Archive for Media
That’s the question Stephen Dubner asked me for a Freakonomics Quorum. Here’s a tease:
I see the problem here as one of gathering information about what each party desires in order to foster agreement where there are strong incentives to hold out. I’d prefer to adjust the bargaining framework rather than directly attempt to reconcile revenue expectations that are largely invisible to the other side and the public.
You can read the rest of my answer, as well as the answers from Dave Berri and Maury Brown, at Freakonomics. Thanks to Stephen for asking my opinion.
Here is my take in The New York Times.
Baseball’s revenue-sharing system was designed to increase the competitiveness of small-market teams that presumably lack the financial muscle to compete with wealthier franchises. Redistributing wealth would give poor teams more resources to improve their rosters, and richer clubs would have less money to extend their financial advantage. The cumulative effect would be to spread good players around the league to achieve a level of competitive balance where “every well-run club has a regularly recurring reasonable hope of reaching postseason play” — the standard put forth by the Commissioner’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Baseball Economics.
Despite the good intentions behind revenue sharing, doling out money to baseball’s have-nots has the unintended consequence of creating a disincentive to win. Though the correlation is not perfect, winning tends to attract fans, which increases local revenue. But a healthier bottom line means drawing less from the revenue-sharing pool. The quandary faced by poor-and-losing teams is that using the added wealth to improve their clubs increases local earnings, but these gains may be offset by reducing revenue-sharing payments.
A lengthier explanation is available in my upcoming book.
Here is a video of my segment on Stossel.
Addendum: The embed code seems to be having some problems, so here is a link to the show’s site.
I’ll be on Stossel tonight discussing the government’s role in policing the national pastime. I say laissez-nous fair. Here’s a description of the show.
Government bullies say they’re working hard to protect us and our interests. From crackdowns on unpaid interns, to congressional hearings on baseball players using chewing tobacco, to outraged senators proposing legislation banning carry-on baggage fees, to union bullies and their government cronies bullying kids into attending only government run schools, John Stossel says “give me a break!” These busybodies do far more harm than good. There are only two ways to do things in life – voluntarily or by force. Voluntarily is better. Government should stick to what the Constitution limits it to – keeping the peace, and keeping people from stealing and killing us—and butt out of everywhere else.
The show airs at 8pm on Fox Business. It will re-air Thursday at midnight, Saturday at 7pm and 11pm, and Sunday at 10pm.
Here is a clip from my appearance on Stossel.
I’ll be on Stossel on Fox Business tonight at 8pm. John interviews me one-on-one, and other guests include Drew Carey and Dennis Kucinich. The main subject is Cleveland and how to fix it, and I discuss the role of development policy.
Here is a Stossel Op-Ed on the show’s topic, and a video description of the program is below.
If you miss the initial airing, the show airs again on Thursday at 11pm, Friday at 10pm, Saturday at 7pm, and Sunday at 10pm.
Three years ago, Patriots safety Rodney Harrison was the first active player in the league to confess to using human growth hormone (HGH). Now, the suspension of British rugby player Terry Newton for the same thing has put the banned substance back in the crosshairs. The NFL’s response has been predictable: It wants to enact a new HGH blood-testing program — the same type of program that snagged Newton. The union’s response has been equally predictable: Not so fast; HGH blood testing is invasive and unreliable.
What neither party is proposing is the one solution that could eliminate the HGH scourge: Make it legal.
I have an article up on aging at Baseball Prospectus today.
How Do Baseball Players Age? Investigating the Age-27 Theory
Recently, there’s been a decent amount of chatter regarding how baseball players age, and I have to admit that it’s mostly my fault. In a study that was recently published in Journal of Sports Sciences, I find that players tend to peak around the age of 29; this finding has been met with resistance from some individuals in the sabermetric community, where 27 has long been considered the age when players peak. Will Carroll and Christina Kahrl graciously asked if I would be willing to defend my findings on Baseball Prospectus. I agreed, and I thank Will and Christina for the opportunity to do so.
— My radio interview on minor-league sports (softball and soccer) in Atlanta on WABE.
— Alex Remington has posted an interview at Chop-n-Change where we discuss, what I’ve been up to, GM myopia, the Braves, and sabermetrics versus Sabermetrics.
— My latest Huffington Post article on the importance of Gerald Scully’s model for valuing players.
If you read The Huffington Post, you know that one of its deficiencies has been its lack of a sports section. Well, they agreed and have just launched one. I am excited to be a part of this venture and will be posting columns there.
My first column is up (a reprint of my earlier blog post on hot stove myths). You can look for my columns in the future on my author page. Some of my columns will be cross-posted, others will be new material—I haven’t quite figured out how I’m going to do this—but I will make it known when a new column is up.