Oscar Gamble Society

For those of you who just can’t wait for the 2011 release of MoneyBall, the newest edition of The Simpsons may be just the thing to tide you over.

MoneyBART, the 3rd episode of The Simpsons season 22, begins with what is probably the best (and darkest) opening ‘couch sequence’ in the show’s history.  For the remainder of the show, we explore what happens when Lisa takes over as coach of Bart’s little league team.  Our old friend Professor Frink sums it up best: “Using Sabermetrics, even an 8-year-old girl can run a ballclub with the sagacity of a Stengel and the single-mindedness of a Steinbrenner.”

This is by far the best Simpson’s episode in many years.  I don’t know whether it’s because of the fertile subject matter or if they just got some new writers this year, but I’d urge you to check it out.  Admittedly, Homer’s vodka and mayonnaise cocktail hit a little close to home for me, but that bit of discomfort was quickly eased by a seamless torrent of baseball and pop-culture references, including a nod to the patron saint of this very site, Oscar Gamble.

For those who aren’t actively TiVo-ing new Simpson’s episodes, you can catch the whole thing on Hulu.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/184048/the-simpsons-moneybart?c=Comedy/Sitcoms

Is it just me, or does portraying an actual broken-bat squib as a home run on the big screen seem like an exceedingly appropriate metaphor for Moneyball, the Movie.

Presumably done with CGI, it will be interesting to see whether Avatar has advanced special effects tech sufficiently to reconcile Beane’s relentless mocking of Prince Fielder to reality.

Or to justify selecting Nick Swisher over Cole Hamels (and on the same basis rejecting Zack Greinke and Scott Kazmir as draft candidates).

Or to retrofit a statistical algorithm that led to the selection of Barry Zito in 2000, Mark Mulder in 1998, and Tim Hudson in 1997 (the year BEFORE Beane took over as GM).

Perhaps the movie will consist largely of juxtaposed scenes of Scott Hatteberg alternately accumulating walks, and living like a regular Joe on his comparatively modest salary.

Evidently Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley think its poor form for LeBron James to team up with Dwayne Wade instead of remaining in Cleveland and trying to beat him.

Of course, that’s easy for Jordan to say, since by his seventh season in Chicago he had won a championship, and had a team with the potential to repeat around him (and repeat they did, several times, as we all know). By James’ seventh season in Cleveland, instead of Scottie Pippen in his prime he got a decrepit Shaq certain to decline further, and despite James’ efforts to recruit top free agents to join him in Cleveland, he had little hope of enjoying a championship-caliber team around him in the foreseeable future.

Barkley adds “But I don’t think in the history of sports you can find a two-time defending MVP leaving to go play with other people.”

Um, Charles, let’s discuss the concept of sample size. You’re looking for Two-time defending MVPs, by implication, in the free agent era, who win the second MVP in the last year of their contract, and who are on teams ill-equipped to compete for a championship. The point is trivially true but lacks any real meaning.

Jordan and Barkley sound like crotchety old farts. The article I read didn’t say whether they followed their comments by shaking their fists in the air and yelling for James and Wade to get off their lawn, but I can only assume…

… is his wife.  No, she wasn’t in the room - but she knows exactly what happened:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/16/crime.taylor.lkl/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

Well, I guess everyone can go home now.  This case is closed.

I don’t see those WWJD wristbands around baseball too much - likely because as much as many may well like Je-sus, he no help them hit a curveball.  But I wonder if he could help the Brewers front office decide what to do as they muddle along in the midst of another forgetful season - currently sitting with a 40-50 record, nowhere close to the division or the wild card.  If they’re active as this year’s trading deadline approaches, it will be as sellers, not buyers.  No CC Sabathia walking through that door *this* July, Brewers fans.  So, WWJD? Read the rest of this entry »

The Golden State Warriors are being sold for a record $450 million. Which raises an interesting question: is the price proof that the owners’ cries of poverty are unfounded, or does it reflect an expectation that, whether via lockout or not, a genuinely unsustainable economic system will be fixed to the benefit of the new owners?

The Warriors were last sold in 1995 for $119 million; the current price represents roughly 9.25% annual appreciation. Which handily beats the roughly 4.5% annual appreciation in the S&P 500 over the same period. Of course, that excludes dividends, which might add another 2% to the annual return on the S&P, and also excludes profits (or various forms of self-dealing to reduce profits) extracted from the Warriors, which I have no idea how to estimate.

I suppose there could be a third option: perhaps new owners could increase the value of the franchise by relocating it from Oakland to San Jose? Or at least San Francisco (though I’m not aware of a suitable arena there)? Wouldn’t an NBA team benefit from playing in closer proximity to the vastly greater wealth of Silicon Valley relative to the East Bay? Gonzo, am I way off base here?

Leave it to The Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/umpires-perfect-game-goes-completely-unnoticed,17664/

Well, thankfully, we’ve finally heard the Reverend Jesse Jackson’s always-insightful analysis of the Lebron situation:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/jesse-jackson-lebron-no-runaway-slave/basketball/

Much analysis has been offered regarding Dan Gilbert’s post-Decision outburst, but leave it to Jesse to get to the heart of the matter:  “He sees Lebron as a runaway slave.”  Wow. Read the rest of this entry »

http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/7834580?fr=yvmtf

I don’t get the negativity toward LeBron James for going to Miami.

I understand that Cleveland fans are disappointed, but why would James have any special obligation to toil in Cleveland when better opportunities for success -and a state without an income tax - beckon? Because he had the misfortune to be born in Akron? The Cavs had seven years to build a championship team around him and failed to do so, making Dan Gilbert’s bitterness especially hard to understand. And “guaranteeing” that the Cavs will win a title before the James - Wade - Bosh combo in Miami? I’ll take that action, Mr. Gilbert.

I am equally mystified by naysayers claiming that a payroll top-heavy with superstars will deny the Heat the bench quality to win a title. The Celtics should have put that thesis to rest, and with a much older trio of superstars. More to the point, the fact that there was no question regarding the financial terms of James’ contract - he would earn the maximum permitted under the CBA - highlights the key aspect of NBA economics. Namely, the max salary causes the very best players to be underpriced relative to their market values - the CBA essentially codifies a wealth transfer from superstars, who earn less than they would in a free market, to mid-level players, who earn far more than they would in a free market (there are so many examples of this it would be churlish to cite just one or two). The upshot of which is that it is preferable to have a top-heavy salary structure, since the underpriced superstars offer dramatically more value for the salary dollar than merely very good players, even if one consequence is filling out the roster with inexpensive journeymen.