More on Lobster

Everything in this post is from memory, so I can’t attribute it to any particular source or vouch for its truth.  Hmmn, I probably shouldn’t admit that.

The Maine lobster fishery is thriving at least in part because it is managed, both officially and unofficially.  Licenses are granted by the state and are available only to residents of Maine.  But don’t think you can move to Maine and fish.  There are many stories of people who have tried — to little avail.  This is part of the unofficial management.  The members of the various fishing communities consider the fishing to belong to the local folks.  A fisherman from one island or town is only “authorized” to fish in the area controlled by that island or town.  A fisherman from away (in this case, any place other than that particular Maine fishing community) is not welcome to fish at all.

If you (a person from outside Maine) move to Maine, and purchase a boat, a license to fish, and a bunch of lobster traps, you might think you would be ready to start hauling in lobster and money.  You would be mistaken.  The lore is that the first time an outsider sets out lobster pots, they will be found politely stacked on the dock near where his or her boat is moored.  The second time, the lines will be cut.  Imagine how difficult it is to haul in lobster traps that don’t have buoys attached.

Although the right to fish belongs to the local people, it can be provisionally acquired through marriage.  If you (a person from outside Maine) marry a local resident, you will be able to fish.  But if you get divorced, you will lose the right to fish, even if you have lived and fished locally for decades.  At least one incident in the past ten years or so resulted in gunfire when the divorced, now formerly authorized, fisherman tried to continue fishing.  He eventually thought better of it.

As noted in the prior post, fishermen are limited to 800 traps.  That, along with local restrictions, helps minimize the risk of local over-fishing.  Other measures are taken to foster an ample supply of lobsters.  Any lobster with eggs, which are carried on the underside of a breeding female, has a notch cut in her tail.  The notch indicates to any fisherman who subsequently catches the same lobster, that she is a breeding female and should be returned to the sea.

Similarly, all large lobsters (roughly three pounds and up) are required to be returned to the sea, whether they are male or female, because reproductive capacity is exponentially related to size.  I don’t remember the exact relationship, but a two-pound lobster does not produce twice as many eggs as a one-pound lobster, it produces 10 or 20 times as many.   Large lobsters can have as many as 100,000 eggs.

People often ask:  what do lobsters eat.  The old answer was:  anything, the new answer is:  lobster bait.  A couple of summers ago, a local told me that the ocean floor along the Maine coast has been transformed into (essentially) a lobster farm.

It is estimated that any random lobster that is large enough to be eaten, has been caught and released approximately 1000 times.  After enjoying hundreds of tasty, free, and easy to find meals of herring or some such, the lobster suddenly finds itself on the wrong end of a delicious meal.  Talk about a Black Swan event for the lobster.

All of this is timely for me because I am about to leave for vacation and plan to eat lobster while in Maine.  And let’s face it, you like lobster too.  If you ever plan to cook your own, drop me a line and I’ll send you a recipe.  As with most things I cook, the recipe starts with:  boil water.

The lobster in Maine are thriving

While scanning the news on my ipad earlier (July 26, 2016 at 4:30), I noticed a headline that could not be ignored:  The Secret to Maine’s Thriving Lobsters.  I was hoping to be educated by abc NEWS, which published the article, I was sadly underwhelmed.  Let’s ignore the absurd headline, surely the lobsters aren’t thriving; they are being captured and eaten in record numbers.  What is thriving is the lobster industry.

The second paragraph is so bad that it must be quoted in full and then dissected.

“Lobster is Maine’s No. 1 export.  There are more than 6,000 lobstermen along the state’s 228-mile coast.  Maine has over 2 million people and almost double that number in lobster traps.”

Most websites indicate that lobster is Maine’s highest value export.  But some indicate that paper products are, especially when pulp and processed paper are aggregated.  The International Trade Administration, a part of the United States Chamber of Commerce, reports that paper is the highest grossing export.  http://www.trade.gov/mas/ian/statereports/states/me.pdf.  I’ll call that one a push.

According to the Portland Press Herald, although there are “almost” 6,000 lobstermen registered in Maine, only 4,300 of whom actually fish.  http://www.pressherald.com/2011/08/14/so-you-want-to-be-a-lobsterman_2011-08-14/.  I take issue with abc NEWS and the Portland Press Herald using the term “lobstermen.”  In Maine, the people who catch lobster are called fishermen, they fish for lobster, they work in the lobster fishery.  I consider this a factual fail.

The article says that Maine’s coast is 228 miles long – and it may be, as the crow flies.  There are two ways to measure a coastline, according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.  The first is the general coastline, which measures only the general outlines of the seacoast.  The second, more widely used measure calculates the mileage of all islands, bays, and rivers and creeks that are considered tidewater.  https://coast.noaa.gov/data/docs/states/shorelines.pdf.  This is another push.

The statement that Maine has over 2 million people is patently ridiculous.  The US Census reports Maine’s population as well under 1.4 million on July 1, 2015.    http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/23.  I have never seen a source that lists Maine’s population as anywhere near 2 million.  That number was apparently pulled from thin air.  Epic factual fail, not within the realm of possibility.

As for the number of traps, that is trickier.  Each lobster fisherman is entitled to have 800 traps.  If the 4,300 active fishermen each have 800, that totals 3,440,000 traps, which is double the actual population of Maine, but not double the bizarre 2 million suggested by abc NEWS.  If all of the fishermen not actively fishing have 800 traps as well, then the total is 4,800,000, which is well over triple the number of people actually in Maine.  I’m feeling charitable, so I’ll call this a push.

The scorecard reads zero wins for abcNews, two losses, and three ties.  Not very impressive for a national news network.  And we haven’t even gotten to the worst part:  they appear to have almost no idea why Maine’s lobster fishery is thriving.  They mention the temperature of the water as being “in the sweet spot,” which by most accounts it is.  But they didn’t mention the active efforts taken by the industry to help ensure that they have plenty of lobster to harvest.  I’ll address that in my next post.

Top Secret

I’m fascinated with numbers that help explain an issue.  This manifests itself especially with sports and in particular with baseball, which can be well-described with numbers.  If you know that a pitcher lasted 8 innings and had 11 strikeouts, absent any other information, you can be pretty certain that his team had a good chance to win.  But it applies to many more important issues as well.

I read Harper’s Magazine every month.  Among the best features of the magazine is Harper’s Index.  It is a compendium of unrelated facts and questions that can be summarized with a number.  The magazine always publishes the sources of the information, though I must confess that I rarely check them.  I, perhaps mistakenly, assume that the magazine employs fact checkers who are both more numerous and better at checking facts than I am.

I plan to regularly refer to items from Harper’s Index augmented with commentary.  The items tend to be interesting and informative, and they provide an easy template for me to put together a post.

According to the June 2013 Harper’s Index, 1,400,000 Americans have top-secret security clearance.  That’s a lot of Americans.  Based on a US Census estimate that there were 321,418,820 people living in the US on July 1, 2015, and that approximately 248,000,000 were over 18 years old, I calculated that roughly 11 out of every 2,000 adults have top-secret clearance.  If top-secret clearances were evenly distributed (and they aren’t, obviously the concentration around D.C. is much higher than average), my home town would have 15 people with top-secret clearance and the suburb where I reside would have 82 people with top-secret clearance.

The numbers provide context, they increase understanding, they are fundamental to appreciating the scope of the issue.  But not all issues are amenable to numerical precision.

Security clearances come in three levels.  http://govcentral.monster.com/security-clearance-jobs/articles/2330-3-levels-of-security-clearance

Confidential clearances apply to “information that reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security if disclosed to unauthorized sources.”   “Damage” covers almost anything considered harmful or potentially harmful.  That’s virtually everything, though in this situation it must damage “national security,” which is pretty amorphous.  A misplaced email address, if it’s to or from an important enough person, might be expected to cause damage to national security.   Or perhaps a random quote about the ongoing relevance of NATO.

Secret clearances apply to “information that reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security if disclosed to unauthorized sources.”  A single word, “serious,” has been added to the definition, but it is woefully imprecise.  “Serious damage” clearly rules out de minimus damage.  A single misplaced email, email address, or comment would be unlikely to rise to the level of causing serious damage.  But might several, several hundred, or several thousand?  It likely depends on the context.

The Washington Post reports that 3.6 million people have confidential or secret clearances, that’s roughly 1% of the country.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/03/24/5.  This begs the question of whether we have enough or too many people with security clearances.  I will leave that for another day and another person with more inside knowledge.

Top secret clearances apply to “information that reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security if disclosed to unauthorized sources.”  Again, only one term is different.  We have moved from mere “damage” to “serious damage” to “exceptionally grave damage” with precious little to guide our understanding.  “Exceptionally grave” sounds pretty darn bad, but what does it mean in reality.  I think we are talking about extremely important information, not a few stray emails or comments, rather something along the lines of a Snowden level disclosure.

I don’t have a security clearance of any level.  I also don’t have access to information that could cause damage to the national security and I doubt that you do either.  But a lot of Americans do and more are likely to every year.  In this day and age, I hope they take their clearance level seriously and guard their information zealously.  How important is safeguarding our government’s most important information from unauthorized sources?  On a scale of 1-10, I would rate it a 10 – or higher.

Blogging Feedback

They say that a blog should have at least one new entry a week.  You know — the blog experts.  I don’t think I have that much to say and I have many testimonials to support my position.

My sister-in-law says I should delve into controversial topics.  So does my neighbor.  Another friend says that I should avoid controversy at all cost.  My college roommate asks whether I want to know about typos, I suspect he has a lengthy list ready to throw my way.  If he does, I will make the corrections.

But still, I can’t get past the first thing:  I should post at least one entry a week.  That means I have to post something today.  But I don’t have anything interesting to say today.  (Some might question whether I have had anything interesting to say yet.)  In college, I had a paper due one day, might have been a Wednesday.  I had written nothing as of Tuesday evening.  So I pulled out my typewriter (have any of you used a typewriter in the last year, the last decade) and started tapping away.  The tapping of a typewriter feels more substantial than the tapping of a keyboard, in part because it’s more permanent, but really, a type hammer is just physically heavier.

In the end, I typed over four pages about why I wasn’t writing on the assigned topic.  It wasn’t an especially good paper, nor was it particularly bad.  It was unabashedly irrelevant to the class.  My kindly TA (teaching assistant) gave me a C+ and told me that if I rewrote it, on topic, I could improve my grade.  I declined because I was perfectly happy with a C+ in a class I was taking pass/fail.

This blog isn’t even pass/fail.  It’s more like I’m auditing.  I can write anything and nobody else has any impact.  Even the comments that you send are not published until I approve them.  That would have been a useful feature in college.  Imagine responding, “Thanks for the constructive criticism Paul.  Even though you are spot on that I didn’t address the assigned topic, I do not approve your comment.  It is hereby deleted.”

A couple of you have expressed a desire for shorter posts — something about falling asleep before the end.  First, I’m happy to substitute for Ambien, I’m cheaper and cause fewer side effects.  Second, tonight’s post is going to take that criticism to heart.  After all, it’s Tuesday, the post is due by Wednesday, I don’t have anything topical to say, none of you can grade me without my approval, and all I really want to do is turn this in and move on to my next assignment.  It’s as if I’m in college all over, except this time, I’m my own TA.

Chicago — random comments in the nature of a review

I love Chicago.  There are so many awesome places to visit:  restaurants, museums, towers, and a rather large lake.  I can’t pretend to understand the city.  I have never lived there, never even spent more than three nights in a row there.  But I have been enough times to learn a thing or two about the city.

It’s called the Second City.  Do you know why?  I have quizzed several people, all college educated, all relatively well-traveled.  None of them knew the answer.  Most people think it’s because New York is the first city (biggest, best, etc.) and Chicago is second.  Wrong.

During the Great Chicago Fire, which almost certainly wasn’t started by Mrs. O’Leary’s cow, virtually the entire city burned to the ground.  The rebuilding was basically a new beginning, hence it’s the second city.  It has nothing to do with an inferiority complex.

Although the fire devastated the physical plant of the city, “only” a reported 300 or so people perished.  On the same day that the Great Chicago Fire started, another fire started in a mid-western town that killed over 1,000 people, perhaps as many as 2,500.  Name that city.  (Answer below.)

There is great food everywhere.  Breakfast, lunch, dinner, and dessert are just a few steps away from virtually any spot near downtown.  Deep dish pizza is among my favorites and it is available all over the city.  There are so many great venues that it would be unfair to single out any individual establishment.  Not so barbeque.  I have been to one place, several times, and it is fantastic.  Twin Anchors has been a part of the Chicago scene since the 1930s and remains worthy of a visit.  It’s on the way to Wrigley Field – those two places in one day make for a double header that Ernie Banks would be proud of.

Recently, I ate dinner at two different restaurants that we just happened upon.  Both were excellent.  D4 is an Irish pub with high ceilings and an old world feel.    The food and beer were very good.  Mad Boiler is a seafood specialist, where the food is presented unceremoniously in a plastic bag after having been steamed.  Many different seasonings are available, the two that we tried were excellent.  Want breakfast?  Hash House a go go has large quantities, great flavor, and a full bar, including a terrific BLT Bloody Mary.  One night after dinner, I asked my phone for help, and was reliably informed that Molly’s Cupcakes was within 50 paces.  The cheesecake and cupcakes that we sampled were wonderful.

Chicago is also called the Windy City, even though it is considered the 12th windiest city in the country.  (Who calculates these things?)  The nickname has nothing to do with the weather or the breezes that blow off the lake.  Back in the day, Chicago was full of politicians who were considered windbags.  They engendered the nickname.  I doubt that Chicago’s modern politicians have done anything to warrant a change.

The other great fire that started on October 8, 1871, was in Peshtigo, Wisconsin.  It was largely a forest fire, consumed over 1.5 million acres, and may have killed as many as 2,500 people.

Mention the Chicago River, causes many people ask “isn’t that the river they dye green” on St. Patrick’s Day.  Although this is true, it is not the most significant aspect of the river’s history.  That distinction applies to its reversal.  The river used to flow into Lake Michigan, containing much of the sewage generated by the good residents of the city.  During a particularly bad storm in 1885, the overflow rushed past and then into the water intakes that pumped fresh water into the city.  Ordinarily the sewage dispersed before it reached the intakes.

The contaminated drinking water caused various diseases that combined to kill an estimated 12% of the city’s residents.  The disastrous experience led the city and state to join forces to reverse the flow of the river.  Massive amounts of earth were moved, but the river now flows out of the lake and deposits its water in the Atlantic Ocean via the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico instead of via the St. Lawrence River and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Much of what I know about the Chicago River and the architecture of Chicago (which I shall keep to myself), I learned on the Architectural River Cruise offered by Chicago Lines.  It was a blast.  We cruised up and down the river, not quite into the lake, and learned about many of the buildings that dominate the city’s fantastic skyline.  We learned about the various styles prevalent in the city, some of which are virtually dueling with each other, and about many of the magnates who constructed the buildings.  It was well worth 90 or so minutes and 40 or so dollars.

While in Chicago, I saw Sting and Peter Gabriel for the second time.  My seats were much better (thank you John), allowing me to see the Red Team (Gabriel) and Blue Team (Sting) movements.  The ensemble has strengthened over the past two weeks, gaining confidence in their collective voice and music.  Practice doesn’t necessarily make perfect, but in this case, it certainly made them better.  The play list remained the same except two of Gabriel’s more somber numbers (No Self Control and Darkness) were replaced by San Jacinto and Digging in the Dirt.    The changes were definitely an improvement.

Usually when Sting was singing, the entire Blue Team was on the stage.  Sometimes they were supplemented with various Red Teamers, perhaps Gabriel singing backup or on keyboards or, during Desert Rose, with an extra drummer.  When Gabriel sang, the entire Red Team was on stage, though they were frequently supported by Sting singing or on bass or, during Red Rain, by the Blue violinist.  Being able to see the various changes and permutations was interesting, but wasn’t integral to enjoying the music, which was best when both teams were on the stage infusing the crowd with their full power, especially during In Your Eyes.

Chicago is not without its flaws.  Perhaps the most noteworthy is the high rate of shootings and homicides, many resulting from the various gangs infesting the city.  According to Wikipedia, the rate of homicides in Chicago is twice as high as in New York City, the level of gang membership is the highest in the country, and gangs account for 61% of the homicides.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago

So when you visit Chicago, stick near Downtown, it’s where most of the fun is and where the gangs aren’t.

NBA Greatness (and MJ vs LJ)

The Cavaliers winning the 2016 NBA Championship was cathartic for the city of Cleveland.  It also liberated LeBron James.  He is an undeniably great player, who has been dogged by critics who think he should have won more championships than he has.  After winning his third title in five years, the critics have less ammunition for their cause — and LeBron’s fans have reason to compare him favorably to Michael Jordan.  Of course Michael’s fans consider that sacrilege.  But is it?

Joe Posnanski, my favorite sportswriter, has an article titled Michael vs LeBron that wonderfully presents the debate.   http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/michael-jordan-vs-lebron-james/  I encourage you to read it.  Joe is a great storyteller, writes beautifully, and always takes a well-reasoned position.  He picks a winner, after concluding that there is no right or wrong answer.  I will pick a winner as well.

I have been enamored with baseball analytics for decades, since reading my first Bill James Baseball Abstract in roughly 1985.  He’s an engaging writer and a superb analyst.  Baseball analytics are universally available and relatively well understood by average fans.  Basketball analytics are not as readily accessible and I am not nearly as well versed in them.  I will, nevertheless, use a basketball metric (that is also used by baseball) because it provides a shortcut to broad picture analysis that is not otherwise available via more traditional measures like points, rebounds, and assists.

VORP stands for value over replacement player.  It’s basically an approximation of how valuable a player is compared to a replacement player, adjusted for game context (basically possessions per game) and prorated to an 82 game season.  The metric attempts to measure production and efficiency and, for my purposes, is a decent catch-all measure of quality, in part because it is available for all players since the mid-70s.  For reference, there have only been 50 players since 1973 to finish a season with a VORP of 7.99 or higher.  Anything approaching 5.0 indicates an excellent season.

The question of whether it is possible to be great if you never won a championship often arises when discussing NBA players.  The answer is unquestionably “YES.”  The top ten in career VORP are (in order): LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, Kevin Garnett, Charles Barkley, Tim Duncan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, David Robinson, Julius Erving, and Larry Bird.  They may not be the ten greatest, even allowing for the fact that VORP isn’t available for seasons prior to 1973, but these are all great players.  Two of them did not win an NBA championship and two others won “only” one.

Winning a championship isn’t necessary for a player to be an all-time great.  It doesn’t hurt, but it isn’t necessary.  Conversely, being on a team that wins championships doesn’t make a player great.  Sam Jones won ten championships in 12 seasons, the second most NBA championships ever.  He is in the Hall of Fame and deserves to be.  Yet he is never mentioned as being among the all-time greats.

Sam Jones averaged over 17 points per game, that’s more than many Hall of Famers, including James Worthy, Alonzo Mourning, Lenny Wilkins, Scottie Pippen, and Ralph Sampson.  Sam Jones was an outstanding player.  But he wasn’t as good as Bill Russell, who gets the lion’s share of the credit for all those Celtics’ championships.  For the record, Sam Jones scored more points per game than Russell.

Nine players have played on seven or more NBA championship teams.  Eight of them are Celtics from the 1960s, headlined by Russell who won 11 championships in 13 years.  (Who is the ninth guy?  Hint: he won seven total, two with two different teams and three with another team.  Answer below.)  The other Celtics with seven or more championships are Tom Heinsohn, K.C. Jones (with whom my son and I once golfed), Satch Sanders, John Havlicek, Jim Loscutoff, and Frank Ramsey.  Havlicek is the only one of these Celtics to win a championship without Russell on the floor, winning two in the mid-70s.

Instead of hopping straight to LJ v. MJ, I decided to pit them against great contemporaries.  MJ will compete against Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, and LJ will compete against Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan.

Michael, Larry, and Magic each had assorted injuries or retirements, so I only counted their 11 best seasons.  (Bird 1979-1992, Magic 1979-1991, Michael 1984-1998)

Bird Johnson Jordan
 

Average Wins Regular Season

 59.8 59.8 52.7
 

Average Wins in Playoffs

 8.9 11.5 10.3
 

Total Championships

 3 5 6

 

Bird and Johnson played for better teams on average.  A Bird team never won fewer than 52 regular season games, Magic never won fewer than 54.  An early Jordan team finished under .500, winning 38 games.  Jordan has a championship edge, but then he wasn’t playing head-to-head against two inner circle hall of famers like Larry and Magic were.

Bird Johnson Jordan
Average VORP 6.9 6.6 8.2
 

Average Best Teammate

 3.9 4.2 4.0
 

Percent of Team VORP

 39% 38% 48%

 

Recall that a VORP over 5 denotes an excellent season.  Each of these guys averaged significantly better than that, with Jordan having the upper hand.  On average, their best teammate in a given season was at least a notch below excellent.  Jordan separates himself because his teammates were worse.  On average Bird generated 39% of the total VORP of the seven players on his team with the most minutes played (including himself).  Johnson was a bit worse and Jordan generated substantially more of his team’s production.

I get it – I’m not looking at points, turnovers, etc.  I’m not considering defense, where Jordan excelled.  I’m not looking at strength of competition, I’m not looking at a lot of things.  But I’m not cherry picking either.  After poring over the statistics readily available, I chose these six and didn’t deviate based on results.  It’s pretty clear that in this battle of giants, Jordan wins the pre-2000 semi-final.

Now the same information for three post-2000 giants, based on their first 13 years in the league.  (Kobe 1996-2009, Duncan 1997-2010, LeBron 2003-2016)

Bryant Duncan James
 

Average Wins Regular Season

 52.2 55.3 52.5
 

Average Wins in Playoffs

 8.6 8.2 10.1
 

Total Championships

 4 4 3

 

This is really close.  LeBron has a won a few more playoff games, but one fewer championship.

Bryant Duncan James
Average VORP 4.3 5.5 8.4
 

Average Best Teammate

 4.8 4.3 2.9
 

Percent of Team VORP

 29% 33% 55%

 

This is a landslide.  On average, Kobe’s best teammate was better than he was and Duncan’s was relatively close.  LeBron’s best teammates have been solid players, but not nearly as productive as Kobe’s or Tim’s teammates.  And LeBron’s overall level of production is much higher.  No shame in coming in 2nd or 3rd to LeBron.

We can quibble about the numbers.  Maybe I should have selected different ones (win shares or advanced plus/minus) or more, maybe I should weight them, maybe this, maybe that.  But for a broad-brush approach, these statistics tell a tale, and it is obvious that LeBron is the tallest.

Now the two champions go head to head.

James Jordan
 

Average Wins Regular Season

 52.5 52.7
 

Average Wins in Playoffs

 10.1 10.3
 

Total Championships

 3 6
 

Average VORP

 8.4 8.2
 

Average Best Teammate

 2.9 4.0
 

Percent of Team VORP

 55% 48%

 

The first two categories are a wash.  Obviously, Jordan won more championships.  Each great’s overall production (VORP) is basically the same.

The main difference is the quality of Jordan’s teammates.  His average best teammate has a VORP of 4.0, but that number is dragged down by Charles Oakley (2.3), Dave Corzine (1.3), Orlando Woolridge (2.4), and Horace Grant (2.2).  In those four seasons early in his career, Jordan’s teams won a total of 13 playoff games.  Once Scottie Pippen blossomed into a superstar, Jordan’s teams never won fewer than 15 playoff games in a season – if we ignore (as we should) the second year of his first retirement when he returned late in the season and the team never really came together.  Pippen had four seasons with a VORP over 6, almost eclipsing Michael one year, 6.7 to 6.8.  In those seasons Pippen was one of the best players in the league.

LeBron can only dream of having a player as good as Pippen as a teammate.  One teammate in 13 years has had a VORP over 5, Dwyane Wade with 5.7 in LeBron’s first year in Miami.  This year, Kevin Love was LeBron’s most productive teammate with a VORP of 2.8.  The caliber of teammates is not close.  Over the course of his career, LeBron has averaged a significantly higher VORP than his six teammates with the most playing time combined, 8.4 for LJ vs. 6.8 for his teammates.  MJ produced 8.2 VORP to his teammates’s 8.8.

Only four times in 13 years have LeBron’s teammates out produced him – according to VORP.  Jordan out produced his teammates his first five years in the league, when the team wasn’t ready for primetime, but never after that.  He also never made it to the NBA finals without Scottie Pippen producing at a high level

LeBron gets unfairly dinged because he has lost four finals.  But he lost to the Spurs twice.  They are the best team of the last 15 years.  Jordan’s Bulls defeated very good teams (Drexler’s Trailblazers, Barkley’s Suns, the Jazz of Malone and Stockton) but only one team that ever won a championship (the 1990-91 Lakers).   LeBron made the NBA finals with Zydrunas Ilgauskas as his second best player with a VORP of 2.1.  Jordan would not have taken that team to the NBA finals, let alone defeated the Spurs.  Yet, LeBron is discredited for making it to the finals but losing.

Only Kobe ever had a teammate as good as Pippen.  At his best, Shaquille O’Neal was outstanding, maxing out with a VORP of 9.3.  Jordan and Kobe each had five teammates with a VORP over 5.0, Duncan had three, Bird had two, Magic and LeBron had one.

The year after Jordan retired for the first time, the Bulls won 55 games and a playoffs series.  The first three years after LeBron left for Miami, the Cavaliers won a total of 64 games and attended a playoff game only upon the purchase of a ticket.

Michael Jordan was a transcendent player without amazing athleticism, work ethic, and competitive fire.  But he wasn’t a champion without a superstar Scottie Pippen playing beside him.  LeBron is all the things that Michael was and he’s 6’9”.  LeBron is at least as good a player as Michael, but he has not been blessed with outstanding teammates.  Maybe Kyrie Irving will become a superstar.  If he does, I predict more championships are headed to Cleveland.

Michael never had to carry a team the way LeBron has.  Maybe he could have, but the fact is that he didn’t get out of the Eastern Conference until the Celtics got old and the Pistons started to slide.  If my team already has a Scottie Pippen on it, I’ll draft Michael and win a bunch of games and championships.  But if my team doesn’t have a superstar, I would draft LeBron because he has proven that he can win a championship without a superstar at his side.  In my opinion, LeBron is a better player than Michael was because, although their production is roughly equivalent, Lebron has received much less support from his teammates.  And remember, LeBron is still only 31; he has a lot of years left.

 

 

Answer to trivia question:  Robert Horry won two championships with the Rockets (best player Hakeem Olajuwon), three with the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, and two with the Duncan/David Robinson Spurs.  He was almost as good as picking teammates as Sam Jones.

Reading is good

I read a lot as a child and I read a lot as an adult.  Reading feels industrious, though it produces nothing.  While reading, I am learning or being entertained.  In a minimum, I appear to be doing something, even if I am sitting in a chair barely moving.

When I graduated from college, the President of our university gave a speech at commencement.  He welcomed us “to the fellowship of educated men and women.”  I have never forgotten that phrase.  It sounded terrific then and it sounds terrific now.  What a wonderful thing to be a part of – the fellowship of educated men and women.  The welcome came with a suggestion: that each of us read a book every month.

Since then, I have kept track of every book I have read.  I don’t count magazines or comic books, though I count graphic novels (the Watchmen series is especially good).  I count volumes of poetry, which might be fewer than 100 pages (for instance “Green Squall” by Jay Hopler) equally with massive novels (like “War and Peace”).  I count all of the many baseball books I read, though none of the countless articles and blog posts.  I count all of the nonfiction I read, which comprises most of what I read.

I have a spreadsheet that lists every book I have read since June 1984.  In that time,  I have read an average of 35 books a year, as many as 59 books when I was single and unencumbered and as few as 21 when my children were young.  So far this year, the first year in 20 without children living in our house, I have read 25 books.

I can definitively state that I have read at least one book a month for the past 32 or so years.  This level of reading appears to be more than most of my friends, though much less than many avid readers and scholars.  Each year, some 2,000,000 books are published, roughly 500,000 of them in English.  At 35 books per year, I am rapidly losing ground.

It was been said of certain people that they had read every book written.  This was almost certainly never true because of how little interaction there was between east and west until after the Renaissance.  And it cannot possibly have been true since the creation of the printing press.  Still, there was a time, before the creation of the novel, when a European could have read virtually all of the consequential books hitherto written, basically the classics of Latin and Greek.

That is no longer possible, it isn’t even possible to read every book written on a topic.  My library system has 1452 books with the word “baseball” in the title.  It has 22,126 books with the word “history” in the title.  We are buried in books that have already been written and many more are on the way.

Separating the wheat from the chaff is difficult.  Book reviews help.  Friends and family try to help, with recommendations or purchases.  Usually that distracts from what I want to read, sometimes it is downright annoying.  One year, my son gave me “The French Revolution: A History” by Thomas Carlyle.  He was young enough to pay attention to whether I read the book, so I read it.  It was excruciating.  I defy you to pick up the book, open to a random page, and find two sentences in a row that are comprehensible.  Though I am no fan of recommendations from others, I continually recommend books to others.

I have recently been pushing the book “Evicted.”  It is extremely well written and it describes a world that most middle class Americans are unfamiliar with:  a world of want, a world of existential worry, an underworld in the midst of our land of plenty.  Though nonfiction, the book reads like a novel with compelling highly flawed characters.  The book concludes with a prescription for solving the problems so eloquently conveyed by its author Matthew Desmond.  If you care about our country, you should read this book.  The experience will be enlightening, not excruciating.

I just finished the fascinating and elegant “Seven Brief Lessons on Physics” by Carlo Rovelli.  It is only 81 pages and it will expand your understanding of the way the world works.

Two brief snippets to whet your appetite:

  1. Rovelli describes with fluid prose the nuance and ramifications of Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity. The ultimate conclusion being drawn from these theories at this time is that space is not empty but full of gravitational waves.  Gravity, by the way, remains inscrutable.  We know how to account for it, but we don’t know why it works.  Gravity is a theory, one that is utterly reliable.
  2. Einstein is quoted as having written that people “who believe in physics, know that the distinction made between past, present and future is nothing more than a persistent, stubborn illusion.” In essence, one chapter of the book talks about the flow of time and how it is different than our common place perception of it, essentially, that time does not exist.

It’s pretty heady stuff and worth the investment of a couple of hours, whether you are well versed in science or more in the nature of an English major.  I am the latter.

On page 43, Rovelli discusses loop quantum gravity and states that space is comprised of grains that are “a billion billion times smaller than the smallest atomic nuclei.”  This particular construct has always bothered me, even though I know perfectly well what is being stated.

I understand “two times bigger” or a “billion times bigger.”  In those cases, the things compared can be envisioned.  A basketball is bigger than a baseball, whether six or eight or 12 times bigger I don’t know.  But you can see each of them in your mind, you can envision eight baseballs and think, yea, a basketball is bigger than that.

But “two times smaller” is an impossibility.  You can envision a basketball, but what is two times smaller than a basketball.  If a basketball is the unit of measure, how can it also be the divisor of itself.  (No one would ever state that something weighs two times less than a pound.)  What is being conveyed, of course, is that the other thing is half as big as a basketball.  Then why not say that.  It is simpler, more direct, and less susceptible to quibbles from the likes of me.

That is the only complaint I have about the book.  It is otherwise exquisite.  Whether or not you read that particular book, read something.

The Violent Femmes sing in Lack of Knowledge, “Read read read read read read read everything you can read, learn learn learn learn learn learn learn everything you can learn.”  I like their music, I like their sentiment.  When you read, you learn.  Whether you read a book a month or a book a year, read something.

Big 12 Football (a thought experiment)

I have spent a lot of time through the years thinking about how to make this or that better, in large part, to no good end.  For example, I think all power lines should be underground.  It would be a significant aesthetic improvement, would lead to fewer automobile accidents involving utility poles, and would result in fewer power outages, which are often caused by falling trees or tree limbs.  It’s a great idea, certainly not original to me.  Though I have no authority to implement the concept, it is fun to think about.

Recently Bill James, the patron saint of baseball analytics, engaged in a thought experiment.  He thinks the NBA should consider a significant tweak to its draft to lessen the incentive for teams to tank seasons.  His idea, in short form, is to allow each player eligible for the draft to be drafted by up to three teams.  Then the teams that draft a player could negotiate with him and he could sign for the best situation, most dollars, or some combination of the two.  The scheme calls for a cap on dollars that can be spent on draft picks over a time period, say five years.  It’s just a thought experiment, if a good one, so all of the potential kinks have not been analyzed.

Steven Goldleaf recently offered his own thought experiment on Bill James Online.  He wants us to consider the impact of a new scheme governing walks in baseball.  Again, in short form, he envisions each team having nine free balls per inning.  The tenth ball would be a walk, as would each subsequent ball.  He believes (almost certainly correctly) that this scheme would lead to more hittable pitches, more balls in play, more runs scored, and a vastly different record book.  It’s an interesting idea and like most thought experiments is unlikely to be implemented.  It hearkens to a bygone age when the pitcher was supposed to initiate the action, not dominate it.

There are many others thought experiments out there.  Some, like Brexit, have real world impact – whether for good or bad remains to be determined.  Today I offer my own thought experiment.

There has been much talk lately about whether the Big 12 should expand.  Much of the discussion has centered on football.  My idea is to leave the conference as is, meaning that we do nothing to change the structure of any sport, whether baseball, soccer, basketball, etc. — except for football.  I believe we should consider distributing the Big 12’s football teams to the other four conferences that comprise the so-called Power 5 (SEC, Big Ten, PAC-12, ACC and Big 12).

The Big 12 has been getting picked apart for years anyway.  Primarily based on football considerations, the conference lost Nebraska to the Big Ten, Colorado to the PAC-12, and Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC.  The Big 12 is no longer the force it once was, though, to be fair, each year the conference’s top teams remain among the best in the country.

My idea of distributing the Big 12 teams to the other conferences dovetails nicely with my belief that college football should have an eight-team playoff.  As currently constituted, the ACC has 14 teams, the Big Ten has 14 teams, the PAC-12 has 12 teams, the SEC has 14 teams, and the Big 12 has 10 teams.  That’s a total of 64 teams.  Remind you of anything?

It reminds me of the NCAA basketball tournament in its most perfect form, before the abomination of the First Four was invented.  The only good thing about the First Four is that they no longer call it the First Round.

If the Power 5 became the Power 4, or some better name please, and each conference has 16 teams, then we are most of the way to an eight-team playoff.  The winner of each division would play in a quarterfinal game.  Whether the two division winners from each conference play each other or the eight teams are seeded by the current playoff committee doesn’t really matter.  What matters is having eight teams determined by the results on the field, which then determine a champion on the field.

Because this is my thought experiment, I would seed the eight teams and hold the four quarterfinal games at the home field of the higher seed.  The stadiums would be packed and we would likely see matchups that college football fans can now only dream of.  The semis and the championship game could remain in rotation with the existing bowls.

There are a few issues outstanding.  (Yea, right, just a few.)

First, the Big 12 teams have to be distributed.  I would do it essentially by geography.  The easiest decision is West Virginia, which would join the ACC along with Iowa State; Kansas and Kansas State would join the Big Ten; Texas, TCU, Texas Tech, and Baylor would join the PAC-12; and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would join to the SEC.  That’s not perfect, but if you look at a map, it makes a lot of sense.

Second, some pretty good football schools have been left out.  It may have occurred to you, for instance, that Notre Dame’s football team isn’t in any of these conferences.  This is football’s chance to convince Notre Dame to join a conference.  ND won’t have to, but if they don’t, they will be ineligible for the national championship.  Others schools of note on the outside include:  Boise State, Louisville, Hawaii, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Northern Illinois, and the University of Central Florida.  Each of these teams has played in at least one BCS bowl within the last ten years.

Third, scheduling is always tricky, but this format allows the powers that be to enforce some standards.  Each team would of necessity play the seven teams in its division each year.  In addition, each team would be required to play at least two games against teams from its conference’s other division or from the other Power 4 conferences.  I would require each of the Power 4 matchups to be home and home.  Teams would still have the opportunity to schedule two or three revenue games against teams from outside the Power 64.

Fourth, strength of schedule and the eye test would become things of the past.  There would still be much discussion about whether this team is better than that team, but there would be only one crystal-clear criterion for advancing to the year-end tournament:  division record.  The two-way tie-breaker would be head to head performance.  Multiple team tie-breakers would have to be established, let’s say fewest points allowed against the teams in the tie.

Fifth (and most controversially?), relegation should be adopted.  This is a large topic deserving of its own post, but I’ll be brief anyway.  Because there are so many good teams on the outside looking in and because there are some many bad teams on the inside, there should be a process to replace the bad with the good.  There are many valid ways to approach this issue and they are all disruptive.  But, again, it’s my thought experiment, so here is my idea:

Every five years, the two teams in the Power 64 (“P64”) with the fewest wins against P64 schools should be replaced by the two teams outside the P64 with the most wins against P64 teams.  That’s not perfect and it could lead to serious geographical dislocation, but not likely much worse than West Virginia having the entire Big Ten between it and the Big 12.  A tiebreaker could be paid attendance.

Sixth, let’s face it:  football is different.  It is (roughly) the cash cow of college sports, though men’s and women’s basketball also provide healthy revenues.  In the main, the other sports do not.  There is no reason football can’t be treated differently, as a separate entity with a sort of super-structure imposed outside the current conference format.  And, let’s face it, conferences have changed frequently throughout the years, there is nothing sacrosanct about the current structure, nor should there be.

Seventh, however bizarre relegation would be, it would provide a new arena of intense interest as schools battle to avoid relegation and others battle to gain admission to the P64.  Instead of tracking wins, we might instead track football related revenues.  That may well be a bit more honest than we want to be.

Eighth, Texas will want to retain the Longhorn Network.  They can, but football will be outside that network.

Ninth, Notre Dame will likely succumb, which means we have 65 schools.  Someone must go.  I would nominate either Vanderbilt or Wake Forest.  It’s a favor to whichever gets booted.  Wake and Vandy are the only two schools in the P64 with a student enrollment under 10,000 and they play in two of the smallest stadiums, only Washington State is close.  Perhaps one of them would volunteer to become an independent.

Tenth, of course it will never happen.  Who cares?  As my friend Parker likes to say, discuss and debate.

Rock Paper Scissors (the tour)

If you like Sting or Peter Gabriel and didn’t get to see the opening night of their Rock Paper Scissors tour in Columbus, seek them out at another venue.  They journey as far east as Worcester MA, and as far west as L.A., before heading north, as close to frozen tundra as I ever hope to get, to Calgary and Edmonton.  The far-flung nature of the tour may be exceeded by the range of songs performed, from Gabriel’s deeply foreboding, even violent, “Darkness” to Sting’s relentlessly optimistic “Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic.”

(Disclaimer:  this post would have been easier to write, not to mention more informative, if I had taken notes, — other than the play list — knew something about any of the band members, had been a long-time fan of Sting, or had a better grasp of music history.)

This was no greatest hits tour de force, though there were plenty of hits.  This was two artists robustly singing songs that showcase their former and current talents.  They were both in strong voice, whether singing their own songs, the other’s songs, or singing together.

One of my companions wanted more of Sting’s solo work, which might be the only quibble I heard all night.  Sting relied heavily on songs from The Police, but who wouldn’t — that oeurve contains so many melodic new wave masterpieces.

There were some surprises, like Sting doing a bit of “Dancing with the Moonlit Knight” from early 70s Genesis as a prelude to the Police classic “Message in a Bottle.”  Both resonated, the former a tribute to Gabriel’s distant past and the latter an homage to Sting’s own former archetypal self.  Gabriel launched a new song, “Love Can Heal,” as a tribute to Jo Cox, the recently assassinated British Member of Parliament.

“In Your Eyes,” perhaps Gabriel’s magnum opus, was spiritedly performed by the entire ensemble:  Gabriel’s band, Sting’s band, the backing singers, Sting, and, of course, a haunting Gabriel.  The whole gang was intimately involved in a rapturous rendition that included Sting engaging in a bit of Gabriel-inspired dancing (redolent of Gabriel in the 80s and 90s) while channeling his inner Youssou N’Dour with sonorous lyrics-free vocals.  It was incredible.

Each star appeared to have his own band providing the foundation for his songs.  But they merged to great effect, including an especially rambunctious version of Secret World.  Multiple keyboard players, often including Gabriel, multiple bassists and guitarists, often including Sting, and multiple drummers combined to create layers of music not available to a standard band.  Throw in a violin, a cello, and assorted other instruments and the sounds available were limited only by the stars’ sublime imaginations.   To top it off, the whole melange was well-orchestrated and performed exquisitely.

The crossover songs were fun and moving.  Sting performed “Shock the Monkey” with a bit of a smile and a lesser sense of doom than Gabriel brings to the song.  Gabriel reciprocated, performing a bluesy, evocative “If You Love Somebody Set Them Free.”  Both added a new dimension to the song without detracting from the strengths that the other provided in the original.

I must mention my favorite Gabriel song, “Rhythm of the Heat.”  It opened the concert after lying dormant for decades (I didn’t think it would ever be performed live again).  It was among Gabriel’s first forays into African rhythms and it remains as vibrant as ever, even if rather different from the studio versions.

The two encores were riveting — both were big hits and long-time crowd favorites, and both were powerfully performed.  Sting and Gabriel sang together, not really as duets, more like shared songs.  “Every Breath You Take” and “Sledgehammer” had the crowd on its feet begging for more.  Alas, it truly was over.

Both stars rose to the occasion.  They sang well and long, with a minimum of chatter between songs.  They both retain the incredible stage presence that helped them achieve stardom in the first place, though theatrics were minimal.    Both were at their best when belting out their own tunes, Sting’s Roxanne is perhaps the best example.  If forced to choose, I would say that Sting was in slightly better voice, but Gabriel gets extra credit for degree of difficulty.  He chose some songs that are incredibly difficult to perform (Don’t Give Up), let alone perform live while in your mid-60s.  Though he was able to reach the tough notes, he couldn’t hold them quite as long as he used to.  I couldn’t help thinking that he might be writing a memo to himself that in his next life, he should write songs that are a bit easier for him to sing as he ages.  Or, more probably, not doing that because his voice has always essentially been an extra highly versatile instrument.

See the show, you won’t be disappointed.

 

 

Playlist (performed principally by the original artist unless noted)

Intro – instrumental from Passion, the Last Temptation of Christ

The Rhythm of the Heat

If I Ever Lose My Faith in You

No Self Control

Invisible Sun

Games Without Frontiers (both)

Shock the Monkey (Sting)

Secret World

Driven to Tears

Fragile

Red Rain

Dancing with Moonlit Knight (Sting)

Message in a Bottle

Darkness

Walking in Your Footsteps

Kiss That Frog (Sting)

Don’t Give Up

The Hounds of Winter

Big Time

Englishman in New York (Gabriel)

Solsbury Hill (both)

Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic

If You Love Somebody Set Them Free (Gabriel)

Roxanne, with a bit of Ain’t No Sunshine When She’s Gone

Love Can Heal

Desert Rose

In Your Eyes

 

Every Breath You Take

Sledgehammer

 

Cities and Championships (update)

The drought is over, long live the King.  King James, of course.

The Cleveland Cavaliers won the 2016 NBA championship and they did it the hard way, winning three games in a row against a team that hadn’t lost three consecutive games in a long long time.  They beat the defending NBA champions and they beat them on their own home floor twice in a row, including in game seven.  They did it against the two-time reigning MVP.  They came back from a 3-1 deficit, the first time it has happened in NBA finals history.

Cleveland is once again a city of champions.

Another champion was crowned recently, just a short two and a half hour drive from Cleveland.  The Pittsburgh Penguins added to that city’s  lore by bringing home another championship defeating the still champion-less and still only one sports team city of San Jose.

The composite index that I have put together really and truly rewards recent success.  Cleveland vaulted from fifth from the bottom to fifth from the top.  A championship will do that.  It purges all the losses, it soothes all the pain.  It even vanquishes demons, both citywide and individual (LeBron).

Pittsburgh had no demons to vanquish, just Sharks.  Their victory moves them into first place in my rankings.  Below is the updated information.  Remember this is just for fun, do not use these rankings as the basis to make or settle any bets.  Remember also, that the rankings may change markedly as soon as this fall when some city will celebrate a World Series championship.

Trivia question:  which professional team (NHL, NBA, NFL, MLB) finished the season with more post-season losses than regular season losses.

Bonus trivia question:  which professional teams (two) finished the season with as many post-season losses as regular season losses.

Answers below.

City                              (# of franshises)    (1950-2015) Champships Seasons     since last champship Cumulative seasons      since last champship Composite
San Diego (4) 1 53 110 9
Vancouver (2) 0 46 50 16
Buffalo (3) 2 51 104 16
Milwaukee (3) 2 44 88 20
Atlanta (4) 1 19 76 24
Ariz./Phoenix (4) 1 15 60 28
Cincinnati (3) 3 26 52 30
Washington (6) 4 25 87 30
Minn./Minn. (5) 5 25 100 31
Brooklyn (2) 1 61 6 33
Nashville/Tenn. (2) 0 19 19 35
Charlotte/N.C. (3) 1 11 33 37
Tampa (3) 2 12 44 39
Houston (4) 4 22 45 39
Toronto (4) 7 23 67 40
New Jersey (2) 3 14 28 46
New Orleans (3) 1 6 12 50
Indianapolis (2) 4 10 20 55
Montreal (2) 18 24 36 55
Philadelphia (5) 8 7 28 64
Detroit (4) 15 8 32 66
Seattle (4) 2 2 4 67
Dallas/Texas (6) 8 5 20 69
St. Louis (5) 7 4 12 70
Miami/Florida (4) 7 3 12 72
New York (8) 33 4 28 77
Baltimore (4) 8 3 6 79
Kansas City (4) 3 0 1 82
Los Angeles (9) 22 2 12 82
Denver/Col. (4) 5 0 2 87
Oakland (3) 8 1 3 89
Cleveland (3) 5 0 0 90
Chicago (7) 13 1 4 91
San Francisco (3) 8 1 1 91
Boston/N.E. (5) 27 1 4 95
Pittsburgh (3) 13 0 0 100

The only team with fewer regular season losses than post-season losses is the New England Patriots, who went undefeated until losing Super Bowl XLVI.

This year’s Warriors lost nine games in the regular season and nine games in the post season.  The 2012-13 Chicago Blackhawks lost seven games in the regular season and seven games in the post season.