Turniere » s wise and obvious that baseball would un

The Miami Heats long and healthy marriage with Dwyane Wade is in a delicate, dangerous place. The tension and frustration is real, and it pushes Wade and the Heat closer than they have ever been to a messy divorce. And LeBron James, bejeweled mistress who comes in and out of that marriage occasionally with many fireworks, is in a fascinating position to do some home wrecking if he so desires.(More on that in a moment.)The Golden State Warriors, just a couple of baskets away from back-to-back championships, sent Steph Curry, Klay Thompson, Draymond Green and Andre Iguodala to go get the NBAs biggest free agent. A front office and team united, in public and private. The San Antonio Spurs entered Kevin Durants recruiting room with LaMarcus Aldridge, who could talk about how San Antonios stars put aside their egos and dollars to make a place for Aldridge a year ago. Management and star working together, in public and private.Miami Heat legend Pat Riley? He didnt merely walk into Durants recruitment without his biggest star. He did so without Wades cooperation in any way, not financially and not emotionally. Days before the meeting, the Wade camp leaked that Wade was unhappy with Miamis initial lowball offer -- an offer the Heat denies -- and would entertain leaving in free agency. Never mind flying out to see Durant or being financially flexible with trust because his Larry Bird rights allow Miami to wink-wink golden parachute him years from now. Wade wouldnt make so much as a public comment to lure Durant or call him or text him either. This while vacationing with James overseas, no less.Wade wasnt going to persuade Durant to take dollars that could be his, and its hard to blame him for that unless you are a Heat management that has grown accustomed to his cooperation and needed his help with Durant while he was vacationing with James. Hassan Whiteside, who had multiple max offers, was willing to give back to make room for Durant. Wade apparently was not.So, for the second time in two years, and the only times in the relationship, Miami and Wade were divided, in public and private. This isnt how this organization conducts business, but Wade has spent two offseasons throwing dirty laundry in the streets because of fractured trust, though at least this year he didnt sing Rihannas Bitch Better Have My Money with his son on Snapchat. No Heat player has ever done this, never mind a star. Bargaining? Bluffing? Business? This isnt how discounted Dirk Nowitzki or Tim Duncan work with management they trust. James and Wade are about player empowerment, and they certainly arent obligated to help billionaires with discounts, but why the sudden and public disconnect after all these years? Could it be about who owes whom in this relationship?Wade, who has never been the Heats highest-paid player, has made nearly $25 million in sacrifices for the organization over the years. But the Heat can counter that he has done that to help himself as much as the franchise, and that it isnt refunding dollars Wade lost mostly because of James, Chris Bosh and Wades agent, Henry Thomas, who has a conflict of interest.(More on that in a moment, too.)The Heat prides itself on lifers and loyalty and family, but the relationship with Wade has been contaminated by business. His relationship with James is more personal. And thats where things become soap-opera interesting: Because James, power broker and paradigm shifter, is in a position to either make the financial sacrifices to steal Wade to Cleveland outright by taking the minimum or merely create the game-of-chicken leverage that forces Miami to pay Wade too much because of the threat of its beloved icon going to join him in Cleveland. The Cavs are the only legitimate contender among the teams said to be interested in Wade; but Cleveland is also the only place Wade could go where Heat fans would blame him and not stubborn management for losing him. Riley can dare Wade to go to Denver or Milwaukee over dollars; he cant dare him to go to Cleveland.James, who reportedly has a lifetime deal from Nike worth $1 billion, could take a tiny deal to make room for his friend. Or, because he runs the joint in Cleveland, he could work behind the scenes to get his friend money from Denver or Milwaukee with the understanding that Cleveland will trade for Wade on Dec. 15. Collusion? Yeah, whatever. Backroom deals are what brought James to Miami and how he left. Or the possibility of all this pressures Miami into trading someone to make room and overspend on Wade. LeBron James, still haunting Miami from the beyond.This is all fun to think about if you arent a Heat fan. James, who cares very much about his image, gets to appear selfless while buying reinforcements he now needs to combat Durants loaded Warriors, if indeed he thinks Wade can fit and help at his age; James left him and his balky knees two years ago, remember. As an added bonus, James pays back the friend he cost $10 million when he blindsided the Heat by returning to Cleveland. Sure, this all seems farfetched. Or it could be something James and Wade were discussing on vacation while Wade wasnt helping Miami with Durant. Lord knows what these two have done the past six years has been farfetched enough that what Durant just did with Golden State makes him a follower instead of a pioneer.But the Kobe Bryant Dilemma has arrived at the Heats doorstep. Do you overpay for an old icons past in a salary-capped league even if it cripples your future? Nostalgia is nice, but it doesnt buy you much with the customers from last place in 2018. But when you pride yourself on loyalty and reputation, as the Heat do, can you afford the public-relations damage of appearing cheap with a beloved hero at the center of three championships? The two-year, $40 million offer seems fair at his age, but you can see how Wade would look at Matthew Dellavedova getting $38 million and Tyler Johnson, with all of five starts, getting $50 million, and feel disrespected by it too. And you can see the Heat protecting their future while arguing that most of that $2 billion spilled throughout the league in free agency this offseason has gone to players a lot younger than Wade. This appears to be as high as Miami is willing to go, take it or leave it.Whats odd, though, is that Wade is asking a management he suddenly mistrusts to make him whole on millions that James, Bosh and Wades agent helped cost him. He has never once blamed them publicly, but his agent has a conflict of interest in representing both Bosh and Wade in a capped sport, a conflict of interest the Heat liked just fine when they delivered both of them to Miami to begin the Big Three. But heres where it became problematic:When James cost Wade $10 million by leaving -- Wade had opted out of a $42 million contract to create max room for James, only to get stuck with a $32 million deal when James bolted -- a frenzy started. Houston swooped in to steal Bosh. According to three sources, the Heat was informed that Bosh was leaving to Houston for $88 million. Miami offered about $7 million more than that. Nope. Had to be the max -- $118 million. Nothing less than the max would keep Bosh in Miami. The Heat wanted to pay Bosh and Wade equally, $18 million a year, and protect future flexibility. Nope. Bosh gets the max or hes gone. And thats how Thomas got one client his money in Miami while the other one, the older one, now fights for more dollars from a team that already has offered him all of its remaining cap space. Wade doesnt blame James or Bosh or his agent publicly, but he sure as hell seems to blame the Heat.During all those free-agent meetings, Durant told suitors that he valued a win-now roster more than money, and he proved it with his decision. But Riley met him with question marks on Bosh and Wade -- with no real chance, in other words. Wade, it became clear to anyone watching, is no longer working with the Heat. And that puts into very real question, more than ever, how much longer he will be working for the Heat.This story by Dan Le Batard also appears in the Miami Herald. Cheap Air Jordan 22 Free Shipping . Just as Montreal was settling into the first full working week of a new year, the Impact announced the appointment of their new head coach. Cheap Air Jordan 8 Free Shipping . He said Tuesday thats a big reason why he is now the new coach of the Tennessee Titans. Whisenhunt said he hit it off quickly with Ruston Webster when interviewing for the job Friday night. http://www.jordanshoesretroforsale.com/?tag=cheap-air-jordan-5-free-shipping . The players spoke Jan. 13 during a Major League Baseball Players Association conference call after Rodriguez sued the union and Major League Baseball to overturn an arbitrators decision suspending him for the 2014 season and post-season. China Air Jordan Retro . Q: Team Canada announces their Olympic roster three weeks from today. Who is general manager Steve Yzerman watching? LeBrun: Over the last 48 hours, hes taken in the home-and-home between the Dallas Stars and Colorado Avalanche with Jamie Benn and Matt Duchene being the obvious targets. Cheap Air Jordan 2 Free Shipping . -- Cam Newton pranced into the end zone, placed his hands over his chest and did his familiar Superman pose. The strangest thing about Bud Seligs decision to determine home-field advantage in the World Series on the outcome of the All-Star Game was how backward the connection was. The World Series comprises the seven most important games of the baseball season. The All-Star Game, judging by how its rosters are constructed and its play managed, is the least important. Short of granting home field to the winner of spring training split-squad games, or a pregame cow-milking contest, itd be hard to envision a sillier example of a tail wagging the dog.Before Seligs decision, it was determined by random chance -- more recently, an even/odd year alternation, and before that, a literal coin flip. Given the opportunity to overrule this, Selig chose an almost identical philosophy -- that home field is a mostly meaningless advantage that need not be earned, only inherited. The only explanation? That home-field advantage in the World Series doesnt actually matter.Thats the most generous justification of Seligs scheme, which will be unwound by baseballs new collective bargaining agreement. Its actually a rational position, with a sound foundation and some historical evidence backing it. A smart person could justifiably believe this position.Its also wrong, in a way that has arbitrarily tilted October baseball for almost a century and that might more systematically tilt October baseball for (at least) the next five years.Its important to briefly lay the foundation for the Home Field Advantage Doesnt Really Matter position: The advantage does not, logically, matter unless the series goes seven games. If a home team wins in fewer than seven, it didnt need its advantage -- it won without its advantage. And most series dont go to seven games. Since 1925, when the current 2-3-2 format became permanent, 62 percent were over before the final if necessary game could be made necessary.That still leaves 38 percent that did, 35 Game 7s, and home-field advantage was certainly desirable in those. But home-field advantage in baseball is a relatively weak force, promising the home team only about a 54-46 edge. Generously, we might bump that to 55-45, to reflect a slightly higher historical edge in the high-stakes World Series games. Applying that small edge to all the seventh games since 1925, wed expect one or two series outcomes to flip ... in nearly a century. For Selig, thats one unjust outcome every 53 years, a pretty small price to pay for your pet project (or better television ratings). The fact that seventh games have, in fact, gone 18-17 in favor of the visitors confirms that baseballs decision not to seriously grapple with the right way to determine home-field advantage has left few victims.So this is the logical/historical argument: The advantage rarely matters -- and when it does, it barely makes a difference. But this argument gets it super wrong.The key to understanding the true advantage comes not in Game 7, when the fourth and advantage-deciding home game takes place, but in the first. Home-field advantage seems to be less about getting a fourth game at home and more about getting the 2s in the 2-3-2.Remember that home-field advantage overall is only about 54 percent to 46 percent? If we break the World Series down by game, the results have been radically different. Since 1925:? Game 1: 57-34 ? Game 2: 55-36 ? Game 3: 50-41 ? Game 4: 44-47 ? Game 5: 37-36 ? Game 6: 35-19 ? Game 7: 17-18Or, if we group them by legs of the trip:? Games 1-2: .615 home winning percentage ? Games 3-5: .514 home winning percentage ? Games 6-7: .584 home winning percentageWell, sure, the brain wants to say, the team that starts at home must be better. But throughout these 92 years (91 series), home field has been determined either randomly or by a factor (All-Star Game victor) that has virtually nothing to do with the teams involved. There is no reason to think that the teams that had home field in Game 1 were better, and yet they have been, as a group, a postseason powerhouse. Teams that have started at home were twice as likely to sweep the World Series (12 times to six times) and nearly twice as likely to win the series in five games (12 times to seven times) -- even though these victors ended up with the home field disadvantage, playing three games at road and only two at home. In fact, after five games, the team that has played fewer games at home has clinched or led the series 49 times to 42.Which gets us here: The team that starts at home has won 59 percent of the World Series since 1925. If we have identified a real effect, this advantage is far greater than any typical unnderstanding of home field.dddddddddddd And weve found a more or less randomly determined variable that has swung almost nine World Series in one direction.If we have identified a real effect.This is the hard part. Statistical flukes happen! But lets try to find a good reason to accept this as truth, recognizing that each of these hypotheses could justify a separate study on its own:1. Game 1 is just differentInevitably, the announcers at next years World Series will mention how nervous everybody is. Theyll say that nothing can prepare you for the feeling of being in the World Series, and that itll take a few innings before the butterflies settle down. Perhaps this is even true! If it is, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that baseball players would prefer to be nervous among friends, in a home park, than nervous among enemies. Perhaps this amplifies the difference between home and road. Perhaps this explains why the advantage in Game 1 is bigger than the advantage in Game 3 (or in Game 7), when the players have become accustomed to the brighter lights of the World Series and it has gone back to being just baseball.2. Momentum, or something like itIf a team loses one game, it has been about 53 percent likely to lose the next -- not a particularly big difference, especially because the team that lost is most likely a little bit worse (which is why they lost).Overall, the World Series spread is right in line with the normal home/road gap: If a team lost a game and then got to play the next one at home -- either returning home (as from Game 2 to Game 3) or staying home (as from Game 1 to 2, Game 3 to 4, etc.) -- it won about 50 percent of its games. If a team lost a game and then had to play a game on the road, it won only 43 percent of its games. But one important exception: Home teams that lose Game 1 have come back to win 22 of 34 Games 2s.3. The advantage has a powerful subconscious, or barely conscious, effect all by itself Perhaps, knowing that theyre the underdogs, teams who start on the road enter the series with a sense of frustration, resignation, self-pity. Were getting extremely speculative now. But consider this quote from pitcher Chris Carpenter, talking about the 2013 World Series that his Cardinals played against the Red Sox:I think its very important to grab that home field. Last year we saw it play out in Boston. They had the opportunity to play more games there than we did in St. Louis.That quote came after the Series was over. The Series went six games. The Red Sox and Cardinals played exactly as many home games as each other, three apiece. And yet, We saw it play out. Carpenter describes it as though the Red Soxs numerical advantage manifested anyway, as though it were a factor well before Game 7. For some reason or another, it has been.In 2003, Bud Selig had a chance to fix the way home-field advantage is determined, and he tried to fix the All-Star Game instead. For the latter, he failed; the All-Star Game is played with no more competitive imperative now, and ratings have continued to sink. In the four years before Selig changed the rules, the All-Star Game drew 59 percent as many viewers as the first game of the same seasons World Series. In the four years after, that share dropped to 52 percent. In the past four years, its down to 43 percent. Nothing got fixed.Its wise and obvious that baseball would undo the change, and wiser and more obvious that theyd also find a less arbitrary way of awarding home-field advantage, an important thing. Its not necessarily clear that awarding it to the team with the best record is any more just, though; the difference between the leagues remains staggering, as the National League had a worse winning percentage in interleague play this year (.450) than the Angels had overall. It might actually be more just to award home field to whichever league has the best interleague record, though that would be a lot less convincing in years where the difference between leagues is slim.Whether it is or isnt perfect is maybe less important than that it makes sense. Bud Selig surely knew when he made his decision that he wasnt actually going to change the way that the All-Star Game was played; he was going to change the way the All-Star Game was watched. Whether or not the best record truly deserves home-field advantage, it at least makes sense. It gives the audience something it can believe in. Its the fan-friendly solution to the dilemma that Selig skipped over. ' ' '