Putting with Tiger Woods

Tiger Woods is the best golfer in the world, has won 40 professional golf tournaments, and is worth several hundred million. Chris Riley is one of the best putters in professional golf, but has won only once on the PGA Tour and is worth several hundred thousand. Riley was asked this week about his bets with Tiger during their putting contests that they often engage in before rounds:

“When me and Tiger putt, I say, ‘How much we putting for?’ Tiger says, ‘Whatever makes you nervous.’ So, that’s usually like $5.”

And when Tiger Woods says “whatever makes you nervous,” he means whatever.
Thanks to Mr. Poon for the link to Riley’s quote.

Can’t say that I ever really thought about that question

Why is Fleetwood Mac the least influential great band of all time?

The Health Care Market

Arnold Kling at EconoLog carries on an interesting discussion of health care finance with Steve Verdon in which Arnold makes the following common sense observation:

A free-market but compassionate health care system would provide vouchers for catastrophic insurance coverage, but eliminate all other subsidies, including the tax-advantages for employer-provided health insurance.

Spring, anyone?

I know more than a few lawyers from the Midwest and Northeast who relate to this week’s Stu’s View cartoon:
Mr. Frosty.bmp

Opinion continuing freeze on Skilling assets

Following on this post from yesterday, here is U.S. District Judge Sim Lake’s opinion continuing the freeze on former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling’s assets pending further order of the Court in Skilling’s criminal case. Essentially, Judge Lake rules that the freezing of assets does not amount to a forfeiture, which can only be done after a conviction. Moreover, Judge Lake reasons that Mr. Skilling is free to make a motion that the frozen assets are not the ill-gotten gains of his alleged wrongdoing and are necessary to pay his defense and living expenses.

VDH on the History of Democracy

Victor Davis Hanson’s latest National Review Online op-ed is online. As usual, the entire piece is well worth reading, and Professor Davis concludes with the following observation:

Indeed, we are in one of the rare periods of fundamental transformation in world history ? as the United States has pledged its blood and treasure in both a dangerous and daring attempt to bring the Middle East, kicking and screaming, into the family of democratic nations and free societies. So while American soldiers fight, build, patrol, and sometimes die in Iraq and Afghanistan, the world at large ? the Saudi royal family, President Musharraf, Mr. Khaddafi, the mullahs in Iran, the young Assad, the kleptocracy on the West Bank, and the weak and triangulating Europeans ? wonders whether the strong horse will prove to be the murderous bin Laden and his Arab romance of a new Dark Age, or George Bush’s idea of a free and democratic Middle East.

Top Ten signs your Supreme Court Justice is on the take

From last night’s show, David Letterman‘s Top Ten Signs that Your Supreme Court Justice Is On The Take:

10. Begins every case with, “We’ll start the bribing at ten thousand.”
9. His written opinions always have several mentions of the thirst-quenching taste of Mountain Dew.
8. Regularly convenes court at the dog track.
7. Asks, “Does either attorney plan on inviting me on any hunting trips?”
6. For a Supreme Court Justice he certainly is mentioned on “The Sopranos” a lot.
5. All the bling bling.
4. His last article in the “Law Journal” was about finding the right fence for your stolen goods.
3. When you have a meeting with him in chambers, frisks you for a wire.
2. He’s on the Forbes 500 List between Bill Gates and Oprah.
1. Already declared Bush the winner of the November election.

Which reminds me of this old trial lawyer joke:

Taking his seat in his chambers, the judge faced the opposing lawyers.
“So,” said the judge. “Each of you has presented me with a bribe.”
Both lawyers squirmed uncomfortably.
“You, attorney Mohanty, gave me $50,000,” observed the judge. “And you, attorney Venkat, gave me $60,000.”
The judge reached into his pocket, pulled out $10,000, and handed it to attorney Venkat.
“Now that I’m returning $10,000 to attorney Venkat,” exclaimed the judge proudly, “I’m going to decide this case solely on its merits!”

11th Circuit excludes expert accountant’s lost profits testimony

This Eleventh Circuit decision affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of an accountant’s testimony on lost profits, which is a common way in which business plaintiff’s attempt to prove economic damages. In this particular case, the accountant’s estimates were based gross sales and gross profits without any deduction for expenses (one wonders how he could have testified as to profits without deducting expenses?). At any rate, the trial court and the 11th Circuit ruled that the accountant’s opinion was inconsistent with the law of lost profits under applicable Georgia law and that it relied on methods not generally accepted in the accounting community. Interestingly, the 11th Circuit upheld the trial court’s exclusion of the testimony even though the defendant’s Daubert objection was not raised until trial. Waiting until trial to raise a Daubert objection is risky and generally not a recommended strategy.

The Cubs were lucky (or is Jimy Williams chronically unlucky?)

Allen St. John in this WSJ ($) article today analyzes Major League Baseball’s top teams from last season with baseball statistician Bill James’s Pythagorean Theory, which concluded that a team’s run differential (runs scored vs. runs allowed) correlates closely with its winning percentage. Unfortunately, the 162 game MLB schedule does not provide enough games to even out all the bad bounces and bloop singles (i.e., bad luck). So, Mr. St. John calculates each team’s Pythagorean winning percentage — which largely eliminates the effects of luck — by taking the square of the total runs they score in a season and dividing it by the sum of runs scored squared and runs allowed squared. Some of his observations:

Luck, it turns out, was a big factor in pennant races last year. In the world of P-Wins, four playoff teams — including the World Champions — would have watched October baseball from their Barcaloungers. The American League Central would have been taken by the White Sox (who had three fewer wins than their P-Win total would indicate, resulting in a P-Win differential of -3), not the Twins (whose real wins topped their P-Win total by five — a differential of +5). The Mariners (-6) should have edged the As (+1) in the AL West. In the National League, the Phillies (-5) should have blown past the Marlins (+3) for the wild card. In the NL Central, the Cubs (+2) would have finished third, behind the Astros (-8) and Cardinals (-4).
This year, it’s a new ballgame. That’s because of a corollary to Mr. James’s theory — luck evens out. Teams that fall short of their P-Win total one season tend to bounce back the next year. Teams that exceed their P-Win total often slip back the following summer
What do P-Wins tell us about the coming season? Looking past the personnel changes, the numbers still tell an interesting story. In the AL East, the margin between the Yankees (+4) and the Red Sox (0) should wither. The Twins should find the White Sox in hot pursuit. In the NL West, Seattle seems primed for a playoff run, likely at Oakland’s expense. And in the NL East, look for the gap between the Braves (+4) and Phillies to get very small.
The NL Central poses an interesting problem. While most of the P-Win differential is due to luck, that isn’t the entire story. Cubs manager Dusty Baker has a career P-Diff of +18, i.e. his teams have won 18 more games than the numbers would suggest. Astros skipper Jimy Williams has a career P-Diff of -24, with just one season in which his team exceeded expectations. The NL Central this year may prove Branch Rickey’s adage: Sometimes luck is the residue of design.

Meanwhile, this interesting MLB.com article describes how many MLB clubs are finally adapting sabermetrician principles to evaluation of baseball players.

Seitel reorganization plan confirmed

Houston-based geophysical seismic company Seitel, Inc. obtained Bankruptcy Court confirmation of its chapter 11 reorganization plan in Delaware yesterday. Seitel filed a chapter 11 case last year after a change in accounting rules relating to valuation of its library of geophysical seismic resulted in a substantial writedown in the value of that library, which is the company’s main asset. The case was also spiced by some colorful allegations regarding the company’s former CEO, and Warren Buffet‘s failed takeover attempt during the chapter 11 case.