JC Bradbury ? of Sabernomics fame ? has offered two comments this week related to items posted in this forum. The first is on the discussion of payroll and wins in baseball. The second comment is on the latest from Michael Lewis ? Blind Side.
Bradbury on Payroll and Wins
Yesterday Bradbury chimed in on the debate ? and it is hard to believe this is a debate ? about the link between payroll and wins in Major League Baseball.
Just to review ? as Stacey reported earlier in the week ? we find in The Wages of Wins that payroll explains about 18% of the variation in wins. On the flip side, this means that 82% of the variation in wins is not associated with payroll. JC offers a bit more sophisticated analysis than our simple regression of winning percentage on relative payroll, but his conclusion is the same. JC finds that payroll does not explain much of the variation in wins and furthermore, the predictive power of payroll is quite low.
As JC notes, this does not mean that payroll and wins are not statistically related. It simply means that there is much more to wins than how much a team spends on its players.
In The Wages of Wins we offer an explanation for the weak link between pay and wins. Our explanation centers on predictability of future performance in baseball.
Now this is a different point from the Moneyball observation. The Moneyball story centers on the ability of decision-makers to understand productivity. We do not touch upon that issue with respect to baseball. We do comment on this issue with respect to the NBA, and for those interested in an academic treatment of this subject in baseball, please examine the work of Jahn Hakes and Skip Sauer (recently noted at The Sports Economist).
What we do observe is that even if you evaluate productivity correctly in baseball, predicting future performance is still difficult. Baseball players are not perfectly consistent across time. Although we could discuss the regressions showing this point, just think about the Detroit Tigers this year. Did anyone ? including the Tigers ? think that team was going to come close to 95 wins?
Basically, we argue that if you have trouble forecasting then payroll ? which is based upon expectations of the future ? will not be strongly linked to wins.
Bradbury on Blind Side
JC also commented this week was on the latest from Michael Lewis ? Blind Side. A few weeks ago I offered a comment on this work. Once again, though, Bradbury?s analysis is just a bit better. In addition to offering a better summary of the work, Bradbury gets at the larger issue. Specifically, the NCAA reacted to the tragic story of Michael Oher and his rescue by the Tuohy family by launching an investigation. Given the life story of Oher ? which is brilliantly recounted by Lewis ? this appears to be a heartless reaction by the NCAA.
As Bradbury notes, the NCAA appears to be primarily about the exploitation of labor. Malcolm Galdwell and Jim Peach noted a few weeks ago that the NCAA does not promote competitive balance in sports. It does impose policies that underpay its top athletes. This underpayment results in a transfer of revenues to the coaches and schools that employ the so-called student athletes.
Bill Cherry has a website called College Sports by Charlie (he notes the name has no meaning so don?t ask who Charlie might be) that reports the salaries paid to the top college coaches. As Cherry reports, more than a dozen coaches are paid $2 million or more and Charlie Weis and Pete Carroll make more than $3 million. To put this in perspective, the Chancellor of the 23 California State University system ? which I believe is the largest state system of higher education in the country ? makes less than $400,000. Yet there are football coaches who make five times this amount. Clearly football is generating some revenue and currently a significant share of this money is going to the coaches.
Of course people don?t tune in on Saturday afternoons to watch the coaches. People are watching the players. But the players do not get much of the money their labor generates. By definition, this means these players are exploited. Given the disadvantaged background of many of these athletes, the NCAA is basically conducting a reverse Robin Hood ? taking money from the poor (the athletes) and giving it to the rich (coaches and schools).
Bradbury on Being Civil
JC makes one last comment in concluding his discussion of payroll and wins.
I?d also like to ask for politeness among those arguing. The tone of the response has been too harsh to be productive. If we are all after the truth, it?s best to keep things civil.
In my experience, academics tend to respect each other when engaged in debate. This behavior is probably motivated by self interest. If you are not nice to other people ? who may very well be much smarter than you ? you might feel very stupid when they decide not to be nice to you.
I will note that when comments are not particularly civil, we are not inclined to respond. Debates are exchanges of information, not contests. Try and stick to your point and to your evidence. And remember, this is just a discussion of sports. As we note in the first paragraph of The Wages of Wins: Sports are entertainment. Sports do not often change our world, but serve as a distraction from our world.
In other words, although this research is interesting and does shed light on how people make decisions, sports by themselves are not actually ?important.? So if you are getting upset by what people say about sports, well, maybe you just need to expand your horizons.
- DJ
Spring 2010 designs\xA0are\xA0making their way to the boutique\xA0and NOW is the time to make room for all the new dresses! Who says we have to wait until the Friday after Thanksgiving to offer fantastic deals to our brides?!
Here’s the 411 on what’s on sale::
* Bridesmaids/special occasion dresses priced $49 – 69!!
* Wedding dresses\xA0priced\xA050% – 75% off\xA0the original retail price!
Black Friday sale starts November 20th and ends November 29th. Come early for the best selection\xA0 
And for those of you that want to know what’s new in stock…check out our newest deliveries:
\xA0
\xA0
\xA0
\xA0
\xA0
The Venture Crew 35 “Dust Hazard Motorsports” shirts have been designed and are being printed. You can now pre-order your Crew 35 T-Shirt at the Venture Crew 35 website. All profits go to Boy Scout Venture Crew 35, so be sure to order a lot!
\xA0 Okay , I am opening up this site to start a grass-roots movement. I have come up with the acronym of RACE as a name for this movement.\xA0 Can anyone guess what it stands for? No ? Think back now to some of my recent post.
\xA0 Okay here it comes. Republicans Against Castle’s Election. That’s right , it is time for Republicans to unite and to purge the\xA0GOP of these Republicans in name only, these Democrat boot lickers, these stealth liberals.
\xA0 Until we clean our own house , how can\xA0we condemn the opposition? How can we criticize the Democrats that voted for Cap and Trade , and then tell GOP voters to vote for Mike Castle?
\xA0 How can we stand up and tell the rest of the nation that the bail outs and stimulus plan will bankrupt us , and then tell GOP voters to vote for Mike Castle ?
\xA0 How can we argue against man-made climate change, and then expect GOP voters to vote for Mike Castle ?
\xA0 How can we argue the sanctity of life and then campaign for a man who called embryos , “just medical waste”.
\xA0 Mike Castle is neither fiscal or social conservative, Mike Castle is no kind of conservative.
\xA0 Now the lock step GOPers will tell you he votes with us as much as ,\xA0or more then he votes against us, but how come it seems like on the biggest issues he is always on the wrong side from conservatives ?
\xA0Oh he might vote for a tax cut here and there, but let that tax cut come up against his slobbering love for global warming and see which one\xA0wins.
\xA0 If the GOP does not cleanse itself of these moderates , it will doom itself to history and will have no future. Currently there is a conservative movement among American voters. This is due in large part to the policies of Pres. Obama. People are recoiling from the radical liberal agenda being forced down their throats by the current administration.
\xA0So the question becomes , will the GOP get out in front of this movement and support more conservative candidates ,or will the GOP continue to back the likes of Mike Castle and always be behind the curve.
\xA0 Mike Castle is a watered down candidate, he is a watered down conservative at best, and a watered down liberal at least. As we attempt to grow this move towards conservatism and to attract more people to the GOP, candidates like Mike Castle , with his voting history, will only raise the likelihood of third party conservative\xA0candidates such as we are seeing in New York right now. This can only help the Democrats.
\xA0 If the GOP has any hope of winning back control it must, we must, demand candidates that represent the growing conservative views of the American voters. We must take advantage of the fact that many in this nation have realized that Pres. Obama and his lap dog congress are running this country into the ground. And to do this we must not send the likes of Mike Castle back to congress.
\xA0If you read this and you feel the urge to join the \xA0RACE leave a comment , tell us why you are against Mike Castle for any office. I may contact you by e-mail to try and organize\xA0the opposition of Mr. Castle receiving the GOP nomination to run for the U.S. Senate.
Season 6 of “Project Runway” was a waste of 14 Thursday nights.
The season finale Bryant Park show was a lackluster display of recycled looks, average street wear, and overworked gowns. Fashion forward? Not so much.
Did anyone notice the striking resemblance between Irina’s collection and that of season 4 winner, Christian Siriano? The all-black garments, the felt hats, the dramatic shoulders, the stilettos. We’d seen it all 2 seasons ago… but Christian was a showman. I still remember those stunning bolero jackets and high-neck blouses. His collection was like a series of Rembrandt portraits — dark and powerful, modern and immortal. Irina’s collection, while cohesive and certainly well-constructed, was not particularly memorable. It was perhaps the most tired of the three lines.
Althea just looked at what’s already going on in fashion — layers, boyfriend blazers, harem pants, 80s-shoulders, and cinch-waist belts — and made her own. It reeked of a high schooler on a limited budget who embarked on a DYI fashion project. Indeed, there were several individual pieces that would become staples in any woman’s wardrobe — a cardigan or pair of pants. But did it shake up your fashion world? Did it inspire you to redo your wardrobe? No. It was a snooozefest… albeit, one that would sell well in Macy’s.
Carol-Hannah had the most compelling, though most disjointed, collection of the three. Her first dress, a short, flowing champagne-colored cocktail number, was structured and draped in a way that echoed the lancet arches of Gothic cathedrals. It was a show-stopper. As was her “13th look” — a teal, floor-length gown that simultaneously screamed Grecian goddess and silver screen siren. But there were several metallic looks in the middle that looked like bad maternity wear, even with all the stunning embellishments. Also, her signature look (a gold, fish-tale gown) was remarkably similar to Rami’s (of season 4) signature look.
Throughout the season, Irina was the judge’s favorite. She won more challenges than the other designers and rarely received negative feedback. But she has a thing for fake fur, which to me means she has a taste problem. Fake fur always looks cheap. She also likes her dresses hip-hugging and skin-tight… which to me also indicates a taste problem.
Challenge after challenge, I questioned the judges’ decisions. Michael Kors was MIA for most of the season, and I feel as a result, some looks won and some looks were overlooked that shouldn’t have. Frankly, there was nothing particularly memorable about most of the winning looks… except maybe Chris’ first winning dress that was a cascade of ruffles that stopped just above the knee. I wish they had kept him for Bryant Park… at least he would have put on a show with 12 voluminous, over inflated gowns. Anything would have been better than all that black and beige.
And can I just say, what happened to all the sleeves on all the knitwear in that final runway show? Did they stretch out on the hangers and the models, or did Althea and Irina mean for the cuffs to hit the knees? I’m all for an oversize sweater, but at some point oversize looks ridiculous.
Considering Season 5’s dullsville finale (does anyone remember who won?), I was expecting Season 6 to be a knockout on par with seasons 1-4 (I wanted every one of those winners in my wardrobe). But after two lame seasons in a row, I have to say… I’m sorry, Project Runway, you’re out. Auf wiedersehen.
We are so incredibly excited for our November Gallery Hop night. Come on out to the studio this Saturday between 4-10pm to see original artworks by art students at St. Joseph Montessori. (These photos were sent to us to show the kids working on their pieces.) This is going to be a match made in Heaven. Not only is St. Joseph’s just across the street from our studio, but I think the color and energy of our space will be a perfect fit to display the creativity of a child. We’re so excited by this, that for 2010 & 2011, Ryan and I are hoping to move the focus of our Gallery Hop nights to feature more children’s artwork. If your school is interested in using our space for a show, just get in touch with Ryan for availability and details.
Otherwise, we’re located at 139 E. 2nd Ave., Columbus, just a block East of High Street near the Short North. We’d love to see you this Saturday!
It all started July 1 when the airline’s website went down and was not allowing anyone to book tickets. A few hours later, this came out
The airline released a press release that stated that it was “self-imposing a thirty one day delay of the launch of its first flights,” which are now scheduled for August 14. JetAmerica said that “unforseen complications with landing and take-off time slots at Newark Liberty International Airport” were to blame for the delay.
“In February 2009, the Federal Aviation Administration advised us, through an intermediatiary, that our operations at Newark could be accommodated,” said Brian Burling, JetAmerica’s VP of Operations, in a press release. “However, at about the same time JetAmerica started making national news with its $9 non-stop fares; when JetAmerica announced 60,000 website visitors and sales in excess of 20,000, the FAA re-clarified its policy, telling JetAmerica we would need to obtain slots.” He added, “The delay is not as unusal as it sounds… Historically, many of the world’s most successful airlines and charter services have had to delay their launches.”
?We feel terrible for the folks who booked with us for travel during the July 13 – August 13 timeframe, but the FAA’s change in the slot policy for indirect air carriers is beyond our control,” said CEO John Weikle. “We are working hard to obtain all the slots we need as soon as possible.?
According to the press release, the airline will also be e-mailing 6,486 passengers to alert them that their credit card accounts will be fully refunded, and that the refunds should appear “on e-statements within 7 to 14 days.” The airline will also offer those inconvenienced passengers “special incentives to rebook on future flights,” including waiving the $10 reservations ‘convenience fee’ and the seat assignment and first-checked piece of baggage fee. (Those who are affected can call 727-451-3970 for more information.)
Burling says that the airline has “no immediate plans to change our flight schedules,” saying that “initially, JetAmerica planned to fly 34 weekly flight segments starting on July 13, 2009. On August 14, 2009 the number of flights is still slated to expand to 40 per week.” And, as if to try to head off any ensuing negative press coverage, he said: “People should not be quick to jump to negative conclusions about JetAmerica. I am particularly referring to internet bloggers and naysayers who are predicting the worst.”
Ram Gopal Varma finally settled for Neeru Bajwa, when Mallika Sherawat failed to respond to his offer to star in Phoonk 2
Beyonce Knowles, Shakira, Madonna and Britney Spears have made it to a new list of ‘Sexiest Female Singers’.
A website has come up with its list of the top 10 sexy female singers who are actually music artistes and not movie stars trying to be singers, reports the Daily Chilli.
According to the TopSexyWomen.com website, these are the top 10 sexiest female singers:
1. Beyonce
2. Shakira
3. Christina Aguilera
4. Mariah Carey
5. Britney Spears
6. Ciara
7. Jessica Simpson
8. Madonna
9. Hilary Duff
10. Christina Milian
