the baseball trade deadline and reality

I hate this time of year, and I mean the baseball trading deadline.  The reason I hate it is that talking heads on ESPN and n local stations all start talking about how this team or that team is “in the hunt” for a playoff berth, and therefore they should be trading away prospects for that elusive “final piece” that will get them to the post-season and ultimately the World Series.  I hate this because for most teams it is nonsense.

It is nonsense when you look at a team like the San Francisco Giants, currently two games above .500 thanks to a hot streak of going 11-2 during the month of July.  Suddenly, ideas about trading Madison Bumgardner for prospects seems sacrilegious because now the World Series is within reach.

First of all, flip the script and say the Giants started the season 11-2 and are now losing games that make them two games over .500.  Now the glass is half empty, their record is plummeting, and it is time to trade assets.  The record is the same, just the timing of the winning streak has changed.  Streaks are flukey things, and over the course of a 162 game season decisions should not be made because of a hot month that just happens to occur before the trade deadline.  Besides, the hot streak is now over and the reality of the team's prospects are normalizing.

Secondly, approximately 100 games into a season is a pretty good sample size (better than 13 games), and if you are around .500 after 100 games you have to ask yourself, as Dirty Harry said, “Do I feel lucky?”  If you are at .500 after 100 games but your ace starter has been out for two months, or last year’s MVP is coming off an injury, then your second half may look better than your first half.  But otherwise, if you are at .500 after 100 games, then you are likely to finish around .500 after 162.  It doesn’t matter if you are only two games out of the wild card after 100 games; the team (or teams) that is ahead of you are probably better, and are likely to win more games than you. 

The basic argument is, “We’re only two games out of the wild card, but if we trade prospects for a starter, we can make the wild card and then. if we get lucky, we can win the World Series.”  For the record, “If we get lucky” is NOT a plan that will succeed very often.  This advice is as self-evident as the line from Animal House, “Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.” (By the way, Dean Wormer is the bad guy in that film, but this is sound advice, plus he managed to get a hot number like Mrs. Wormer to marry him, so maybe he had some hidden depths to him).

Five Thirty Eight identifies the Giants as a team that should be selling at the trade deadline.  They have a less than 1% chance of making it to the World Series based in existing talent, and they are low on prospects.  The reason they are low on prospects, again according to Five Thirty Eight, is that they tried to extend their dynasty past its sell-by date.  After falling to the Cubs in the 2016 postseason, they essentially believed in the numerology that they would make the post-season in even numbered years and traded for or signed aging veterans to make another run in 2018.  This depleted their prospects and drained their bank account, so they were unable to acquire good players, leading to an historically bad season in 2018.

The recent hot streak in July should be seen as luck, not skill.  Bumgardner should be traded to a team looking for a post-season stud and willing to pay.  Of course the last time a team acquired a Giant post-season hero for playoff glory was when the Red Sox got Pablo “Kung Fu Panda” Sandoval as a free agent based on his post-season numbers, not his regular season performance.  Sandoval showed up overweight, got injured, and never became a post-season legend to succeed David Ortiz.

So, all of you baseball teams only a few games out of the wild card hunt, learn a lesson; don’t think a .500 record can be turned into a World Series run by acquiring one or two pieces at the trade deadline.  Trades at the trade deadline that helped teams win a World Series usually made a great team even better, they didn’t make a mediocre team great. 

I was right about Netflix

When you make projections and predictions, in is a rare occurrence when you are rewarded with instant gratification; you predict something will happen “someday” or “eventually” and then within a week it happens.  Predicting the ice caps will melt by 2075 is one thing, but to have the water lapping at your ankles in 2019 is something else.

A while ago I predicted doom and gloom for Netflix, thinking that in a few years, when the streaming market shook out and they had serious competition, they might be in trouble.  But this week Netflix released its latest subscriber data and, as the kids say, “Boom goes the dynamite!”

Netflix reported a loss of subscribers, its first loss in seven years.  The result?  Netflix lost $17 billion in one day.  Now, the good news for Netflix is that it was so rich it could lose $17 billion.  My total assets are slightly less than $17 billion, so I never have to worry about losing that much, even if I misplace my coin purse.  But still, that’s gotta hurt.

The explanation for why the prospect of competition would hurt Netflix now is the economic concept that predictable future events will manifest their impact immediately in any rational marketplace; this is known as the Efficient Market Hypothesis.  If I am an investor, and I know that at some time in the future Netflix will have to compete with the Disney+ streaming service, the Warner’s HBO MAX service, NBC’s streaming service, CBS All Access, and so on, then there is no reason to wait for these entities to come into being before dumping my stock.  If I dump it NOW, there is no risk of mis-timing the market and being caught in a sell-off.

Netflix’s problem is two-fold.  Competition will drive down the price they can charge for their streaming service, while at the same time content providers pulling their content from Netflix drives down the demand for their product.  Friends, The Office, and the Marvel properties were reasons to subscribe to Netflix; with those on other platforms, not so much.

As I said before, Netflix is sort of a legal Ponzi scheme.  They assume future increases in their subscriber base, and then borrow against the assumed future revenue to finance the creation of Netflix Original content.  This system works great, at least until the last Bushman in the Kalahari Desert subscribes and no further growth is possible.  This is why Netflix’s stock price is susceptible to downturns when there is a report that subscriber growth has slowed (much less dropped). 

I’m no expert, but I’m not sure I see a way out for Netflix.  Unless the streaming market gets oversaturated by breaking up into too small bits (when other streaming services fail because they have too small of a market share) and then re-coalesces with Netflix able to re-acquire titles due to their excess capacity.  Netflix is banking on the high quality of their original content, instead of content bought from others, but in my opinion Netflix original content has been spotty at best.

Of course there is Stranger Things, but as good as it is the franchise is showing signs of wear after the third installment (don’t get me wrong, I loved Stranger Things 3, just not as much as I loved 1 or 2).  They had good luck with the Marvel-based original content (although, again, these properties aged fast), but Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Daredevil, and Iron Fist were canceled and won’t be back unless it is on Disney+.  I know people who like some of their imported series, but none has appealed to me.  Arrested Development was run into the ground by going back to the well once (maybe twice) too often.  Dead to Me is a critical success, but as much as I love Christina Applegate you can’t base a network on 13-episode seasons of sitcoms (about a woman searching for the killer of her dead husband) starring Ms. Applegate.

Yes, Netflix was second among networks with Emmy nominations with 117, but that says more about the fractured nature of network television than the quality of Netflix’s product.  Netflix Originals, as a producer, only got 13 nominations, mostly for GLOW (5 nominations) and the departing A Series of Unfortunate Events (3 nominations). 

This is all conforming to how economic forces work in a marketplace.  Netflix had vision to see the opportunities in the streaming market, and gets content providers to let them distribute streaming content for a modest payment.  When companies see how much profit Netflix makes, they decide that maybe they could make more money by distributing it themselves instead of leasing it to Netflix.  A bunch of companies enter the market, many find the technical requirements to challenging, and maybe, eventually, Netflix can make a comeback.  But that’s probably years away.

In the meantime, dump your Netflix stock and start boning up on the terms of service for CBS All Access, Disney+, NBC Streaming, HBO MAX, and all the other new market entrants, not to mention already established streamers like Hulu and Amazon Prime.  It’s going to be a bloodbath out there in the streaming market.

Don't measure GOATs by counting stats

Wimbledon was a disappointment for those hoping for clarification that Roger Federer and Serena Williams are, in fact, the Greatest Of All Time (GOAT) when it comes to singles tennis.  Federer lost two match points on his serve and eventually succumbed to Novak Djokovic, who didn’t win a single set but won three tie-breakers.  Serena “cruised” through her draw (more about that later) but lost in the Final to Simona Halep, thus losing another opportunity to tie Margaret Court at 24 majors.

There are many, many ways to determine who is the GOAT, but using a counting stat like most majors won is not a good one.  Players play in different eras, against different opponents, using different equipment and strategies, and a simple one-to-one comparison of most majors won is pointless.

So, is Margaret Court better than Serena because she leads in majors won 24-23?  Hardly.  Court played at a time when tennis players outside of Australia rarely made the trek Down Under to play in the Aussie Open.  11 of her 24 major wins were in the Aussie Open, defeating other Aussie players like Jan Lehane, Kerry Melville Reid, and Yvonne Goolagong in the finals.  Serena is playing in a much more competitive environment, so saying Court is better by 24-23 is not really relevant.

Of course, Serena is considered better than Steffi Graf because she has 23 majors to Graf’s 22, but that’s not really relevant either.  Graf won her 22 majors by age 30, while Serena took until she was 35.  That means Serena had 20 more bites at the apple before she caught up with Steffi.  And you can’t blame injuries; Serena missed 9 majors between the year she first won one and when she won her 22nd, but Steffi missed 10.  Throw in the fact that Steffi completed a “Golden Slam” in 1988, winning the Grand Slam plus an Olympic Gold Medal (Serena has to be content with a “Serena Slam” by winning 4 majors in a row in 2014-15) and I could make a case for Steffi being the GOAT despite being a mere one major behind Serena.  I also think Graf beat better players when she won; Serena got to the final at Wimbledon despite not meeting a player ranked above 15 in the prelims.  Steffi usually faced more serious opposition in her quarters and semis.

On the men’s side, Federer is in first place 20-18 over Nadal and 20-16 over Djokovic.  But Nadal could pass him simply by winning the next three French Opens, and Djokovic, at 32, could have as many as 20 more opportunities to get an additional 5 major wins (and he’s won 4 of the past 5 majors, missing only the French Open which Nadal owns).  Federer could win more majors, but at 38 years old his window is closing, despite just missing a victory at Wimbledon against Djokovic.

Frankly, I will continue to consider Federer as the men’s GOAT, even if his total number of majors gets surpassed.  Maybe if Djokovic passed him by 4 or 5 I’d have to reconsider, but if Joker ends with 22 and Federer 20, I’m still voting for Fed.  He’s nearly 6 years older than Djokovic yet had two match points against Joker at Wimbledon; let’s see how Djokovic’s game is when he is 38.  Federer had to battle a younger Nadal for much of his career as well as a much younger Djokovic, while few of the players younger than Joker are much of a threat.

My favorite cautionary tale of counting stats is Rafael Palmiero, who had 3,000 hits and 500 home runs and was considered a lock for the Hall of Fame until he failed a drug test after wagging his finger at Congress.  He is now off the ballot and will only make the Hall if voted in by the Veteran’s Committee (probably likely given how nutty they have been in the past), but my point is even if you take away the failed drug test, what did he ever DO to get into the Hall?  He ran up some impressive counting stats, but that only proves he had a long, injury-free career during a period of high offense and played in parks that also favored offense.  He never led the league in any major statistical category (I think he led in doubles once), he never led his team deep into the playoffs, he never did well when he got to the playoffs, and in a 19 year career he started one All-Star game as a DH.  He belongs in the Hall of Pretty Good, but not the Hall of Fame.

So, put not your faith in counting stats when choosing a GOAT.  Jim Brown may not own the record for most yards gained, but he is still the best running back of all time.  Tiger Woods probably won’t catch Jack Nicklaus’ record for majors, but he was more dominant when he was at his peak.  

Counting stats can measure linear feats, but greatness is rarely measured linearly.

Jessica Jones Season 3--A Review (spoilers, I guess)

Marvel’s Jessica Jones, season 3—a review (spoilers)

The final episode of season three of Jessica Jones on Netflix presumably marks the ending of the Great Marvel on Netflix Streaming TV experiment.  The process included the three seasons of Jessica Jones and Daredevil, plus the two seasons of Luke Cage and Iron Fist (The Punisher was also involved but I never watched it).  The results were vaguely disappointing, but not as disappointing as the series all being cancelled not for poor ratings, but because the corporate overlords at Disney that now owns Marvel don’t want their product on a network owned by someone else, even if they have no plans to show them on their streaming service.  That said, I actually liked the Daredevil/Jessica Jones/Luke Cage/Iron Fish mashup The Defenders a lot.  Just saying.

Season one of Jessica Jones was a thrill, even if there were some flaws in the overall structure.  Season two was largely seen as a disappointment, one that featured Krysten Ritter’s excellent work as the deeply flawed hero Jessica Jones but struggled to find anything worthy for her to use her superpowers on.  Season 3 is an improvement, but not as successful as season one.  If I were to indict season three for one thing, it would be its insistence on maintaining a season-long arc format while producing what turns out to be 13 individually produced episodes with no attempt at continuity whatsoever.

I could give half dozen examples of plot points emphasized in early episodes that are subsequently forgotten, but I’ll just give one minor one.  In the second episode, Jessica is recovering from an attack at the end of the first episode and is told by her doctor that her spleen has been removed (the title of the episode in “AKA I Have No Spleen,” so this is not exactly a spoiler).  She is told that this will have a significant impact on her life, and that she’ll need to be on an anti-biotic regimen for the rest of her life.  She subsequently collapses from the injury later in that episode, but she never has any ill effects in any subsequent episode.  Is one of her superpowers growing a new spleen?  Or did the writers just forget she was injured?  I don’t want every episode to come to a halt and have Jessica say, “Oh wait, I have to take my antibiotics,” but would it kill her to every so often roll her eyes, pop a pill, and wash it down with a slug of bourbon?

You can’t treat a 13-episode show order like a game of Telephone where one person starts a message and each subsequent writer is free to make changes before passing it on to the next writer.  Several times Jessica is shown carefully preserving evidence that is never brought up again; given that she is supposedly battling a genius serial killer who never leaves behind any evidence, you’d think some of this would find its way to the police.

Which brings me to the second problem with Jessica Jones Season Three, the Big Bad.  Jessica spends much of the season trying to get the goods on the sort of villain who only exists in fiction, the hyper-intelligent sociopath who has the excess time on his hands to commit murders so carefully planned that the police don’t even know he exists.  We are told repeatedly that the killer is a genius, but this is an example of writers telling, not showing.  He does absolutely nothing that indicates he’s of even average intelligence, yet he has five or six advanced degrees in disparate fields like law, engineering, and chemistry.  His job?  He’s a wrestling coach!  Yes, a man smart enough to earn multiple advance degrees works as a wrestling coach (which hardly explains how he can afford an apartment in New York City, but that’s a TV trope for another day).  He is so stupid that he challenges Jessica Jones, whom he knows is superpowered, to a wrestling match, somehow thinking that his training will allow him to defeat an opponent who can pick him up with one hand.

The season also suffers from an excess of Trish Walker (Rachel Taylor), one of the most annoying characters ever to grace a TV screen.  Jessica’s adopted sister is constantly coming up with simplistic, ill-thought out plans, and when Jessica points out their inadequacy Trish's inevitable response is that Jessica never believed in her.  Two of the 13 episodes are “Trish-centric,” and she is perpetually inserting herself into Jessica’s investigations in the other 11.

The plus side?  There is, as always, Krysten Ritter’s performance as Jessica Jones.  Other actresses might lobby to make Jessica more attractive, more feminine, or more likable, but Ritter embraces the concept of Jessica Jones that she doesn’t care what she looks like or what anybody else thinks of her.  Carrie-Anne Moss is back as Jeri Hogarth, the hot shot lawyer who was Jessica’s boss and is now an adversary.  Moss also embraces the negative aspects of her character, someone whose efforts to control everything around her inevitably blow up in her face.  The show makes good use of minor characters to make this fictional world feel lived in, but at the cost of making it less tidy than good fiction should be.

It is a shame that this is the end of the line for Jessica Jones, unless she somehow makes a comeback in a couple of years on Disney+ streaming.  But maybe three seasons is enough?  In the modern television landscape, shows either run forever (Survivor, Law & Order SVU) or go away after a couple of seasons, at most.  All of the Marvel properties at Netflix started off good (except Iron Fist) and then were unable to re-find that magic. 

Season Three of Jessica Jones is worth a look, especially if you don’t find Trish that annoying (really?) and you didn’t want to pull the plug after Season Two.  As I understand it, word that the series was finished came down during production, so the producers were able to fashion what they knew would be a series finale.  My only question is, did they go back and consult the previous episodes before making up the grand finale?