I talked about this on Facebook a few days ago but finally got around to be taking the time to blog about this deals. This will hopefully only be the first in a long line of posts where I try to inform my friends and family and anyone else who might be paying attention of what I believe are truly great deals for consumers. Being the holiday season, when all of us will be spending a lot of money, I thought this would be an excellent time to kick it off.
I recently purchased a Panasonic 50 inch plasma television at Costco. If you know me, you know I spent months researching this purchase both in terms of reading up on it and in going into various stores to see what was out there. I have a subscription to Consumer Reports online which always helps. But truth be told the TV itself is not the issue here. It's Costco. If you are already a member then you know that they provide tremendous customer service, are wonderful about returns and all that. You also probably know that Costco is currently offering to automatically double the manufacturer's warranty on most electronics including TVs. As most TVs come with your standard 1 year warranty, you get a 2nd year without doing anything. Costco's prices are nearly always competitive with any store you go to and in most cases the others stores' "We'll match any price" guarantees come with fine print that excludes matching Costco.
Costco is also currently offering to extend the warranties to an additional 3 years for what amount to about 10% of the purchase price. So by purchasing your new entertainment centerpiece is now covered for 5 full years. Virtually all stores offer this kind of warranty extension but to get 5 years of coverage generally cost 3-4 times as much. For example, my Panasonic 50 inch cost me $599 and I purchased the 3 year extension for $59. At Costco. I looked at the exact same TV at another store which shall remain nameless, for $699 and in order to get a TWO year warranty extension I would have had to pay $110. And that two year extension is no extension at all as this warranty runs concurrent to the manufacturer's warranty, which means what you would really be doing is paying $110 for basically ONE additional year.
So in summary:
Panasonic 50 inch plasma TV
At Costco - $599 + $59 with 5 year warranty = $658
At _____ - $699 + $110 with 2 year warranty = $809
So as I said on Facebook, you would have to be an idiot NOT to take the Costco deal. Even if you're not a member, it will cost you $50 to join and you can STILL make out cheaper if you never set foot inside Costco again. If warehouse shopping aint your thing give the membership as a Christmas gift!
Until next time.. The Cheap Guy.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
The Tebow Effect - quantified?
Yeah yeah yeah I know, Tebow has been talked about more than any mediocre quarterback in the history of the game so why do you care what Ronnie T. has to say about him? Well listen up there dudes and dudettes and I'll tellya why..
Most media types are trying to get ratings or sell ad space.. so they go after the low hanging fruit when discussing not only Tim Tebow but really any topic. As I fancy myself a little more of a thinking man's sports fan, I wanted to take a deeper look into things. I have kicked this topic around in various forums.. but I really wanted, needed to just take some time and do my own analysis of "The Tebow Effect" or as I am now going to call it the "TTE"
First and foremost, let me begin by saying I don't think Tim Tebow is a "great quarterback" or is on his way to the Hall of Fame or anything. He's a 2nd year player trying to learn how to play in the NFL. Frankly the hype surrounding him is just plain stupid. But it exists so deal with it. As such I am compelled to analyze Tebow from a football standpoint. I don't care about his religious beliefs, though I share them and admire his dedication to them. What I am interested in, and what most who examine his play and his impact on his team and on the game of football should be interested in, should be football stuff. Period.
So let's get to it.. The first aspect of the Tebow Effect ( TTE) is obviously on his offense. The most obvious of which is on the running game. Denver was 24th or 25th in the NFL in rushing offense through 5 games. Now they are number one. and while it's easy to say "Well they run it a lot more often now because Tebow can't throw." That assessment would be short sighted. Not only do they run it more.. They also run it BETTER. Willis McGahee was averaging about 4.5 yards per carry through game 5, which is a nice average. In games with Tebow as a starter his average was 5.5 yards per carry heading into the Bears game. And that includes the KC game when he got hurt and Jets game where he played essentially on one leg and had 18 yards on 12 carries. The fact that defenses are having to account for Tebow has caused linebackers to have one more guy to be on the lookout for as a ballcarrier. It causes the defensive ends to play more disciplined because if they come crashing in looking for a sack Tebow escapes contain and makes them pay. McGahee averaged 17 carries and 76.8 yards per carry with Kyle Orton. He has averaged 14.2 carries and 67 yards per game since Tebow took over. So the argument that "Willis McGahee is carrying Tebow holds no water." Tebow has won games in which McGahee has had 17, 18 and 33 yards rushing. That's not to dismiss the importance of McGahee and the threat he poses to a defense but Tebow clearly has been a benefit to him as well. Had he not had the two injury marred games against KC and the Jets, he'd already be well over 1000 yards on the season. Take away the two one legged games in the middle there and McGahee 98 carries for 501 yards a Jim Brown like 5.1 yards per carry with Tebow as his QB.
Then there is TTE on the defense. Denver's offense went from just over 27 minutes time of possession per game with Orton to over 34 minutes time of possession with Tebow. In short, the defense now spends a good 7 minutes per game MORE standing on the sideline drinking Gatorade, looking at pictures of the opponents formations, making adjustments etc, since Tebow took the reigns. It may be a novel idea to some but I hear rested players play better. TTE also means fewer turnovers. 2 interceptions and 3 fumbles in 8 and a half games (he played most of the second half of the first meeting with San Diego) is remarkable for any quarterback but it's tremendous for a quarterback who still hasn't started a full season's worth of games in the NFL. Kyle Orton's Broncos committed 12 turnovers in 4 and a half games. Tebow's Broncos have committed 9 turnovers in 8 and a half games. So Tebow keeps it at about a turnover a game while Orton flirted with 3 a game. There is nothing more demoralizing for a defense than to force a team to punt, head over to the sideline and before you can get your first swig o Gatorade, the coaches are calling you back out onto the field because the friggin offense already gave it back to the other team. Tebow doesn't do that.. Credit his coaches for keeping the offense on a level he can handle at this stage of the game but if you think running the read option is easy for the QB, go pick up some tape on the Oklahoma and Nebraska teams of the 70's and 80's .. and look up their fumble numbers.
The last and perhaps most profound effect Tebow is having on his team is sort of danced around but not truly delved into as much as I think it should. "Ronnie you said you were going to focus on the football stuff. What does his faith have to do with anything?" Again allow me to educate you. Clearly he is a man of faith.. Now that doesn't mean God is reaching down and pushing Marion Barber out of bounds or causing kickers on other teams to miss field goals.. What it DOES mean is that Tim Tebow doesn't get down. Watch him on the sideline the next time you have occasion to watch one of his games. It doesn't matter how bad things are going, the kid remains as calm as if he was sitting in church on Sunday listening to the Pastor read scriptures. After Charles Tillman made an amazing interception against him last game Tebow went up and congratulated him on a great play. Who does that? His receivers have dropped a ton of passes on him this year, 6 on Sunday, and I have not seen a single instance where he has yelled at them, or called attention to the drop in any way shape or form. All he does is encourage and uplift them. Even salty veterans on the team have taken note of that aspect of his personality.. And you don't think that doesn't resonate with his teammates? You don't think his teammates aren't sitting there watching him handle the mounting pressure on him, watching him continually play his absolute best when things look bleakest and aren't thinking: "Maybe there is something to this whole faith thing? Maybe I should examine my own faith and relationship with God in search of that calm that Tebow has? So that I can be at my best when it matters most. So that I can handle adversity... deal with bad plays., bad calls, bad breaks, what have you with the same serenity that Tebow does, and still have the strength and the focus to take advantage of my opportunity to help the team win when it presents. "
To me this is why TTE is good for football.. Good for sports really. What he and his teammates have been able to accomplish is proving once again the power of the team greatly outweighing the power of the individual star. As an old school sports fan I have long been turned off by "me" players in all sports. Guys who place their personal glory above the good of the team. Let that not be confused with my not liking guys who demand the ball or believe they can be a difference maker in helping their teams win. I LOVE those guys.. But I don't care for guys who dance after scoring a TD to cut their team's deficit to 35 points. I also don't much care for guys who feel the need to disrespect other team logos, flip the ball back to other players or to coaches standing on the sidelines or stand over another player after a tackle screaming like a moron. Celebrations of great plays made are fine. Antagonizing other players? Getting in their face? Spiking the ball at their feet? Taunting in any way.. Why? I get that football is an emotional game and outbursts of exuberance are to be expected. But there are places where some of the disrespect some players show their opponents would get them shot.
Let me close by saying I am not a Tebow apologist by any stretch though it may appear that way reading this. I think he has a LONG way to go to prove himself as a legitimate NFL starting quality QB. I do think he is hamstrung to some extent by the conservative playcalling John Fox favors early in games but many a young QB has been brought along in similar fashion simply because they're not ready to execute an NFL playbook in its entirety. In that regard Tim Tebow is no different from just about every other young QB that has come into the league over the past 40 years. The biggest difference I see is that for whatever reason some fans and some mediots and even a well known team vice president, aren't willing to afford him that same luxury that has been afforded those other young quarterbacks. Time to grow. Tebow has had to earn that right by winning games. If the Broncos had continued to flounder with him under center the Tim Tebow story would already be over. If they were 2-6 with him instead of 7-1 Brady Quinn would be starting these last few games of the season and the talk would be about which of the stud young QBs in the draft Denver should target. And they still might draft one.. But whoever that kid is, he certainly has to know that he's not going to be handed Tim Tebow's job and even if does get it, the bar has been set pretty high in terms of winning with that team. Because the cat's out of the bag. If the team can go .800 with Tebow at QB. They're not going to accept 3-13 while YOU figure things out when the other guy already seems to be there. That probably goes double for the veterans on the team.
Most media types are trying to get ratings or sell ad space.. so they go after the low hanging fruit when discussing not only Tim Tebow but really any topic. As I fancy myself a little more of a thinking man's sports fan, I wanted to take a deeper look into things. I have kicked this topic around in various forums.. but I really wanted, needed to just take some time and do my own analysis of "The Tebow Effect" or as I am now going to call it the "TTE"
First and foremost, let me begin by saying I don't think Tim Tebow is a "great quarterback" or is on his way to the Hall of Fame or anything. He's a 2nd year player trying to learn how to play in the NFL. Frankly the hype surrounding him is just plain stupid. But it exists so deal with it. As such I am compelled to analyze Tebow from a football standpoint. I don't care about his religious beliefs, though I share them and admire his dedication to them. What I am interested in, and what most who examine his play and his impact on his team and on the game of football should be interested in, should be football stuff. Period.
So let's get to it.. The first aspect of the Tebow Effect ( TTE) is obviously on his offense. The most obvious of which is on the running game. Denver was 24th or 25th in the NFL in rushing offense through 5 games. Now they are number one. and while it's easy to say "Well they run it a lot more often now because Tebow can't throw." That assessment would be short sighted. Not only do they run it more.. They also run it BETTER. Willis McGahee was averaging about 4.5 yards per carry through game 5, which is a nice average. In games with Tebow as a starter his average was 5.5 yards per carry heading into the Bears game. And that includes the KC game when he got hurt and Jets game where he played essentially on one leg and had 18 yards on 12 carries. The fact that defenses are having to account for Tebow has caused linebackers to have one more guy to be on the lookout for as a ballcarrier. It causes the defensive ends to play more disciplined because if they come crashing in looking for a sack Tebow escapes contain and makes them pay. McGahee averaged 17 carries and 76.8 yards per carry with Kyle Orton. He has averaged 14.2 carries and 67 yards per game since Tebow took over. So the argument that "Willis McGahee is carrying Tebow holds no water." Tebow has won games in which McGahee has had 17, 18 and 33 yards rushing. That's not to dismiss the importance of McGahee and the threat he poses to a defense but Tebow clearly has been a benefit to him as well. Had he not had the two injury marred games against KC and the Jets, he'd already be well over 1000 yards on the season. Take away the two one legged games in the middle there and McGahee 98 carries for 501 yards a Jim Brown like 5.1 yards per carry with Tebow as his QB.
Then there is TTE on the defense. Denver's offense went from just over 27 minutes time of possession per game with Orton to over 34 minutes time of possession with Tebow. In short, the defense now spends a good 7 minutes per game MORE standing on the sideline drinking Gatorade, looking at pictures of the opponents formations, making adjustments etc, since Tebow took the reigns. It may be a novel idea to some but I hear rested players play better. TTE also means fewer turnovers. 2 interceptions and 3 fumbles in 8 and a half games (he played most of the second half of the first meeting with San Diego) is remarkable for any quarterback but it's tremendous for a quarterback who still hasn't started a full season's worth of games in the NFL. Kyle Orton's Broncos committed 12 turnovers in 4 and a half games. Tebow's Broncos have committed 9 turnovers in 8 and a half games. So Tebow keeps it at about a turnover a game while Orton flirted with 3 a game. There is nothing more demoralizing for a defense than to force a team to punt, head over to the sideline and before you can get your first swig o Gatorade, the coaches are calling you back out onto the field because the friggin offense already gave it back to the other team. Tebow doesn't do that.. Credit his coaches for keeping the offense on a level he can handle at this stage of the game but if you think running the read option is easy for the QB, go pick up some tape on the Oklahoma and Nebraska teams of the 70's and 80's .. and look up their fumble numbers.
The last and perhaps most profound effect Tebow is having on his team is sort of danced around but not truly delved into as much as I think it should. "Ronnie you said you were going to focus on the football stuff. What does his faith have to do with anything?" Again allow me to educate you. Clearly he is a man of faith.. Now that doesn't mean God is reaching down and pushing Marion Barber out of bounds or causing kickers on other teams to miss field goals.. What it DOES mean is that Tim Tebow doesn't get down. Watch him on the sideline the next time you have occasion to watch one of his games. It doesn't matter how bad things are going, the kid remains as calm as if he was sitting in church on Sunday listening to the Pastor read scriptures. After Charles Tillman made an amazing interception against him last game Tebow went up and congratulated him on a great play. Who does that? His receivers have dropped a ton of passes on him this year, 6 on Sunday, and I have not seen a single instance where he has yelled at them, or called attention to the drop in any way shape or form. All he does is encourage and uplift them. Even salty veterans on the team have taken note of that aspect of his personality.. And you don't think that doesn't resonate with his teammates? You don't think his teammates aren't sitting there watching him handle the mounting pressure on him, watching him continually play his absolute best when things look bleakest and aren't thinking: "Maybe there is something to this whole faith thing? Maybe I should examine my own faith and relationship with God in search of that calm that Tebow has? So that I can be at my best when it matters most. So that I can handle adversity... deal with bad plays., bad calls, bad breaks, what have you with the same serenity that Tebow does, and still have the strength and the focus to take advantage of my opportunity to help the team win when it presents. "
To me this is why TTE is good for football.. Good for sports really. What he and his teammates have been able to accomplish is proving once again the power of the team greatly outweighing the power of the individual star. As an old school sports fan I have long been turned off by "me" players in all sports. Guys who place their personal glory above the good of the team. Let that not be confused with my not liking guys who demand the ball or believe they can be a difference maker in helping their teams win. I LOVE those guys.. But I don't care for guys who dance after scoring a TD to cut their team's deficit to 35 points. I also don't much care for guys who feel the need to disrespect other team logos, flip the ball back to other players or to coaches standing on the sidelines or stand over another player after a tackle screaming like a moron. Celebrations of great plays made are fine. Antagonizing other players? Getting in their face? Spiking the ball at their feet? Taunting in any way.. Why? I get that football is an emotional game and outbursts of exuberance are to be expected. But there are places where some of the disrespect some players show their opponents would get them shot.
Let me close by saying I am not a Tebow apologist by any stretch though it may appear that way reading this. I think he has a LONG way to go to prove himself as a legitimate NFL starting quality QB. I do think he is hamstrung to some extent by the conservative playcalling John Fox favors early in games but many a young QB has been brought along in similar fashion simply because they're not ready to execute an NFL playbook in its entirety. In that regard Tim Tebow is no different from just about every other young QB that has come into the league over the past 40 years. The biggest difference I see is that for whatever reason some fans and some mediots and even a well known team vice president, aren't willing to afford him that same luxury that has been afforded those other young quarterbacks. Time to grow. Tebow has had to earn that right by winning games. If the Broncos had continued to flounder with him under center the Tim Tebow story would already be over. If they were 2-6 with him instead of 7-1 Brady Quinn would be starting these last few games of the season and the talk would be about which of the stud young QBs in the draft Denver should target. And they still might draft one.. But whoever that kid is, he certainly has to know that he's not going to be handed Tim Tebow's job and even if does get it, the bar has been set pretty high in terms of winning with that team. Because the cat's out of the bag. If the team can go .800 with Tebow at QB. They're not going to accept 3-13 while YOU figure things out when the other guy already seems to be there. That probably goes double for the veterans on the team.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Who is to blame for the economy? It's all of us, stupid!
I recently got into an impassioned Facebook discussion with a good FB buddy on the "blame game" being played by those in power for our country's economic woes. She was in the "It's the GOP and the Tea Partier" camp while I was in the "Nah, it's all politicians and beltway insiders, not just those on the other team" camp. As I began to try to illuminate why I felt this way, it became apparent to me that it was time to visit the Blog again. The topic was too huge to be covered in Facebook. So here goes.
I begin by outlining what I believe to be the main reasons for our current economic condition. The problem most people have who talk about this issue is that they are looking for a single throat to choke. One person, or group, or action that they can blame for all our problems. Thing is, our economy is VERY complex, as are its problems. As such, so too will be the solutions. But before looking forward, let's take a moment to look back. Not in the interest of playing the blame game, but in the interest of analyzing REASONS for what we have experienced. Here, in no particular order, are what I consider to be the main reasons for our current economic woes.
1) The subprime mortgage mess - The relaxing of lending standards was one of the major players in how we ended up where we are. Lending hundreds of thousands of dollars to people who hadn't a prayer of being able to pay it back was a recipe for disaster from the start. Congress talked about it and talked about for years but only acted to curtail it long after the damage was done. This practice allowed too many Americans to emulate the federal government and live light years beyond our means. Eventually, the bills come due. Years of explosive real estate growth caused too many to believe that day would never come, including the banks, who resisted these loans at first but eventually acquiesced after the Feds threatened them for not writing them AND offered to back them up with federal dollars. Once the housing boom subsided and all those equity loans based on unrealistic valuations of homes and incomes came due, a major crash was inevitable.
2) The Dot.Com boom - and the subsequent, inevitable bust. When I worked for Sun Microsystems, one of our "mottos" was "We're the DOT in DOT.COM." Cute, catchy and stupid. I became aware that Sun was issuing multi-million dollar lines of credit to startups who had no product and no prospect of having a product for 5-6 years. Sun was not alone in this practice of course. What this betting on "vaporware," which is what we in the computer business call products that don't exist, did is made paper millionaires of a lot of people. Many of those people went out and traded on that wealth and bought multi-million dollar mansions, expensive cars and all in all lived "The life" until the boom went bust and all that came tumbling down. What was left was a lot of people with massive tax bills from trading monstrous amounts of stock options, against stock that had great value at one time, but became worthless almost overnight. They also had now a mortgage that was three income brackets beyond where they could afford to be. Yeah, that was good for America.
3) 9-11-2001 - Not only did nearly 4000 American lose their lives this day but America lost her innocence with respect to terrorism. The years that have followed have exacted a cost which could easily be put above a trillion dollars domestically and double or triple that worldwide. Think about all the air travel not taken over the next several years. Our airline industry has never truly recovered from that. Then factor in the impact this new uncertainty in the Middle East has had on the oil industry and gas prices worldwide which of course impact the price of virtually everything else in every economy in the world. Except of course the middle east. People like to cite the amount of money we have spent on "Bush's Wars" as the reason for this mess. I say bullsh*t. I don't know what the numbers are on the military cost. I remember it being about $75 billion a year during the peak and I assume somewhere in the $40 - $50 billion a year in the draw down years. I won't be mad if someone has different numbers but the point is, it's a fraction of the total cost of what Al Quaida did to us that day.
4) Lack of Wall Street Oversight - From insider trading, to the energy speculation issues with ENRON, to the rampant gambling with other people's money in the banking industry, particularly in the buying and selling of mortgages, right up to the flat out criminal misrepresentation of some hedge funds, Wall Street has been in rare form the past decade. But I don't blame Wall Street. Wall Street millionaires are greedy. They are driven by greed.. They are the proverbial lion who if you put your head in its mouth you cannot be mad at if he bites down. This is why we have oversight of Wall Street built into our system. The problem is, recently there has been far too much movement of personnel back and forth between Wall Street and Capitol Hill for that oversight to have any teeth. Head of Merrill Lynch one week, a cabinet position the next. Too many of the people who are supposed to be monitoring Wall Street ARE Wall Street so to speak. The result has been rampant abuses and trillions of dollars.. lost forever.
5) Big Government - Yes I am a conservative so you could have predicted I would come here. But one of the first things you learn in Economics 10 (or Economics 101 for other schools) is "The law of diminishing marginal return." This principle simply states that in any endeavor, there is a point of growth where the return on having "more" benefits you less and less until at some point the benefits go negative. As in you have too much of a good thing and it starts to get worse for you if you have more of it. I think our government crossed that boundary years ago. We have a Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a Department of Energy and an "Energy CZAR." Or is it TSAR? In any case, there are examples of overlap and redundancy all over our government. Simply put, our government can hardly get out of its own way and I don't think giving them MORE money to waste is any way shape or form a solution for anything. Every one of us knows areas where our government is wasting tons and tons of our money. Even you liberals have to admit that. If you don't then I will outright accuse you of being intellectually dishonest. I would never call you stupid.. I don't have stupid friends. :-)
So those are my top five reasons why were are where we are. Notice I don't point the finger at any one person, or party or program. Next chance I get, after I've had some time to think about it.. I will consider some solutions. The fact of the matter is life is hard.. solving these problems will be hard.. and there are no magic pills. Any politician in any party representing that there is, should be booed off the podium.
I begin by outlining what I believe to be the main reasons for our current economic condition. The problem most people have who talk about this issue is that they are looking for a single throat to choke. One person, or group, or action that they can blame for all our problems. Thing is, our economy is VERY complex, as are its problems. As such, so too will be the solutions. But before looking forward, let's take a moment to look back. Not in the interest of playing the blame game, but in the interest of analyzing REASONS for what we have experienced. Here, in no particular order, are what I consider to be the main reasons for our current economic woes.
1) The subprime mortgage mess - The relaxing of lending standards was one of the major players in how we ended up where we are. Lending hundreds of thousands of dollars to people who hadn't a prayer of being able to pay it back was a recipe for disaster from the start. Congress talked about it and talked about for years but only acted to curtail it long after the damage was done. This practice allowed too many Americans to emulate the federal government and live light years beyond our means. Eventually, the bills come due. Years of explosive real estate growth caused too many to believe that day would never come, including the banks, who resisted these loans at first but eventually acquiesced after the Feds threatened them for not writing them AND offered to back them up with federal dollars. Once the housing boom subsided and all those equity loans based on unrealistic valuations of homes and incomes came due, a major crash was inevitable.
2) The Dot.Com boom - and the subsequent, inevitable bust. When I worked for Sun Microsystems, one of our "mottos" was "We're the DOT in DOT.COM." Cute, catchy and stupid. I became aware that Sun was issuing multi-million dollar lines of credit to startups who had no product and no prospect of having a product for 5-6 years. Sun was not alone in this practice of course. What this betting on "vaporware," which is what we in the computer business call products that don't exist, did is made paper millionaires of a lot of people. Many of those people went out and traded on that wealth and bought multi-million dollar mansions, expensive cars and all in all lived "The life" until the boom went bust and all that came tumbling down. What was left was a lot of people with massive tax bills from trading monstrous amounts of stock options, against stock that had great value at one time, but became worthless almost overnight. They also had now a mortgage that was three income brackets beyond where they could afford to be. Yeah, that was good for America.
3) 9-11-2001 - Not only did nearly 4000 American lose their lives this day but America lost her innocence with respect to terrorism. The years that have followed have exacted a cost which could easily be put above a trillion dollars domestically and double or triple that worldwide. Think about all the air travel not taken over the next several years. Our airline industry has never truly recovered from that. Then factor in the impact this new uncertainty in the Middle East has had on the oil industry and gas prices worldwide which of course impact the price of virtually everything else in every economy in the world. Except of course the middle east. People like to cite the amount of money we have spent on "Bush's Wars" as the reason for this mess. I say bullsh*t. I don't know what the numbers are on the military cost. I remember it being about $75 billion a year during the peak and I assume somewhere in the $40 - $50 billion a year in the draw down years. I won't be mad if someone has different numbers but the point is, it's a fraction of the total cost of what Al Quaida did to us that day.
4) Lack of Wall Street Oversight - From insider trading, to the energy speculation issues with ENRON, to the rampant gambling with other people's money in the banking industry, particularly in the buying and selling of mortgages, right up to the flat out criminal misrepresentation of some hedge funds, Wall Street has been in rare form the past decade. But I don't blame Wall Street. Wall Street millionaires are greedy. They are driven by greed.. They are the proverbial lion who if you put your head in its mouth you cannot be mad at if he bites down. This is why we have oversight of Wall Street built into our system. The problem is, recently there has been far too much movement of personnel back and forth between Wall Street and Capitol Hill for that oversight to have any teeth. Head of Merrill Lynch one week, a cabinet position the next. Too many of the people who are supposed to be monitoring Wall Street ARE Wall Street so to speak. The result has been rampant abuses and trillions of dollars.. lost forever.
5) Big Government - Yes I am a conservative so you could have predicted I would come here. But one of the first things you learn in Economics 10 (or Economics 101 for other schools) is "The law of diminishing marginal return." This principle simply states that in any endeavor, there is a point of growth where the return on having "more" benefits you less and less until at some point the benefits go negative. As in you have too much of a good thing and it starts to get worse for you if you have more of it. I think our government crossed that boundary years ago. We have a Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a Department of Energy and an "Energy CZAR." Or is it TSAR? In any case, there are examples of overlap and redundancy all over our government. Simply put, our government can hardly get out of its own way and I don't think giving them MORE money to waste is any way shape or form a solution for anything. Every one of us knows areas where our government is wasting tons and tons of our money. Even you liberals have to admit that. If you don't then I will outright accuse you of being intellectually dishonest. I would never call you stupid.. I don't have stupid friends. :-)
So those are my top five reasons why were are where we are. Notice I don't point the finger at any one person, or party or program. Next chance I get, after I've had some time to think about it.. I will consider some solutions. The fact of the matter is life is hard.. solving these problems will be hard.. and there are no magic pills. Any politician in any party representing that there is, should be booed off the podium.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Bonds, Juries and , Steroids oh my!
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, we, along with the rest of the world got the news that Barry Bonds was found guilty of "obstructing justice" today. For the most part this to me is a non-story. BFD, some millionaire got a slap on the wrist for helping to damage the integrity of his sport by cheating then lying in court about it. BFD. But the ensuing discussion got me to thinking yet again, about what to do about Bonds and other athletic greats who will eventually come knocking on the door of the hall of fame. I've noodled this through before, but never taken the time to put pen to paper about it so to speak. So here it is, my theory on how Hall of Fame voters should handle this issue when it comes up. Because I was not a baseball player at a high level, I have to go to sports that I AM very familiar with for guidance on this. The most obvious being track and field. Perhaps the easiest example to dissect would be Ben Johnson. For those too young to remember Ben Johnson, he was the 1987 World Champion at 100 meters and the 1988 Olympic Champion at the same distance who was later shown to have been on a veritable cocktail of steroid during that time span. Prior to getting on "The Juice" Johnson's best time in the 100 meters was a respectable 10.14. This is an excellent time and would have earned him a good deal of money and his share of wins on the international circuit. However Johnson apparently became frustrated with losing repeatedly to Carl Lewis and that frustration led to obsession which turned into cheating in the form of doping. So Ben went to the juice. The result was that within a very short span of time he improved from 10.14 to 9.79 in the 100 meter final in the 1988 Olympics, shattering the then world record of 9.93 previously held by Calvin Smith. Johnson had actually broken the record in the 1987 World Championships in Rome with a 9.83.
But enough of the history lesson. This is about trying to quantifying the impact of these drugs on performance. The Ben Johnson example gives us an easy starting point for the calculations. We can see here that steroids allowed Johnson to trim .35 seconds off his time in the 100 meters. Or roughly a 3.4 % improvement. Now this is a ridiculously short race and the degree of improvement would actually increase over greater distances. But I don't know anything about greater distances.. But I do know a thing or two about the 100 meters, having run it a few dozen times in college and having been a track and field junkie since birth. So if I apply the "3.4% rule" to baseball, it turns an 90 mph fastball into a 93 mph fastball. Or a 95 mph fastball into 98.3 mph fastball. Applied to a hitter, I have to account for both the fast twitch muscle to get around on a 90 mph fastball and added power from the boost in brute strength. So I double the improvement rate for hitters to 7.8%. So the power to drive the ball 390 into a warning track fly ball to straightaway center suddenly travels 420 feet and leaves the yard in many venues. Or at the very least bounces off the wall. Get ahold of one that would travel 400 feet without steroids and you've added 31 feet to its flight with the juice. Now since we know hitting a baseball isn't only about speed and power but it is also about quickness of reflexes and hand to eye coordination. So we have to assume that all other things being equal, steroids do not aid in those areas. However if you are a baseball player, we have to assume you already have some of that stuff. What it does help with though is recovery time, as in ability to play at a high level day after day after day as well as to recover from injuries more quickly. This was especially important for Mark McGuire, who played less than 150 games each year between 1992 and 1996. McGuire's body was quite simply giving out as he entered his 30's. McGuire played in an average of 87.4 games between '92 and '96.. but magically got healthy in his mid 30's and played in exactly 151 games in '97, '98 and '99. Go figure. Clearly without the juice, McGuire probably retires in '96 and surrenders to his breaking down body long before desecrating the home run record books. But McGuire was a great slugger before steroids, as was Bonds, though neither at the post-steroid levels. Still in the interest of science, I will stick to the 7.8% rule. So I will subtract 7.8% of McGuire and Bonds' hits from their post-steroid numbers. So I yank 22 of the 306 home runs McGuire hit between 1996 and 2001 , 52 of his RBIs and 63 of his 809 hits. So McGuire finishes his career getting credit for 520 dingers and 1563 hits, with1362 RBIs. Hall of Fame worthy? Perhaps.. but he's gonna have to wait. Doing the same math with Bonds. Assuming he started juicing in 2000 Bonds hit 317 homers, 697 RBIs and 925 hits between 2000 and 2007. Lopping off 7.8% from those numbers and we get 292 homers, 643 RBIs and 853 hits, leaving his career totals at 737 HRs, 1942 RBIs and 2863 hits. Even stronger Hall of Fame numbers. One can assume that either would likely have either suffered a severe dropoff in production in his late 30's based on declining skills or injuries but that's a matter for another discussion.
Applying the math to a pitcher is slightly more complex. On the surface I would assume that strength and speed gained from steroids would be at least as big a boon for pitchers as hitters. But figuring out how much is tricky. In the case of pitching, number of innings pitched are probably the best way to gauge. We assume that as a pitcher ages, his ability to go deep into games wanes. Taking the case of Roger Clemens, in 1993-1995, the three seasons prior to his "rebirth" he pitched 191, 170 and 140 innings. Miraculously, the next three seasons he pitched 242, 264 and 234. So we can see a huge boost to his stamina after the juice-provided assistance. The strikeout numbers were equally pronounced. After 160, 168 and 132 he jumps to 257, 292 and 271. In light of these numbers lopping off 7.8% of Clemens' numbers seems to be not quite enough. In fact it leads me to want to re-examine the hitter numbers as well. Perhaps I was too hasty in dismissing the impact of being able to stay on the field all those games well into one's late 30's. I will have to noodle on this more later.
But enough of the history lesson. This is about trying to quantifying the impact of these drugs on performance. The Ben Johnson example gives us an easy starting point for the calculations. We can see here that steroids allowed Johnson to trim .35 seconds off his time in the 100 meters. Or roughly a 3.4 % improvement. Now this is a ridiculously short race and the degree of improvement would actually increase over greater distances. But I don't know anything about greater distances.. But I do know a thing or two about the 100 meters, having run it a few dozen times in college and having been a track and field junkie since birth. So if I apply the "3.4% rule" to baseball, it turns an 90 mph fastball into a 93 mph fastball. Or a 95 mph fastball into 98.3 mph fastball. Applied to a hitter, I have to account for both the fast twitch muscle to get around on a 90 mph fastball and added power from the boost in brute strength. So I double the improvement rate for hitters to 7.8%. So the power to drive the ball 390 into a warning track fly ball to straightaway center suddenly travels 420 feet and leaves the yard in many venues. Or at the very least bounces off the wall. Get ahold of one that would travel 400 feet without steroids and you've added 31 feet to its flight with the juice. Now since we know hitting a baseball isn't only about speed and power but it is also about quickness of reflexes and hand to eye coordination. So we have to assume that all other things being equal, steroids do not aid in those areas. However if you are a baseball player, we have to assume you already have some of that stuff. What it does help with though is recovery time, as in ability to play at a high level day after day after day as well as to recover from injuries more quickly. This was especially important for Mark McGuire, who played less than 150 games each year between 1992 and 1996. McGuire's body was quite simply giving out as he entered his 30's. McGuire played in an average of 87.4 games between '92 and '96.. but magically got healthy in his mid 30's and played in exactly 151 games in '97, '98 and '99. Go figure. Clearly without the juice, McGuire probably retires in '96 and surrenders to his breaking down body long before desecrating the home run record books. But McGuire was a great slugger before steroids, as was Bonds, though neither at the post-steroid levels. Still in the interest of science, I will stick to the 7.8% rule. So I will subtract 7.8% of McGuire and Bonds' hits from their post-steroid numbers. So I yank 22 of the 306 home runs McGuire hit between 1996 and 2001 , 52 of his RBIs and 63 of his 809 hits. So McGuire finishes his career getting credit for 520 dingers and 1563 hits, with1362 RBIs. Hall of Fame worthy? Perhaps.. but he's gonna have to wait. Doing the same math with Bonds. Assuming he started juicing in 2000 Bonds hit 317 homers, 697 RBIs and 925 hits between 2000 and 2007. Lopping off 7.8% from those numbers and we get 292 homers, 643 RBIs and 853 hits, leaving his career totals at 737 HRs, 1942 RBIs and 2863 hits. Even stronger Hall of Fame numbers. One can assume that either would likely have either suffered a severe dropoff in production in his late 30's based on declining skills or injuries but that's a matter for another discussion.
Applying the math to a pitcher is slightly more complex. On the surface I would assume that strength and speed gained from steroids would be at least as big a boon for pitchers as hitters. But figuring out how much is tricky. In the case of pitching, number of innings pitched are probably the best way to gauge. We assume that as a pitcher ages, his ability to go deep into games wanes. Taking the case of Roger Clemens, in 1993-1995, the three seasons prior to his "rebirth" he pitched 191, 170 and 140 innings. Miraculously, the next three seasons he pitched 242, 264 and 234. So we can see a huge boost to his stamina after the juice-provided assistance. The strikeout numbers were equally pronounced. After 160, 168 and 132 he jumps to 257, 292 and 271. In light of these numbers lopping off 7.8% of Clemens' numbers seems to be not quite enough. In fact it leads me to want to re-examine the hitter numbers as well. Perhaps I was too hasty in dismissing the impact of being able to stay on the field all those games well into one's late 30's. I will have to noodle on this more later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
