Saturday, March 16, 2024

Fantasy Football - Luck and Skill (Definitive Edition)

Below, is a list of all of the ways luck can negate skill when it comes to the results of fantasy football games, seasons and dynasty seasons. Luck consistently derails the best laid plans so consistently, anyone espousing the view that skill is mostly at play, or even that it is the majority of the reason for fantasy success, may as well attempt to convince me Putin is their favorite autocrat of all time because of all the good he has done for Ukraine. 

Most of the words below may be interpreted as whining, (and some definitely are) but the messenger should not be shot because the message runs counter to an incomplete understanding of the factors at play. Don't blame me because you haven't considered them to date. For the non-injury and non-usage reasons, claiming one has exclusively suffered without ever benefiting would be myopic, biblical plague level stuff. I've benefited about as much as been victimized of late in all of the instances, except in three rather distinguished categories- injuries, usage, and some dynasty hi-jinks.

That said, the reasons luck has a 70-80% impact on the results of fantasy football games and seasons boil mostly down to injuries and usage. If one manager is 20% more skilled at fantasy football and another is 40% luckier, do the math. Those percentages are highly negotiable, but only by people paying attention with a memory. A goldfish's recollection eliminates some from the conversation; too bad they often don't know who they are. Unless you know how a player you have invested in is going to be used or whether he, or others, will stay healthy, there's no argument- the results are 70-80% based on luck. Drawing the highest card out of the deck seven of every ten times is luck, and fantasy football has well more variables at play than that endeavor.

I get it, if you want certainty don't participate in games of chance. This hobby shouldn't have to be this painful. But it is. Admittedly, everyone is punished and benefits from good luck, even me. It is because of the attention I have paid to trends, names, stats, player types and team results that I've managed to reduce the amount of luck from 80 to 70 percent of the determining factor in the outcomes of seasons and games. That isn't good enough.

For perspective, consider the below is authored by someone who is in only one salary cap dynasty league. I've done re-draft with family and friends for 20 years, but wanted a new challenge. Boy, did I ever get one.

Experts and novices alike will tell you that fantasy football is 60, 70, 80% skill. The experts distinguish between sharps fantasy leagues (a competition among fantasy analysts) and home leagues (novices, family and friends, plenty of whom barely pay attention). The experts are fantasy players whose jobs are to watch full games, watch for trends and research all kinds of metrics looking for skill sets and opportunities for football players to flourish in the NFL given a certain offensive scheme and the players who surround them, among dozens of other criteria. Not all experts are created the same. Some can break down a reason for a player's success and others just list off stats players accumulated that week. I've listened to guys that ramble on more than I do, but say virtually nothing for an hour, so I unfollowed them. If the audience supported it, I'd quote Rousseau and Twain once a page, throw in some Seinfeld reference and compare an offensive game plan to the Battle of Hastings. But I have no audience, so I'll get on with it.

If fantasy football were mostly skill, then the 8-10 hours of fantasy I listen to every week during the season (5 hours off season), the 2-3 sites I review offering start and sit advice every week, the 2-3 other articles I read each week, the highlights I've watched (I've already got a full time job- watching the all 22 of 3-4 full games for all of the rookies isn't possible) and the thousands of games I've watched in my lifetime would pay off more often. Below are the reasons why luck trumps skill in fantasy football:

INJURIES

1) Player injury (the fantasy owner’s actual player). Whether it is being blown up on a crossing
route, concussed crossing the goal line, getting hit late along the sideline, or making a cut or planting a leg and suffering a non-contact injury- all of those are out of your control. Period. Period. Period. Owners will say that everyone gets injuries. No, no they don't. There is a difference between almost every meaningful player on your roster missing 2-3 games (and 3 for the season by week 6) and another owner having 2 or 3 key players miss a game here or there.

An owner in my dynasty league had Hurts and Mahomes in 2022 and 2023. They've missed a combined 2 games in 2 seasons. In 2022 I lost Trey Lance for the season in week 2; in 2023 I lost Anthony Richardson for 2.5 games before a season ending injury in week 5. Those aren't the same thing. Some might wonder about pinning your hopes on those players, but that's the point. We haven't seen what they could do because they got injured.

And here is some of the going logic, specific to players in Lance's position. Experts and idiots alike will mock that anyone could have been relying on Trey Lance as a fantasy commodity in 2022. He had 4 starts in an offense that has been very fruitful and welcoming to quarterbacks without Lance's ability to run for 60-80 yards and average a TD every other game. Nick Mullens, Jimmy Garoppolo and now Brock Purdy have all been viable QB2s in superflex leagues in that offense. Lance, in that system, would have been at least at that level. Why wasn't he? Reason #1 is because of injury. The 49ers coaching staff may have more information- the fantasy community does not.

You also don’t control when injuries occur. Getting injuries in the first half of games in 2023
became my MO. If the players waited until midway through the fourth quarter I would have won 2 more games and been 8-6 rather than 6-8; that isn't speculation- I'm not that bad at math. Because of all the injuries which happened in the first halves alone I would have scored another 50 fantasy points. Having lost Richardson, Dobbins, Kupp-4 games, A. Rodgers, Gibbs-2 games- I'll stop there- I lost probably another 100-125 points above replacement. At the end of the year, if you assess the performances of other owners and just look at wins, losses and points scored, and don't objectively factor in injuries, your opinion is extremely flawed. You would probably be welcome at FOX News, or, it appears, be at least as qualified as the bi-polar Katie Britt to give the GOP response to the state of the union.

Nothing in fantasy football has more to do with luck than injuries. If you’re in multiple fantasy leagues, maybe as many as 10-12, you own anywhere from one-third to one-half to three-quarters of all viable players. Undoubtedly, some of your teams will suffer more injuries than others- that isn’t luck. That's the law of averages. If you own one team and suffer an endless string of injuries where every week you’re out another player and another and another, which impacts the points and victories you would have earned, and can kill an injured bench player’s trade value because they can’t stay healthy, that is luck. Bad luck! It happens to everybody is the old saying. Maybe not.

If before reading that reason you were of the opinion that fantasy football is 70% skill and you haven't reduced that to 60% already, you may as well quit reading, because logic just isn't your thing.

            Injuries II. This is such a big one, I'm gonna keep going. You lose J.K. Dobbins (after 1 half) and Aaron Rodgers in 4 plays in week 1 (not for the game but for the season); in week 2, Anthony
Richardson is dominating, but is out after 10 minutes in the first quarter (and misses game 3);
you’re missing 5 starters in week 3- Kupp, Waddle, Dobbins, Rodgers, Richardson. You lose, not
because you don’t know what you’re doing, but because of luck.

In week 4, Johnathan Mingo and Kendre Miller are both injured. Miller missed his window during the Kamara suspension. If they could show something, anything, perhaps they could be used as trade chips to bring veterans for a title run. Instead, you have other owners mocking the fact that you are heavy with rookies. Also, if Carolina ended up with CJ Stroud or Mingo ended up with Stroud in Houston, you can’t possibly say that Mingo doesn’t get nearer to Dell’s productivity than he was to mine, a guy who can barely spell NFL. People are now completely off of Mingo though he played in a very inefficient system with a bad QB where the coach was fired. There was a fire in Carolina last year- in the dumpster.

            Injury prone. I always skake my head at pundits and experts who say one football player is injury prone. These guys are playing a sport where they are prevented from moving forward by players whose job it is to knock them violently to the ground. Thriving and surviving in that atmosphere has a lot to do with luck. Christian McCaffrey missed most of the 2020 and 2021 seasons. In 2022 and 2023 he was healthy. If in 2024 he’s injured in game 5 and misses the rest of the season, what is he? Injury prone? I owned CMC in 2022. I have much better thoughts about him than the person who owned him in ‘20 and ’21- I can guarantee you that. Want to chalk those thoughts up to anything more than luck? Hell, owning McCaffrey isn’t a lucky bet or skill- it is a wise wager.

2) Dependent player injuries. This one has nothing to do with #1 because you can assume your player stays healthy all year. If you’re a fantasy player and don’t pay attention to offensive
linemen who get injured, you’re useless in this conversation. Missing two good run-blocking
guards for a month, or a pass protecting left tackle can drastically impact your fantasy RBs and
QBs, and for that matter, WRs and TEs. Tight ends can lose value because they have to stay in
more often to pass block if there are offensive line injuries or inefficiencies. Routes get shortened and play calling changes if the QB has .025 fewer seconds to throw. That deep threat you took in the sixth round, or for which you paid $6 in an auction, is half as productive because O.C.s can’t call longer developing pass patterns, that neutralizes a player’s productivity- (see also the above referenced Carolina call-out).

The Jets just signed free agent OT Tyron Smith from the Cowboys. He's missed 37 games the past four years, but in 2023 he had an 89.1% pass block win rate and a 78.8% run block win rate. (Credit Rich Cimini, ESPN Staff Writer) Imagine his replacement, should Smith miss games on his current four year pace during the 2024 season, wins his pass and run blocking assignments at rates 15-20% less than Smith- is that good for Breece Hall, Aaron Rodgers, Garrett Wilson or worse? Any idea which games Smith will miss, against which opponents, who he'll be blocking against? I don't imagine a fantasy manager would bench Hall, Rodgers and Wilson, but their numbers likely won't be as good. There isn't a question, unless his replacement is judged better, as sometimes happens in the NFL, but either way, you wouldn't know that. The Jets don't even know that and won't know it until it happens. Imagine all that taking place for a team that features the league's 28th best RB who may be featured because his running mate, whom he's been splitting time with is injured. You decided not to start your guy, assuming you heard about a Joe Schmoe injury from a fantasy expert who says the Commanders will have trouble running the ball, but the RB you only thought of starting blows up, on your bench. Luck. If you were on vacation and knew none of this was going on, you would have taken him out but weren't paying attention. You left your RB in during his blow-up game. Skill? Get outta here.

Anyone who had Garrett Wilson, who was supposed to explode with Aaron Rodgers in 2023,
knows the horror of an injury to someone your player depends on to throw him the ball. A weak
or injured offensive line, protecting, opening holes and allowing a QB time to throw the ball to
your players are tremendously important. Ever listen to experts rate the offensive lines? Ever base decisions off of that prognostication? What if they got that wrong? Luck or skill? This rarely occurs to some people. Offensive line effectiveness fluctuates from year to year. If you think the O-Line aiding your players doesn't need to be skilled and healthy for your players to succeed (and the O-lines health also equates to you being lucky) there is a medal for delusion with your name on it.

3) Injuries (or traded or released players) from the same position group. if Tank Dell goes down, Niko Collins will get more targets. If Chase is injured, there may be an uptick in Tee Higgins opportunities. Experts speculate on which players are the beneficiaries of targets and carries when a player at the same position gets injured. They're right about half the time. You pick up the guy they advocated but that Sunday another player actually benefits. That's luck. Anyone owning Kyren Williams in 2023 had no idea he would run for anywhere close to 1,100 yards and score 12 touchdowns. The Rams traded Cam Akers. Trey McBride didn't take off until Zach Ertz was injured and then released.
            
Just listened to an "expert" advocate that rostering all kinds of backup running backs is more beneficial than rostering some back up wide receivers because you can predict which RB will get all the work if the starter goes out and with WR, you don't know who the target earners will be if the stud WR is injured. No, you don't know. You don't know in either case. You may end up being right, but you don't KNOW. Higgins and Chase have both missed enough time in Cincinnati the last two seasons to see that Tyler Boyd isn't getting even half Higgins' production when the studs are out, yet you'll still see people race to the waiver wire to add Boyd, and still see experts assume Boyd will be the beneficiary of a Chase or Higgins injury. In Chicago, when Khalil Herbert went down, who knew D'onta Foreman would take off for a month rather than rookie Roschan Johnson? Experts have little idea. And besides, experts have different opinions. Who do you listen to?


USAGE

This is a long one (yes, longer than injuries) because besides injury, it is the biggest determinant of a player’s performance.

4) Offensive system. Sure we can debate about zone-blocking, west coast, zone-read, option, pistol, hell- wishbone and run and shoot, etc. but in theory, the teams selecting the players plan to use them to their best ability. Anyone who has owned any Saint the last 5 years knows the scourge that is
Taysom Hill. He comes in to steal goal line touches, touches in the middle of the field, snaps
from the Saint’s QB. It is amazing Kamara scored 20 TDs in 2020 with Hill around. Dennis Allen,
please come up with a different offensive system in 2024 because the OC was finally relieved of his duties in New Orleans. I pray for Kendre Miller’s productivity, if he can actually stay healthy for more than 1 game in a row- see #1.

5) Favorites. Tua likes throwing to Tyreek Hill (at the expense of Jaylen Waddle) and Derek Carr likes throwing to anyone but Chris Olave. Carr got hurt in the 2nd half of the Vikings game in week 10, so insert Jameis Winston. Olave had 1 target and 0 catches with Carr in the game. He finished with
6 catches for 94 yards and a TD. I could not have predicted that Carr, who came back from concussions and shoulder separations every week, was allergic to throwing the ball to a top 12 dynasty wide receiver (Olave). Yes, Carr repeatedly coming back from injury to not throw to Olave was bad luck for the Olave owner. There's no argument. I traded Waddle, who I loved, for Olave (and other pieces) because Tua seemed Waddle averse.
        Kenny Pickett liked throwing to George Pickens and Trubisky to Diante Johnson. Unless you know which game Tomlin will bench one QB for the other, good luck predicting which wide receiver you'd want to own, and the answer certainly isn't both. That goes for both the wide receivers and the QBs under discussion here.

6) Coaching changes (head coach or offensive coordinator). Neither Frank Reich (fired after going 3-5-1 as the Colts head coach in 2022), nor the toddler calling plays post-Reich, in the disaster that was the Jeff Saturday experiment, had a prayer. I was desperate enough to go through Jonathan Taylor's carries in every 2022 game to prove that running him off tackle/outside (which happened at a rate of less than half of his inside runs) would have equated to more productivity, and it would have, but not by as much as I thought. Taylor's underwhelming 2022 was due more to: 1-Matt Ryan, who did the best impersonation of a statue being attacked by bats I've seen; 2- a terrible offensive line (which was among the league's better ensembles for the two years prior); 3-a probable Taylor ankle injury he dealt with most of the year. 

Ryan was truly pathetic. Going through each game log, he should have been benched much much sooner. The number of interceptions, sacks, 9, 13 and 17 play drives that ended in missed field goals or Ryan or Taylor fumbles was alarming. If you couldn't have predicted that, you aren't as skilled at fantasy football as you think. Ryan was supposed to be an improvement over Wentz from the year before. That was definitely not the case.

Jeff Saturday was brought in as a stop gap who some said might have been able to help fix the offensive line. Nope. He sucked as a head coach. This was yet another indication that guys who spout off about how they know the game because they played it, as a coach, couldn't carry the jock of the player they used to be. 

I believe the guy calling plays for Indianapolis after Saturday was installed, was coaching third-graders Red Rover strategy in phy-ed before he got the job. I didn’t need a fantasy expert to tell me what was happening. In fact, none of them did. Not one of them mentioned the rate at which Taylor was being chronically misused by running him inside and not utilizing his 4.4 speed to run off tackle. I looked up box scores and went play by play. Admittedly, the challenges identified under this number are circle of hell material- injury, usage, coaching change, terrible offensive line, terrible players at positions of dependency (aka Ryan) were all at play.

Pittsburgh fired Matt Canada in 2023, who was terrible. For 2024, they hired Arthur Smith, who is evil.

7) Questionable coaching and coaching decisions. Yanking your starting QB in New Orleans to put in a guy everyone in the world knows is going to run the ball (Taysom Hill) is highly questionable. The brain trust in New Orleans can’t prove they're winning any more games the last five years by subbing Hill in for Brees, Winston, Dalton or Carr.  Ok, so maybe Winston. What Hill does to fantasy players is a tragedy. Can we see how the Saints would do without him- pleeeeeeeease? Can't he get injured for a change?

A. Smith was calling end-arounds at the goal line to Jonnu Smith, a better blocker, who is slower than Kyle Pitts. Brainiacs on Twitter, reasoned that Jonnu Smith was getting rewarded because he was a better blocker- meanwhile, the whole team was getting punished by A. Smith because of his playcalling. Now, all fantasy players (who don't own Steelers) are getting rewarded because A. Smith was fired in Atlanta. Pitts was in the game, (at the time of the goal line tight end rush) said Arthur. Given a certain look, the play could have been different, said A. Smith. Knowing Smith's fantasy sins would have been that egregious, serially underusing Pitts since the 2021 season, Drake London since the 2022 season, and Bijan all of 2023 is not something half the fantasy community could have predicted. That is a traumatizing amount of luck because we couldn't have known a coach would be that stupid. I could go to a lot of examples- Reich and Saturday in Indianapolis running Taylor up the ass of his linemen in some weekly crusade to attempt to re-enact Mark Sanchez's butt-fumble; Kirk Cousins, despite some pretty good mobility, is always right where the pass rush can find him- in the pocket. Credit Kevin O'connell's "ingenuity" for that. Let’s just never roll him out, and never ask him to run- ever. If he can't pick up 10-12 first downs a year when the games are on the line with his legs, he is not worth $40 million a year. Good luck Atlanta.

            More usage examples. I'm placing another few examples here and putting more at the end of this article, but in point of fact I could come up with enough examples from the last five years to fill ten more pages.
            a) Bijan Robinson was treated like a yo-yo all year. He ran the ball 1 time in the headache game (vs. Tampa Bay) that Arthur Smith and the Falcons were fined $25k and $75k for respectively. You sat him right? There were no reports of him being ill. Smith was fired (I hope) as much because of his criminal under usage of his three stud offensive weapons as for three consecutive 7-10 finishes. 

            Arthur Smith actually had the nerve to say, after being asked about his usage of star players- “I hope we aren’t valuing fantasy football over winning.” Dude, buddy- we care more about winning than you do. Why would someone in that position behave like that? And I'm not dumb enough to think that players like Robinson should get the ball 100% of the time. They will wear down. But the 50-50 split, considering the results and the metrics was utter nonsense. In a 20-6 game against Jacksonville in London in the fourth quarter, A. Smith continued to run Allgeier despite the juice Bijan was displaying and the extreme difference in their production. Who cares about winning?

Todd Bowles, Tampa Bay head coach, was asked about how the Bucs plan to stop Bijan before facing the Falcons for the 2nd time in 2023. His response was funny because it alluded to what happened in the first game (the “headache” game, when Bijan carried the ball 1 time for 1 yard in the 4th quarter): “We can stop him full-time if he doesn’t play.”

            b) Easing rookies in? David Montgomery returned from an injury in week 3 of 2023 and gets 32 carries against the Packers with Detroit up by 3 scores the entire second half, rendering Jahmyr Gibbs relatively useless. I get that a rookie missing blocking assignments and holes he’s supposed to hit may be reasons to keep their workload in check. Gibbs ran the ball 8 times for 40 yards, an average of 5 yards per carry. Problem is, he didn't need to pass block, because Detroit didn't need to pass. I don't need to be an NFL head coach to question one given those preconditions.
            Next, someone would say, well, if Gibbs were in up three scores and Detroit had to pass, Gibbs may have missed an assignment. The Lions had another experienced RB on roster who could have come in if that were the case; he didn't; it was Montgomery. The point is, not many could have known that the 12th overall draft pick would need as long to get acclimated as he did. Coaches seem to have the mentality to teach rookies a lesson before they have done anything wrong. Suspecting this, I opted to go rookie heavy in 2023 (Richardson, Stroud, Flowers, JSN, Nacua, Gibbs, B. Robinson, K. Miller, Mingo [salary league]) with the intention of finding half of them that would work out to accelerate the timeline.

            c) Jaxon Smith-Njigba and Zay Flowers, in 2023, were used far more as possession receivers than the game-breakers they could have been. 29 of JSN’s 63 receptions were behind the line of scrimmage (credit an expert on that stat). Did the teams that drafted JSN and Flowers not watch them in college? Knowing team’s that paid a first round price for incredible talent wouldn’t put the players in optimal situations for much of the entire season isn’t a skill; it would not even be luck; it would be wizardry.

            d) JSN: according to Rotowire.com, JSN’s air yards per game was at 32.4; percentage of his
team’s air yards was 13.6% and his avg. depth of target (or ADOT) was 5.9 yards. Those are metrics which show criminal under usage and were even worse the first 4 games of the season when he was nursing a broken hand. If Seattle was going to use a racehorse like a nag, they could have drafted the less equestrian Demario Douglass in the 6th round. Now, Metcalf and Lockett had plenty to do with keeping JSN’s production in check, (at least as much as Geno Smith) because they stayed healthy. In 2024, it is expected that both of them will be back. If one or both are injured for a few games and JSN is utilized in a manner equal to his talents, that owner will have gotten lucky in 2024, because JSN was just as capable of showing his talents in 2023.

            e) Banking on an injury to Metcalf and Lockett was not my plan for JSN, but it happens, at least for some people. Quentin Johnston (with an ADOT of 12.8 yards), drafted one pick after JSN, had every opportunity to succeed given the injuries to Mike Williams, and later, to Keenan Allen, but failed; I wisely did not draft Johnson. In JSN's only game without Metcalf against the Cardinals, he caught 4 balls for 63 yards and a touchdown. That was tied for his highest yardage total, and that game, he had his second highest yards per catch number of the season. If either Metcalf or Lockett were injured in game 3 and were out for the year, like Mike Williams was for the Chargers in 2023, JSN is probably catching 89 for 1150 yards and 7 TDs; instead, he caught 63 for 628 and 4. Imagine this could happen, and does, to 10-12 NFL teams every year. Now, please tell me, which teams will have this situation play out in 2024, especially considering this is one of the deepest WR drafts in recent memory. Please tell me right now which rookies will over and under perform.     

Note: other usage-related examples which could not have been predicted are at the end of this list.


GAME DAY IMPACTS

8) Down 10-0, 17-6 game flow. Holy hell do NFL head coaches panic when they're down by two scores, even if it is the first quarter. The best running teams in the league abandon the run way too often. The RB you started because the experts told you he was facing the 25th ranked run defense, gets only 7 carries for 24 yards and because the team that is trailing has a pass-catching specialist, he gets no receptions. That is a game script you could not have predicted. That’s luck. If that were a skill-based outcome, you would have known that before the game started and left your stud RB on the bench. There is an in-season Minnesota-based Fantasy Football show that gives letter/confidence grades to any worthy fantasy players every Saturday for that week's games. Listening to that show after the games have been played is amusing. They're about half right on a game by game basis and the host has been in the industry his whole life. If he told you his ability to beat a bunch of sharps were skill, they would be insulted, and if he told you if he lost every week to a bunch of novices wasn't bad luck, I'd be shocked. 

9) Stupidity. Chris Olave lost out on a bonus at 100 yards, and another catch (6.5 points in 1/2 ppr) when Rasheed Shaheed lined up offsides by two yards. Unless you can teach a professional football player, who has been playing the game since he was 5, to know how to line up on sides- that is luck. Bad luck.

Your opponent has Denver's Courtland Sutton and you're up by 4 points on a Monday night. The team with the ball, let's say Dallas, is close to being able to run the clock out, but the running back (let's go with Pollard) flushed outside goes out of bounds, when he could have fallen down to keep the clock moving. His mistake stops the clock and Dallas has to punt. This gives the ball back to Denver and Sutton for a chance to catch 2-3 more balls and the game winning touchdown. That could happen to anybody; but, tell me that ain't luck. 

10) Weather. Windy/blowing conditions, icy conditions, heavy rain, poor field conditions. I’ve heard
former players state that wind is the worst of these. If your opponent’s players have ideal
conditions, or play in domes, and yours are essentially on the set of The Perfect Storm . . . that’s
luck. 

11) Miscellaneous. I lost a playoff game 20 years ago because Tony Romo invited Jessica Simpson on a date to watch him play against the Eagles at Cowboys’ stadium. The final score of that game was 10-6. I also had Terrell Owens in that game, and that whole year, Romo to Owens was magical. Oh, and that was the game Brian Westbrook laid down at the 1 . . . I had him too. If I had either the Cowboys or the Eagles’ punters, their combined punts may have outscored the 3 studs I had in the game (Romo, Owens
and Westbrook- who were all top 5 at their position that year).

Every fantasy manager has their own horror story where they lost by .2 because Christian McCaffrey ran the ball one more time for 2 more yards and it ended up costing them the game. That isn't even luck, just a bad loss. If you're in five leagues, those will even out. I'm not sure they always do in a short window of 1-3 years when you own only one team.

12) Terrible officiating. Zay Flowers had a 60 yard TD reception nullified late in the year because of
a holding penalty called by a ref who should have been suspended. The call was that bad. Phantom penalties are called all the time to extend or kill drives- hits to the head, late hits, interference, holding (for or against) that keep drives alive with your players on the field while your opponent’s are kept on the sideline for another 2, 4, or 7 minutes of game time, impacts one way or another the stats they can accumulate- that’s luck. I saw 2 obvious scores not overturned, or not challenged in the same week within 30 minutes of actual time. These players obviously crossed the goal line- OB-VI-OUS-LY! Kyler Murray and Michael Pittman lost obvious touchdowns, but both crossed the goal line by half a foot or more. Whoever owned those players in fantasy were screwed out of 6 points. Both the Cardinals and Colts subsequently scored touchdowns (so their teams weren't), but it wasn’t Murray and Pittman. Very, very predictable, and thus, that has gotta be skill. Nostradamus is back baby!

13) When you play players. Justin Fields misses game 9. The eventual division winner houses the
fantasy manager who owns Fields. Week 10, you play that same team, with Justin Fields who
also has DJ Moore and Cole Kmet. Fields’ availability makes them all viable now, whereas the week before they accumulated one-third the stats. Take a wild guess about the results of those games. Tell me that isn’t luck. People will say it evens out. Shouldn’t it though? But in a single season, single dynasty season. It is pretty to think so. Write that down, someone quoting a Hemingway line from the end of “The Sun also Rises” in a diatribe about fantasy football. Skill!

14) The run stuffing D-lineman, 4 total defensive starters or the shut down corner are out the week you play them, or back the week your opponent does. If a fantasy manager doesn't think that impacts the probability of an offensive player's production, they're not paying attention. Ask a fantasy manager who owned Stefon Diggs in 2023 if he would rather see L'Jarius Sneed and Trent McDuffie playing corner for the Bengals or prefer if they were injured and unavailable. Got you. Sneed and McDuffie don't play for the Bengals, they play for the Chiefs. Knowing that is important, (both who they are and whether or not they're healthy) not because you would have sat Diggs for a lesser player, but because Diggs' stat line (with healthy shut down corners) is more likely to be 2 catches for 28 yards than 9 for 147. That difference will cost some managers the game.

15) Fumbles, drops, dropped punts and pick 6s. James Cook fumbled once in 2023 and barely saw the field the rest of that game. His stat line was horrible. Those are drive killers, stat killers, change the feel of a game, the score, and impact every play in the game and player on the field. These plays are the NFL equivalent of the butterfly effect.

        Ps. Ask anyone who lived through the 2021 Diante Johnson drop-gate if they felt lucky or skilled that Tomlin was on a month long witch hunt to bench him. He wasn't wrong, but you would have been if you didn't know it- and you couldn't have.

16) Who you start any given Sunday. Unless you’re playing best ball, this is a problem. There are 500 guys out there ranking players before the season starts and before every game. If you only followed their advice based on consensus, you would be wrong about 40% of the time. The 17th ranked tight end routinely outscores the 4th ranked, and the 32nd ranked RB can often outshine the 8th. If you start the right guy EVERY single time, that's still luck. You can't possibly predict what is going to happen in these games, unless you work for a Las Vegas casino sports book.


DYNASTY IMPACTS

17) Trades, signings, drafts. If you don't play dynasty, you have no idea. One example- I was high on Jaylen Waddle based on his tape. He set the rookie record for receptions with 104, for 1015 yards and 7 TDs. That offseason they brought in Tyreek Hill. That's like having Jamaar Chase and bringing in another Jamaar Chase. Hill, along with head coach Mike McDaniel and Tua, has since drastically negatively minimized Waddle’s fantasy value. Hill is better than Waddle; he’s just not twice as good as Waddle and that is close enough to what the target totals are most games. Hill’s usage is well better. I had no control over the Dolphins trading for Hill. If you think any more than 30% of fantasy football is skill by this point, you should have replaced Arthur Smith in Atlanta because you’re just that messed up. I’ve got Garrett Wilson and Chris Olave now- I can’t wait for A. Rodgers to pout long enough to get Davante Adams to the Jets, or for the Saints to draft a top 4 WR prospect this year. If they don’t, that will still be luck. It will actually be good luck.

        Note: Waddle is every bit as good as Chase. They were selected one pick apart in the 2021 draft. Waddle set the rookie receptions record (since broken by Puka) as a slot receiver averaging 9.8 yards per reception. In his second year, Waddle was used completely differently, as a down field threat averaging almost double that with 350 more yards to his name, with Hill on the team. Imagine Waddle playing with Tee Higgins and Chase playing with Tyreek Hill and how their production would flip. Luck man. Luck.

18) Holdouts. Consider it is quasi-dynasty, salary cap when you can only keep 7 players. I had to let J. Taylor go because I couldn't trust he was going to play for the Colts in 2023 and I already had Cooper Kupp when there was no guarantee Kupp was only going to miss four games. If that isn't bad luck, let's chat, but only long enough for me to see if you are for real.

19) Suspensions or releases for off field issues. Gambling (Jameson Williams, Calvin Ridley), PED positive test results, mary jane or gun possession (when it used to be illegal to possess either), going 158 miles an hour in a 50 zone (Henry Ruggs), beating your significant other on camera suspensions (Ray Rice), spanking your children with switches suspensions (Adrian Peterson), mental health issues (Ridley). Unless you put all your players on house arrest, or personally tweet all of them to have no opinions, interests, stop being evil, flawed, violent or human, this is something you cannot control (aka ‘luck’). I rostered Williams, Ridley, Rice and Peterson, among those listed, during those specific fiascos. Not coming remotely close to contending I suffered as much as the victims of their antics. Anyone who can predict all of that shouldn’t be playing fantasy football. You should quit your job and attempt to predict the next time Travis Kelce will say something meaningful with a microphone in his face and stop quoting the Beastie Boys’ most famous lyric. My guess would be never. What a moron.

20) Scouting college prospects (for Dynasty). I chose CJ Stroud over Bryce Young. I
saw Stroud’s athleticism, poise, accuracy, accuracy on the move, pocket presence, etc. against Big Ten competition and hitched my dynasty fantasy wagon to him. I let some other unsuspecting owner pay the same amount (in a dynasty salary cap league) for Young. Multiple owners tried trading for Stroud,
perhaps thinking I didn’t know what I had. Wrong. One guy, hearing me complain about losing A.
Rodgers and A. Richardson for the year pointed out I was able to watch Stroud grow into a valuable dynasty asset because of their injuries. It is that kind of logic that separates the lucky from the good, too often benefitting the lucky. That owner scored fewer points than I did despite injuries to nearly all my starters and not half of his, claiming his depth saw him through to 11 victories v. the 6 that I had. He had 150 fewer points scored against him than anyone else in the league- luck, or skill? LUCK! Take it and move on, but don’t be ridiculous.

For about every CJ Stroud I get right, I get a Jameson Williams, who missed all of 2022, which I knew, and the first 4 games of 2023, which I didn't, the latter due to a gambling suspension. When Williams started playing, he didn't get on the field until he was willing to block and didn't seem to have the ability to track the ball, a problem for a deep threat. The Lions have Laporta, St. Brown and Gibbs, and they like to run, so they barely ever throw Williams the ball. I got him for $1 before the 2022 season when the Lions defense was trash. 

I couldn’t have known the Lion’s defense would step up rendering Williams’ big play potential
useless into and throughout year 2; they’re rarely chasing points and Goff is legally obligated to target St. Brown at least ten times a game. Knowing all that about the Lions would have come in awfully handy. Congratulations to you, not for knowing all of that about the Lions (including that they added the #1 tight end in fantasy, as a rookie, which never happens), but for probably having invented lunacy. 

21) Making the right selection- veterans. In 2021 I knew I wanted a Rams receiver, given the addition of Stafford into a McVay offense. Should I pay for Woods or Kupp? I paid attention and knew what both Woods and Kupp brought to the table. I thought Woods would be good with Stafford; I highly suspected Kupp would be great. I was wrong- he was otherworldly- better than Jefferson and
Chase, the darlings of dynasty, in 2021, and through week 9 of 2022 (until he got injured- see #1). I paid $7 for Kupp. Someone else paid about as much for Woods. Was that luck? A little bit. In another league
an owner who ended up with Kupp admitted they guessed and tried chalking that up to skill after going 12-1. Guessing and skill are mutually exclusive. They could have easily ended up with Woods and lost 2 to 3 more games in a competitive league. Woods also played barely half the season (injury) while Kupp was averaging well over 20 points per game.


MISCELLANEOUS

22) NFL teams that tank or stay competitive. In addition to actual injuries, there are fake ones.
The logic from the real NFL teams is sound. If the Bengals are 2-9, what is the incentive to keep playing Joe Burrow if he's recovered from an ankle injury? What is the incentive to play a promising rookie RB who has been dinged up for a month or a WR that suffered a hip injury the week before if the team can play for a better draft pick? Players suit up and play, and some play well with nicks and bruises. But they're far more likely to do so in the first couple months of the season than in the last 4-6 games once their team's fate has been determined. 

It behooves a fantasy owner to know all the teams which will be competitive so they only roster players from teams that will make the playoffs. I wrote that sentence with a smirk. Anyone with skill will be able to tell me all the playoff teams so I only roster players on competitive teams compelled to play their players because the games are meaningful instead of sitting a player who skinned his knee.

We all knew the Chargers would suuuuck in 2023 and so we traded Keenan Allen before he and Herbert got hurt. You knew just when to bail. Also, you traded Aaron Rodgers right before play #3 of the season and Dobbins during halftime of game one. If you're fighting to win the title and Ja'Marr Chase suffers a shoulder injury in week 13 with the Bengals 3-10, you think your skill is keeping Chase active? For you?

23) Fantasy football is a science AND an art, but it looks more like Guernica than a naked picture of Marilyn Monroe I didn't inherit from my dad. If you don't know what metrics, models, analytics, draft capital, age curves, high value touches, targets per route run, and age-based production profiles are, could mean, or where the players you're considering drafting rank among those you don't end up with, I have no time for you. Knowing those things is where the skill is. And even knowing those things can still be trumped by luck; the experts are flummoxed every week by a player's usage despite knowing all of those numbers among a dozen other qualities. Ask owners who rostered Jahan Dotson in 2023 how they feel.
       
Additional usage examples (lettering continued from Usage heading above):
            f) Flowers: per Rotowire.com, Flowers’ ADOT was 8.4%, with an air yards per game number of 56.4. All of Flowers’ numbers went up when Mark Andrews was injured, as did Isiah Likely’s
(Baltimore’s backup TE). What would Rashee Rice’s have done if Kelce were injured? Rice came on late after it was confirmed that other Chiefs wide receivers weren’t capable of catching the ball which is different from the Ravens in that their offense is built around not being all that interested  in throwing it . . . at least not to Flowers . . . in a manner anyone who scouted him for fantasy football purposes had expected. Raising my hand!!! The point is, there are all kinds of variables even experts don’t consider, so the assumption that skill trumps luck in novice fantasy football leagues when half the league doesn’t know what they’re doing, is pretty fantastic. Not fantastic in the first definition sense-  "extraordinarily good," but in the classic sense- “imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality”.

Jibberish and circuitous thinking isn't it. New math and analytics are here, even in fantasy football.

            g) Tank Dell averaged 97.5 air yards per game; his average depth of target was 14.3 yards and
he had 22% of his team’s air yards. People now want Tank Dell for season long and dynasty more than these wide receivers drafted in the 2023 draft’s first round- JSN, Flowers, Johnston and Jordan Addison for two reasons- 1) usage, which not many could have predicted prior to the season and 2) because he is tied to C.J. Stroud. Rookie QBs don’t have the habit of supporting two top 24 wide receivers (Dell and Niko Collins) in a single season; they barely ever support one. Stroud did that. Tell me you could have predicted that before the season started. You didn’t; that’s luck. Picking Dell up in week 6 because half the league isn’t paying attention isn’t skill either. Winning leagues with participants who barely pay attention isn't skill or luck; you're just the one-eyed king in the land of the blind.

            h) Playcallers (an extension of the coach and O.C. examples). How many times have you listened to the breakdown after a game where the play caller says "we should have gotten player X or Y more involved?” I’ve heard that from Andy Reid on more than one occasion. Todd Monken, O.C. for the Ravens kept throwing the ball in the AFC Championship game despite having the #1 rushing offense. Some of these guys are top 10 play-callers. You cannot predict that NFL coaches, with decades of experience, know what they’re doing. How is a fantasy football owner not unlucky given those scenarios? What else is there besides skill and talent, except patience- as a rookie player takes time to get acclimated to the speed of the game, the playbook, the nuances of the position. I really, really want to crawl inside some of these play caller's brains and find out why they misuse the talent that, quite frankly, you don't need to have decades of coaching experience to see.

            i) Goedert. Just listened to a fantasy show discussing Dallas Goedert’s 2023 performance.
They said he became a guy who caught a pass and just fell down. That’s not quite right.

            Goedert analysis: His 2022 and 2023 seasons were very similar. Only thing that seemed to change was the offensive coordinator, who was fired after the 2023 season. Blaming Goedert’s usage on Goedert makes no sense. He can only run the routes the O.C.s call. Some people are walking around thinking they skillfully owned Goedert in 2022, but luckily didn’t in 2023. Nonsense. The O-line and skill players were just as effective and healthy in both seasons.
            Goedert played 2 fewer games in ’22 than ’23 (12 to 14) and had 14 fewer targets. The productivity difference was insignificant (excepting a 2 yard difference in yards per catch). In 2023 Goedert caught 4 more balls, for 110 fewer yards and the same number of TDs (3). The truth about Goedert is Philly didn’t use him to his capability in ’22 or ’23. They never have, even when they didn't have A.J. Brown or Devonta Smith.
            I didn’t know how closely those seasons resembled each other until I studied, something lucky fantasy owners don't do. Goedert has never had more than 87 targets, 59 receptions, 830 yards or 5 touchdowns. If he eclipses any of those numbers in 2024 and the fantasy owner credits his own skill, I'll bring him up on charges. You have no idea; neither do the experts. I've been listening.
            I owned Goedert in 2022 and 2023. Both Brown and Devonta Smith stayed healthy. If either of them get injured in 2024 and Goedert gets 20 more targets, another 130 yards and 3 more touchdowns, how is that not luck? Of course he's never going to get that because the NFL likes watching guys shove other guys in the ass into the end zone.
            Special Note: see comments about what would have happened to JSN's productivity in 2023 if Metcalf and Lockett had gotten injured and the same applies to Goedert if A.J. Brown or Devonta Smith had gotten injured. The fact they have stayed healthy for two straight years is luck for their owners and conversely, that isn't good luck for Goedert owners.
            Special Note #2: of the first round receivers, all benefited from notable pass catching option injuries except for JSN. Jefferson (Addison), (Williams and Allen) Q. Johnston, and (Andrews) Flowers all missed significant time. Guess which one I owned for all of 2023. If that wasn't obvious- it was JSN. That ain't skill. (Also had Flowers, but traded him in week 10) before the same game in which Andrews missed the rest of the regular season. You can't make this crap up. Don't bring "fantasy football is 80, 70, even 60% skill" to me- you're well out of your league.

            j) The Ravens were not getting blown out in the 2023 AFC Championship game against the Chiefs and yet O.C. Todd Monken called very few designed runs. The panic of NFL teams/coaches who are down by 7 to 10 points is the panic the average dog has when the door bell rings. Imagine the score of a game is 13-3 with three minutes left in the first quarter. Are there more than 10 whole numbers between 13 and 3 I don't know about? Run the god-damned ball!   


All that said, my fantasy football days are much closer to the end than the beginning. I listen to 8-
10 hours of fantasy football podcasts a week during the season, read as much as I do and lose to people who don’t know the difference between luck and skill, and don't know the difference between 8 injuries and 4, nor the difference between your players missing entire seasons and their players who miss three games.

I’ve probably managed 35-40 fantasy football teams over the 25 years I've been playing. Never owned more than 2 teams in any given year, so complaints about injuries, usage, coaching, etc. carry more weight. There is an industry "expert", as long-winded as I am, who acts like he's Sisyphus or Job if he suffers an underperformance injustice. Anyone who owns twelve teams and wonders why player X has underperformed to spite him needs psychological help. Player X will underperform just as much in the other 8 leagues where you don’t own him- did none of that player's terrible scores positively impact you? And never have about as often as they've hurt you, any week, of any year?

I’m still too competitive to have all the attention I pay and the calculated risks I take, be defiled by wicked luck in the only league I participate in. Surely that is too much complaining but for the love of god.

Saturday, August 1, 2020

Racism and the Color of Money - Part IV (History)


Broadly, all groups, but the rich, have been historically and chronically short-changed by American politics and socioeconomics no matter the color of their skin- per below.

I apologize if this installment comes off a little cryptic. I’ve read both the source subject matter and some criticism of this man’s work- namely, that he wasn’t a legitimate historian, his presentation wasn’t as original as we first supposed, that he neglected certain truths while passing off anecdotal evidence as historical fact. He was a socialist, and too many of his conclusions promote a socialist’s view. We should ignore the torrent of truth because of a droplet of seeming cantankerous un-Americanism. There are always going to be class divisions in this country. But the economic and influential disparity of those classes started out extreme, again per below and continues to expand as it keeps stretching into infinity like the outer reaches of space.

One, apparently legitimate historian, wrote this about the man I'm referencing, with his work under question, after some reluctant and back-handed complements: "The problem with [his] work, however, is that it sometimes tries so hard to assault our complacency that it fails to offer an honest account of how political change actually happens." Criticism of one man's historical view,
Kyle Williams, March 9, 2020.

How does political change actually happen in this country? Mostly, it doesn't. Sure, there are labor disputes and public outcries of support for one cause or another, but all that energy spent in view of the country mostly immune to its effects are definitely ignorant of its causes (probably a paraphrase of a Madison quote from Federalist #10). We, the historically subjected lesser economic classes, fight for rights mostly granted a generation or two too late, if at all. The kind of America we have is largely left up to the miasma and stench of power-brokers and corporate elites. I don't know that I'd put a lot of stock in a rebuttal where the leading critique of someone bringing that much truth to the discussion- (see below), is that he's naive, and I don't care if the source of that criticism had been granted, by god, a post-doctoral fellowship from the University of Heaven-ville.

The book I'm referencing is 688 pages, not including a 19 page bibliography.

So, what really has changed.

Well, we aren't gunned down in the back by Rockefeller-hired detective agents as was the case in the Ludlow Massacre of 1914, because "mostly foreign-born--Greeks, Italians, Serbs" who worked for a Colorado mining company and went on strike "against low pay, dangerous conditions, and feudal domination of their lives in towns completely controlled by the mining companies." (pg. 354) So, that's good right, that we aren't gunned down.

However, companies are still bringing in foreign workers to compete for jobs with people who are already here, which guards against strikes and keeps controllable costs/employee salaries low. It used to be the Irish, Hungarians and Chinese, then Latinos, etc. who were imported, now it is Indians. The ancillary benefit of that import, only slowed recently by Trump's visa suspension Trump visa suspension, Michael D. Shear and Miriam Jordan, The New York Times, June 22, 2020.

The ancillary benefit of all that importation is that all of those workers become consumers and contribute to the GDP. Convenient. The importation of tens of thousands of foreign workers into technology sectors isn't a check against black people; that is a wage check against anyone with a certain type of skill set, given their experience. And why pay someone with 20 years of experience who is at the upper tier of the salary structure when you can pay someone else far less, give them a tryout as a contractor, while not supplement what they’re paying for medical benefits, and then bring them on at a severely reduced salary, letting experienced people go in the process. Forgive me if some of the results of this Visa suspension seem to indicate that it is a net loss for America; it is a gross loss for this particular writer, as I’ve already once had my job shipped to India, and once had IT competition shuffle me into the churn of the job search world without my consent. Sorry, but I can’t care if some extra doctors, nurses, or IT professionals aren’t admitted to my country, when I’ve got a mortgage, three kids and the responsibility to fund my retirement for which I’ve been saving my whole life.

The globalization pandemic means that the country doesn't even have to physically bring people into the country to compete for American jobs. The visa suspension wouldn't necessarily slow that avenue for the rich to continue to build their wealth/maintain their advantages. And lord knows that the rich don't just spend their money on homes, vacations, expensive dinners and boats when there are candidates for government offices to support in their re-election campaigns. Since the supreme court has granted free speech rights in the name of campaign contributions, nothing has changed there either, and you can go back well past the 2010 Citizens United verdict to see how much it hasn't changed.

Along with that, there's a recession scheduled about every six years. There have been twelve in the seventy-five years since the end of WWII. A recession is defined as "a contraction in economic growth lasting two quarters or more as measured by the gross domestic product (GDP)." History of recessions, Dave Roos, April 29, 2020. If you think companies won't use any official recession indicators, or plenty of unofficial ones, to justify a dip in the salary structure or to communicate salaries or bonuses were negatively impacted, well then, the reason for lower salaries this year is because not enough bird-houses were refinanced by squirrels in the last 18 months, so you're only getting a 1.25% salary bump for all the hard work we were told you did last year.

Companies are so hell-bent on outlining the ways in which they measure up in the self-congratulatory corporate social responsibility index, in many cases, why would paying an employee the salary they've earned be all that important, as there is nothing left in the self-awareness department.

One last appetizing diversion before heading to the main course. The author I'm spotlighting this time out wrote this on page 441: "The distribution of wealth was still unequal [following WWII]. From 1944 to 1961, it had not changed much: the lowest fifth of all families received 5 percent of all the income; the highest fifth received 45 percent of all income. In 1953, 1.6 percent of the adult population owned more than 80 percent of the corporate stock . . . About 200 giant corporations out of 200,000 corporations--one tenth of 1 percent . . . controlled 60 percent of the manufacturing wealth of the nation." If the pages of the book were torn out and crumpled up into a hat, someone drawing them out would have a 50% chance of selecting one with a fact like that, or a quote worthy of any article someone could write to justify the historical economic advantages of the rich and how little has changed on the topic of wealth and income disparity.

And by god, I'm a capitalist, but there are other words for what we have going on here (oligarchy, plutocracy, etc.), and one of those, in the case of economics, which is something not enough people are paying attention to, is not racism. Pew income and wealth inequality Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Ruth Igielnik and Rakesh Kochhar, January 9, 2020; "Trend in Income and Wealth Inequality.

Overall, the next source proves my point, but in fairness, I don't agree with their presentation of point #3, that "In the U.S., black-white income gap has held steady since 1970." Fifty years ago whites made $24k more than blacks; in 2018 that difference is $33k. I don't call that holding steady- that's a difference of $9,000. That difference, adjusted for comparing the workforce job responsibilities, regions of the country and industry, should be $0.

Pew research- 6 facts economic inequality. Katherine Schaeffer, February 7, 2020.




Point #5 of that same article, is the one to focus on- "The wealth gap between America's richest and poorer families more than doubled from 1989 to 2016 . . . Another way of measuring inequality is to look at household wealth, also known as net worth, or the value of assets owned by a family, such as a home or a savings account, minus outstanding debt, such as a mortgage or student loan." Someone could spend a week consuming and digesting similar articles from the last ten years about income inequality. I defy anyone who can find a reputable site/article which would boast that the income disparity between the richest 5% of the U.S. population has not grown, or is not growing, at a rate that is difficult to comprehend. On cue- "For the top 5%, [since the start of the Great Recession in 2007 to 2016, net worth] increased by 4%, to $4.8 million. In contrast, the median net worth of families in lower tiers of wealth decreased by at least 20%."

The reason it is the one to focus on is because it doesn't take race into account. People can't tell me the larger issue at this stage of the socieconomic game is not this country's problem with the color green. Let's naively find out if that has changed.

Let us assume that there can be, metaphorically speaking, because of the equal mixing of black and white, plenty of grey areas, on any topic. People can hide their thoughts and feelings in the grey areas. They can make accusations and require the burden of proof of others because our world, and our issues, are so complex. This one time, I’ll make it easy. The difference between right and wrong is easy. This time, with a global pandemic and systemic racism as the backdrop, it's time to focus on a new headline. Let’s focus on the larger systemic issue- the historical subjection of the lesser economic classes, and not continue to embrace the uncertainty of all things, including what actually did or didn’t happen, what was or was not said, who was or wasn't elected, which are all things that Oliver Stone focused on in his 2012 documentary about the "Untold History of the United States" which largely focuses on 20th century military and political entanglements.

I ask specifically, so we do not need to live immersed in the shade of grey, so we can declare definitively in order to share a common understanding. Are these pieces of American history not true? Did the events below not occur? Are the rich misunderstood and misrepresented by the man compiling this information? Who is the revisionist- the man who offers a different look at the nation’s glossed over history based on input from the types of people unilaterally shortchanged in that department, or those who are content to nitpick at individual conclusions who miss the light of all the stars because they are distracted by the moon?

Did the citizens in the lower classes not feel and think the way the author presents? Is he providing facts that aren't true, or misquoting the person in question? Please tell me, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson's Colonel Jessup, that you haven't brought us here, to answer questions/read articles about phone calls and foot lockers, when the author I'm highlighting has written about a CODE RED! You're God-damn [write he] did!!!

Due to space these are mere targeted selections to offer my reasons for contending our country’s problem is more complicated than black v. white, from a volume of some renown:

Pg. 37: “Only one fear was greater than the fear of black rebellion in the new American colonies. That was the fear that discontented whites would join black slaves to overthrow the existing order. Via Edmund Morgan- “ ‘There are hints that the two despised groups initially saw each other as sharing the same predicament. It was common . . . for servants and slaves to run away together, steal hogs together, get drunk together. It was not uncommon for them to make love together. In Bacon’s Rebellion, one of the last groups to surrender was a mixed band of eighty negroes and twenty English servants.’”

Pg. 47: “It seems quite clear that class lines hardened through the colonial period; the distinction between rich and poor became sharper. By 1700 there were fifty rich families in Virginia with wealth equivalent to 50,000 pounds . . . who lived off the labor of black slaves and white servants . . .”

Pg. 49: “. . . the upper class was getting most of the benefits and monopolized political power. A historian who studied Boston tax lists in 1687 and 1771 found that in 1687 there were, out of a population of six thousand, about one thousand property owners, and that the top 5 percent--1 percent of the of the population--consisted of fifty reich individuals who had 25 percent of the wealth. By 1770 the top 1 percent of property owners owned 44 percent of the wealth [back then] loss of property meant loss of voting rights.”

Pg. 56: “Along with the very rich and the very poor, there developed a white middle class of small planters, independent farmers, city artisans, who, given small rewards for joining forces with merchants and planters, would be a solid buffer against black slaves, frontier Indians, and very poor whites.”

Pg. 73: “ . . . just a few years after [John Locke] had written his Second Treatise [on Government] . . . As advisor to the Carolinas, he had suggested a government of slaveowners run by wealthy land barons.” It is important to keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence was based on Locke’s, among others, Enlightenment era model of government.

Pg. 75: “Four days after the reading, [of the Declaration of Independence]” . . . the [Boston] townsmen were ordered “to show up on the Common for a military draft. The rich, it turned out, could avoid the draft by paying for substitutes; the poor had to serve.”

Pg. 85: “Carl Degler says (Out of Our Past): “ ‘The men who engineered the revolt were largely members of the colonial ruling class.’ George Washington was the richest man in America. John Hancock was a prosperous Boston Merchant. Benjamin Franklin was a wealthy printer.”

Pg. 91: “Four groups . . . were not represented in the Constitutional Convention: slaves, indentured servants, women, men without property. And so the Constitution did not reflect the interests of those groups.”

From pages 103-124 is a chapter outlining the ways in which the female gender was oppressed followed by a chapter about the oppression of Native Americans (pgs.125-148), followed by a chapter about the expansion of American dominion in North America with a focus on Texas statehood, the acquisition of California, Nevada and Arizona, etc. (pgs 149-169). All are suitable topics to explore independently, and all are regrettable in breadth and depth, but none are fit material for a review of class antagonism, although a reading of those chapters would not grant the wealthy immunity from the overwhelming blame due to them because of their subjection of any class lower than theirs.

I could have chosen twenty items from among the dubious historical actions transacted against the less powerful by those in command, given the resources (due to numbers, finances, or lawful or sexist controls). Blacks aren’t the only race or gender that has suffered because of the famous, rich and powerful: (pg. 108) “Anne Hutchinson . . . defied the church fathers in the early years of the Massachusetts Bay Colony by insisting that she, and other ordinary people, could interpret the Bible for themselves . . . soon groups of sixty or more were gathering at her home in Boston to listen to her criticisms of local ministers. John Winthrop, the governor, described her as ‘a woman of . . .’" You know what- it doesn’t matter how that a-hole described her. Giving him a voice is something he didn’t allow her, so to hell with him. Let me just say it was unkind, dismissive and likely, since she had so many followers, dead wrong. She challenged his narrow view of the world and since he was in a position to silence her, he did so. He was rich and politically well-connected and a member of the elite ruling class, so he could stifle her views because he was in control and had the power to, not because he was white. See, there is a difference between one’s race and one’s way of thinking and acting toward other people because of their economic position- no matter the time period. Hutchinson was excommunicated from the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1638.

Pg. 176: “The instances where poor whites helped slaves were not frequent, but sufficient to show the need for setting one group against the other. [Eugene] Genovese says:

‘The slaveholders . . . suspected that non-slaveholders would encourage disobedience and even rebellion, not so much out of sympathy for the blacks as out of hatred for the rich planters and resentment of their own poverty. White men sometimes were linked to slave insurrectionary plots, and each such incident rekindled fears.’ ”

Pg. 177: “The need for slave control led to an ingenious device, paying poor whites--themselves so troublesome for two hundred years of southern history--to be overseers of black labor and therefore buffers for black hatred.” When the Slave Patrol is referenced, keep in mind that it wasn’t devised by the middle class white man.

Pg. 187: “It was the Supreme Court of the United States that declared in 1857 that the slave Dred Scott could not sue for his freedom because he was not a person, but property.” Anyone who hasn’t read much about the meandering highest court in the land, and their inconsistent deference to justice is in for a treat.

Pg. 210: “ . . . W. E. B. Du bois, saw the late-nineteenth century betrayal of the Negro as part of a larger happening in the United States, something happening not only to poor blacks but to poor whites. In his book Black Reconstruction [he thought there was a] new capitalism as part of a process of exploitation and bribery taking place in all the ‘civilized’ countries of the world:

‘Home labor in cultured lands, appeased and misled by a ballot whose power the dictatorship of vast capital strictly curtailed, was bribed by high wage and political office to unite in an exploitation of white, yellow, brown and black labor, in lesser lands . . .’

Was Du Bois right--that in that growth of American capitalism, before and after the Civil War, whites as well as blacks were in some sense becoming slaves?” It is difficult for me to put servants and economically abused whites on the same level as “slaves.” The economic and political elite did not abuse each of them equally it seems. But the whites on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder and the black slaves who rank even lower, have many more similarities than differences, just like today. Not much has changed in the 400 years since the nation was colonized.

Pg. 216: “The stories of the Anti-Renter movement and Dorr’s Rebellion are not usually found in textbooks on United States history. In these books, given to millions of young Americans, there is little on class struggle in the nineteenth century. The period before and after the Civil War is filled with politics, elections, slavery, and the race question. Even where specialized books on the Jacksonian period deal with labor and economic issues they center on the presidency, and thus perpetuate the traditional dependency on heroic leaders rather than people’s struggles.”

Pg. 235: “The Conscription Act of 1863 provided that the rich could avoid military service: they could pay $300 or buy a substitute.” One stanza from an 1863 tune “Song of the Conscripts”:

"We’re coming, Father Abraham, three hundred thousand more
We leave our homes and firesides with bleeding hearts and sore
Since poverty has been our crime, we bow to thy decree;
We are the poor and have no wealth to purchase liberty.”

Pg. 244: German socialists in Chicago: “The present system has enabled capitalists to make laws in their own interests to the injury and oppression of the workers.”

Pg. 261: “ . . . the Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were ‘persons’ and
their money was property protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Supposedly, the Amendment had been passed to protect Negro rights, but of the Fourteenth
Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, nineteen dealt with
the Negro, 288 dealt with corporations.”

The discovery of how complicit the supreme court has traditionally been in maintaining the socioeconomic and political power broker and corporate elite status quo may await you. Enjoy. Purposeful, constitutionally law-abiding when there are no words in that document to base opinions on, for or against, or indiscriminately incompetent, it doesn’t matter. The supreme court has been too ineffectual, not just when it decides cases, historically, but when it refuses to hear them- supreme court denies hearing of qualified immunity

Pg. 291: “The laws that took the vote away from blacks--poll taxes, literacy tests, property qualifications--also often ensured that poor whites would not vote . . . a Populist leader of Georgia, pleaded for racial unity:

‘You are kept apart that you may be separately fleeced of your earnings. You are made to hate each other because upon that hatred is rested the keystone of the arch of financial despotism which enslaves you both. You are deceived and blinded that you may not see how this race antagonism perpetuates a monetary system which beggars both.’"

In fairness, that same “leader” denounced any black support obtained for his party when it no longer suited his purposes. Including this information, just as the author of this book had done, to be even-handed about the despicable abuses of blacks, to show how complicated and multi-faceted is the interconnectedness of the race (black v. white) issue with the green issue, while also showing how duplicitous the power brokers can be.

Many times, antagonism with other countries was manufactured, or opportunities for economic expansion were hatched. Teddy Roosevelt, whose likeness does NOT need to be wiped from the side of a mountain in South Dakota, wrote in a letter to a friend- “In strict confidence . . . I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one.”(pg. 297)

(Pgs. 306-307) The Maine exploded in February of 1898, and that was enough to precipitate the Spanish-American War, against the wishes of many American labor unions. Meanwhile most of the 19 workers who were killed, in the 1897 Lattimer Massacre, were shot in the back. Among them, Austrians, Hungarians, Italians and Germans, and, presumably none of them black. If they were, the author of this book would have mentioned it. I’m including this because it is indicative of the labor v. business entanglements that are hallmarks of the American system, exclusive of any intrusion of the obvious race concerns by which everyone is so easily distracted.

I’ve included the previous example because to stress another point which would challenge the typical 21st Century conservative. If someone defends a union, one isn’t a socialist, any more than one is a racist by objectively calling attention to the missteps of blacks while echoing their justifiable frustrations. I think capitalism is the best economic approach which has been tried, but I don’t like the contrivances, both underhanded and overtly violent, which can be easily traced to its historical success. Violence?

Yes. If one has not been acquainted with the stream of misguided supreme court opinions and now centuries old fights for fair wages, again, they have work to do.

An elite power structure whose biggest goal is to stay in power, like most politician’s prime concern is staying in office- do the masses of people think that independently wealthy, or corporate elitists, who stand to lose what anyone else would stand to gain at their expense, care what color someone’s skin is?

Now, has the race of white people generally benefited (in terms of competition for jobs, salary, homes, etc.) from the even worse subjection of black people? Of course. But hasn't he stood to lose economically by the importation of workers for competitive wage purposes? Of course. And I would rather we not have subjected black Americans to second-class citizenship through the ages. I would rather they were paid equal to whites in fields now highly populated with Indians, green-carded into the country to compete for technical jobs, so that employers could keep salaries low by providing competition to people who have spent their whole lives here, while simultaneously, importing millions of consumers to replenish the aging populace with fresh subjects to help contribute to the nation’s GDP.

I’m sorry, but anyone who thinks the skin color problem is bigger than our green problem, maintained by a corrupt political duopoly financed by our corporate elites, both wanting to retain influence and power, given all that I’ve referenced above, and hundreds of other citations I could have made to further prove my point, from our 400 years on this continent, is simply not paying attention. Perhaps

People think this nation's racial divide is easier to bridge than our economic one and we'll eventually all hold the richest of our countrymen accountable together. Ah, that I would like to see.

The book, from which the references above are derived, is A People’s History of the United States, written by Howard Zinn. If you read one book about American history in your life- first of all, don't do that, but if you do, it should be Zinn's.

The End.

Friday, June 26, 2020

Race and the Color of Money Part III (Minutiae and Magnitude)

Minutiae and Magnitude

(continued numbering from last time)

8. Minutiae- I’m going to preface this next number with- Aisha told Davis to go eff himself and then Brittany and Zay backed Davis up and Aisha was like uh-uh, I don’t play like that bich! Here is the skinny on the actual hubbub- Drew Brees said something regrettable about kneeling rather than standing for the national anthem and flag presentation- Brees on the flag; Aaron Rodgers and Lebron James offered a rebuttal on Brees’ overshight. Laura Ingraham told Lebron James to “shut up and dribble!” just dribble
Let me put my response to all that as succinctly as possible . . . hey, rich famous people- shut
up and sit down- all you all. Let’s hear from people who are going to help fix the problem. If
you’re famous, I probably care less about your opinion by default because odds are you’re
probably a self-important jackasses.

9. Governor Walz- the week of the George Floyd protests in Minnesota stated that Minnesota is a great place to live- economically, educationally, if you’re white. How is Minnesota if you’re rich? My dad worked as an auto body repairman (from which he was laid off multiple times) for most of his life and a janitor his last decade of employment. I received no scholarships for being white and was denied a low-income loan because my mom had her retirement money in the bank (inheritance from the death of her mother). I have been let go from decent jobs twice because companies in this state either 1) sent my job overseas or 2) the woman deciding my employment had a vendetta against someone rightfully challenging her authority. 


I was an English major, who a month out from graduation from college learned that my future
prospects for yearly salary just out of college and ten years in the future was N/A (not applicable). I made it into the information technology area because I made a favorable impression in the work ethic department and was hired based on past performance. So, Mr. Governor, qualify your remarks. Look at the disparity between rich and middle class and poor a little closer. Look at education level as it equates to one’s economic prospects- I have. Don’t tell me it is as simple as black and white. The problem color is green. I have not been at the right place at the right time and gotten zero breaks because of the color of my skin.


I’m not saying the racial divide wasn’t ever the biggest problem this country has had to face.
I’m saying it isn’t anymore. There are millions of white people, still not enough however,
speaking out on behalf of black people, how many rich people speak out on behalf of them?
And people please, I’m not talking about people who worked harder than I have to get where
they are. I’ve got white relatives who do work/have worked 50 and 60 hour weeks routinely,
working on vacations, to get what they have. I’m not calling anyone out assuming I know how
they contribute to society or financially to worthy causes.

10. Bring to mind the scene in “Good Will Hunting”, where  Sean (played by Robin Williams), tells Will “It’s not your fault,” over and over again, until Will breaks down. That’s how I feel on the issue of where we are with this race issue. My wife on Facebook was following someone who had a friend of theirs comment on the race issue. He wrote, to paraphrase- if I’m a guy, with his daughter and a fluffy dog on a leash out for a walk, I’m a father, but if I’m by myself, I’m a black man. NO, no you’re not. Not to me. If you are a guy by yourself in my neighborhood with a skull cap on, pants down to the back of your knees, walking with an attitude and a scowl, and you’re black, you have my attention. But if you have that same gangster attitude, same scowl, same attire and you’re white, you also have my attention. I can’t help with the black man’s uneasiness, chip on their shoulderness, or insecurity; I got enough of my own because nothing was handed to me either. I have “won” what I have worked for.

11. Jimmy Kimmel just apologized for his use of the N-Word 25 years ago- Kimmel. Good, he should. He should have known better. But apologizing for wearing black face simply impersonating George Wallace, Oprah Winfrey, Karl Malone, etc. That’s ridiculous. Again, where are all the black comedians coming to apologize for uptight whitey cracker comments? Yeah, I didn’t think so. John Wayne (“The Conqueror”) played friggin’ Genghis Khan for Christ’s sake. Stupid stuff happens. Donald Trump’s been pretending to be president of the United States for almost four years and at least twelve percent of the country is pretending to be just fine with it.

12. Magnitude- an Oliver Twist. Jon Oliver featured the Police- similar to what Colbert did, for all 33 minutes of his June 7th (2020) episode of Last Week Tonight. Oliver June 7th I was predominantly disgusted by what I saw- from numbers of arrests, stops and killings (of black people), to footage of irresponsible and violent acts by police, to interviews of cops (particularly of clueless Bob Kroll the president of the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis). I was also pretty disappointed in the tenor of the chastisement which Oliver provided. A couple times I was amused by Oliver’s disparagement of anyone who wasn’t apologizing for earning a paycheck who wears blue and is expected to protect and serve. That type of one-sided presentation is part of the problem. At one point however, and I’m proud of him, he even lowered the boom on former president Clinton (in five different state of the union addresses) for thinking just putting 100,000 more cops out on the street would solve the problem. It is tirades, or even measured dressing downs, of the police, which will discourage more people from being interested in becoming cops. Quite a roller-coaster of emotions, as evidenced by the tangled summation I’m failing at definitively offering. I'm lauding the respected and adept messenger, yet frustrated by his overall assessment, because he so often delivers. His commentary was devoid of the accessory of objectivity which must be responsibly included in any investigation of that length and type.


At one point Oliver lambastes the country wide glorification of stereotypical renegade
cinematic and television representations of police officers and mostly chooses white targets,
who have traditionally acted with the requisite amount of insurgency in the protocol, department
often endearing them to Americans. I friggin’ love Jon Oliver’s chutzpah, approach, rapid-fire
delivery, intensity and even his accent. However, I don’t think the almost exclusive use of
white cinematic versions of cops makes a lot of sense. Unless you are going to include the
renegade cinematic versions of black cops, you’re shortchanging full disclosure. The list of
fictional Hollywood renegade cops is incomplete without Eddie Murphy in three "Beverly Hills
Cop" movies, Chris Tucker in two "Rush Hour" movies, then there’s Will Smith from three
“Men in Black” movies and three “Bad Boys” movies, which also feature Martin Lawrence.
The title of that last example is indicative of this whole point. Oh and the original black
renegade cop- John Shaft- he surely did everything on the up and up and to date there are
five Shaft movies dating back to 1971. Again, let’s qualify our criticism a bit shall we? And two
“Ride Along” movies starring Ice Cube and Kevin Hart; “Central Intelligence” starring The
Rock and Kevin Hart . . . and oh, what about “Training Day”, with Denzel Washington- talk
about your renegade- so, mainstream as a renegade cop, he won an Oscar for his performance.


In that feature of Oliver’s from June 7th, he aptly calls out the toothlessness of misconduct
firings, the joke of Qualified Immunity, touches on the disenfranchisement and marginalization
of blacks. I was already convinced we had a white cop v. black man problem. But whipping
people into a categorical frenzy without quid pro quo concessions is not my idea of the whole
story. Here's the problem- he leads off like Colbert did, by being too distracted with what the
police were wearing, riot gear, etc. and how intimidating they looked. And again, let me be clear,
the video clips shown of the collected offenses of the police are despicable, and we need real
reform all over the country- there’s no way to avoid it, excepting police unions and administrators
and cops with tenure will try.


But I have this question after watching the last two minutes of that episode of Last Week Tonight
where Oliver yielded some of his time to a representative of the black anger coursing through the
minds, streets and veins of all black people. It is important to keep in mind that not all protests
in the wake of George Floyd’s murder were non-violent- plenty of them weren’t. When you lead
off a presentation of the missteps and obvious gross misconduct not only recently, but
semi-historically, of the police and their dealings with people of color, and skewer them for
dressing for an expectation of the worst behavior any of this country’s citizens could exhibit for
the cameras and not include a history of this country’s violent protests, your overall declaration
of who is right and who is wrong is woefully incomplete.


It is socially irresponsible to use your platform, as a rich famous person to mock and complain
about how law enforcement personnel are dressed, and end by showing a video of a black
woman advocating burning everything to the ground on a show dedicated to emphasizing the
despicable acts of the police, ripped for dressing in riot gear. Because, if this woman is
representative of a large number of other black people and I’m a cop, my son or daughter, wife,
sister or brother, or friend is a cop . . . how do you think I’d advocate me and my thousand
closest peers dress for a night out standing opposite five thousand people just as rightfully irate
as her?




I mentioned there would be only 3 of these and I lied, because I haven’t gotten to the turn yet, the
reason I think the problem color in this country is tied more to the color green than those obvious,
instantly incendiary shadows of black and white. People haven’t done enough research- not even
Mr. Oliver’s crew. The police are not at the heart of this systemic problem, though they are a very
significant component. I’m not contending that Oliver, Colbert, Kimmel, Fallon, Rock, Chappelle,
Walz, et al are wrong, but that their views and conclusions are incomplete. Next time, I will show
why.

If Oliver and others focusing on the police misconduct, the number of black incarcerations, deaths,
traffic stops, etc. really want to get to the heart of the matter, they would focus on those who have
institutionalized greed and power throughout this nation’s history. But that might require they go
after the groups of people who own HBO, CBS Time-Warner, NBC, Disney, Apple, the
Rockefellers, the J.P. Morgan types in older times, and even dating back to Alexander Hamilton,
John Adams, and most everyone who signed the constitution. You want to see a systemic
problem, then much more research is required.