Jeff Egnaczyk's Blog Feed

Dynamic Pricing

Wed, 12 May 2010 10:03:12 GMT

The San Fransisco Giants are using dynamic pricing to all their stadium seats:

During the test last year, ticket prices in the Giants’ dynamic pricing sections swung dramatically. For instance, a bleacher seat usually priced at $17 sold for $33 during a prized pitching match up between former Giants hurler Randy Johnson and New York Met Johan Santana. A bleacher seat went for as low as $5 for a weeknight game versus the lowly Washington Nationals.

This probably wouldn't work well in Boston where the majority of seats are bought far in advance of the game and even the season. I haven't walked up to Fenway on the day of a game since 1999 and Carol and I haven't really even tried to get tickets before the season for a few years now. Usually I'm at the mercy of a random friend or two to get tickets. In New York it might work to get some people into those expensive empty lower section seats that have been embarrassing management for a year now. Although, at this point, the Yankees front office may not want to admit that they made such a glaringly bad decision in having ticket prices so high that they've had to adjust them multiple times in less than two years. Plus, they still manage to sell around 4 million tickets as it is.

Today, coincidentally, my co-workers and I were pondering why movie theaters don't try this. Iron Man 2 at 8:30 PM on a Friday night is going to have a higher demand than Prince of Persia ... ever. While matinees cost less (this is how it came up - someone was saying that a local movie theater moved end of the matinee time up to 3:59PM) you don't have movie by movie pricing. Our hypothesis was that movie studios forbid it in their agreements. One of the factors the Giants use to determine pricing is the weather. That would be funny to see in movie theater pricing because it would be backwards. On a sunny day everyone wants to see a ballgame while on a rainy day they want to go to the movies.

Security Escalation

Mon, 10 May 2010 10:18:37 GMT

James Fallows, while imagining what New York would look like if the TSA ran its security, gives a perfect explanation of the escalation of security restrictions:

- The restrictions would never be lifted and the TsSA would have permanent life, because the political incentives here work only one way. A politician who supports more open-ended, more thorough, more intrusive, more expensive inspections can never be proven "wrong." The absence of attacks shows that his measures have "worked"; and a new attack shows that inspections must go further still. A politician who wants to limit the inspections can never be proven "right." An absence of attacks means that nothing has gone wrong -- yet. Any future attack would always and forever be that politician's "fault." Given that asymmetry of risks, what public figure will ever be able to talk about paring back the TSA?

It's a big risk for a politician to roll back any law that claims to make us safe.

We Love America Because We Live in American

Sun, 09 May 2010 20:07:46 GMT

I love the responses to the Times Square car bombing. It's like the tough on terrorism crowd got all psyched up about the possibility of beating the crap out of some foreigner until they realized Faisal Shahzad was a US citizen. I'm sure their disappointment led them to come up with a proposed law that would strip naturalized US citizens of their citizenship if they are convicted of aiding a foreign terrorist organization. Notice that says "naturalized citizens", because we wouldn't want to expatriate any white terrorists.

What upsets me about this is that people like John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Peter King, and Scott Brown don't seem to understand why America is such a great place. I won't even go into the fact that we are fallible human beings and so if we want justice we need things like due process. Let's also forget that things like torture don't work for shit. When people talk about tearing down these protections that have been built into our justice system they are talking about tearing down what makes America great. There are a lot of things wrong with our justice system but one of the positives, one of the things that puts it in the upper echelon of systems in the world is that we have protections against the Big Bad Government. The protections this country has put in place over the years are not god given rights like many people like to claim. If they were god given rights then America wouldn't be all that special. But America is special because we've gone out of our way - like many countries today, and most countries in the whole of human history have not - to make sure we put the right person in jail.

So I just want to ask the John McCains and Joe Liebermans of the world why they think America is so great. Because it is great. Sadly though, I think people like this agree with me for the wrong reasons. I think they just think that because they were born in America. And that's just stupid. I love my family a lot because I was born into it but if they didn't have the multitude of redeeming qualities that they have then I would probably hate them. Eric Holder needs to think about this before he caves to the tough on terrorism crowd because they don't seem to understand what makes this country great. Let's not throw it all away for a two-bit criminal like Faisal Shahzad.

Accepting Brutality

Wed, 05 May 2010 20:58:49 GMT

I'm not going to embed this video of a SWAT team shooting two dogs during a marijuana bust in Columbia, Missouri because it's disturbing. This is your War on Drugs. Kill a man's dog, invade his home, scare his child for what turned out to be a negligible amount of drugs. This is your abuse of power. This is so much bigger than an increased tax rate.

Another case of excessive force was the recent use of a taser on a fan who ran onto the field during a Phillies game. Tasers, as they have been promoted, are intended to be a substitute for deadly force. In practice they have been a substitute for physical force. Instead of reducing the force that law enforcement uses they have raised it. In the linked post, Rob Neyer points to an explanation from Craig Calcaterra:

And make no mistake: a Taser is designed to be use to combat threats, not merely to help subdue drunks or trespassers. Indeed, the very company who makes the Taser calls it a product that "protects life." One that is designed to "incapacitate dangerous, combative, or high-risk subjects who pose a risk to law enforcement/correctional officers, innocent citizens, or themselves."

Neyer makes my next point:

Actually, I find it worse than unsettling. I find this disturbing and revolting. The Tasering, yes. But even more, the defense of the Tasering.

I caught a couple of minutes of reaction from sports analysts on ESPN and was pretty disgusted. It never ceases to amaze me how sports "journalists" will not even attempt to understand a situation before they pontificate. These are the people who were a decade behind the sabremetric revolution.

Why people cheer the violent arrest of a man for the simple act of trespassing is beyond me. I get that it's a visceral reaction to a crime (and yes, what that kid did was a crime that was deserving of punishment doled out by a judge and jury). Five minutes of thought though should tell you you don't want your government being that violent.

Consumption

Wed, 05 May 2010 20:26:26 GMT

I want to point you at my review of A Consumer's Republic, by Lizabeth Cohen. The review is mostly just notes, as I read this book over three years ago but am just now writing down my notes. Cohen's book is an excellent read if you want to see how government policy has shaped the face of our economy over the past century. Since World War II the federal government has succeeded in promoting mass consumption as the key to prosperity. After the war home ownership, among other things, was subsidized. These policies shaped the landscape of American cities, shifting population into the suburbs, necessitating more automobiles and supporting infrastructure. Not only that but they intentionally exacerbated racial segregation, traditional gender roles, and class inequalities. None of this is to say whether or not these policies have merit. Some do, some obviously don't. It is just to point out that government has just as much influence on the economy as the free market.

The question of consumption is important in our current economic situation. There is no doubt though that mass consumption has brought unprecedented prosperity to America since World War II though. To be dogmatic about it, however, to say that we always have to promote consumption seems to me a mistake. The problems we see today result mainly from excess consumption, fueled by a rise in debt. Programs like Cash for Clunkers and the First-Time Homebuyer Credit ignore that analysis. Certainly the home ownership market has been overvalued since 2005. With the problems our domestic car manufacturers have been having, combined with environmental problems arising from massive oil consumption, does it make sense to pump more money into the car market? I'm not advocating ending the policies that promote consumption. There are certainly sustainability issues, both economic and environmental, with consumption but I don't know of, or have the expertise to devise, a better long term method of maintaining American standards of living. In the short term I think it would have been prudent to step back and allow these markets to fall back to sustainable levels.

The Fall of David Ortiz

Wed, 05 May 2010 18:06:23 GMT

From the Simpsons, "A Star is Burns":

Audience: Boo! Boo!
Burns: Smithers...are they booing me?
Smithers: Uh, no, they're saying "Boo-urns! Boo-urns!"
Burns: Are you saying "boo" or "Boo-urns"?
Audience: Boo! Boo!
Hans: I was saying "Boo-urns"...

David Ortiz is having a miserable season. As of today he has an OPS+ of 57*. This is man who had a string of OPS+ numbers of 144, 145, 158, 161, and 171 from 2003 to 2007, respectively. Since that 171 he dropped to 123 in '08 and then 101 in '09 before this early year's sub-replacement stats. To have a power-hitting, middle of the lineup designated hitter with these stats for the the last year and a month has killed Boston's lineup. The man is a liability. That said, the boos have surprised me. Beth at Cursed to First, the only Red Sox blog I still read, expresses the loyal fan's opinion:

I don't care how bad he is, that shit ain't right. If I could ban you from Fenway Park forever, I would. If I could take tonight's joy away from you somehow, I would. But like I said on Twitter, I also became pretty jaded to this when I saw a "fan" heckle Keith Foulke to the point of a verbal altercation, a year after the guy left his knees on the field winning a World Series for which he should have been MVP, but wasn't. (Not that I'm, um, bitter or anything.) I figured it was pretty much only a matter of time before even Papi was turned on by the Fenway crowd. And to be honest, virtually any other player would've been turned on long before this point.

I was at a Red Sox game in 2005 where Jason Varitek hit a walk-off home run after Keith Foulke blew a 3-run lead in the top of the ninth. They booed the hell out of Keith Foulke, who was having a terrible year. I was shocked though. As Beth notes, this guy "left his knees on the field" to bring Boston to its first World Series title in 86 years.

Yankees fans are no better. We boo the hell out of people who don't perform. Jason Giambi was booed mercilessly during a few terrible injury riddled seasons. Javier Vasquez is going to get it pretty badly if he bombs his next start in Yankee Stadium. Jack McDowell, despite a decent season, got it pretty bad back when Yankees fans were rabidly hungry for a title, rather than fat and lazy off of four in five years.

David Ortiz is not comparable to Jason Giambi though. Ortiz was they keystone of two World Series champion lineups. Giambi, while being a key piece of five AL East title teams, didn't bring a title home. We have to compare Ortiz to the likes of the "Core Four" - Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, and Rivera. The problem is that Yankees fans have been unbelievably spoiled with a catcher, shortstop, and left-handed starting pitcher in their late 30s along with a super-human being in Mo. None of these guys has any business playing at the high level they are at this age.

The only comparison is to Bernie Williams. From 1997 to 2002 Bernie put up OPS+ numbers of 147, 160, 149, 140, 138, and 141, respectively. The next two years were around league average (107 in 2003 and 108 in 2004). In 2005 he dropped to 85 along with what I can only guess was one of the worst defensive ratings in centerfield. The next year, not only did Joe Torre keep him out of center for the most part, Bernie put up nearly league average numbers behind the plate (96 OPS+).

In neither of those years do I remember Yankees fans booing Bernie badly. He was loved. He got a lifetime pass for his output on four title teams. If and when the production of any of the other "Core Four" drop off a cliff I don't think they'll get the full Bronx treatment. Maybe Keith Foulke deserved to get booed for his performance but I would have waited at least a year for a guy who ruined his career for the franchise. Ortiz deserves better though. This guy should be untouchable. Honestly, this guy was a terror to Yankees fans over the years. Despite all the games he took from us I have a hard time watching his fall, even with the allegations of the performance enhancing drug use. Making it worse is the treatment he's receiving from the fan base. He deserves better.

* I'm thinking of changing my go-to offensive state to wOBA.

Money, it's gotta be the shoes

Mon, 03 May 2010 17:02:14 GMT

Carol is watching the Spike Lee episode of Who Do You Think You Are?. While looking at old records, Spike finds a familiar name:

"Mars Blackmon" was a fictional character from the 1986 film She's Gotta Have It. He is also the alter-ego of filmmaker Spike Lee. In the film, he was a "Brooklyn-loving", sports-loving, die-hard New York Knicks fan. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, "Mars Blackmon" became the primary pitchman in Nike commercials for Air Jordans, the basketball shoes worn by Michael Jordan. In these commercials, Mars Blackmon popularized the phrases "Is it the Shoes? Is it the Shoes? Is it the Shoes? ... Money, it's gotta be the shoes." and "Do you know?, Do you know?, Do you know?"[1]

In the April 30, 2010 episode of the genealogy television show Who Do You Think You Are? that focused on Spike Lee's search for his mother's ancestors, Spike said that he had called his grandmother to ask for a name for the character. His grandmother had given him the name "Mars". In the episode, Spike's research finds that Mars was the name of his great-great-grandfather (his grandmother's grandfather).

That must have blown his mind.

SB1070

Sun, 02 May 2010 19:39:28 GMT

I wanted to read the text of SB1070, the Arizona immigration bill that has everyone up in arms, before I commented on it because I couldn't believe it was that bad. Despite some changes, the law reads pretty much like it was described. As I see it the law creates two possible situations. The situation that most people are protesting is one in which, given the new emphasis on suspicion of illegal immigration, cops will have more incentive to stop Latinos.

As with the Henry Louis Gates arrest last year, I think the bigger issue transcends race. Arizona has created a situation where it is easier for a police officer to detain you. Simple violations that would result in a ticket could lead to arrest if you don't have identification on you. Let's back up. Maybe that's the case already. Maybe the Supreme Court already said cops can do this in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. In that case a cop claimed suspicion of a crime for the detainment. That's exactly what SB1070 is doing. It's even a little better because the cop has to have stopped you for some other violation. The disturbing part is that this law has just widened the justification for what is legitimate suspicion of a crime. Before something like a "disorderly conduct" charge or a bogus tip would have to be invented to detain a person; now it's when "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States". I think that's extremely vague and open for abuse. Not only that, with the added emphasis on immigration enforcement, I would suspect that police will have more incentive to go after minor violations with an eye toward using it to ask about a person's immigration status.

Once again, big government is only bad if it's doing something you don't agree with, like regulating the insurance industry. When it's regulating immigration people are all for an increase in police powers. In my opinion giving more power to local authorities has the greater chance of messing with your civil liberties.

As I've said before, attacking the problem from an enforcement angle is going to be ineffective or at least inefficient. In this case we've increased the power of the state to solve a problem that should be dealt with at its source - Mexico. Things are bad in Mexico. Read this interview with Charles Bowden about the murder rate in Juarez:

Well, what changed was that, among other things, that in December of 2006 a new president of Mexico took over, Felipe Calderon, and unleashed the Mexican army in what he announced as an effort to attack the drug industry. Since that moment, 19,000 Mexicans have been slaughtered. The other thing that happened was that Juarez rolled along for years, merrily, building factories that paid wages you literally can't live on.

And I think eventually, among other things, the chickens come home to roost. And this drug war, which is the frosting on the cake - maybe it's what they call a tipping point. All I know is, in 2007, there were 307 murders in Juarez; in 2008, there were 1,600; in 2009, there were 2,600; and this year the murder rate's higher than 2009.

What's maddening about the immigration problem is that the situation in Mexico is in large part created by our War on Drugs and it is fought just like our War on Drugs. Everything is about getting tough and fighting a war with no realization that the "problem" is happening because there is demand for the illegal product. People want drugs. Making them illegal creates a powerful industry outside of the law in Mexico. That industry uses force and corruption to get its way. Violence and graft make it hard for honest people to live a safe and economically secure life. So what do they do? They come to America where it's less violent and less corrupt. Not only is there a demand for jobs in the United States but there is a demand for workers from Mexico (or any other country). US law is trying to arrest people for coming here to work. These jobs exist. Before the current recession our national unemployment rate was around 5% so it's not like these immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans. These jobs wouldn't exist if the illegal immigrants weren't there (or there would be less of them or other services would be cut).

People don't want to rethink the War on Drugs though because "Drugs Are Bad". They want to attack the problem at the last possible step. It's like the basement is flooding and instead patching up the hole we all just get some buckets. Not only are our policies helping to create this problem but the problem isn't really that big of a problem. The crime issue is overblown. People want to come here to live a better life. Casting suspicion on every Latino citizen who gets pulled over for a traffic violation is no way to fix the situation.

Learning Stuff

Sun, 02 May 2010 10:51:27 GMT

I'm always on the lookout for interesting things to read. A lot of the information I soak in is from the internet rather than books though. It's tough to learn the history of, let's say, Prussia from a blog. So I thought to myself, I should read some historical non-fiction. What would I like to learn about? Here's what I came up with:

Prussia - The precursor to modern Germany, great military tradition, the last of the European nations to develop into a major power. Seems like a good read.
Brazil - Starting with the 2004 Summer Olympics I've been fascinated with Brazil's future. They seem like they've moved to within throwing distance of being a first-world world power yet they still have major hurdles (crime, environment, governance) to overcome. I'd love to learn how the they've developed since independence from Portugal.
Turkey - I've always been interested in this country. They stand between Europe and the Middle East. The government is fiercely secular but they clearly have influence from a region that is extremely religious. They've been an empire, committed a genocide, had revolutions, fought in major European wars.
Indonesia - I think about all the different islands that make up this country and think there must be so much diversity in this country. How do the different cultures in this nation interact. How did they interact with European colonialists ?

If anyone has any recommendations that would be swell. The reason I ask is because browsing around Amazon I realized I have no idea how to evaluate a book. I don't know anything about the authors of the many books I found. I don't know what agendas they are promoting in their portrayal of this country's history. For an American scholar it would be tough to figure out where he or she was coming from. For an native Indonesian it would be next to impossible unless I was willing to really dive in. I'd rather have someone with some expertise guide me.

Bottom 3

Sat, 01 May 2010 19:08:06 GMT

In honor of the 2010 Kentucky Derby I wanted to list the sports I just cannot watch on television.

Golf - Golf, golf, golf. Number one. God, I hate golf. I respect it. It's a difficult sport that requires extreme concentration for every action the golfer takes. There's no jogging down the court or taking a possession off. That said, it's a terribly boring sport that is only on television because a lot of rich people like it.
Stock car racing - I would actually love to go to a NASCAR race. Honestly though, it wouldn't be for watching the race. The experience would be awesome, the race boring
Horse racing - Obviously.

I used to be able to watch college football, poker, and professional tennis. While they don't deserve to be on the above list I no longer have interest in watching them. Even though watching bowling is really boring I can't seem to muster an intense dislike for it.