models. It is useful in computer science. It is useful in chemistry - well sort of. At least it is useful in quantum chemistry where representation theory is used. And math is useful in bio as well. Well, ok, maybe not in bio. But you get the point.

And I certainly don't feel that mathematics is limited as a language to model the "hard" sciences. I think math has utility in describing flows of discourse in Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge. And the logical positivists and metamathematicians were no slouches either.

The problem I have with the way math is employed in economics is that, sometimes there is a tendency to feel that simply because things are stated in mathematical terms, they are more rigorous - hence more right. And in that impulse, researchers (at times) seem to forget that - well - what matters is not the theorem itself but how well the real world issue maps onto the conditions for that theorem to hold. For example, it is not uncommon to read horrible economics papers, exploiting some local phenomenon and accidentally applying the result as some global pheonomenon to comment on larger-scale results.

Making matters worse, it is not uncommon to read papers and analyses that seem to force issues and positions out of topological convenience. The problem is that results are contingent on fairly arbitrary and convenient assumptions at times. Lots of natural settings aren't Hausdorff spaces (ignore this if you have no idea what that means). The common response is, "well, look we aren't trying to say exactly what goes on. we are trying to get a partial analysis - get closer to the truth or get a better idea of how this one factor might contribute, ceteris paribus." Look, that is cute and all - but here is where that fails. Some of these assumptions that are made literally make the conclusion entirely different. It isn't necessarily a continous function - a slight change in the assumptions of your model does not mean that your conclusion is perturbed only by a bit. In fact, there is no reason a priori for us to think that conclusions are so perturbation-robust in the first place in many of these situations. These are assumptions that should be rigorously justified - but usually they are not because ... well ... to put it mildly, the assumptions are made because it is too hard to deal with the detailed problem in the first place.

At the end of the day - it is important to take a lot of the theory with a grain of salt. And it is important to see if they are robust to assumption-perturbation. Only if this is the case, can we utilize the models to conclude stuff about these "partial analyses" in the first place.

Studying Deja Vu

2006-09-18T00:27:00.000-07:00

How Stuff Works is a fun site. Excerpt below:

"Another theory is based on the way our brain processes new information and how it stores long- and short-term memories. Robert Efron tested an idea at the Veterans Hospital in Boston in 1963 that stands as a valid theory today. He proposed that a delayed neurological response causes deja vu. Because information enters the processing centers of the brain via more than one path, it is possible that occasionally that blending of information might not synchronize correctly."

Find more here.

Is CNN an Irony Free Zone

2006-09-16T17:33:00.000-07:00

I'm pretty surprised that no one started cracking up after technology responded to the President.

In the meantime, I really liked this that was posted on Cowen's website. Watch that and read it with this.

John Stewart Takes on .... Kermit

2006-09-16T11:20:00.000-07:00

I absolutely love YouTube. Kermit on The Daily Show here.

George Bush vs. Himself ....?

2006-09-15T21:29:00.000-07:00

I absolutely love this clip. President George W. Bush debates Governor George W. Bush.

It's pretty amusing how the Republicans can launch such a great "Flip-Flopper" campaign, but the Democrats don't have the brains to come up with material that The Daily Show can.

"I don't think our troops oughta be used for what's called nation building ... Let me say this to you - I wouldn't use force, I wouldn't use force."

More on Rethinking Immigration

2006-09-14T22:35:00.000-07:00

I really enjoyed Giovanni Peri and Giamarco Ottaviano's Rethinking the Effects of Immigration on Wages. The argument was fairly straightforward. I'll leave out the math and subtleties, and try to give a reasonably lay abstract. The motivation for the paper comes from the fact that in the last 30 years, the share of immigrant workers in our labor force has increased from 5% to nearly 15%. And political groups left and right are quick to blame immigrants for "stealing our jobs", and so on. Which begs the question - are they?

The paper answers two questions:
(1) What has been the effect of immigration on average wages?
(2) What has the distribution of these effects looked like? i.e. if we partition the population into groups by education level (super low, low, medium, high), how have these wages fared due to immigration?

So let's consider the previous literature on this subject:
(a) The Pre-Moderns: these guys assumed that foreign labor and domestic labor were perfectly substitutable and that labor was homogenous. Pretty shitty.
(b) The Moderns: they began to utilize the argument of imperfect substitution. They split roughly into two groups:
i. Researchers considering foreign vs. native as imperfect substitutes, but disregarding education and experience.
ii. Researchers considering experience and education level in calculating imperfect substitutions, but disregarding weighting this on foreign-ness or national-ness.

Lastly, it is worth noting that almost all moderns regarded capital stock to be fixed in the short run.

What did Peri say in response to all of this?
Well, first, he said that partitioning the levels of imperfect substitution into (b)i or (b)ii was a mistake. Instead, we should use a nested function, that adjusted first for education level, second for experience given an education level, and third on whether or not someone was foreign given an education level and experience.

Second, Peri argued that this notion of a fixed capital stock makes little sense, because we do not magically come up with capital every 10 years (census years) en masse. Instead, firms see that immigrants are entering yearly, and respond to this by continuously investing in more and more capital.

It turns out that these two changes create a rather general analysis of the problem - and in my opinion a reasonably "complete one" relative to what existed before. In particular, I liked the methodology revision.

As for what happens - well it turns out that if immigrants come in with levels of education and experience close to most of society, obviously these guys are too substitutable and so wage rates drop. Conversely, if they have rather different levels of education and experience, obviously they aren't so substitutable and in fact wage rate can potentially go up.

As for empirics, average wage did go up, and in the 4 rough blocks of education levels (college grad, college dropout, high school grad, high school dropout) here is the following order of who did best to who did worst due to immigration:
1. College Dropouts (+++)
2. High School Grads (++)
3. College Grads (+)
4. High School Dropouts (-)

So here is a good question to end on - can anyone give any intuition as to why this ordering makes sense?

Edward Miguel

2006-09-12T06:29:00.000-07:00

I thought that Ted Miguel's writings getting some press in the blog-sphere was noteworthy. (I was his RA summer 2005, and it was basically under his guidance that I started working for the various other professors that I have. One of the nicest, most brilliant professors I've met.)

Here is a very cool paper by Miguel estimating the impact of growth shocks on civil conflict.

Comments on In Vitro Meat

2006-09-11T21:44:00.001-07:00

I have more thoughts on In Vitro Meat on my post HERE . Thanks. Please Comment with your thoughts

9/11 Alternative Theories

2006-09-10T15:57:00.000-07:00

So on the 5th anniversary (if you can call it that) of September 11th, I've been asked a lot about alternative theories.

Here is a rather interesting film, Loose Change. The section on the crash into the Pentagon (approximately min. 12-25) is especially interesting. Of course, it makes tons and tons of errors along the way - many of them chronicled at this guide. Conspiracy theorists will love the movie, debunkers will love the guide. Take what you will from either.

One very common theory seems to be that of a controlled demolition. There is a plethora of structural and civil engineering research on this matter; the consensus seems to be, more or less, that "explosives were not necessary to initiate collapse".

Box Office and Business

2006-09-09T22:03:00.000-07:00

When people discuss "highest grossing film of all-time", why do they never (or rarely) inflation-adjust? What good is it talking in nominal terms?

Consider the following world-wide gross ranking, or the following domestic gross ranking. Compare that with the following inflation-adjusted domestic ranking. Makes a difference, no?

Rethinking Immigration

2006-09-09T21:48:00.000-07:00

There is a fantastic new paper on immigration out by Giovanni Peri, Professor at UC Davis, available here.

Abstract:
"This paper asks the following important question: what was the effect of surging immigration on average and individual wages of U.S.-born workers during the period 1990-2004?

The impact of immigrants on wages of US born workers can be evaluated only by accounting carefully for labor market and capital market interactions in production.

Using such a general equilibrium approach we estimate that immigrants are imperfect substitutes for U.S.-born workers within the same education and experience group (because they choose different occupations and have different skills). Moreover, accounting for reasonable speed of adjustment of physical capital we show that most of the wage effects of immigration accrue to native workers already within a decade. These two facts, overlooked by the previous literature, imply a positive and significant effect of the 1990-2004 immigration on the average wage of U.S.-born workers overall, both in the short and in the long run. This positive average effect resulted from a positive effect on wages of all US-born workers with at least a high school degree and a small negative effect on wages of U.S. born workers with no high school degree."

Thoughts on this coming soon.

In Vitro Meat, Snakes

2006-08-22T10:34:00.000-07:00

As a vegetarian, I've been thinking a lot about the case for in vitro meat.

Essentially, this is grown meat that was never a part of an animal in the first place. So no animal had to be killed to make use of the steak - it's meat grown on trees (sort of). Unless you are an anti-stem cell person. I guess. But even then, you best be a vegetarian anti-stem cell person to take issue with this.

Anyway, I was curious as to how old-guard vegetarians (like my mom) would react. Surprisingly enough, she seemed down to eat in vitro meat.

One thing is strange though. I think it was on Tyler Cowen's blog - though it is too late at night/early in the morning to remember right now - that I was reading an interesting perspective on this. Consider the life of a milk cow versus a steak cow. The steak cow roams free for X years, and then is promptly executed. But during those X years, it nicely roams the pastures and lives ok. The milk cow - though - well - just picture what a milk cow endures to make sure her udders are always full. Safe to say, while both are alive, the milk cow endures a more painful life, no? So the argument that Cowen (I believe) was putting forth went as follows. Imagine somehow that in vitro meat does become feasible and comes on the market, replacing slaughtered meat. Now you have a bunch of cows on farms that cannot be killed - but certainly, more cows now can be milked. It would work like an increase in a factor of production of milk, so more milk would start to be produced, and more cows would be milked. So a bunch of these cows, that would have lived happy for X years now live unhappily for X+Y years. So, sure, the cow lives longer - but probably is unhappier all the while.

I guess that makes a case for veganism > meat eating > vegetarianism without veganism.

I have to say, I did enjoy Snakes on a Plane. It was surprisingly funny in that over-the-top, cheesy, mocking-the-action-genre way. What I find a little strange, however, is that despite how popular it has become on the blog-o-sphere, it is more or less tanking at the box office. I believe that one factor is that the target market for SoaP was more or less bloggers. But this demographic is also the most likely to watch pirated movies in the first place. Of course, that would hardly be the only factor - mediocre reviews certainly contribute, and the gore/horror genre is not very big in the first place.

Foucualt and ODE

2006-08-21T21:11:00.000-07:00

Does anyone else get the idea that a nice language to describe Foucault's views on discourse is through a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations (and the flow being the solution flow of such a system)? The solution, of course, can be potentially chaotic and yet completely deterministic (like the Lorenz attractor). For a long time now, I've sort of felt that that's been the best way to picture it - but I could be way off base here.

In unrelated news, I plan to see Snakes on a Plane tonight.

Why Are Quants Not Very Socially Conscious?

2006-08-14T09:25:00.000-07:00

I was looking through facebook and was shocked at the number of math grad students who were listed as politically apathetic. Most of these guys would seem to fall under the umbrella label of liberalism - but they don't seem to give a crap by and large.

And then I realized that the same thing was happening with me. A pretty sad thing to admit, no?

I'm not really sure what it is - or even if it is unique to this field. But at least for me, I know that I end up getting lost in this web of material with no connection to the real world. Don't get me wrong - the stuff I study has zillions of applications to the real world. The point is, I don't interact with any of those applications. So it ends up sort of parting my worlds. And with more stress and effort needed in this mathematical world, it becomes easy to forget about the other world. Anyway, I hardly think this description (a lack of time and energy) is the reason why most math-heads are politically apathetic. Also, it's probably worth clarifying that I haven't stopped being interested in the social sciences. I just noticed that my frequency of checking blogs, posting, talking to people about political issues, etc has declined considerably.

There's probably one other contribution to my growing apathy - and that is a sense of jadedness about about the political process as well as the quality of policy implemented.

That said, I found this interesting. Here's the quote:

It appears that the family of Jared Guinther, an 18-year-old from Oregon, was trying to get him released from the army, which recruited him in spite of the fact that he is autistic. Guinther, who rarely speaks, "wasn't even aware of the war in Iraq until a recruiter enlisted him last fall to be a calvary scout, the Army's most dangerous job". Guinther's mother tried to intervene, but the recruiter told her that he himself was dyslexic and that Jared "doesn't need mommy to make his decisions for him".

Well, isn't that amusing.

Perhaps a Change of Venue Will Help ...

2006-07-16T21:21:00.000-07:00

I am currently at Princeton for a 3-week math thing. Let's see if this encourages me to post more.

Game 7 Kobe

2006-05-20T08:55:00.000-07:00

From Bill Simmon's Column.

Does an MVP throw in the towel during the second half of a Game 7? I don't know if Kobe was trying to make some kind of statement or what, but that's not what an MVP does. Period.
-- Alex, Provo, Utah

SG: I knew what was happening within four minutes of the start of the third quarter, mainly because I had just watched a similar game: Game 7 of the 1976 Western Conference finals between Golden State and Phoenix. In the first quarter, Phoenix rookie Ricky Sobers started a fight with Warriors star Rick Barry at midcourt; some of the Suns jumped in to break it up, and Barry felt like his teammates hadn't jumped to his defense. At halftime, he probably watched the highlights, confirming his beliefs, so when the second half started, Barry decided not to shoot anymore. It's one of the weirdest games ever, Barry playing hot potato for the entire half, never looking for his own shot, perfectly willing to let his teammates hang themselves to prove a point. The Warriors ended up losing by eight.

Sound familiar? After the third quarter in Game 7, as the Suns pushed their lead to 25 points, I started wondering to myself, "Wait, Kobe's not pulling a Rick Barry, is he?" He was lingering beyond the 3-point line, giving the ball up every time it swing around to him, never even thinking about attacking. And he kept playing like that, and he kept playing like that ... and then the fourth quarter started, and suddenly he was 35-40 feet away from the basket, and the Suns weren't even really paying attention to him anymore. Finally, with four minutes remaining, Phil Jackson yanked him from the game. That was that.

Was Kobe frustrated? Yeah, probably. His team pulled a collective no-show. But how can you not try to save a Game 7? Would MJ have done that? Would Bird have done it? Magic? Anyone? And with a worn-down Nash obviously hampered by an ankle injury, if there was ever a game for Kobe to score 30-plus in a half and save a lost cause, this was it. Was Kobe proving a point to the Lakers' front office, namely, "Get me some freaking help?" Was he proving a point to everyone who criticized him for playing selfishly all season, almost like, "See, this is what happens when I let these losers run the show?" Was he so frustrated with the no-shows of Odom, Brown, Walton and Parker that he wanted nothing to do with them, even though there was 24 minutes of hoops left?

My theory: Kobe acted like the me-first guy on a team that's had winners in a pickup game for over an hour, the guy who hears someone complain that they aren't getting enough touches and thinks to himself, "Wait, these guys have the gall to complain about ME?" So they petulantly stop shooting the rest of the game and walk off the court defiantly when it's over. Anyone who ever played pickup hoops has played with someone like that. And the thing is, you know when it's happening -- after a few trips down the court, everyone stops paying attention to him. Kinda like the Suns.

Do I wish I could take my MVP vote back for him? Yeah, I do. If Kobe truly thought things were hopeless in the second half, he should have punched Raja Bell in the face early in the third quarter and gotten himself kicked out. Not only would he have saved himself the "you quit on your team heat," he would have gotten the satisfaction of punching Raja Bell in the face. No downside there. But he packed it in, proving once and for all that he's not MJ and never will be. So Kobe, stop stealing MJ's patented fist clench after big baskets, and stop pretending that you "tried" in the second half of Game 7, or that you were "just trying to get everyone else involved," because neither of those things were true. You quit. And I wish I had voted for LeBron.

Timmmmmay

2006-05-15T11:34:00.000-07:00

By Pat Forde at ESPN.

Things that bore me: Reality television, "wacky" morning radio shows, the very sight of Charlie Sheen.

You'll notice that Tim Duncan does not make the list.

AP Photo

Tim Duncan's game is substance over style, but he can soar when he needs to.

In fact, I could list a million things that bore me -- ironing, Stone Phillips, Austria -- without mentioning Duncan.

I could list a million boring sports things -- cricket, free agency, throws to first to hold the runner -- and No. 21 for the San Antonio Spurs still would be nowhere near making an appearance.

I don't just respect Tim Duncan -- everyone does that. I'm entertained watching him play basketball.

I love the bank shots, the drop steps, the efficient post moves, the intelligent passes out of double-teams, the two-hand rebounds, the refusal to force anything. I've enjoyed watching him hang 31 points and 11 rebounds a game on the Dallas Mavericks in a ding-dong series so far, and I can't wait to see him play Monday night against the Mavs in what verges on a must-win playoff game.

This apparently makes me un-American enough that the NSA soon will be listening to my phone calls.

Enjoying Duncan runs counter to a state university-sized school of thought that says the most accomplished player in the NBA is test-pattern dull. Skip and Woody actually agreed on something last week on "Cold Pizza" -- that the Spurs (i.e., Duncan) are boring. And Madison Avenue clearly sees it that way, given its shunning of Duncan as a national pitchman.

Dwyane Wade will put you in a swell pair of shoes. Shaq will tell you how to care for your aching muscles. Even onetime pariah pitchman Kobe Bryant has made a commercial comeback, trading on his anti-hero status.

Just recently I've seen Kevin Garnett portray a platoon leader, a superhero and a standup comic. Funny, though, I've never seen him portray a pro basketball player in June.

Vince Carter is selling a wireless service during the playoffs. That's nice. When the Heat are finished with Carter and the Nets, he should have enough free minutes to call Duncan and ask him what winning a championship or three feels like.

I hear we're all witnesses to LeBron James' ascendance. While I won't dispute that, I'm wondering how commercial America failed to witness the Duncan phenomenon that preceded it.

The two-time league MVP and three-time NBA Finals MVP, the first player ever to be named first-team All-NBA in each of his first eight seasons as a pro, the guy who pushed himself through 80 regular-season games with plantar fasciitis, the perfect teammate, the caring community presence, the ideal face of a franchise? Guess he's too stoic and too solid to sell.

I look around the league and simply don't get it. I see repetitive stories about the anti-Duncans and yawn.

Thin man Allen Iverson and tin man Chris Webber blowing off Fan Appreciation Night in Philly? Shocker.

Overexposed and underprepared point guard Sebastian Telfair playing just 24 minutes a game for a 60-loss team? Hardly the stuff of books and documentaries, is it?

Larry Brown and Stephon Marbury hissing at each other through the tabloids during a train-wreck season? Utter boredom.

Amid this fool's parade, isn't there some love to be found for the Big Fundamental?

Yes. Turns out you can find it from predictable and unpredictable sources.

"I think he's very refreshing," said South Carolina's Dave Odom, who had Duncan for four years at Wake Forest. "What's different is refreshing, and he's different. It's gone 180 degrees now.

"He's fundamentally sound, a fearless, determined champion, someone who didn't feel like he already knew everything, who puts the team first -- those were throwback virtues and attributes. Those were things that made the old Celtic teams great, but today that's not true. Today's game is style over substance. He's the opposite. He's substance over style.

"Today's game is style over substance. He's the opposite. He's substance over style. I think he's appreciated. I don't think he's adored."

Dave Odom, Duncan's college coach

"I think he's appreciated. I don't think he's adored."

Unpredictable? How about Ron Artest, the NBA's Jesse James to Duncan's Wyatt Earp. The combustible Sacramento King told Dime Magazine this season that he likes the way Duncan plays.

Artest explained: "I remember one time Kevin Garnett was mushing him, and shoving him in the face; and Tim Duncan didn't do anything, he didn't react. He just kicked Kevin Garnett's a--, and won the damn championship. You know what I'm sayin'? That's gangsta. Everybody can show emotion, dunk on somebody, scream and be real cocky; but Tim Duncan is a ... he's a pimp."

Only the creative cloudy thinking of Ron Artest could put "Tim Duncan" and "pimp" in the same sentence -- but that's part of the big guy's marketability deficit. In terms of swagger, he's more plumber than pimp. He's as edgy as a sphere.

The closest he's come to being controversial is complaining about David Stern's new dress code (Duncan isn't comfortable without his shirttail hanging out, and he's not a suit-and-tie guy). He doesn't need big-city bling, being perfectly comfortable in the relative obscurity of San Antonio. And he's a lousy self-promoter.

"He doesn't let us into his life," said San Antonio Express-News columnist Buck Harvey. "Probably my first interview with him was as good as my last one. But in this business you can kind of respect that. He isn't trying to get in good with the media.

"My impression, if you were to know him as a teammate and a friend, he wouldn't be boring at all. He's very smart and has a great sense of humor. He just doesn't want to put that out there."

The Duncan we don't see is the guy who came over to Odom's house for dinner last October, the night before an exhibition game in Columbia, S.C. -- and fretted because he didn't have anything nicer to wear than his sweat suit. The Duncan we don't see sat in Odom's living room talking to the coach and his wife for hours after dinner, then dropped by South Carolina's practice the next day to work with the post men on a few drills.

Odom reports that the Gamecock players were not bored by Duncan's presence.

Turns out they're not alone. There might be a peasant revolution underway when it comes to Duncan and his Q Rating.

The latest issue of ESPN Magazine ran the results of a SportsNation poll identifying athletes with the most "cred." It's about as easily defined as porn -- we know it when we see it, to borrow from a former Supreme Court justice -- but it would seem to rank among the highest compliments you can pay a player.

My jaded assumption was that Duncan would rate depressingly low on the "cred" scale. Instead, he leads the league and ranks behind only Tiger Woods and Tom Brady among "SportsNation's most cred-carrying athletes."

I nearly wept. Boring, at last, is beautiful.

NBA 2006 Playoff Predictions

2006-04-24T17:25:00.000-07:00

My bracket.

Round 1
West
San Antonio over Kings in 4 - Um, let's move on.
Phoenix over Lakers in 6 - Kobe will go nuts in at least 3-4 games. As usual, the Suns will win 2-3 of them.
Dallas over Memphis in 5 - The prize for Memphis actually trying? Getting their ass beat by the Mavs.
Clippers over Denver in 7 - I feel so bad for Memphis, who would have won this matchup anyway.

East
Detroit over Milwuakee in 4 - No comments necessary.
Miami over Chicago in 5 - This will probably be a damn interesting series.
Indiana over New Jersey in 7 - Upset! Upset!
Cleveland over Washington in 7 - If LeBron hadn't gone nuts over the past month and a half, I would have gone with Washington.

Conference Semi-Finals
West
San Antonio over Dallas in 7 - Weird: My MVP's team won't go past the semi-finals!
Phoenix over Clippers in 6

East
Detroit over Cleveland in 5 - I actually wonder if they will get one game?
Miami over Indiana in 6

Conference Finals
West
San Antonio over Phoenix in 6 - I figure they will improve on their pathetic showing last year.

East
Detroit over Miami in 6 - I liked last year's Heat more than this year's, despite Wade's ascendancy into superstardom.

NBA Finals
Detroit over San Antonio in 7 - This breaks my heart, but I have no reason to go against Detroit at this time.

Of course, I would prefer either Miami or San Antonio to win it all.

Brad DeLong's Morning Coffee

2006-04-18T10:54:00.000-07:00

Adam sent me an interesting post on Brad DeLong's blog that I had missed.

Brad DeLong's Morning Coffee

It is a super interesting read.

2005-2006 Awards

2006-04-16T04:27:00.000-07:00

Before I get to the awards, let me just say, this year was like the steroids year in baseball. The foul changes, etc., really changed the game. How? Well for the last 30 years (if not more) the top performers in PER were always big men, with the occassional stellar guard. This year, shooting guards dominated. Even guys who are awsome but average low PERs (like most little guards such as AI) had 26+ PER this season. Seems to suggest that they got a huge surge out of the (a) new pace of the game and (b) more importantly the perimeter foul calling. Sure, I guess the modern era basketball player might find guard play more exciting. But that gives people an affection to a style of play that won't win in the playoffs unless you are MJ. Bigs win. (Except for MJ.) Bigs dominate. You need awsome bigs to win, no matter how you change hand checking rules.

On to awards.

Coach of the Year: Byron Scott
This was a sort of easy pick. He easily made the most out of nothing. He milked a near .500 record out of a team that everyone thought would be dead last in the league. This should shut up the nay-sayers who claimed that Scott sat around while Eddie Jordan and Lawrence Frank were the "real" coaches back in NJ. Now the other potential was Avery Johnson. Man, he made a 60 win team out of Nowitzki + change. I'm sold on this guy as a coach.

Most Improved: Boris Diaw
I don't see anyone else in the running.

Sixth Man: Mike Miller
I am tempted to give it to Stackhouse - but Miller did more coming off the bench. It really is a cheat, though, because Miller is really a starter on any other team. So playing against second string guys - he dominates. Also, Antonio McDyess deserves a mention.

Defensive Player of the Year: Tim Duncan
Tempting to give it to Big Ben. And I would have no qualms with that. But he has 3 and since I'm indifferent between these guys, give it to Duncan. He (once again) led the league in defensive rating - even on one leg. And I think he has a harder group of people to guard, with greater strength at the 5 and 4 spots in the West.

Rookie of the Year: Chris Paul
Again - who else is in the running?

All-Defensive First Team:
Ben Wallace
Tim Duncan
Ron Artest
Bruce Bowen
Dwyane Wade

It is really hard not to put Tayshaun on this list. Same for Sheed. But Artest was just that good with the Kings this year. Oh - and to everyone who keeps saying Kobe is the best two-way player in the game. Who are you kidding? Stop watching highlight reels which are geared to pump him up and either watch a large volume of games or go out and do some data analysis. He falls squarely in the "above average perimeter defender" category. Pierce, Carter, McGrady (not this year obviously) all rate above him. The only real standout in that whole category is Wade.

All-Defensive First Team:
Rasheed Wallace
Shawn Marion
Shane Battier
Tayshaun Prince
Jason Kidd

I kind of cheated on positions here. But that's ok. Anyway, honorable mentions go out to (by position): Chauncey Billups, Quinton Ross, Gerald Wallace, Andrei Kirilenko, and Marcus Camby.

All-NBA First Team:
Elton Brand
Dirk Nowitzki
LeBron James
Dwyane Wade
Kobe Bryant

This breaks my heart. First, I really really really wanted Tim Duncan to go 9 for 9 on the first team. He is right now the only player to be on it all 8 of his first 8 seasons. Damn plantar fascitis. Second, it was absurdly hard leaving out AI for a guy who nearly went 33/7.5 at 45% from the field with 2 steals per game to boot.

All-NBA Second Team:
Shaquille O'Neal
Tim Duncan
Shawn Marion
Steve Nash
Allen Iverson

What is the first thing any basketball nut will notice looking at this list? 4 former MVPs on the 2nd team together. Damn - a new generation has arrived, I guess. Oh and to those who ask why an injured Tim over KG? Well look what he did for his team while on court. A one legged Tim Duncan over a KG any day!

All-NBA Third Team:
Ben Wallace
Ron Artest
Paul Pierce
Chauncey Billups
Chris Paul

Yes, Chris Paul was that good. It's too bad that McGrady and Yao were so hurt. That Artest pick must seem insane. But we are talking about a near last-place Kings winning at over a 67% clip since Ronnie joined.

MVP:

Honorable Mentions: Shawn Marion, Elton Brand, Jason Kidd, Rasheed Wallace, Pau Gasol, Chauncey Billups
All played damn well. But not really MVPs in my book.

10. Vince Carter
The resurgence of the Nets, despite a fading Kidd, largely owed to this man.

9. Tony Parker
Carried an injured Spurs through the year to (presumably) the #1 spot in the West. Led them in scoring, assists, FG%, and steals. More importantly, was very very consistent through the year. And he is only 23 - let's not forget. (He is barely 3 years older than me!)

8. Carmelo Anthony
Clutch city. But he doesn't do a whole lot other than score (in the clutch). He certainly was worth a lot of games to the #3 Nuggets - but let me put it this way. If he wasn't the single most clutch player in the NBA right now on a division leading team, I probably wouldn't have him so high.

7. Chris Paul
Holy shit. This was supposed to be like a 20-25 win team. They were 1 or 2 wins away from the playoffs.

6. Ron Artest
This one was probably unexpected, no? But the Kings were a near last place team and are now in the playoffs. He changed the defensive culture in Sac. It's too bad that the Suns didn't make a run at him.

5. Kobe Bryant
Since the next 5 are pretty hotly contested, the comments might run a little long.

Bill Simmons is wrong when he says that Kobe was worth 25 wins to the team. They don't even have 45 wins on the season. So, Bill, are you saying they would have been an 18 win team? The supporting cast isn't that terrible. Plus even the terrible Knicks and Blazers have 22 and 21 wins respectively. So why don't we put a clamp on that hyperbole and say at best Kobe was worth 15-20 wins for the Lakers. In a related story, we do have someone who was proven to be worth 20+ wins for a team: Tracy McGrady. He was worth about 24 wins to a team that could not win at all in 17 or so games without him (until they finally got their shit together). Now Kobe's season was stellar. But let me put the scoring binge in perspective. First, 62 points in 33 minutes. Big deal right? You know who else did that? Karl Malone. (Well actually 61, but still.) And with just 26 shots (21-26). Absurdly efficient! So Kobe did it against a good Dallas team? Well Malone did it against a Cavs team (that were playoff contenders at that time). Look, most people won't tell you that Malone isn't the greatest power forward (or even 2nd or 3rd on that list) just because of his scoring binge. A lot of players can do that. Now players bent over backwards humbling themselves to Bryant for his 62 in 33 or his 82? Look, let's be honest here. You think Malone couldn't have done that in the 15 remaining minutes in his game? But if Malone could do it, you don't think Shaq could do it? Or the Dream? Or even Timmy? Or MJ? Or McGrady (pre-back)? Or Bird? Or D. Rob? But few have the ego to really take what amounts to taking 56 shots (fouls included) in a single game. And few teammates have that kind of patience. And lastly, what really allowed that was that it was against a Raptors team which never clocked him for it. A decade ago someone would have came at you.

All that said, he has been phenomenal. Absolutely phenomenal this year. 35+ a game is pretty stellar. And to be intellectually honest, we probably should downgrade that to 32-33 to properly compare it inter-temporally to the decade before. But still, damn amazing. Comparable to Jordan's sophomore* season offensively speaking. Except with a lower scoring average. And a much lower field goal %. And with crappy defense**.
(*=His real 2nd season he was injured and only played 18 games.)
(**=Jordan averaged 3 steals and over 1.5 blocks a game that season. It was one of the single most amazing defensive guard performances ever.)
But let's get real. Even Jordan didn't win MVP that year. He was just regarded as an awsome, all-around ballhog. Which is what Kobe is, minus the all-around part.

4. LeBron James
I want him to win the MVP this season. Why? Because my next three picks won't. And I don't want this to be the year of the Kobe. It is absurd. People really don't seem to have a historical context for Kobe's performances, and so the writers are going to vote for him. (Two caveats. First, I guess since there is no set standard for MVP, some people like Simmons do have criteria that they feel Kobe meets. I disagree, but whatever. Second, and more importantly, there are a lot of people with good basketball knowledge such as Kenny Smith, Barkley (he is very knowledgable), Reggie Miller, Ernie Johnson, a number of APBRmetricians, who do agree that Kobe isn't on the short list.) But other than these guys, I fear that the general public and probably most writers will vote for Kobe. So I'm hoping they are more seduced by LeBron.

His statline is insane: 32 ppg, 7 boards, 6.6 assists, 48% from the field. But interestingly, other than his scoring and his field goal percentage, his other numbers (including his supposedly improved 3 point shooting percentage) have all dipped.

But he emerged in two important ways. First, he got over (hopefully) his aversion to tense situations. Going from being a "star" player who gets pulled from shooting free throws in clutch minutes, he single handedly came back and destroyed the Nets a week ago. (A 14 win streak Nets!) And he has also hit a game winner and has begun to make other clutch time shots recently. Now it will be a while before he is compared to actually awsome clutch shooters (Melo', AI, Redd, Duncan) or even good clutch shooters (Wade, Pierce). But it is nice to see that he is improving. Second, he has played well down the stretch and ensured his team's clinching of a playoff spot. (In stark contrast to last year where they went on a giant losing streak and dropped out of the playoffs.)

3. Dwyane Wade
I really wanted him to win this year. And a few weeks ago, I thought it might be it for him this season. Top 10 in per game FG made (but not in attempted - hence hella efficient), PPG, Assists, FT made, FT attempted, Steals. He leads the league in PER, and his season statline reads: 28 ppg, 7 assists, 6 boards, 2 steals, 1 block, at fg% of 50%. And yet he is 4th on this list. Admittedly the Heat have "underachieved", going 2-11 or something against top 5 opponents. However, I don't like the build of this team. I'm prepared to argue that they are a really shitty team. Injuries aside, I don't like a lot of their supporting cast. And in that sense, I'd argue that they are only doing as well as they are because Wade has emerged as a ridiculous player. He is easily the best two-way guard in the game. If he ever adds range to his game, he will be the most complete guard in the game. (Jordan, who, like Wade, shot a miserable percentage his first few years in the league, eventually developed the range. He even went season shooting nearly 4 3's a game at 40%! So there is certainly hope for Wade.)

It is weird because Simmons says that as of 4 weeks ago Wade was his pick, but then he started struggling. Interestingly, over his struggle, Wade has averaged 23 points, 7.3 assists, 5 boards, 3 steals, shooting at 50.8%. Sounds like a struggle for Wade is an amazing average for any other player!

Anyway, let me address the obvious question: Why Wade ahead of James here? Well I thought long and hard about it - and sat for a while comparing their supporting cast. Let's be real here - the Heat supporting cast sucks too. It is pretty terrible. And while the recent triple double by James in a win against the Heat is fresh in my mind, Wade did outplay James in the wins in the two other games (hence season series). Of course, my decision doesn't come down to their playing each other. But it does add some weird insight - considering both most realize that this is going to be the matchup of the future. Anyway, I have got to look at the season panoramically, since MVP isn't "best play in the last week of the season". And with that, I take Wade over LeBron.

2. Steve Nash
Everyone has career years when they play with Nash. It is crazy. Now I think Diaw is a different case. He has been given an opportunity to showcase his talents and has done a great job. But everyone else relies heavily on Nash (except for Marion). Last year people said us Nash supporters were full of crap and argued that Amare was the real reason that they were so good. Really? This year, they are a 50+ win team again without Amare, Q-Rich, or Joe Johnson. So is it Nash, or is it Marion? Well Marion is awsome, and I think he is one of the most underrated players in the league. But most econometric number crunching points to Nash being the catalyst. And hell, just watch the team. Nash is amazing. And certainly compensates for his defensive suckiness.

1. Dirk Nowitzki
The 7 foot 3 point champion is my MVP this season. 27 ppg, 9 rpg, 3 apg, 1 blk, 48% FG%, 41% 3 PT are great numbers - but certainly don't seem to eclipse the gaudy numbers of James or Wade. Then look at the roster. 38 year old Darrell Armstrong? Erick Dampier?? Adrian Griffin? Devin Harris? An (always awful) injured Keith Van Horn? Josh Howard is admittedly developing into a great player (but was injured a lot), Jason Terry is streaky shoot-first pg, and Stack has been awsome this year. But this cast doesn't exactly say "a starting 5 who could all be on the All-Defensive team or all could be All-Stars" or "the greatest PF to play in the NBA, a crazy Argentinian who destroyed the US team and won Olympic gold, a 23 year old dating a hot woman, one of the greatest clutch shooters of all time, one of the better 3pt shooters of all time, one of the best scorers in Mavs history, a few other great clutch shooters, one of the best non-big defenders (if not the best) in NBA history". And yet Nowitzki (and Avery, obviously) were able to milk (presumably) 60 wins out of this team and keep them in the hunt just behind the Pistons and the Spurs. 60 wins with 1 All-Star. I'm just saying that such a feat doesn't seem to be very commonplace.

Anyway, here is my proof in a nutshell. Kenny Smith and Charles Barkely have a feud with Mark Cuban. And they go out of their way to bash the Mavs, Mark, and Dirk. Guess who their picks was for MVP? Yes, Dirk Nowitzki. Case closed ladies and gentlemen.

Guess for what will happen: In a close race, Kobe Bryant will edge LeBron James for the MVP. Billups, Nash, Wade, Dirk, and Marion will also pickup votes (in that order). Damnit. Players 1-4 I'm pretty indifferent between who wins. But Kobe, Marion, etc. should not be taking home the award this year.

Brad Pitt on March Madness

2006-04-02T11:07:00.000-07:00

From The Sports Guy's Column:

*****

Before we get to the mailbag, I wanted to announce that a record was broken during Round 2 of the NCAA Tournament for "Most e-mails about the exact same random subject." Let's have Vicki from Charlotte explain:

"I was enjoying a lovely Sunday afternoon at the gym when I realized March Madness was on the television screen in the fitness area. I thought this would be a perfect opportunity to impress my boyfriend (a diehard Tar Heel fan) and return home with some knowledge about one of the games. However, as I watched the Bradley (BRAD)/Pittsburgh (PITT) game and checked out the score (in the bottom corner), I couldn't get past the fact that the score read "BRAD PITT." I actually laughed out loud. It was even spelled correctly! Needless to say, I couldn't tell my boyfriend a single fact about the game and wound up looking even more like your stereotypical girl. Any suggestions?"

Getty Images/Scott Quintard

Was Brad Pitt paying attention to the BRAD PITT game?

Don't worry, Vicki -- you weren't alone. At least 50 male readers e-mailed me just to say that their wives or girlfriends noticed the exact same thing. A quick sampling:

While watching the Pittsburgh-Bradley game for 2 hours, my wife sits down on the couch and within 3 minutes asked why it says "Brad Pitt" on the screen. I guess the tourney really has something for everyone.
-- Ted Reed, Minneapolis

Wife walked in while I was watching Bradley-Pitt in the second round, looked at the score in the bottom right of the corner, and said, "Wow ... the screen says Brad Pitt!" Yet another reason to ban all women during tournament time.
-- Kevin, Albany, N.Y.

In the spirit of your Sports Gal/Sports Mom NCAA Tournament brackets, my wife had the following comment during the Bradley/Pitt game. She says in the most excited voice I have heard from her during televised sports and tells me that the box score says "Brad Pitt." Only a woman would notice that.
-- Ryan, Phoenix

And so on. My favorite e-mail came from David Rushall in Denver, who noticed the graphic before his wife and reported afterward, "I kept telling my wife 'Look, there's Brad Pitt!' She could not believe I could pick him out of the crowd during live play, so she continued to scan the crowd. After a while I let her know it was just the score in the upper left corner: BRAD 74, PITT 66. I giggled and continued to point him out every 10 minutes until the games ended."

Was this some sort of sociological experiment by CBS? Were they trying to increase the number of domestic violence incidents during that first weekend? Nobody knows. But the BRAD PITT saga led to an intriguing question from Dan in Villanova:

"This made me wonder if there were any other match-ups in any sport where the abbreviation would be a celebrity's name. I bet each of my buddies $5 that I could think of another one besides BRAD PITT. Can you come up with any? I don't feel like losing $30."

Well, I racked my brain trying to come up with one match-up so Dan didn't have to lose the 30 bucks. Couldn't think of one. So I went to ESPN.com's page that lists every college hoops team and wrote down every possible name that could fit into one of those spots for a graphic: TEX (Texas), RICH (Richmond), PITT (Pittsburgh), BRAD (Bradley), PENN (Penn), BROWN (Brown), BALL (Ball State), CAL (California), JACK (Jacksonville), SAM (Samford), BUCK (Bucknell), KEN (Kentucky), KENT (Kent State), RIDER (Rider) and BROWN (Brown).

Playing the mix-and-match game, there are two possibilities: Either a Jacksonville-Bucknell game (JACK BUCK) or a Troy-Brown game (TROY BROWN) ... and those two names aren't even remotely in Brad Pitt's class, nor would they have gotten your average female viewer to scream excitedly at the screen. I don't know about you, but I'm starting to realize that this BRAD PITT graphic was a once-in-a-lifetime event, not just because of the odds but because of the male-female ramifications in every household.

*****

I really don't know how to follow that.

Nothing in Particular

2006-03-31T16:42:00.000-08:00

Bernhard Riemann did too much. In other news, I did find this movie to be good.

Why D. Wade is MVP, Part II

2006-03-18T10:20:00.000-08:00

And from Bill Simmons, the Sports Guy:

John Hollinger stole my thunder here. Originally I wrote a longer section in this spot about how Dwyane Wade was the 2006 MVP -- how it wasn't even really that close, how he's the best two-way player in the league; how he's been scoring 33 a game and shooting 56 percent from the field for the past two months; how he's the one star in the league who can completely turn a game around in about 90 seconds; how he got over an early season funk of taking bad shots and makes the right decisions nearly all the time; how he's probably the toughest two-guard since the late-'90s MJ; how he's the most efficient superstar since the early-'90s MJ; how he's been on a mission since he didn't win the MVP at the All-Star Game; how he has a knack for raising his game when it matters -- and then Hollinger blew this same premise into an entire column. Beat me by one day. If it happens again, I'm going to have him killed.

Here's the point: Miami is 20-4 over its past 24 games, mainly because of Dwyane Wade. I see them continuing to get better and better. Why? Because he keeps getting better and better. After MJ retired, did you ever think you would see another guard average 30-35 points a night, rack up another six rebounds and six assists per game, play world-class defense and shoot 55 percent from the field? Well, it's happening.

Why D. Wade is MVP

2006-03-17T00:57:00.000-08:00

This is a piece by John Hollinger on why Wade is MVP.

Sometimes, we tend not to notice the things that are right there in front of our faces. Take the NBA's MVP race, for instance. In one corner, we have the players who are compiling prolific numbers, but for teams that have been inconsistent: LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Allen Iverson. In the other corner, we have players who don't look like a stereotypical MVP statistically, but whose teams have enjoyed great success: Steve Nash, Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker, Dirk Nowitzki.

Forget Shaq for a second. Dwyane Wade is the man, too.

And then, somehow largely omitted from the discussion, we have the one guy who is performing at an absurdly high level and doing it on a contending team: Dwyane Wade. Yet we've hardly heard a peep about his being the league's Most Valuable Player.

Everyone realizes he's a great player, obviously. But I'm not sure people realize just how great he has been this year. Wade ranks "only" fifth in scoring, so the tendency is to think he hasn't been on par with players like Bryant, James and Iverson offensively. Yet because Wade is so much more efficient and is such a good passer, he's actually been the most productive offensive player of the bunch.

For starters, Wade shoots 50.2 percent from the floor, the only player in the league's top eight in scoring to hit more than half of his shots. Additionally, he attempts 11.1 free throws per game -- only LeBron gets to the line more -- and drains 77.8 percent of them. As a result, his true shooting percentage (his shooting percentage adjusted for 3-pointers and foul shots) is 58.3 percent, which comfortably tops that of James, Iverson and Bryant and ranks even with Nowitzki's.

Second, Wade is far better at creating opportunities for his teammates. Fully 20 percent of the possessions he uses end with an assist, nearly double the rate of Bryant (11.9) and Nowitzki (10.4) and far ahead of Iverson and James, as well. As an added plus, he's also a better offensive rebounder than those four, which helps get back the possessions he loses because of his slightly higher turnover ratio.

As a result, Wade is on top of the charts in player efficiency rating, my measure of a player's per-minute statistical production, and it's not because of his defensive rebounding or blocks or steals -- it's because he's been a more productive offensive player than anybody in the league, even Kobe Bryant.

Wade is probably the best defender of the MVP candidates -- the only other one who can make a good argument is Kobe. Although no player of this caliber is asked to be a defensive stopper full-time, Wade was a second-team All-Defense selection a year ago and has performed well again this season. In fact, the Heat give up two fewer points per 48 minutes when Wade is on the floor -- even though his backup, Shandon Anderson, is in the league only because of his defense. More amazingly, Wade and Tony Parker are the only MVP candidates who can say this -- the teams of Bryant, Nash, Nowitzki, Billups, James, Iverson and Elton Brand all give up more points when they're on the court than when they're off it.

But a lot of people still won't vote for Wade, because of the "Where would they be without him?" factor. Their argument goes something like this: The Suns without Nash, or the Mavs without Nowitzki, or the Lakers without Bryant, would be much worse off than the Heat without Wade. Miami, after all, still has Shaq, while the other clubs lack another star of similar caliber.

I've got news for you: The numbers say they're horribly mistaken. Miami without Wade this season has been absolutely horrendous. It's a bit misleading to look at the Heat's record when he doesn't play, since Miami is 2-1. Instead, look at the games themselves. Miami's two wins without Wade came against perennial doormats Charlotte and Atlanta, by a combined total of three points. And the one loss? A 111-93 thrashing by Phoenix in which the Heat gave up 47 points in the first quarter.

But fortunately, we have much more to look at than those three games -- we have Miami's entire season to digest. And based on those numbers, Wade has as much positive impact on his team as any other player in the league. Thanks to 82games.com (again) we can see how the Heat have performed with Wade on and off the court, as well as how the other MVP contenders have done.

And in this analysis, Wade is far, far more valuable to the Heat than Nash, Nowitzki, Parker, Billups and Bryant are to their clubs. With Wade off the floor, the Heat have been outscored by an eye-popping 8.8 points per 48 minutes. To put this in perspective, a team getting outscored by that amount would normally go about 15-67.

Additionally, no other Miami player -- not even Shaq -- has an impact anywhere close to this. Even when O'Neal is off the court, the Heat outscore their opponents by 2.9 points per game -- in fact, with any other player off the court, Miami still outscores its opponents. But without Wade, they suddenly morph into the 2004-05 Bobcats. Only one other player -- LeBron James -- is even close to Wade in this category, and in LeBron's case it's as much a condemnation of the Ira Newble/Luke Jackson contingent as it is a stamp of his own quality.

On-court off-court differential leaders
	On-court differential	Off-court differential	Overall difference
LeBron James	+3.7	-13.8	+17.5
Dwyane Wade	+9.0	-8.8	+12.2
Kobe Bryant	+3.6	-8.0	+11.6
Steve Nash	+9.4	-0.2	+9.6
Dirk Nowitzki	+8.6	-0.1	+8.7
Tony Parker	+9.2	+1.8	+7.4
Elton Brand	+2.3	0.0	+2.3

* Source: 82games.com. All numbers per-48 minutes.

So we have a compelling case thus far that Wade has been immensely valuable this season. But I know what argument comes next: Wade can't be the MVP because the Heat is "Shaq's team," right?

Consider Wade's scintillating effort against Detroit, for instance, when he scored Miami's final 17 points, including the game-winner with 2.3 seconds left, for one of their most important wins of the season. Down the stretch of that game, as in most Heat games this season, it was Wade and not Shaq who was Miami's go-to guy.

Certainly, that perception seems to be killing Wade's chances right now. That notion was mildly annoying a year ago, when Wade played far more minutes than Shaq and was nearly as effective but got zero MVP votes to O'Neal's 58. But this year it's a preposterous proposition.

Unfortunately, we in the media probably aren't helping. Shaq is the most famous guy on the team and certainly the most loquacious, so he's our go-to guy anytime we need a quote. And if he's the one who always has his face in the mike, it only galvanizes our perception that it's "his" team. (Actually, it's Mickey Arison's team, but let's not get technical.)

Even Washington coach Eddie Jordan, whose team Wade has repeatedly shredded to pieces over the past 12 months, succumbed to the idea recently. "I'll say it's still Shaq's team," he said after a recent loss in which Wade burned him for 40. "I think he is the senior guy who has won the championships. He allows Wade to do his thing late in games, but I'd say it is Shaq's team."

The second part of Jordan's statement is the most important, because it's so widely believed. Because players like Damon Jones and Udonis Haslem had career years playing alongside Shaq a season ago, many folks believe that Shaq's arrival is a tide which lifts all boats.

Wade with and without Shaq, past two seasons
	Without	With
Games	28	110
FG %	48.9	49.4
Pts/40 min	28.6	26.0
Reb/40 min	6.8	7.1
Ast/40 min	6.1	5.6

But in Wade's case that's not necessarily true. He played much better last season in games in which Shaq wasn't in the lineup, and while that trend hasn't held up this year, the overall picture from Wade's two seasons with O'Neal doesn't show a strong impact by Shaq. Wade has played 28 games without O'Neal in the past two years (including two playoff games last season), and in those contests he's scored more while shooting a slightly lower percentage (see chart).

That is exactly what we'd expect -- a higher scoring average because he's getting more touches, and a lower shooting percentage because he's getting more attention from the defense. Once you compare the two numbers, the idea that Wade needs Shaq in order to play at this exalted level doesn't hold water.

This should be obvious if you think about it. While face-up shooters like Jones, Haslem and Christian Laettner last season benefited from all the attention Shaq got in the paint, it actually hurt Wade. Wade's game is all about driving to the rim with his blazing quickness, and there's a lot less room for him to do his thing with the Big Fella (and whatever 300-pound oaf is matched up against him) taking up so much room in the middle.

So in looking at Wade's season, let's quickly sum things up:

• He's been the best player in the league statistically, as shown by his No. 1 PER.
• He's arguably had the greatest defensive impact of any MVP contender.
• His team has been massively worse when he's off the court.
• He's the only MVP candidate who is both putting up monstrous numbers and playing on a contender.

If I made a case based on just one of these factors, it wouldn't be terribly convincing -- there are many different ways to evaluate players, and often they can give you very different answers about who is the best. But when all the indicators point in the same direction, it gets pretty tough to ignore.

And let's face it: It was plain to see if we looked. Wade has been right in front of our eyes all season, but because his team isn't an unexpected surprise, and we already knew he was a star, we've been taking his tremendous season for granted.

For most of the season, that's blinded us to the fact that he's become the best player in the league and is far more deserving of the MVP award than any of the other candidates thus far anointed. Fortunately, it's not too late to rectify the mistake. We may not think of the Heat as "his" team, but for Dwyane Wade, this season certainly should be "his" MVP year.

The Effect of Market Experience in Evaluating Prospect Theory

2006-03-10T07:33:00.001-08:00

This is an interesting paper dealing with Prospect Theory vs. Neoclassical Economics. List basically argues that prospect theory is a better description of newbies, while experienced market-players are more like the rational-bums that neoclassicals like.

Anyway, here is the abstract:

"Neoclassical theory postulates that preferences between two goods are independent of the consumer's current entitlements. Several experimental studies have recently provided strong evidence that this basic independence assumption, which is used in most theoretical and applied economic models to assess the operation of markets, is rarely appropriate. These results, which clearly contradict closely held economic doctrines, have led some influential commentators to call for an entirely new economic paradigm to displace conventional neoclassical theory e.g., prospect theory, which invokes psychological effects. This paper pits neoclassical theory against prospect theory by investigating three clean tests of the competing hypotheses. In all three cases, the data, which are drawn from nearly 500 subjects actively participating in a well-functioning marketplace, suggest that prospect theory adequately organizes behavior among inexperienced consumers, whereas consumers with intense market experience behave largely in accordance with neoclassical predictions. The pattern of results indicates that learning primarily occurs on the sell side of the market: agents with intense market experience are more willing to part with their entitlements than lesser-experienced agents."

E. T. Jaynes

2006-02-25T21:05:00.000-08:00

I just read a very interesting book by E. T. Jaynes called Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. He doesn't rely on Kolmogorov measure-theoretic foundations, and instead attempts to construct probability theory from Aristotlean logic. He is, of course, a Bayesian - though quite different from what your standard frequentist professor would have you believe. And his tome written over some 30 year period (published posthumously), is a very heartfelt textbook - you can actually feel his soul in it (whatever that means for an experimental physicist). I'm not really going to go into it in any depth here about the concepts he puts forth. But I'll say this. Agree or disagree with it - it is definitely an interesting read.

Corn in Everything: Pizza Hut Crusts

2006-02-21T09:32:00.000-08:00

For years I used to wonder why Pizza Hut had, by far, the best crust of any pizza place. I thought it had a lot to do with the way they would "fry" their crust, to get it that delicious bottom. It turns out, the answer is coarse corn meal. The trick is, they coat their pan with some olive oil and then generously coat it with coarse corn meal. I have still yet to taste a crust better than theirs.

Changes

2006-02-19T11:04:00.000-08:00

My thoughts on the 5 rule changes.

1. The current clear path rule says that when a player is intentionally fouled on a breakaway, he gets one shot plus his team gets the ball. The change: the player would now get two foul shots and then possession of the ball.
I'm not a huge fan of this one. Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of changes for no reason. Each change makes it a lot harder to compare between eras, so it seems to me that we ought to not make changes unless they are necessary. I don't really see why this is necessary.

2. When a player is elbowed, hit, punched, or anyway assaulted by someone committing a category II flagrant foul and cannot attempt his foul shots, one of the other teammates on the floor can take them for him. The current rules allows the team committing the foul to pick any player, including those on the bench, to shoot the shots.
This is a good change. It is one of two changes I would like regarding violent fouls. The other is a minimum 15 game suspension. Otherwise, incentives are kind of skewed in a disgusting way - not enough deterrence for violence on the court. Kobe should have been suspended for 7 or 8 times the length he was for fucking up Mike Miller's trachea.

3. Players not lined up on between the blocks cannot stand beneath the free throw line (extended) during foul shots.
You know, we play IM games and even p.e. games with this rule. I always wondered why the NBA didn't follow suit. It's a good rule.

4. Currently, if the shot clock runs out mid shot, they have to take it out of bounds to the opposing team. But the change allows the opposing team to catch the rebound and run. If the violating team catches the ball, then it goes out of bounds.
Stupid change. Half the time it goes out of bounds anyway. It is a little confusing and unnecessary.

5. Unlimited substitutions during 20 second timeouts.
Good.

Jumpman 23

2006-02-18T12:14:00.000-08:00

I really like the new Jordan ad. You have to go inside and click on the basketball and pair of legs. Then click watch. I really wonder how many takes it took them to get all those shots.

Chris Broussard's Why Nash is MVP

2006-02-11T11:26:00.000-08:00

From Chris Broussard's Blog:

"I know it's hard, brothas. After all, this is our sport. It's one of the few areas of society that we dominate. Hip-hop, football, basketball and boxing (though Hispanics are coming on strong). They're ours, and we ain't trying to give them up.

But y'all have to look past that. You have to put your racial pride aside, ignore the sociological implications of this, and be honest: Steve Nash I'm hearing Kobe, I'm hearing Chauncey, I'm hearing Elton Brand, LeBron and Dirk Nowitzki. But it's really a no-brainer. It's really not even close. Nash deserves it again. I know this is a phrase usually reserved for brothas, but "that boy is bad.''

I firmly believe you could put Nash on any team in the league and he would turn them into a playoff contender. Not to slight Shawn Marion, but the way Nash has kept Phoenix not only afloat but elite, without Amare Stoudemire, is downright amazing. Two more years like this and Nash will be a Hall of Famer. Some might even argue that he is already. In winning last year's MVP, he became only the third "small'' point guard to win the award, joining Bob Cousy ('57) and Allen Iverson ('01). Isiah, Stockton, Tiny Archibald, Walt Frazier, Lenny Wilkens, Jason Kidd and Gary Payton have a combined zero MVP awards, and here Nash is working on his second. Only two other point guards in league history -- Magic and Oscar -- have been named MVP.

A week or so ago, I thought Kobe was beginning to eclipse Nash. His 81 was obviously magnificent, and when he led the Lakers to a 9-4 record by averaging 43.4 points in January, he had to garner serious consideration. But as with all players, Kobe's candidacy comes down to wins and losses, at least in my opinion. If the Lakers, who had lost five of six before beating Houston on Wednesday night, don't win at a much better than .500 clip, Kobe can't be MVP, certainly not with Nash pushing Phoenix to victory in 65 percent of its games. If Kobe goes on another otherworldly tear and it leads to Laker wins, Nash has real competition.

But otherwise, brothas need to give the white guy his props. And his award. is the MVP."

I've gotta say, that makes sense.

Guards and the Inflation Effect

2006-02-04T23:33:00.000-08:00

Jordan and Pippen's last year together, the total number of 40 or more points in a game performances by all players in the league was, well, 37. Last year, it was 67. This year, as of about a week ago, half-way through the season, guess what the number is? 54. No kidding. 54. And yes, Kobe is on a scoring binge, but let's not forget that Jordan averaged over 37 one year (Kobe is still about 2 points under that per game) and yet that year there weren't so many 40+ point games.

The consensus (Pippen, Wilbon and Tony K, Hollinger, whomever really who follows basketball) on why this is happening seems to be the following:
1) You can't hand check guards on the perimeter. You can't as much as touch a guy at the perimeter. This makes defense on guards much tougher to play, giving them an advantage over past years.

2) More fouls called. It kind of goes with 1, but it kind of is independent. All sorts of fouls are being called right and left. To illustrate this fact, John Hollinger chronicled the foul shot rate as being the key reason for inflating scoring this year. This also means that penetrating guards are advantaged, because they are likely to go to the stripe, and since guards shoot better than bigs, you see more offenses running these types to take advantage of the foul flurry.

3) A decline in the quality of big men. There are some snazy power forwards in the league now, but there were some back in the day too. But take a look at the center spot. About a decade and a half ago, you had: Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo at the center. Now who do you have? Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Brad Miller, Ben Wallace, Chris Kaman, Marcus Camby, Yao Ming, and of course an old Shaq and a post-operative Alonzo Mourning. Ok ok. If Amare wasn't broken throw him in too. I think the only reasonable comparison in that whole group is Dikembe Mutombo with Ben Wallace, though Mutombo was easily a much better offensive player. And I guess Amare with Shaq - (btw this isn't complementary. It is because, in the early 90s, Shaq was the worst defensive center on that list, and all the others, except for Dikembe, could average 27 a night but were also good at defense). Why do we care? Honestly, because big men are relevant - to winning, to punishing guards, etc. Or at least they were. Now you have a depreciated quality of men guarding the paint against (arguably) a better crop of overall guards in the league - you see where I'm going with this?

So combine 1), 2), and 3) and you get a formula for high scoring nights for guards. Really really high scoring nights. On pace to double last year's (already inflated) number of 40+ point games. Just important to remember things like this to contextualize things - that way we don't go over-exaggerating the meaning of some of these scoring binges.

Paul Pierce Makes a Funny

2006-02-01T12:45:00.000-08:00

So my dislike of Paul Pierce as a player is no secret.

In a late November's Boston Globe, Paul Pierce said the following:
''I don't know why I'm not on the All-Defensive team every year. I think I'm a pretty good defender. The only reason I'm not on the All-Defensive team year in and year out is because I don't have a top-five shot blocker on my team. If you look at all the top perimeter defenders in the league, they all have top-five shot blockers in the league (on their team).

Kobe (Bryant) fell out of first team All-Defensive when Shaq got traded last year. Think about it. Every team that has an All-Defensive team wing player has a shot blocker on their team. I think that's the only thing that's holding me back. Even Tayshaun Prince. I don't think he plays great defense. He has two of the best shot blockers in the game (Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace). If a guy blows by you, then the shot blockers block the shot; and you call that great defense."

Well, for me, part of the irony is that I partly didn't like him because he is lazy on defense. Now why do I dislike him even more because of that? Because he is right. He is a talented defender. And having a legit shot blocker helps your perimeter defense. And, he is actually a better on the ball defender - and definitely a better team defender - than someone like - say - Kobe Bryant.

A Yale Historian on Comparative Advantage

2006-01-29T01:00:00.000-08:00

I was reading a piece by Paul Kennedy entitled "The Threat of Modernization". By the way, he is a J. Richardson Dilworth Professor of British History at Yale. According to Wikipedia, he is "also the Director of International Security Studies". Also, "along with John Lewis Gaddis and Charles Hill, teaches the Studies in Grand Strategy course there". So this guy is a super smart guy. Heck, he was also a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. And I came across this beautiful argument in his piece:

"What if there is nothing you can produce more cheaply or efficiently than anywhere else, except by constantly cutting labor costs?"

It was kind of amazing that the article seems to confuse the concpets of absolute advantage and comparative advantage. Kennedy seems to believe that gains for trade are only possible if your country produces at least one good better than other nations. But if you produce nothing better than your trading partner, according to him, you are in trouble.

Consider the following scenario in which the US has an absolute advantage over France in all industries. Say it is a 2 industry world - we make hot dogs and buns. (This is a very trivial example, and it certainly makes a lot of assumptions that I should not be making, but I'm just trying to illuminate the concept.) In America, it takes 2 hours per worker to make a hot dog. It takes 1 hour per worker to make a bun. In France, it takes 3 hours per worker to make a hot dog. It takes 6 hours per worker to make a bun. So clearly, France sucks at both. Also, let us imagine that a hot dog and a bun are tradeable. So the exchange ratio is 1:1. This simplifies the numbers a bit.

Notice, if the US spends an hour, it can make 1/2 a hot dog or 1 bun. Now if it spent an hour and made 1 bun, it could effectively trade for 1 hot dog. Meanwhile, instead of spending 1 hr to make 1/6 of a bun, France can make 1/3 of a hot dog and trade this for 1/3 of a bun. So both stand to benefit.

Anyway, the point is, the idea of comparative advantage is rather elementary and powerful, and yet forgotten by many (intelligent) social commentators. In fact, mathematician Stanislaw Ulam challenged Paul A. Samuelson (Nobel prize winner in economics) to name a theory in social science that is both true and non-trivial. Samuelson, after considering it for several years, responds,

"That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that it is non-trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them."

It is always very interesting how, in inter-disciplinary matters, specialists in one field miss even the simplest of concepts in the other, regardless of how brilliant they may be. Of course, that makes those who transcend the boundaries of their fields all the more impressive.

Comments on Bryant and Nash

2006-01-25T10:25:00.000-08:00

Here is an excerpt from a great column by The Sports Guy, Bill Simmons, over at ESPN.com. Amusing points are bolded - for those who just want to skim.

***
Everyone has been discussing Kobe for two straight days -- every Web site, every TV show, every radio show, everybody. Heck, he even knocked the NFL championship games off the front page of ESPN.com. Nobody cared that the last 12 points of the game came during garbage time, or that Kobe took a jaw-dropping 45 shots and 20 free throw attempts in 42 minutes. They only cared about the number: 81. On his 666th regular season game (seriously), Kobe scored 66 percent of his team's points. For the first time in the post-Shaq Era, Kobe has an identity beyond "Selfish gunner who destroyed a potential dynasty." He's the most exciting player in any professional sport.

Here's what kills me: When I checked right before our video store trip, the Lakers were getting killed and Kobe only had about 14 points. So I crossed the game off for the night. Big mistake. Like many NBA junkies, I monitor Laker games since Kobe reached "you always need to make sure Kobe isn't feeling it" status about two months ago, when it became apparent that his team stunk and Phil Jackson was fine with Kobe gunning 35 to 40 times a game. I don't like the Lakers, and I definitely don't like Kobe that much (except for the "Black Mamba" gimmick, which delights me to no end). But I enjoy the nightly potential of an ESPN Classic-caliber scoring explosion. It's a form of basketball that's never been seen at this level -- as I wrote two weeks ago, it's like "Teen Wolf" sprung to life. Not only is Mamba hogging the ball to a historic degree, just about everyone else on the Lakers seems OK with it.

(One player seems to be resisting: Poor Lamar Odom, who's going to bludgeon himself to death with Phil Jackson's blank clipboard soon. When they're running the offense in which Odom sets up Kobe from the top of the key and then stands in place like a third base coach, I keep waiting for Odom to rear back and fire line drive baseball passes at Kobe to try to knock him unconscious. Frankly, there's still time.)

So this has evolved into a unique situation: A Hall of Fame scorer in his absolute prime, stuck with teammates best described as deferential, playing with a chip on his shoulder after his last two seasons were marred by fallout from the Shaq trade and ongoing legal troubles, working with a permanently green light to hoist an ungodly amount of shots (nearly 28 a game). Again, everyone's OK with it. Which means it's impossible to determine a ceiling for Kobe Games right now. After the 62-point game against Dallas, when I bemoaned Kobe's lost chance to make history, hundreds of Lakers fans disagreed. The common theme of the e-mails: "Dude, are you crazy? He's shooting the ball 40 times a game! There will be plenty of chances for him to go for 80!"

You know what? Good point.

More important, Kobe learned a valuable lesson from the Dallas game, mainly that his decision to stay out of the fourth never made anyone say, "Wow, maybe he's not selfish!" If anything, many basketball fans were disappointed. Including me. It was like watching a famous bank robber nail his 10th bank in two months, then leave an extra bag of cash behind in some misguided attempt to prove that he wasn't just about the money. Is there anyone left on this planet who still believes that he's a team player, that he's good at getting his teammates involved, that he doesn't want to dominate at all times? What would be shocking about an inherently selfish player accomplishing an inherently selfish act? In a weird way, wasn't this his destiny?

For two guys watching history unfold, my father and I weren't exactly high-fiving in the living room or anything. The game made me feel the same way I felt while watching "March of the Penguins." I had always wondered what a penguin's life was like; once I knew how depressing it was, I wanted to sit in my garage with the car running. Sometimes it's almost better not to know these things. And Kobe's 81-point game was a little like that. For a perimeter player to score that many points, you have to hog the ball to a degree that's almost disarming to watch; it almost stops resembling a basketball game. More than Kobe's rising point total, Dad and I found ourselves fascinated by his icy demeanor, the lack of excitement by the guys on the Lakers bench, even the dysfunctional way that his teammates were killing themselves going for rebounds and steals to get him more shots.

"Can you imagine being on this team?" my father said, shrieking. "Can you imagine? Look at Odom! I think he's going to throw up!"

When an exhausted Kobe reached 81 and appeared barely able to stay on his feet, the Lakers removed him to a standing ovation, as well as half-hearted hugs and high-fives from his teammates (all of whom will be disciplined this week from Mitch Kupchak for not celebrating joyously enough). The best reaction belonged to Jackson, who seemed amused, supportive and somewhat horrified, like how Halle Berry's husband probably looked after sitting through his first screening of "Monster's Ball." The second-best reaction belonged to my Dad, who listened to Kobe's postgame interview with Patrick O'Neal and excitedly said, "Wait, how can you score 81 points and not thank your teammates?" Not since Hilary Swank snubbed then-husband Chad Lowe at the 2000 Oscars have we seen something that blatantly egocentric. And look how they turned out.
***

In other news, I just want to ask the following question. Yes, high flying scoring nights is wonderful. But I ask this - why are people not impressed when you are directly responsible for 80 points as a pg. Take, for example, Nash's 28 pt, 22 assist explosion. That is 80 fricking points (8 of the assists were 3 balls). Or in the win against the Clippers, he was responsible for 62 points. And against the SuperSonics, 69 points.

You see where I'm going with this.

Is Kobe as Great As Michael: ESPN Analysts Speak Out

2006-01-24T00:03:00.000-08:00

Has Kobe claimed Michael Jordan's throne? If not, who has?

January 24, 2006 (Two days after the 81)

Legler: He has not reached the level of Jordan because he has yet to win a championship as his team's most dominant player. Bryant has three rings playing alongside Shaq, but hasn't even reached the playoffs as the focal point of his team. He must achieve team success as his team's leader to be compared to Jordan.

Broussard: No, Kobe has not claimed MJ's throne. That's heresy! MJ is the greatest and until Kobe or someone else wins close to six titles without a dominant big man, they can't even think about replacing him. Kobe is, however, the second-best shooting guard in NBA history behind MJ. It will take multiple championships to be MJ's true heir. It's clearly between Kobe and LeBron. Let the race begin.

Bucher: There was only one Michael. There is no heir, never will be. Was Michael the next Magic? No. Was Magic the next Dr. J? No. The whole idea of heirs is a bad one. Kobe's blazing his own Hall of Fame path.

Shouler: When Bryant claims the scoring title this year, it will be his first in ten seasons. Jordan had ten scoring titles and does anyone doubt he would also have won two more in 1994 and 1995, the years he was in retirement? Then we can talk about defense, where Bryant is not nearly Jordan's equal. No one is Jordan's true heir.

John Hollinger, ESPN Insider: No and no. If anyone is the heir, it's LeBron James.

Greg Anthony, ESPN Insider: He is the only player I've seen who is every bit as competitive as MJ. The next step is becoming as smart as MJ. Learning to channel all of that competitive spirit and having it bring out the best in his teammates. He's on his way.

Is Kobe the MVP this season?

Legler: He is not the MVP to this point because, as great as he has been individually, the Lakers would have an even better record if Bryant sacrificed some of his scoring to maximize the contributions of Lamar Odom and Smush Parker. Bryant has been the most outstanding player, but Chauncey Billups or Steve Nash has been the MVP.

Chris Broussard, ESPN the Magazine: Right now, the MVP race is between Kobe and Nash. If Kobe continues to play as he has the past month-and-a-half and the Lakers continue to win, he has to be the MVP. But if he returns to earth and the Lakers finish slightly above .500, it will probably be Nash.

Bucher: This would be easier to answer if MVP were ever defined. He's the best player in the league right now, for sure. Most Valuable? OK, just nudging out Nash, because the Lakers are a playoff team right now and without Kobe they'd be duking it out for the No. 1 pick in the lottery.

Shouler: If Chamberlain was denied the MVP in 1962, the year he averaged 50.4 points, 25.7 rebounds per game, and scored 100, then logic dictates that setting individual scoring records should not earn you an MVP this year.

So there you have it folks. And I have to say, I concur on both counts. I think people forget how special MJ was. And we aren't talking about a league of pansies where people were much less physical. We are talking the era where Shaq-like centers walked the earth. An era where hip checks and perimeter fouls weren't called as much, and perimeter players had to face a more physical game and yet had a harder time getting to the foul line. The 81 was remarkable. Absolutely absurd. Probably cements Kobe as the 2nd best 2-guard of all-time - behind Jordan. But until I see a dynasty led by him, without a dominant big, until I see a great defensive stopper, until I see a guy who hits more than 29% of his "clutch time" shots, until I see 5 regular season MVPs, until I see 10 scoring titles, until I see a PER average just shy of Shaq - and btw Kobe's high will be this year at around 29 making it lower than MJ's average for nearly 3/4ths of his career, until I see him making the playoffs every year despite the state of his team until he is near 40 (he already failed this), until I see him bring out the best in his teammates, there is no way to justify the argument that Kobe is as great as MJ.

As for the MVP bit, see my Awards post below. I argue for Nash, by the way.

Awards

2006-01-23T07:58:00.000-08:00

The Ennis Del Mar Award for Balls the Size of Apples
Big Ben. Roethlisberger wen't bezerk this post season. Led the Steelers to 86 points - read that again, 86 points - against the #1, #2, #3 seeds on the road. 7 Tds for 1 interception. Threw the ball at nearly 70%. Check out this ridiculousness. Nearly 300 yds on 75% throwing for 2 TDs and 1 rushing TD. Only Gannon and Montana have had better performances historically, with games of 286 yds and 3 passing TDs and 1 running TD for Gannon and 331 yds and 3 passing Tds and 1 rushing TD for Montana. How's that for historical context? Oh, and that isn't the only all-time great style comparison to be made. Roethlisberger will be the second youngest QB of all time (1st is Dan Marino) to play in a Superbowl. And if he wins, he beats out Tom Brady as the youngest QB to win the big game. Oh yah. And he is easily the winningest QB currently playing. He is 26-4 as a starter. Yes, read that again. Jesus. That is an 87% win percent. Big Ben, I wish I knew how to quit you.

The John Stockton Award for Most Underrated Star Who Should Win the MVP This Season But Won't
Steve Nash. Just ridiculous. He is solely responsible for 44 points per game. This is the second highest total, behind Kobe at 45~. And he proved haters wrong by, along with Marion, leading a team with James Jones, Raja Bell, Brian Grant, Jared Reiner, Barbosa, and Diaw to the #2 spot in the Western Conference. I don't think we fathom just how good Nash is.

The Jake Plummer Award for Taking a Big Dump in a Big Game
Before yesterday, I would have given it to either Peyton Manning or LeBron James. But the Manning thing isn't really news. His playoff record is something like a 30% winning percentage. And James? Jesus. But that is for another day. Anyway, Jake the Snake found a way to steal it from them and reclaim his award.

Guy You Want to Piss Off the Least Or He Might Kill You Award
Kobe Bryant. 81 points. Holy shit. That is one scary dude. Had Kobe not gone off, this would have gone to Steve Smith. After not getting any touches in the first quarter, he asks to be put in on the punt return. Lo' and behold - he returns it for a touchdown. But anyway, that does not compare to Bryant's going off.

The Award For Most Ridiculous Basketball Question Asked By a Guy Very Passionate About Basketball
Jiwon. Check out this beautiful exchange..

CHronoxseverANCE: he played against Bill Rusell
jlw0n: who's bill russell?
CHronoxseverANCE: ....
CHronoxseverANCE: ok
jlw0n: some old vet
jlw0n: retired?
CHronoxseverANCE: you cant talk abt basketball
CHronoxseverANCE: ever
jlw0n: lol
jlw0n: hahahahahahhahah
jlw0n: slightly rings the bell
jlw0n: wait
jlw0n: did he ever play on the lakers
jlw0n: was he a bald regg
CHronoxseverANCE: ...
CHronoxseverANCE: that is kareem
jlw0n: maybe it's some other russell then
jlw0n: there was a kareem russell?
jlw0n: ohhhh yea
CHronoxseverANCE: byron russell
CHronoxseverANCE: umm ...

But Jiwon, no worries. You are still the MVP of my heart.

The 2008 Olympic Team

2006-01-18T03:53:00.000-08:00

Well it's that time again. Colangelo is getting a team together. Unfortunately, we will not be seeing some of our best players on the squad. Duncan hated his experience and will not play. Garnett doesn't feel like it - he already has a gold. And McGrady has too many back problems. Also, keep in mind that last time we learned that we have to make a team as opposed to a star-studded jersey selling machine.

In my opinion, we lacked people who understood that they indeed were role players. We also lacked people who could hit the (albeit shallow) 3 ball. So we couldn't spread out defenses. Moreover, we lacked a true point guard. We had a bunch of hybrids in Marbury, AI and D Wade. AI and Wade have since evolved into strong point guards, but I argue that we could do with another strong playmaker. Finally, I think we could do with at least one defensive specialist. Imagine if we could shut down Manu. Do you really think Argentina would do so well then?

The 12 I see fitting best:

PG: Chauncey Billups, Dwyane Wade** (2)
SG: Kobe Bryant, Michael Redd* (2)

I think J Kidd and AI will be too old by 2008. I know Iverson wants to play, and I'm as big an Iverson fan as anyone. But I don't know that an old AI brings anything to the table. All of his strengths, aside from his passion and toughness, rely on his physical gifts. So a 34 year old AI on the squad? I'd be a little concerned.

*Like with many players, Kobe does not get along with Ray Allen. Hence we take Redd. (Yes, Kobe is just that good.)
**Like Allen, and many other players in the league, Wade has had issues with Bryant. The difference is, Wade, the league's leader in the Roland Rating measure (a composite of on/off court and netPER), is not replacable. Allen can be swapped for Redd.

SF: LeBron James, Tayshaun Prince, Rashard Lewis (3)
None of these guys have overblown egos and feel comfortable taking back seats. LeBron is a no brainer, and as we have seen, he is (a little too) unselfish at times - especially in the clutch. Tayshaun gives you Superman in a role player. He can be the lockdown guy. He can hit 3's. He can create his own shots. Whatever. Shard is money from beyond the arc.

PF: Chris Bosh, Shawn Marion (2)
These guys are unique in the same way (being able to guard bigs at the perimeter and being able to spread the defense) for different reasons.

Marion, among the most underrated players in the league, is the undersized 4 who can guard 3's and 4's in the US. He should have no problem staying with the 4's in the international game who can step out to the perimeter. This year, he is the best defender on the most efficient defensive team, and he has always been a very talented (and underrated) defender at that. His method is unique. He is one of the few 4's who gets a lot of steals and strips - but keep in mind that he isn't really a 4. Still, that doesn't prevent him from being a shot blocking threat, and he is averaging 2 blocks per game this season! Lastly, it doesn't hurt that, at his peak, Marion could hit the 3 at nearly 40%.

Bosh is very young. He is turning 22 this March. He is fairly lean (barely heavier than Bryant and Wade), but he plays the 4. He is a solid defender in the classical power forward sense - blocked shots and forcing misses - as opposed to Marion's strange but effective half-guard half-forward sense. He also has a nice shooting touch from mid-to-long range.

C: Amare Stoudemire, Dwight Howard (2)
Amare is an offensive beast. Dwight Howard is a defensive beast. Both are pretty young. (In fact, Howard, 20, is younger than me.)

Developing kids: Channing Frye (PF/C) or Chris Paul (PG) for the experience (1)
I like the idea of taking at least one of these two very young players. I think developing a young team will pay dividends inthe future. LeBron (22 at these olympics), Bosh (22), Howard (22), Stoudemire (26), and Wade (26) make a nice core. But at least some of them probably won't be healthy in the future. Maybe, god forbid, Stoudemire's surgery doesn't pan out. Or maybe his knee goes Chris Webber. And whatever it is, Amare and D Wade are 30 by 2012. So I think giving Frye or Paul a taste of the olympics will be a good learning experience, and will put us in a position to replace whoever leaves the team for 2012. Chris Paul has proven himself to be just that good at the point. Frye seems to have a very high "basketball IQ", and while he is still a subpar boarder, the US rarely has problems there because we are a lot bigger than the rest. He gives us yet another big who can step out and hit a midrange jumper.

Attributes of this team:
1. Range: Of the first 9 players I listed, only Wade and Bosh aren't threats from deep. More interestingly, Marion, Lewis, Billups, and Redd shoot or have shot about 40% from the NBA 3 point line (longer than the FIBA 3 pt line). And Tay, LeBron, and Kobe certainly hit reasonably well, (36%, 35%, 34% over their careers, respectively). We need range to be able to spread out the defense and render the zones ineffective. Lastly, we really need ranged players who can knock down open looks because three of our guys are uniquely physically gifted and are able to break down the zone and force it to collapse: Amare, DWade, and LeBron. We can always dump it into Amare, who is the Beast in the X-Men sense, and LeBron and D Wade can easily get into the middle of the zone and then dish it back to some open spot up shooter. So to exploit the strengths of these 3, it is key to have a great ranged team.

2. Egos: Wade, LeBron, Tayshaun, Billups, Rashard, Marion, Bosh, Howard all seem to have proven that they are not really egos. Most of them don't mind playing second fiddle to a player who has it going. (Even LeBron gives it up to hot teammates all the time.) The only concern here might be Bryant. But hopefully his "desire to kill everyone", as LeBron puts it, allows him to truly be a team player. And if not, at least we know that people may defer to him anyway.

3. Defense: Inside and out. I've said Kobe is overrated on defense. But that wasn't saying he was bad. He is undoubtedly very good and certainly takes it seriously. I just meant that he shouldn't be getting such high praise and motivating voters to make him DPOY. Recall that the international game requires more perimeter defense. It's like guarding the Kings and Mavs of 4 years ago. Bosh, Marion, and Frye give you that lateral movement from bigs who can guard other bigs outside and inside. With Dwight Howard, you get a beast inside who will be among the best shotblockers and rebounders, if not the best, in the entire international tournament. Tayshaun Prince is a key lockdown defender who can take out any SF or SG - and he is most effective when he has a good shotblocker. Thus, he can be paired with Dwight Howard. And Billups and Wade can hold their own against most any PG. There are, of course, a few defensive holes: LeBron James, Rashard Lewis, Michael Redd, and Amare Stoudemire. But since the international game isn't really conducive to grind-it-out defense, I suppose that's ok.

4. Clutch factor: Kobe Bryant has made ridiculous shots. This year, especially, he has been ridiculous. Billups has made ridiculous shots. Dwyane Wade, however limited in range, has made ridiculous shots since his rookie year, and in his sophomore year, hit both clutch outside jumpers and drilled clutch free throws in a conference Championship series. We have seen Tay hit big threes. And while these 4 may be the super clutch guys, the rest of the squad isn't too shabby either.

5. Age: This is a very young team. By its second run, D Wade, LeBron, and Amare will be seasoned vets. My bet is that at least one of them will have a ring by then. Not only does the age give us an athletic edge, which we always have regardless of age, but it gives us a core that can stay together for two olympics. Hopefully, the experienced team can help develop the new crop, and so on and so forth.

I think if this team lacks one thing, it is definitely an "energy" role player. It might be a little too mellow of a team. I was kind of considering Nate Robinson.

What Major?

2006-01-17T05:50:00.001-08:00

Well I saw this on Jiwon's blog and took it. It turns out, I scored identically on Math and Philosophy and therefore had to take a tie-breaker. Do these results seem surprising to anyone?

You scored as Philosophy. You should be a Philosophy major! Like the Philosopher, you are contemplative and you enjoy thinking about the purpose for humanity's existence.

Mathematics

100%

Philosophy

100%

English

92%

Engineering

92%

Journalism

75%

Anthropology

75%

Psychology

75%

Sociology

75%

Art

42%

Dance

33%

Linguistics

25%

Theater

25%

Biology

17%

Chemistry

17%

What is your Perfect Major?
created with QuizFarm.com

Should the National Endowment for the Arts Exist?

2006-01-13T04:59:00.000-08:00

Nothing fancy. Just that question - should the National Endowment for the Arts exist? Should its funding be expanded or cut to 0? Or do we go the Tyler Cowen route in The Good and Plenty?

Two Films, Both Starring Colin Farrell

2006-01-11T03:40:00.000-08:00

Two films will be coming out this year that I have been looking forward to, mainly because of the directors involved. Coincidentally, both films star Colin Farrell.

The New World (Terrence Malick)
Terrence Malick is interesting because he has only directed 4 full length films in his career, including The New World. More interestingly, he directed Badlands in 1973, Days of Heaven in 1978, and then took a 20 year hiatus from film making, only to come back in 1998 with The Thin Red Line and pick up several oscar nominations for achievement in directing and writing.

Malick, in fact, is a former football star who then graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard while majoring in philosophy. As if that wasn't enough, he went on to be a Rhodes Scholar. His advisor was the very famous Gilbert Ryle. Because they had several philosophical disagreements, Malick left before completing a Ph.D. He did, however, get his translation of Heidegger's The Essence of Reason published, and by the age of 24 or 25, he secured a position at MIT teaching philosophy. He only stayed for a year, and by 26 he had moved to the American Film Institute and gotten an MFA. The rest is history.

With Christian Bale, Colin Farrell, and Christopher Plummer headlining, this movie should be interesting.

Miami Vice (Michael Mann)
About a decade ago, Joss Whedon turned his campy and corny movie Buffy: The Vampire Slayer into one of the most successful television shows in recent history. It quickly gained a cult following, as did its spin-off Angel, and Whedon's next project, Firefly. All three garnered much critical acclaim. I cannot tell you how many professors I have met who are fans of these shows.

I bring this up because many people seem to be tired of silver-screen sequels and remakes of old television shows. And, the idea of remaking corny and campy, though critically acclaimed, Miami Vice, seems to irk people. If I were a betting man, I'd wager that this film will be to the show what the Whedon shows were to the original Buffy film. The 2006 Miami Vice will be a much darker, more developed, well-made cops and robbers film. And, more likely than not, it will probably be one of the better films of 2006.

People seem to forget that Michael Mann actually was the executive producer of the original Miami Vice television series, and that the series' creator Anthony Yerkovich was the main writer. Interestingly, Yerkovich is now the executive producer of the 2006 film, with Mann directing and writing the screenplay. So I don't believe that the film will stray from the creator's intent, for the original minds are indeed the very people crafting this film.

I think Michael Mann is unquestionably the best director of his genre of films. His last 3 thrillers that he directed and wrote are Collateral, The Insider, and Heat. I felt that Collateral was one of the better films of 2004. We all remember The Insider, starring Al Pacino and Russell Crowe, which garnered 8 oscar nominations, including 3 for Michael Mann. And Heat, starring Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro, is probably the coolest cops and robbers film ever made. Mann isn't a slouch in other genres either. He wrote and directed The Last of the Mohicans and Ali, and produced The Aviator, giving him yet another oscar nomination.

With Jamie Foxx, Colin Farrell, and Gong Li as the main cast members, I have strong hopes for this film as well.

The Real Costs of the Iraq War

2006-01-10T17:15:00.000-08:00

I was at Marginal Revolution and found a link to a new Joseph Stiglitz piece. Columbia University Professor Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in 2001, and Harvard's Linda Blimes argue that, once again, the USFG and the White House have severely underestimated the costs of the war in Iraq. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has sanctioned over $500 bn total (which extends through the next decade), but Stiglitz argues that such estimates grossly understate the true cost of the war, despite the White House's insistance that they are overestimating the costs.

The piece is a bit lengthy, but I think it is worth reading the introduction and conclusion at least. There is also a brief on it at The Guardian, with the interesting headline "Iraq War could cost US over $2 trillion, says Nobel prize-winning economist".

I don't have an instinct like Kobe, where I just want to kill everybody

2006-01-05T22:58:00.000-08:00

LeBron is a funny funny guy. Here are a few excerpts from his recent article on ESPN.com.

"I think it's important to know the history of the game. That comes from knowing that I'm not going to help its evolution just by playing. You can't be successful in this game if you don't know who got you to this point. Unfortunately, a lot of people my age and younger don't know the history of basketball. If a kid comes up to me and asks me a question about it, I want to be prepared to answer with some knowledge. I want to be able to tie together the past, present and future."

He continues, and talks about how he sees his game. "I don't try to pattern my game after anybody's, but if I had to talk about similarities, I'd look at Penny Hardaway when he was in Orlando. He was a 6'7" point guard. He had flair, he could pass, he'd dunk on you and he could shoot jumpers. Then, I'd look at Oscar Robertson and Magic and the way they were able to dominate games. I don't say I'm going to try to be those guys, but I can see a little bit of my game in each of them. And I'm not really concerned about surpassing them in history. I just hope that one day people will think I was one of the best players to ever play in this league. Ever."

James continues, "I know that'll take titles, though. When I think about the best players in the league, I think of the guys who've won championships, guys like Tim Duncan, Kobe and Shaq. Of all of them, I like Kobe. His knowledge of the game and his killer instinct are what make him so tough. He's great with the ball and without the ball, and the things he can do offensively are kind of unbelievable. I don't think I have an instinct like Kobe, where I just want to kill everybody."

He adds, "But I do want to be the best player on the court every time I step out there."

"It's all about competing, about trying to be the best. It's also important to me to make the team I'm on now the best. I don't want to go ring-chasing, as I call it; you know, going to a team that's already pretty established and trying to win a ring with them. I want to stay with the Cavs and build a champion. And I feel like we're on our way.

Part of being considered the best is having rivalries. I don't have any at this point. Rivalries start in the playoffs. I tell you what, I'll be happy for it to start. I haven't been a part of the playoffs yet, but I will be this year. Then we'll see if a rivalry develops. People try to make rivals out of me and Dwyane Wade, but D-Wade is one of my best friends in the league. I've got the utmost respect for the way he handles himself, the way he plays and the way he's become a leader for his franchise."

The Forgotten Pop at the Top

2005-12-23T15:29:00.000-08:00

An article from ESPN.com's Marc Stein:

It's not often in this players' league that a Christmas Day menu is so heavy on coach-generated anticipation.

It's stranger still to consider that Kobe Bryant playing against Shaquille O'Neal, for just the third time in their careers, could be relegated to a secondary spectacle, with the two greatest coaches in Lakers history resuming their own acrimonious rivalry in the same game.

It's Phil Jackson vs. Pat Riley, on top of Kobe vs. Shaq III, preceded by a tasty San Antonio at Detroit rematch with a coaching angle of its own. So it's in that spirit of X-and-O overload that we zoom in on all four coaches working Christmas.

It's in that spirit that we rank them, actually.

If, say, your faithful correspondent were granted a new NBA franchise as a holiday gift, along with the right to pick the coach from Sunday's lineup, this would be my order of preference:

1. Gregg Popovich, San Antonio Spurs
It's funny. He's almost never mentioned in the same sentence as the holy trinity of coaches, who are purportedly worth 10 extra wins a season to their teams: Phil, Riles and Larry Brown.

It's funny because Gregg Popovich is better than all of them, and his coaching is only part of it.

Pop is the whole organizational package. He hasn't merely completed a storybook rise from small college coach to ring-worthy strategist in the big leagues. More than any of his peers, he has created a culture: Pop's culture. The Spurs, as a community, are unselfish, stable, humble, progressive, confident and, in what generally ranks as an NBA impossibility, controversy free. Everything in San Antonio is done in the manner Popovich demands, and everyone wants to do it that way.

Starting with Tim Duncan.

Popovich won Duncan's unwavering support quickly and ranks as a big reason why Duncan elected to stay with the Spurs after flirting with a free-agent move to Orlando in 2000. There were doomsday fears at one stage that the Spurs might even have to leave their loyal fan base and find a bigger market if they couldn't get enough voter support to erect a new arena and then convince Duncan to stay. They wound up getting the new building and the crucial commitment from Duncan to affix himself to Pop, giving San Antonio the player-and-coach core that the franchise needed to assemble three different title teams in the past seven seasons.

There's more. Spurs vets and now even outside free agents routinely sign contracts for less money than they could earn elsewhere because they want to be a part of Pop's culture, making it easier for management to keep strengthening Duncan's supporting cast. You will also never hear that management team, led by general manager R.C. Buford, tout its cutting-edge scouting department or its recent string of great late-round draft picks. Pop is more apt to trot out his well-worn jokes about being sent back to Division III Pomona-Pitzer if the Spurs hadn't been lucky enough to win the 1997 draft lottery and the right to draft Duncan.

No question: San Antonio has been exceedingly fortunate over the past two decades, winning the Duncan and David Robinson lotteries. Right up there, though, is the good fortune that made Popovich a Spur. He arrived as an assistant to Larry Brown in 1988 with no NBA experience. With all the maturity and security he has amassed, Pop has become a better coach than Brown, willing to adapt to unorthodox talents such as Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker instead of forcing his will on them Larry-style.

Factor in everything else Pop brings to a program and he has to be No. 1.

2. Phil Jackson, Los Angeles Lakers
When the guy with nine rings can't place higher than the second slot, you know it's a tough crowd.

Of course, it's not a massive gulf at the top.

How could there be, after everything Jackson has achieved? His role in the first six titles with Chicago will always be diminished, in spite of his ability to get three rings' worth of dependability out of a loony Dennis Rodman, but there's no discounting what Jackson has achieved in Los Angeles after the breakup of Michael Jordan's Bulls.

Jackson helped preserve the perpetually shaky Shaq-and-Kobe union for five more years and made them fruitful ones, chaperoning the feuding superstars to three championships after multiple failures. Jackson is also forcing us already, with a 9-3 record in December, to treat the thinnest team of Zen Men ever seen as a legit playoff threat.

My main quibble with Jackson is that you can't build a franchise around him like the Spurs have with Pop. The Zenmeister has never connected with management that way. He coaches, entertains the media with his philosophies on life and hoops and occasionally writes a book that causes a stir. That's pretty much his range.

However ...

Under the coaching umbrella, as a man-manager, there's no one better. He got Jordan to trust in mortals. He repeatedly convinced Shaq and Kobe to coexist just long enough, after every crisis, to come away with three rings in a row. He's now in charge of a team that starts Smush Parker, Brian Cook and Chris Mihm and somehow sports a 45-win pace ... and makes them believe they can keep it up. Notwithstanding his recent coarse treatment of Kwame Brown -- addressed in a recent edition of the Weekend Dime and which still rankles me -- Jackson has repeatedly proven to be a chemistry master. No matter what you think of his smug side.

Maybe coming back to coach the Lakers isn't as brave as some suggested originally, because Bryant and owner Jerry Buss are bound to get more blame than Jackson if reuniting doesn't restore purple-and-gold glory. Yet it must be noted that anyone waiting for the opportunity to bury Jackson as a coach who can't function without an all-time great or two in the lineup is still waiting for the first hint of an opening.

If that opening never materializes, and these Lakers nab a playoff berth, Jackson just might have a fairy tale for his next tome that tops the Bulls' Scottie Pippen-led 55-27 record in the club's first season post-MJ.

3. Flip Saunders, Detroit Pistons
The cynic would say it's too soon to put Saunders this high, when he has been in Detroit for only a few months.

Me?

I say his start has been that good.

Weren't the Pistons supposed to miss Larry Brown? It's early, sure, but it already looks like you're safe saving any of your grave concern for Brown and what he's facing with the Knicks.

Saunders' offensive creativity, as advertised, has liberated and energized a group that needed a jolt after being dragged through a year of daily drama by Brown. Chauncey Billups first blipped onto Detroit's radar as a free-agent target when his potential as a playoff killer was seen for the first time under Saunders in Minnesota back in 2002. Now that he and Flip have been reunited, Billups has taken his game a notch higher than his NBA Finals MVP best. Rip Hamilton, meanwhile, isn't exactly struggling in a system fueled by player and ball movement.

The true test of what effect Detroit's new offensive bent might have on the Pistons' legendary defense won't come until springtime, yet even the biggest doubter in Motown would have to concede that the transition couldn't be going much smoother at the quarter-pole. Especially when you scan the standings and see that Detroit, as of Thursday morning, had played fewer home games than any other team in the league.

It is strange to see the Pistons outside the top five in points-per-game allowed and field-goal defense. I bet they'll be there by season's end, though. You'd also struggle to find many folks willing to wager that Saunders isn't coaching against Popovich in the NBA Finals come June ... and the calendar hasn't even flipped to 2006 yet.

There is a tangible calmness around the Pistons these days, to go with an ever-present chip on their shoulders -- the in-house belief that they can never rest because the outside world is constantly underrating them. The chip has been there for awhile, but credit Flip for stepping into what many peers considered a no-win situation as Larry's successor and infusing a good bit of calm.

Playoff success is the only thing that has denied Saunders more frequent mention among the coaching elite, but perhaps we should count up how many times he lost a series in Minnesota that the Wolves were supposed to win. I would say none. At least one upset would have certainly helped his standing, but I would also say that playoff success shouldn't be a problem any more. As with the Spurs in the West, it's difficult to envision a scenario where Detroit doesn't get back to the Finals under its new boss, barring a major injury to a Pistons starter. Or a major surprise from the powder keg coached by the last guy on the list.

4. Pat Riley, Miami Heat
If you choose to believe Riley had no intention of taking the Heat back from Stan Van Gundy at some point this season, then you also have to believe that the cleanup slot is where even Riles would rank himself in this foursome.

Why?

Because he said so.

Rewind to the start of the 2002-03 season -- months before the Heat, stripped of a disease-stricken Alonzo Mourning, would finish 25-57 in the worst season of Riley's coaching life -- and you will read and hear a public admission from Riley that endorses a steep drop in his standing among the bench elite.

''I'm just another coach now,'' Riley told our ESPN The Magazine colleague Dan Le Batard at the time. "Take my name off the marquee."

Riley's Miami résumé leaves little need for debate. The best teams in his frustrating decade on South Beach were the last two Heat teams ... both coached to their maximum potential by Van Gundy.

The first, led by Lamar Odom and a rookie named Dwyane Wade, overcame an 0-7 start to finish 42-40 and win a round in the playoffs. Chances are Miami wouldn't have had a shot at trading for Shaquille O'Neal without that success, and Van Gundy overachieved again last season when he took a new Heat team to the brink of the NBA Finals -- just 125 seconds away -- despite injuries that severely sliced into the levels of dominance O'Neal and Wade provided during the regular season.

The eight seasons before those two were often excruciating for the slicked-back former Showtime conductor and not just because of the kidney ailment that robbed Mourning from him. The Heat first suffered four first-round exits in the six times they did reach the playoffs under Riley, whose reflex answer to every postseason failure was pushing the group even harder.

Three years later, Riley is saying similar stuff. He poked fun at himself the other night by acknowledging his long title drought and suggesting that it might not be so wise to push his players so hard all the time, telling The Miami Herald: "I haven't won [it all] in 17 years, so I better think about some adjustments."

Riley's solace is that his new players believe he's still the guy who won a championship in 1988. That at least gives him a chance to bring cohesion to an overloaded roster that pretty much no one outside of Miami likes.

That said, I'm not one of those folks who says Riley has to win his fifth coaching ring this June to get his name back on the marquee. Getting the Heat past Flip's Pistons and into the NBA Finals will do it for me.

Of course, Riley has to do that just to prove that he's a better coach for the Heat than Van Gundy.

-Marc Stein

My own thoughts? Completely the same.

Chaos

2005-12-13T16:03:00.000-08:00

Chaos theory - commonly known as "the butterfly effect" - has always interested me. But for some reason, chaotic behavior has never been a big hit with popular culture - at least not in a way that makes sense. (But my woes on that for another day.

This is a picture of what is called the Lorenz attractor. Not surprisingly, it has "wings" and looks a lot like a butterfly. Lorenz himself used to speak of the system's beautiful butterfly wings. Later on, popular culture absorbed the idea - with a twist. The parable that is now most commonly used to explain chaotic behavior is the one about butterflies flapping their wings in Japan causing hurricanes in California.

The idea of chaos comes from a fairly simple concept (called sensitive dependence on initial conditions). If you start in two very very very similar initial conditions, and yet they are not exactly the same, you will end up with very different results after some time - i.e., the situation can be set up arbitrarily similar (99.999999% similar) to the intended initial circumstance. Still, the very fact that they are slightly different will completely alter results over time.

I tend to believe that this is a pretty telling model of more things in life. Essentially, at any given moment when you do some specifict act, even pretty damn minor thing, it can effectively alter the course of your life - eliminating an infinity of alternative possiblities. This, of course, has pretty strange philosophical implications. (Note: Yes, I presuppose the ability of choice. It becomes a cow's opinion if you don't presuppose it - it's moo.)

A Little Bit Old School

2005-12-13T14:38:00.000-08:00

This was pretty spectacular.

I am surprised that no one made the obvious Dr. J comparison. I watched hours and hours of ESPN to see if anyone would even mention it. Nothing.

I suppose it wasn't Dr. J or Michael cool - but it was one of the better moves I have seen.

Yes, yes. I will give praise to Kobe. I am not against that. He is a damn good player. Phenomenal talent. He is really scary in a lot of big games too. That 3 pointer at the end of this Mavericks-Lakers game was pretty clutch as well.

So I guess Kobe is having a good week.

Markets are from Earth, Governments are from Mars

2005-12-05T15:42:00.000-08:00

Market failures exist. A lot. And we do need intervention many a times to return us to a more optimal/efficient outcome. Here's the thing. I think a lot of people make the mistake of - essentially - comparing apples to oranges. They tend to say "in the real world, x and y are indicative of market failures and thus the government should intervene in z". What they neglect to account for is the fact that, in their analysis, they also make use of a theoretical structure - a government that cleanly executes what it sets out to do.

I think this is an unfair comparison, because sure - a theoretical government can cleanly wipe up the mess of a real world market failure. But what of real world governments, with their own beauracratic, political incentive schemes?

So I think the real comparison is real world governments versus real world market failures.

What do real world governments do a lot of the time?
1. Autarky, i.e. closing the economy. This used to be a fad back in the day. Thank god people stopped now. Import substitution sucks for the reasons I explained in my previous post, and by and large empirical and theoretical analysis suggest that this is generally bad.

2. Huge budget deficits. I'm not convinced by the Ricardian Equivalence Hypothesis. It seems to presuppose non-distortionary taxes.

3. Encouraging black markets. Things like fixing exchange rates can lead to people buying and selling foreign currency on the street.

4. Hyperinflation. No explanation necessary. =)

5. Repressing banks. No explanation necessary, I'm sure.

6. Corruption. Hernando de Soto, a brilliant Latin American economist, tried to set up a shoe factory in Lima. He wanted to see how long it would take him to set up shop without paying bribes. Turns out, he was forced to bribe anyway, and what would have taken 4 hours in NYC took him 10 months.

7. Overspending on wasteful services.

Does all of this mean I'm a libertarian? Far from it. In a post a long-long ago I argued that even under the most conservative of assumptions we can drive a welfare state justification in economic terms. What it means, however, is the following:

We - as liberals, conservatives, mums, and dogs - have to try to paint an accurate picture when discussing things. Liberals ought not compare real world markets to fictional governments. Conservatives ought not compare real world governments to fictional markets. Debate would be a lot more productive, I feel, if people talked about comparable ideas.

Free Trade

2005-11-29T23:37:00.000-08:00

There are 2 main arguments against free trade.

CRITICISMS

I. The Infant Industry Argument
Trade may force a country to specialize in "bad" and non-technological industries. Then, since long run growth rate is tech-dependent, trade may lower long run growth. Note, this also assumes that technology is industry specific. So knowledge does not cross sectors.

Moreover, there is value in a nation learning to operate its own industries of choice. They gain more experience, become more efficient, and in the long run could become very good at the industry.

A common example: under free trade, perhaps Mexico would not be a large automobile manufacturer. But if Mexico adopted a variety of protectionist policies, then the industry could blossom. Then, this once sheltered industry would be able to withstand the rugged storm of the free market and compete in free trade.

II. Overspecialization Leads to Dependency and Bad Things
Basically, if a country specializes on a single natural resource good, then however world demand shifts affects greatly how the country does.

RESPONSES

I. Against the Infant Industry Argument
First, we assume that the government will be picking the "right" industry which will be sustainable in the future. Empirically this seems not to be the case. So at best, this is a questionable course of action - a gamble on governmental competence. Especially when governments make decisions through voting processes and series of negotiations, I doubt that they will necessarily select the right industry.

Second, import substitution serves to prevent competition. The impact is that prices rise a great deal, which is especially bad considering we are talking about developing countries that are already loaded with poor people. Empirically, these high costs tend to make the rest of the economy sluggish.

II. Against the Overspecialization Argument
Well, this is actually a solid argument. The response is essentially - don't be an idiot. Don't specialize essentially in only 1 natural resource. That is asking for it.

Thoughts on Vince Carter

2005-11-28T11:15:00.000-08:00

This is from Chris Broussard's blog.

posted: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 | Feedback
filed under: New Jersey Nets, Vince Carter

This is what Nets fans have been dreading since the team traded for the league's most exciting player nearly a year ago. Monday night, in a 100-97 loss at Golden State, Vince Carter left with a strained back muscle late in the third quarter. In his brief time with the Nets, Vince had killed his reputation as a soft, injury-prone player. Now that he's once again facing adversity, it'll be interesting to see what the future has in store for him. Will he shake this off quickly and get back on the court? Will this hamper him for the better part of the first half of the season? Or, with the Nets off to a disappointing 5-5 start, will he be traded? I was down on Half-Man/Half-Amazing at this time last season, when he seemed to be tanking it in Toronto. But when he got to New Jersey, I got to see him play on a regular basis for the first time ever. I was amazed. He was flat-out tremendous. I knew he was a great slasher and a good shooter, but his passing ability stunned me. I began thinking Vince's name should be mentioned alongside Kobe's, LeBron's, D-Wade's and T-Mac's as the top swingmen in the league. Here's why it's not: In my opinion, Vince Carter is about 70 percent of the player he should be. From what I see, Vince plays almost completely off of natural ability. Has he added anything since he took the league by storm as a rookie? I look at Vince's body and I see no additional muscle development. That tells me he's not getting after it in the weight room. Look at Kobe -- you can see he pumps the iron. Think of how MJ's body changed over the course of his career. That weight work is almost certainly one reason why Kobe's career isn't hampered by strains, sprains and pulls (and why MJ's wasn't). This is purely speculation, because only Vince truly knows the answer to this, but I see him as a guy who likes the game but doesn't love the game. There are two types of players in the NBA: those who love ball and those who like it. Those who merely like it break down into two categories: those who like hoop, but love the NBA lifestyle -- the fame, the fortune, the females; and those who like hoop and see this more as their job than their passion.

I see Vince as the latter. That is not necessarily meant to be a knock. There are people like that in all walks of life.

In journalism, for instance, there are folks who live and breathe their job, who are legitimately passionate about it and who are constantly looking to be the absolute best. Then there are those who are good, even great, at what they do, even as they see it simply as a way to feed their family and have a nice lifestyle. To me, that's Vince. This is incredible considering he's such a great player. If he had the determination and drive of Kobe, Vince would be off the charts. He'd probably be the best player in the league. And he probably wouldn't be on the sidelines in street clothes so much.

This was exactly what I was talking about with Kevin and Calvin last weekend. The guy is ridiculous, talent wise. Like I said last week, Carter is probably the most talented of the bunch of swingmen we have in the NBA today.

He hits the 3 at nearly 40% clip. That is over 5% better than McGrady, and well over 7% better than Kobe. In fact, taking into account all that he has done behind the 3-pt line, it puts him along side Kenny "the Jet" Smith, Larry Bird, Jon Barry, Donyell Marshall, Dirk Nowitzk. And if we don't even look at it holistically - say we just look at % - he matches up well with that list, and now you can toss in names like Reggie Miller, Ray Allen, Eddie Jones and Glenn Rice. How is that for reasonable company?

His defensive PER is among the league's best at his position. In fact, both Carter and Pierce crack the top 10. Kobe and McGrady don't really make the top-anything-significant.

And you would think that he could board at a higher rate for a guy who can dunk over 7 foot men.

But Carter will be Carter and you do see him take plays off. My subjective lens probably is as cloudy as anyones - but here is what I see. I see a guy who definitely says "oh shit, we are up by a lot ... hmm ... I can shoot .. ok let's settle for this 3". And later on the other side of the court, "shit, I just ran into a pick - oh well - switch! ... I doubt this guy will roll, so I will just kind of hang out back here". Now he obviously doesn't do shit like this most of the time - or else our tools wouldn't give him such high marks for efficiency and defense. But just qualitatively, I think, there is an argument to be made that he just takes off plays here and there. I don't know why. I guess it is just his character. I know I come down pretty hard on Bryant, and I do think he is a rather selfish player. But though I may question his decision making on the court (and his ability to remember that this is a team game and the best player in the league is Tim Duncan and not him), I rarely will question his drive and effort on the court.

It's too bad that Carter doesn't have Kobe's or AI's drive. Imagine how ridiculous that would be.

All-Rookie Team

2005-11-23T22:15:00.000-08:00

We are about 1/8 through the season. So here is my totally unnecessary predictions for the All-Rookie team:

Chris Paul
Wow. I severely misjudged him. What can I say - I thought there was a little too much hype before the draft. But ... this kid is incredible. He may end up going about 18/6/6 on the season. And he can read lanes in a poor-man's-Iverson sort of way. Now if only he learned to shoot. And if he only learned to defend. But this kid seems to be a lock for Rookie of the Year unless one of the others does something incredible.

Deron Williams
I was super-high on D. Williams before the draft. Maybe I got sucked into the hype. I was a little scared about that - but now my confidence is up on him again. And besides, the summer time with John Stockton seems to have paid off. Even before moving into the starting lineup, he was the Jazz's leading assist-man. He is a little bit streaky when it comes to shooting, but his outside (3pt) shots fall at around 40%, which is nothing to sneeze at. While he isn't as fast as Paul and can't read lanes as well, he seems to be a better on the ball defender - a capable one at that.

Channing Frye
Like Paul, Frye is someone I underrated. (Good call, Danh!) I thought he was a top handful, but I was a little concerned about his strength and rebounding capacity. Turns out, he plays this strange 3-4-5 hybrid that actually works pretty nicely - especially into Coach Brown's system. He is remarkably efficient. I don't just mean that in terms of putting up numbers. I mean that he does little things that normally aren't tracked in boxscores - things that set Duncan apart from other 20/10 types. Though, even if we talk modeling, note that he does lead rookies in PER with 23.2. More importantly makes his opponent remarkably inefficient with a PER of 9.9. Oh, and let's not forget that the Knicks still aren't really a great defensive team or anything. But Frye knows his shit cold. And it shows.

Charlie Villanueva - Well. Yah. Ok, so he was reputed to have attitude problems, etc. And he got hammered in the press when he was drafted at 7. Recall that a few years back when he was in high school, they thought that he should go in the draft after his freshman year in college, but he was somewhat disappointing. Anyway, turns out his potential is still there. And he seems to be playing with a chip on his shoulder. At the 4 he is able to step out and hit the 3 at 38%, he has a helluva lotta 18+ pt games, with an average of like 14 to go along with about 7 boards. His PER is reasonably high (around say 17) but his defense is a little questionable.

Ike Diogu - Yes, he has only played one game to date. Yes, this might look hasty. But he seemed super-solid in that game. As expected he shot rather well, and he was fairly strong all around. He seemed confident enough to play his package in limited time. He interrupted lanes, took medium (~14 ft) jumpers, hit his free throws, tried out post-up moves, made a few pretty cuts, etc. And he basically did all of this in 11 minutes, racking up 11 pts, 3 boards, 1 stl, getting to the line some 3 times, shooting 57%. Now we obviously don't expand that to 40 minutes and estimate that the kid is a 44 pt, 12 board, 5 steal type kid... but we do recognize that he had a great summer league, and he did pretty well in minutes matched up against Tim, Rasho, and Nazr. Of course, the bulk of his minutes came against the latter two, and this is a horribly small sample size - but I think that Montgomery is going to work him into about 25 minutes per game at least. I suspect Foyle's minutes get cut with Murphy sliding to the 5. (Not starting, but effective playing time.)

Close considerations:
Andrew Bogut
Sarunas Jasikevicius
Ray Felton
Luther Head
Salim Stoudemire

The Rise of Mamba

2005-11-19T15:18:00.000-08:00

Two unrelated thoughts.

Kobe Bryant Amuses Me
Here is a bit from Ric Bucher's ESPN The Mag cover story about Kobe Bryant that I think is pretty funny. Apparently Kobe has a new nickname.

"Granted, there's still a dark side that Bryant embraces. He's known in his inner circle as Mamba, which, he is happy to explain, is a kind of snake that can grow to 13 feet and is one of the world's quickest, and one of the most venomous, serpents. He referred to this summer as the 'blackout,' in which the snake grew a new skin through a seven-days-a-week conditioning program."

Then Kobe explains the meaning of his nickname. "The mamba can strike with 99 percent accuracy at maximum speed, in rapid succession. That's the kind of basketball precision I want to have. Not being able to train the last two summers, I was in a gunfight with a rusty butter knife. I did my share of killing, but I was just fighting to survive."

To paraphrase Bill Simmons on this: Ok, as cool as it is that celebrities feel it necessary to give themselves a new nickname to change their identity, it's a little weird when an NBA star prosecuted for sexual assault finds it necessary to embrace the identity of a 13 foot venemous serpent. Seriously, Mike Tyson couldn't come up with a better one.

And, um, Kobe - I don't think the nickname is really catching on.

But Mamba Has Skills
Look at this shit:

1. On a per-game relations: 25 points, 8 rebounds, 8 assists, 2 steals, 1 block.

2. Minimum number of assists in any game - 6. No games without steals. Only one game without a block.

3. Rankings amongst guards: Scoring (5), Rebounds (2), Assists (7), Steals (6), Blocks (2), Double-Doubles (5)

4. Rankings amongst all players: Scoring (8), Rebounds (37), Assists (7), Steals (10), Blocks (39), Double-Doubles (8)

5. Plus, he has taken over 5 games in the final minutes which has amounted to 4 wins.

6. Finally, he has a PER of 29.5. And his defensive PER (the efficiency of the guy he guards) is on average an 11.7. Taking into account what that means from my previous posts, that is pretty damn impressive, right?

Wait wait. I lied. This isn't Kobe. We aren't talking about the same Mamba - though the name might fit this kid better. This killer is Dwyane Wade.

Admittedly, the Heat are underachieving (though this is not surprising the way Riley reconstructed the team). But is this the kid's fault? I doubt that. He has been rather stellar and clutch thus far.

Shooting Guards are Overrated

2005-11-18T07:00:00.000-08:00

I will try to keep this free of too much statistical modeling crap. But keep in mind that models are where a lot of my notions come from.

Shooting Guards:
Shooting guards are prima donnas in a league in which only bigs matter. Paul Pierce? Kobe Bryant? Vince Carter? Tracy McGrady? Effectively interchangable. Or at least the last 3.

Case in point. Of the last 35 years, over 72% of the finals MVPs have been bigs. Of the guards winning MVPs, 60% have been Michael Jordan. Adjusting for him, over 83% of finals MVPs have been bigs. Adjusting for PGs, we get over 90% of the Finals MVPs being bigs.

Related question: How many SG's have ever won the league MVP?
See, the question becomes - do A.I, Dr. J, a count as a SGs? And if so, Michael Jordan, Allen Iverson, and Julius Erving is the answer. But I argue that A.I. historically compares better to a PG than a SG. So I say 2. (For the same reasons why I contend that despite that McGrady sometimes is listed as a 3, he is a SG effectively.)

Michael is Damn Good:
What of Michael Jordan? There are two types of people - those that understand how good Jordan was, and those who have no idea. In a nutshell, the latter seem to pine for the "next" great one. But there really wasn't a small player considered better than Wilt or Karee, for ages. In fact, the first one was Jordan - many decades after Wilt played. Still, instead of understanding the phenom as an anomoly, we began looking for the next Jordan almost immediately upon realizing that MJ would have to retire soon.

Version 1: Grant Hill. Wrong comparison. He was more akin to Scottie Pippen, Magic, or Oscar Robertson.
Version 2: Vince Carter. Probably the most talented of the bunch who have similar games to Jordan. But things never panned out. Carter never hit his potential.
Version 3: Kobe Bryant. The physical similarities - the position in the triangle - the media hype. All of this made him an appealing candidate. But even without going on the fact that MJ was just flat out better and even without going into any modeling theory - I can identify 3 fundamental differences. First, shot selection. While KB is a more talented raw shooter, he settles on outside shots a lot more than necessary. That's fine if it dropped as much as it would have closer to the rim. But it doesn't. So the problem is he goes for those 18 footers and doesn't get compensated by hitting 3's to getting a return on the lower percentage attempt. MJ had the capacity to break down any defense in the manner that Kobe hasn't shown. Even if Kobe has it, he certainly doesn't use it at the rate that MJ did. Perhaps this is just a muscular advantage that MJ had. D Wade seems to share it. Moreover, Kobe forces a lot of shots - MJ would elevate and dish quite frequently. Second, MJ could play fantastic defense. Contrary to whatever the general media has you convinced of - Kobe Bryant isn't a remarkable defender. Lane anticipation is decent. Help defense sucks. On the ball defense is decent. Isn't great with shot anticipation. He has the talent, sure. But he definitely takes plays off. MJ? MJ definitely was a damn good defender. Defensive player of the year, two 100 blocks/100 steals, kept his opponents horribly inefficient, etc. Third, intelligent ball management. Jordan rebounded like a small forward, rotated the ball like a point guard, and had a phenomenally low turnover rate. To put it into perspective, Tracy McGrady has led the league for several years in this for SGs/SFs, and yet Jordan's is some 15% less than T-Mac's. Kobe comes nowhere close to the top 20.
Version 4: Tracy McGrady. Statistically about as similar to MJ as Kobe. McGrady has more range on his shot and is a better defender, but still, for pretty much similar reasons as Kobe, no dice.
Version 5: LeBron James. King James is more like Larry Bird or Oscar Robertson than Jordan. He might have a similar potential. But let us wait and see on this. I don't know if James will dominate the league as did Jordan. It may be reasonable that the Spurs/Pistons dominate for a few more years. After that, perhaps another talented big enters the league or Amare becomes a crazy beast. And I am unconvinced that LeBron can own a godly big as did Jordan.
Version 6: Dwyane Wade. This might initially seem like a great comparison. Neither were great shooters entering the league. Both relied on athleticism and get to the rim. Both hit beautiful fades. Both were phenomenal defenders and could average over a block per game for a whole season. And the 25/6/7 style season seems very Jordan-esque. As much as I would like to say Wade is the next Jordan, I like Wade because he is Wade, not because he is MJ. For one thing, his management of the ball is quite different and he models a lot more closely to being a scoring 1 than a passing 2. Wade also doesn't seem to be that sort of a scoring machine. Perhaps he may develop into one, one day. But he certainly isn't now. He seems to be more of a Duncan (for his position) than a Shaq (implying that Jordan was the Shaq of his position). Get what I'm failing?

In sum, in little over a 6 year span since Jordan's retirement, there have been at least 6 versions of the "next Jordan". But not one even comes close to having the complete game that Jordan had. And we haven't even entered the issue of being able to consistently dominate with efficiency. Now I am not a PER-whore, but at least it is some indicator of how things stand. Shaq is #1 ranking all time with 28.01. Jordan is #2 all time with 27.91. (Without his years with the Wiz, he would have been #1.) Next guy? T-Mac. He ranks #10 all time with a PER of 24+. Kobe comes in at #21 and VC at #22, each with a PER of about 22. Grant Hill follows at #26 with 21.9. LeBron? Wade? They don't have enough games to qualify for rankings yet, but as an indicator - they had PERs of 25, 23 respectively last year.

More perspective? Kobe's highest PER ever has been 26. T-Mac? 30. He only crossed it once. MJ? 30~ 6 times, over 31 4 times. At the age of 39, 40 he had a PER of 21 and 20. His rookie season was PER 26, and every year after was over 26 until the age of 24 where it fell to 25. Yah, that is what I thought.

Bigs:
Since Jordan has departed, the best player in the league has unquestionably been Tim Duncan. If there is an argument for anyone else, it obviously is Shaq. I note this because people may mistakenly make the argument that the NBA has changed structurally - and that now, for some reason, SG play is more important. But I want to make it clear, without depending on models, that that is a stupid notion. See, before Jordan, winning teams won with bigs. After Jordan, winning teams win with bigs. And before Jordan, winning teams won with bigs. Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Big Ben and Rasheed, Parish & Bird & McHale, Kareem & Magic, Russell, Wilt, etc. You get the picture.

In fact, generally models seem to tell us that it is essential to have a very good big and a solid ball handler. Most models also tell you that the SG is the least important position for winning teams, generally. So here is a contemporary example. The Wallaces seem to complement each other enough to make 1.5 fantastic bigs. And Chauncey is Chauncey. And Tayshaun seems to be the requisite Kirilenko/Pippen-esque versatile long-man. The weakest link? Rip Hamilton. Yes he can run curls and shoot really well. But shooters are also the most replacable.

Intuition:
Lastly, pretend you were to go up to a person who knew nothing about basketball. Once you explained the rules of the game, say you asked them for a strategy. If this person was reasonably intelligent, what would they suggest? Obviously, they would suggest just finding a very tall, strong person because then presumably it would become quite easy to win. I'm sure when you first learned about basketball - that is what you thought. Why not just hire a giant? Shouldn't you win everything then? And you know what - in general, the answer seems to be yes.

Thoughts?

Posner's Response to Comments on Campaign Finance Reform

2005-11-13T15:02:00.000-08:00

As advertised. From the Becker-Posner-blog.

A rich set of comments. Several suggest that the solution to the "soft bribery" problem is to require that all campaign contributions be anonymous; then no one could prove that he had contributed to a particular candidate. The problem is that, since "soft bribery" is an important motive for contributions, the total amount of contributions, and hence of political advertising, will fall, and so there will be reduced dissemination of political information. That is a loss. I do not know whether it would exceed the gain from reducing the amount of soft bribery, but it might well. The brunt would be borne by new entrants, who need to advertise more in order to make a dent in the "brand recognition" of incumbents. In addition, the wealthy, who are the big donors, are not a monolith; they have competing interests and therefore provide virtual representation for many ordinary people, such as the employees of the big corporations. Also the wealthy do not have the votes; their political advertisements are aimed at average people. Furthermore, if some candidates court the wealthy, this will drive others to raise money from the nonwealthy, something that the Internet has made easier to do, as we learned in the 2004 presidential election. The nonwealthy give less per capita, of course, but there are vastly more of them.

Still another point is that even the wealthy do not care solely about policies likely to benefit them. They also care about leadership, always a major focus in a presidential election.

I agree with the comment which suggests that increased political advertising could reduce turnout. The politicians are not interested in maximizing turnout, but in winning, and a winning strategy may be to depress turnout if higher turnout would produce more votes for your opponent. Negative advertising might provoke counter advertising also negative, the net effect of which was to reduce turnout but to the advantage of the candidate who had initiated the negative campaign.

I do not agree, however, that advertising in commercial markets is likely to depress output (the analog of turnout in the electoral market). The comment that argues this points out that in a cartelized market, that is, in a market in which the sellers have agreed not to compete in price, there is a tendency for nonprice competition, including advertising, to increase, as sellers vie to engross the largest possible share of the profits generated by the cartel price. I don't see how forbidding advertising in such a setting would result in higher output; it would simply increase the sellers' profits at the cartel price. On the contrary, by reducing the erosion of cartel profits through nonprice competition, the advertising ban would tend to make the cartel last longer. But in any event there is no price competition in the political market because politicians can't buy votes directly. Advertising (broadly defined) is the only permitted method of competition.

Finally, I disagree with the suggestion, common though it is, that unlimited campaign spending impairs democracy by giving political power to the wealthy, or more precisely to any individuals or groups able and willing to spend disproportionately to support particular candidates or policies. The suggestion confuses democracy with equality. Democracy is the political system in which the principal officials are forced to stand for election at short intervals. The identity and policies of the officials may well be influenced by the underlying distribution of income and wealth in society, but that does not make the society less democratic.

Thoughts?

Scoop Jackson is the Worst Sports Writer on ESPN

2005-11-13T08:36:00.000-08:00

Enough said.

Bush's Approval in a Historical Context

2005-11-04T16:13:00.000-08:00

Worst…support…ever

Posted 9:13 am | Printer Friendly

Every time a new poll comes out showing Bush's faltering support nationwide, I think, "OK, now he's reached the floor of his support." And yet, the floor manages to fall a little further all the time.

A new CBS News poll suggests the bottom has completely fallen out for the president, thanks in large part to the public's reaction to the Plame scandal. If Bush's support drops much further, it's not ridiculous to wonder if his presidency will ever be able to recover.

* Approval rating — Bush is down to just 35% support. His favorability rating, usually high despite low job approval ratings, is down to just 33%.

* On the issues — 47% support Bush's handling of the war on terror, 34% support his handling of the economy, and 32% support his handling of the war in Iraq.

* Cheney — Though the poll doesn't gauge Cheney's approval rating, his favorability rating is down to a stunning 19%.

* The war in Iraq — A combined 64% of poll respondents believe the Bush administration either intentionally hid key information or was mostly lying about WMD before the war began.

* Plame Game — Asked about the scandal's significance, 51% said the Plame matter is of "great importance," while an additional 35% said it's of "some importance." Those are the highest scores for a president scandal since — you guessed it — Watergate.

It's tempting to think Bush has no where to go but up, but then again, we've thought that before.

Just for fun, it's also interesting to consider Bush's plummeting support in a historical context. This graph ran in the Wall Street Journal the other day. Pay particular attention to the Bush/Nixon comparison.

10 Comments

2005-10-29T11:43:00.000-07:00

1. Alan Simpson is very cool.

//comments on 1: I wish all Republicans were more like him. I wonder why he is even a Republican? He is down with gay rights and is basically a feminist. He doesn't think the courts should decide on abortion and he doesn't even think men have the right to vote on the abortion. At best, he argues, the father should perhaps be involved to some extent in the process - but that is it.

2. Sheryl Swoops. Very cool that she came out.

//comments on 2: Dude, while it is nice, her partner is screwed for life. (no pun intended.) Swoops came out and explained that her partner was her boss. That is a big no-no - players screwing their assistant coaches, are you kidding me?

3. Ann Coulter argues that Bush needs to appease his base now and that he ought to appoint an ideologue. Bill O'Reilly responds that Ann can't ever criticize a lefty-nut activist judge if she encourages right-wing ideologuism. He argues that if one asks Bush to put up an ideological judge, it is no different whether the ideologue is left or right wing. He explains that judges should be pro-dialogue, pro-discourse, and not be ridiculously stuck to their ideologies.

4. When Ann Coulter kept referring to things that "we" had to do (she was referring to herself + Bill as a collective conservative unit), Bill responds "who is this we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?" And then basically goes on to tell her to not include him in a "we" when she talks about her support for an ideologically conservative nominee.

//comments on 3-4: Wow ... I was pretty shocked to hear that from O'Reilly. Very interesting.

5. Dick Morris made 3 interesting points. First, it is very good that Miers is gone because it marks the first time the administration has looked to competence as a criterion. Second, that now the administration should nominate one of the 90 appointees to lower courts who got through Congress just fine. Since a number of these guys and gals are right wing ideologues, he can appease his base in the process. Third, the President needs us to get away from oil. Drilling ANWAR is bad. (a) Global warming exists. (b) We have shitty weather b/c of warming. (c) Oil money (some percentage of it) goes to terrorists. (d) We need a new energy source.

6. O'Reilly argues that if you are the President's legal counsel, you do have some experience (obviously) with constitutional law. Miers should have been given her due process.

//comments on 5-6: I've talked enough about Miers so you know my views there. As for oil, see below.

7. O'Reilly rags on oil companies. He argues that oil companies are screwing Americans with price gouging. Record high oil prices and record high profits (Exxon Mobil reporting $12 billion) means that they are screwing the consumers. He went on a tear on Bush's stupid tax exemptions for oil companies!

8. Dean Bakers, Co-Director of the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), and co-author of growth literature with Krugman and DeLong, explains the reasons for the exploding profits. First, crude oil prices have sky-rocketed. Limited supply and phenomenal demand spikes, especially due to China and India's increasing needs. Second, Katrina knocked out oil refineries so a number of regions have experienced rather large shortages. He argues a way to deal with this is through a windfall profit tax - which essentially is a tax on a large sum of unexpected wealth (take that to mean whatever you want it to be).

9. O'Reilly responds is against windfall taxes because apparently that isn't what capitalism is all about. So instead, he advocates a Gandhi-esque solution: consumers punishing oil companies (whatever that means).

//comments on 7-9: this is what I love about capitalist ideologues. Ok, so their philosophy is the free market. But here is the thing. Economists aren't ideologically pro-free market. They are so because they realized that empirically, things were more efficient in an open market in a situation of perfect competition. (For one thing, oil companies are oligopolistic, not competitive - so I don't even know if O'Reilly's "logic" is applicable.) But more importantly, there isn't some blind adherence to libertarian philosophy in play here. We see above, a fairly respected macroeconomist arguing for intervention in that form, and O'Reilly responds with "capitalism is about people doing what they want". Hell, even conservatives like Gary Becker argue for intervention at times. Even if it interventions to straighten out a market and make it more competitive, or intervention to force insurance purchases upon houses in hurricane-prone regions. The point is, ideological "economic conservatism" or ideological "capitalism" is idiotic. You won't find any respected economist (essentially the proponents and scholars of capitalism) backing such idiocy. So why are strict libertarians so crazy?

10. Catherine Crier is damn cool.

//comments on 10: I wish more conservatives were like her too. But if I had a choice, obviously I would take them being like Alan Simpson.

Ball Control

2005-10-28T13:11:00.000-07:00

Tracy McGrady is damn cool. Do you know why? While he and Kobe (and Wade and James) have very similar stat lines, one huge difference (that popular culture won't admit to) is that T-Mac's ball control is just damn better.

(And please, don't retort with things like Kobe has 3 rings. First, I want to specifically talk about ball control. And second, Shaq won those rings and you know it. And if you don't, go watch a higher volume of games - you didn't watch enough games. Just watching 1 game with a big 3 doesn't make you a great "clutch player" or even a winning cause. There were plenty of games where Kobe missed a lot of shots in the clutch, and he certainly wasn't responsible for distorting the offense. Shaq is a huge huge communist style tax upon a defense!!)

Anyway, ball control sets McGrady apart from everyone else with talent. People like D Wade, AI, Kobe, LeBron (all guys with similar assist levels and scoring averages) - all have Turnover Ratios that put them ranked around 50th in the league. Well actually .. Kobe and Dwade are in the 50s, AI is in the 30s. LeBron is in the 20s. Tmac? Tmac sits proudly at #1. He has the single lowest turnover ratio in the league (for a SG +/-). It is ridiculous. He just doesn't lose the damn ball. And last season wasn't a fluke. He has basically led or come close to leading the league for most years in the league. None of the others have even come close.

Now lord knows I don't think T-Mac is the best of the bunch. And I think, if careers develop properly, LeBron being the best on that list won't even be a question. Barring severe injury, D. Wade being #2 on that list won't really be a question either.

But what I am saying is, there is something to be said for someone who can put up these 25/6/6 style numbers while being utterly in control of the ball. We know all of these guys can slice through defenses at will and are damn talented at it. McGrady, though. Damn. He is a lot like that new Adidas commercial they have about him. Runs through an obstacle course of rain, fire, and all hell, but he just elevates above it all, with dragon wings, for a jumper. Phenomenally clean at it and rarely gets stripped. Seriously, it is very in-the-vein-of Michael Jordan.

Next Fed Chair: Ben Bernanke

2005-10-24T20:03:00.000-07:00

Well G.W. finally nominated a scholar! By nominating Ben Bernanke as the next Fed Chair (technically - Chairman of the Board of Governors of the United States Federal Reserve), he has picked someone who seems to be a rather qualified candidate.

I guess it is no surprise on the heels of this Harriet Miers, Katrina, the FEMA fiasco, having a 2% approval rating among blacks (though I guess he doesn't care about that one), etc. Plus Bernanke and Kohn seemed to be the front runners anyway, at least according to the Wall Street Journal polls - which, as I understand, seem to be a reasonable indicator. But then again, with this administration, who knows?

Still, it is something to be pleased about, considering alternatives included Hubbard (yes, Columbia Business School, but still blech) and Marty Feldstein.

I've read a lot of blogs and commentators throwing about economic catch phrases saying how Bernanke is intelligent because he uses model X or an idiot for using Y. Really. Is that so? You can tell, as an untrained fellow lacking in mathematical and economical depth, whether or not a distinguished Princeton Professor is an idiot or not for employing some model that you learned about in your poli-sci meets econ course? Sigh.

Look, I love economics and really want to be an economist. That said, I'll be the first to tell you that I don't know a whole lot about about the subject. And the very very little I do know - it is limited to some elementary growth and development theory. I'd wager that I do know more about the economics of the NBA than "normal" economic theory at large. Point being - I certainly couldn't comment with any amount of competence on how a scholar would do his job as the next Fed Chair. It is quite a heavy job, you know.

But what I do understand is the following - Bernanke is a very respected academic. He rarely brings his ideology into his work. Even his closest of friends did not know that he was a Republican until the last few years. He has worked very closely with Alan Blinder (the liberal Princeton economist who I so admire). With Blinder, he did work on some very interesting monetary policy that is regarded as not really being "conservative" or "liberal" but if not anything else, I suppose people could call it "left leaning". And Blinder isn't the only one who says that he is fairly non-ideological in his economic dealings, which is pretty good. Krugman, DeLong, and many others seem to have good words to say about this pick, for the most part. (I do not know whether that is a contextual comment - when comparing him to the alternatives, or whether it is an absolute statement.)

I saw too many blogs trashing him as incompetent, or hailing him a a genius - all on little things such as his mention of the Philips curve. Right, like our sophomoric understanding of the Philips curve is really what Bernanke is relying on when making his decisions. See, I wouldn't really mind if people levied some decent criticisms specific to his arguments and models. But, as usual, I wish for too much. People just make ideological and blanket responses for everything. This is rarely ever good, in philosophy, in politics - and especially in economics.

Why Fantasy Drafting Sucks

2005-10-24T05:57:00.000-07:00

Damnit. I forgot to show up to most of my draft in one of my leagues, so I autodrafted a really weird team. I hadn't really finished pre-ordering them, so people weren't in a default order, nor were they even in a specified/better order. Plus I was drafting dead last (10 out of 10) anyway, so it wasn't like I was privy to a Dirk or a Timmy at least. In sum, I am stuck with the following team:

Andrei Kirilenko
Steve Nash
Ben Wallace
Andre Iguodala
Rashard Lewis
Kyle Korver
Morris Peterson
Tony Parker
Chris Kaman
Deron Williams
Damon Jones
Andrew Bogut
Desmond Mason

Well, um ... at least I am going to be reasonably good at .... assists and threes? And then I seem to have a mixed bag that really varies game to game and week to week based on what different people put out. AI^2 and AK47 will give me round numbers through several categories, I suppose. And maybe Big Ben and AK + change give me blocks?

And, well, Bogut and Deron Williams can't both flop, can they?

What do people think about this mess of a team (or lack thereof?)?

More on Harriet Miers

2005-10-23T12:24:00.000-07:00

From Professor Brad DeLong's blog:

I'm going to come out in favor of the U.S. Senate advising and consenting to the nomination of Harriet Miers to be a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

She is a hard working, intelligent, savvy lawyer with a strange fixation on George W. Bush. She has had the experience of making her way as a career woman in late-twentieth century America, which cannot help but have given her a considerable education in what's what and where's where. Back her up with good, moderate clerks and she will do fine.

She will be, I think, likely to be vastly better as a judge than the alternative--which is some "originalist" who doesn't get that James Madison wrote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

because he didn't want any judges, ever, anywhere in the United States to argue: "You don't have that right because you can't show it to me written down in the Constitution."

I think that she is a terribly unqualified nominee. I would love more experience (or any experience) in Constitutional Law. If not that at least, I would love a lawyer not caught up in corporate fraud. If not that, at least I would love some one with some indicators of being a rather strong intellect. If you don't back it up with other accomplishments, I am forced to default on your education. And Southern Methodist University math major and SMU law school doesn't cut it.

All that said, like I said before, "This is really really really damn funny. I'm really curious as to whether or not she will get confirmed. And if she doesn't, are we going to see a crazy right-wing nut instead?"

I disagree with people thinking that we need a more "intellectual" judge even if they are on the hardcore right. They seem to back it up for two reasons: first, that a lot of these intellectuals do move left and second, because at least thought out analysis has more value (for whatever reason). Look - first, the whole conservative moving very left thing really only applies to Souter and Blackmun. Yes, generationally there has seemed to be progressive notions permeating American culture, and I definitely think that the Supreme Court has contextualized accordingly, for the most part. But it isn't inherent - for one thing - and moreover, the right wing of the court over 50% of the time are not as lefty as we would like. Sure, Souter and Blackmun defected, but that isn't a sure thing. Second, I don't care if you have a genius defending some notion that isn't a good notion. I want my idiot voting the correct decision!

So, for my part, I tend to agree with DeLong, I guess. I really fear the apology candidate that Bush will give the Christian right if she doesn't get confirmed.

Pre-Season Thoughts

2005-10-23T09:30:00.000-07:00

As advertised...

Knicks
What can I say. Nate Robinson is really good. I mean really really good. Well - not as good as he probably thinks he is, but certainly better than even his fans probably thinks he is. This kid has to learn to control himself and also make a few better decisions (like when not to take a shitty shot, what kind of pass will actually get through 4 defenders, adjusting to the taller players in the NBA, etc). But even with that, he puts out 4 assists, 11 points, 6 boards, and a steal to boot (though quite a few turnovers and fouls as well). All while shooting 5/6. That is remarkably efficient for someone who I just criticized as inefficient. I guess it is all relative people. Plus, man some of the crisp moves he had - fake left, burn his man right, spin to the center avoiding the collapsing help - D, drawing effectively a triple team for a 5'9" guard in the paint - and then, the beautiful quick bounce pass that goes 15 feet through the crowd perfectly finding his man at the 3-pt arc to drain the trey. Pretty shit. What can I say. Also, Eddie Curry still can't buy a rebound. But he is learning some defense - and that's a start. Robinson followed that performance against Dallas with a 2-7, 7 pt, 5 rebound, 2 assist, 1 steal, 3 foul effort against Tony Parker and the Spurs. Channing Frye did remarkably well, especially considering he shared time against Tim Duncan. Frye shot 8-14, grabbing 8 boards in the process for a 19 pt/8 board/3 assist/2 steal/2 block effort. Curry, of course, couldn't do anything.

Suns
Marion.

Nets
Wow ... Richard Jefferson got good? Wth happened. I used to laugh at him. He went out and bought himself a consistent jump shot and some court vision. On a similar note, Jason Kidd isn't really that good anymore. He kind of sucks. At least compared to the J-Kidd of old. He is much much slower, really can't shoot now, and certainly has trouble playing defense.

76ers
AI the 2nd (Iguodala) is awsome. He is like Kirilenko, with worse shooting. But I guess that is ok. He will probably still be the 4th scoring option, perhaps 5th, behind AI, C-Webb, John Salmons and maybe Korver.

Bulls
Janero Pargo shoots too much. He thinks he can drain it like he did in his college days. Call it the AI syndrome (I guess that is why AI takes so many threes even though he isn't particularly great in NBA terms).

Cavs
My oh my. Of the big 4 - James, Hughes, Jones, Gooden, and Ilgauskas (yes I know that is 5 people, but Ilgauskas and Jones count as one person) - if 3 of them are hot, we will see some pretty damn efficient scoring between them. This will be fun to watch. Add in that they all distribute the ball fairly well, and they also have a smart (though not physically able) point guard who loves to pass and can't really shoot (Snow), and the team looks to be pretty solid ... offensively. Defense is a different question. D. Jones sucks, and no one else really is anything spectacular. (Yes, even Larry Hughes. Going for steals is called gambling, not good/effective defense.) And all of this is without thinking of Donyell Marshall who easily should have been a contender for 6th man last year. Maybe not top 3, but still. I mean he is a 4 who can step out and pop the 3. And he was the most efficient Raptor last year by far, though he came off the bench.

Pacers
Danny Granger! The kid has scored in double digits in the last 3 games (11, 19, 12) with (11, 15, 7) boards respectively. He also has always had at least 1 assist, 1 block, and 1 steal per game. He gets to the line nearly 7 times a game, but he seems to foul a lot and his shooting percentage could be better.

Raptors
Charlie Villanueva has been out of control. At just over 17 ppg, 5 rpg, 1 apg, 1 spg, 1 bpg, with 55% shooting, he seems to be a solid rookie. He doesn't get to the line as much as he should, though.

Heat
Oh wonderful. Against the Pistons yesterday, Walker shot 2-10 and Jason Williams shot 2-9. Wonderful. And if you look at how until now he has done compared to everyone else in the league, he leads the league in nothing. He isn't even close to top in anything. Then I had an idea to sort by "FGAP48", i.e. field goals attempted per 48 minutes. Yup. There he is, #8 in the league. Shit, he can't make the list for making shots. But for attempts? Always there. His first game was an inspired effort - 9/14 shooting for 20 pts coupled with 2 boards, 1 assist, 5 steals. But he has been on and off (more off) since then, shooting under 10% twice and under 40% 3 out of 4 games. Then you have Jason Williams, who shoots no less than 7 shoots per game, making only 34% of those at that. All that and averaging an unimpressive 3.5 assists per game. Yuck. And why are 50% of his shot attempts from down town when he is only hitting 18% of them?!

Allowing Skilled Immigrants into America

2005-10-22T13:12:00.000-07:00

I thought this was relevant, considering the group of friends that I have from Silicon Valley.

From the mind of Gary Becker:

Scientists, engineers, and other highly skilled workers often must wait years before receiving a green card that allows them to stay permanently in the US. Only 140,000 green cards are specifically allocated annually to mainly skilled workers. An alternate route for highly skilled professionals, especially IT workers, has been to seek temporary H-1B visas that allow them to come for specific jobs for three years, with the possibility of one renewal. But Congress foolishly cut the annual quota under that program in 2003 from almost 200,000 workers to well under 100,000. The small quota of just 65,000 persons for the current fiscal year that began October 1 is already exhausted!

The right approach is to go in the exact opposite direction: to greatly increase the number of entry permits to highly skilled professionals, and eliminate the H-1B program, so that all such visas became permanent. Skilled immigrant workers like engineers and scientists are in fields that are not attracting many Americans. They also work in IT industries, such as computers and biotech, which have become the backbone of the well-performing American economy. Over one-quarter of the entrepreneurs and higher--evel employees in Silicon Valley were born overseas. These immigrants create jobs and opportunities for native-born Americans of all types and levels of skills.

Since they earn more than average, highly skilled professional immigrants contribute disproportionately to tax revenue. They are also considerably younger than average, so they are net contributors to social security revenue. In addition, they and their children have low crime rates and make few demands on the public purse. They have low levels of unemployment, seldom go on welfare, generally have above average health, have relatively small families, and their children do well at school and cause few disciplinary problems.

To me it seems like a win-win situation for the US to admit annually a million or more skilled professionals with permanent green cards that allow them eventually to become American citizens. Permanent rather than temporary admissions of the H-1B type have many advantages to the US as well as to the foreign professionals. With permanent admission, these professionals would make a much greater commitment to becoming part of American culture rather than forming separate enclaves in the expectation they are here only temporarily. They would also be more concerned with advancing in the American economy rather than with the skills and knowledge they could bring back to India, China, or wherever else they came from. In particular, they would become less concerned with absconding with the intellectual property of American companies, property that could help them advance in their countries of origin, perhaps through starting their own companies.

Basically, I am proposing that the H-1B program and the explicit admission of foreign workers be folded into a much larger employment-based green card program for foreign workers. With the emphasis on skilled workers, the annual quota should be multiplied many times from present limits. Unlike the present admission program, there should be no upper bound on the numbers from any single country. Such upper bounds, either in absolute numbers or as percentages, place large countries like India and China with many highly qualified professionals at a considerable and unfair disadvantage.

To be sure, the annual admission of a million or more highly skilled workers, such as engineers and scientists, would lower the earnings of American workers they compete against. The effect on earnings from this greater competition would discourage some Americans from becoming engineers or other professionals. The opposition from competing American workers is probably the main reason for the sharp restrictions on the number admitted. But doesn't the US benefit if, for example, India spends a lot on its highly esteemed Institutes of Technology to train many scientists and engineers who leave to work in America?

Many of the sending countries protest against this emigration by calling it a "brain drain". Yet migration of workers, like free trade in goods, is not a zero sum game, but one with a positive sum that usually, although not always, benefits both the sending country and the receiving country. In the case of migration of highly skilled workers to the US, I believe that it is a winning situation both for the US and for the nations that trained them because these emigrants send back remittances, and some of them return to start businesses based on the experiences they gained in the US.

If America does not accept greatly increased numbers of highly skilled professionals, they might go elsewhere-Canada and Australia, to take two examples, are actively recruiting IT professionals. Or they will remain at home and compete against the US through the outsourcing of highly skilled engineering, research, and other such activities. The growth of outsourcing has created an entirely new case for more generous admissions of skilled immigrants. Since earnings are much higher in the US, many of these workers would still prefer to come here or to other rich countries, but if they cannot, they can now compete more effectively than in the past through outsourcing and similar forms of international trade in services. The US would be much better off by having such skilled workers become residents and citizens, and in this way contribute to American productivity, culture, tax revenues, and education than by having them compete from their origin nations.

I do, however, advocate being careful about admitting students and skilled workers from countries that have produced many terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. My attitude may be dismissed as religious "profiling", but intelligent and fact-based profiling is essential in the war against terror.

Other countries too should liberalize their policies toward immigration of skilled workers. I particularly think of Japan and Germany that have rapidly aging and soon to be declining populations that are not sympathetic (especially Japan) to absorbing many immigrants. But America still has a major advantage in attracting skilled workers since this is the preferred destination of the vast majority of them. Why not take advantage of the preference to come here rather than forcing highly desirable immigrants to look elsewhere?

My first preference is to admit many immigrants through a sale of the right to immigrate (see the discussion in our blog entry of February 21, 2005). Since skilled immigrants would tend to bid the most, that policy too would favor skilled immigrants. But in this discussion I have set aside my preference for a market in entry rights in order to concentrate on the importance of getting more highly skilled immigrants, with or without charging for admission.

So come on guys. About 95% of you guys who may occassionally glance at my blog are immigrants' kids with parents working in IT or something similar. So, what are your thoughts on this?

A Short Parable About a Monk

2005-10-18T18:17:00.000-07:00

Say exactly at sunrise, a young Tibetian monk begins to climb up a mountain to meditate at the temple for a few days.

He goes along a narrow and treacherous path. Of course, along the way, he gets very hungry, and he has to stop to eat. Perhaps sometimes he stops to take a whiz off the edge of the trail. (Hey, he is only human. He will publicly urinate if he has to!) He sees some pretty flowers and picks them to decorate the temple with. Obviously his speed of travel varies rather randomly, but eventually he gets to the temple just before sunset. (Lucky for him, because travelling along a treacherous path up a mountain without a flashlight really sucks.)

Once he is at the temple, he spends a few days praying and doing his monk-y things.

A few days later, at sunrise, he stretches, grabs his dried berries, and heads down the path again. Of course, he stops whenever he is hungry or has to pee, and of course, his average speed of descent is faster than his average speed of ascent. So he gets down to the base of the mountain (his house) before sunset.

True or False? There is a point on the trail that the monk was at on both trips at exactly the same time of the day.

On the Harriet Miers Fiasco

2005-10-15T18:45:00.000-07:00

"You know, she's a very gracious and funny person," says Joshua B. Bolten, former deputy White House Chief of Staff whom Harriet Miers succeded in 2003, about Miers. "I was racking my brain trying to think of something specific... She is a very good bowler. For someone her size, she actually gets a lot of action out of the pins."

Then it hits him. "What I think made Harriet so successful as staff secretary was that she was a diligent and honest broker, able to digest very complicated material rapidly, and produce a fair resolution for the president, so that the advice that was going in to the president was fully and fairly presented."

David G. Leitch, former deputy White House counsel, also showers praise upon Miers. "You might think anybody who was preparing something to go to the president would already have taken care to see that it was perfect. But Harriet always scrubbed them one more time, and managed to come up with things that people hadn't seen or thought of before, from the broad wording of an issue to errors in punctuation." Well, of course, the ability to strictly scrutinize punctuation is one of the top 7 qualifications to become a Supreme Court justice.

But controversy looms over her ability to properly dot the i's and cross the t's. David Frum, a former White House speechwriter explained that perhaps, this overbearing emphasis on proper punctuation brought along inefficiencies, saying, "It wasn't that she didn't do the job right, but the way she did the job rules her out of being a person you would think of as capable of handling this enormous responsibility."

So what are my thoughts on Harriet Miers?

Well, Harriet Miers was never a judge before. Honestly, I would prefer some judicial experience in my nominees. But it is definitely not unprecedented, so I suppose that is ok. So what about her philosophy on constitutional law? Well, that is not really known. Quality legal experience? Miers has never argued a case before the Supreme Court. I guess, maybe, perhaps, that might be sort of partly okay ... a bit. But I would have preferred at least some hardcore experience as a lawyer - at least if she never was a judge before.

So what did she do? Well from 1972 (2 years after graduating from law school) to 2001, she worked for Locke, Liddell, & Sapp. She was the first female employee, and later became the first female president. During her time as president, she was sued for aiding a client in defrauding investors, and the firm settled a $22 million. Beautiful.

Oh and, she has basically been George W.'s biggest fan and bitch for the past 16 years. Which, I suppose, is nice and all for him, but it doesn't do a whole lot for me having her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

So there has been this huge controversy over her qualifications right? Peopl thought - hey no judicial experience, no hardcore legal experience, no hardcore reputable law school experience, no legal academic experience - so who is this woman?? Man, I really love the administration's response. Obviously, Bush & Co. decide to come out and defend their woman. So, first, what do they do? They note the following. Fine, Miers didn't go to Harvard or Columbia or Yale or something. But she did go to the 3rd best law school in all of Texas! No joke - they were completely serious about this.

Wow. Really!? Third best law school in all the land of Texas! Yay! How wonderful for me!

Look, I don't mean to be a name-hugging ass here or anything. And definitely many fantastically smart people come out of non-name schools. But here's the deal - those fantastically smart people have done something worthwhile. And because they are deemed "worthy", they get the acclaim. Here, I see a woman who really doesn't have a super stellar legal resume. And I'm just thinking, fine, at least give me one indicator that you are among the top 9 legal minds in the country. Or you know what - at this rate - screw top 9. What about some indicator that at least you are in the top 90. Or 900. Please. Some indicator - at least a legit academic background if not anything else!

I'm just saying (and this is by no means comprehensive), take a quick look at at least how we could have justified something like this by percentages if she had some pedigreed law school background. Most of these guys, except for the U Chicago guys, are/were on the U.S. Supreme Court:
Harvard (Blackmun, Roberts, Souter, Scalia, Breyer, Kennedy, Brennan, Powell, Frankfurter, Burton)
Columbia (Ginsburg, Reed, Douglas, Stone, Cardozo, Hughes, Blatchford, Jay)
Yale (Thomas, White, Stewart, Fortras)
U Chicago (Scalia [Prof], Coase [Nobel Prize Winner], Mikva)
Stanford (Rehnquist, O'Connor)
Northwestern (Stevens, Goldberg)
Berkeley (Warren)
William Mitchell (Burger)
University of Maryland (Marshall)
UT Austin (Clark)

Ok. Then we get to Southern Methodist University's Law School, which the administration proudly argues to be the 3rd best law school in the great state of Texas. Wonderful. Obviously Miers is the only alumnus that one can name from the law school. What about the university at large? Well, here. I can name 4. Cathy Bates, Laura Bush, Patricia Robertson (yes, the Home Improvement mom), and Lauren Graham (Lorelai on Gilmore Girls). Damn, we are going to be in awsome shape, aren't we?

So it is a lot like how Larry Miller put it on Real Time with Bill Maher the other day. Screw Harvard, Yale, or Columbia. She went to the 3rd best law school in all of Texas. I mean, that is like being the 4th tallest person in Japan! .......yah, it doesn't really count for much.

So the administration gets flack for that. Pressured, they turn to the one thing that they know could help the reputation of their star woman. As an undergraduate, she majored in mathematics! Again, I am not kidding. This is actually what they argued to justify her "intellectual capacity". Well, aw shucks. She was a math major at SMU. She must be a genius!

Hey guys, wait a minute. I'm a math major at Columbia University. We have a top 7 mathematics program. By the administrations standards, that must be justification enough of my abilities to help warrant my nomination to the Supreme Court! Oh wait, maybe I should obtain a quick law degree and get sued for defrauding people first. Hm?

I absolutely love that both the right and the left are pounding Bush on this. This is really really really damn funny. I'm really curious as to whether or not she will get confirmed. And if she doesn't, are we going to see a crazy right-wing nut instead? But if she does, is she going to be ostracized by the other judges? Boy this will be interesting.

All Taxes are Distortionary!

2005-10-13T03:57:00.000-07:00

So say I put a tax on coffee. Theoretically, it should alter the way I consume coffee. In an Economics (or Intuition) 101 course we learn that I go to Starbucks and now buy tea instead. Fairly straightforward, right?

This is we call a "distortionary effect" of a tax. Basically it changes incentives from what you would have done to what you will do now. And in doing so, it changes the combination/proportions of goods you would have consumed, since you substitute away from one in favour of another. (More tea, less coffee in this example.)

What if I taxed labour (with an income tax)? That causes some distortions as well right? Depending on disposition, people may substitute away from labour to leisure or, since they feel poor, they may start working even more to compensate. Most labour theorists argue that very poor people will tend to work more, since they cannot afford to not work, but wealthier people may cut back on work and purchase more "leisure" because working becomes more "expensive" since they are taxed.

So here is what bothers me. A lot is said of "non-distortionary taxes". People like to argue that a certain tax is not distortionary for such and such reasons. The most frequent example is the lump sum tax. This tax is basically a per-head tax - every person has to pay $X just for existing. The end. People seem convinced that, theoretically, it just shrinks a person's overall income, but doesn't really distort their incentives to purchase some goods over others. It just shrinks their overall budget. This makes sense right? (You should be shaking your head "no", since I am going to argue that it doesn't.)

In fact, I was talking to a TA of mine who went to Harvard for his undergraduate education. He was telling me how in his basic macro class there, they taught him that concept. Same I've heard from people going to all sorts of schools for undergrad, including schools as far and wide as MIT, UT Austin, Columbia, Berkeley, and -yes- even U Chicago! (Note: this isn't done at the graduate level, or even at an advanced undergraduate level, as I understand it. But most business folk do not pursue Ph.D.s in economics, so they run off into the business world with stupid ideas like these...)

So what is my problem with the notion that there are some non-distortionary taxes? Well, I like the Sala-i-Martin mantra that "all taxes of distortionary - people are just stupid". Here's why. Take the example of the lump sum tax. The common argument goes: since lump sum tax paid cannot be changed by individual behavior, i.e. since I pay $X no matter what, there is no reason to view it as changing my choices. In all other choices, I pay $Tax based on how much coffee I buy or how much work I do, or whatever. But here, I am stuck paying $X - too bad, so sad.

See, the thing is, the argument is flawed because if we look at this way, we aren't looking at the right model. I will show that the model excludes a key market and therefore appears to be non-distortionary, even though it clearly is! For an analogy, say we take a model where we fix how many hours we work per week. Say I work 40 hours per week no matter what, and my wage is held constant. And in this model I examine the effect of a tax on consumption (sales tax) and a tax on wage (income tax). But since from year to year my wage is still taxed at the same rate and I am stuck, by assumption, in a state of working 40 hours per week, it looks like this tax isn't distortionary. I am stuck paying the tax no matter what, and I cannot avoid it by substituting leisure for labour! But wouldn't it be silly to conclude from this model that wage taxes aren't distortionary? It would seem so because my model assumes that I cannot change my behaviour by reducing labour hours. Obviously, in the real world, there would be effects - the problem here is with the model. My model made labour exogenous (outside of the model) - it was fixed. And therefore, that key market was missing from the analysis so it seemed as though income tax was non-distortionary!

Similarly, here is the thing. There is a market for children. The number of children "bought" varies per income level. Introducing a lump sum tax per head is basically a tax per how many coffee cups are bought - i.e. how many children are bought. Right? It is just that most models treat the "fertility market" as exogenous (outside of the model). Since the models exclude markets such as these, they obviously fail to see that the lump sum tax has distortionary effects!

In sum, all taxes are distortionary. There are just people who distort reality and conclude otherwise, and those who do not.

A "Conservative" Economic Justification of the Welfare State

2005-10-11T18:05:00.000-07:00

My thoughts on the welfare state - atleast from an economic perspective. I will mark the sections without math so if this gets annoying, you can just skip to those. I hope they are accessible.

I am not going to make any Keynesian macroeconomic assumptions here for a few reasons, first being that I think it beocmes too easy to defend the welfare state and second that in the long run I think they are not necessarily right. My goal is also to demonstrate that "conservative economics," i.e. macroeconomics under New Classical assumptions and neo-classical production functions, is not incompatible with welfare structures. In fact, I argue, it encourages the existence of welfare states - especially in the regions I care about dearly (the developing world).

Ok. I will do any math in discrete time, and try to skip over anything that isn't really important to show. I just want to show the general results, because they are pretty interesting.

[General Argument (no math)]
Basically, I want to show the following: whether or not I assume the government to be productive, it is productive. And thus we have a justification for the welfare state.

I will show this by, first, assuming that the govt is 100% productive and second assuming that it is 0% directly productive, and show that we end up with basically similar results.

The first model allows us to deal with taxes. Say the govt infrastructure (roads, hospitals) was 100% effective and not wasteful at all. And say that it directly enters each firm's production function positively. I will show that ultimately, we end up with a growth function that has the following property: when government revenue = 0 (because of tax rate = 0), we have negative growth and when govt revenue = "max" since they steal everything when tax rate = 1 (i.e. 100%), we will also experience negative growth. Rolle's theorem tells us that if f(a)=f(b), then there exists some c within a,b such that f'(c)=0. i.e. if a function takes on the same negative growth rate because of 100% tax and 0% tax, it takes on some maximum growth rate with some intermediary tax. (ok sorry for the rolle's theorem bit, but i mean that is fairly intuitive right?)

The second model allows us to deal with the welfare state. We will assume that the government is not at all productive. 0% productive. All it does is redistribute from the rich to the poor. We will assume that inequalities decline as there is more distribution, and since distribution means taxes, inequalities decline as taxes rise. We will also assume ( rather fairly, I think) that too much inequality leads to instability. I mean, at the extreme, there will be revolution - we see this intuitively. So as taxes rise, instability goes down. Finally, we look at firms and direct impact to growth rates. There is a probability that a firm retains its own product. As we get more unstable, the firm is more likely to have people loot it and steal it. So basically, this probability is higher when there are really high inequalities, and lowere when there are low inequalities. The end result of this model will be, we will see, the same thing as above. That if taxes are too low or two high we end up with negative growth. So at some point in between, at some optimal tax rate, there will be an optimal welfare state contributing to growth and the government expenditure is effectively productive, though - by assumption - it wasn't!

Thus we can conclude that welfare structures are essential to strong economic growth under these assumptions. Notice I never assumed that the welfare was being used for anything other than appeasing the disgruntled masses. I could have leaned on things like externality benefits of education - I didn't.

[Feel free to ignore this part - I justify my growth eqn (Math)]
Assume: 1. infinite horizon of love. Basically parents care about their kids, and they about their kids, etc. So they take this into consideration - but they prefer themselves. 2. Also, say they prefer to smooth consumption over time.

To make it straightforward to write down, let's deal with it in discrete time. We will end up with Growth=1/J(r-p) where J is the curvature parameter on how they want to smooth consumption, r = rate or return on saving, and p = the preference of themselves.

Now say I assume a neo-classical production function (constant returns to scale, diminishing returns to capital, and these things called Inada conditions that we don't really need to go into ...). The basic deal there is ... if I double my inputs I will double my outputs. But if I only buy machines, and hold workers constant, then hell - I can't make a whole lot more Tickle-Me-Elmo dolls because it is hard for the same number of workers to operate more machines.

What we get is, r = f'(k)-d where f'(k) is marginal product of capital and d = depreciation rate of our machines. So we end up with Growth=1/J(MPK-p-d)

[The First Model: Governments 100% Productive (Some Math)]
A firm's output is given by y=f(A,k,g) where A = state of tech, k = capital, g = govt spending. Now let us assume that a government finances g with a tax at rate t. Assume it is flat for now. The govt can borrow and lend too, but in the long run, they cancel out (Ricardian Equivalence Hypothesis) so we just look at G = tY is the Govt tax revenue. So in per capita terms, g = ty. If we substitute this into a neoclassical production function, we end up with Growth=1/J((MPK of y-ty) - p - d) since at the end of the day, f'(k) for a firm now is f'(k)-taxed amount.

So we have Growth=1/J((1-t)MPK-p-d). Now remember that MPK is y'=f'(A,k,g) here. But A = state of technology is exogenous, so we can make y'=Af'(k,g). But recall that g=ty. Then MPK = Af'(k,ty))=Af'(k,t*f(k,ty)).

Point being that we end up with: Growth = 1/J((1-t)Af'(k,ty))-p-d)
Notice that, taxation rate has 2 effects:
1) in the (1-t) term, it slows down growth. This is the "distortion effect" of taxes.
2) in the f'(f,ty) term, it increases growth. This is tax revenue given to firms by government (in forms of roads, etc).

Also notice:
1. if t=0 then f'(k,ty) becomes 0 so we grow negatively at 1/J(-p-d)
2. if t=1 then (1-t) becomes 0 so we grow negatively at 1/J(-p-d)

Then, apply Rolle's Theorem to see that there is a maximum in between. Hell, we can solve for this maximum quite easily with basic calculus. Now it really depends on the type of production function, so say we go with our neo-classical production function, and we find that the optimal taxation rate is the government share of contribution to the firm's output. i.e. if the government contributes 0.3 out of 1 to producing 1 good, they should tax at 30%.

In Growth-Tax space, our curve is basically parabolic in form (more or less) taking a maximum at 0<1.

[The Second Model: Government is 0% Productive (Some Math)]
So here, y=A*p*f(k). g=ty is purely redistributive. In(t) = Inequality as a function of tax is a decreasing function. As t increases, inequalities fall. p(In) = probability of business keeping their product as inequality changes is a decreasing function. As inequality rises, probability drops. But then, p(In(t))=is probability depending on taxes. Realize that the probability of keeping product increases as t increases (since inequalities are falling).

So our MPK of (y-ty) is (1-t)*A*p(In(t))*y.
Thus we have:
Growth=1/J((1-t)*A*p(In(t))*y-p-d)

Notice that t again axts in 2 places.
1. if t=0 then p(In(t)) becomes 0 - i.e. 100% inequality leads to revolt so firms get screwed and have a 0% chance of holding on to their goods so growth is negative at 1/J(-p-d).
2. if t=1 then (1-t) becomes 0 so we grow negatively at 1/J(-p-d).

These results are identical to the taxation scheme we produced above, meaning that, by applying Rolle's theorem we see an maximum growth level exists at some t in between 0 and 1. Thus, the welfare state should exist to maximize economic growth. It also shows that welfare spending can be productive even if it is assumed not to be productive - since the A*p(Int(t)) term acts in the same manner as government spending financed by t acted when g was productive!

Thus, in Growth-Tax space we basically have the same curve.

[Tax and Welfare Policies (no math)]
Prof. Aaron Director at the University of Chicago discovered that, generally speaking, rich countries tended to tax beyond the optimal and poor countries would tax under the optimal (for whatever reasons). Thus, most econometricians, who collect data in OECD (rich) countries and plot taxation vs. growth rate see a declining relationship - that as these countries have more taxes = are more welfare oriented = have less inequality, they grow slower. This leads people at the WB, IMF, and conservative ideologues to argue that we should encourage everyone (even developing countries) to cut taxes and welfare to grow. I.e., they should privatize everything to grow. But what this neglects is that, poor countries usually don't have good data, since well - they are poor. So there is a bias. We are only looking at the part of the parabola that slopes downards - the part beyond the optimal taxation level (at which there is max growth). Since this is where rich countries reside, the conclusion is obvious.

But poor countries, they reside in the realm of under taxation. It is hard for them to collect taxes, for one thing. And there are a host of other reasons. But, our growth equation says that they will grow more if they indeed provide more welfare programs and tax more. Government spending would be good for growth. However, conservative ideologues (and WB and IMF) seem to blanketly apply the rich-country lesson that they should tax less and remove welfare structures to grow. That they fail to understand that the same model that accounts for the fact that rich countries probably have too much welfare also accounts for the fact that poor countries do not have enough social services. So over-privitization and encouraging minimal states in developing nations is idiocy.

Development aside, we also see that arguments for "minimal states" in any state is crazy - at least on economic grounds (with a conservative production function!). Unless, of course, by minimal state we mean optimal level of taxation. But I, for one, would call that cheating. Of course, our model didn't even take into account things like external benefits to education or welfare policy or health policy etc. All we did was considered completley unproductive government welfare-spending and we found that, by and large, there is definitely a productive element to this notion of "useless welfare" alone. Then take a minute and consider what it means for "useful welfare". Yah, that's what I thought. So people who think economic arguments blanketly reject welfare are sorely mistaken. In fact, we just demonstrated, using a "conservative" economic framework, whatever conservative means, that completely useless welfare is useful.

So let's not forget that a lot of time, a smarter economic policy might not be the thing that your conservative ideologue might be supporting!

**Disclaimer** Now this welfare justification on sheer basis of political volatility has no relation to social security. It's not as if old people are going to revolt any time soon. And social security is a huge expenditure. So that is for a different day. I am just making the case that, welfare states to whatever degree need not be only justified by political philosophy or Keynesian economics. There are definite structures in New Classical economics that support welfare states.

Author of Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card on Serenity

2005-10-10T19:02:00.000-07:00

For those of you who know who Orson Scott Card is, just skip ahead. For the others: he is the author of a little book called Ender's Game, and a subsequent series in the Ender-verse. Ender's Game by and large is regarded by most as one of the best works of sci-fi ever written. It is damn interesting, has a lot of depth (seriously I am talking Huxley-ian, if not Orwellian levels), and is really well written. Add to the mix the fact that characters are crafted masterfully, and you've got a piece that by and large everyone from "literature people" to "epics people" to "philosophy people" love. And love it they do.

So it seemed interesting as to what Mr. Card had to say about the sci-fi film Serenity. Take a look:

"I walked into this movie reasonably aware of the advance word-of-mouth (though not obsessively so) and only as the film actually began this afternoon, the day of its premier, did it occur to me that I had not heard a whisper of a breath of the actual plot of the movie. All I heard was, "It's great, you'll love it."

Well, guess what.

It's great.

I'm not going to say it's the best science fiction movie, ever.

Oh, wait. Yes I am.

Let me put this another way. Those of you who know my work at all know about Ender's Game. I jealously protected the movie rights to Ender's Game so that it would not be filmed until it could be done right. I knew what kind of movie it had to be, and I tried to keep it away from directors, writers, and studios who would try to turn it into the kind of movie they think of as "sci-fi."

...For me, a great film -- sci-fi or otherwise -- comes down to relationships and moral decisions. How people are with each other, how they build communities, what they sacrifice for the sake of others, what they mean when they think of a decision as right vs. wrong.

Yeah, even comedies. Even romantic comedies -- it's those moral decisions.

Wow, that sounds so heavy. But great film is heavy -- out of sight, underneath everything, where you don't have to be slapped in the face by it. On the surface, it can be exciting, funny, cool, scary, horrifying -- all those things that mean "entertainment" to us.

Underneath it all, though, it has to mean something. And the meaning that matters is invariably about moral decisions people make. Motives. Relationships. Community. If those don't work, then you can gloss up the surface all you want, we'll know we've just been fed smoke. Might smell great but we're still hungry.

So here's what I have to say about Serenity:

This is the kind of movie that I have always intended Ender's Game to be (though the plots are not at all similar).

And this is as good a movie as I always hoped Ender's Game would be.

And I'll tell you this right now: If Ender's Game can't be this kind of movie, and this good a movie, then I want it never to be made.

I'd rather just watch Serenity again.

...On that ship we had an interlocking community with a history, rather like what has been a-building with Lost and what was developed over the years with Friends (but what never existed in Seinfeld because the main writer, Larry David, doesn't seem to believe in anything, and you can't build a powerful community on a sneer).

The key to this kind of movie is that you create a community that the audience wishes they belonged to, with a leader that even audience members who don't follow anybody would willingly follow. That will be the key to Ender's Game if the movie is ever successfully made; and it is the key to Serenity.

It won't be obvious in a literary-novel kind of way, where the writer is sure to point out his trivial little "central metaphor" and all his "deep" characters who are for some reason still mad at the writer's Mommy and Daddy.

It will feel like adventure, like a bunch of macho strutting, like a lot of whizbang and dead bodies and violence and vaguely weird language until all of a sudden you realize: I care about these people. I like these people. Even the unlikeable ones, I care about. Even the villain really is somebody.

Think about this: Hamlet has a lot of violence and death, intrigue and betrayal; it's downright gothic. In fact, if you hadn't already been told it was a "great work" and somebody told you the plot, you'd think, what a bunch of junk.

Only it isn't, is it? And why? Because, of course, it's very well written -- but more than that, it's about something. Relationships and moral dilemmas and -- oh, wait, I've already given you that list.

Lots of sense-of-wonder (oooooh, a ghost!) and sudden shocks (don't kill the man behind the curtain!) and grim deaths (Ophelia did what?) and the gratuitously macabre (oh, look, let's play with a dead friend's skull) -- but it holds together because it's about something.

Well, not only is Serenity about something, it's also extremely well written. Joss Whedon has invented a kind of weird future slang that is still perfectly intelligible but is different, with snatches of foreign languages and obsolete English words that make it clear that it's not ordinary English they're speaking.

The effect of this -- at least in Whedon's deft hands -- is to allow himself something of the kind of heroic language that was possible for Shakespeare -- and for Tolkien. It allows him to be eloquent.

And then he turns around and deliberately clanks with some humorously abrupt language that makes us laugh for the sheer startlement of it. Just as Shakespeare did, when he'd drop from blank verse to the funny coarseness of comic prose.

Will everyone like it? Not a chance. It really is too strong for some people -- there are indeed dead bodies and cruelty and unspeakable violence, and you don't want to deal with the nightmares that young children will have. Plus the storyline is smart enough and mature enough that some people simply won't get it. Can't be helped -- it's all there on the screen, though.

Charlie Kaufman's movies have been great science fiction, but without being completely open and accessible to the mainstream audience.

Joss Whedon is not as artistically edgy, but is every bit as inventive, and he has the common touch. Like Shakespeare, he doesn't have to show off to prove himself an artist, he only has to tell the story his way, and the art takes care of itself."
-Orson Scott Card, Review of Serenity.

The Ridiculousness that is Serenity

2005-10-09T16:06:00.000-07:00

"Joss Whedon's unassuming science-fiction adventure is superior in almost every respect to George Lucas's aggresively more ambitious screen entertainments." - The New York Times

Serenity has received some (not?)surprisingly strong reviews (depending on what you expected from a Whedon-big screen production). It really depends as to what you expected of the creator of Angel, Buffy, Firefly, as well as co-writer (with Joel Cohen) of Toy Story, and co-writer of X-Men (the movie) as well as several X-Men comics.

THE STAR WARS COMPARISONS

"I can't believe I am saying this, but I think Serenity could be the new Star Wars. It's hard for me to avoid the comparison because Serenity reminds me, in a good way, of the first Star Wars movie back in 1977 (now called Star Wars IV: A New Hope). It's a movie that makes sense and entertains the hard core fans as well as newbies who have never heard of Firefly, while taking a deeper step into the future with the storyline and characters, who could be Whedon's biggest assets...In short, Serenity is amazing, even if you don't like Sci Fi movies. It's a fantastic film with a great story, great action and classic characters." - Wafflemovies.com

"Whedon has a distinct gift for writing witty dialogue and creating intricate mythologies that inspire legions of devoted fans (such as myself). His talents are on full display in “Serenity,” a film filled with thrilling action sequences, some well thought-out social commentary, intriguing characters and plenty of funny dialogue. This is the film that the last three “Star Wars” sequels should have been." - Sean McBride

"George Lucas could learn a thing or two from Whedon. "Serenity" flies with sass and spirit, qualities that have been in palpably short supply in that "Star Wars" series since, well, "Star Wars." - Newsday

" For a number of reasons I've discussed many times, I kinda liked the most recent trilogy of "Star Wars" movies... I'm here to tell you that if you think the "Star Wars" prequels are a disease, then "Serenity" is the cure." - The Oregonian

"In its own unassuming, self-effacing way, Serenity is the epic sci-fi adventure that the latter years of Star Wars could only dream of being. The problem, of course, is how to sell Serenity, which boasts nary a star, to the many people who have no idea who nerd-genius Whedon is. (He's the guy behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, which is unlikely to pique the interest of anyone who hasn't watched either show.) Happily, this is the rare occasion when movie critics serve some actual purpose." - Phoebe Flowers, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

GENERAL REVIEWS FROM GENERAL REVIEWERS

"There are two sorts of people in the world: those who believe Joss Whedon is a genius and those who are wrong. And even if Whedon's first feature film Serenity doesn't quite match the dark, witty brilliance of his TV creations Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, it's still a lot more sweaty fun than the last three overhyped, sterile, for-dorks-only Star Wars cartoons. George Lucas' menacing bad guys were a bunch of cheeseball robots and an effete Englishman with an acne problem; Whedon offers space cannibals who could take on the Empire and still lay a whipping on the zombies from 28 Days Later." - The Miami Herald

"Serenity shows what might have happened if Han Solo had been the focus of the original Star Wars instead of whiny Jedi wannabe Luke Skywalker. Captain Mal Reynolds (Nathan Fillion) leads his grubby band of intergalactic robbers under the radar of an oppressive government that wants to wipe out sin while avoiding the voracious Reavers, who enjoy killing, raping and eating their victims, not necessarily in that order." - The Miami Herald

"Serenity is precisely the sort of movie that people always "discover" five years after it hits theaters and then feel bad for not checking it out sooner -- like Dark City or The Iron Giant. This flick is not only a wondrous piece of science-fiction adventure; it's an absolute homage to science-fiction itself. Don't just turn your nose up because it's an odd concept starring no-name actors. You'd still feel pretty silly, to this day, if you were the guy who once yelled "Jawas? Tractor beams? Mark Hamill? Nah, I'll just stay home and watch Welcome Back Kotter.... Yes, I just compared "Serenity" to the original "Star Wars." Now you're REALLY curious, aren't you?" - eFilmCritic

"“Serenity” is a fun flick that has just enough going for it in terms of design (the Asian-influenced imagery, iconography, and even philosophy is interesting), character, and action (the solid CGI and outer space handheld camera effects are nifty) to distinguish itself from its born-on-TV trappings. The acting is uniformly solid (Fillion does most of the heavy lifting, and does it well) and the hand-to-hand combat scenes are great – oddly, it’s a reminder that the stunt work on “Buffy” was better than most CGI-laden features." - Brian Juergens, Freeze-Dried Movies

“Serenity” does have riveting battle sequences, compelling characters, and just enough humor to balance the underlying social commentary in the film, but it’s a weird mix of genres." - About

THE BIG GUNS

"The film, right down to the tagline ("You can't stop the signal"), is one big middle finger to Fox TV executives." - The Village Voice

""Serenity" does for serious Lucas fans what Lucas hasn't done for them lately. It evokes the wild-and-woolly zing of the first three "Star Wars" pictures, when the series's myth-minded self-seriousness was the stuff of subtext and its dumb jokes could bring down the house. If "Serenity" takes off and spawns sequels (as it seems destined to), it's crucial that Whedon take a lesson from Lucas's greatest flaw and never stop laughing with us." - The Boston Globe

"They're a futuristic King Arthur's round table, or Dirty Dozen, or Robin Hood and his Merry Men; heck, they're even "Seinfeld." And no matter what's coming their way, post-apocalyptic doom or gloom, this James Gang of the galaxy is just plain fun to watch." - The Washington Post

""Serenity" is made of dubious but energetic special effects, breathless velocity, much imagination, some sly verbal wit and a little political satire. Like Brave New World and 1984, the movie plays like a critique of contemporary society. There are also scenes of real impact, including a planet where -- but see for yourself." - Roger Ebert

"Joss Whedon's unassuming science-fiction adventure is superior in almost every respect to George Lucas's aggresively more ambitious screen entertainments." - The New York Times

"The characters and their relationships are more credible than in most serious dramas, while Whedon's unique dialogue - a self-aware jumble of teen-speak, technobabble, literary swagger and merciless Cantonese swearing - serves up some dazzling one-liners. .. The eye-candy doesn't stop at the cast either - the special effects will make you goggle, and there's a space battle that blows Revenge Of The Sith's out of the sky... Once you are invested in the characters, the emotional stakes just rise." - BBC

"The writing is as good as in the best "Star Trek" episodes, while offering a thoughtfully bleak vision of the future that brings to mind "Blade Runner." After his decade of solid work as a television and movie writer specializing in sci-fi and fantasy, this could be the accomplishment that puts Whedon's face alongside those of James Cameron, Ridley Scott and Sam Raimi on the geek Mount Rushmore." - San Francisco Chronicle

And then from the review that I tend to hold with the highest regard:
"Joss Whedon's feature-film debut, the science-fiction western "Serenity," is beautifully made, written with more wit and intelligence than we get from most contemporary movies of any genre, and features an ensemble of actors whose rhythms are almost supernaturally in tune..."Serenity," like "Firefly" (and like "Buffy" and "Angel" before it), is an exploration of the meaning of community, maybe even the meaning of democracy....And there are spiritual quests in "Serenity" that go much deeper, and are far more unsettling, than the mere question of whether or not God exists. There are moments in which good men do unspeakable things, and malevolent men do noble things... "Serenity" is a trim little picture of epic proportions...as a piece of filmmaking, I'm hard-pressed to find much fault with it" - Salon.com

I thought the film was damn good. After an amusing opening sequence, the first shot in the spaceship Serenity borrows from Woody Allen or Paul Thomas Anderson - or hell, even The West Wing. It is a continuous shot that lasts nearly 4 minutes in which we are introduced, one by one, to the entire crew as Captain Mal Reynolds makes a round through his ship. No Michael Bay (or even Star Wars) 15 second cut scenes here. The attention to detail is especially satisfying - ranging from things like turbulence not making "air wooshing" sounds when they leave atmosphere - because in outerspace there is no air, duh - to the way canisters and barrels lying around the ship are labeled. The storyline is Whedonesque in that it takes a fairly standard storyline of a genre and weaves into it far more important philosophical questions - no it is no Angel and you won't find reference to Foucault in this Space-Western, but it certainly has depth. For me, especially because I was very skeptical of a TV series becoming successfully translated to the big screen, Serenity was a pleasant surprise. It was the same effect that watching Pirates of the Caribbean had on me - a sort of - what the hell, why is this that good?! Of course, I am a fantasy fan (somewhat less of a "sci fi fan"), so I do like my epics.

I would recommend, if at all possible, watch some Firefly if you have the chance, before watching this film. (I have access to all the episodes.) I found that it made a lot more sense to me that way. But I have heard great things about it from most people - and as we all know - most people have no idea as to what Firefly actually was. Anyway, I say go watch it - you shouldn't be disappointed.

Political Tests and the Like

2005-10-08T04:11:00.000-07:00

So I thought it might be interesting to take a few random surveys to see where I come out on various political compasses. Especially to see whether I have moved a whole lot after being at Columbia for 2+ years. Plus it seemed interesting to see if the tests were reasonably consistent.

The first one was a reasonably short politics test from OK Cupid.

You are a
Social Liberal
(78% permissive)

and an...
Economic Conservative
(60% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Democrat

Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

The second one was a very very short (read: horribly inaccurate?) 10 question test, but the break down does indeed seem reasonable.

Your Political Profile

Overall: 40% Conservative, 60% Liberal

Social Issues: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 25% Conservative, 75% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

How Liberal / Conservative Are You?

The next one was the most comprehensive test. Political compass is probably the best known of the three.

There I get the following results:
Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.00

Lastly, at the distributive justice site I got:
Social creation game: Welfare state > Meritocracy > Minimal State = Strict Egalitarianism > Communism
Distributive Justice Theory Game: Pluralist

I don't know if there is really a cohesive result to any of this, but you get the general idea.

Shawn Marion, NBA Elite?

2005-10-02T17:30:00.000-07:00

"Marion."

That's all you hear on an ESPN highlights reel as you see him nail another dagger from downtown to add to the Suns' lead. And that about sums up the general consensus on this player's talent - "Well, it's Marion ... he brings a 20/10/2/2/2 a night. That's what he does. That's what he do." The Matrix might as well be re-nicknamed as The Taken-for-Granted. That's what we do.

Marion is among the most underrated players in the NBA. Yes, yes, the 2-time All-Star is now on a 7-year, $79 million dollar contract. Still underrated. Only an All-Star twice?! And the max contract is pretty meaningless in an era where Joe Johnson and Michael Redd pick up max contracts.

I think Marion seems to even fall through the cracks of many models for the same reasons Rasheed Wallace and Kirilenko do. Players who do a bit of everything, but don't do everything of everything (i.e. Bird, MJ, Magic, Pip), have trouble being statistically analyzed in the usual sense such as through "similarity scores". We generally get huge errors in trying to gauge similarities between these players and others. This is very clear when you look at who these guys match up to best - their best scores are in the 800s (out of a perfect match of 1000), meaning they didnt match up with anyone in the 900s - whereas for most any player you always have people matched up in the 900s.

These guys are so rare and so unique that they are really hard to understand. For my part, I think a cohesive understanding of their skill comes from looking at the big picture instead of just relying on a Rtg or PER or similarity score model. We should take a look at their per-40 min productions, their Offensive Rating, Defensive Rating, Net Rating, PER, points per shot attempt, rebound rating, effective FG%, TrueShooting%, and Win% (where win% refers to how many wins v. losses they are responsible for). Why? Because they do so damn well in every category, it is worth noticing that they work it with the best of them in nearly any category.

Legitimizing Marion as an All-Star
Marion is pretty stunning for a number of reasons:
On a 40-minute basis, he is 20/10/2/2/1.5 hitting around 46%. More impressively, around a fourth of his shots attempted are 3's and he hits them at 35%. And in previous years has hit at over 39%.

This all seems nice, but I'm sure that the intuitive response is - so what? While these resemble Duncan-esque numbers (with a few less blocks but a better 3-pt shot) it is nothing to cheer over - Antoine Walker also puts these up, if not better. Take a look at Walker: 20.5/9/4.3/1.4/0.6 with 42%, 32% from downtown. And his own best has been 36%.

The point is, these "stunning numbers" are great only to the degree that you can differentiate Antoine Walker from Gordon Giricek. But it's difficult to distinguish between Duncan and Walker. Or Marion and Walker for that matter.

Why Marion (2-time All-Star) is no Walker (3-time All-Star)
I am sorry to knock Walker like this. Wait, no ... I am not. But here it goes. Let's start with Hollinger's PER. By this index Marion recieves a 20.5 (with 15 being league average). This puts him on par with Allen Iverson, but under Dwyane Wade or LeBron James, and well under league leaders KG and Duncan (around 28). Walker is a mere 16.7. Since this is approximately a normal distribution, the number of people with a 16.7 far exceeds the number of people with a 21. So, in a nutshell, Marion >> Walker.

More specifically, however, let us look at what Marion does better. There is a rating called RbR (rebound rate) which is an index of rebounding efficiency. The much larger Walker posts a 12.8 while Marion posts a 14.5. Thus, Marion not only gets more loose balls per 40 minutes, but he also gets them more efficiently - meaning that those he doesn't go for are either ones he can't or ones he opts not to so that a teammate can grab it.

Next, if we take a look at the Net Rtg (Offensive Rtg - Defensive Rtg), i.e. how well they man the offense v. how inefficient they make the defense, we see that Walker posts a -6 (yes, that is negative 6). Marion? He posts a happy +11 over his career. His lowest ever has been a +5, and his highest wasn't even with Nash! It was his sophomore year with a +15 (he also had this with Nash). It must be noted even more that this discrepancy happens because of two reasons: First, Marion is very efficient offensively (even more than Duncan at times). Second, he is very strong defensively (despite the Suns' woes, he actually plays very very legitimate defense). Meanwhile, Walker is very inefficient offensively and just an average defender. So you see how this goes. Why does efficiency in NetRtg matter? For one thing, this means that you score when you have to, and make the offense more well oiled meaning that it tends to score more with your presence (as opposed to less). Moreover, if your offense is scoring at a faster rate than your opponents, i.e. if ORtg > DRtg, then you win the game by definition. Thus, Walker tends to be instrumental in the losing tendencies of his team, while Marion is essential to the wins of his own team.

Which brings me to ... win%. I will be brief since I laboured over NetRtg and because this is an annoying index to explain. But the short of it is that Marion's win% is around 80% (before you applaud, understand that true greats such as Duncan post at 90%). But here is where you can cringe. Walker's win% is (no joke) 29% - and he has actually posted in the teens 3 times! In fact his max was a 46% win%. Contrast that to Marion's highest of 88%.

I could also complain about how Walker has a very low PSA while Marion's is rather high (psa = points per shot attempt), but I won't do that. I just want to put the nail in the coffin by looking at 3-pters. Since, of course, Walker is very well known as a 3-baller. Let's take a look at last year when they each made 1.5 3's per 40-min. Walker, of course, was launching up way more 3s than Marion. In fact, since the Suns began using Marion as a 3-pt threat (2002), over the last 4 years Walker has never shot better from downtown than Marion. Yep.

So that is why the 2-time All-Star far exceeds the 3-timer in player quality.

Why Marion deserves a place among the elites
Let me make a list of the consensus elites:
Duncan, Shaq, Dirk, LeBron, Wade, KG, Amare, AI, T-Mac, Kobe, Big Ben, JKidd (well for old time's sake)

People who are considered elite who are not in my book:
Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Jermaine O'Neal, Gilbert Arenas, Carmelo, Vince Carter (let's wait and see for another year), Richard Jefferson, Antawn Jamison, Larry Hughes, Rashard Lewis (I like the kid, but let's not kid ourselves - he is no elite)

People who are not considered elite who are in my book:
Rasheed Wallace, Manu, Yao, Kirilenko, Chauncey, Marion

I am sure I missed people. But anyway here is the point. Marion belongs in that first group. Why? For one thing, his PER is more in sync with and rivals group I. That said, he definitely is a straggler there. He probably comes in dead last or near dead last in that group. But again, I don't like ratings for their own sake - models are metaphors. So what do I actually mean? Well generally speaking, elite players usually tend to do most of these: play really solid defense, are very efficient scorers, break down offenses, do a number of things including boarding, passing, screening, all while preventing the opposing team from doing the same. And reasonable measures of these are eFG%, TS%, ORtg & DRtg (hence NetRtg), RbR, etc.

For example, Marion's NetRtg far exceeds either Kobe's or McGrady's despite similar physical build. While he doesn't score as often nor does he pass as much, he scores far more efficiently than either of the other two. Moreover, he runs (though he doesn't bring the ball up the court) the offense far more smoothly than they do and it is a more efficient machine. Moreover, he guns from downtown far better than either of these guys (with TMac > Kobe in this category). In addition, his rebound rate rivals a power forward's, despite his size. And, lastly, he is a far better defender than either Kobe or McGrady (despite some stupid hype of their being excellent defenders). Now add to this the fact that Marion is undersized a lot of times when he guards players and he still blocks more. His own contributions to wins also far exceeds both Kobe's and T-Mac's. All that said, he clearly isn't as good of a guard-forward crafted in the vein of MJ. He can't break down defenses like AI, Kobe, or McGrady. And may not be a franchise player in the sense that they might be. (Though I doubt either of them are either.)

I am not saying that Marion is a "better" player than Kobe or T-Mac, whatever "better" means. But here is my point: Marion should definitely, definitely be in the same conversation as other elites of the NBA today. In the long run? Sure, I doubt it. But then again I doubt that Kobe and T-Mac will even deserve to be in the long run discussion.

Dwyane Wade: Injury Prone?

2005-09-26T19:47:00.000-07:00

I thought that this article by Kevin Pelton was very interesting - especially considering that it is about one of my newest favorite players:

At heart, I am a pessimist. I know this when I watch Dwyane Wade play. When most people see the Miami Heat's dynamic young guard, an All-NBA Second Team pick in just his second season out of Marquette University, they see one of the league's most exciting players. I see Penny Hardaway and Grant Hill.

Like Wade, Hardaway and Hill were once the toast of the NBA as young players before injuries robbed them of their explosiveness. Hill remains one of the league's better players when his chronic ankle problems have subsided enough to allow him to play, but he is no longer a superstar. Hardaway's knees have reduced him to one of the league's most highly-paid reserves.

As NBA fans, we generally tend to assume that players will develop in a predictable fashion. But while, on the whole, players improve dramatically in their first couple of seasons, peak around age 27 and gradually level off before falling off a cliff in their mid to late 30s, individual players exhibit all sorts of unpredictable development patterns. Amongst others, Willie Anderson (best season came as a rookie), Bruce Bowen (not an NBA regular until age 26, but still as good as he ever has been at age 33 last season) and Karl Malone and John Stockton (productive into their 40s) can attest to this fact.

While many of these developments are random, there are predictable trends in addition to the obvious aging pattern. Players who are productive regulars at a young age are usually derailed only by injuries, while youngsters who commit a lot of turnovers in an effort to do good things usually end up developing better than their more conservative counterparts.

Injuries remain something of a mystery to NBA analysts; there is no equivalent of baseball "medhead" Will Carroll. If there were such a person, however, my cynical side wonders if he wouldn't worry about Wade. Not only did the Heat star miss 21 games due to injury as a rookie, few guards take more punishment. Thanks to his lightning quickness, Wade attempted 762 free throws last year, the fourth-highest total in the league. The Flash mostly managed to avoid harm until the Eastern Conference Finals, when a strained rib muscle sidelined him for Game 6 and hampered him in Game 7 as the Heat was eliminated by the Detroit Pistons a game short of the NBA Finals.

To try to establish whether Wade's style will have any impact on his chances of injury long term, I decided to first look for similar players by identifying the leaders in free-throws attempted per game in a season by players 6-4 and under (Wade is 6-4) and in their first three seasons. I subsequently limited the study to players since 1967-68, ostensibly because the game changed but in truth because having seasons less than 82 games was too cumbersome.

The leaderboard:

Player         FTA/G   Year
---------------------------
Nate Archibald  10.8  71-72
Allen Iverson    9.9  98-99
DWYANE WADE      9.9  04-05
David Thompson   8.4  77-78
Kevin Johnson    8.1  89-90
Stu Lantz        7.9  70-71
Earl Monroe      7.8  69-70
Steve Francis    7.4  01-02
World B. Free    7.4  77-78
Geoff Petrie     7.3  70-71
Sidney Moncrief  7.2  81-82

The list confirms that Wade is indeed special in his ability to get to the free-throw line (and in the amount of punishment he takes in the paint). So to what extent were these other players affected by injuries? To answer this question, I looked at their games played over their first 10 seasons in the NBA (1998-99 totals pro-rated to 82 games). Zero indicates that the player was unable to play due to injury, while a blank space means they'd left the league for other reasons (or, in the case of Iverson and Francis, have yet to reach 10 seasons); these seasons were not used in the computation of averages. For the latter group of players, their totals are pro-rated to 10 seasons. I also include the summary statistics "full seasons" (in which the player missed five games or fewer) and "injury-shortened seasons" (in which the player played 50 games or fewer):

Player          Y1  Y2  Y3  Y4  Y5  Y6  Y7  Y8  Y9 Y10  TOT FULL INJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Archibald  82  76  80  35  82  78  34  69  80  80  696   6   2
Allen Iverson   76  80  79  70  71  60  82  48  75      712   3   1
David Thompson  82  80  76  39  77  61  75  19   0   0  509   3   4
Kevin Johnson   80  81  74  77  78  49  67  47  56  70  679   4   2
Stu Lantz       73  82  82  81  51  50  75  53          684   3   0
Earl Monroe     82  80  82  81  63  75  41  78  76  77  735   6   1
Steve Francis   77  80  57  81  79  78                  753   5   0
World B. Free   71  78  76  78  68  65  78  73  75  71  733   3   0
Geoff Petrie    82  60  79  73  80  72   0   0   0   0  446   3   4
Sidney Moncrief 77  80  80  76  79  73  73  39  56  62  695   4   1
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Averages/Totals 78  78  77  69  73  66  58  47  52  51  664  40  15

Those are some interesting results. On their own however, they don't really tell us much. We have to have some comparison data. To produce that, I decided to create a control group. In the same season, I looked for players 6-4 and under who played similar minutes totals (to control for ability) and had lower free throw per game averages.

 Player         FTA/G   Year
---------------------------
JoJo White       4.3  71-72
Stephon Marbury  5.7  98-99
Ricky Sobers     5.1  77-78
Mitch Richmond   6.0  89-90
Norm Van Lier    5.4  70-71
Clem Haskins     5.2  69-70
Baron Davis      4.1  01-02
Quinn Buckner    2.5  77-78
Ron Williams     4.8  70-71
Kyle Macy        2.1  81-82

I should stop to point out a couple of problems here. The first is that, while I attempted to match quality as closely as possible, the players on the second list are likely worse than the players on the first list on average. In general, players who get to the free-throw line more often are likely to be better. The other is that the differences in getting to the line aren't always huge; Mitch Richmond, for one, wasn't far from the previous top ten list. (Richmond is also listed at 6-5 by most sources, but I have in my database at 6-4.) Still, here are the summary statistics for the control group:

Player          Y1  Y2  Y3  Y4  Y5  Y6  Y7  Y8  Y9 Y10  TOT FULL INJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
JoJo White      60  75  79  82  82  82  82  82  46  76  746   6   1
Stephon Marbury 67  82  81  74  67  82  81  81  82      775   6   0
Ricky Sobers    78  79  79  81  82  71  80  41  81  71  743   7   1
Mitch Richmond  79  78  77  80  45  78  82  81  81  70  751   8   1
Norm Van Lier   81  82  79  80  80  70  76  82  78  38  746   7   1
Clem Haskins    76  79  82  82  79  77  81  70  55   0  681   6   1
Baron Davis     82  82  82  50  67  46                  682   3   1
Quinn Buckner   79  82  81  67  82  70  72  79  75  32  719   5   1
Ron Williams    75  80  82  80  73  71  46   9          645   3   2
Kyle Macy       82  82  82  82  65  82  76              787   5   0
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Averages/Totals 76  80  80  76  72  73  75  66  71  48  728  56   9

On average, the low free throw group played 63 more games than the high free throw group over their first 10 NBA seasons. They were more durable, with 56 "full" seasons to 40 for the high free throw group and only nine seasons lost to injury as compared to 15. Many of the perimeter players were extremely durable; Richmond only had two seasons where he failed to play in at least 77 games, while Kyle Macy was an iron man (playing all 82 games) five times in his seven NBA seasons, while JoJo White did five straight seasons.

What I find particularly interesting is a season-by-season comparison of the two groups:

Group    Y1  Y2  Y3  Y4  Y5  Y6  Y7  Y8  Y9 Y10
-----------------------------------------------
High FT  78  78  77  69  73  66  58  47  52  51
Low FT   76  80  80  76  72  73  75  66  71  48
-----------------------------------------------
Diff     +2  -2  -3  -7  +1  -7 -17 -19 -19  +3

Naturally, as players age, they miss more games because of injuries. While this progression was rather gradual for the low free throw group, however, it was rather rapid for the high free throw group. As young players, they played similar numbers of games before the low free throw players became increasingly more durable (before dropping off in Year 10, presumably a fluke but still perhaps an ominous sign for Stephon Marbury, who is entering his 10th season).

So what does this all mean for Wade? With such a small sample, it's not fair to draw powerful conclusions, but it does appear that his constant penetration puts him at increased injury risk going forward. I don't know that I would say it changes his chances of a major, Hardaway- or Hill-style injury; I suspect those are fairly random. An Allen Iverson or a Kevin Johnson might be a better guide. While Iverson has only missed a great deal of time once in his career, he's regularly bothered by nagging injuries and has only played more than 75 games once in the last six years. Johnson never played more than 80 games after his first two seasons.

There's no need to be a pessimist like me and see injured man walking. At the same time, it's worth remembering that while Wade is in his healthy prime, we should enjoy this opportunity to watch him play without taking him for granted.

Anyway, I didn't have much time to do a whole lot on my own on this topic. I don't completely agree with the analysis for a variety of reasons, but I thought that it was definitely an interesting perspective.

Sustainable Development

2005-09-21T13:33:00.000-07:00

I would like to begin with a quote from Judge Richard Posner:
More important, if there is a fixed percentage of geniuses, there may also be a fixed percentage of evil geniuses, including potential terrorists.

I really find it funy when such a renowned mind seriously talks about a fixed percentage of evil geniuses.

On to the main course now. Since I work for the Earth Institute under Jeff Sachs, a huge proponent of "sustainable development", and since I also work for two other professors who largely ignore this notion (Miguel and Linden), and since my most influential professor (Xavier Sala-i-Martin) is very dismissive of Sachs' view regarding this issue, I thought it might be a worthwhile point of discussion.

From the Becker-Posner Blog we have an excerpt of Gary Becker's column on sustainable development, posted on September 18:

The very large increase in oil and natural gas prices in the past couple of years has led to renewed concern about whether world economic development is "sustainable". This term is typically not defined carefully, but sustainability requires that improvements in the living standards of the present generation should also be attainable by future generations. The concern is usually that because fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources are used to produce current economic development, future generations will have much greater difficulty in achieving equally high living standards. A related concern is that environmental damage due to global warming and other types of pollution will create major economic and some health problems for future generations.

In a simple arithmetical sense, the use of some non-renewable resources in current production clearly reduces the stock remaining for future generations. But the relevant concept for development purposes is not the physical supply of fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources, but the economic cost of gaining access to them. Over most of the past 100 years, fossil fuel prices relative to other prices declined rather than increased, even though significant amounts of these fuels were used to help develop many nations. The reason for the decline in relative prices is that new discoveries and better methods of getting at known sources of oil, gas, and coal led to growing rather than falling stocks of economically accessible reserves.

Exactly 140 years ago a great British economist, W. Stanley Jevons, argued (see The Coal Question, 1865) that the world was running out of coal, which he claimed in a few decades would make further economic progress impossible for England and other nations. The book is a high quality statistical study, but even Jevons failed to anticipate the use of oil, natural gas, and nuclear power, the discovery of additional sources of coal, and the extent of improvements in methods of extracting coal and other fuels from the ground.

Of course, what happened in the past is no certain guide to the future. But a 2005 study by Cambridge Economic Research Associates, a prestigious consulting company in the energy field, estimates that known reserves of liquid fuels (oil and gas) will continue to increase at least in the near term future, especially if the high prices of these fuels during the past year continue. Their report discusses the growing importance of drilling for oil in deep rather than shallow water, and other technological advances in extracting more cheaply the worldâ€™s stock of oil and natural gas both under land and under water.

Even if one discounts this and other studies, and believes that the relevant reserves of fossil fuels will decline in the future, the supply of energy sources would greatly increase if nuclear power were more extensively used. That power too is based on a limited resource, uranium, but the supply of uranium is vast relative to its use in generating nuclear power. Nuclear power cannot only generate electricity, but it can also be used instead of oil or gas to produce the hydrogen used in hydrogen fuel cells. Although it is too early to tell, hydrogen cells could replace the internal combustion engine in cars, trucks, and busses sometime in the next few decades. Nuclear power would also help reduce greenhouse gases, such as CO2, and other types of pollution since it is a "clean" fuel (see the May 2005 discussion of nuclear power in our blog).

However, I believe that the most serious deficiency in the usually discussions of "sustainability" is that it should refer to total wellbeing, not simply to what is measured by national income statistics. Even if fossil fuels become increasingly scarce and expensive, and even with further declines in the environment, improvements in health will continue to advance overall measures of wellbeing. Life expectancy has grown enormously during the past half century in virtually all countries, including the poorest ones. Indeed, the typical length of life has generally grown faster in poorer than richer countries as they benefited from medical and other advances in health knowledge produced by the rich nations. The Aids epidemic has set back several African nations, but the increase in life expectancy has been impressive even in most of Africa.

A recent study (see Becker, Philipson, and Soares, "The Quantity and Quality of Life and the Evolution of World Inequalityâ€" American Economic Review, March 2005) shows how to combine improvement in life expectancy with traditional measures of the growth in GDP to measure what we call the growth in "full" income. We demonstrate that the growth in full income since 1965 has been much faster than the growth in material income in essentially all countries, but especially in less developed nations. A better measure of full income that adjusts not only for the growth in life expectancy, but also for changes in the environment, and for the great advance in the mental and physical health of those living, especially of the elderly, almost surely grew at an even faster rate.

It is highly unlikely that the pace of medical progress will slow down in the coming decades. Indeed, I believe just the opposite is true, that medical progress is likely to accelerate. My belief is based on the magnificent advances in knowledge of the genetic structure of humans and other mammals, and the development of biomarkers, such as the PSA test for prostate cancer, and the blood test for BRAC 1 and BRAC2 gene mutations that greatly raise the risk of breast cancer. Experts on mortality are predicting huge increases during the next 50 years in the number of people who live beyond seventy, eighty, and even ninety in reasonably good health.

Slowing down and reversing global warming may require reductions in the world's use of fossil fuels, and economically relevant reserves of non-renewable resources could decline in the future rather than increase. These forces combined might lower GDP per capita in many countries-although I doubt it- but progress in medical knowledge will produce substantial advances in the world's full income. So just as the per capita wellbeing of present generations is much higher than that of our parents and grandparents, so the wellbeing of the generations of our children and grandchildren are very likely to be much higher than ours (setting aside the damage from possible highly destructive wars and terrorism).

This is why I believe that while the sustainable development literature asks important questions, the analysis has been inadequate and overly alarmist. Most of the discussion takes a mechanical view of changes in the stock of the stock of non-renewable resources, pays insufficient attention to technological advances in the economy, and gives much too little weight to the enormous advances in health that are highly likely to continue in the future, and possibly even accelerate.

Thoughts?

Bill Maher's Open Letter to G.W.

2005-09-17T23:20:00.000-07:00

Bill Maher, on his HBO show, had a pretty funny open letter to George Bush:
- Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no more money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people.

Listen to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's speaking to you. Mission accomplished. Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away.

Like you did with your military service and the oil company and the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or space man?

Now I know what you're saying: there's so many other things that you as President could involve yourself in. Please don't.

I know, I know. There's a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela. Eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote.

But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised that you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like a man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes.

On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky.

I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side. So, yes, God does speak to you.

What he is saying is: "Take a hint." -

Maher also had a pretty funny take on the Intelligent Design "debate":
- And finally New Rule: You don't have to teach both sides of a debate, if one side is a load of crap.

Now, President Bush recently suggested that public schools should teach intelligent design, alongside the theory of evolution. Because, after all, evolution is quote, "just a theory." Then the President renewed his vow to drive the terrorists straight over the edge of the earth.

Now, here is what I don't get. President Bush is a brilliant scientist. He's the man who proved you can mix two parts booze with one part cocaine, and still fly a jet fighter. And yet... yet he just can't seem to accept that we descended from apes.

It just seems pathetic to be so insecure about your biological superiority, to a group of feces-flinging, rouge-buttocked monkeys, that you have to make up fairy tales. Like we came from Adam and Eve, and then cover stories for Adam and Eve like, intelligent design. Yeah, leaving the Earth in the hands of two naked teenagers. That's a real intelligent design.

I'm sorry, folks, but it may very well may be that life is just a series of random events. And that there is no... master plan. But enough about Iraq. Let me instead restate my thesis. There aren't necessarily two sides to every issue. If there were, the Republicans would have an opposition party.

And an opposition party would point out that even though there's a debate, in schools, and government, about this, there is no debate among scientists. Evolution... is supported by the entire scientific community. Intelligent design is supported by guys online to see "The Dukes of Hazzard."

And the reason there is no real debate, is that intelligent design isn't real science. It's the equivalent of saying that the thermos keeps hot things hot and cold things cold, because it's a god. It's so willfully ignorant you might as well worship the U.S. Mail. It came again! Praise, Jesus!

No, stupidity isn't a form of knowing things. Thunder is high pressure air meeting low pressure air. It's not God bowling. Babies come from storks is not a competing school of thought... in medical school. We shouldn't teach both. The media shouldn't equate both. If Thomas Jefferson...

If Thomas Jefferson knew we were blurring the line this much between church and state, he would turn over in his slave. Now as for me, I believe in evolution and intelligent design. I think God designed us in his image, but I also think God is a monkey! God bless you and goodnight! -

A Quick Glance at Depth Charts

2005-09-15T07:01:00.000-07:00

San Antonio
PG1-T Parker
PG2-N Van Exel
PG3-B Udrih
PG4-M Wilks
SG1-M Ginobili
SG2-B Barry
SF1-B Bowen
SF2-M Finley
SF3-G Robinson
PF1-T Duncan
PF2-R Horry
PF3-S Marks
C1-N Mohammed
C2-R Nesterovic
C3-F Oberto
C4-T Massenburg

Wow is all I can say. Wow.

Golden State
PG1-B Davis
PG2-D Fisher
SG1-J Richardson
SG2-M Pietrus
SG3-M Ellis
SF1-M Dunleavy
SF2-C Cheaney
SF3-Z Cabarkapa
SF4-R White
PF1-T Murphy
PF2-I Diogu
PF3-C Taft
C1-A Foyle
C2-A Biedrins

I still think they should start Diogu with Foyle coming off the bench for Murphy eventually.

Sacramento
PG1-M Bibby
PG2-J Hart
PG3-R Price
PG4-E House
SG1-B Wells
SG2-K Martin
SG3-M Evans
SF1-P Stojakovic
SF2-C Williamson
SF3-F Garcia
PF1-S Abdur-Rahim
PF2-K Thomas
PF3-D Songaila
C1-B Miller
C2-B Skinner
C3-J Sampson

They don't really have a shooting guard, but everyone seems to be pretty able to stroke the J. Defensive strength isn't a whole lot better than it used to be, and their offense is definitely worse than the Kings of old. Still, I think the Kings are a legit contender for #2 this year if they gel.

So my question is, what do people think about Houston, Detroit, Cleaveland, and Indiana?
Houston
PG1-B Sura
PG2-M James
PG3-L Head
PG4-C Ward
PG5-M Norris
SG1-D Wesley
SG2-D Anderson
SG3-J Barry
SF1-T McGrady
SF2-R Bowen
PF1-S Swift
PF2-J Howard
PF3-V Baker
PF4-L Baxter
PF5-T Braggs
C1-Y Ming
C2-D Mutombo

Detroit
PG1-C Billups
PG2-C Arroyo
SG1-R Hamilton
SG2-L Hunter
SG3-C Delfino
SG4-A Acker
SF1-T Prince
SF2-M Evans
SF3-R Dupree
SF4-A Johnson
SF5-D Ham
PF1-R Wallace
PF2-A McDyess
PF3-J Maxiell
C1-B Wallace
C2-D Davis
C3-D Milicic
C4-E Campbell

Cleveland
PG1-D Jones
PG2-E Snow
SG1-L Hughes
SG2-I Newble
SG3-S Pavlovic
SF1-L James
SF2-L Jackson
PF1-D Gooden
PF2-D Marshall
PF3-A Varejao
PF4-M Andriuskevicius
C1-Z Ilgauskas

Indiana
PG1-J Tinsley
PG2-A Johnson
PG3-E Gill
SG1-S Jackson
SG2-S Jasikevicius
SG3-F Jones
SF1-R Artest
SF2-J Bender
SF3-D Granger
PF1-J O'Neal
PF2-A Croshere
C1-J Foster
C2-S Pollard
C3-D Harrison

Cheers.

The $/day Game

2005-09-12T02:22:00.000-07:00

Let's play a game. There is only one object of the game - to stay alive for a year.

A few ground rules. Pretend for a minute that you were taken back in time to 1996. Say you were given about $2 a day for an annual income of $700. You cannot make more money than that - meaning you cannot trade, buy stocks, etc. The total value of whatever it is that you choose to purchase cannot exceed $700. Say that you had to purchase everything you needed in life with just that money. Oh - and let's make it even tougher. You aren't just concerned with food and shelter. Water is no longer free. Now, how do you win? How do you live for a year?

This is a lot harder than it would seem. You can't just go buy the $1 hamburger at McDonald's on a daily basis. Otherwise you are left with about $350 to find housing and water for a year. Good luck with that. (Not to mention medical bills, etc.)

The thing is, this is precisely the problem faced by nearly 1,000,000,000 people around the world. In fact, hundreds of millions of people face even more dire conditions, with incomes of barely $1/day instead of the $2/day in our example.

Economists use special mathematical techniques to guage the standards of livings in different countries. They usually scale it to the equivalent of living in America in 1996, so that we can get a good comparative sense of what it would be like to live in that condition.

See, really poor people have trouble living from day to day. They aren't quite like the Berkeley bums that we are used to seeing. Most poor countries are in the tropics, where tropical diseases wreak havoc and land is very difficult to cultivate. So now add the fact that natural disasters are a frequent occurrence, and you are stuck with a group of people who can't grow food because of disasters and infertile soil, and can't harvest food because they are too sick and tired from being diseased. By the way, these malnutritioned and diseased guys have trouble going to school and get good jobs. Heck, teachers are malnutritioned and diseased as well, so they can't really teach well. Also, even if they were to carry their undernourished and sick bodies to school half the time the teachers don't show up, and even if they do, the starting salary after an education is only marginally higher than the salary before an education. So it would seem like a moo point - like a cow's opinion.

To all of this, add the fact that they collectively have water shortage problems, and we see that they are stuck being diseased, starving, really really thirsty, and meanwhile they are unable to get an education, can't find good jobs without the education they lack, couldn't find a job even with the education that they can't attain, and have a very difficult time growing food. Now that they are starving, thirsty, and uneducated, they are too tired to actually build themselves a thatched shelter - which, by the way, will likely be knocked over by the natural disasters aforementioned anyway.

Point being - poor people can't buy medicines, can't feed their children, can't get drinking water, can't get a decent education, don't have job opportunities, endure harsh weather, face horrible labour conditions, lack nutrition, endure starvation, frequently become diseased, and after suffering for several decades - poor people die much earlier than their richer counterparts.

This is where economic growth comes in. Economic growth isn't really important in terms of seeing what happens to a rich country's GDP. Economic growth means a larger pie for a poor country. Growth means more slices per person. More food. More medicine. Less hardships. Fed babies. More education. Longer lives. Growth is a means to combat all of the crap that insanely poor people endure. Growth means the capacity to move from merely living on a day-to-day basis to being able to have leisure time to enter in this discussion. Growth means their being able to embrace their humanity. Growth matters.

Affirmative Action

2005-09-07T21:00:00.000-07:00

A very strange thing happened at Columbia University during my freshman year. The College Republicans were out on College Walk for a bake sale. They had a fairly small booth and loads and loads of chocolate chip cookies. The interesting thing was the way in which they were selling these snacks. When a black student went up to the booth, they charged him $0.50 for a cookie. Then a white girl went to the booth and was promptly charged $1.00. Soon a commotion began, so I said to myself, "Self, what is all the ruccus?" Then my Jewish friend and I went over to purchase cookies and were charged $2.00 per cookie.

Anyway, turns out that this wasn't a demonstration in rapid inflation. It was a thinly veiled protest of affirmative action policies, with different rates for different races, based on "social performance" of the races.

Why Affirmative Action?
There are some fairly compelling arguments for affirmative action policies. First, there has been a documented history of discrimination against non-white groups such as blacks and latinos, and they have historically been portrayed as having inferior skill sets. So affirmative action would combat this disadvantage that certain groups face. Second, a low socio-economic setting is indeed a ball and chain on opportunity and mobility. Third, there is something to be said for the needs of diversity at places such as a university.

Why not Affirmative Action?
Before I start, I want to make it clear that prejudices that I/studies anticipate that people feel are not my own. I am not anti-black or anti-latino or pro-white or whatever. I do think, however, it provides a reasonably good snapshot of what reality affirmative action policies create.

First, I would argue "not affirmative action" because it does not really address the impoverished, destitute student that well. Studies explain that the real ball and chain is cast upon students in economic terms. That is, the force that drags them down the furthest is their own poverty and lack of access to strong educational opportunities. It so happens that a larger fraction of the black population than most other races are in these destitute conditions. Still, most studies point to the fact that of many of the students taken due to affirmative action do not necessarily come from impoverished backgrounds. Instead, a process called "cream skimming" occurs. Many of these African Americans, for example, come from upper-middle class students while other students (of any other race - white, asian, whatever) who are in a poverty trap are systematically disadvantaged in the process, even if they have exceptional academic ability. The fact that these students get +20 points on their application, simply because of their race, seems especially strange when understanding that the greater ball and chain (economic destitution) is not the harm being addressed.

Second, blacks do badly at every level. Statistically, the race with the lowest achievement at every level, from Harvard to community college, become African Americans (followed closely by latinos again). Of course, this should not be terribly surprising seeing how a +20 advantage is given simply because of skin color. This seems to indicate that the advantage does indeed bring in "underqualified" individuals into a slightly higher bracket. Note: the displacement of other racial candidates is not really my reason for objection - while many people feel that an affirmative action candidate got in and they didn't, they fail to realize that less than half a percent of people are actually displaced due to affirmative action, meaning it is more likely that they just weren't strong enough candidates. My objection, instead, comes from three points. First, a drag on the quality of the institution is inefficient. Second, it seems to be rather horrible to self-esteem when collectively one's race does extremely poorly at every level. Third, doing poorly across all leagues causes people to think that minorities are only there because they are black - or native american.

Third, while affirmative action policies have historically not worked too well for most groups (women being an exception - but the circumstances are quite different [ask me if you are interested]) many other groups have integrated fairly well. In fact, most studies argue that many groups who never benefited from aff-action policies integrated just fine (which isn't to say that aff-action is completely counterproductive always - it is just saying that it is not a necessary condition). But the situation gets more dicey when there is a large percent of the population who do not integrate, and then are isolated uniquely by a policy which not only creates a large stratification between black (low) and asian (high) testing ability in the same classroom, but also encourages placing a stigma upon those who attend a quality school.

The Strange Complaints that We Make.
After the College Republicans' demonstration, many of the Columbia students went nuts. They began to march onto the Lowe Steps in a protest against racism. I was pretty confused - what was so racist about decrying affirmative action policies? For one thing, no one is saying that slavery, or the genocide of native americans, or the mistreatment of latinos was a good thing. Heck, remember World War II and the concentration camps for the Japanese? Or how the Chinese immigrants, Indian immigrants, Irish immigrants, [take your pick] immigrants were maliciously treated by US citizens? That is fine and dandy, but decrying an inefficient policy doesn't make you racist.

Possible Solutions?
I do think that there are several alternative solutions. One possible solution is to adopt a financial-need based affirmative action policy instead of a racial/demographic/etc affirmative action policy. I would argue that the marginal benefit of "diversity" at a school is mitigated by the fact that (a) a lot of clumping occurs and (b) we really don't care all that much because it is not like we are trying to draw a 20% foreign student rate or anything. On that note, I would discount demographic affirmative action (which I believe is a way to get rural whites into school) for the same reasons that I reject racial affirmative action. At least a financial-necessity based policy would actually deal with people who have a ball and chain and give them better access to mobility.

Now the common objection here will be - why won't all these poor people end up doing what blacks do now? Won't they fill up the bottom rungs at every level? But I would respond - I think we should adopt programs that seek out intellectual potential in economically disadvantaged regions. U Chicago has successfully employed such a program, as have many other very driven schools. I do not believe that the poor are less intelligent. On the contrary, many of the more intelligent people that I have met at my stay in Columbia have come from very destitute backgrounds. I just believe that a stronger effort of a search has to be made. Also, it seems to be an empirical point that people from poor backgrounds with a newfound capacity to excel make very good use of it (irrespective of whatever race they are). This would support a $-based as opposed to race-based affirmative action policy.

Finally, I want to note two things. I disagree with the policy initiatives of the UC system. I do not think that we should stop tracking racial data. We need records of this for precisely these kinds of discussions - so that econometric analysis can be done and we can see, for example, if blacks are benefiting from new policy, etc. The only way we know that old ones fail is through such tracking. (Of course, there is a complexity here when such data collection might induce an implicit affirmative action policy, as universities and employers will be in a game in which if a disadvantaged race is underrepresented they may be held as discriminatory and thus they might begin to admit unqualified minorities anyway. But I do not think this harm is as great as explicit aff action.) The other thing I want to note is that it is ok in a prison full of black prisoners, for example, to explicitly hire black guards. Studies show that these prisons are better managed (read: less violent). Apparently, people react better to racial self-rule. Similarly, I think it is ok for a black actor to portray Malcom X, as by necessity, race is a qualification for the position.

I know that was probably a lot longer than you would have liked - but it was a lot more brief than this issue deserves. In hindsight, it was a very superficial discussion of the topic, but hopefully it gets the ball rolling. I hope you have some feedback/comments/opinions on the matter.

East and West Projected Seedings

2005-08-31T01:13:00.000-07:00

This offseason has been relatively timid. Despite hosting the largest trade in NBA history, the big names have been few and far in between, with players like Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Antoine Walker, Larry Hughes, and Joe Johnson being the big movers. The Miami Heat have gone for the Twolves/Lakers approach of trying to pack as many name-talents in one roster as possible. A recipe for implosion? Perhaps. Joe Johnson, Michael Redd, Ray Allen, Samuel Dalambert, and a horde of other players got horrible contracts (read: they are horribly over-paid).

Anyway, here are my picks for how the East and West will look next season.

East
1. Heat - the Posey+Walker+Williams pick ups could be an implosion or genius. Can shaq be a legit cop?
2. Pacers - with Artest back, and the additions in Granger
3. Pistons
4. Nets - should have gone with Abdur-Rahim. Either a huge mistake or a genius rejection. They still look good.
5. Bulls - this is probably hoping for too much, but I like the core.
6. Cavs - LeBron will make the playoffs this year. Donyell+Hughes+Z+Gooden is pretty legit 5.
7. Wizards
8. Bucks
9. Knicks
10. Sixers - sigh.
11. Celtics - will be a great team in the future.
12. Magic
13. Hawks
14. Raptors
15. Bobcats

West
1. Spurs - no one is really touching them.
2. Kings - Awsome moves, as I outlined in a previous post, adding Abdur-Rahim, Wells, and Hart.
3. Rockets - Great job in addressing their need for a legit 4 in Stro Swift.
4. Suns - They won't run and gun like before, and their defense won't be stellar, but they can still sorta score.
5. Denver - can't shoot a 3. Should have gotten Garcia in the draft. But are deep in the bigs department.
6. Mavs - sigh..
7. Warriors - the Ike Diogu pick up was brilliant. If BDiddy is healthy, they will make playoffs.
8. Sonics - they are only here if Vladimir Radmonovic doesn't leave.
9. T'wolves
10. Lakers - sorry LA fans.
11. Clippers
12. Jazz
13. Memphis
14. Blazers
15. Hornets

Your thoughts?

Downloading, Contributed by Raghu

2005-08-24T10:37:00.000-07:00

I want this post to work a little differently. After my own little tirade, I will pose some questions you can choose to laugh at or answer in the comments section.

Take a look on my hard drive and you will see that I'm a prolific downloader. I gather about 5 to 6 gigabytes of material a week. Someone out there is itching to launch a "how do you watch all that porn?" joke, perhaps he/she can save it for another time. What the f*ck could I possibly be getting then, you ask?

Since I left the nourishing cable-equipped abode of home, I've been too cheap to pay the modest $54 a month Comcast asks for, so I download television shows. Am I being a moron by confessing online for the record? Well the problem of tv downloading is still in its hazy stages. A handful of shows are a welcome diversion from the regular pounding I get from college/work throughout the year.

Here's the kicker. Most of the shows I watch are freely available on network television. I'm getting the benefits of what "TiVo" would offer; freedom to watch the show whenever, and ability to not watch commercials. Of course, one could also watch these shows freely with an antenna.

I don't think cable prices are reasonable, and Sattelite Television is not a real serious competitor into Cable's mammoth market share. While I harbor no hatred towards these providers, I think they're constipated about offering real content over broadband, just like Record Labels dragged their respective foots fighting Napster until installing a paid solution years later. I'm willing to pay a fee to get my tv fix online, and so are many many others.

I will have to pick on Record Labels and Online Distribution enterprises to illustrate my point. ( Sorry)

Do you remember record labels reps predicting a dismal life for online distribution with rampant piracy? Well Itunes recently hit the 50 million songs mark ( averaging 500,000 songs a week before the platform was released for PC also) , Yahoo and others are offering different kind of pay-to-download schemes. Marketing gurus are throwing in free songs with beer, pepsi, and even toothpaste to name a few. These distributors are still slow on the uptake though.

What does Itunes have in common other download services? Well, most of these songs can be burnt to an audio CD for a small fee. The similarities end there. There are problems with different databases and availability of songs on the different services, the compatibility of a downloaded song playing on another service's software, and cross compatibility of the legally downloaded songs playing on the plethora of Mp3 players on the market.

Trying to splinter the customer's choices in this fashion is dangerous. How many Betamax ( sony's dumbass attempt at their own video format) movies did you and your parents rent or buy during the early 90's? Just in case my point isn't coming across, here is an example:

Timmy that couldn't.
Timmy buys a song from the new Legal Napster. Timmy get an ipod for Chistmas and nearly shits himself with joy. http://www.napster.com/compatible_devices/not_ntg_compatible.html
He visits that link when his songs won't work on the ipod, because the #1 mp3 player ( in sales and market share) in the universe doesn't support the WMA 9 format required to take Napster songs on portable devices. There are some obscure cracks timmy could use, but why put the burden on Timmy the consumer on matching compatibility and formats?

In fact, portable players all play the regular unsecured Mp3 format, which people either took the effort to rip or download illegally. Note, the songs on Itunes are actually not Mp3's, they are Mp4 protected audio files.
You would think alienating and unduly confusing the customer would work ( how many Betamax tapes did you own?). Legal Movie Download sites have a poor selection to choose from, and are stacked with the same format wars with other services since some require you to download a special media player to view the file you just purchased.

The industry behavior all mentioned above would likely be the same for trying to distribute television shows over broadband connections. Studios, in the greed which will actually blind them from smart business decisions, will fight over which format to use, wether or not to offer a show season package or pay per episode basis. In this fight several individuals like me will be confused and picking our noses. Younger individuals other who also frequently change residences (e.g. college students) will be voting with their disposable income. Set-up and deal with Comcast's terrific customer service every year, sign a 12 month contract for satellite every year, or download some tv shows? Sorry for the rudeness.

**Lastly, you may ask: But Raghu, how about TV Show seasons on DVD?** Well, I have to agree with Bill Gates stating DVD distribution will be obsolete within a decade. It's annoying to have expend my energy to go get that physical copy. Second, there is quite a delay in the airing of a show and release onto dvd. Third, DVD distribution still leaves me here picking my nose with my fast internet connection ( I do not have a home theatre). DVD's have several benefits, and the vast majority of consumers use them as media for movies today; however, I'm trying to paint a little bit beyond the near future.

1. What is your position on illegally downloading music, movies, and televison?
2. Do you have any format horror stories to share?
3. Do you believe there is significant competition to Cable?
4. How responsive do you feel content distributors have been to your needs?

Response to Comments: A&F, Naked, and the Death Tax

2005-08-23T09:06:00.000-07:00

I like the format of responding to comments in a new post instead of writing it as another comment. If you haven't noticed, I am straight ripping this idea from the Becker blog, but hey, the man is considered a genius for a reason. Let's spread the wealth.

Man, I didn't actually think anyone would talk to me about the death tax. A tax! Yes, I'm a little surprised. But hey, I was planning to do a post pretty soon on my views on affirmative action. This probably bodes well for that.

Most of the criticisms were very good as well. I especially like Raghu's counter to my Paris Hilton. Touche. As for the economic criticisms themselves, most were spot on in terms of some of my own doubts about this tax. I suppose I should have put a bit more meat or detail into the original post and addressed these concerns there, but - well - I didn't want to make a post on taxes any longer than it had to be. Now on to responses.

By the way, I don't find the argument that I have to defend redistribution to be very compelling in a society with social insurance schemes and oodles of public services.

I will spend the rest of the time dealing with the claim that I am not considering taking care of families who seek income for the familial unit and Kuru's somewhat related comment on familial businesses. Kuru, you are absolutely right in that the commenter's notion of a familial unit vs. my notion of an individual creates conceptual friction in the way income is thought of. That said, however, I do think that there are a few compelling reasons as to why(s) he can still jump ship without abandoning the family.

First, we must realize that we are not talking about families that are scrounging up to keep the family together. We are talking about families with a per capita income placing them within the top 1 to 2% of wealth. They are the creme de la creme.

Second, it is important to see that there is a second way in which the tax is not a double tax. Contained in the estate tax is a tax on unrealized capital gains. This has, by definition, never been taxed before. So while my individual monetary circulation example explains as to why I think the notion of "double taxation" itself is silly, I think that this provides more compelling evidence for those who disagree with me in that view. By the way, unrealized capital gains tend to be huge in these families. They comprise nearly 40% of the value of all estates subject and nearly 60% of the value of all estates from which a significant tax is levied. Yes, this does imply that a large number of estates are levied a very small tax. And that the super-rich do pay a bulk of the tax - as they do in terms of income tax as well.

Third, (and Kuru - this responds to your point as well) for various reasons that I don't want to get into, the way the law is structured, small family business and family owned farms do pretty well. It might be easier to show you the data. For example, a TPC study recently demonstrated that only 37% of cases have any demonstrable trace of family business/farm value, and of that 6% were significantly comprised of the family farm/business. That means that families with significant business constraints are only 2% of all of the estate tax cases.

But wait, it gets better. Of these 2% of cases in which the family owned business is significant, over 43% are levied only an ETR (effective tax rate) of 1.6%. Just under 25% more are taxed at approximately 9.5%. This means that over 70% of these guys are being taxed peanuts. But here is the kicker, the bottom 93% of these guys pay under 20% of the overall amount collected from family farms/businesses, meaning the top 7% of these wealthy family businesses pay nearly 80% of the tax. But even with them, their ETR never exceeds 23%. This means that these exceedingly wealthy folk (already in 2% of overall wealth as well as in the top decile of family business) aren't taxed too badly either - in relative terms, anyway.

Lastly, I think it is very important to keep in mind the revenue generated by this tax at all times. $70 bn/year is quite a hefty sum. I still don't understand if critics just want government revenue to contract by $1 trillion over the next decade or if they have an alternative.

Oh yah. I should probably add this in: The Bush administration has a policy to drop the tax rate incrementally and until 2010 in which case they completely eliminate it that year. (What, are all the old guard rich folk going to die in one year?) Then it is reinstated in 2011. Strange.

A&F, Naked, and the Death Tax

2005-08-20T18:27:00.000-07:00

Let's say that I work as an Abercrombie & Fitch model. Say I get $20 per spread that I do, in which I show off my tight, tone, sexy body. And just for kicks, let's track what happens to the money I get from doing 1 spread. Nothing too detailed or formal.

We know that the minute I get a paycheck, we should expect to see a reasonable chunk withheld by my employer for a governmental income tax. Say for kicks that this tax is $5, leaving me with a usable income of $15, called disposable income. Next, say that I am a fan of Naked Juice: Protein Zone. Packed with 34 grams of protein per bottle, it keeps me in shape to be a sexy underwear model. I go down to Albertson's and purchase a bottle for $5, leaving me with $10. But Albertson's really doesn't get the whole $5, for there is a sales tax of $1 included in the price I pay. Effectively, they get $4 and chalk another $1 up to the government.

Now Albertson's has to pay Jayne the janitor for cleaning up my messes, so Jayne gets a wage of $2. But of course, the government levies an income tax on Jayne, and in our bizzare world, it takes $1 from her (just to keep things on whole numbers). So Jayne has a disposable income of $1.

What's my point? Money circulates. No real surprise there. And that same "money" is taxed over and over again as it circulates. Everytime it hits a new agent, some of it is taxed. No surprise there. And those who want to abolish taxes aside, most of us take the fact that money is "double" or "triple" or "quadruple" taxed everyday. (In fact, there is a huge branch of economics devoted to just studying how money circulates.)

Which brings me to what is called the "double tax". The double tax, or better known as the "death tax", is nothing more than an inheritance tax on estates. It simply taxes a person when they receive a large estate from someone else. The estate tax, however, is neither really a double tax nor a death tax in any unique sense. Well, I suppose it sort of is - you are dead. But the tax isn't on you at that point, precisely because you are dead. It is on property that is no longer yours precisely because you are dead. In other words, the money has gone to someone else, and now that person is taxed on it as if it were an income, which in fact it is. So it is not at all that much different than the transfer of money from me to Jayne with the government taxing every step of the way - a process that you and I seem to take for granted everyday.

It is worth noting that both terms double tax and death tax were popularized by the Republican pollster Frank Luntz who felt that they would get voters all riled up about having to pay this tax. Those in favor of killing this tax will have you believe that most Americans are subject to this tax. Statistically speaking, about half of you probably think that. A 2003 poll found that over 49% of Americans believed that nearly all Americans were subject to the inheritance tax.

The truth, however, is quite different. Less than 2% of all American estates - and consequently a signficantly fewer percentage of the population - are subject to the tax. Still, the tax is very important because it provides a signficant chunk of the governmental income. The repeal of the estate tax, as urged on by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress, would cost more than $70 billion a year in governmental revenue over the next 10 years, according to Professors Michael Graetz and Ian Shapiro of Yale. Other estimates show it having nearly a $1 trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) cost over the 10 year period.

I don't think that any of us enjoy the taxation process. It is tiring and tedious and feels pretty horrible to see someone else taking money right out of your pocket. But the thing is, none of us like a society without public services either - be it radio broadcasts, roads, schools, medical facilities, armed forces, or anything else that America offers. We can only enjoy comforts and protection through a government with resources-a-plenty. And with such a repeal, we would strip the government of direly needed funds. Unless we find a better way to let the Paris Hiltons of the world keep all of their inheritance (that they clearly earned) and still raise $70 billion per year for the provisions that the other 98% of Americans need, it would seem ridiculous to repeal the estate tax.

Notable Moves by the Kings and the Cavs

2005-08-17T18:43:00.000-07:00

The offseason has been full of headline-worthy moves. The Heat have shipped out Eddie Jones and brought in Jason Williams, Antoine Walker, and James Posey. The Lakers picked up Kwame Brown and dropped Caron Butler. The Bucks dropped $80 million for a player who is essentially a poor man's Steve Kerr. And Joe Johnson is being treated by the Hawks as if he is LeBron James.

But two teams made moves that will likely fly under the radar, but are definitely worth noting.

The Sacramento Kings once again showed why they have been such a consistently solid team under GM Geoff Petrie. After picking up a great shooter in Francisco Garcia in the draft, they supplemented with a solid 1-guard and an excellent power forward in Jason Hart and Shareef Abdur-Rahim, respectively. Hart played last year as a backup in Charlotte with an astounding PER (player efficiency rating) of 16.87, scoring 15 points with just under 8 assists per 40 minutes. In fact, this little known backup pg was among the best in the league last year. Still, they got him for a measley $3.5 million over a two year period.

The Shareef pick up was key as well. The 9-year veteran has averaged just under a 20 PER through his career, with a rating of 19 last year. In limited time, he has demonstrated that he is a remarkably efficient scorer, going at 20 pts/40 minutes last year with a TS% (true-shooting %) of 58%. While historically he is a slightly sub-par defender, his offensive talent is unquestionable. Perhaps the most striking thing is that when a similarity analysis is done, of all the NBA players that Abdur-Rahim has been most like through his career, names such as Kevin Garnett, Bob McAdoo, Grant Hill, Pau Gasol come up. To be able to get Shareef for a rather cheap price, especially considering that he made over $14 million last year alone, is quite a steal for the veteran who has never played in a playoff game.

It is worth noting that a similarity analysis is essentially taking a number of factors (rebound rate, assist rate, 2-pt rate, 3-pt rate, PER, etc.) and then calculating the "distance" between two players for all these factors. The player who has the least distance (error) from our player in question is the one that is most similar.

Discussion of similarity scores gives us a good transition to look at the Cavs under-the-radar acquisition of Donyell Marshall. The similarity scores of Donyell Marshall over his career have put him close to Jason Richardson, Josh Howard, Rashard Lewis, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Shawn Kemp, Rasheed Wallace, and Bill Lambier. While this list is no Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Dr. J style list, it is worth noting that there are some very talented power forwards and small forwards that Marshall has played like. He is a double-double on a per 40 minute basis going at 18 pts and 10 boards a game. On top of that, much like Rasheed and Rashard, he is a talented big man with a deep range. He attempted nearly 9 3's per 40 minutes last year, hitting on 42%. He is a fairly solid defender with capacity to be a tremendous offensive force (Offensive rating of 120 last year, league avg. was 106). And he plays remarkably efficiently, with a TS% of 59% and a PER of 20. Getting Marshall for just over $5 million/year playing fifth fiddle to LeBron, Hughes, Z, and Gooden? Seems like a steal to me.