THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Friday, January 14, 2011

Power Balance wristbands and when smart people say dumb things…

My friend, who is a personal trainer, bought a silicone “power balance wrist band” which purports to promote greater balance, strength, etc.  They also sell power balance pendants.  The wristbands go for around $30.00.  They contain some kind of hologram which, according to their web site works by:

Power Balance is based on the idea of optimizing the body’s natural energy flow, similar to concepts behind many Eastern philosophies. The hologram in Power Balance is designed to resonate with and respond to the natural energy field of the body.

I hope that I don’t have to tell anyone here that this is B.S. and I really hope that any possible merit of this product does not need to be discussed here either.  And the first person to mention “the placebo effect” will be permanently banned from this site!

In case you don’t go to the site, I’ll tell you that it is slick, the product/company has endorsements from high profile professional athletes in several sports, and appears to be ready to take over the name of the Sacramento King’s arena (it is apparently partners with Maloof Sports and Entertainment, the company that owns the Kings and the Palms Casino in Las Vegas).  The Power Balance company is a California LLC.  They must be making huge money or they expect to make huge money, in order to pay all these athletes, pay the Kings (reportedly a million a year, which seems quite low to me for an NBA arena name), etc.  I don’t know how long they have been around.

There are 3 or 4 things in the world that really piss me off, to the point that I become almost enraged when I see or hear about them.  One of them is scam products.

It boggles my mind that something so obviously retarded like this can be endorsed by professional athletes and can become partners with a billion dollar legitimate company like Maloof.

Now here is the kicker:

It looks like they have been selling lots of this crap in Europe and in fact all over the world.  Recently, they were apparently forced by the Australian government to admit that their product is a sham.  Like any reasonably intelligent person needs them to admit that.  Somewhere on the Autralian version of their web site, it says this:

Corrective Advertisement
Power Balance wristbands

In our advertising we stated that Power Balance wristbands improved your strength, balance and flexibility.

We admit that there is no credible scientific evidence that supports our claims and therefore we engaged in misleading conduct in breach of s52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.

If you feel you have been misled by our promotions, we wish to unreservedly apologise and offer a full refund.

(I guess they spell apologize with an “s” in Europe.)

One other thing that amazes and saddens me is the fact that Australia actually has a regulation that can force a company to admit something like this, but we (the U.S.) don’t.  I’m all for Freedom of the Press (not that I am “for it” per se, which is meaningless, it is part of the First Amendment), but why doesn’t the U.S. have something similar?  There are literally thousands of scam products advertised in the U.S. every second of every day.  Manufacturing, promoting, and selling useless products diminishes the prosperity of a nation (unless of course they sell them to other countries, which diminishes THEIR prosperity and is therefore immoral).

The reason I wrote what I wrote in the title of this thread is this:

There is a discussion about Matt Kemp endorsing this phony product on BBTF.  In it, Voros (the DIPS guy and occasional participant on this blog) wrote:

How exactly are Power Balance wristbands a “scam?” You get the wristband, right?

A scam is when you buy something and don’t get what was promised. With this when you buy it, you get exactly the same wristband they offered you to begin with. That it doesn’t work to your satisfaction is your fault for buying the damned thing, you ought to know better.

When I read that, I thought, “That can’t be Voros. He is a really, smart and reasonable person.”

Someone responded to him with this:

Right. So if they tell you you’re getting a product that will improve your strength, balance and flexibility, but then they ship you a product that doesn’t actually do those things, it’s a scam.

Later on, the same person posted this:

Selling a useless product isn’t a scam. Selling a useless product under the knowingly false pretense that it has a specific use is a scam.

The victims of most scams “ought to know better.” That doesn’t mean they weren’t scammed.

That should have been the end of it, and Voros should have responded, “Of course you are right.  What was I even thinking.  My bad.”

Instead, as even really smart and reasonable people can do, he refused to admit that he completely ***ed up, and dug his heels in with this:

How do you know it hasn’t done those things? Does it claim it works in 100% of cases? Hell antibiotics can’t claim that so I don’t think this does.

It’s not a scam, it’s a useless product. To me, there’s a difference.

Wow, is all I can say.  His last sentence is just mincing words of course, which is not relevant to the discussion at hand between these two posters.  Here are two definitions of “scam” BTW, from the internet:

“deprive of by deceit.”

“obtaining money by means of deception.”

I don’t see any ambiguity here with regard to this product.

We don’t know that Santa Claus doesn’t exist either.  If I sold you something that was predicated on his existence, yes, it would be a scam or whatever you would like to call it.

Sunday, January 09, 2011

Keith Olbermann

Non-sports post.

Read More

Sunday, December 19, 2010

These are the people we elect to run our nation…

Non-sports post.

Read More

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Dare to Dream

Non-sports post.

Read More

Friday, December 17, 2010

Wow, that’s the best response he can come up with?

Non-sports post.

Read More

Thursday, December 16, 2010

What does it mean to be “offensive?”

Non-sports post.

Read More

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Julian Bayes

Nate Silver looks at Assange via Bayes.  Love it.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Living Yield Curve

Non-sports post.

Cool applet.

Thursday, December 09, 2010

Since when has the “White House” become part of the legislative branch?

Non-sports post.

Read More

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Tom Delay

I have not really followed his case, but I read about the guilty verdict today.  I also vaguely remember not liking the guy when he was in office, more so than I dislike the average Republican (and average “any politician” for that matter), but I don’t remember why.

Anyway, from an article (on the Huff Post) on his conviction:

Jurors deliberated for 19 hours before returning guilty verdicts against DeLay on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He faces up to life in prison on the money laundering charge.

“This is an abuse of power. It’s a miscarriage of justice, and I still maintain that I am innocent. The criminalization of politics undermines our very system...”

My two comments are:

1) Life in prison (he obviously won’t get that) for that kind of “crime?”

2) “The criminalization of politics?” He seems to think that if you do something illegal in the context of politics that it is OK, because it is “politics.” Then again, what he is really saying is, “Everyone does these things in politics.  Why am I being prosecuted?”

Monday, November 08, 2010

I don’t understand the Olbermann hullaballo

What I mean by that is that I don’t understand the criticism of the fact that he was punished (as it turns out, rather lightly).  MSNBC has a policy that seems reasonable to me.  And BTW, despite what you may have inferred from the media (gee, the media misleading its readers?), the policy does NOT forbid political donations - it requires the journalist to get prior approval for certain things that might put their political neutrality in question.  I’m sure you can find the text of the policy somewhere on your favorite web site.

In any case, if you (Rachel Maddow, et al.) have an issue with the policy, please state that you have an issue with THE POLICY and not the enforcement of it.  Olbermann presumably knew that he was supposed to inform his employer of his intention to make a political donation and for some reason he did not.  And why is no one asking him why he simply didn’t notify them as required and what he thought would happen if he didn’t?

Now I am not saying that every policy has to be enforced 100% of the time, but what is the point of the policy if it is not not enforced?  If Olbermann or anyone else has a problem with that policy, shouldn’t that be addressed BEFORE you violate it (perhaps if you don’t like the response you get, you might violate it as a protest I guess - which is why he should be asked what he was trying to accomplish)? 

Again, I do not think it is unreasonable for a news organization to ask its journalists to notify them or get approval if they are going to do something overtly partisan in politics.  I also can understand if other people disagree with such a policy.  But I DON’T understand the scathing criticism of the (rather mild) enforcement of that policy.

If you don’t like the idea that drugs are illegal, you don’t criticize the police for arresting someone on drug charges.  You address the laws themselves…

Friday, October 29, 2010

Sometimes an apology just doesn’t fly…

You have all read about this story (the school board VP in Arkansas who made hateful and bigoted remarks on his Facebook page).  He is resigning and has issued an apology.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39888918/ns/us_news-life/

Sometimes we say things in haste or anger and we really don’t mean them or we mean something else but people take it the wrong way and are offended.  We apologize and that is the end of it.

What this guy said (please read all of it if you have not already) is so deeply rooted in bigotry and fear that he cannot possibly be sincere in his apologies.  It would be like Tango or me one day saying, “Oh BTW, I didn’t mean all those sabermetric things I wrote about, and I apologize to all those fans, journalists, players, managers, and GM’s I may have offended.”

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Really cool story and video…

http://www.thegrio.com/news/what-would-you-do-if-your-son-wanted-to-be-a-princess-boy.php

Regardless of the the “correct” way for the parents to handle this situation (and maybe it is not a “situation” at all), I think that the support by this boy’s family (note the comments by his 8-yo brother in the video), as well as his school, is fantastic and appropriate!

Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Intereresting Conundrum…

Most of you have probably read about this by now:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/

For those of you who didn’t and are too lazy (or don’t have the time, or the link does not work for you) to RTFA above:

In rural Tennessee, Obion County does not have their own fire department.  Residents of this county can pay $75 per year to be able to use the fire department of the nearby city of South Fulton.

Gene Cranick lives in the county and his house was on fire.  He called 911 and was told that there was no fire department to respond because he had not paid his $75 fee.

He (supposedly) offered to pay whatever fee was necessary to get someone to respond (it wasn’t real clear whether he offered to pay the $75 after the fact, or some other - presumably larger - amount).  They still declined.  Later, the fire chief of South Fulton said that if they let homeowners pay (whatever amount) if and when their homes were on fire, no one would pay in advance (although SOME people would, he is basically right).

Of course, they could charge them a lot more after the fact and get the same amount of total monies, depending on how many of the $75 fees they usually collect.

Also, he didn’t say this, but it might be difficult to collect the money after the fact even if someone promised to pay while their house was burning.  I guess they could sue the person or put a lien on their house.

In any case, the interesting part of the story was that the neighbor’s field eventually caught on fire too.  The neighbor had paid their $75 fee so the South Fulton FD eventually responded.  They put out the neighbor’s fire, but didn’t try and put out the fire at Cranick’s house and it eventually it burned down.

I am wondering what our reader’s think about this.  I am kind of agnostic.  One the one hand, it is a service like anything else.  Apparently his taxes in his own county don’t pay for fire protection and he probably doesn’t pay any taxes in the city.  If the guy didn’t pay, he doesn’t get the service.  On the other hand, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the city to charge customers the $75, but still not turn anyone down if their house were on fire.  Obviously there would be less incentive for people to pay the $75, but I don’t think it would have a huge impact, especially if people don’t necessarily know that they don’t really have to pay.  I also don’t think it is good public policy to have an optional fee for fire (or police) protection.  They could just as easily make it a mandatory tax.  I think that is the most important point.  Why don’t all cities and counties have optional fire, police, etc.?  Because it would lead to situations like this.

Also, a good question that I didn’t see in any of the articles I read is this:  “If a human life were in jeopardy, would the fire department have responded and if yes, how would they know (that a life was in jeopardy)?”

Monday, August 30, 2010

How hard can it possibly be to estimate a crowd?

This is 2010, right?  We have pitch f/x, field f/x, and hit f/x, but no one can estimate the size of a crowd to within a few hundred thousand persons?

According to this article, airphotoslive.com estimated the crowd at 87,000 people with a margin of error (not sure what that means - 2 SE?) of 7,000.  They analyzed pictures taken at 12 noon which they said contained the “peak of the crowd.”

A Park Service official (the Park Service does not do any official crowd estimates anymore) said around 300,000.  The article did not say where he got that number from.

Beck told the crowd that he had heard estimates of between 300,000 and 500,000, with no reference of from whom.

From the article:

Minnesota congresswoman and Tea Party darling Rep. Michele Bachmann challenged anyone who calculated Beck’s audience at anything less than seven digits. “We’re not going let anyone get away with saying there were less than a million here today because we were witnesses,” Bachmann said.

She sounds like an idiot, from that statement at least.

If we can’t even be told the truth about something as trivial as that, can we get the truth about anything?  It is sad.  Truly sad.

Friday, August 27, 2010

A responsible headline?

My home page is msnbc.com.  One of their headlines was this:

No blacks allowed to be class president, school says

Needless to say, I was shocked.  I thought, “Can that possibly be in 2010?”

Well, when I read the story, it turned out that the headline was completely misleading.  One, they just reversed the policy in an emergency board meeting (shouldn’t the headline read, “School board reverses racist policy,” or some such thing?).  And two, the policy, which has been in effect for 30 years, was actually this:

Whites and blacks alternate offices.  This year only whites were allowed to run for president and blacks for vice president.  Last year it was the reverse.  So the headline could just as easily, and accurately, have read:

No whites allowed to be class vice-president, school says

And of course it should say “school used to say” since the policy is no longer in effect.

Now, of course the policy of alternating races is ridiculous, but that is a far cry from, “No blacks allowed to run for president.”

Are legitimate news agencies allowed to mislead readers in order to get them to read the articles?  Is that ethical? I really don’t know.

Thursday, June 03, 2010

What are the odds?

Non-sports post!

Read More

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

A wonderful web site

Some of you no doubt already know about this organization and their web site. If not, check it out. It is fantastic. If you think you get no work done now because of the internet and baseball…

http://www.ted.com/

Monday, March 22, 2010

Hilarious (and apt) quote!

Non-sports!

In response to the “baby killer!” outburst:

The presiding officer, Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wisc.), told reporters he knew who it was but he declined to identify the person.

“Members have a right to make an idiot of themselves once without being exposed,” he said.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Gays in the military

Non-baseball, obviously, although it could apply.

This is a charged topic, but I am sure that our readers will comment on it sensibly and responsibly, unlike virtually all of our lawmakers.

What I am really perturbed about is the fact that no one (politicians and military people) has the cojones to say what needs to be said, in my opinion of course:

The idea that we have to “debate” or study the issue of whether to allow gays to openly serve in the military is repugnant to me and should be to a free and compassionate society.

Whether gays serving in the military has an effect on the morale of our soldiers should have NOTHING to do with the issue.  Discriminating against a class of people for something that has nothing to do with their ability to serve is simply wrong.  The “debate” as to how a change in policy might affect military morale is irrelevant.  The reason is this:

1) I don’t think anyone is going to argue that it will significantly affect morale.  (Not that that should be a bar either.) In fact, there really is no way to ascertain the effect.  They’ll never have an answer.  The answer is that it might a little and it might not, but in any case, the effect can NOT be profound.  Not in this day and age. 

2) Much more importantly, if we were to think or find that having blacks in the military would affect morale, which it might as many soldiers are not from particularly liberal cultural backgrounds, then do we ban them from serving?  What about Muslims?  Jews?  Ugly people?

Whether other people like something or not (i.e., morale in the military suffers) should NEVER be a reason not to right a wrong.  Never.  Did baseball players by and large like the fact that Jackie Robinson and later other blacks were allowed in MLB?  I don’t think so.  Why did we “allow” it then?  Because it was the right thing to do!

Bigotry is bigotry folks.  Even when it is disguised as pragmatism.  I want to say that in other words one more time, because I think it is important.

Bigotry is bigotry, even when it is disguised as something else, like pragmatism.

So, I am waiting for someone, Obama (who should damn well know bigotry when he sees it), anyone, to simply say:

I don’t give a damn about whether some soldiers like having to serve with an “openly” (whatever that stupid word means) gay person, or whether someone thinks that morale is going to suffer.  Bigotry is bigotry.  The policy before DADT was repugnantly wrong. The current policy is still wrong.  Let’s right that wrong now because now is always the best time to do something right!”