We overvalue our players by a factor of 14

by cantdunk on Sep 3, 2009 1:21 PM PDT Comment 45 comments

In the August New Yorker magazine, in an article called "Status-quo Anxiety," James Surowieki writes about why we balk at changing healthcare.

WAIT! COME BACK! This is about the Blazers, really.

Because my brain is 80% BIRs (basketball information receptors) I read the whole New Yorker article as an explanation as to why it's nearly impossible for a Blazer fan to want to trade Bayless. It also explains why I occasionally see BE posts that suggest trading a few of our bench players for Chris Paul. And furthermore, it partially explains why I personally don't like trades much.

Surowiecki says something called the "endowment effect" makes people overvalue an asset simply because they own it.

Here is one of the studies he mentions. Don't worry it's coincidentally basketball related:

The academics Ziv Carmon and Dan Ariely... posing as ticket scalpers... phoned people who had entered a raffle to win tickets to a Duke basketball game. People who hadn't won tickets were willing to pay, on average, a hundred and seventy dollars to get into the game. But those who had won tickets wanted twenty-four hundred dollars to part with them. In other words, those who had, by pure luck, won the tickets thought the ducats were were fourteen times as valuable as those who hadn't.

When you're talking about human beings rather than tickets, obviously there are other factors, but as a general rule I think I am influenced by the endowment effect.

I should also mention Dan Ariely, who performed the study, is really entertaining. Listen to him talk about how truly irrational we all are.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html

1 recs | Comment 45 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I wish Bayless would be traded.

If for no other reason than to piss off Ben.

"Ain't nothin' in this world for free."

by Arby on Sep 3, 2009 1:50 PM PDT reply actions 16 recs

lol

Blazers Edge.com

by Ben. on Sep 3, 2009 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

this is important. We overvalue our players so much because we are such huge fans of our team. Seriously.

by goblazer1 on Sep 3, 2009 2:02 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

I suppose why people are afraid of big changes like healthcare also has a lot to do with the paradox of choice

Too much choice overloads the human brain (especially with people who tend to “maximize”, i.e. only the best decision or product is good enough), and in the end they are unable to make any informed choice at all and rather stay with what they have – or constantly regret if they made a change. That was e.g. researched for insurance companies or retail regarding how many options they should offer. While having some choice of course is good, if there are way too many people tend to be unable to make a decision. Barry Schwartz has a book on this, and also a lecture on TED http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html

There's Gotta Be More To Life

by Norsktroll on Sep 3, 2009 2:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Or Perhaps

People really don’t trust government with 1/6th of the economy? I can’t blame them with USPS losing $9 billion, medicare and social security are going bankrupt, and a projected deficit of $9,000,000,000 this year. What could go wrong? That cash for clunkers program worked out great. Oh wait …

by Balian on Sep 3, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

Yeah....the government

has done such a HUGELY bad job in providing unemployment insurance, fire protection, police protection, a vast network of infrastructure, a judicial system, etc.

One could also make the argument that when you devote 1/6 of the largest economy on the planet to healthcare, yet by ALL measures, our healthcare is not even in the top 20 in the world, we are experiencing an epic failure.

I guess I trust the government more than the insurance industry, if for no other reason than the insurance industry has a financial incentive to deny me care. And they exercise that option to a great degree.

FYI – The USPS is in the shape it is primarily due to email. The volume loss of letters has been huge. And based on personal experience a couple of months ago, the USPS was able to get a package to Switzerland for 14 dollars. That very same package, if sent by UPS, FedEx or any other private carrier, would have cost more than $110. I checked with every option available to me. SOMETIMES, private industry is not the best option.

But back on topic, cantdunk (me either) does raise a good point that people tend to wildly overvalue owned assets. I sure hope Paul Allen feels that way about the Blazers. ;-)

"I'm a man, but I can change.....if I have to......I guess." - Red Green

by antediluvian on Sep 3, 2009 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

Meh

The government in the UK has a financial incentive to deny us care, too. That’s why we have waiting lists, etc.

I had to laugh at your “by ALL measures” argument.

I think there is another side to this whole picture. While people tend to overvalue what they have, whether it be health care or players, isn’t there also a tendency to overcriticize what you have? The grass is always greener syndrome.

People in America gripe about their healthcare, and people in Britain gripe about ours.

Trailblazer fans see Outlaw’s flaws, and want him and Bayless dumped for a backup PF. People in Sacramento would love to have either player, both of whom might be starters there. NY fans thought they got a steal when we dumped Zach. Most Blazer fans were tired of the lack of defense, black hole on offense, and off court nonsense.

"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue

by jscot on Sep 4, 2009 1:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

For anyone who cares

A fairly balanced description of the underlying economic philosophies/differences between the UK and US systems.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6806274.ece

"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue

by jscot on Sep 4, 2009 4:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am not sure I agree with everything in that article

First, there is much less queueing. Any insured American can get an appointment with his or her physician at a mutually agreed time with almost no waiting. Perhaps not on Sunday or at 3am (then you have to go to the emergency room). But you don’t spend hours sitting around a waiting room and we Americans are a very impatient people. In addition there is no bending of the rules by keeping ambulances outside hospitals to meet the average wait time between being admitted and getting service or running a "waiting time" version of triage to meet bureaucratic goals. Again, the value of this is a matter of judgment and we may have culturally different answers. Contrast getting a cab at busy times in Manhattan with the nice neat queues you have in London.

Apparently the author hasn’t had a lot of experiences with American emergency rooms. It isn’t uncommon to have to wait in the ER for 5 hours before you get a chance to see a doctor. I don’t know what it it like in the UK, maybe the ER wait time there is just as bad or worse, but the author makes is sound like you can go into an ER in the US and get treatment in a reasonable amount of time and that just isn’t true (unless it is really obvious that you will die soon without treatment).

by trk on Sep 4, 2009 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's referring to check ups or actual appointments

not emergency care. If I need to see a doctor in a non-emergency situation (say a nagging cough, or a rash), I can call up my doctor, arrange an appointment time usually within a day or two, and see him within a half hour or so of that time (assuming I have insurance). I have no clue how it is in England, but apparently there are longer waits.

ERs on the other hand, are just a humongous quagmire here. I broke my arm in high school (compound fracture, eventually needed surgery that night) and I remember sitting in a nearly empty waiting room for a solid hour and a half filling out paper work (not fun with my arm in a make-shift splint from a trainer that was soaking up any blood ) and it was something like 3 hours before was ever actually given painkillers. Being in mild shock helped, as was the fact that I wasn’t screaming in pain or anything, but it was definitely pretty ridiculous to me at the time.

Props to the system for getting the surgeon in that same night to do a decently complicated procedure, but the initial processing left a lot to be desired.

by Royster on Sep 4, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ER waits (we call it A&E)

for Accident & Emergency usually vary from 2 to 8 hours, in horrific cases sometimes 12 hours.

What he described with the ambulances actually happens sometimes. The goverment sets an average waiting time target, and if the hospital is running behind the target, they may have the ambulance drivers sit outside and not bring the patient in, so that they can catch up a little bit and the time between “arrival” and getting treatment is short. This won’t be done in a life or death case, but in non-critical cases it will be.

You can wait 3-4 days to see a doctor, but if you want to see your own doctor, you may not get him for two weeks. I’ve heard stories of worse, but my own experience has been anywhere from 4 days to two weeks to see a specific doctor.

The real waits come with A) seeing a specialist and B) getting an operation. You don’t just make an appointment to see a specialist. You make an appointment to see your doctor, and have to wait until you can see him. Then, he sends a letter to the hospital that you need to see a specialist.

Maybe a week later, you get a letter from the hospital saying that you are now on the list to see the specialist, and that this should not take more than 18 weeks (government limit on waiting times, sometimes breached but they are doing better about not breaking that). Perhaps two weeks later (if you are lucky), you’ll get a letter saying that an appointment has been made for you to see the specialist in three weeks’ time.

You go to see the specialist (it has now been 6 weeks since you called for the first appointment). If he determines that you need an operation, then he will schedule you for it. This could be anywhere from a week to 18 weeks.

If you are lucky, you will be sick enough to need hospitalized, and then they will move you up the list, because they want to get you out of the hospital — there is often a shortage of hospital beds.

As far as the ER wait time of five hours, people in the UK would be unhappy if that happened, but not greatly shocked. I personally have had a four hour wait, and I’ve known people who have waited six hours.

"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue

by jscot on Sep 5, 2009 12:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've been to the ER three times in the last two years...

…never had to wait more than 30 minutes to receive some treatment, and never had to wait more than 2 hours to determine whether I needed to be admitted or not.

At the busiest hospital in Portland…

by JordanLeDoux on Sep 5, 2009 2:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And as a side note, all three times were for non-life threatening situations...

by JordanLeDoux on Sep 5, 2009 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are really lucky

Where did you go to get such great service?

My Dad is battling cancer which has resulted in multiple surgeries with lots of complications. He has been to the ER about 6 times in the last 2 years. He has never received treatment in less than 2 hours. Last trip to the ER we had to wait in line for more than an hour just to tell the hospital staff that we were there. After that my dad, who’s immune system has been weakened by chemotherapy, still had to spend several more hours in a crowded waiting room filled with people who were coughing and appeared to have contagious diseases. It was 3 hours before someone came to check his vital signs, 5 hours before a doctor came to look at him.

by trk on Sep 5, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Providence on Glisan

It’s the closest hospital to my house. Twice for bacterial pneumonia (with a fever of 103), once was for atypical angina pectoris.

All three times I was without any health insurance.

by JordanLeDoux on Sep 5, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Considering that 30 states have run out of unemployment... yeah, they've done a terrible job of that.

by JordanLeDoux on Sep 5, 2009 2:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

However, between 1/4 to 1/3 of all money spent on Healthcare in the US goes to profits

That’s right, the profit of all the companies invovled in the healthcare industries (hospitals, pharmaceutical, insurers, medical device makers, diagnostic labs, etc) is nearly equal to the amount the US spends on Defense annually. God forbid we look to cut that number at all while improving care for everyone who is not already wealthy.

Non-profit hospital go to great lengths to maintain that non-profit status, because they are very profitable. I worked in one for many years. I saw construction for the sake of keeping profits down. They spent 50 grand to re-landscape a smoking area one year. But the for-proift companies are making a killing at the publics expense. Does Walmart make a 25-30% profit? then why should healthcare be given huge profits. Something stinks and our governments lack of supproting the publics best interest is one of the many contributors.

By the way, the most noble of american insitutions is completey socialized…that’s right the public library. I haven’t heard many complaints ever about our libriaries (Excepting, people who want books banned)

by NWfan on Sep 3, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And your 401K benefits!

It is soooo odd that people get mad at the “Big Bad Corp”. You own shares of these companies. If you don’t get the return you want, you sell. Next you blame others because your balance has dropped. The price goes up when they make money. This means you make money. And as to the libraries, did you know notice that only little kids and pedophiles hang out there. Coincidence, I don’t think so. Socialism= unemployment. Germany, France, GB, Spain, etc…
Don’t blame me I voted for Alan Keys!!!

Bring back Franz Bread Cards!

by newbergfan on Sep 4, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Devo was right

I watched the Barry Schwartz talk. I’d agree that having 176 types of salad dressing does make us less happy rather than more happy. Malcom Gladwell disagrees though and names Howard Moskowitz as the man responsible for giving us that multitude of choices. He has a ted talk aobut it!
http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html

by cantdunk on Sep 3, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What does KP's record show?

I don’t agree. Did KP overvalue Sergio, Channing, Ike, Von, or Jarrett in the last couple of years? It is obvious that we need to speak highly of players who continue to be on our roster, it is in our best interests to do so.

In the NBA it takes at least two to make a trade. The general idea is an even trade where both sides benefit!?? 1 for 1. If there is an uneven trade, it likely means that one team did not think enough of their player, or there may have been some other factors involved, like money.

As far as fans go, they are all over the map on player evaluation. There are all different levels of comprehension involved. As a fan, it is probably best to make up your own mind on a particular player, while keeping an ear pealed toward those who have more experience.

My hope is that KP does not look to the fans much while making up his mind about players. Also, it is important to note that KP is obligated to evaluate many more players than those who end up on the Blazers’ roster.

Sure, there are emotional attachments formed, but no team or general manager is ever going to be consistently successful if they allow their own emotions to rule. I don’t really think the PTB have a problem in this area. Other general managers want to say we have this problem, but then again, that accusation is just part of the bargaining process.

There is more to an athlete than how fast they can run, they also better be able to see what they are doing and know why they are doing it.

by KINGofMACct on Sep 3, 2009 3:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes, of course, there are more important factors

Basketball players aren’t tickets. There are a thousand things players do on and off the court to change they way fans and management value them. The study simply suggests all things being equal there is a bias in favor of things that you win. If you’re reacting to the title of the post, I guess I was being deliberately provocative. I appreciate your point that it is in our best interest speak highly of our players. I’m not talking down our players. I love our players.

by cantdunk on Sep 3, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

KP has more information = a check on human nature

He can call someone and offer Travis for Lebron and get laughed at. He also gets to get into real discussions about real trades, so he gets a reasonable feel for the market value of his players. Those are information points that neither we, nor people in those studies have.

Overall, we are much, much less objective, and even rational, than we think. That is especially true with fandom, which is inherently a bit mad.

All that glitters isn't chrome

by hoopla-pdx on Sep 3, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's what I was gonna say.

Reality anchors of a sort.

You can measure skill and talent with your eyes, but productivity is shown through statistics.

by austinpwnz on Sep 5, 2009 3:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes he did overvalue at lesat 2 of those 3

[quote]

[/quote]

channing frye was very much overvalued. after joel go hurt in the 2007/ 2008 season channing played great. his value was at a high it hadn’t seen since his rookie season. the following year we had oden and joel coming back and lamarcus had emerged as a star on the team. there was not going to be playing time for channing. dave pointed this out if you recall.

this was the time to trade channing. but pritchard did overvalue holding on to him. i actually think this is a perfect example of this principle.

sergio is a less clear example but after his rookie year the team brought in steve blake again. sergio’s value was pretty high after an interesting first year. once again playing time was going to be a challenge. this was the time trade sergio. by the time sergio was traded, pritchard had to pay to get rid of him.

as for jack, pritchard is rumored to have had opportunities to package him with outlaw for devin harris. is this not an example of overvaluing both of those players?

by colinmarsh on Sep 5, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's why that's a terrible example... (This on the researchers, not the poster).

When you are wanting to BUY something, you indicate the PRICE YOU ARE WILLING TO PAY. Which may or may not be more than the market price. It may not have anything to do with the market price.

When you are trying to SELL something, you indicate the PRICE YOU WANT TO RECEIVE, which is determined by taking a glance at the market and maybe starting a little over that — “you can always come down,” as we say in retail.

Going to the MLB All Star game might be something that is worth $50 to me. Baseball sucks, but $50 — yeah, I’d pay that. Now if those tickets are selling for $400, I’m staying home.

If I have a ticket to sell, I see — hey, idiots are paying $400 on ebay. And I try to find my own idiot so I can spend the money on something that makes me happier.

No, Tom in Hawaii, get your mind out of the gutter…

What a given individual is willing to pay for an item is determined by that individual’s particular desires and preferences. What that individual seeks to receive for an item is determined by the market price.

In the case of sports tickets, the chance of there being a huge disparity between individual preferences and the equilibrium price set by society as a whole is likely to be very large. If we’re talking about a 10 pound sack of sugar or some other object of ordinary use, the differential is likely to be small.

So the researchers — really shadily or stupidly — pick an item that will show an exaggerated effect between the value of a person’s preferences and the value of an item determined on the market.

BAD research.

"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal

by timbo on Sep 3, 2009 3:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This principle would have nothing at all to do with unique commodities like individual basketball players, I think.

"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal

by timbo on Sep 3, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Both good points

As I said above, there are obviously more important factors when it comes to valuing basketball players. I freely admit I am stretching by pulling something from the financial page and applying it to basketball. I can only plead that it’s a long time till October.

As to your charge of bad research, I’m less sure. I am not sure how well I represented Surowiecki’s article or how well Surowiecki represents Dan Ariely’s research. Although you were kind enough to exclude me, any logic flaws are probably mine.

There is another example that Surowiecki cites that has to do with “mugs” not sports tickets. This again showed the owners overvaluing what they had, but only by double.

by cantdunk on Sep 3, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is probably some sort of measurable effect, but using sports tickets is a total cheat on the research.

My bag of sugar example would be interesting. Something with a really small nominal value that people are gonna buy eventually anyway. Quantifying THAT might be instructive.

"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal

by timbo on Sep 3, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just as a counter argument

If you want to assess the impact of “overvaluing what you own” on NBA basketball players, which are very limited commodities, tickets (also very limited commodities) are perhaps a better measure than a bag of sugar.

We’ve all known fans who overvalued their own players by a huge factor. In fact, we’ve all probably been that fan at one time or another. And we’ve all known of GMs who have done the same.

"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue

by jscot on Sep 4, 2009 2:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Compounded by the fact that the tickets were free.

People sell things because they need to sell them. When they have to sell them, prices go down. If you were given something, maybe you want to use it, maybe you could sell it. You certainly don’t need to sell it. If your price is too high and nobody buys…heck, you can still go to the game. Maybe you asked too much, nobody bought and you didn’t even use the tickets yourself. You’re then out exactly…let’s see…ummm…zero dollars.

The cowards never started
The weak died along the way
Only the strong survived
They were the Trailblazers

by lukeyhere on Sep 3, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah this makes no sense, not really a good comparison

The Duke example is horrible. Of course people that already had tickets wanted much more for them than someone who ddin’t have them and was looking to buy them. It’s like this example: If I don’t have a car, I’m used to walking and taking other forms of transportation. I would buy a car, but since I already can get around without one, I’m not willing to pay a ton to make that happen. HOWEVER if I have a car, its going to take a lot to get me to give it up because its something I have already, getting rid of it would require change.

True there are some people who get way too into Blazers players and lose sight of the bigger picture, no doubt. And I as well am tired of the trade suggestions where we ship our spare parts out to get the best PG in the game (NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, EVER, FORGET ABOUT IT)

But the other side to it is that its ok for people to like our players BECAUSE THEY ARE GOOD! Bayless, Outlaw, Webster, and the like are YOUNG, SUPER TALENTED players, that would likely see major minutes, if not being starters for other teams in the league. We’re just fortunate enough to have a young and talented team to the point where those guys don’t play a prominent role.

I guess I am the exception in being totally ok with trading Bayless. While he’s a very talented young player, he’s just not going to see the minutes he needs to. He’s not going to take Brandon’s minutes, and he’s not a PG (HE IS NOT A PG, you are or you aren’t and he is not), so as long as Rudy is here and we have Andre Miller and Blake on the bench, he’s not going to get that much run. If we could turn him into an asset that could help us win a title, I’m all for it.

by rip_city_swagger on Sep 3, 2009 4:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

hmm

Not sure I get your car example. The Duke study idea is that all the participants are the same: They don’t have tickets and enter a raffle. Then whether they win or don’t win changes how they value the tickets. I think you can fault the study for not taking into account price gouging, as timbo does, but I don’t really see getting used to having or not having the tickets as a real factor in how people value the tickets, but if you’re right then you are making the case for the researchers.

by cantdunk on Sep 3, 2009 5:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The point of the car example is that cars are more comparable to player contracts

thatn tickets are. The Blazers got along fine without the services of MIller last season, But by December Blazer fans will be all over themselves on Miller’s value after they see how he helps the team. Besides Tickets are a porr example as they have a short expiration date. Player contracts even the short ones last longer than most tickets thus causing huge price disparites due to the time limit.

by NWfan on Sep 3, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok let me rephrase my example

Two people get a call.

One caller asks what person 1 would pay for a Ferrari. Person 1 tells them they’d pay 50k because they already have a car, so they don’t really need a Ferrari, but it would be a nice car to have.

Then they call person 2 and and tell them they won a Ferrari, what would they be willing to sell it for? That person looks online, sees the retail at 240k, and tells them that’s what they want for it

Of course the person that won the Ferrari wants more for it than a person that didn’t and is asked how much they’d be willing to spend on one.

I’m, just saying that it’s common sense and in no way applicable to the players on the Blazers. I LOVE (like I’m pretty obsessed) our players, but if you tell me you can turn Travis Outlaw and Rudy (or Bayless) into, say Danny Granger or someone like tjat, I’d do it in a heartbeat

by rip_city_swagger on Sep 4, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Ferrari example has nothing to do with this situation

because you’re relying on an outside market to set prices on a commodity with a clearly defined price set by the outside market. The only way this study (and the trade market) works to define prices is because there is no outside authority to define prices, similar to the tickets. Presumably these participants in the study had no access to outside information about scalped ticket prices, so they had to set prices that they’re willing to pay/sell for based on their perceived value. Without an outside arbiter to assess your assets you have to judge their worth for yourself.

It only makes sense because each person (those who “won” and those who didn’t) is assumed to be identical. As in, say someone had been asked to name how much I’d be willing to pay for a ticket, they’d say $140. Then, immediately after, you tell them they did in fact win a ticket, and they turn around and say they’d only sell it for $2400. So a ticket is worth $2400 if they have it, but only $140 if they don’t, creating a non-functioning market.

The OP is making the point that, as fans, we’re similar with trades. If we didn’t have Blake, would people be as rabid about going out and acquiring him as they are about keeping him? Same with LaMarcus. Given that there are a large number of posters here who wouldn’t trade LaMarcus for Bosh straight up, would they really feel the same way if we had Bosh and the Raptors had LA? That is, would they trade Bosh for LaMarcus, straight up in a heart beat?

The only way you can make the ferrari example work is if you took two people of identical backgrounds who had no clue of what the value of a ferrari “should” be and no way to obtain that information. Then, each could evaluate the car based on their own observations, making for a useful study, at least in the economic sense.

by Royster on Sep 4, 2009 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One factor in this is uncertainty

There is a (small) measure of uncertainty as to how effective a particular player will be with your team, if he isn’t on your team.

We know how effective Blake is with us. A fan of another team might have some doubts about that. Therefore, because we know this combination of players works, we will value him more highly than others.

Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts, or less? We might put the same value on one of the parts as someone else, as a part, but value that part more highly because we know we are getting synergy, while others might doubt whether they would have the same synergy.

We see this to some measure with Andre. Many people saw Andre as very good, but not a great fit for our team. Therefore, as Blazer fans, they perhaps undervalued him, not as a player, but as a part of their team. Then, as they looked further they began to see potential synergy that they hadn’t considered before, changing their valuation of him. Does that mean they overvalued him once he became our player, or does it mean they were undervaluing him because he wasn’t ours?

"if Nate has Roy or Miller in the game at all times, that stagnation will turn into conflagration" -- two4larue

by jscot on Sep 5, 2009 1:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, the fact that there isn't any kind of history

with tickets or another commodity with interplay between your other assets make the original point not a perfect comparison, but it’s still at least more apt than the Ferraris example.

Personally, I think the phenomenon is far more a result of our tendency to be extremely risk averse with a much smaller effect due to any endowment effect. We’d rather keep what we have than risk losing that for a potential upgrade that may or may not mesh as well, so for a deal to be acceptable, it has to be lopsided in order to overcome the risk aversion. Plus, you add in the emotional attachment, and it gets even more convoluted.

by Royster on Sep 5, 2009 8:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.....

I mean I loath K*be beefcake, but if portland drafted him…. I think my attitude towards him wouldn’t be the same.

I freakin hated the bulls …well…. becuase they were the bulls and that one guy that they had, that could have been ours…. I’m pretty sure if the bulls were the trailblazers…. I wouldn’t have hated them as much……

so I supose it’s true…. I mean if I can admit that much then it kinda makes it true no?

The Faith don't panic, the faith freaks out, burns out farms, and torchs small villages in the name of The Faith.

"New Man Law: If you don't show up for the draft you don't get to come later if you're picked. If you believe in yourself, show up and sit there. If nobody else believes in you, take it and cry like a man...in front of the cameras."

-Dave

by faith on Sep 3, 2009 5:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I would agree had you used anybody but Bayless...

Bayless for Darren Collison… make it happen!

by In Walks Rudy on Sep 3, 2009 6:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I love our players

However i’m on the consolidate bandwagon, you need to have a number of “STARS” & some role players. The thing is if your role players could be stars on other teams & you can’t split the minutes evenly enough the guys that don’t get enough minutes have diminished value. Our problem is we can’t get equal value for say Rudy because of the cap.He is on a rookie scale contract & we have to trade dollar for dollar within a certain % so trades are harder to make, this is why I advocate an Outlaw(expiring contract)+ either Bayless, Blake, Euro’s or draft picks for a quality backup PF. I am a fan don’t get me wrong I love the contribution all these player’s have made I just feel that we can’t have 3 SF’s, 3 PG’s,2 SG’s 2 C’s & only 1 real PF.

He did it! Yes he did!

by We-B-Dunkin on Sep 3, 2009 7:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Pendy is a real PF. Whether he is ready for prime time is another question.

"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal

by timbo on Sep 3, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs