Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, February 20, 2012

Buckley: Josh Beckett comes up lame

Not lame as in Randall the Impaled on The Walking Dead...but lame none the less.

But here’s where it gets really scary: Beckett doesn’t seem as concerned over these “lapses in judgment” as he is over the mere fact that said lapses found their way into print.

“I’m upset for myself with the lapses in judgment,” he said. “But there’s also some ill feelings toward some people.”

Who?

“There’s people,” he said.

...Look, if you want to gobble up the convenient sound bites about how mistakes were made, that there were lapses in judgment, and so on, have a ball. But a lot of what Beckett said yesterday was lame. Who are these people about whom he has “ill feelings?” Even if he’s referring to people no longer with the team, it makes one wonder about Beckett’s focus. If it’s people who are still with the team, it makes one wonder when the first clubhouse brawl will take place.

And for Beckett to insist that he never missed a workout, and that his weight gain just kind of happened, well, let’s just say it: It may say February on the calendar, but, for the Red Sox [team stats], it still feels like September.

 

Repoz Posted: February 20, 2012 at 09:51 AM | 44 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: February 20, 2012 at 10:11 AM (#4064635)
Why is it that sports reporters are such ######## anyway?
   2. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM (#4064641)
The reporters are being a bunch of dicks.

Beckett, though, is a pretty dumb guy and got himself twisted into a kind of hilarious knot. From Edes' report of Beckett's statements:
Red Sox pitcher Josh Beckett admitted on Sunday to some "lapses in judgment" regarding his conduct in the team's clubhouse last season, which ended with a historic September collapse, and said he was "distracted." "We made mistakes in the clubhouse, and that's about as far as I'll go talking about the clubhouse," he said.
...
[W]hen asked if it was fair to be singled out for being out of shape at the end of the season, he said, "I put on a little bit of weight. I don't have a reason for it, but it happened. I'm looking forward to going forward from here."
...
"I'm not saying we didn't make mistakes, because we made mistakes in the clubhouse," Beckett said, "but the biggest mistake I made was not pitching well against Baltimore. I was prepared to pitch every time I went out there. I just didn't execute pitches when I needed to."
So, you were prepared to pitch every day, but you made lapses in judgment and somehow, perhaps because the fat fairy was visiting you in the middle of the night, but certainly not because of any lack of preparation on your part, you put on significant weight about your midsection.

It should be noted that the same Edes article has Jon Lester saying all the right things - you take responsibility in a non-specific way, you say the collapse has motivated you and you want to be a better leader. Beckett's attempt to defend himself just got him deeper into the ####.

I guess I'd read these articles differently if I didn't reserve a portion of blame for the collapse for Beckett, Lackey, and Lester (especially Beckett and Lester), but my read of the collapse is that lots of bad and unlucky things happened, and those three guys didn't have themselves in good enough shape or well enough prepared to save the season when the rest of the staff had fallen apart.
   3. Dangerous Dean Posted: February 20, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4064656)
If I was paid half what Beckett is to do his job, my first priority every day would be to keep my body in top shape. Not only is that my ticket to more big paydays, but it is simply the RIGHT thing to do.

I am not perfect by any means, but my parents instilled in me that if someone pays you, then you do an honest day's work. The results of shirking are not usually so visable as this. But this is what happens when you let it all go to seed.
   4. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: February 20, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4064661)
That should be, above, especially Beckett and Lackey.
   5. Dale Sams Posted: February 20, 2012 at 11:27 AM (#4064671)
You know for all of the 'every other year' BS with Beckett...I hadn't realized how good his peripheries (sp) were in 2008.
   6. Tricky Dick Posted: February 20, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4064720)
The sports writer wants Beckett to name names of people he thinks should get some blame? Well, I can see why the sports writer wants him to do that in the purely selfish interest of the writer. It would create more story opportunities about the clubhouse problems, etc. But it would be a really bad idea if Beckett starting throwing out names of people to blame. He would get labeled as a clubhouse cancer by the writers.

Is there any evidence that Beckett's weight gain impaired his pitching? The Sabbathias of the world seem to pitch well at a heavy weight.
   7. tshipman Posted: February 20, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4064733)
If I was paid half what Beckett is to do his job, my first priority every day would be to keep my body in top shape. Not only is that my ticket to more big paydays, but it is simply the RIGHT thing to do.

I am not perfect by any means, but my parents instilled in me that if someone pays you, then you do an honest day's work. The results of shirking are not usually so visable as this. But this is what happens when you let it all go to seed.


This is a common impulse, but I'd guess that if most people were fat at their current jobs, they'd still be overweight as a ball player. I'm pretty sure Beckett didn't want to be overweight at the end of the year.

It's sort of hard to stay at nice hotels for half the days in the year and not eat some pretty rich food.
   8. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: February 20, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4064778)
It's sort of hard to stay at nice hotels for half the days in the year and not eat some pretty rich food.


What do you think - 80% of MLB manages this particular feat?
   9. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 20, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4064782)
It's sort of hard to stay at nice hotels for half the days in the year and not eat some pretty rich food.

What do you think - 80% of MLB manages this particular feat?


Yeah, when you're very active, like an MLB player, you can eat a lot and not gain weight.

A rich dinner ain't doing it. I'd guess it's the beer/booze. You can drink a tremendous amount of calories w/o really noticing it. 10 beers can be close to 2000 calories, plus the junk food you eat while you're drinking.
   10. tshipman Posted: February 20, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4064787)
What do you think - 80% of MLB manages this particular feat?


No, although I don't think that 80% of MLB is at their optimal weight.

Guys who play CF, SS, 2B, maybe even 3B tend to be in good shape. Guys who play LF, RF, 1B, C, P and especially RP, tend to have a few extra pounds. This isn't because they're bad people.

Just on the Giants (the team I watch the most) from last year's 25 man, these guys were all a bit overweight:

Matt Cain
Aubrey Huff
Pablo Sandoval (although much reduced from the year before)
Jeremy Affeldt
Santiago Casilla
Javier Lopez
Ramon Ramirez
Guillermo Mota


I think a lot of pitchers, especially older ones or relievers, tend to be more overweight than position players. It's not because they're bad people.
   11. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: February 20, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4064790)
Guys who play LF, RF, 1B, C, P and especially RP, tend to have a few extra pounds.


Except at this time of year, when they're all in the best shape of their lives.
   12. McCoy Posted: February 20, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4064792)
The older you get the more pounds you are going to pack on. Ballplayers are no different. It is incredibly difficult to not put on wait as the years go by. Even athletes have their metabolism change as they get older. Weight gain can be and often is extremely subtle. When you are young you can eat anything and everything for as long as you like and it doesn't seem to stick. Then one day years later you discover a couple of extra pounds hanging from you. Just because Beckett got paid a lot of money doesn't make him any less a human when it comes to flaws and foibles. People are not as perfect as strangers expect them to be.
   13. Swedish Chef Posted: February 20, 2012 at 02:26 PM (#4064800)
Any top soccer team would have a nutritionist that vetted the meals at the team hotel and gave the players lists of allowed foods for meals taken outside of team control. I guess that would go down badly in baseball like it did in England at first, but maybe that's one route for "moneyball" left untapped.
   14. Dale Sams Posted: February 20, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4064827)
maybe that's one route for "moneyball" left untapped.


That sort of ties into my idea that, contrary to "Moneyball", you should go after high-school players (or younger..another soccer idea). That way you have athletes who can go all out and by the time they've shredded their hammies, you've moved onto the next crop.
   15. Walt Davis Posted: February 20, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4064892)
I'll also say this ... and I'm sure some of the older and/or more successful Primates will back me up on this ... you'll be amazed how quickly you get used to making more money. You might think "Holy crap, I make X, I better not screw up" will motivate you ... but it generally doesn't. At least not until you do screw up and lose that job that pays X. You're likely to find yourself more motivated either by "hooray I make X but boy I'd love to make X + Y" or by a desire for greater professional acclaim/success.

So I'm not at all surprised at ballplayers who "don't appreciate" what they've got. They're surrounded by people making as much or more, they've been told all their lives they're special, etc. It's standard social psychology, no different than you or I except on a much larger scale. Which isn't to say it's this way for everybody of course just that it's sufficiently common nobody should be surprised by it.

See also lottery winners who somehow end up bankrupt. They'd never believe it if you told them that before they won because they can't imagine how they could possibly spend more than $1 M per year (or whatever). Yes, they _should_ be motivated by the fear that this new grand lifestyle will disappear if they don't take some precautions ... clearly for many of them they aren't motivated by that fear.

And that's not entirely a bad thing. Living life out of fear of losing what you got sounds like a terrible way to go through life to me.
   16. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 20, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4064897)
...Look, if you want to gobble up the convenient sound bites about how mistakes were made, that there were lapses in judgment, and so on, have a ball. But a lot of what Beckett said yesterday was lame. Who are these people about whom he has “ill feelings?” Even if he’s referring to people no longer with the team, it makes one wonder about Beckett’s focus. If it’s people who are still with the team, it makes one wonder when the first clubhouse brawl will take place.


I just love the fact that a reporting is complaining about someone not divulging their sources*. I must have missed all the articles railing against anonymous clubhouse sources.


*Sources being used in a rather loose manner here.
   17. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: February 20, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4064934)
So I'm not at all surprised at ballplayers who "don't appreciate" what they've got.


Yeah, I agree. If you've got problems with your emotions and judgment, it's not like having a bunch of money solves that. You're just a person with emotional issues who happens to have money.
   18. UCCF Posted: February 20, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4064945)
So I'm not at all surprised at ballplayers who "don't appreciate" what they've got. They're surrounded by people making as much or more, they've been told all their lives they're special, etc.

I think the last point is probably the closest to the true reason, and it's the same issue that hampers actors/musicians. Fans clamoring for your autograph, nubile young women throwing themselves at you in every city you visit, paychecks in the millions of dollars, an entourage of people catering to your every whim and sucking up to you 24/7... it's not hard to see where that might go to someone's head.

Not to mention - these people have generally worked very hard to get where they are, and there were sacrifices along the way that they had to make. Finally arriving at the top of the mountain, you might be justified in thinking that you deserve everything that you get (and #### anyone who tries to tell you otherwise or rain on your parade by suggesting that you could stand to drop a couple of pounds).

Lottery winners... that's just a different story (in part I think self-selection - if you're dumb enough to play the lottery on a regular basis, you're probably also dumb enough not to know how to handle it when you win something).
   19. Dangerous Dean Posted: February 20, 2012 at 05:32 PM (#4064956)
This is a common impulse, but I'd guess that if most people were fat at their current jobs, they'd still be overweight as a ball player. I'm pretty sure Beckett didn't want to be overweight at the end of the year.

It's sort of hard to stay at nice hotels for half the days in the year and not eat some pretty rich food.


I understand the human nature aspect of it. And if I was in their shoes, I would likely feel the same temptations. But knowing how much money is on the line, AND knowing how RedSoxNation bleeds and dies with the team, I would think that you could put down the beer and fried chicken long enough to stay in the kind of shape you need to be in to justify the contract.

I get that not everyone is Roy Halladay (who does bust his @$$ to stay in prime shape), but you would think that Beckett, Lackey et al would have worked harder. Of course they aren't the only ones who were coasting. And they won't be the last.

But if I wasn't staying in shape for money, I would do it for pride in my performance (and the creeping fear of looking like a fat slob while my team was crumbling.

I do agree, though, that it was hard for Beckett and the boys to see this one coming. His team did have a historic lead that no team could possibly choke away, right?
   20. tjm1 Posted: February 20, 2012 at 05:33 PM (#4064957)
Any top soccer team would have a nutritionist that vetted the meals at the team hotel and gave the players lists of allowed foods for meals taken outside of team control. I guess that would go down badly in baseball like it did in England at first, but maybe that's one route for "moneyball" left untapped.


What might really make sense would be to do this in the minor leagues. Get the young guys in the habit of eating right when they're still open to suggestion, and making so little money that they'll probably eat what you tell them to if you give them the food for free.
   21. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 20, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4064968)
What might really make sense would be to do this in the minor leagues. Get the young guys in the habit of eating right when they're still open to suggestion, and making so little money that they'll probably eat what you tell them to if you give them the food for free.


A buddy of mine did this while he was the head strength and conditioning coach for an NBDL team. He'd go shopping with the players and ask them to pick out stuff they would eat, he'd then pick the health(ier) options from the list. Apparently it worked, the Lakers hired him.
   22. UCCF Posted: February 20, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4064972)
You might think "Holy crap, I make X, I better not screw up" will motivate you ... but it generally doesn't.

I have to say it does for me, but that may be because 5 years ago I was looking up at $200K in debt with no job and no idea how to get out of the hole. Fast forward to now, the debt is gone and I'm making more money than I deserve at a job that's not overly taxing. I can't imagine a better situation (short of becoming the house husband to Scarlett Johansson), and 90% of my motivation at work every day is to do a good enough job that they won't want to get rid of me, because I have no interest in returning to where I was.
   23. NJ in DC (Now unemployed!) Posted: February 20, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4064977)
I have to say it does for me, but that may be because 5 years ago I was looking up at $200K in debt with no job and no idea how to get out of the hole. Fast forward to now, the debt is gone and I'm making more money than I deserve at a job that's not overly taxing.

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
   24. The Good Face Posted: February 20, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4064978)
I'll also say this ... and I'm sure some of the older and/or more successful Primates will back me up on this ... you'll be amazed how quickly you get used to making more money. You might think "Holy crap, I make X, I better not screw up" will motivate you ... but it generally doesn't. At least not until you do screw up and lose that job that pays X. You're likely to find yourself more motivated either by "hooray I make X but boy I'd love to make X + Y" or by a desire for greater professional acclaim/success.


Very true. For most people, money is a short term motivator. They may work harder or do better initially, but after a few weeks they'll eventually drift back into whatever they were before you dumped a bunch of money on them. The only way to indefinitely extend the effect is to keep escalating the rewards, and when a guy is already making 8 figures/year that eventually becomes impractical. Humans have an incredible ability to acclimate themselves to the status quo, especially when the status quo is pretty darn good for them.

My pet theory about why pitchers seem to be fatter than position players is that they simply never developed the fitness habits that would have kept them thin. A lot of pitchers get by on their freakish arms and don't need to develop outstanding workout/eating habits. Position players who are fat and/or weak will have trouble fielding their position and won't be as good at hitting. All that matters for a pitcher is that his arm stays healthy and he has enough endurance to fill his role. Pitcher defense isn't very important in this era, and even fat guys are apparently adequate enough to make constant bunting on them a non-optimal strategy. In short, pitchers are fat because they can be.
   25. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 20, 2012 at 06:03 PM (#4064988)
Buckley: Josh Beckett comes up lame


Be fair, Buckley: Josh Beckett has always been lame.
   26. Zach Posted: February 20, 2012 at 06:38 PM (#4065013)
My pet theory about why pitchers seem to be fatter than position players is that they simply never developed the fitness habits that would have kept them thin. A lot of pitchers get by on their freakish arms and don't need to develop outstanding workout/eating habits.

I like this theory, and I'd even go farther. A lot of really talented people go through a mini-crisis when they stop being asked to do the same thing as everybody else and start being asked to really push themselves. Instead of getting the same results as everybody else with less work, they're asked to put in extra work and do even better.

If you go out into the world with a 97 mph fastball, you can get good results even without a fantastic work ethic. It's a strategy that works great until it doesn't.
   27. tshipman Posted: February 20, 2012 at 06:58 PM (#4065038)
My pet theory about why pitchers seem to be fatter than position players is that they simply never developed the fitness habits that would have kept them thin. A lot of pitchers get by on their freakish arms and don't need to develop outstanding workout/eating habits.


I think that the "every 5 days" thing factors in as well. Basically, once every five days, the pitcher uses up a ton of energy. They probably feast after starts. This messes with their heads to some extent, and makes them eat a bunch more than they normally would otherwise.

Relievers, though, are just fat.
   28. puck Posted: February 20, 2012 at 07:26 PM (#4065057)
I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.


I believe his secret was to stop posting on BBTF so often.
   29. UCCF Posted: February 20, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4065087)
I believe his secret was to stop posting on BBTF so often.

I did stop posting here quite so much, but it was more fatigue over the steroid wars than a desire to better myself.

Hmm, maybe I should send Bonds a thank you note.
   30. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: February 20, 2012 at 08:14 PM (#4065096)
They serve salads in hotels.
   31. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: February 20, 2012 at 08:23 PM (#4065105)
If I was paid half what Beckett is to do his job, my first priority every day would be to keep my body in top shape.


If I was getting paid millions regardless of whether I performed well or not, I'd get fat, too.
   32. villageidiom Posted: February 20, 2012 at 11:26 PM (#4065222)
I'll also say this ... and I'm sure some of the older and/or more successful Primates will back me up on this ... you'll be amazed how quickly you get used to making more money.
Everyone wants something better than their reference point. When they get something better, in the short term it changes only their attitude; in the long term it changes only their reference point.

If I offered you a game in which you had an 80% chance of winning nothing and a 20% chance of winning $1000, you'd play the game. If instead I gave you $900, then offered you a game in which you had an 80% chance of losing $900 and a 20% chance of winning $100, you wouldn't play. The ending positions of the two scenarios are exactly the same; the only change is your reference point.
   33. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 20, 2012 at 11:44 PM (#4065227)
If I offered you a game in which you had an 80% chance of winning nothing and a 20% chance of winning $1000, you'd play the game. If instead I gave you $900, then offered you a game in which you had an 80% chance of losing $900 and a 20% chance of winning $100, you wouldn't play. The ending positions of the two scenarios are exactly the same; the only change is your reference point.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

The expected value of the game 1 is +$200, the expected value of game 2 is -$700. You'd have to be an idiot not to play game 1, and an idiot to play game 2.

These things are path dependent.
   34. Ron J Posted: February 20, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4065234)
#9 I remember reading an interview with Larry Robinson (HOF hockey player for those who don't follow the sport) and he was talking about how two players would go out to dinner together and both would order the Chateubriand for two. The waiter would start to explain about portion size (again) and they'd just say, "we have dates coming".
   35. tshipman Posted: February 21, 2012 at 12:10 AM (#4065239)
I understand the human nature aspect of it. And if I was in their shoes, I would likely feel the same temptations. But knowing how much money is on the line, AND knowing how RedSoxNation bleeds and dies with the team, I would think that you could put down the beer and fried chicken long enough to stay in the kind of shape you need to be in to justify the contract.


I think your third sentence contradicts the first.
   36. Something Other Posted: February 21, 2012 at 05:06 AM (#4065313)
Any top soccer team would have a nutritionist that vetted the meals at the team hotel and gave the players lists of allowed foods for meals taken outside of team control. I guess that would go down badly in baseball like it did in England at first, but maybe that's one route for "moneyball" left untapped.
Is this really the case? Adult, professional soccer players can only eat what their teams consider acceptable?

I don't follow soccer closely so I'm not saying this ain't so; I'll just be really, really surprised if it's the norm.
   37. Something Other Posted: February 21, 2012 at 05:17 AM (#4065315)
Any top soccer team would have a nutritionist that vetted the meals at the team hotel and gave the players lists of allowed foods for meals taken outside of team control. I guess that would go down badly in baseball like it did in England at first, but maybe that's one route for "moneyball" left untapped.
Is this really the case? Adult, professional soccer players can only eat what their teams consider acceptable?

I don't follow soccer closely so I'm not saying this ain't so; I'll just be really, really surprised if it's the norm.
   38. Ron J Posted: February 21, 2012 at 06:43 AM (#4065323)
#36 I can tell you that Manchester United has a guy whose job title is head of sports science. A dietitian reports to him. (and note the plural on nutritionists below)

Here is an interview with their dietitian. It's mostly about gameday but does touch on the players at home.

There was an interesting interview with Ryan Giggs about the subject of food while Man U was touring the US. A few quotes, “I think our nutritionists and our dietitian probably is a bit worried about us coming to the USA, because the food is just unbelievable. Hopefully we can sneak under the radar and have a few barbeques.” (in response to a question about "KC's famous BBQ")

When asked if he'd ever had a Philly cheese steak, "I don’t know about our nutritionist allowing us to eat Philly cheese steaks, so, maybe we’ll get a chance this time."

Also worth noting that 3 players (including their best player) were sat down for a game after overdoing New Years.

On the other hand, you still read about drunken brawling by players so I'd guess there's something less than total control by the teams. Not for want of trying I think.
   39. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: February 21, 2012 at 07:01 AM (#4065324)
On the other hand, you still read about drunken brawling by players so I'd guess there's something less than total control by the teams.

Police believe Joey Barton may have been involved.
   40. bunyon Posted: February 21, 2012 at 09:23 AM (#4065336)
My pet theory about why pitchers seem to be fatter than position players is that they simply never developed the fitness habits that would have kept them thin. A lot of pitchers get by on their freakish arms and don't need to develop outstanding workout/eating habits.


Hmm. For as long as I've been around baseball (about 30 years now, counting little league where I was coached by an ex-minor leaguer who was aided by my father who was an ex-minor leaguer and with occasional visits to the team from an ex-teammate who was then a Giants scout)*, all I've ever heard is how important strong legs are to pitchers. Run, run, run. And the successful pitchers I knew did just that.

Now, I haven't been nearly as close to the game as an adult so I don't know if that is the case still or not. I can't believe it isn't. But my take is that these guys run like crazy. I guess the "fat" pitchers aren't, generally, super-fat by layperson standard but, still, how do you put on 40 pounds in a year if you're running like crazy?

If running is no longer considered an important part of pitching, maybe that is why arm injuries stay common despite great advances in medicine and knowledge?

Or, to put it simply, you pitch with your legs and back, not your arm. No one is throwin 97 for years on end using only their arm.


* Not that my connections run super high in the baseball world. Many folks here have better. And it doesn't make an argument anyway. Just trying to point out that this wasn't some weird hippie dudes coaching little league.

EDIT: I suppose running a lot is not contrary to putting on some weight or being heavy. It was leg strength, through running, that was preached. I suppose you could run, mix in some weight lifting leg exercises and eat like crazy and stay heavy. And, also, we're talking about several pitchers who, at the end of a long season, pitched like crap. My guess is that they really weren't in very good shape. Maybe their ten cent head told them their arm was all they needed.
   41. The Good Face Posted: February 21, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4065367)
EDIT: I suppose running a lot is not contrary to putting on some weight or being heavy. It was leg strength, through running, that was preached. I suppose you could run, mix in some weight lifting leg exercises and eat like crazy and stay heavy. And, also, we're talking about several pitchers who, at the end of a long season, pitched like crap. My guess is that they really weren't in very good shape. Maybe their ten cent head told them their arm was all they needed.


Yeah, it's possible to be in adequate cardiovascular shape, have strong legs, and still be carrying 20-30 extra pounds of fat. Especially if you're a big guy to begin with, as many MLB pitchers tend to be. I think most position players, with the exception of 1Bs, find that kind of extra weight would hurt their defense, so they're more likely to do what it takes to keep it off.
   42. CrosbyBird Posted: February 21, 2012 at 12:16 PM (#4065458)
For most people, money is a short term motivator. They may work harder or do better initially, but after a few weeks they'll eventually drift back into whatever they were before you dumped a bunch of money on them.

Actually, once you cross the threshold of "having enough," money actually is a negative motivator. It's a really weird result, but it's been shown in a number of studies.

The ending positions of the two scenarios are exactly the same; the only change is your reference point.

You have to fix the odds a bit to make your scenario work.

Game 1: 80% $0; 20% $1000 (expected return of $200)
Game 2: 80% -$900; 20% $4600 (expected return of -$720 + $920, $200)

That said, I think your point stands. Everyone will play Game 1. Most people will not play Game 2 if permitted to play only once.

I can make Game 2 really, really attractive and yet people still won't play it. Imagine 90% -$10000; 10% +$1M. That has an expected return of $10000, but I expect that almost everyone you ask on the street would STILL prefer Game 1.
   43. Something Other Posted: February 21, 2012 at 11:30 PM (#4065888)
#36 I can tell you...
Huh. Thanks for the info. I wonder why they put up with it. I can see being happy to have a smart, educated nutritionist available to help reach your goals, but adults bristle in response to "you must..."

Well, I'll stop there. I haven't played soccer since I was seventeen. Maybe it requires you to be at such a peak that anything less costs you your job, so teams' and players' interests converge on the subject of nutrition.
   44. Something Other Posted: February 21, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4065890)
Yeah, it's possible to be in adequate cardiovascular shape, have strong legs, and still be carrying 20-30 extra pounds of fat. Especially if you're a big guy to begin with, as many MLB pitchers tend to be. I think most position players, with the exception of 1Bs, find that kind of extra weight would hurt their defense, so they're more likely to do what it takes to keep it off.
Yup. I think it's clear how 20 extra pounds hurts you on defense and on the basepaths and doesn't give you anything anywhere else (weren't Mays and Aaron less than six feet tall and under 180 pounds when they were hitting 40 homers a season?), whereas with pitchers there's only one thing they need to be good at, and what makes a man good at that has never been all that clear.

Not lame as in Randall the Impaled on The Walking Dead...
Hey--it's been finding its way, but it's an engrossing show.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sebastian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogVIDEO: Brewers, Pirates brawl after Carlos Gomez triple
(85 - 2:59am, Apr 21)
Last: Barnaby Jones

NewsblogBryce Harper benched for 'lack of hustle' despite quad injury
(103 - 2:21am, Apr 21)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogIvan Nova’s season in jeopardy after tearing elbow ligament
(5 - 1:33am, Apr 21)
Last: Dr. Vaux

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(410 - 1:25am, Apr 21)
Last: Rob_Wood

Newsblogmets.com: Through hitting system, Mets aim to build winner
(19 - 1:19am, Apr 21)
Last: bobm

NewsblogTim Federowicz has rough night behind the plate - True Blue LA
(14 - 1:18am, Apr 21)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(162 - 1:12am, Apr 21)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(384 - 1:09am, Apr 21)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogZander Hollander, Sports Trivia Shepherd, Dies at 91
(11 - 12:21am, Apr 21)
Last: puck

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(132 - 12:15am, Apr 21)
Last: Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016

NewsblogChase Utley is the hottest hitter in baseball and has a shot at .400
(72 - 11:39pm, Apr 20)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for April 20, 2014
(94 - 11:35pm, Apr 20)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(952 - 11:01pm, Apr 20)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogPirates Acquire Ike Davis From Mets
(54 - 9:15pm, Apr 20)
Last: Canker Soriano

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(95 - 9:05pm, Apr 20)
Last: BDC

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.7086 seconds
52 querie(s) executed