Freakonomics

Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt interesting book for the guy who likes to generate “controversial” discussions at parties. So sumo wrestlers cheat, drug dealers live with their parents, and real estate agents receive a higher closing price when they sell a house that they own themselves. OK. Steven Levitt delivers his arguments in a light, easy to read, slightly esoteric format.

The economics are sound. Basically the pretence is that every individual is interested in maximising their utility. OK.

The most contentious chapter concerns Levitt’s belief that the decline of the crime rate in the late 1990s was caused by the legalisation of abortion in the 1970s. As a result of Roe v. Wade, indigent women who would have otherwise brought a hardened criminal into the world received abortions. However, I feel that the issue is far more complex and involves multiple factors.

It’s sort of like that TV show where the dude finds a briefcase containing details of his imminent death and attempts to change the future. Is changing his behaviour enough to cheat death or did he die because of the actions he took in light of this new information?

Levitt makes a very solid statement that incentives drive behaviour. I definitely agree; the world is comprised of choices and consequences. Levitt’s point is similar to Choice Theory: individuals choose to behave the way they do because this behaviour fills a need. People are responsible for their actions because they responded to an incentive and chose to maximise their utility.

(On that note, why don’t we teach more decision-making in schools?)

I believe that intrinsic motivation is much more powerful than extrinsic motivation. Coaches steer the ship but if the players believe personally in the ship’s direction, much less short-term coaching is required. According to Levitt and Choice Theory, coaches must create meaningful incentives to engineer the actions they desire. Every student-athlete is an individual and this is easier said than done.

5hrs 41min of Madness

Some of Phil Garner’s decisions last night adversely affected his team. First of all, the athletes on the field (the Houston Astros) were given several excellent chances and could not execute. They share a great deal of responsibility because they did not deliver any clutch hitting. But it is questionable as to whether the best Houston line-up was on the field at times.

Garner has had a strong post-season and made some great moves. Clemens and Burke in Game 4 of the N.L.D.S. were examples of the right players at the right time, as was Vizcaino pinch-hitting in Game 2 of the World Series. It’s one thing to go all out and lose; Houston will discover that it is much worse to lose when you did not use every tool available.

Coaching isn’t social work. I have no doubt that Jeff Bagwell and Ezequiel Astacio are nice gentlemen but they shouldn’t have been in the game in those spots. Garner will be the subject of a flurry of second-guessing that will remind him that coaching is much more about “what have you done for me lately?” than on-field loyalty (off-field/off-court value systems needn’t be comprimised.)

Bagwell no longer possesses the bat speed to handle a pitcher like Jon Garland and it would have been extremely surprising had Astacio preserved the tie. W - Marte (1-0), S - Buerhle (1) looks odd but it did the job. As Homer Simpson opined, “you don’t make friends with salad,” and you don’t win the World Series with Ezequiel Astacio while Roger Clemens, Andy Pettite, and Brandon Backe sit on the bench. The Astros could not afford to go down 3-0 in games and should have employed dire measures.

In October, the goal is winning and coaches must disperse with equality in favour of equity and excellence. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts…