Coupla Sports Things...

* I've heard a lot about this article about Shane Battier. Basically, it's another article talking about how he's one of the most important players in the history of the league because he's a good guy and does the little things.

Shane Battier has been a hot point in the NBA literally since before he was drafted. Look, I don't doubt Shane Battier's value to an NBA team. Every great team has a guy who plays hard every night, plays good D, hits shots only when he has to, and is a good character guy. I don't doubt at all the immense value that these non-stat guys bring to teams.

Here's the problem I have with Shane Battier: he's not that good of a non-stat guy. Tayshaun Prince has filled that roll with the Pistons for years, and is much better than Shane Battier. James Posey has filled that role with two championship teams--Miami & Boston--and is much better than Shane Battier. One could make the same argument for Bruce Bowen (his free throw shooting hurts his cause, but his far superior three point shooting and defense make up for it).

Notice something about that list? Those are players from the past four NBA champions. So yes, you need a "glue guy", or whatever you want to call this type of player. However, let's stop worshiping Shane Battier as the King of these no-stat players, as not only hasn't he won a championship, HE HASN'T EVEN WON A FIRST ROUND PLAYOFF SERIES. If the most important stat of non-stat guys is winning, well, then Shane Battier is short in that statistic, too.

* Here's a non-football guy's assessment of a football position: Kickers don't get near the respect they deserve.

There's a--in my humble opinion--ridiculous amount of not just lack of respect, but downright disdain for the position that has the single most influence on the bottom line of the game: putting points on the board.

Think about it. No matter how good your QB is, he still needs receivers to catch the ball. Same with vice versa. Running backs need a good line to block for them and a good passing game to keep teams from just stacking up to stop them. Kickers, on the other hand, just need a halfway decent hold; it's just them versus the uprights and elements. How many touchdowns does the average offense score, two...maybe three a game if they're a good team? The kickers are responsible for the point after each of those, and figure there are at least two to three field goal attempts a game, right? And if you have a bad offensive team, the kicker is even more important, as he's going to be called upon even more frequently because your offense can't get the ball in the end zone.

Obviously the point differential makes up some of the difference, but basically, when it comes to the bottom line of putting points on the board, it's 7 or 8 guys counted on to score six points versus one and a half guys looking to score three. Do the math.

Like the Shane Battier argument above, I'm not saying that kickers are the MVP's of the league, and should be lauded over. But let's stop being fucking rude to the poor guys, and acknowledge that they play a VERY important role on every football team.

* The Sports Guy from espn.com wrote a fantastic article (Welcome To The No Benjamins Association) on espn.com. In it, he took a serious look at the financial standing of the NBA, and expounded a bit on the affects on the rest of the major professional sports (If you click on The Sports Guys link on the right, you'll find it easily). Here are my favorite points and my thoughts from his article:

1) The reliance on outside sponsorship--which everyone really takes for granted, except those rare moments when we make a remark about how ridiculous it is that there are so many company logos everywhere--was emphasized. Think about it people: you're going to get your wish; many, if not most, of the banners will be going away. The problem is they're going away because nobody can afford to sponsor the leagues any more. This is a huge problem for leagues that have guaranteed contracts for their players, or for golf tournaments that rely almost solely on said sponsorships to attract top players. Think your team needs just one more good player to win a championship/looking forward to your favorite pro showing up at your local event? Too bad, as your team just lost several assets while its liabilities stayed constant and can now not afford to go sign a new player/as your favorite pro is only going to show up at a tourney that offers Y amount of money, whereas your local tourney can now only afford X. It's going to be very frustrating for fans the next 2-3 years as this shakes out.
2) He speaks about the certainty of the 2011 lockout. I totally agree with Simmons on this; the only way I think we avoid a lockout is if the players simply cave to whatever Stern demands before we get to that point. Prepare to see the player friendly contract structure that veterans enjoy (the last lockout ended in a compromise: young players--as in players 3 to 4 years in the league--would get unfavorable deals in that the league set the structure up beforehand, depending on where they were drafted. That was the league's win. The player's win was the guaranteed contracts they all get after being able to test the open market after year 3 or 4, that was just showcased with Stephon Marbury continuing to make his $20mil salary even when the Knicks flat out told him not to show up for work.) Prepare to see contracts along the lines of the NFL's (sure, we'll sign you to a 7 year $100 mil deal, but we'll only guarantee half of that money, and we will keep the right to cut you at any time), along with several other wins for the league, as Simmons noted. The only thing I disagree with his assessment on is he thinks it will take a while. I expect the lockout to end quickly, because he's right: most players do live check to check, and with endorsement money drying up, the players will need their NBA checks then more than ever.
3) I thought his comments about contraction were really interesting. I totally agree that the NHL will lose at least 10 teams, if not go under completely. I think the MLB will lose a team or two (the Nats for sure, and possibly one other...Marlins? Royals?). I think the WNBA will finally fold in two years, and I think it's even possible that the NBA will end up losing a team. I guarantee you that the Hornets will move next year, I'd be shocked if the Kings are in Sacramento in two years (and if I had to pick a team to contract, it would be the Kings or the Grizz), and I think Memphis will be back to rooting for only college bball soon.

The one thing Simmons didn't address that I think is going to be REALLY interesting is the free agent summer of 2010. This, of course, is the glory summer that the NBA has been planning for for three years. It's when most of the best players in the game (Lebron, DWade, Dirk, Amare, Chris Bosh, Little Stevie Nash, etc.) all become unrestricted free agents. Up until now, teams have been clearing cap space for the summer of 2010 in order to try to sign as many of these elite players as possible. Now, though...how many of those teams who cleared space are going to just sit on the majority of that space because they're afraid of taking on too much cost? How many of those teams are going into that offseason counting on picking up two or three of those players, but because of the shrinking instead of rising salary cap find that they can only afford one or two, ruining their chances for the elite team they thought they could assemble? How many of those players who have some baggage (Amare=attitude/health, Steve & Dirk=age) will expect to sign top line, elite contracts, and instead find that they have to settle for second tier contracts instead? It's going to be fascinating, and now not just because so many players are probably going to move, but to see where they are forced to move to and for how much. The summer of 2010 isn't going to be the buying bonanza we thought it was going to be two years ago.

* I found this article on one of the greatest video games of all time on The Onion the other day. It's priceless. I've talked about the pure, unadulterated greatness of Mike Tyson's Punch Out! before, so I won't go into it again. Suffice to say that any NES fan will love this article.

* So the Cowboys have released TO. My thought: Thank God.

It's well documented that I am not a fan of football. However, I most certainly root for the Cowboys when I'm forced into a football situation, as it is also well documented that I'm a huge fan of my place of birth, the wonderful city of Dallas. The fact of the matter is, the people of Dallas are much happier when the Cowboys are good, so I'm all for a good Cowboys team.

Here's the problem with TO: the Cowboys weren't really good with him, and he is such an ass that no one wanted to root for him. It's a double whammy. It's why I'd never trade Dirk for Kobe, even though Kobe is a better player. I just can't stand the thought of rooting for Kobe.

This is a good move, too, because while chemistry is slightly overrated by the media, it is a necessary part for a championship team. TO was unquestionably horrible for a team that was visibly uninterested in playing by the end of the season. Chemistry leads to motivation, and this was an unmotivated team. It's as simple as that.

The other factor is performance, and make no mistake people: TO is not the elite receiver he once was. You can make all the noise you want about "the system" and Romo missing throws, but the fact of the matter is a wide receiver is not as good at 35 as he was at 28. This is a fact, no matter how good of shape you're in at 35. TO would be 36 by the end of the season, and no matter how much better the team played, his numbers would inevitably go one way: down. Look at the number of times the dude drops the ball alone, for God's sake. He's still a very good receiver...but he's no longer a great one, and all of his bullshit isn't worth it when you're talking about a very good receiver.

So good for Jerry Jones for cutting TO. It was a bold move, but was necessary if you truly want to sell the team on expecting a more professional, dedicated, and cooperative locker room for the coming season.

* Finally, some thoughts on the Mavs after their--shall we say--interesting week this week.

I watched the Mavs overtime win over OKC last Friday. I didn't see their humiliating loss to OKC Monday, but did see their win against the Spurs last night. A lot has been made about the team's inconsistent effort the last few days, from the media to the team's owner, Mark Cuban. Allow me to clearly point the blame at two men for the Mav's inconsistent effort (or perceived lack thereof):

Mark Cuban and Donnie Nelson.

First of all, let's stop questioning Dirk's effort. Fucking stop it people. Dirk has 28 against OKC, and yet somehow the loss is his fault? Somehow he's not focused enough? Somehow he's not the leader he should be? Listen you fuckers, I've had it up to hear with people bitching about Dirk. He is who he is. He's been the best player on this team for a decade, and is by far the best Maverick in team history. He's a good guy who goes out, competes, plays hard every night of his career, puts up great numbers, plays well in the clutch a Hell of a lot more often than he plays poorly, and has won lots of games in his career. Is he a great defender? No, but he's better than people give him credit for. Is he a vocal, Jordan like leader? No, he's not, but he's always done a great job leading by example, and inspiring those who want to be inspired. So no more fucking ridiculous columns like the shit I read in the Dallas Morning News from Jean-Jacque Taylor, talking about how Dirk needs to to step up and be a leader. It's been 10 years dude...Dirk is who he is. His pluses FAR outweigh his minuses. People of Dallas, it's time to accept this and move on. Let's face it: there isn't anyone in the world outside of MAYBE Jordan himself who could motivate Josh Howard and Erica Dampier.

Which brings us back to Cuban and Nelson, and how the lack of effort on this team is their fault. First of all, I think the effort aspect is overrated as a problem. Dirk, Jason Terry, and Antoine Wright bust their asses every night. I have no problems on the effort from those guys. I also think Jason Kidd puts in max effort every night, but the problem is he is so bad defensively that it looks like he's not putting up top effort. It may sound like I'm joking, people, and I wish I was, but sadly I'm not. Jason Kidd has always been FAST, but has never been QUICK (I've written about this before, too). Now that he's 35ish, he has gone from not being quick to slow. Any point guard with halfway decent speed can do whatever they want to against Jason Kidd. Have you noticed that Chris Paul, Devon Harris, and Tony Parker all have had HUGE games against the Mavs since he joined the team? Every time, and I mean HUGE? It's not a coincidence: Kidd can't guard smaller, faster points anymore. It's simple as that. If Rick Carlisle were smart, he'd have Terry guard the point guards and Kidd guard the two guards. Anyway, it's so easy for these guys to blow past Kidd that sometimes it looks like he's not trying, but sadly, I'm afraid he is.

That falls on the GM and owner who made that ridiculous trade for Kidd. The biggest issue, however, is the two biggest louts on the team: Erica Dampier and Josh Howard. When you talk about "lack of consistent effort", you're talking about those guys. It's as simple as that. Well guys, you were the ones who signed Erica to that ridiculous contract, and he's been playing this way his entire career here. And many people--including me--were begging you to trade Josh Howard in the offseason. I even went as far as to say I would take $.60 on the dollar for Howard, talent wise. You didn't want to do that, though, so you're stuck with your typical pothead with a job: he does just enough to keep his job, but is maddeningly frustrating and inconsistent.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Cuban shouldn't have called out the team. I'm just telling him to put his money where his mouth is: if he wants to change the effort on the team, lose Howard in the offseason, even if it's a short term loss for a long term gain. You'll never get rid of Dampier, so you're just going to have to live with that.

Look people. This team is 11 games over .500. They are overachieving, and most of the team plays hard all of the time. The problem is this: Elite teams don't lost to teams like OKC, but Above Average teams do.

We are what we are. For the time being, we're going to have to learn to accept it.

The Collapse of the Housing Market

Since my blog has basically become an NBA blog in the last coupla months, I decided it was time to get back on track and look outside the world of sports. As such, we're going to discuss two things: the collapse of the housing market and its effect on the economy, and the top five animated characters of all time. I know; they have a lot to do with each other. But versatility is one of the most admired traits at PJ's Place! So here we go. Today is the housing market, tomorrow we’ll do the top five.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, it's not very often that two words can be used to describe a position in a complicated issue like the collapse of the housing market. It's also not very often that the same two words can be used with regards to all parties involved. However, in this case, I think these two words can fairly accurately be applied to all parties involved:

"Tough shit."

Harsh, isn't it? C'est la vie. Let's look at each group and how that phrase applies:

The Displaced Former Homeowners
Here's your situation: you've never been able to afford a home. However, banks suddenly started offering "variable rate mortgages" with ridiculously low interest rates to begin with. Sure, they charged high fees (more on this later), but didn't demand that you put much--if any--money down, and did no credit check on you. They might have checked to see if you're currently employed, and that's it. You looked to see if you could afford the house right now, and the monthly payments were about the same as your apartment rent. So you know what? You bought a house, even though you have a low paying job and have credit problems.

You moved in, and things were good for a while. You found out that houses are a lot more expensive than apartments; you have lawns to upkeep, you have to pay to have things repaired instead of calling your apartment complex and having it fixed for free, you need more stuff/shit since you have more room, and your utility costs have gone up. But you're making it--barely, but you're making it.

And then your rates changed.

You knew this was going to happen. I mean, that's what "variable" means. Your lender probably even made you sign a sheet of paper that said, "I've been told that variable means my rates will change, with the potential to go up drastically." You didn't worry about that then, because that would happen later--hopefully a lot later.

Well, later is here. Now you can't make your hourse payment, and as more people like you can't make their house payments, the rates keep going up as the banks try to recoup their losses, which of course just makes it worse. After awhile, the bank reposses your house. You are upset because you've lost your house.

"Tough shit."

I've ranted and raved here before about how much I hate the "No credit/bad credit/no problem!" commercials. While there are flaws with our credit system, it still does the basics of its job. And if you have bad credit, you usually have it for a good reason. You have it because you can't afford to live the lifestyle you're living. And then you went up a lifestyle! You bought a house!

The problem here, sadly, isn't that your house was taken away. The problem is you were ever given a house in the first place. You couldn't afford it, your past shows you couldn't afford it, and the overwhelming percantages that said you would end up defaulting simply played their part. The market worked.

The Builders
Here's your situation: due to current low interest rates and the fact that banks are handing out money like free pens, there's suddenly a HUGE demand for homes. So you start building.

But you want to make as much money as possible, and a lot of the upturn in this market is first time homebuyers who don't really know what they should be looking for...so you start to cut corners to make some extra cash.

You make smaller lots. Then you don't use brick on the back of homes, and pretend that that is okay. You offer "guarantees" that are really just admissions that you're not making quality homes, but will fix the problems later if the homeowner throws a fit. Then you make even smaller lots. You build "communities" before anyone has purchased houses in an area so you can make the same house over and over again, which helps your economies of scale by removing any differentiation in the homes. Then you make even smaller lots. And all of this is okay, because the price of homes keeps rising, and people keep buying them.

But then the sky falls, the prices of houses start falling, and people stop buying houses.

Now you're left with houses that are really worth a fraction of what you were planning on selling them for, because they're not really good houses. And there are a lot of them. You're worried you're going to go under.

"Tough shit."

You're smart enough to know this was an overinflated market. Hell, you're smart enough to know that, which is why many of you decided to but out the middleman (banks) and start financing your homes yourself. You wanted to get in on those fees (more on that later :-) and those variable rate loans where these poor people are really just paying interest, and not any principal, so you can keep sucking money out of them forever. And now you want the government to come in and help you out because--like deep down inside, you always new--it came to an end.

The Banks
Interest rates were ridiculously low, and people started borrowing more and more money to buy more houses. Well, it's the old quantity versus quality debate: "How are we going to make a better profit if rates are so low?" Easy answer: get more people to borrow money.

So you do two things. First, you start dreaming up fees. Fees for everything. Courier fees. Document handling fees. Ink fees for the pens. If there's a way you can charge a fee for it, you do. Why? Because that's your profit: your one stop, fixed cost, "this is our money and we have it immediately" profit. Your not adding an extra service; Hell, some of this shit is totally made up. But because A) the people your lending money to aren't good at this (because no one's ever been dumb enough to lend them money before, because their credit scores prove they can't handle it), and B) the rates are so low that people are getting a good deal right now, so they don't care about some fees that along the life of a loan look small in comparison. So you start ripping people off literally from the start.

Second, you start loaning money to anyone who comes in. You do do credit checks, but you do that as an excuse to give the people that you shouldn't be loaning money to variable rate loans. What this means is yes, you're taking a bit of a hit right now--though like we've said, you've covered yourself with the extra fees you charged--once this person is locked in to his home, you can raise his rates. Oh, you have to have a reason, of course, but you right in vague reasons that essentially give you the power to raise his rates whenever you want. Anyone with good credit would laugh at this and walk away, but these people don't know any better; they just know that they've been turned down loans many times, and now a bank is offering money, and it looks good right now. And you know that you'll be okay, as long as everyone doesn't stop paying at once. Deep down inside, you know there's a chance that will happen, but you're making so much money RIGHT NOW that you can't resist--your profit is inflated thanks to your accounts receivable, which is driving your stock price up, and is making you rich right now. So you quiet those doubts and little voices telling you that this is Business 101 and won't work, and you go make as much money as you can right now by giving away as much money as you can, right now.

Like we said, economies of scale.

Inevitably, the interest rate starts to rise. So you raise your variable rates. This causes you to lose some of your lenders who can't pay. Well, you don't want to lose that money; if you report a loss in profit, your stock price will drop! You won't make as much money! So what do you do? You raise the rates of your other variable rate leases to cover the ones you lost. This, in turn, causes more of them to default, as they were barely making it, which causes you to...

You get the picture.

Now, your nightmare has happened: everyone is defaulting at once. Your "accounts receivable" which you were using to drive up your profit to your stockholders has vanished, your reporting huge losses, Wall Street has bailed, and holy shit, you're facing bankruptcy. You need help.

"Tough shit."

It's business 101: don't lend money to people who can't handle it. Remember credit scores, which is the system that YOU set up, which is slanted to give not the consumer, but YOU an advantage? Yeah, those things, where we get penalized just for asking what our score is? Well, YOU choose to ignore them. And that led to this happening...AGAIN. Because this is not the first time in history that this has happened.

The market is doing what it was inevitably going to do: right itself. It's punishing those businesses who made poor business decisions. And you made poor business decisions.

The Government
A patsy and an evil oil barron are running the country. They're allowing rampant collusion among oil & gas companies so they can make as much money as possible. How can they get away with this, though, without the country throwing a fit? The answer is fairly simple: keep the economy running in spite of the rising price of gas, which affects EVERYONE.

So what do they do? The keep interest rates low. They see that the economy is going down a bad path: inflation is rising, too many loans are being handed out, it's been a bull economy for too long. But you are desperate to keep the economy going, so consumer confidence will remain high and people will stay happy. You even get a few economists to buy into it and start making ridiculous claims like, "Huh, it seems the price of gas doesn't effect the economy at all!" As time goes on, it becomes even more important to keep the ecomony running, because you're coming up on an election and you want your party to stay in power, and you know there's no way that will happen if you go into a recession.

But like the dam where everytime you plug a hole, another two pop up, you're having problems. Too many bad loans have been given out. The industry you're favoring keeps raising prices to keep their ALL TIME RECORD HIGH PROFITS going even higher, so people who were given loans are squeezed even tighter. They start to default.

It's the snowball that starts the avalanche.

Now you have some of the biggest names in business--Bear Sterns, Bank of America, etc., etc.--either in danger of going under completely, or posting their worst statements in their history. And what do they do first? Why they come to you, of course, and demand to be bailed out. You don't really want to do that, of course. You feel that this is their fault.

"Tough shit."

You were the ones who had Greenspan & Bernanke keep inflation rates too low for too long in order to keep the economy running at its breakneck pace. Instead of easing the economy into a "recession"--which would really just have been a slight adjustment in the market, let everyone pay some bills, and come out better in the end--you decided to stay glamorous and rob Peter to pay Paul.

The Recession, or Where This Leaves Us
So what does this mean? Is America doomed? Is the sky going to fall on everyone? Is GDII about to hit?

Of course not—as long as we don’t panic and do anything stupid.

A little recession—like revolution—now and again is not a bad thing. A small recession is simply the market righting itself—returning to a level of normalcy, as it were. It also means that the individual consumer (you and me) are taking the time to pay our bills and are stepping back and taking a breather from our spending sprees. This, of course, is also a good thing to do after a spending spree. So therefore, a mild recession is not only not bad, but necessary every few years.

I don’t worry about the people who lost their homes, either. As we discussed earlier, they shouldn’t have been in those homes to begin with. Look back fondly on your time in that house, and be happy with the smaller home/apartment you have now.

I don’t worry about the businesses that got hurt in this. Capitalism is survival of the fittest, and another will quickly rise to take your place, or you’ll recover and (hopefully) learn from this experience.

I don’t worry about the party that allowed all this to happen. The negative feedback from voters will cause them to have a better candidate for President, and will keep them from having control of both Congress and the Presidency, which is a good thing.

AS LONG AS PEOPLE DON’T PANIC, we’ll all be fine. And since, in spite of all the gloom and doom that the media is gleefully reporting, the dow is over 12k today, that tells me that people aren’t panicing. We’re just settling in for a little bit of a recession, which is exactly what we need.

So don’t worry about the housing market, people. If you want to worry about something, worry about how the oil & gas execs aren’t rotting in prison right now.