[New York. November 26, 2008.] The New York Mets and Citigroup Inc. [NYSE:C] are still claiming that the $400 million naming rights package will be honored, yet, Citi has watched its stock price drop from its 52-week high of about $35 to almost $3 per share. Of course, this forced the government’s hand to take more taxpayer money to save another private corporation.
Two years ago, when the naming agreement was entered into, Citi was trading at over $50 per share. At that time, I would not have complained about the naming rights agreement — the largest of its kind — which provides that Citi would pay $20 million a year for 20 years (with options for another 40 years) for the right to name the new stadium “Citi Field.” Now, this deal just looks like a joke in light of Citi’s near failure and subsequent bailout. Some suggest that the stadium should be called “Citi/Taxpayer Field.” I disagree. The way I see it, “Six-Figure-Taxpayer/Citi Field” is more like it. The more words to emphasis who is really for this naming right, the more the word “Citi” disappears in just another useless advertisement.
Let’s do some simple math: As of this afternoon, Citi’s stock closed at $7.05 and there are approximately 5.5 billion shares outstanding. Thus, Citi has a market capitalization of less than $40 billion (Finance 101: market cap = stock price x shares outstanding). I will not even go near Citi’s income statement — it just hurts too much. Now, if you compare that market cap with the government’s interest, you see (with some logic bends) who is really paying for the naming rights of the ballpark in Queens. I do not care where you get your bailout information from, no one disputes that it trumps the $40 billion. If you are curious, the government is directly investing $20 billion and backing over $300 billion in loans and securities.
Considering that those taxpayers making in excess of $100,000 annually pay the majority of tis government’s taxes (and will be paying more of it based on the result of the 2008 Election), I think they should get some love.
My vote: “Six-Figure-Taxpayer/Citi Field.” With this name, Citi will probably attract a total of 10 new customers — down from the 50 customers they would have added with Citi Field. Wait, did they really agree to pay $20 million per year? Those 50 customers better all print the name Walton on their bank application.
As an aside, I am not sure if any of you New Yorkers noticed but no other major New York sports team has “sold out” their stadium’s yet — the Yankees play at Yankee Stadium, the Rangers and Knicks play at Madison Square Garden, the Giants and Jets play at Giants Stadium and the Islanders play at the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum. Of course, when one finally does sell out, it goes to a failing bank. It was easier when only minor league teams like the Brooklyn Cyclones, the Staten Island Yankees and the Long Island Ducks played in corporate sponsored stadiums — KeySpan Park, Richmond County Bank Ballpark and Citibank Park (sound familiar?).
November 26th, 2008 at 11:55pm
Cesium
[New York. November 23, 2008.] At the start of this past Friday’s trading day (Friday the 21st), there had been 12 trading days since the 2008 Election. During that time, the Dow Jone Industrial Average (DJIA) had dropped to its 5-year low. On November 4, 2008 (Election Day), the DJIA closed at 9,625.28. On Thursday November 20, 2008, it closed at 7,552.29 (down 21.5% in 12 sessions) and was settling near the 7500 level on Friday the 21st before the last minute 500+ point run to end the week.
In short, in the 12 sessions that followed the Obama-Biden victory, the DJIA has sounded as follows — Down 500, Down 400, Up 250, Down 75, Down 200, Down 400, Up 550, Down 350, Down 200, Up 150, Down 450 and Down 450. This was indeed an ugly stretch and it is far too easy to blame this run on the results of the election. However, even a Republic should admit it is too early to do so.
Although it feels like ages ago, when the DJIA left the 5-digit world in early October 2008 and dropped to about 8,000 in late October, there was press blaming all kinds of stimulus (or lack of stimulus) for that move. However, leading up to the 2008 Election, the DJIA fought back to pull within less than 400 points of 10k. Now, unfortunately, we are back in the low 8,000’s (following a few days under 8,000). Do we have enough to get back over 9,500? 10,000? 14,000?
On the other side of the world and during a similar period, it should be noted that since the start of the NBA season, the San Antonio Spurs have played 12 games. In those games, the Spurs has six wins and six loses — an ugly stretch for an organization that is accustomed to winning at a 70% rate in the Popovich era. What do the Spurs have to do with the market? Very little. However, there are two paths that this market can take and it is not all that different from the Spurs. After a odd summer, in which Manu Ginobili was injured and had surgery, the Spurs prepared for a start to the season without him. They started the year with no traction and then lost Tony Parker to an injury. Now, Tim Duncan is the only one of the big-3 left and needs to step up and keep this team afloat while Popovich waits for the injuries to heal. Fans in San Antonio just hope all the injuries heal as planned (or quicker than planned) and Tim Duncan can keep his squad above .500 (a.k.a. 8,000) so Manu and Tony can return and carry them into the playoffs (a.k.a. 10,000).
By January, it should be more apparent whether the playoffs are in the Spurs’ sights. Luckily, when it comes to the markets, you do not need to win a championship to be successful. At this point, most would be ecstatic with an annual visit to the Conference Finals.
November 23rd, 2008 at 01:04pm
Cesium
[New York. November 23, 2008.] It has been a while since TRP focused on anything but the New York Yankees. It is easy to forget about the world of politic and sport with the current administration and the downward spiral that plays in the pinstripes. Now that we have a new president-elect (Mr. Obama) and the other New York teams are playing well (see the New York football Giants, the Jets and the Rangers), it seems like a good time to get started — again.
Thank you for visiting and we hope you enjoy. If you are still interested in baseball discussion (focused on the teams in New York), visit www.chargethemound.com.
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:18am
Cesium
[New York. April 2, 2008.] The 2008 baseball season has finally begun. Let me reminder all baseball fans which team in the Northeast is truly the ‘home grown’ team. If you listen to those who hate the Yankees (both on the street and in print), you will often hear that they are “bought,” yet, when you actually look at the rosters, it paints a different picture. As compared to the Red Sox, the Yankees have twice as many players that are considered “Home Grown Talent” (a.k.a. HGT). The Mets have even fewer HGTs — only three “everyday” players are home grown (only two of which have any real impact).
The “everyday” players I pulled were (i) the starting 8 fielders (for the AL teams I used the better of the first baseman and designated hitter as the first baseman), (ii) the five starting pitchers, (iii) the closer and (iv) the set-up man — for a total of 15 “everyday” players. I pulled this list from the actually players that have the job, irrespective of whether they are injured (e.g., Shilling is still a starting pitcher for the Red Sox, or is he?).
After crunching the numbers — at the start of the season — the Red Sox are 5/15 (33%), the Mets are 3/15 (20%) and the Yankees are 10/15 (67%). Again, the masses and the media are incorrect!
Boston Red Sox
C Jason Varitek (HGT)
1B David Ortiz
2B Dustin Pedroia (HGT)
3B Mike Lowell
SS Julio Lugo
LF Manny Ramirez
CF Jacoby Ellsbury (HGT)
RF J.D. Drew
SP Josh Beckett
SP Curt Shilling
SP Daisuke Matsuzaka
SP Tim Wakefield
SP Jon Lester (HGT)
ST Hideki Okajima
CL Jonathan Papelbon (HGT)
Red Sox Home Grown Talent — 5/15 (33%)
I give the Red Sox credit. At least they are trying to build from within while they continue to be one of the best teams in the American League. They have filled holes with quality minor league talent (Ellsbury, et al.) and have not sold off their future for another arm. Beckett and Dice-K will probably keep them rolling in the near future and Pedroia and Ellsbury look like stars. They even boast an HGT player that has spent his entire career with the team — Jason Varitek (although not drafted by the Red Sox, he is playing his 11th season with the squad). Although, 33% is still pretty pathetic, considering the way they won the 2004 World Series, this is an improvement.
New York Mets
C Brian Schnieder
1B Carlos Delgado
2B Luis Castillo
3B David Wright (HGT)
SS Jose Reyes (HGT)
LF Moises Alou
CF Carlos Beltran
RF Shawn Green
SP Johan Santana
SP Pedro Martinez
SP Oliver Perez
SP John Maine
SP Orlando Hernandez
ST Aaron Heilman (HGT)
CL Billy Wagner
Mets Home Grown Talent — 3/15 (20%)
The Mets are now down to three home grown players. It is simply ironic that it is usually the Mets supporters in New York that claim the Yankees “buy” their teams. Looking at this roster — the top 15 starters on the Mets — it is reprehensible that only three of them come from the Mets system. In fact, if you remove their setup-man Heilman – who really has not won that role yet – the Mets would have only two home grown players playing every day. That must be hard to swallow for a Mets fan, but, I assume, if they win it all this year, those same fans will forget all about it. As a side note, I will admit that the Mets have done a great job buying talent. Santana and Beltran are at the top of their respective positions. on the other hand, some of their minor moves and the older players purchased may come back to bite them. At least they did not bring in Randy Johnson and Kevin Brown. At the end of the day, the Mets have put together the best lineup and staff in the National League (assuming they stay healthy) and regardless how they do it, they are still a top contender.
New York Yankees
C Jorge Posada (HGT)
1B Jason Giambi
2B Robinson Cano (HGT)
3B Alex Rodriguez
SS Derek Jeter (HGT)
LF Johhny Damon
CF Melky Cabrera (HGT)
RF Bobby Abreu
SP Chien-Ming Wang (HGT)
SP Andy Pettitte (HGT)
SP Mike Mussina
SP Phil Hughes (HGT)
SP Ian Kennedy (HGT)
RP Joba Chamberlain (HGT)
CL Mariano Rivera (HGT)
Yankees Home Grown Talent — 10/15 (67%)
It is pretty amazing to think they hold a HGT of 67% considering their reputation. They may have a huge salary, but there is something to be said for rewarding players with big contracts that you developed in your own system. Few teams in the league can say that — and it impresses me that the Yankees are one of them. Ten of the Yankees fifteen starters are from the Yankees system. As compared to their rival Red Sox (who have only 5) and their New York counterpart (who have only 3), it is pretty impressive to see the Yankees continue to stockpile the youth on their roster. Looking back to this winter (although, Yankees fans may regret it), when we held on to the kids and passed on Santana, we really showed baseball which teams ‘buy’ their teams and which teams ‘develop’ their teams.
As a disclaimer, I happen to be a Yankees fan. I despise the Red Sox and remain cautious with the Mets. I have changed my idea of what Home Grown Talent is from last year and begin this season with the following definition — an HGT is a player that is (a) drafted by their team or (b) played in the minor leagues for that team, and (c) currently plays for that team. Yes, there are holes in that logic, but until someone falls through the crack, no sense in developing a more detailed formula.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:34am
Cesium
[New York. September 13, 2007.] I have to admit, after years of hearing about how the Yankees “buy” their teams and have no “home grown talent,” I started to believe it. My response was always — what about Jeter and Posada, and Mariano and Pettitte, and now, Cano and Cabrera — and I thought I had a good argument. A good argument indeed!
After looking around the league, I realized very few competitive teams have a lot of Home Grown Talent, otherwise known as ‘HGT’ (not HGH)! In fact, the two largest groups of fans I see day-today (and find myself arguing with) sponsor teams that have a really palty HGT on their current teams. In fact, the Red Sox have only an HGT of 25%, and the Mets have only three really HGT players on their team.
Before I give you my analysis, let me first explain how I came to my results. First, I consider, any “current” player that was either (i) drafted by the team or (ii) played their entire career with only that team. Then, I looked to each teams’ “top twenty” players, eight starting fielders, three other batters (a DH or bench player, an infield and outfield bench player), the five starting pitchers, three top relievers and the closer. If a starting player was recently injured, they remained on this list. The Red Sox, Mets and Yankees top-twenty players and their HGT status are listed below:
Boston Red Sox
C Jason Varitek (HGT)
1B Kevin Youkilis (HGT)
2B Dustin Pedroia (HGT)
3B Mike Lowell
SS Julio Lugo
LF Manny Ramirez
RF Coco Crisp
CF J.D. Drew
DH David Ortiz
IN Alex Cora
OF Eric Hinske
P1 Josh Beckett
P2 Curt Shilling
P3 Daisuke Matsuzaka
P4 Tim Wakefield
P5 Jon Lester (HGT)
RP Mike Timlin
RP Hideki Okajima
RP Eric Gagne
CL Jonathan Papelbon (HGT)
HGT — 5/20 (25%)
The Boston Red Sox have five home grown players of their top twenty players. That is not too impressive. At least the Sox can boast that five of their top-twenty have been on the team for at least seven seasons (Manny, Ortiz, Timlin, Wakefield and Varitek), although, only one of them is an HGT. (Yankees’ fans out there — remind yourself that four of the five current HGT’s were not on the 2004 Red Sox, nor were there any other HGT’s on that team.)
New York Mets
C Paul LoDuca
1B Carlos Delgado
2B Luis Castillo
3B David Wright (HGT)
SS Jose Reyes (HGT)
LF Moises Alou
CF Carlos Beltran
RF Shawn Green
OF Lastings Milledge (HGT)
OF Ruben Gotay
IN Endy Chavez
P1 Tom Glavine
P2 Orlando Hernandez
P3 Pedro Martinez
P4 John Maine
P5 Oliver Perez
RP Jorge Sosa
RP Guillermo Mota
RP Aaron Heilman (HGT)
CL Billy Wagner
HGT — 4/20 (20%)
The Mets offer a only four home grown players in their top twenty. To make matters worse, of these twenty top players, not one of them has been on the Mets for more than three seasons. In fact, their entire top-twenty has turned over since their 2000 World Series appearance. To their credit, they were in need of a rebuild after 2000, but, I wish they would start give time to some minor league youth over the Glavine, Green and Delgados…
New York Yankees
C Jorge Posada (HGT)
1B Jason Giambi
2B Robinson Cano (HGT)
3B Alex Rodriguez
SS Derek Jeter (HGT)
LF Hideki Matsui
CF Melky Cabrera (HGT)
RF Bobby Abreu
DH Johnny Damon
IN Andy Phillips (HGT)
OF Shelley Duncan (HGT)
P1 Chien-Ming Wang (HGT)
P2 Andy Pettitte (HGT)
P3 Roger Clemens
P4 Phil Hughes (HGT)
P5 Ian Kennedy (HGT)
RP Edwar Ramirez (HGT)
RP Luis Vizcaino
RP Joba Chamberlain (HGT)
CL Mariano Rivera (HGT)
HGT — 13/20 (65%)
Remarkably, 65% of the Yankees top twenty are home grown. I still find it amazing that people can insult any team that has so much quality youth — not to mention that half of the veterans are HGT’s (who are being compensated accordingly). Posada, Jeter, Pettitte and Mariano have all played for the Yankees for at least eight seasons and were a large part of the Yankees’ dynasty in the late 1990’s. You could argue that Mussina and Farnsworth belong on this list, but after the last few months — Kennedy and Ramirez appear to have taken their roles.
After crunching the numbers, it looks like the Yanks (with 65%) have more home grown talent than the Mets (20%) and Red Sox (25%) combined! The Sox may have two HGT’s in their rotation, but the Yanks have four (while the Mets offer their fans zero). Obviously, the more HGTs you throw out there, the less likely you are to be successful “today,” but it has to feel pretty good right now to know that during the next few years we will be watching our veterans (who we’ve know for a long time) play with our next generation of Yankees. Of course, it never hurts to bring in a non-HGT MVP. But in all honesty, last year, many fans would have reversed that trade and brought Soriano back to the Bronx. Luckily, Cashman was not listening.
September 13th, 2007 at 01:03pm
Cesium
[New York. September 10, 2007.] So, interleague play is long gone and it is time to crunch the numbers — as expected, the American League is the better conference. The numbers just do not lie. Although, I have to admit, the American League East surprised me with a total .500 winning percentage against the National League. I guess it does not help when Tampa Bay and Baltimore could not get out of their own way.
In the end, the American League won 137 of the total 252 interleague games. That results in a .544 winning percentage – and this sample is the equivalent of over a season and a half for any one team. If you pull out the Devil Rays, the Orioles and the White Sox (the bottom of the AL), the rest of the America League played at a .606 pace against the National League. In fact, taking out those three AL teams and not one of the other AL teams (the other 11 teams) had a losing record in interleague play. That includes last place Texas (11-7) and a Kansas City (10-8) team that is currently 18 games under .500.
A summary of each teams final interleague record is as follows:
American League [137-115] (.544)
AL East
Boston 12-6
Yankees 10-8
Toronto 10-8
Tampa Bay 7-11
Baltimore 6-12
AL Central
Detroit 14-4
Minnesota 11-7
Cleveland 9-9
Kansas City 10-8
White Sox 4-14
AL West
Los Angeles 14-4
Texas 11-7
Oakland 10-8
Seattle 9-9
National League [115-137] (.456)
NL East
Mets 8-7
Atlanta 8-7
Florida 9-9
Washington 9-9
Philadelphia 4-11
NL Central
Cubs 8-4
Milwaukee 8-7
Houston 9-9
St. Louis 6-9
Cincinnati 7-11
Pittsburgh 5-10
NL West
Colorado 10-8
Arizona 8-7
San Diego 6-9
Los Angeles 5-10
San Francisco 5-10
An interesting fact — if you look at only the current four playoff teams and the top two teams trailing in the wild card standings (as of September 9, 2007), the six such AL teams (Sox, Yanks, Angels, Indians, Tigers and Seattle) finished 68-40 (.630) and the six such NL teams (Mets, Phils, Brewers, ‘Backs, Padres and LA) finished 43-47 (.478) in interleague play. That does not lend towards another NL World Champion, but of course, not of that really matters in a quick seven-game series in late October.
September 10th, 2007 at 05:15pm
Cesium
[New York. June 11, 2007.] We just finished our first weekend of the “real” interleague matchups. Last month, we were greeted with the “rivalry” interleague matchups. So, shall we start the debate as to which Major League Baseball Conference is superior? These two interleague weekends have given us 84 total interleague games. Luckily, there were no postponements. Each of the 14 American League teams played in two series (6 total games each). Since there are 16 National League teams, 10 played 6 games and the other 4 played in only 3 each (remember, those four had to play each other to keep it all even). To preempt any arguments about where the games were played — there were 42 games played in National League parks and 42 games in American.
In those 84 games so far, the American League won over 60% of the games. To be exact, the American League was 51-33 (.607) in those games, thus, the National League was 33-51 (.393). Even though interleague play has only just begun, these numbers appear to be consistent with the overall power of the leagues. But for the Mets, it is hard to imagine any of the other National League teams consistently beating any of the American League power-houses (the Red Sox, Yankees, Tigers, Indians, Angels, etc.). And those Mets, they just lost two out of three against the Tigers. That series puts the two leagues in perspective. The Mets shut out Detroit in game one with an amazing outing by their number five starter, Jorge Sosa. But, when they sent their top two starters out there in the next two games, they lost both, surrendering 23 total runs in those two games.
A summary of each teams current record, along with their interleague record, is as follows:
American League [51-33] (.607)
AL East
Boston 40-22 (.645) 4-2
Yankees 30-31 (.492) 4-2
Toronto 30-32 (.484) 3-3
Baltimore 29-34 (.460) 3-3
Tampa Bay 28-33 (.459) 2-4
AL Central
Cleveland 37-24 (.607) 3-3
Detroit 36-26 (.581) 5-1
Minnesota 30-31 (.492) 3-3
White Sox 27-32 (.458) 2-4
Kansas City 24-40 (.375) 4-2
AL West
Los Angeles 40-24 (.625) 5-1
Seattle 33-26 (.559) 4-2
Oakland 34-28 (.548) 5-1
Texas 23-40 (.365) 4-2
National League [33-51] (.393)
NL East
Mets 36-25 (.590) 3-3
Atlanta 35-29 (.547) 1-2
Philadelphia 32-31 (.508) 3-3
Florida 31-33 (.484) 4-2
Washington 26-37 (.413) 3-3
NL Central
Milwaukee 34-29 (.540) 2-4
St. Louis 27-33 (.450) 1-5
Cubs 27-34 (.443) 2-1
Houston 26-36 (.419) 3-3
Pittsburgh 26-37 (.413) 0-3
Cincinnati 25-39 (.391) 3-3
NL West
San Diego 36-26 (.581) 2-4
Arizona 37-27 (.578) 1-2
Los Angeles 35-28 (.556) 1-5
Colorado 31-32 (.492) 3-3
San Francisco 28-34 (.452) 1-5
We will be back after the next set of interleague games to discuss. I know St. Louis fans will argue that their team won the World Series, but that was a seven game series. The data above gives us the analysis of 84 games thus far. And trust me, I wish the National League would win 60%, so long as my American League team was in the 40%…
June 11th, 2007 at 03:53pm
Cesium
As the final follow-up to my articles Western Conference: “Restrict the NBA” and Western Conference: “Restrict the NBA” II — after the NBA regular season is complete, I have worked the following analysis. (As I did before, I have updated the non-conference standings, in bold, for all NBA teams below.)
Eastern Conference
[193-257 -- .429]
Atlantic [54-96]
Rapters 47-35 (14-16)
Nets 41-41 (10-20)
76ers 35-47 (11-19)
Knicks 33-49 (11-19)
Celtics 24-58 (8-22)
Central [72-78]
Pistons 53-29 (17-13)
Cavaliers 50-32 (19-11)
Bulls 49-33 (13-17)
Pacers 35-47 (10-20)
Bucs 28-54 (13-17)
Southeast [67-83]
Heat 44-38 (17-13)
Wizards 41-41 (14-16)
Magic 40-42 (14-16)
Bobcats 33-49 (9-21)
Hawks 30-52 (13-17)
Western Conference
[257-193 -- .571]
Southwest [95-55]
Mavericks 67-15 (27-3)
Spurs 58-24 (20-10)
Rockets 52-30 (24-6)
Hornets 39-43 (16-14)
Grizzlies 22-60 (8-22)
Northwest [77-73]
Jazz 51-31 (19-11)
Nuggets 45-37 (18-12)
Trail Blazers 32-50 (13-17)
Timberwolves 32-50 (14-16)
SuperSonics 31-51 (13-17)
Pacific [85-65]
Suns 61-21 (25-5)
Lakers 42-40 (14-16)
Warriors 42-40 (14-16)
Clippers 40-42 (17-13)
Kings 33-49 (15-15)
In my prior to articles on redistricting, the Western Conference was beating the Eastern Conference at a noticable rate. (After 112 inter-conference games, as of December 10, 2006, the Western Conference teams were beating the Eastern Conference teams 66.1% of the time, and after 369 total inter-conference games, as of March 7, 2007, it was 58.3%.)
At the end of the season, after the 450 total inter-conference games, the Western Conference won 57.1% of those game — the Eastern Conference won 42.9%.
Therefore, after a quick start, the Western Conference’s supremecy started to decrease, but still ended with a pretty big spread. Most of that spread can be attributed to the Texas and Arizona (the Mavericks, Spurs, Rockets and Suns, which combined for a 96-24 record — 80%). Ignoring the Grizzlies (8-22), every Western Conference team won at least 13 of their 30 inter-conference games — including the four teams discussed above with 20+ wins (no Eastern Conference team had 20 wins). By division, all three Western Conference divisions, in total, beat out all three of the Eastern Divisions.
I guess we’ll have to wait for the finals to see if this even matters. But regardless of the result, in my view, this analysis does lead my to believe that the Eastern Conference winner may have an advantage over the Western Conference winner in that they will be well rested.
May 7th, 2007 at 02:39pm
Cesium
As follow-up to my article “Western Conference: Restrict the NBA” — three months later — I have updated the non-conference standings for all NBA teams below. I added the current record (as of March 7, 2007) and the current non-conference record to the numbers tabulated on December 10, 2006. (The current records are in bold.)
Eastern Conference
Cavaliers 35-25 (15-9) / 12-7 (4-1)
Magic 29-33 (12-13) / 15-7 (7-2)
Bucs 22-39 (11-13) / 8-12 (5-4)
Pistons 37-21 (11-10) / 13-7 (4-5)
Pacers 29-30 (9-16) / 11-11 (3-4)
Hawks 22-39 (10-15) / 8-11 (2-4)
Knicks 28-34 (11-13) / 8-14 (3-5)
Heat 30-29 (13-13) / 8-11 (3-6)
Celtics 17-42 (6-18) / 6-13 (1-4)
76ers 22-38 (8-18) / 5-14 (1-4)
Wizards 34-25 (12-12) / 9-11 (1-4)
Bulls 35-27 (11-15) / 10-10 (1-7)
Bobcats 22-39 (8-18) / 5-15 (1-8)
Nets 28-33 (7-17) / 7-12 (1-8)
Raptors 32-29 (10-15) / 7-13 (1-8)
Western Conference
Suns 46-14 (24-4) / 13-6 (6-0)
Clippers 29-31 (13-11) / 10-9 (3-0)
Rockets 36-24 (16-6) / 14-6 (9-1)
Spurs 43-18 (17-7) / 15-6 (6-2)
Jazz 41-19 (17-7) / 15-5 (5-2)
Mavericks 51-9 (19-3) / 14-6 (5-2)
Lakers 33-28 (14-14) / 17-6 (5-2)
Hornets 28-33 (12-12) / 9-10 (5-2)
Nuggets 29-29 (16-8) / 11-7 (7-3)
SuperSonics 25-35 (13-12) / 10-11 (6-4)
Timberwolves 27-33 (11-11) / 10-9 (3-2)
Kings 28-32 (14-11) / 9-10 (4-3)
Warriors 27-35 (13-16) / 10-11 (2-2)
Grizzlies 15-46 (6-17) / 5-15 (4-6)
Trail Blazers 25-36 (10-15) / 8-14 (4-7)
As of today, March 7, 2007, the Eastern Conference teams are 154-215 (.417), which is a little better than their 38-74 (.339) record almost three months ago. The Western Conference teams are playing .583 basketball against the east – they were playing .661 basketball back in December. These numbers are still staggering, although, not nearly as much as they were earlier in the season. Basically, since December 10, 2006, the Eastern Conference teams have “amped” it up and are 116-141 (.451) against the west. Still, at this time, only 3 of the 15 Western Conference teams have a losing record against Eastern Conference teams. (And one of them, the Memphis Grizzles, completely fell apart against the east.)
Out east, only Detroit and Cleveland have winning records against the west — can you say Eastern Conference championship opponents? What a series that will be — the winner receiving a ticket to lose to the Mavericks, or the Suns, or the Spurs (these three teams combining for a Jordan-like .811 record against the east). Of course, my prediction may fail if the Spurs beat down the Mavericks again — only losing by a couple of calls — and Dallas goes on to embarrass themselves again in the finals.
We’ll return at the end of the season…
March 7th, 2007 at 05:31pm
Cesium
I apologize that it has been so long. I promise to be more consistent and more interesting. (It’s hard to write articles when you spend your time reading The Audacity of Hope — trying to figure out what Mr. Obama’s views really are.)
For now, let me leave you with the two things that scare me moving ahead in 2007…
Well, once the first pitch is thrown in St. Louis — on Sunday April 1st at 8:05 pm (New York time) – by Chris Carpenter to Jose Reyes (likely a strike-out or a triple) and the Republican and Democrat primary polls really start making sense — this blog will finally get going…
March 7th, 2007 at 04:50pm
Cesium
I know it has been a while — but because of this subject matter – I have to keep this short (although, not so sweet)…
The New York Giants 2006 National Football League Schedule (with commentary):
September 9, 2006 — Indianapolis — What should have been a win; only to allow Eli’s older brother (that’s the one from those bad commercials) to march down the field to beat them…Lost 26-21
September 17, 2006 — at Philadelphia — The beginning of what looked to be a great season with some overtime heroics…Won 30-24
September 24, 2006 — at Seattle — A blowout early, some fantasy points for Eli late…Lost 42-30
October 8, 2006 — Washington — An easy win when healthy…Won 19-3
October 15, 2006 — at Atlanta — Control Vick, gain momentum…Won 27-14
October 23, 2006 — at Dallas – The last game most Giant fans enjoyed…Won 36-22
October 29, 2006 — Tampa Bay — Boring…Won 17-3
November 5, 2006 — Houston — Why did they win by four?; actually, they almost lost…Won 14-10 (Note: Giants are 6-2)
November 12, 2006 — Chicago — A chance to go 7-2, show the country they are for real and become the favorite for a bye; a missed field goal touchdown; the beginning of the end of 2006…Lost 38-20
November 20, 2006 – at Jacksonville — Bad loss on Monday Night Football; could they be enjoying such loses on the national stage, no, they were just outplayed…Lost 26-10
November 26, 2006 — at Tennessee — Rock bottom; this game was 21-0 Giants (at least Lloyd Carr, Pete Carroll and Giant fans have something in common)…Lost 24-21
December 3, 2006 — Dallas — At home, the Cowboys, a last second loss, what could be worse — four straight loses…Lost 23-20 (Note: 6-6)
December 10, 2006 — at Carolina — The two coldest team in the league — someone had to win…Won 27-13
December 17, 2006 — Philadelphia — Only an introduction to devastation…Lost 36-22
December 24, 2006 — New Orleans — Okay, the Giants are not a playoff team, please, please, please make this end…Lost 30-7
December 30, 2006 — at Washington — Nope, an embaressing win (yes, they exist) and it is not over yet…Won 34-28
January 7, 2007 — at Philadelphia (Playoffs) — Now it is!; in heartbreaking last-second-field-goal-2006-Giants style…Lost 23-20
January 17th, 2007 at 11:40pm
Cesium
As some Americans argued after the 2002 and 2004 elections, we need some “redistricting” … in the NBA (that’s the National Basketball Association). (I reserve judgment on the redistricting of other organizations, such as the House of Representatives.) I believe any Western Conference fan would agree with me — at least in part — based on the following analysis. Each day, basketball fans check the NBA standings in their local newspapers’ sports section (or on the internet) – few the wiser. Most ”standings” list each teams’ wins, loses, and home, away, division and conference record. (Some even offer each team’s current streak.) But none of these sources give fans each team’s non-conference record. What could be a better statistic for comparing the conference as a whole to its brother?
You would think that after the Miami Heat won the championship last year, the Eastern Conference would have a claim as the dominant conference. Not a chance! Do you recall what happened to the best two teams in the league (at least two of the three best) in the playoffs last year? If I recall correctly (I do), the San Antonio Spurs (Timmy!) and the Dallas Mavericks (Dirk!) played in the second round of the playoffs (yes, the second round of a four round playoff system) and the Mavericks prevailed (if you can call it that) in an intense seven game series. So basically, the top two teams in the league were eliminated at that point. (The Mavs just didn’t seem to have it after that series.) The quirk in the rules that allowed the Spurs to play the Mavs so prematurely has allegedly been fixed, although, it really will not matter if the Western Conference — especially the Southwest division — continues to play .700 (that’s 7 out of 10) basketball against its dueling conference.
If this lack of parity continues — and it appears that it will — seven of the legitimate championship contenders could come from the Western Conference. (Three — Houson, Dallas and San Antonio — from the same division.) In the west, we could have three first round matchups in the playoffs that result in the elimnination of three of those contenders. On the other hand, the eastern Orlando Magic, Detroit Pistons or even King James’ Cavaliers — depending on the other two — could walk into the NBA finals unscathed.
Since my local papers omit non-conference records in the sports’ section, my analysis is based on the following data, which lists each teams’ total record at the end of the season’s first quarter (games ending December 10, 2006), along with the teams’ non-conference record in the parenthetical:
Eastern Conference
Cavaliers 12-7 (4-1)
Magic 15-7 (7-2)
Bucs 8-12 (5-4)
Pistons 13-7 (4-5)
Pacers 11-11 (3-4)
Hawks 8-11 (2-4)
Knicks 8-14 (3-5)
Heat 8-11 (3-6)
Celtics 6-13 (1-4)
76ers 5-14 (1-4)
Wizards 9-11 (1-4)
Bulls 10-10 (1-7)
Bobcats 5-15 (1-8)
Nets 7-12 (1-8)
Raptors 7-13 (1-8)
Western Conference
Suns 13-6 (6-0)
Clippers 10-9 (3-0)
Rockets 14-6 (9-1)
Spurs 15-6 (6-2)
Jazz 15-5 (5-2)
Mavericks 14-6 (5-2)
Lakers 17-6 (5-2)
Hornets 9-10 (5-2)
Nuggets 11-7 (7-3)
SuperSonics 10-11 (6-4)
Timberwolves 10-9 (3-2)
Kings 9-10 (4-3)
Warriors 10-11 (2-2)
Grizzlies 5-15 (4-6)
Trail Blazers 8-14 (4-7)
In sum, as of tonight (Sunday, December 10th), the Eastern Conference teams are 38-74 (.339) against the Western Conference teams — which, in turn, are playing .661 basketball against the east (they are basically winning two-thirds the interconference games). At the division level (there are three divisions in each conference), the Southwest division is 29-13 (.690) against the east. Conversely, the Atlantic division is a disgusting 7-29 (.194) against the west. (This “Atlantic” division includes teams from some of the largest markets in the NBA, including New York, Boston and Philadelphia, and also includes a Jason Kidd/Vince Carter Nets team that is 1-8 against the west.) Even the Pacific (besides Kobe and Nash, who plays at 10:30 p.m. EST?) division is dominating the east (20-7). And if you follow basketball, you probably know that the Central division, by far the Eastern Conference’s best division – with the Detroit Pistons, the Jordan Bulls, the Chosen One in Cleveland and the Indiana Pacers (all four with winning records) – still only boasts a 17-21 record against the west.
Honestly, I feel for fans in New Orleans (or is it Oklahoma City?) and Seattle. Both of their teams have losing records and would be non-playoff teams if it was April, but they combine for an impressive 11-6 record against the east. Not to mention — if the good-but-not-great Suns moved to Maine, they could probably win an unprecedented 75 games — scoring 100 in every game — in the east’s Atlantic where the first-place Nets are 7-12
Bottom line — the NBA needs to redistrict its conferences (just like the MLB and NFL).
December 10th, 2006 at 07:58pm
Cesium
After this past Saturday night’s upset of USC (Sorry OJ), rumors were flowing regarding who would play the Ohio State Buckeyes in the college football BCS National Championship Game on January 8, 2007. (For those of you out of touch, college football in the United States does not use a playoff format; instead, it uses a dumbfounded formula to decide which two colleges are the top two in the country for championship game purposes.) This formula is known as the Bowl Championship Series (or BCS). At the end of the college football season, it is used to determine the teams that will play in the BCS bowl games (the Rose Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Fiesta Bowl and the Orange Bowl), but most importantly, which teams will play for the championship. Clearly, this system is flawed. (For example, if there are three undefeated teams, this system will only allow for two of the three teams to play for the championship — see Auburn, 1994 [Actually, it was 2004 -- good call Bill].) At the end of this year’s college football season, there were two undefeated teams, Ohio State and Boise State. (Boise State did not finish in the top two of the BCS, thus, cannot play in the championship game.) The number two slot came down to two legitimate one-loss contenders — the Florida Gators and the Michigan Wolverines.
To the chagrin of both Ann Coulter and Dick Gephardt, the Gators finished second (and will play the Buckeyes) and the Wolverines finished third (earning a trip to th Rose Bowl versus USC). So, how did this happen since the Wolverines are obviously (Note: my opinion) the better football team? It happened for two reasons: the BCS does not incorporate a playoff and two-thirds of the BCS formula can be manipulated by the “human” element.
The current BCS system — as it stands today, December 4, 2006 (check back for updates!) incorporates three “sub-systems” in determining the top 25 teams in the nation. The top two play in the championship game, at a neutral site (this year, at the site of the Fiesta Bowl in Glendale, Arizona). The current BCS formula’s three sub-systems are the (i) Coaches’ Poll, (ii) Harris Poll and (iii) computer rankings.
The Coaches Poll. The USA Today Coaches’ poll is probably the most common college football Division I-A top 25 ranking poll. (Although the AP poll is also pretty well-known, it is no longer used as part of the BCS.) This poll ranks teams based on the votes of college football coaches — currently, 63 head coaches at Division I-A colleges. (Yes, the college football coaches vote for the top college football teams in the country.) Each week, including and most importantly at the end of the college football season, the votes are cast, translated into points. Then, for BCS purposes, each team is assigned a percentage of the possible points it could have received. This year, Ohio State received 1550 of a maximum 1550 points (1.000%), Florida received 1470 points (.948%) and Michigan received 1444 points (.932%).
The Harris Poll. The Harris Interactive College Football Poll is the “other” human poll used by the BCS for ranking the top 25 college football teams in the nation. Instead of taking its name by the title of the voters, this poll takes its name from its administrator, Harris Interactive, a market research company that specializes in Internet research. This poll recently replaced the AP poll as part of the BCS. The Harris Poll is comprised of various “humans,” and includes, among others, former players (Terry Bradshaw and Boomer Esiason), college administrators, and current and former media. (Is this the Oscars?) Like the Coaches’ poll, each voter picks the top 25 teams each week. These votes are also converted into points and, again, for BCS purposes, each team is assigned a percentage of the possible points it could have received. This year, Ohio State received 2,824 of a maximum 2,824 points (1.000%), Florida received 2,670 points (.945%) and Michigan received 2,632 points (.932%).
The Computer Average. The non-human component of the BCS includes six computer based ranking systems. These computer systems rank the top 25 teams – assigning the number one team 25 points, number two team 24 points, and so on. To compute the final computer average to be used in the BCS, the highest and lowest ranking for each team is dropped. Therefore, if a team receives five first place votes and one third place vote, it will still end with 100 points (4 x 25). As with the prior two polls, a percentage is produced to incorporate into the BCS final standings. Probably the most important aspect of the computer average is that the individual computer systems take into account the strength of each teams’ schedule. This year, Ohio State received 100 points (1.000%), Florida received 94 points (.940%) and Michigan, tied with Florida in this poll, also received 94 points (.940%). Apparently, the computers realized that Michigan also played a difficult schedule and only lost to the best team in the country — the Buckeyes.
Okay, I know that this is a lot of information, but at least now the BCS should make some sense. (Hopefully to you as I am lost again.) Once each team has been assigned a percentage from each of the three “sub-systems,” the three are averaged and the teams are ranked based on that average. At the end of the regular season (this past weekend), the top two teams are “chosen” to play for the college football championship.
This year, Ohio State (still undefeated) will play Florida (with one loss to Auburn), and the Michigan (with its only loss to number one, undefeated, Ohio State) will have no chance to win the championship, even though its only loss was to the top team in the country — whereas, Florida lost to a two loss Auburn. Since the final BCS results were released, many have speculated that Michigan was ousted because their only loss was to Ohio State last week – albeit by only three points in Columbus, Ohio — and the human voters did not want a rematch between the two teams (which also play in the same conference, the Big Ten). Prior to this past weekend, Michigan was ranked third and Florida was fourth (trailing Michigan by a somewhat large margin in all three polls). On this past Saturday, after number two USC lost to UCLA (knocking itself out of the number two spot in the BCS), Florida defeated Arkansas. While this was going on, the Michigan Wolverines were watching the games on TV — at no fault of their own — since their season ended two weeks prior with the three-point loss to Ohio State. Sunday evening, when the polls were released, Florida jumped Michigan.
In my view, because of the foregoing, the system does not work for college football. Either we need a playoff or someone should just call me and ask who I think are the best two teams. (Who wouldn’t want to see Michigan and Rutgers in the championship?) Now that I have wasted your time with the details of a system that liekly will not last, let me at least provide some weak insight. After analyzing the BCS framework and reviewing some of the raw data for various years — maybe this system could be used for something.
To stick with the current theme of prior articles – why not use the BCS to narrow the choices in a primary election? Think about it. We could use a combination of polls to determine which two of the numerous candidates we want to vote for in a primary election. This could eliminate the dirt that is thrown around within the same political party (Bush v. McCain) — often hurting the party — during the primaries. With only two primary candidates chosen quickly, costs would be cut and the overall election process could be streamlined to allow for increased information dissemination to the public prior to the primary vote and election day. So you may ask, how would the polls work?
A Coaches-like Poll. Instead of coaches, the actual candidates’ campaign managers would vote and rank each candidate in the primary. Each candidate would receive points based on their ranking from the other candidates, and a percentage would be assigned to each. What could be more democratic than having the competing candidates in a particular political party vote for each other? (Actually, I guess having the people vote would be more democratic.)
A Harris-like Poll. I believe this is what Harris does anyway – so we would not even need to change the name. An array of people could be assigned to participate in the vote, similar to the Nelson ratings. Obviously, this poll could be expanded to represent the population – thou shall not disenfranchise.
The Computers. Affectionately called the modem-poll,” six computer ranking systems could be set up to incorporate various factors in ranking the candidates. (I would definitely want a chance to set one of these up.) The computer rankings could various factors, including, experience, voting record, campaign finances, prior misdemeanor and felony convictions, tenure in civil service, filmology, etc.
Okay, maybe this is going too far. I tried to mask my unhappiness in the BCS with politics. Maybe the BCS is just useless. Regardless, I would rather see it make the primary ballots smaller and get rid of those seven-plus-person debates, than diminish the quality of college football in early January…
December 4th, 2006 at 11:30pm
Cesium
This morning. A normal morning. Leaving late. Driving fast. Minutes before train. Long line at Starbucks. So, there I am — with a pounding headache — in need of an espresso buzz. Not just any espresso — this espresso comes with warm milk (like mom used to make) and an assortment of flavoring choices (from vanilla to white chocolate). (And an added bonus — the coffee cups are decked out for the holidays.) So like a fool, I make my most important — and regretted — decision of the day, I pass on the java, make my train and save four dollars…
Could this lifestyle exist in China? I would never have thought so until this same morning. While reading a Wall Street Journal — during my brief awake moment on my commuter train — I noticed an article on the cover regarding Starbucks’ initiatives in China. Wait? (Are they not Communist?) I mean, don’t they drink tea?
Tea and coffee are so dissimilar (besides the fact that they are normally hot, sometimes cold, and receive milk and sugar well — okay, they have similarities). But for me, tea makes me think of being sick and snobbish people — whereas coffee reminds me of the joy of addiction and fifteen-minute coffee breaks.
How can Starbucks pull this one off? Then again, they have convinced so many that a Venti White Chocolate Mocha Latte is worth $4.50 and 630 calories. Obviously, they are doing something right. Why not make one billion Chinese the next focus — since they are already the largest coffee shop in the rest of the world!
As for some history (and I thank the Starbucks website for much of this info), the first “Starbucks” was founded in Seattle, Washington back in 1971 by two teachers and a writer (I do not think he had a blog) — selling mostly coffee beans. Then along came Mr. Howard Schultz — with his olive oil voice and espresso drinks — who was initially rejected by the trio, but, started his own coffee chain in 1985, Il Giornale. Finally, in 1987, the original three sold to Schultz, and the current Starbucks was born. Immediately, this new Starbucks expanded outside of Seattle. It opened in Los Angeles in 1991 (breaking 100 total stores that year). In 1992, the inevitable initial public offering [NASDAQ:SBUX]. In 1994, it finally opened in New York. And then in 1996 (a year it broke 1,000 locations), it opened in Tokyo — its first step towards world coffee shop domination. (I like to think of that scene in the film Outbreak, with the map of the United States and all the little red dots, starting from Cedar Creek or in this case, Seattle.)
Allegedly, there are currently more than 12,000 Starbucks locations around the world (if you count stores not owned directly by Starbucks — e.g, Barnes & Nobles). Although, that number may sound a little high — I have to believe it since, if I tried, I could easily pass about 20 Starbucks locations during a 20 minute stroll through midtown Manhattan.
But can it spread through China the way it appears to have spread everywhere else? Actually, to be fair, it should be noted that it has not worked in Italy. Has Starbucks avoided the great boot? With the love for coffee in Italia, I would have thought I would see the Starbucks label on the 2006 World Cup trophy. But, I would be wrong. I guess the Italians “really” love “their” caffe. (And my biggest shock – Milan, Italy’s “city,” not a Starbucks to be found.) Okay, back to China. (Forza Azzurri.)
Could Starbucks really bring tea drinkers over to the dark side? That is left to be seen. But, after witnessing its success in the United States and abroad (especially in London), it is hard to deny Starbucks’ appeal. (Not to mention a member of the current board of directors has his number 24 hanging from the Madison Square Garden rafters — that has to account for something.)
I’ll be sure to stop in for a “Grande Skim White Mocha” on my next trip to Shanghai.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:58pm
Cesium
Fourteen years after George H. W. Bush was denied reelection to the oval office, the New York Yankees’ shortstop, Derek Jeter, was denied a Most Valuable Player (MVP) award. Interestingly, if the United States of America used the Major League Baseball MVP award voting system, we could have had a completely different resulting in the 1992 presidential election. Shall we take a look at the numbers…
In this year’s MVP vote, Justin Morneau of the Minnesota Twins – in case you did not know he is the 2006 Major League Baseball MVP — received 15 first place votes, 8 second place votes, 3 third place votes and 2 fourth place votes (for a total of 320 points). Derek Jeter, of the New York Yankees, received 12 first place votes, 14 second place votes, 1 fourth place vote and 1 sixth place vote (for a total of 306 points). The MVP winner is determined based on the total number of points, not first place votes. Regardless, since there was only 28 voters for this year’s award, the Twin’s Morneau would have won based on a simple majority of first place votes. (He received 15 to Jeter’s 12.) Total points for MVP purposes is determined using the following formula. Each voter ranks 10 players (from first to tenth). The player ranked first on each ballot receives 14 points, the player ranked second receives 9 points, third receives 8 points, and so on (leaving the player ranked tenth with one point). For example, let’s look at David Ortiz, who finished in third place for this year’s MVP award. Big Papi received no first place votes (0 points), 1 second place vote (9 points), 11 third place votes (88 points), 5 fourth place votes (35 points), 7 fifth place votes (42 points), 3 sixth place votes (15 points) and 1 seventh place vote (4 points) — totalling 193 points, a distant third place behind Messrs. Morneau and Jeter.
I have always found this voting methodology both intriguing and fair. But, how would this play out in a presidential election? Most of our recent presidential elections do not have more than two “serious” candidates — but 1992 did. In the 1992 election, William Jefferson Clinton defeated George Herbert Walker Bush by collected 43.0% of the popular vote versus Bush’s 37.4%. (Please note that Clinton did not receive a majority of the popular vote, but still won with the plurality by collecting 370 Electoral College votes – needing only 270.)
Two assumptions must be made to use the MVP award’s tabulation system — (i) there were only five candidates on the ballot in the 1992 presidential election (in reality, there were more, but the top five candiates collected 104,154,416 of the 104,423,923 total votes cast in the 1992 election) and (ii) points will be allocated as follows: seven for a first place vote, five for second place vote, three for third, two for fourth and one for fifth. (I varied the assumptions in calculating the final result and all such results were substantially similar.)
On election day, November 3, 1992, Clinton (along with Albert Arnold “the Internet” Gore, Jr.), collected 44,909,806 votes and Bush, the Republican incumbent (along with James Danforth “what were you thinking” Quayle) collected 39,104,550. Moreover, as far too many forget, that same day, Henry Ross Perot (along with James Bond “007” Stockdale) collected 19,743,821 votes. (The other notables included Andre V. Marrou, the Libertarian candidate, collecting 290,087 votes, and James “Bo” Gritz, the Populist candidate, collecting 106,152 votes.)
Before I go through the numbers, it will also be assumed, based on the utter hatred between democrats and republicans that still exists in this country, that all Clinton voters would vote Bush fifth and all Bush Voters would vote Clinton fifth (can you blame me?), and all other voters would have voted their candidate first and then the remaining votes in the order of the actual tally — Clinton, Bush, Perot, Marrou and then Gritz — except that Perot’s voters would likely vote Bush second and Clinton third. (What was Perot’s party again?) Therefore, after crunching the numbers, the 1992 election could have ended with Clinton receiving 414,685,850 “points” and Bush receiving 418,549,478 “points.”
Could Bush have won in a squeaker?
Nope – not in this election — because Perot would have ended with 559,071,005 points. There you have it, Perot in a landslide!
Final vote tabulation as follows (total voters 104,154,416, using 7,5,3,2,1 MVP system):
Clinton: 44,909,806 (first); 396,239 (second); 19,743,821 (third); 39,104,550 (fifth);
414,685,850 (total).
Bush: 39,104,550 (first); 19,743,821 (second); 396,239 (third); 44,909,806 (fifth);
418,549,478 (total).
Perot: 19,743,821 (first); 84,014,356 (second); 396,239 (fourth);
559,071,005 (total).
Marrou: 290,087 (first); 84,014,356 (third); 19,743,821 (fourth); 106,152 (fifth);
293,667,471 (total).
Gritz: 106,152 (first); 84,014,356 (fourth); 20,033,908 (fifth);
188,805,684 (total).
So if you voted for Ross Perot, or just want to see a third party candidate have a chance, write you Congressman and explain the MVP award’s methodology. All we need is revision to the current electoral college – amendments to force each states’ electoral college representative to vote based on the MVP awards’ methodology. And yes, electoral fractions would be necessary.
November 25th, 2006 at 06:54pm
Cesium
Previous Posts
