College coaches are a privileged lot

There’s a quote I first heard a few months ago that I haven’t tracked down the source, but I think it explains a lot of what’s going on in this country.  The quote is, “When people of privilege lose their privilege, it feels like oppression.”

You can apply this to so many situations, but I want to talk about college coaches, specifically this quote from UConn women's basketball coach Geno Auriemma:

“The majority of coaches in America are afraid of their players,” Auriemma said, via ESPNW’s Mechelle Voepel. “The NCAA, the athletic directors and society has made them afraid of their players. Every article you read: ‘This guy’s a bully. This woman’s a bully. This guy went over the line. This woman was inappropriate. Yet the players get off scot-free in everything. They can do whatever they want. They don’t like something you say to them, they transfer. Coaches, they have to coach with one hand behind their back. Why? Because some people have abused the role of a coach.”

College coaches have led privileged careers compared to pro coaches, or people in other professions.  If a player didn’t obey your every command, you could threaten to take away his or her scholarship, taking away their ticket to high paying pro jobs AND their ability to get an education.  You could block any student who wanted to transfer to another college because they didn’t fit into the system, or a better player was recruited after them, cutting their playing time.  Auriemma complains that students can transfer, but the reality has been that coaches can tell students and parents that they will make the student into a professional, and then leave the second a better school offers them more money.

Auriemma complains that players can transfer if they don’t like how they are being treated.  Imagine a workplace in the private sector, where if a boss is abusive the workers can quit and go to work at a rival company.  Oh wait, you don’t have to imagine that, it’s how the real world works.  Only in the rarefied world of college coaching can someone berate their underlings without fear that they will take their talents elsewhere.

Auriemma makes nearly $11 million a year to coach the UConn women’s basketball team and given his success one can’t quibble about the price.  But of course, the fact is the school is able to afford to pay him that because the workforce that generates revenue for the school is unpaid.  Oh, they players get a “free” education, but the marginal cost to the school of providing that education is close to zero (and, as I said above, the education gives the school leverage over the player).  Meanwhile, UConn men’s basketball players have complained about going to bed hungry because they couldn’t afford to buy food.  I bet Geno Auriemma never goes to bed hungry.

Not paying players to play is one thing, but the NCAA also forbids students from raising money off their names and their faces, things no one should have to give up their rights to in exchange for an “education” (said education usually lasting one year for basketball players headed to the NBA draft). As the Bard said, “Who steals my purse steals trash; . . . But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him and makes me poor indeed.”  Willie was not quite accurate, as colleges steal their student-athletes names and sell jerseys and paraphernalia featuring the name, enriching them; the students are, however, left poor indeed.

College coaches, Geno Auriemma included, have led a privileged existence.  But that privilege is shrinking.  They can no longer abuse their students (and college basketball players are, technically, students, even if many rarely see the inside of a classroom).  Someday they may have to allow students to make money off their name and their image, depriving coaches of the control they had over scholarships.  Someday they may have to stop treating student-athletes like slaves.

Geno Auriemma seems to think this is a bad thing.  But then he has 11 million reason to believe that.

All the Marvel movies ranked!

All the Marvel Movies Ranked!

Captain America—9.5

The gold standard.  The only Marvel movie with a true character arc (well. . . maybe Iron Man 3).  Also, one of the few with an interesting antagonist.  It wasn’t easy adapting square-jawed Steve Rogers to a modern audience, but Chris Evens found exactly he right tone.  Bonus points for Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter, the best love interest in the Marvel Cinematic Universe series (with due respect to Pepper Potts).

Avengers—9.2

Maybe this should win based on degree of difficulty, because only the genius of Joss Whedon could have brought together all the threads of the individual heroes together to make a coherent story with character interaction.  It also boasts the best single line of the MCU, when Hulk says to Loki, “Puny God.”

Black Panther—9

Black Panther solves the problem that nags at most of the Marvel films, coming up with an interesting antagonist who has almost a valid point of view.  It’s not surface gloss; the depth that went into constructing Wakanda shows a filmmaker who pays attention to detail (1/3 of Wakandan extras are barefoot in keeping with African culture).  Superior script, direction, and acting; it deserved its Best Picture nomination.

Guardians of the Galaxy—8.5

Easily the biggest surprise of the MCU, the Guardians were grade C heroes that found the right vessel in James Gunn to transition to the silver screen.  Thank heaven Gunn was rehired (after handling his dismissal exactly correctly) for part 3 because, unlike the other MCU components, Guardians relies on his singular vision to work.

Thor: Ragnarok—8.3

Talk about surprises!  After the so-so Thor and the dismal sequel, Ragnarok found its own vessel in Taika Waititi to find the funny in a musclebound, one-eyed Norse deity.  Hemsworth’s charm has always been the main appeal of the Thor films, and pairing him with dour Bruce Banner is pure genius.

Avengers: Infinity War—8.1

I have the nagging feeling I’ve overrated this one, but you can’t fault the spectacle of all of Marvel’s various threads coming to fruition.  This is a victory for spectacle over brains (also, this film makes ZERO sense if you haven’t seen all 20 previous films).

Iron Man 3—8

In which Tony Stark learns a valuable lesson: Iron Man without Tony Stark is an empty suit, but Tony Stark without Iron Man is still pretty awesome.  Probably Downey’s best work in the MCU, and Guy Pearce and Ben Kingsley at least try to make the villains interesting.

Iron Man—7.8

Robert Downey Jr. does a great job introducing the MCU, but Jeff Bridges is way over the top as the baddie, and the whole things runs on a little too long to stick the landing.

Ant Man and The Wasp—7.7

The first Marvel film with a female hero in the title, and also a female antagonist.  Adding the back story of Hank Pym’s wife adds some pathos to the otherwise nutty adventure, and the whole chase sequence with shrinking/enbiggening things is imaginatively done.

Guardians of the Galaxy 2—7.5

A solid entry that treads a little too closely on the heels of its predecessor, but great fun and Kurt Russel, of any age, is a hoot.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier—7.2

Frankly I found this rather dreary, but there are some nice set pieces (the elevator fight with Captain America is possibly the best fight of the MCU) and the ensemble is running on full speed.

Ant Man—7.1

Marvel’s first attempt (sort of) at a mostly comedic take on the superhero genre works, thanks to Paul Rudd’s goofy screen presence and the inestimable spunk of Evangeline Lilly (aka TV’s Lost’s Kate).  The origin story takes a while to get going, and I still don’t buy the whole “he can control ants with his mind” thing, but solid fun.

Doctor Strange—7

The film benefits greatly from the casting of Benedict Cumerbatch as the arrogant title character and some imaginatively used special effects.  It struggles to merge its mystical focus with the scientific basis of most of the other superheroes, and frankly I thought some of the special effects were way too busy.

Captain America: Civil War—6.7

It was at this point the MCU started to fold in upon itself.  A month after seeing this film I couldn’t remember the plot, just the airport scene that introduced Black Panther and the new, slightly improved Spiderman.  The plot, such as it is, is incomprehensible to anyone not immersed in the MCU.

Thor—6.5

Chris Hemsworth’s charm carries most of the baggage in the movie, indifferently directed by Oscar nominated director Kenneth Branaugh.  I never bought Natalie Portman as a legitimate love interest for a demi-god. The best thing I can say about it?  It’s better than Thor 2.

Incredible Hulk—6

Okay, I didn’t see this film, I saw the prior Ang Lee version.  But since Edward Norton was subsequently replaced by Mark Ruffalo, I have no desire to check it out for the sake of completeness.

Spiderman: Homecoming—5

The third Spiderman, Tom Holland, is better than Tobey Maguire, but I still prefer Andrew Garfield’s snark.  I like the casting of Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, as I never understood why Peter Parker’s aunt looked like his grandmother (some critic said, “Aunt May? She looks more like Miss February”).  But I found the plot mundane and Michael Keaton a surprisingly uninteresting antagonist.

Iron Man 2—4

This film had nothing to add to the Iron Man oeuvre; it was like they made it only because they could cast Oscar nominee Mickey Rourke as the villain.

Thor: The Dark World—3

The only good thing about this movie is the ad libbed moment when Thor delicately hangs his Hammer on Jane’s umbrella rack.  Bleak, confusing and ultimately uninteresting.

Avengers: Age of Ultron—2

I adore Joss Whedon.  I revere Joss Whedon.  I did the research, and this is easily the biggest piece of crap Whedon ever wrote/directed.  The villain is concocted out of thin air from Tony Stark doing something incredibly stupid (and is impossible to take seriously), yet no one really blames Stark for the fallout.  The opening party has some fun moments, but otherwise it is an interminable slog.  Dr. Horrible’s Sing a Long Blog is infinitely superior.

Captain Marvel—I haven’t seen it.  So sue me.

Learning lessons about college admissions

I suppose the question comes down to this: who is stupider, the offspring of Felicity Huffman, Lori Loughlin, and others who couldn’t get into college without their parents spending (collectively) millions of dollars on bribes, or the parents who got caught spending millions just to get their kids into a college they weren’t qualified to get into?

This reminds me of a Chinese kung-fu movie whose name I don’t know, but the plot dealt with a young man whose family was killed by outlaws and he wanted to learn kung-fu to extract revenge.  The problem was that he failed the test to get into the local kung-fu school, so he had no way of learning martial arts.  He then concocted a brilliant idea—he would get into the school by applying for a position as a teacher at the school, and once he was inside, he could learn kung-fun and revenge his family.  Of course, the problem is, if he isn’t good enough to get in as a student, how could he get in as a teacher?

If Lori Loughlin’s kid couldn't get into USC by way of her academic credentials (credentials that could only be burnished by having a rich parent who could pay for private schools), then how would she do well there once she got in via being on the crew team?  If you aren’t smart enough to get into a college but you are admitted anyway, you’ll spend four years surrounded by classmates who are smarter than you because they did get in legitimately.  Maybe you’ll graduate with what used to be called “a gentleman’s C” (I’m not sure what it would be called in tis “MeToo” era) but your GPA won’t make the Dean’s list.

Of course, I’m applying logic to the situation.  From what I understand from perusing various articles in the general media, no one involved thought the college admissions process was logical.  Wealthy, famous people had kids who couldn’t get into prestigious schools, so OBVIOUSLY the selection process was biased (it never occurred to these people that it was biased in favor of intelligent people).  A huckster convinced rich idiots that, to get into college, your kid doesn’t have to be smart; your kid needs a “brand” that will impress admissions offices.  I’m a little unclear on how paying off coaches to say your kids are on crew team helps their “brand,” but then I got into an Ivy League law school by doing awesome on my LSAT.

Prestigious schools are prestigious because they can be selective; they can be selective because they attract a large number of applications because they are prestigious.  It’s a “chicken and egg” situation. 

One of the consequences of the scandal is that now there is a lawsuit for $500 billion by someone who claims their kid was kept out of a “good” school because of all the corruption.  One source said that the plaintiff’s child ended up at UC Davis, which was on Money’s list of the 20 Best Colleges in America.  Of course, as was pointed out in the movie Lady Bird, who wants to go to a college known for its veterinary department?

The most ridiculous aspect of all this is that most studies agree that going to a prestigious college does NOT increase a young person’s chances for success.  Extensive research has shown that where your kid goes to college doesn’t have much, if any, impact on subsequent success in life or business.  People who go to prestigious schools succeed because they are smart enough to get into a prestigious school legitimately, and if these types of students opt to go to a non-prestigious school (for financial or geographic reasons), they tend to succeed anyway because of their inherent qualities, not the quality of their education.

But the point of the offspring of famous, wealthy people getting into a prestigious college is not to succeed later in life, but to be seen as being a prestigious student.  In a way, it’s like buying military medals on e-Bay and then wearing them to show how brave you are; or, the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz becoming smart just because he’s handed a diploma without having gone to school.

Legislators in California have naturally jumped on the band wagon and are demanding UC do something about the broken admissions system, as if no one with good grades or test scores can get into UC Berkeley because of the tens of thousands of wealthy parents sending checks for $500,000 to the admissions office there (if there were really that many wealthy parents willing to pay $500,000 to get their kid into UC, they could the few non-rich students who somehow squeak in attend for free). 

I don’t understand parents who want to cut corners for their kids and give them stuff they didn’t earn on their own.  Dim-witted kids who get into an elite school are either going to learn how stupid they are, or decide brains are for suckers and stop working.  I agree with the old joke about the dying man who went to his lawyer to draw up his will.  The attorney asked him what he wanted to leave his family, and he said his oldest son should get a million dollars, his two younger sons should get $500,000 each, and his daughter should get $250,000.  The lawyer told him his entire estate was worth $100,000, so where would the children get this money?  The man replied, “Let ‘em work for it, just like I did!”

The Simpsons: Why So Serious (that is, not funny)?

·          

I feel like writing a new post for my blog, but no topic currently inspires me so let me take on a perennial question that has never been conclusively answered: what happened to The Simpsons?

This is a well-known trope in the TV analytics biz:  The Simpsons were possibly the greatest TV show in the history of the medium for eight, maybe ten, seasons.  I own seasons three through five and as much as you might want to gripe about how every commentary track calls that episode a “classic” the truth is, they almost all were classics.  It’s an incredible level of quality control that would make NASA blush.  Of course, one irony is that during the heyday of The Simpsons it never won the Emmy for Best Comedy because, as an animated show, it wasn’t eligible.  By the time the Academy got around to changing the eligibility criteria the show was no longer in its prime, and as a result it is zero-for-30 in Best Comedy Emmys (I am confident that whenever it chooses to hang up its hat it will certainly get a lifetime achievement nomination, if not win).  It has still managed to win a boatload of statutes for voice performance, animated episode, and best song (a category that is less competitive than its Oscar counterpart).

Part of the problem is that, after 30 seasons, continuity is a bitch.  Bart has been in the 5^th grade for 30 years, so what school-related hijinks could he possibly get into that he hasn’t already done?  Episodes in the 1990’s established that Bart grew up in the 1980’s, but to be consistent recent episodes have to show him growing up in the 2010’s.  Homer and Marge have been married for 35 years, despite being in their mid-30’s, so what new marital strife could they encounter for the first time?

Sitcoms aren’t known for character development, but what new facet of Lisa’s personality could they develop after 30 years?  After 30 seasons of sloth and gluttony, how could Homer’s personality subtly change?  It’s like the joke from the episode “The Boy Who Knew Too Much” where Bart picks up the paper and says, “Oh look, Charlie Brown said, ‘Good Grief’; hah, I didn’t see that coming.”

I can’t possibly deconstruct what is wrong with the Simpsons better than the clip "The Fall of the Simpsons: How It Happened."  But let me look at the most recent episode, “I Want You (She’s So Heavy).

The AV Club review notes that the episode takes a while to get going, with several false starts about what the main plot will be about.  But that is a standard Simpsons gimmick from its “glory years,” possibly a way to pad episodes out to 22 minutes which, according to several commentary tracks, they had trouble doing (the extended “rake gag” in Cape Feare was created for the same purpose).  For example, Boy Scoutz ‘n the Hood starts off with Homer on the couch eating peanuts, then has Bart and Milhouse finding $20 and going on a sugar bender, then Bart joins the “Junior Campers,” then, at last, the show settles on the real plot of Bart and Homer going on a father/son camp out.  

What dooms the false starts in I Want You is that the dots are too connected; it’s not random shifts of perspective, but something that someone tried to make it make sense and did too good of a job.  Why do Homer and Marge have to go to mandatory drug counselling led by Superintendent Chalmers at a hotel?  Would buttoned-up Marge really suggest crashing a wedding convention?  Would they really have access to so much champagne they’d get drunk?  And all this plotting just sets up a scenario where Homer gets a hernia and Marge sprains her ankle.

Then Homer’s hernia starts speaking to him, urging him not to do anything other than lie in a hammock.  Since when did Homer need to find a reason to be lazy?  If anything, the hernia is a validation of him lying around and not exercising.  Meanwhile, Marge’s trainer urges her to treat her sprained ankle with exercise, which sounds dubious to me.  The “exercise” Marge chooses is kite-surfing, which consists of standing by the ocean until a strong breeze catches your kite and lifts you into the air.  How is this exercise?  And if it is, how could Marge do it on a sprained ankle?

The whole thing ends when Homer kite-surfs with Marge without having any training, and then the kite-surfing trainer turns out to be a Russian spy whose plan was to gain access to the Springfield nuclear plant via Homer.  Huh?  Russia has nuclear power plants so I’m not sure what they could learn from one as old (and incompetently run) as Springfield’s, and once again, huh?

Meanwhile there is a bunch of filler about the bad babysitter Homer and Marge get for Lisa and Bart (remember when Lisa was able to babysit Bart?  I guess the writers don’t), Bart and Lisa going to Ned Flanders’ for coconut milk (and he wouldn’t give them cocoa why?), and Patty and Selma dragging Homer into the woods for no reason (other than they don’t like Homer).  No one expects realism from The Simpsons, but a half dozen plot points that are dead-ends makes no narrative sense at all.

I don’t understand the economics of The Simpsons staying on the air for another two years.  The vocal cast is expensive, they can’t make as much off merchandizing as they used to, and the lack of quality has been a running gag for TWENTY YEARS.  Maybe the tie in with FXX eliminates the need for aggressive syndication and allows Fox to recoup its expenses in a way that will result in future litigation by Matt Groening. 

Once upon a time The Simpsons were the epitome of how great a quality television show could be.  That was a long time ago, and now it is the epitome of a once-great show churning out more episodes because everyone wants to cash more paychecks.  Modern Family is going through the same phase now; when it began it was fresh and innovative, now it’s just an excuse for writing about how Haley is dumb and Manny is odd.  Ditto Big Bang Theory.  It is the nature of television that too much of a good thing is never enough.

But, as the saying goes, all good things must come to an end.  Even The Simpsons.

Bryce Harper's contract

Can Bryce Harper do math?

Our long national nightmare is over—Bryce Harper has signed a contract!  But the terms of the deal reinforce the idea I mentioned in my previous post that the problem was more with Harper and less a conspiracy among owners.

The contract Harper signed was for $330 million over 13 years with the Phillies, with no opt out clause and a no trade clause.  A lot of talking heads on ESPN stressed that Harper controls his career, that he clearly wanted stability, and now he can proceed like the second-best player in the majors that he is (according to Tony Kornheiser).

First off, as I said before, Harper is good, but he is hardly the second-best player in the MLB today.  Five active players had a higher career WAR by age 25: Mike Trout, Albert Puljos, Mookie Betts, Manny Machado, and Jason Heyward.  Among all players in career WAR Harper ranks 951 with 27.4, just behind former teammate Gio Gonzales who has 27.5.  Nolan Arenado, who just signed a long-term deal with the Rockies, is at 714 with 33.3 (although it is just possible his numbers are helped by playing a mile above sea level).  In seven seasons he made the top ten only twice for home runs, RBIs, OPS, OPS+, and slugging percent, and he’s won only one Silver Slugger award.  He has a tremendous ceiling but is bothered by injuries and mediocre seasons.

After he signed it came out that he had been offered a four-year, $180 million contract by the Dodgers, which he turned down.   So, he was offered $45 million per year and the ability to renegotiate at that time but turned it down for $25.4 million per year.  Maybe Bryce Harper’s agent, Scott Boras, didn’t explain to him that $45 million is more than $25.4.

Maybe those nagging injuries were worrisome to Harper and he wanted a long-term guaranteed deal.  But $20 million a year less?  I suspect that Harper’s ego demanded a bigger deal than Machado’s $300 million deal with San Diego, so Harper opted for a lower per-season total in order to get the headline “Largest deal in baseball history.”

In 5 years, Harper’s salary will be tradable to a team like the Yankees, so Harper can live his childhood dream of playing in pinstripes.  But he will never hold the title of largest single season salary; that will likely go to Mike Trout, whose numbers make Harper look like a weak AAA prospect.  Or maybe with Harper making so little, the Phillies can afford to pay Trout when he becomes a free agent and combine the two in the outfield.  As impressive as that might be, it may not be enough for a World Series without some pitching.

The early like is that Harper is favored to win the NL MVP in his first season with Philadelphia.  I’d love to place a bet on the field.  There is always the injury issue, and even with a history of good batting stats in the Phillies’ ballpark I’d still like to wager on Paul Goldschmidt (Cardinals), Kris Bryant (Cubs), or about a half dozen players on the Dodgers.  Manny Machado makes more sense if you are looking for a narrative of a savior arriving and delivering a long-suffering franchise into the playoffs.

So cheer now Phillies fan, and get ready to boo Harper when he’s earning $25 million for hitting .230 in 2028.

Why risk playing basketball?

There’s an odd mojo going on in the basketball world right now.  In college basketball, presumptive number one pick Zion Williamson is being urged to “shut it down” and not play anymore out of fear of aggravating the knee he sprained when his shoe exploded during a game.  Meanwhile, in the pros, the New Orleans Pelicans are being urged to not play their one star, Anthony Davis, for fear of him getting injured before they can grant his request for a trade to another team. 

Basketball players are apparently too important to risk having them play basketball.

I won’t even get into the question of whether Williamson should have to return his college scholarship money if he decides he doesn’t want to play for Duke anymore.  Nor will I ask if the Pelicans will have to pay Anthony Davis for NOT playing, or if Pelican season ticket holders should get a refund on the seats that they bought with the expectation of seeing one of the premier big men in the NBA ply his wares.  I think these are excellent questions, but they can wait.

Several notable people, such as Scottie Pippen, were urging Williamson to stop playing even before he tweaked his knee.  The idea was that he had already established his bona fides as a number one pick, so any additional time on a basketball court was too great of a risk to the millions he’ll presumably earn in the NBA.  What is there to be gained by his playing?

Well, there’s the ability to play alongside other talented ball players, a facility that would come in handy playing on most teams in the NBA (okay, maybe not the Knicks).  Basketball is still a team game, and you can’t perform at a high level unless you know how your teammates can help you, and how you can help them.  Practicing free throws in a gym will only get you so far.

There is the chance to learn from one of the greatest coaches in NCAA history, maybe one of the greatest in any sport.  If anyone knows how young players can improve their game, it’s Coach K.  He’s proven in his long career at Duke (and on the US Olympic team) that he can take talented young men and make them better.  I would think that would be of use to an NBA team considering its draft options.

There is the experience of learning how to win, and learning how to lose.  The experience of handling the pressure of the ACC tournament, and then NCAA March Madness.  The experience of interacting with the media, fans, and other players with a smile.  The ability, as Rudyard Kipling said, to keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you.  These are all things that can’t be learned in a gym by yourself.

The logic of the “shut it down” advocates is that Zion Williamson is too valuable to risk playing college basketball.  But if that’s true, he’s also too valuable to risk practicing; after all, that sneaker mishap could have happened in practice.  For that matter, when he’s in the NBA he’s probably too valuable to risk in regular season games; he should lie in bed for ten months then get up and join his team in the playoffs.

Except, of course, by then his muscles will have atrophied and he wouldn’t be able to hit a basket from two feet away.  Athletes have been injured in all sorts of odd ways, from walking their dog to doing the laundry.  For Zion Williamson to progress beyond his incredible physical skills he will need to practice, he will need to play with other players, he will need to risk injury.  There is no way for him to get better without risking injury.

This is different from college football players who choose to sit out a college bowl game.  Such games are usually meaningless, unless they are in the Championship Bowl system. Bowl games are now a dime a dozen and frequently feature teams at or around .500.  A guaranteed draft prospect can skip the Chips Ahoy Mango Bowl without losing out on a valuable learning experience.

Charles Barkley is right on this subject: people telling Zion Williamson to skip his one year in college because he might lose out on a valuable NBA contract (not to mention a shoe deal; Nike had better make it worth his while to endorse them given their product nearly racked up his knee) are missing the point of basketball, or of all sport.  The important thing in sports is the competition; the money is secondary. 

Of course, that’s easy for someone whose earned millions as a basketball player and analyst to say.

Bryce Harper: Why the hype?

Back in the 1970’s, catcher Johnny Bench hit 45 home runs in 1970; the next season he hit 27.  When a reporter asked him why he had such a down year, Bench said that maybe 27 was typical and 45 had been the aberration. 

Who knew Johnny Bench was a natural statistician?

I bring this up because of all the hype over the signing (or not signing) of Bryce Harper.  He turned down $300 million over 10 years from the Nationals, figures that Manny Machado found acceptable (Machado’s stats are far better than Harpers, with a lifetime War of 33.8 compared to Harper’s 27.4; check out this indirect comparison). People point to Harper winning Rookie of the Year in 2012, then following it up with an MVP season in 2015.  In 2015 he had a WAR of 10 and an OPS+ of 198, which means he was twice as good as the average MLB player.

But 2015 may not be a typical Bryce Harper year.  In 2014, 2016 and 2018 he had WARs of 1.1, 1.5, and 1.3 respectively, which . . . is not great. His average WAR over seven seasons is 3.9 (27.4 divided by 7) which is . . . good.  His overall OPS+ is 139, meaning he is about 40 percent better than an average player.  According to his Similarity Scores at Baseball Reference, only three of the ten most similar players is in the Hall of Fame (but Mike Trout is probably a lock for future induction and Miguel Cabrera will get a lot of support).  His 2019 projections from Baseball reference is a batting average of .265 with 27 home runs, which again is . . . nice.

He is also a defensive liability, with a defensive War of -3.0 over his career.  He’s been in the top 10 of outfield errors committed three times.  He’s only been in the top 10 of home runs twice.  He’s only been in the top 10 of OPS twice.  He’s been in the top 10 of runs batted in twice.  Bottom line—he’s had two good seasons in seven years.

But more than $300 million over a decade?  I wouldn’t take that chance until he put together two great years in a row, which he hasn’t.  In three of the past five seasons he’s had a WAR under 2; I’d look at that as more likely being typical and 2015 as the aberration. His supporters will point out that his low War in 2014 was due to playing in only 100 games (and that he put up impressive War numbers in other injury-shortened seasons), but that just highlights his history of injuries.  He’s often gotten injured by hustling a little too much on occasion; maybe Manny Machado is on to something when he says husting “isn’t his cup of tea.”

Harper is a player with a high ceiling, but a history of injuries and a history of mediocre seasons.  Someone will probably pay him what he thinks he’s worth, because all it takes is one fool to screw up the market.  But I wouldn’t write whatever team pays him into the playoffs.