My lump of crap is worth more than your pile of gold? Sweet. Time to hit the stock market.

A toddler would much rather have the toy that has crusty oatmeal on it, has been dragged through the dirt and is missing an eye than a new one. The old fishing vest that no longer quite fits, smells a little funny and has a tear in it is worn fishing instead of the brand new one that his wife bought and put in the closet for him. It costs more to keep oil in the old dented up car than it does to make payments on a new one.

The constant between these three is love. The child has invested a lot of love into the teddy bear and does not want to let it go. The fisherman’s vest was given to him by his grandfather who taught him how to fish right before he passed away. The car owner’s son was born in the back of that car on the way to the hospital. What looks like absolute junk to everyone else means the world to the person who has it. Many today call that crass sentimentalism. But sentimentalism is hardly crass, because when an object reminds us of the love we’ve given, it makes us all the more willing to love others as well. And that is worth more than money.

Ariely’s example is flawed, because winning a lottery creates a large emotional attachment to an item that is worth more than money. Each time the owner looks at the tickets, the excitement of winning comes back again and again. Each game they attend they hold special, because they easily might not have made it. The reason that the price goes so high is that it would take that much money offered to sufficiently replace the emotional high of the event. I know someone offering me $2,500 would make me pretty excited.

It’s much more than simply being theirs. The emotions that go with it are quantifiable with other emotional experiences. The problem is that emotional response varies from person to person. One man’s excitement is another man’s yawn-fest. It is only in this way that emotions defy quantification, because everyone places a different value on them. I’m guessing Ariely placed a different value on winning Duke ticket than did the ones who won them. And since emotion is not reasonably quantifiable, it is often derogatorily deemed irrational.

These examples are with mere objects, but it is equally applicable to people as well. We don’t want just any child, we want our child, because we love them. To a much lesser degree, we do the same things with our sports teams. They are a collection of people whom we love. The more we watch them and allow ourselves to get emotionally attached to them, the more we value them. For me, I would rather watch our group of guys play well and not quite make it than watch another group of guys make it all the way. Some people are more emotionally invested in the trophy itself than who gets it.

But I think the vast majority of fans care who is on the floor. Using myself as example again, I was far more emotionally attached to the 89-93 team than any of the others until today. Who we had mattered to me. The JR Riders and Bonzi Wellses really turned me off from the team. I nearly missed the 2000 run because of who was playing. What Ariely, and I read you advocating is exactly what Bob Whitsett brought to this team. Win, because that we can objectively quantify, and everything else doesn’t matter. That is certainly an approach one can take, and it is valid. But it’s the kind of approach I can’t get excited about.

So do we place more value on Jack and Outlaw than other teams do? Heck yeah! Because we have spent the last few seasons pouring our love and affection on them through our cheering. That they are good, quality, stand-up guys makes it far easier to do that. The only way we want them replaced is if we get someone who fills the emotions like they do. That is why Travis, Jack and the #13 for Rose is acceptable to many. The excitement in getting Rose balances the emotional loss of losing those players. But trading that same group for Andre Miller leaves us cold. Any equation of humanity that leaves out the emotional aspects is only capable of calculating half of the human experience.

I don’t know which is crazier—-that you wrote that or that I actually read all of it.
Good points. Although bear in mind people must see something in Jack and Outlaw, as both received 6th man of the year awards. And the 13th pick is a place where you can get a starter. So that’s three startable players for most Eastern teams, and some solid role players for Western teams.

but I hope that KP makes the best decisions for the team. That’s why he’s payed big money.
The other GMs can be irrational, I don’t mind. ( plenty of them are).

ps. I read the book and it is very interesting.

You basically found scientific evidence to explain all the silly trade proposals you see on blogs. Science matters, even if you you don’t believe in it.

...but I’m not sure what we’re being (ir)rational about.