Bill James, Bryce Harper, and my evil twin

Bill James made waves recently with a couple of tweets.  The biggest wave came from one about whether major league baseball could survive if all the current players were to suddenly disappear. He said in three years no one would notice the difference because the players aren’t the game.  The game is the game. The players union and the Red Sox hastened to object, and James spent a few days in the virtual stocks being virtually whipped for his crime.

The resulting controversy added attention to another recent Bill James tweet: 

People cheat. People cheat on taxes, cheat on spouses, cheat at golf, recruiting college basketball players; not EVERYBODY, but 10-20% do. Arguing that people DON’T cheat in voting is like carrying a sign that says “I’m a gullible idiot who will say anything to help my party.”

 I have been a gullible idiot before, so I know what he’s talking about. In my LACI director days I came up with what I thought was an efficient, low-impact, highly-reliable way to record student attendance at required lectures.  One Halloween, I discovered that a sizable group of students — at least 6% of them, possibly more — were cheating, making it appear they were in class when they weren’t. (I counted something like 25 students at the Halloween night lecture but I got 32 on-line responses to a question posted in class. In my subsequent investigation I discovered this practice was pretty widespread.)

Last night I listened to a podcast hosted by people hostile to Bill James, who invited Rob Neyer to come discuss James’ tweet about ball players.  Rob Neyer was a great choice for this because he got his start in baseball punditry as Bill James’ protege, but has political views and a personality almost the opposite of James’. Neyer did a decent job of trying to explain James to his interviewers — they didn’t listen all that well — without endorsing James.

One of the interviewers read James to be saying that 10 – 20% of people cheat while voting.  Neyer said he meant 10 – 20% cheat at something, but not that they all cheated at voting. Then Neyer explained our vote by mail system here in Oregon, and said (my quote won’t be exact) “Of course there are cases where someone fills out someone else’s ballot they find lying around the house and sends it in.” But, he noted, we’ve never had even a hint of a scandal of voter fraud in Oregon. I assume this is because the kind of cheating Neyer describes is so diffuse, about as likely to occur in either party, and relatively unlikely to have affected an outcome that it hasn’t been worth making a fuss over.

Now I hasten to reassure you: I do not suspect anyone in the EFL is cheating. I don’t know how anyone could without getting caught. No, what troubled me enough to write this morning is a temptation I encountered when I woke up thinking about Bryce Harper.  

The Dragons have essentially dared us to try to trade for Harper before the next EFL waiver wire, because at that point any of us can have him on the Dragons’ contract, which may only be half the price Harper will be in the Free Agent Draft.  Haviland is under no pressure. If we don’t trade for him, the Dragons will almost certainly (I said “almost” just to watch John twitch) be rid of Harper’s salary when he signs his upcoming MLB contract.

I came up with a great scheme to get Harper for almost nothing: I could offer the Dragons some marginally useful player (Dan Vogelbach? Well, no, it would have to be someone rational people wouldn’t mind holding on their roster) and $250,000 per year for Harper, with the Dragons keeping the obligation to pay the other $17,000,000 of his salary.

And when Harper signs, the D’s would be off the hook for him.

Of course, John would realize the brilliance of the scheme, and would put it up for bids, and I’d probably have to offer Kyle Schwarber instead of Vogelbach to get the deal. But in the end I’d have Bryce Harper for $250,000 a year.

(Actually John would probably realize the nefariousness of the scheme and wouldn’t go along with it. But work with me here.) 

Maybe humanity’s fallen nature has a useful side, to help us anticipate perfidy. In this case, letting my evil twin out to play revealed a problem BEFORE it has arisen. 

I don’t have legislation ready right now to solve this problem.  I am just thinking ahead. There should not be a way for an EFL team to acquire Harper (or anyone else) while conjuring away the EFL’s obligations to the player. Between the old EFL owner and the new one, the original contractual obligation should be fulfilled until the contract  expires or the player’s career does, whichever comes first.

Isn’t that right?

Have we conjured away our obligations in the past?

I need to get to class — actually, get showered, get dressed, get to campus, and get to class — so I don’t have time to work out whether we have done so or what we should do now. I am just laying it out there for everyone to think about.