I am a little ambivalent about government regulation of supposedly harmful behaviour. Having a glass of wine, a chocolate biscuit or even a cigarette can be damaging to my health, but it’s a choice I want to make, not one I want thrust upon me by a po-faced government committee determined to denude my life of all risk.

On the other hand, the gambling industry’s calculated manipulation of human weakness for financial gain is distasteful, to say the least. And, at this point in time, it’s almost completely unregulated, with all the protection being given to those least in need of it.

Somewhere between the two is the will o’ the wisp happy medium, the point that’s just enough to annoy the yay sayers, without in any way placating the nay sayers.

It’s more than likely we’ll get there eventually; but while we wait gambling addictions will continue to wreak devastation on the unfortunate few who cannot free themselves of its pernicious hold and the gambling industry will continue to talk piously about the jobs it creates and the entertainment it provides for rich Australians revelling in the benefits of a free society.

I’m all for profit and a free market, but the gambling industry’s disingenuous claims that gambling addictions are not the source of their profits, while simultaneously wailing and breast-beating over government plans to introduce voluntary limits on gamblers turns my stomach a little. If gambling addictions are not really a problem, then how can setting a betting limit cause a 30 per cent downturn in revenue? By their own admission they are dependent upon gamblers losing control and losing count of how much they’ve lost.

You don’t have to be a climate scientist to understand that.

Poker machine revenue in Victoria for the 2007/8 financial year was about 2.7 billion dollars. Sounds like a lot, right? It is, but it’s just the tip of the iceberg. That figure is only for the 27,000 poker machines in Victoria at the time and does not include the 2,500 machines at Crown Casino, which rake in about another 375 million per year. Across the whole of Australia, total poker machine revenue is somewhere around 11 billion dollars per year.

Current regulations say that the machines have to return around 87 per cent to the player, so to produce 11 billion in revenue Australians had to put nearly 85 billion dollars into the pokies in just 12 months. Now that really is a lot of money - you could buy and renovate a couple of decent sized African nations for $85 billion.

However, let’s keep it local. Looking at the money lost on pokies, two questions immediately come to mind: where is that 11 billion coming from and where is it going to? Obviously the money is coming from ‘the punters’, but are they really all happy social people just having a little fun, as Tatts, Tabcorp and the state governments would have us believe, or are they all the desperate addicts, reduced to a life of poverty and crime that the antis rail endless about?

It’s hard to get a firm grip on the actual numbers of people who have a problem with the pokies; first of all you’ve got to work out what a ‘problem gambler’ is, then you’ve got to find out how much money they are losing. Most problem gamblers hide the amount and frequency of their gambling from themselves, as well as everyone else, so they’re unlikely to fill in a questionnaire accurately.

Thus, everything that is ‘known’ about it is really only a guess. However, the most reliable and detailed research I could find estimated that about 30 per cent of that $11billion comes from problem gambling, which means there are around 170,000 problem gamblers in Australia losing over $3 billion per year.

Of course, those people are not alone in their problem; they’ve got wives, husbands, children, parents, friends, colleagues and family who suffer along with them. Again, we’re going on rough estimates here, but each problem gambler will adversely affect the lives of around five-to-10 people each, that’s somewhere around one million people in Australia damaged by poker machines. It sounds a little unrealistic, but 21% of the world’s poker machines are in Australia (we have about .03 per cent of the world’s population) and more than five times the number in the whole of the United States, so it makes sense that we suffer a disproportionate amount of damage from them.

One last little nasty statistic about poker machines. Australia has about 100,000 homeless people - enough to fill the MCG - and (again a rough estimate) around 15-20 per cent of homelessness is attributable to problem gambling, so, to put it in perspective, we could fill the Great Southern Stand with people who have been made homeless by pokies. What a great photo that would be.

Which brings us to the second question: where is the money going to?

About half of the gambling revenues go directly to state governments, about a third to the owners of the machines (Tatts, Tabcorp etc) and the rest to the pubs and clubs that house them. This is where we get all the rationalisations for allowing the pokies to continue. We’ve all heard the argument that state governments and pubs are dependent on gambling revenues and that if you took this revenue away from them they’d all go broke. It sums up everything that is most repellent about politicians that they can make these claims and expect people to believe them. If you turned all pokies to dust overnight what would happen to that $11 billion?

It doesn’t just vanish; it’s still floating around the economy, getting itself into trouble. That $11 billion is all in the form of personal earnings, so if you don’t put it into pokies it’s mostly going to end up as discretionary spending (shoes, holidays, restaurants, bars, art galleries, chocolate bars, piercings and football memberships), property (rent or mortgage repayments), entrepreneurial activities (starting or growing a new business) or savings. So if you took that money away from pokies it doesn’t mean that the government loses all that revenue, they just get it in another form: GST, land tax, dog registration, payroll tax, stamp duty and the like.

It’s typical government short-sightedness that fails to recognise this and it’s certainly not surprising that the gambling industry is reluctant to give up or reduce their stupendous profits, but it is worrying that not enough information about the gambling industry is making it into the public arena. While state governments are dependent on the immediate income from pokies, and the pubs and clubs have the lobbying power of the AHA and some of Australia’s biggest non-mining companies behind them, our roads will continue to be paved with the losses of the addicted.


Jane and Justin Shaw are the editors of The Kings Tribune.

• Read all responses to this article

ACC Season Previews Boston College | Clemson | Duke | Florida State | Georgia Tech | Maryland | Miami | North Carolina | NC State | Virginia | Virginia Tech Virginia Tech Season Preview Record Last Season 25 - 9, 10 - 6 ACC Players Lost Lewis Witcher New Players Jarell Eddie, Tyrone Garland, Allen Chaney Projected Lineup Malcolm Delaney, Dorenzo Hudson, Terrell Bell, Jeff Allen, Victor Davila Schedule Highlights 11/16 @ Kansas ST, 12/1 vs Purdue, 12/12 vs Penn State, 12/18 vs Miss St Virginia Tech Schedule Virginia Tech Scouting Report Projected Statistics (Returning Players Only) Explanation of Statistic Projections Name Pts Asts Rbds Stls Blks TOs % Correct Malcolm Delaney 18.7 4.6 4.0 1.6 0.2 2.9 61 Jeff Allen 15.5 2.0 7.7 1.5 1.0 2.1 48 Dorenzo Hudson 10.9 1.8 3.4 0.9 0.2 1.5 78 J.T. Thompson 9.8 1.0 5.7 0.7 0.6 1.7 77 Victor Davila 9.5 0.6 5.9 0.6 0.9 1.6 84 Erick Green 6.6 1.8 2.4 0.7 0.2 1.4 93 Terrell Bell 6.4 0.8 4.3 0.7 0.6 1.3 75 Cadarian Raines 4.6 0.6 3.1 0.4 0.5 0.9 95 Manny Atkins 4.4 0.6 2.2 0.5 0.2 1.0 96 Ben Boggs 4.1 1.1 2.1 0.4 0.2 1.1 95 Things to Watch Before the season tipped off, questions arose about the Hokies. During preseason workouts, J.T. Thompson tore his ACL, and his season ended before it started. Allan Chaney fainted in a workout, and was diagnosed with heart inflammation. His return is uncertain. The Hokies scheduled a tougher non conference schedule, and losses may hurt their NCAA Tournament chances again. But there is some good news. Backcourt The best news Hokies fans could have received was Malcolm Delaney deciding to stay in Blacksburg for one more season. He's widely regarded as one of the two best players in the ACC, mostly because of his scoring ability. Delaney became the first Hokie to lead the ACC in scoring. While Delaney had all of the headlines, Dorenzo Hudson had arguably the most impressive season. There were a lot of questions about who else would score aside from Delaney last season. Hudson averaged 15.2 points per game, including a team high 41 point effort. Off the bench, Ben Boggs should improve on last season's effort, and Erick Green will mature more with another year of experience. Frontcourt When he doesn't get into foul trouble, Jeff Allen is a double-double candidate every game. Allen is an aggressive player who can block shots and force turnovers, but is sometimes a little too aggressive. Terrell Bell is a do it all type player who can score when needed and can rebound well. Victor Davila is a body in the middle that isn't much of a scorer, but like the rest of the frontcourt, can rebound pretty well. Off the bench, Manny Atkins is a swingman who can play both the off guard and small forward spots. Freshman Jarell Eddie could see some decent playing time right away. Eddie was highly regarded coming out of North Carolina, and is a good shooter who will play a lot at small forward. Schedule The Hokies were snubbed from the NCAA Tournament two years in a row, and some of that had to due with a very weak non conference schedule. That changed this year. The Hokies travel to Kansas State and get Purdue and Penn State at home. The Hokies will also play in the 76 Classic over Thanksgiving weekend. In conference play, the Hokies get UNC at home, and go to Duke. Prediction The pieces are in place for Virginia Tech to make an NCAA Tournament run this year. There's a lot of depth on this team, especially in the backcourt. The Hokies should have no trouble scoring the ball with Delaney, Hudson, and Allen all viable scoring options. The only concern is the frontcourt depth. The rumor floating around is that help may be on the way after the football season, as a couple of football players may provide their services as role players off the bench. Either way, this team is talented and experienced enough to have a great season. Look for the Hokies to finish in the top three in the conference. by Will Ojanen Fantasy Player to Watch Malcolm Delaney is a top 3 draft pick in fantasy leagues and will be a consistent fantasy scorer. One of the reasons Delaney is a dangerous fantasy player is because he gets to the free throw line and makes his free throws. As a result, even on off nights, Delaney will be successful scoring the basketball. Last Year's Player Statistics Virginia Tech Name GP Mins Pts Asts Rbds Stls Blks TOs FG% 3P% FT% Off Eff Malcolm Delaney 33 35.8 20.2 4.5 3.7 1.2 0.1 3.0 38.7 30.6 84.2 67.9 Dorenzo Hudson 33 35.0 15.2 1.9 3.5 0.8 0.2 1.7 43.7 29.2 75.5 70.0 Jeff Allen 34 26.3 12.0 1.2 7.4 1.7 1.2 2.2 47.0 25.6 66.4 93.3 J.T. Thompson 34 20.1 7.3 0.6 4.6 0.8 0.3 1.0 47.8 50.0 67.6 0.0 Terrell Bell 34 28.3 6.1 2.0 6.1 0.8 1.1 1.5 43.9 36.1 63.2 77.7 Victor Davila 34 23.2 5.3 0.4 4.2 0.2 0.8 0.9 47.7 0.0 53.8 84.6 Erick Green 34 12.4 2.6 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.7 29.3 27.5 67.9 72.1 Ben Boggs 25 8.6 2.2 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.6 34.1 25.0 80.8 124.8 Manny Atkins 23 8.6 2.2 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.5 44.2 35.3 46.2 80.7 Lewis Witcher 30 7.9 0.8 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 38.5 0.0 28.6 0.0 Cadarian Raines 21 7.9 1.5 0.1 1.8 0.2 0.8 0.3 35.3 0.0 50.0 0.0 Paul Debnam 10 1.9 1.4 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.2 55.6 100.0 33.3 0.0 Gene Swindle 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chris Panneton 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Evan Synstad 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Terrance Vinson 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tom Amalfe 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Team Stats Widgets Add these Widgets to YOUR Site

Vital facts Race dates August 7th and August 8th 2010 Future dates 2011 date TBC Website www.thelondontriathlon.com Location ExCeL, London Docklands Race distances (advertised): Standard, Sprint and Super Sprint distances plus Team Relays Competitor numbers Largest triathlon in the world, over 13,000 entrants Background The Challenger World London Triathlon takes place at the ExCeL Exhibition Centre in London's Docklands and is the largest triathlon in the world with over 13,000 competitors expected to participate in one or other of the events over a two-day period. While the fact that it's the biggest means that there going to be an awful lot of people there, it doesn't mean that everyone goes at the same time! There are 15 waves on the Saturday and 20 on the Sunday and there's a choice of distances from super sprint through to standard distance together with dedicated corporate waves. Around a third of the competitors will be first-timers, a staggering statistic in itself. In fact, this whole event is all about mass-participation and it has grown steadily year on year with a major focus being on fund-raising for charity, the official ones are Macmillan Cancer Support and WaterAid. For the experienced triathlete there is the option of a sub-2:30 wave which tracks the elite route into central London or a slightly shorter loop that goes to Tower Bridge and back twice. Because of the sheer size and complexity of the Challenger World London Triathlon the single most important piece of advice that we can give is the READ THE RACE PACK!!! Unlike the page or two of A4 that most organisers provide this is a massively comprehensive, multi-page, multi-colour document that answers pretty much every question that you might reasonably ask. And probably a few more... So, why are we doing a 'How to succeed...' feature? Well, because there are other little tips and tricks that can help you through London that are more than just a line or two in the race instructions! The swim The swim at London takes place in a dock so there's no current to deal with but, because the water is contained in a tank, there can be a fair amount of chop once the event gets going. It's a deep water start and you need to be at the marshalling point at least 20 minutes before your wave. Because of the sheer size of the ExCeL building it could take you ten minutes to get there and there are always people who leave it too late. Remember, you collect your swim cap at the marshalling point, don't go worrying that you left it behind or someone forgot to put it in your race pack, and then enter the water to swim across to the start line. The swim course itself is an 'out and back'. You swim down the dock to the appropriate buoy and then make a 180 ° turn to the right to swim back towards the start, before turning right to swim in to the exit ramp. The exit ramp is part submerged so you can swim right onto it before finding your feet. NOTE: The swim runs in a different direction to previous years! The first leg of the swim will be next to the ExCeL building, meaning you will swim in a clockwise direction. This should enhance the experience for spectators, who will be able to close watch the 'out' portion of the swim. All events, with the sole exception of the Olympic Distance Team Realy on Saturday will be one lap. The Olympic Teams complete two 750m swim laps of the Sprint route on Saturday. Do familiarise yourself with the swim course prior to the day, via the excellent course maps within that race pack! This will greatly enhance your understanding of what lies ahead, and improve your confidence and performance on race day. If you are an inexperienced open water swimmer then do try to remember to kick your legs a bit before you get to the ramp to get the blood circulating again so you don't get that dizzy feeling when you stand up. Another unusual feature of London is that you get to take your wetsuit off straight away and stuff it into a plastic bag that you then carry to transition. Why? Well, imagine just how slippery all that flooring would get after a few thousand athletes had dripped a litre or so of water over it! And the first bit of floor you get to go across is a set of stairs...take care. The transition to bike It's a long way to pretty much anywhere in transition - even more so this year following development activity within ExCeL - and because the access points are in the corners of transition to ensure that the distances are equal you will run in off the swim in the top left corner of a wide rectangular area. Bikes are racked in marked rows by wave and it really is essential to have taken the time to walk round the area and establish where you are relative to the entry and exit points. Marking your transition spot is not allowed but there are legal ways to assist you - a brightly coloured or distinctive pattern on your transition towel could mean the difference between finding your bike after the swim and running around wasting valuable minutes. Balloons, flags and talc on the floor are definitely not allowed! All of the entry / exit points will have signs indicating where you "bike out", "bike in", "run out" etc - do take the time before your race to locate these, and mentally rehearse the routes / directions which you will be following. One the guns goes, it is easy to forget, so it is well worth having this knowledge long before you arrive there mid-race and the adrenaline is flowing. If you've ever seen the transition at Windsor and thought that was big then be prepared for a major upgrade - we are talking double and then some! The bike Each of the events has its own bike route, we'll concentrate on the two routes that go into central London on the Sunday, though all are thoroughly explained in - you guessed it - the RACE PACK! All of the morning races, that's the thousands of age groupers, those capable of sub 2:30 plus the elite men and women get to race this course. It consists of a short loop to Canary Wharf (Billingsgate) and back followed by a longer loop all the way along the Embankment to Big Ben and back. Note, the elite athletes do these two loops in the reverse order - they do the Big Ben loop first. The afternoon races do two loops to Tower Bridge and back. The whole route is closed to traffic and there is massive support along the way. Oddly, the trickiest part of the entire route is the transition from the ExCeL building to the ground level. Not only do you change from indoors to outdoors and from a slick floor to concrete but you go from artificial to natural light and it may take a few moments for your eyes to become adjusted. The problem is that at the same time you are going down a ramp with several bends... Much better to wait until you are safely at ground level before putting the hammer down! Also, this is a natural area for spectators to congregate and there is a temptation to wave at your loved ones. This is NOT a good idea - you need both hands on the bars at this point... For those that have raced the London Triathlon before, the entry/exit routes from ground level to ExCeL is now the concrete ramp that in previous years you would have run up and down to ExCeL on. The run course for 2010 is now completely changed, and sits to the EAST by Royal Albert Dock, rather than heading west and the out-and back around the Royal Victoria Dock... The transition to run The bike in actually moves from the morning to the afternoon races but it is always located at the bottom left corner of the currently active transiton section. The flow lines are clearly set out and you'll need to navigate back to your bike. Again, we cannot stress too strongly that it is so worth taking the time to figure things out in advance because it is easily possible to waste minutes of time running up and down the wrong row looking for your slot. Once changed you will head for the run exit which is in the top right corner of the transition. Notice that the flow lines work the diagonals - there is always the possibility of having someone going on the opposite diagonal so do keep your eyes open and be aware that others are racing and have just as much 'right of way' as you do. Listen to the marshals and stay alert. The run For 2010, the run courses for all events take place on new run course loop, based on the eastern end of the venue. This will greatly enhance spectator access to, and support on the run section. On exiting transition from the bike - you will of course have noted this route before you started, won't you?! - you head out of Excel, and then along the dockside towards Royal Albert Dock, and the turn point at Building 1000. The run course is an approx. 2.5km loop, which means you complete one lap (Super Sprint), two laps (Sprint) or four laps (Olympic) - each lap returns into the ExCeL venue, meaning a tough incline to get back 'up' from ground level. When you have completed your required number of laps, rather than turn left back onto the run course you will continue straight on to the finish chute to complete your race - with a smile we hope. Remember to count your laps! If you don't complete the requisite number of run loops you will be disqualified, as this will be identified from your timing chip. You only need to count a (maximum) of four, so don't spoil your day by forgetting... Oh, and one thing on timing chips - wear it, at all times, on your ankle! Do not wear it on your wrist. Do not wrap it around your bike, or put it in your pocket. Yes, every year people do this - and plenty of more bizarre options - and then wonder why their results don't appear or are not complete. Other information The biggest triathlon Expo of the year takes place alongside the race and, as it's getting well into the second half of the season, there will be lots of bargains there for those in need of retail therapy. It's also a safety net for those who manage to lose, forget or break vital bits of kit - we've even heard of people buying their wetsuits and bikes for the race at the Expo. Travel to ExCeL needs careful planning as a lot of the access roads are closed off for the bike course. The best route in is on the A13, HOWEVER (and a reminder to check that RACE PACK!), do take note of which car park to use . The west entrance to ExCeL has a 1.9metre height restriction, so if you are transporting a bike on the roof of the car, you are strongly encourgaed to use the east car park! For spectators, however, the DLR is the most direct connection to the venue with links into central London and both the Underground and regular rail services. Do note however, BICYCLES ARE NOT PERMITTED ON THE DOCKLANDS LIGHT RAILWAY. ExCeL London is connected to the Jubilee line at Canning Town via a three minute DLR journey. We strongly advise competitors to arrive at the venue using private transport although the DLR remains open for spectator use. For information about travelling on public transport with a bicycle or to select a bike route, refer to Transport for London www.tfl.gov.uk or London Cycling Campaign www.lcc.org.uk There is plenty of catering on-site with a wide choice of outlets in the central spine of the building plus a couple of restaurants and bars in the immediate area. There are a lot of new hotels but expect most to be fully booked for the event. The floating hotel moored in the dock next to ExCeL is a great, if expensive, location.

One of my early clients taught me how to not manage invoices in a company. This department's policy was that if any customer's submitted payment was more than $1 less than the amount on the original invoice, then the company would deposit the payment and reinvoice the customer for the remaining balance. Any payment short $1 or less had the remainder written off as bad debt and the check cashed. On the surface, this sounds like a fairly sound policy, but when you dig into it further, you realize there were a few problems.

I am experiencing panic attacks while diving, which are completely new for me. My initial reasoning is I have done an overwhelming amount of advanced training this year (Rescue Diver, EFR, and Tec 40) and I have lost my innocence on how dangerous diving can be. The other idea is that a diving friend, while in Cozumel, took a DSC 1 hit from out of nowhere. This is not her story, but according to DAN, it is that small percent of DSC anomolies that can't be scientifically explained. Her diving profile that week did not indicate she was a statistic to be, in other words. Here is my story and dive parameters. Any advice you can give me to working past this apparent mental issue is greatly appreciated. ********* We were diving a familiar place, surface temps were moderate for this time of year: about 88 deg F. *_First Dive_* Dive Stats: Surface temp: 85 deg F., partly-cloudy with slight breeze. Shore entry, no currents. Bottom temp: 57 deg F. Vis at depth: 30' (outstanding for here). First dive, dropped to 130'. On the way down, everything seemed fine. I passed the 120' mark and remember thinking, woa, this is deep. Met Dive Buddy (DB) on the bottom and we started to swim to the speedboat. Felt bouyancy and trim was good. We had an agreement we would leave the speedboat at 134' and begin the wall ascent when my computer read "2 remaining minutes PRIOR to deco." We got to the speedboat, I looked down, saw 3 minutes PRIOR and did the Sparky Griswold nod at the Grand Canyon (Family Vacation) and motioned to DB that I was ready to head back. I didn't feel particularly stressed (physically or emotionally). I just didn't want to hang out there any longer. As we started up the wall to the first plateau I immediately felt better and was fine tooling around in 60' of water. As we headed back to our entry point, visiting the plane, platform, other things, I was doing fine. Humming and having the time of my life. We did a two hour surface interval, had lunch and drank plenty of cool water. *_Second Dive_* Dive Stats: Surface temp: 88 deg F., partly-sunny with slight breeze. Shore entry, no currents. Bottom temp: 57 deg F. Vis at depth: 30' (outstanding for here). A little warmer gearing up, but we spent a considerable amount of time in the water chilling and catching our breath before even floating (gentle kicks) to the descent line. Next dive, we are going to drop to the platform at 20', follow the line down from there to 90', swim the line to the cabin cruiser, follow the next line to the dog house and then back to the entry line up. Total depth would max around 105' - 110'. *I would like to state at this time, I had done this exact dive 2 weeks ago to complete my Tec 40 course. During the Tec 40 dive, I had to place my computer into Deco obligation for the dive to count. That dive went off without any issues, emotionally or physically. I was actually bored waiting for the deco obligation to hit.* *We followed the exact dive plan as the Tec 40 dive, with _the exception_ of the deco obligation. We agreed to head back to the line at or before 2 minutes remaining**before deco.* For dive 2, I said I would lead the dive. I found the line to the CC, no problem. As agreed, I swam to the back of the CC to find the dog house line. I was 3/4 of the way there and BOOOM. It hit me. Something screaming, "Get the F*** out of here NOW". I looked at my air, I was above 2800 psi from a 3200 psi tank. Plenty of air. I stop and give the signal to turn back, which takes DB off guard. He asks "what's up?" I am assuming I am narc'd, and I think to myself, calm down. I try to do deep calming breathing and on the second inhale something in my head said, "Nope. Leave here now." Right before the panic attack occurred, these things were felt and witnessed, as I remember them, and in the order I remember them: 1) A cloud must have passed overhead because it went for descent vis to black and then back. I had my light, I could still see the boat. I remember thinking, "Wow, a cloud overhead made that much of a difference. Vis is good." 2) Buoyancy and trim felt awesome, which means it was probably better than a noob but not up to cave diving standards. :smiley36: 3) I felt as if i was fighting physically to swim as I left the CC, even though I was mostly floating with barely any flutter kicks. 4) I felt absolutely squeezed in my DS chest region, even after adding two blasts of air. This is the key thing, I felt as if my chest was totally constricted and I couldn't GET air in my lungs. Regs breathed as normal, beautifully. I acknowledged this to myself. Then, boom. Panic attack. Total depth was 105' We swam back to the CC and I started to feel better immediately. We tool around that a bit around 98' and I begin to head back to the up line. We look at the other boat right near the up line and I, like a dingy, follow a line away from the up line. (Yes, a little lost). I'm tooling down this line and realize what I did (since nothing looks RIGHT) and look at my air. 1400 psi. I PANIC again! This time, I frantically motion to DB we have to turn around and I begin to head back to the line, all the time worrying about running out of air. I am specifically panicked over air availability (ps, he dives double 120's and they were practically full). Get this: Even after we finished our SLOW and NORMAL ascent and complete a 3 minute safety, I popped at the surface with 1200psi in my tank. I've never had a true OOA situation. I don't think I have ever brought a tank up (unless intentially) on less than 500 psi. My average SAC rate is around .47 - .55, with some spikes up to .59 on some streneous dives. I had no reason to panic at 1400 psi, I knew where I was. But, I was seriously concerned that I was LOW on air. Everybody talks about being narc'd as this euphoric state of mind. Nope, not me. I get the "bad acid" trip. I have experienced that panic attack on the way to the dog house a few times. Once I called the dive because I wasn't feeling it. There wasn't a line at the time and I was not comfortable continuing the search, so I waved the DB off. The next time I called it, I felt that complete loss of breath and was totally squished in my DS. Yet, somehow for my Tec 40 dive, I managed to get through the dive (while carrying a deco bottle) and was BORED waiting for the computer to finally run into deco obligation. (PS - I had about 750 psi in my tank when I surfaced.) My first instinct is to continue to dive the dog house dive plan, and try to work past the panic, a little at a time. While I do not have extensive diving history (just over 100 dives), I do have over 30 dives beyond 90' up to 140' (water was higher than expected on that dive). My point, it wasn't my first dive to 105'. Has anyone else ever experienced this? Any advice?

Hopefully I'll have better luck with this webinar than I had with the last one. Without too much stage setting, let me get straight to the topic. Steve Ash, Director of LINE Communications will speak today about his experience with Ford Europe and how they found a better way to train and communicate with their network of car dealers. They've implemented a portal called the Learning Center as well as the Ford Foundation a suite of content for sales people to gain essential skills to sell Ford vehicles. So Steve promises to cover:

• How a portal approach enables rapid, targeted access to learning
• Why a communications campaign is essential for adoption
• How elearning speeds up time to competence
• Calculating and demonstrating cost savings
• Showing provable increased performance by learners

It's tough to stay focussed on a webinar while live blogging it when you're in a classroom full of bright students with an interesting discussion on hand. So, I'm going to do the best I can with these notes, but if they're pants - don't shoot me.

OK, I'm interested particularly in how people are improving business performance with learning.

So Steve asks: What do you think a learning function should measure and report on?

Some interesting answers from the group:

• Improvement in ability to carry out tasks
• increase in meeting targets
• that skills base increases
• improvement in performance
• Expectations of stakeholders (ROE noit ROI)
• were they appropriate to the role
• impact of learning - efficiency, effectiveness
• Return on expectation
• Should be based on business req's and Learning outcomes that result from the lna
• behavioural change
• Committment
• What the buisiness expects

OK let's see what this case study is all about.

The Company and their Challenge

Ford was founded in 1903 - one model and one colour of the car. Now they obviously create so many different kinds of vehicles. The profits they make are related to the technological advancements for their cars and even the extras generate huge profits for the business. Ford Europe is the subject of this case study - they have 8000 dealerships with 25000 dealers. So that's huge scale!

Jacob - Head of training at Ford had a challenge. Traditionally, people would go to Henry Ford College. People join, and after 3 months of trial you get hired by the dealers (you've sold from Day 2, btw). After this you complete the minimum training and then by month 37 you're fully trained. Unfortunately by month 37, 40% people left or dropped out. So their problems were:

• 40% staff turnover
• People never trained in Ford Brand
• People rarely trained in all products
• People never had any tests on their competence.

So the question was "Why?" they were doing things the way they were doing.

So Jacob's objectives were:

• Increase vehicle sales
• Increase profits - Do more for less

The most important thing Ford need to realise these objectives was to increase retention because it was costing them a fortune to recruit. The second was obviously time to competence, which in the original state was quite high - 37 weeks!

The most important part of executing the project was in the space of Change Management, apart from all the L&D aspects.

What they did and how they did it

At this point, Steve is showing us the Learning Center and the Ford Foundation learning materials. Let's see. There's a really nice video introducing the Learning Center and really what's in it for the sales folks - on time, any time, etc.

The big thing for the team was that elearning was a new way of learning and they had to construct different messages for each group of people in the corporate heirarchy and I think this is key as is the delivery of the message. One size fits all rarely fits anyone. Steve is showing how they used a standard look and feel and how they varied the media to suit different people and different purposes. It seems like a very professionally executed change programme. I see greenbacks floating -- this is bound to be costly, but I'm sure it's well worth the cost. Ok - time for 1 more demo!

Steve's now showing another of these introductory videos explaining the benefits of the elearning programs. The look and feel looks really polished - it's more of the same though. The idea is to communicate effectively.

The results
The program reached out to 23820 people. The more difficult measures however were around replacing the existing training binders.

Ford went ahead and broke the training materials into vertical and horizontal chunks dividing not just the product lines but also the knowledge and skill areas across these product lines. Now people can actually get trained in 13 months and potentially be promoted to sales managers by month 36. A huge improvement on the past approach.

They also released 24 different language versions, so people could access training in a language that made sense to them.

Now Ford is looking for ways to make the learning modules even shorter and to increase the number of delivery platforms to take the materials to mobiles, tablets, etc. They also have a request to move materials to a format where sales people can use these with customers as well! Sounds like they're loving it, aren't they?

Metrics
In terms of the before situation - the cost per person used to be 390 euros! That was a fair chunk of change for binders. Now, they spend as little as 65 euros! More importantly they can track completion and progress.

93% find the training useful. 81% people find it useful to sell vehicles before the launch event. Most importantly, amongst two people selling cars for 5 years, the person who had done elearning outperformed the people who hadn't done elearning almost consistently. More importantly the people who scored highly on the elearning did better on sales than the others. That's a very powerful statistic to send out to management to talk about the success of the program. Attrition had gone down tremendously as well!

In summary, this is a hugely successful program from Ford's perspective. The top tips;

1. Pursue business metrics.
2. Don't underestimate Change Management.
3. Fun, engaging, interactive content is critical.
4. elearning really works!

I really loved this experience report - great tips and inspiration. One thing for me to remember - Change Management is everything. I'm going to get some lessons from our Change Manager - Liv Wild. Thanks Steve!

via www.nba.com

My father and I were talking on Sunday after the Suns season ended, musing on the past season and the future ahead of our favorite team. While neither of us regretted anything from this past season, we both concurred that it would be interesting to see the makeup of the team next year. Would we still have Amar'e? Would we be able to make it any farther with essentially the same team? Accounting for growth and the development of our bench, we said that yes, we would be able to make it farther. Dragic is amazing and will continue to be (more) astounding each season. Lopez can certainly keep developing his consistency and touch, and hopefully be healthy and rolling at the end of the season. The rest of the bench will do their thing. But then we got onto the subject of Earl Clark. We want to see Clark make a massive jump like Dragic and Lopez did in their second season, especially if Amar'e ends up leaving for ‘greener' pastures. But what do we know, need and want out of Earl Clark? 

 

Earl Clark pre-Suns: (this is real long, so if you want to skip this and the recap of last season and go straight to my opinion of the future, feel free)

                Earl Clark had your prototypical top prospect high school career. A four year starter, Clark managed to rack up 1,245 career points at Rahway High School in Rahway New Jersey, averaging 25.2 points, 13.2 rebounds, and 5 assists his senior year. Under his leadership the school was able to achieve its first championship in 10 years and it's first ever Mountain Valley Conference Title - the team was an impressive 47-19 while Clark started. The accolades naturally poured in for Clark, first a 2006 McDonald's All-American selection, Star-Ledger Senior of the Year in New Jersey, an all-state selection, and the honor of being the top ranked New Jersey recruit as well as no. 15 in the nation. Eventually, the hot prospect with the world at his fingertips chose to attend the University of Louisville and learn from legendary coach Rick Pitino, passing up Villanova among others.

                Coming out of high school, scouts and coaches were drooling about Earl Clark's skill set and his size. He was touted as being an incredible ball handler, passer, and defender for a player of his size, only lacking the ability to bring all of his considerable talents and athletic ability to bear at the same time. Add to this the fact that Clark was and is built perfectly for his foreseen role as a potential versatile 3 position player - 6'9, maybe 6'10, long arms, sturdy frame, room to and muscle but still the agility to play with guards and defend multiple positions. Even Clark began to buy into his seemingly irrefutable versatilityDespite the optimistic love being thrown his way, Clark did not answer his fans with strong play immediately. In an interview with Draft Express, Clark talked about what his role might be in college: 

DraftExpress: At 6'9, 6'10 and with the skill package that you have, you will have the opportunity to play three or four positions in college. What position do you think they'll stick you at next year at Louisville?

Clark: Mostly the two and the three. Coach P runs three guards, so I'll be running the break. I'm going to be energized out there.

DraftExpress: Is there any one position in particular that you'd prefer to play?

Clark: Nah, I like floating around. I like playing every position, running down the court playing this position and that position. It's fun for me, so it really don't matter.

DraftExpress: Being your height, most coaches would immediately put you under the basket as a post player. How did you develop such guard skills while being the size of a post player?

Clark: I always liked to dribble. There were some days when I would go to the park and I wouldn't even shoot. I would just dribble around and try to cross people up in the park. It was just something that I always did.

 

Despite the seeming irrefutable nature of his versatility and skill and potential, Clark did not show immediate returns on his tremendous future. In games such as the McDonald's All-Americans, the Roundball classic, and eventually the first half of his freshman season, Clark did not have a good showing - flashes of his advertised guard-like skills and versatility were seen, but he never seemed to put it together. Eventually, however Clark seemed to understand that his role was not to be the reincarnation of Magic Johnson, but instead it was to use his be consistent with his game and utilize his incredible athleticism to contribute on the break, the boards, and on defense. While in the beginning an uncomfortable Clark would attempt to make something happen every time he touched the ball, at the end of the season, especially the last 4 games when he moved into the starting lineup, Clark seemed to be able to use his gifts to better fit into a team system. The length allowed him to reach near double digit boards consistently, and he learned to score his baskets around the rim, taking only the rare open 3, leading to a general increase in his efficiency. This new incarnation of Clark still needed polish - ball handling, decision making, shooting mechanics - everything that he is still developing. In the tournament, he began well, providing energy and the spark that led to a blowout of Stanford, though he would follow it up with a 1 of 5 performance in the next game.  Clark ended the year as a prospect mostly made of potential - he could shoot as long as he was set and unpressured, otherwise he would tend to fade away and lose consistency, he had no post game to speak of, he boarded well, needed more control when dribbling, and though his defense was good and aggressive it needed more attentiveness and intelligence with regards to fakes, he still showed he ability to be a monster on the defensive end.

                Clark's sophomore season began much smoother, as Clark carried his newfound confidence and role into a starting role his sophomore year.  He showed a marked improvement in post play on both ends of the ball, a newfound strength that allowed him to rebound and defend with new tenacity, as well as be more effective on the offensive boards and his little turnaround jumper. He showcased a physique ready for the NBA, and Coach Pitino had definitely helped him understand how to use his athleticism to improve in all assets of the game. Although Clark's game slumped through most of March, he was still able to average an improved 11.1 ppg, and an impressive 8.1 rebounds and 1.7 blocks, good for 7th and 4th in Big East ranks. The holes in Clark's game seemed to be patching themselves up, as Clark increased in experience on the defensive end, and his proficiency at finishing in the open court and off of the drives that Clark was able to generate off his tremendous first step.

                Clark's Junior year saw a mixed bag of improvement. On one hand, his 3 point shooting saw a marginal increase (although they were not outstanding by any measure) and assists rose, but every other statistic and measure decreased in efficiency. Clark's athleticism and ball handling remained, although he still suffered from some Barbosa-eque lack of control on drives. This was the year that issues and doubts arose regarding Clark's motivation, focus, and toughness. Some scouts believed and still believe that Clark is lacking in the necessary focus and drive to truly live up to his massive potential. A great deal of this doubt comes from the fact that he was unable to offset his lack of offensive efficiency with an ability to get fouled - Clark shot 5.3 jump shots a game, but was only fouled 9.3% of possessions, and was far below the average FG% in almost every type of shot.  Clark consistently elevated his play however in each NCAA tournament, as can be seen here:

Clark's basic statistics for the season are as follows: 

Season Averages
SEASON	TEAM	MIN	PTS	REB	AST	TO	A/T	STL	BLK	PF	FG%	FT%	3P%	PPS
2006-2007	LOU	16.0	5.9	3.8	.4	.8	.50	.7	.4	1.2	.480	.597	.370	1.28
2007-2008	LOU	28.5	11.1	8.1	1.4	2.3	.60	1.0	1.7	1.8	.476	.654	.227	1.27
2008-2009	LOU	34.3	14.2	8.7	3.2	3.2	1.00	1.0	1.4	1.9	.457	.647	.326	1.19

 

Two things stand out to me. First is the fact that Clark needs to lower the turnover levels when he gets into the NBA, as his assist to TO ratio was extremely poor in college. Clark also had good totals across the board, but one can see that as his usage increased (not only his minutes, but his role in the Louisville offense), his FG% and 3pt% dropped significantly. Clark is obviously not ready to be the focal point of an offense yet, as his game is still developing and we do not want to force him into a situation ala Trevor Ariza in which his role outweighs his ability.

                When the Phoenix Suns decided to draft Earl Clark with the 14th pick of the 2009 draft, reaction was mixed. Some wanted the Suns to draft a point guard, even Terrence Williams, Clarks Louisville teammate (We know how that worked out, thankfully). Other players, ones that received more playing time this year were also in contention, such as DeJuan Blair or James Johnson. However, the Suns coveted Earl’s incredible athleticism and potential to be a defensive monster and offensively versatile player, Marion 2.0 or our version of Lamar Odom (hopefully more consistent however). Indeed, if Clark could reach Odom level it would have to be considered a success, although I believe defensively he has a larger upside. From here we have to move on to Earl Clark’s fledgling career with the Phoenix Suns.

 

Rookie Year

Basic averages:

Season	Team	G	GS	FG	FGA	FG%	3PM	3PA	3P%	FTM	FTA	FT%	OFF	DEF	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	TO	PF	PPG
09-10	PHX	51	0	5.3	14.2	0.371	.2	.5	0.400	2.4	3.4	0.722	1.7	4.1	5.8	2.0	.7	1.2	2.2	2.3	13.2

 

 

 

Per 36 min:

Season	Team	G	GS	MPG	FG	FGA	FG%	3PA	3PM	3P%	FTM	FTA	FT%	OFF	DEF	RPG	APG	SPG	BPG	TO	PF	PPG
09-10	PHX	51	0	7.5	1.1	3.0	0.371	.0	.1	0.400	.5	.7	0.722	0.4	0.9	1.2	0.4	0.1	0.2	0.4	0.5	2.7

 

 

 

 

Some assorted advanced stats:

True shooting: 42%, eFG%: 37.7%, ORB%: 5.6, DRB%: 12.3, TOV%: 12.1, USG%: 21.9, ORtg: 89, DRtg: 111 (for comparison, Louis Amundson, who is one of the players that Clark will be competing for time against and is a one of our better rebounders has an TS% of .562, eFG% of .551, ORB% and DRB% of 13.1 and 19.9, respectively, and a ORtg and DRtg of 113 and 107)

Statistically, Earl was not good. .4 assists to .4 turnovers is terrible. 3 points on 3 shots is equally bad. The shooting percentages, both normal and advanced were very very low. He did have marginal rebounding and fairly good steal/block/defense numbers, but overall Clark had a tough season. We could all probably have guessed these numbers based on just what we saw and felt about Clark during the regular season – inefficient offensively and only flashes of the oh-so-valuable defense. However, the fact of the matter is that he only got seven and a half minutes a game, and they were very inconsistent minutes at that. Spotty minutes and use primarily in garbage time hampered his use and probably contributed to the fact that he never really got going. The thing that struck me about his time on the court with the Suns that it was rarely meaningful, and when Clark got on the court he seemed to revert to the mode that he was in during his freshman year at Louisville – forcing things to try to make things happen and impress coaches enough to get playing time. He has said it himself - Clark in one November interview:

 

But, you know, with rookies its one or two mistakes and you’re out of the game

 

In one sense, he was the anti-Dragic, when pressured and uncomfortable Clark would try to take over a game, as opposed to taking himself out of it. Neither approach is effective, but I am optimistic due to the fact that our coaching staff is adept at getting the best out of players such as Lopez and Dragic and hopefully Clark, and considering that Clark has already been through this process and worked himself out of it in Louisville. There were moments in Clark's campaign that showed us what he could do - a 6-6 FG game against Minnesota, good defense in a 4th quarter against Dirk Nowitzki, etc. However, I think that we cannot really look at Clark's rookie year playing time with the Suns for true meaning. Instead we must look to his Coaches, practice, and work ethic, and for the most part all of these things have been positive.

From every report that I have been able to find, Clark has been working extremely hard in practice, putting in extra work and working at improving his game and competing with his more established counterparts. He seems to realize that he needs to work and get better, and even that any playing time that he might earn will be earned on the back of hardnosed hustle, defense, and rebounding: In an interview with reporters asking him about his progress through the season and in practice: 

Q. What is going to get you on the court? 

Clark: Defense and Rebounding

Q. Do you feel that you will be able to pride yourself on defense and playing as a hybrid forward?

Clark: If that’s what I need to do to get out there, that’s what I’ll do.

 

Clark obviously is hungry to play and frustrated that he is not playing, however he is turning that frustration into hard work and motivation to do better and get better (also from the interview quoted above). All of his coaches are encouraged with his progress to date. Gentry is happy to see a young player practicing hard, wanting more time but still able to learn from his all-star and more experienced teammates. To use another of SP's quotes, Gentry has stated that: 

He's just got to get a feel for the pro game. He's still a young kid. He works really hard and he's doing a good job. We've got to decide where we can play him. Is he going to be a three (small forward) or is he going to try and be a four (power forward). And there's just playing time. Everybody looks at Goran (Dragic) now but last year Goran struggled when he got to get out there some. We've got to try and find minutes for Earl to stick him out there some and I think he'll be fine.

 Even Igor Kokoskov (who as I understand it is one of the coaches with more responsibility to work with youngsters such as Dragic and Clark) was optimistic about Clark’s role on the team and in practice, saying that he was focused and putting in the extra work, but just learning to adjust to the new burden of an NBA season and the pressure, fame, and responsibility that comes with it. The impact of practice and being part of an NBA team, working with them all day cannot be underestimated, and by all accounts Clark is contributing and working hard so that when the coach call his name he will be ready. As our own Phx Stan said about Clark and practice:  

The key guys I think for Earl are going to be Lou and Jared. He will playing with and against those guys a lot in practice. Each brings a lot more effort and heart than Clark might be used to but neither has his talent or potential. He certainly stands to learn a lot from being around those guys.

 

Finally, there were also two other times in which we could have witnessed Clark playing - summer league and his 3 game stint in the D League. In the Summer League, Clark dominated the first game, before having a relatively mediocre showing in all areas, though his rebounding was strong. Mark Lisboa had a good take on the inconclusive summer league: 

For me, the jury is way out on Clark... Aside from his first game, when Clark posted a double-double, he didn't do much to distinguish himself.  To be honest, I don't read too much into this... He did however demonstrate why the Suns took him in the first round.  He's capable of: hitting from outside, driving to the basket, bringing the ball up, getting his fair share of rebounds, defending multiple positions.  He has a lot going for him.

 

Midseason, Clark was also sent to the D League in order to expose him to some more consistent playing time, as the main option. While in Iowa, Earl shot fifty percent and managed 20.7 points, 9 rebounds, and 1 block in about 34 minutes, include 2 double-doubles. All of the Suns staff was optimistic about the showing and made it known that it was by no means a knock upon Clark that he was ‘sent down', merely that this was a chance to get Earl some more minutes of competitive ball. Both Summer League and D League have mostly shown us what we already know about Clark - he rebounds and can defend well, but needs more polish in him composure and on the offensive end.

The future Earl Clark:

I know that all Suns fans worth their salt of course want Clark to make a sophomore jump akin to the ones that Robin and Goran had, however, I think that we can look at a few certain things that he needs to improve. The first and most glaring thing for him to improve is his mental approach to the game. We do not need Earl to leave the bench attempting to beat the world, we need a consistent, athletic defensive and rebounding presence from the 3/4 spot. To this end, I think that he needs to stabilize his shooting and shot selection, and focus on using his athleticism, quick second and third jumps to rebound, and his size, speed, and lateral quickness in order to defend. On offense, I feel that he should focus on his drives and making consistent use of his agility, body control, and size to go to the rim. This should earn him consistent minutes with the second team, as the added defense, especially on switches and the pick and roll should help the already burgeoning Bench D, while another penetrator to go with all of the shooters could not got amiss.

                The key to his play in the future, I think lies in him getting consistent minutes. This will allow him to relax and play his game, contributing to the team agenda and goal, while keeping him engaged if any lingering motivational issues remain. However, this need for playing time begs the question of who on the bench is the odd man out to give Earl his minutes? Earl is not ready to start, in any scenario. Additionally, in my thinking, Dragic and Dudley's minutes are off-limits as far as stealing forms them for Clark. This leaves Amundson, Frye, and Barbosa. If Frye is opts out and does not resign with the Suns, (I believe that his salary at the moment is more or less suitable for his level of pay, perhaps plus a few million - I do not know the exactitudes of our salary and what is fair). However, if he resigns, then the Suns are faced with a dilemma - all three of the players in question are good enough players to deserve minutes, but the future of the suns lies with Clark. How much do you give him? I personally think that there are two choices. Choice A, Barbosa's minutes are completely cut out, Dudley slides over to the 2, and Earl is inserted into the bench as a 3. I prefer this plan, because, as much as I love Barbosa, he still remains a player with which the ball stops, and his pseudo-pointguard role is no longer as needed with the emergence of Dragic. The other choice is to cut minutes from either all 3 or just from Amundson and Frye, and play Clark on a situational basis when more versatility is needed. I fear however that this would compromise the platoon strategy of bench play that the Suns utilize, and for rebounding/defensive purposes I would much rather have Amundson, Clark, or even Frye play, rather than Barbosa at this point.

                I firmly believe that Clark that can and will be an effective player next season and for many seasons in the future. I hope that this has been an informative, if long explanation of Clark and his basketball career, past, and potential future. Thank you to all of the BSOTS writers whom I hijacked quotes or information from, the Louisville website, Draft Express, YouTube, and anyone else I forgot to mention

 

 

ised is a command-line tool for generating number sequences and arithmetic evaluation. Unlike big GUI-based software (such as Mathematica, Derive, Matlab, or Octave), ised is intended for use in shell scripting, together with the GNU core utilities. Its main advantage is that all functions are generalized to operate on one-dimensional arrays. It can be used for loop indexing (much like seq), line-by-line arithmetic processing of files, floating point math for shells that don't support it natively, or interactive expression evaluation (i.e. as an extended calculator).

Changes: Several new functions were added, including min, max, and Bessel functions. New polynomial, statistical, and vector operators were added. A better random seed is acquired using /dev/urandom. Input lines can now have arbitrary length.

Tags: Numerical, calculator, array, sequence generator

Licenses: GPLv3

Chicago Blackhawks defenseman Brent Seabrook was the victim of a vicious and questionable hit on Wednesday in Anaheim, just days after teammate Brian Campbell was shoved head-long into the boards in Washington by superstar Alex Ovechkin. 

Since those vicious hits, both coming in losses, many people in Chicago have been clamoring for a retaliatory strike on hard-play by the Hawks, with many fans (and even one Blackhawks broadcaster) floating out the idea of a certain f-word being used as the team's first offensive volley against hard checks and dirty play.

No, Chicagoans are not advocating the use of foul language as a deterrent against hard hits finding their stars on the ice, they are talking about something I—and, as I have found, few others—believe to be an archaic and pointless practice in the NHL: fighting.

Yes, for some reason, many hockey fans (Blackhawks fans, in this specific case) believe that two men dropping their gloves and awkwardly trying to bash each other about the head with clenched fists will eventually manifest in some kind of value to their club.

But does fighting in hockey represent any kind of value whatsoever?

To answer this question, we must first understand the arguments of the two sides to the issue of fighting in hockey.

The argument of anti-fighting fans is simple: punching someone on the other team does little to nothing as far as scoring goes.

It does not matter how many solid punches are landed, or how hard the player on your team hits the opposing team's chap. When both fighters are situated in their respective penalty boxes, the scoreboard will still read the same as it did before the fight began.

Pro-fighting hockey fans will argue that the affects of opposing players engaging in fisticuffs are not felt immediately, but rather are felt as secondary and tertiary aftershocks. These affects, they argue, pave the way for goal scoring, albeit in a roundabout way. 

For instance, a fight on the ice after a vicious hit or penalty will tell opponents that checks and penalties to key players will not be tolerated. As a result of this, hard checks and dangerous penalties against their team and its stars will be reduced, thus increasing ice-time for key players and increasing goal-scoring.

This message will not only affect the play of the current opposition, but it will send a message to the rest of the league as well.

This rebuttal is usually followed by anecdotal recounts of Wayne Gretzky and Marty McSorley and Dave Semenko, his de facto "bodyguards" on the ice. If the pro-fighting fan is newer to the game of hockey, the aforementioned recounts will be the same, except Sidney Crosby will replace Gretzky and Jarkko Ruutu will replace McSorley and Semenko.

This brings us back to our original problem: what value, if any, does fighting add to a team's chances of scoring goals and winning games?

To answer this question, we can break down the pro-fighting argument into its different components and test to see if fighting correlates with that respective component in the way proposed. 

In this linear regression model, the independent variable will be the amount of fighting done by a hockey team, as measured by the number of fighting majors accrued by an individual team, and the dependent variable will be the respective components of the pro-fighting argument as measured by their analog in the box scores.

By using this method, we can see whether fighting (independent variable) has a marginal impact on other facets of the game, and how great that impact is.

To gauge whether an impact is present, the correlation coefficient of the two variables will be given. Measured on a scale from negative one to positive one, the correlation coefficient measures the marginal impact of the independent variable on the dependant variable.

A negative correlation coefficient implies an inverse correlation (for example, the coefficient of "miles ran daily" and "body fat index" would be negative), a positive coefficient indicates a positive linear correlation (the correlation between "money" and "problems" would more than likely be positive), and a coefficient of zero indicates no linear correlation.

As stated above, the pro-fighting argument can be broken down into three basic points:

(1) Fights will reduce the number of hard hits and penalties to teammates as opposing teams realize such practices will not be tolerated.

(2) The reduced hits will allow a team to score more goals, as the reduced penalties and checking will increase ice-time for goal-scorers.

(3) The increased goal-scoring will increase a team's chances of winning games and making the playoffs.

Seeing the argument broken down, we can see that points one, two, and three DO have counterparts available in the box scores: penalty minutes against (PIMA) can measure the reduction of vicious hits and penalties on players (this is not a perfect analogy, but it stands to reason that a reduction in hard-play would reduce the amount of penalties).

Goals per game can measure the increased goal-scoring gotten from having players on the ice longer due to reduced hitting, and overall team points will measure how good a team was at winning games. 

However, before we go on, it should be noted that because fighting results in a five-minute penalty for both sides (it takes two to tango, remember) a team's standard PIMA will not be used, as a team that sees more fights will naturally have more PIMA.

Rather, "fight-neutral penalty minutes against" (FNPIMA) will be used, which is the same as PIMA only with the penalty minutes resulting from fights removed.

If the pro-fighting argument is a sound one, we should see a negative correlation coefficient between fighting and FNPIMA (more fighting should reduce the amount of non-fighting penalties against the team) and positive correlation coefficients between fighting and both goals per game (GpG) and overall points (PTS). Here are the results:

Statistic          Correlation Coefficient

FNPIMA                   .1245

GpG                      -.2037

PTS                      -.2095

The results are not what was to be expected by the pro-fighting camp. Instead of fighting resulting in fewer penalties, the correlation coefficient indicates that teams that fought a lot tended to see more non-fighting penalties. This makes sense in terms of what causes a team to fight, but does little to show that fighting reduced the amount of penalties against the teams in this study.

Also, it is shown that both goals per game and overall points had an inverse relationship with fighting: teams that were eager to drop the gloves scored fewer goals per game and were generally worse-off in the standings.

It should be noted, though, that these correlation coefficients are very small, likely the result of looking for the impact of one variable on another in a dynamic game such as hockey, where many variables are in-play all at once. 

Furthermore, the resultant coefficients of determination (R-squared) were incredibly small, indicating that while these variables correlated to a certain degree, they did not necessarily cause one another to the degree that either side of the fighting discussion would enjoy.

For example, it does not necessarily follow that a team in want of more power-play chances should go out and start fighting any chance they got, which is the course of action that would be dictated by the correlation coefficients, were they to be taken too literally.

Finally, the data-set for this study was extremely small, as only a short amount of time was looked at in collecting the numbers. For more concrete results, a study spanning many seasons would be needed, something that is not easily accomplished by this author.

Those things being said, the results of the study still tell us some important things: over the time scrutinized, not only was there little-to-no positive correlation between fighting and value-added, but teams that fought more tended to score fewer goals and be worse-off in the standings, two things teams in the NHL can ill-afford to have happen to them.

So then, should the Blackhawks start firing back at their opponents with jabs and hooks? The numbers say no.

 

-Jonathan Platek

It hit me at one point in the offseason that of the 30 teams in the game of baseball, there are a few teams that currently “get it” when it comes to running an organization, both short-term and long-term.

There are a few teams that get it and then there is the Boston Red Sox.

Few teams are on Boston’s playing field when it comes to spending money. That is a reality of the game we play in and for the foreseeable future, it will be the reality.

Yet the Red Sox do something that few other teams in their position do and quite frankly, I’m shocked that another team hasn’t tried to copy their blueprint.

This team spends money on free agents like John Lackey, but they put a lot of their financial backing into the players they draft as well. Like the free agent market, the better talent can be had for the higher price.

Now Washington would have been downright stupid to pass on Stephen Strasburg this past year, but other players get by. In addition, talented High School players don’t even get drafted in the first few rounds. Tim Lincecum was drafted way back in the 40’s before he attended college, but he failed to sign with Cleveland.

With a scholarship waiting for them at pretty much any program they decide, some prospects drafted out of high school can entertain the team that drafted them as they please. It may be risky, but Boston is one of those teams with the money to gamble.

Take a look at some of the draft picks of Boston’s past few years, the round they were drafted and the bonus they received. Players marked with an asterisk were drafted out of high school.

Notice anything off balance about the signing bonuses of those high school players compared to some of the ones coming out of college? How about the round they were drafted in?

Prime example is in 2008 when Bryan Price was drafted in the first round as a supplemental pick and signed to a bonus just shy of $850,000. Yet in the fourth round, Pete Hissey, a High School player, gets a million dollar bonus despite being drafted three rounds later.

Lars Anderson got $50,000 more for being drafted 17 rounds later than Caleb Clay.

Another thing to take note is the amount of first round picks this team seems to have accumulated.

 

First Round Picks

2005: 6 – 1 Lost, 3 Sup

2006: 4 – 2 Sup

2007: 3 – 2 Sup

2008: 2 – 1 Sup

2009: 1

While the days of five first round picks are over, Boston continues to nab supplemental picks on a yearly basis. They’ve created a system and so far, so good.

They’ll spend a lot of their funds on the draft, on high-potential players. Those players are developed and eventually turn out to be the Dustin Pedroias that make up half their team or the pieces used to get the Josh Becketts of the other half.

Jason Bay leaves and they’ll no doubt get more chips to play with from his departure. While they didn’t break the prospect bank to get him, they did send off three pieces (all college players, remarkably) to Cleveland for Victor Martinez.

Now Boston can go one of two ways, neither really are negative routes either. They could let Martinez walk, such as Bay did, and get compensated with more first round ammunition, where you know they won’t be afraid to spend money on high-end talent that falls to them.

Or they could simply re-sign Martinez.

Now mark my words the same situation is going to go down with Adrian Gonzalez. It’s only a matter of time before the Red Sox make a push to get the Padres’ first baseman. You cannot argue that Boston has one of the deepest organizations in the entire game, if not thee deepest, so it wouldn’t be a tough task.

They’ve got a system and it’s working very well. Some teams have the cash, but they spend a vast majority of it on free agents and the major league product. Some teams put a large portion of their budget into their minor league development system.

Boston has cleverly backed both of those areas financially and so far, it’s working.

 

Change is a good thing, or is it?

There’s been a lot of talk about realignment possibilities taking place within the game. With Bud Selig angling to make one more big change before he rides off into the sunset, let me tell you why I can’t see anything of this magnitude occurring.

Let me start with, what I believe to be the original source of this “realignment” movement.

ESPN put out a series of articles that they said would present topics readers would need to know from contributors with a “vast knowledge of the game.”

David Schoenfield’s part of “Hot Stove U” tackled this realignment issue after he made the case that the MLB’s competitive balance was actually on par with the NFL’s.

Let me just say that I don’t think you can argue against Schoenfield’s proof, the MLB definitely had more different teams win the World Series this past decade than the NFL. However that doesn’t mean the system they’ve set up is set up to achieve competitive balance.

I also think in both instances, both leagues just have had poorly run franchises and very well run franchises. Pittsburgh, New England, Indianapolis, Philadelphia have all done well in the NFL and like I explained earlier, Boston seems to have exemplified how to run an MLB franchise.

The NFL has head-shakers like Detroit, Cleveland, and Arizona before they turned it around, while the MLB has Kansas City, Washington, and Pittsburgh. The point is, you need good ownership, first and foremost, if you want to contend in either league. Without good ownership, you don’t get savvy baseball or football people running the show.

I hate to get into a tangent and compare the NFL to the MLB like Schoenfield did, so let me stick to what I originally brought this issue up for. What Schoenfield did realize is that baseball isn’t fair to everyone, so in order to keep what he deems is the “competitive balance” in the game and also establish fairness, he proposed realignment.

Schoenfield proposed that we change the divisions, not just once, but every single year and the 14-man committee that Bud Selig put together, has floated something similar, “floating realignment.”

I will preface this little rant with the following statement: I’m using mainly logic here. I have no hard evidence or statistics or reasoning. In fact, most of this is based off a twisted sense of logic and emotion.

Being a fan of the Cleveland Indians, I think I’m qualified enough to say that while the proposal would aim to benefit teams like Cleveland, it would undoubtedly take all the spirit out of baseball for a fan like myself.

I don’t want to see my team moved to the AL East after a season just because we’ve “declared rebuilding” for the 2010 season. As a wise accountant once told his boss, “You can’t just say the word bankruptcy and expect anything to happen.”

What if this team plays above expectations in this certain season and it turns out that they could have won the AL Central if they stuck around.

Don’t go moving teams year by year based off financial situation. There is way too much chaos and unhappiness involved in such an idea.

I understand, that this is strictly a concept with a lot of working details and that perhaps the Indians would have a choice to leave the AL Central for a year if they so chose, but can they choose to go back or would that be up to the team that replaced them? How is it fair to a team like Tampa Bay to have to move based on what a team with a lower-payroll wants to do?

How is it fair that we foster the Yankees’ spending habits by telling them they’ve got the AL East all to themselves and Boston each season? It’s basically admitting defeat and saying, “Okay New York, you guys want to dominate the AL East? Go ahead and do it, we’ll let teams get in another way. While you and Boston beat up on the season’s designated punching bag.”

Why essentially hand over playoff spots to these two teams every year as long as they field a payroll that reaches $100 million? Is it really out of the realm of possibilities that Tampa Bay topples Boston or New York for a wild card spot this year?

Logically to me, this doesn’t make much sense. Maybe I don’t know all of the details and perhaps there are a lot more things that need to be addressed or have been addressed in this concept that I don’t know about.

But to me, that is the exact reason that this idea could be way too much for baseball to handle. There are so many rules and guidelines that casual fans would get confused. Why is their team moving to this division, why are they moving back a year later?

Why why why why why why!? That’s annoying to read, just imagine how annoying it would be to hear.

It’s at least encouraging that this committee, which Indians General Manager and Vice President Mark Shapiro is a part of, is at least exploring ideas. But count me in the group that is against this one. I hope Shapiro realizes this isn’t progress for a team like Cleveland.

And another thing, one of the main draws for a team like Cleveland in moving to the AL East would be the extra revenue they would receive in having more home games against bigger draws like Boston and New York.

Save your own pity money, I want none of it. Cleveland doesn’t need the Red Sox and Yankees to come in and draw a crowd; they just need to win ballgames. And how much more extra money is a team like Cleveland going to make by having a few more home games against those teams anyway? Not enough to compete with them in payroll, so again, save your pity money.

I don’t pretend to have the answers, so I guess I’m bashing without a logical solution to the problem I’m bashing, but there are flaws in this method and many more that I haven’t even listed.

Matt Poloni, on this site just a week ago, wrote an excellent piece against this proposal.

His article didn’t get nearly enough exposure it should have. But Matt did a great job of poking many holes in the proposal and it raised many more questions that I didn’t.

Take it from a guy who roots for one of the teams that this is largely aiming to help.

It isn’t good for baseball and I highly doubt it will help as much as Selig and his committee would hope it would.

 

"2010 MLB Manifesto" is a part of a month-long series of articles that are previewing the 2010 MLB season. For the other parts of "2010 MLB Manifesto," other features, and a schedule, click here .

After spending the last 2 days ripping up carpet and refinishing hardwood floors, it’s time to fire up some brain activity as my body can’t take much more. As the terms “tack cloth”, “80 grit” and “polyurethane” leave my brain slowly over the day, let’s get going on a Lazy Sunday with Spring Training still in its infancy and on a topic more compelling than what one week of Spring Training games can offer.
And with that, we’re off…

Just to present a quick synopsis of the items of importance from Goodyear, the Indians are undefeated and Asdrubal’s out for a week with a g-g-groin injury while Kerry Wood fights off his usual Spring soreness. If you need to play catch-up or need some insight as to what’s happening at camp, Terry Pluto (as usual) hits on the high points, writing that the back-end of the rotation “battle” is progressing precisely as expected (here, at least) and Rusty Branyan’s balky back could open the door for the assumed alignment of Brantley-LF/LaPorta-1B that seemed so likely way back when.

With those pleasantries out of the way, let’s launch headlong into today’s topic, starting with a great piece from Joel Hammond of Crain’s Cleveland Business, with a hat tip to Vince Grzegorek at “’64 and Counting” in a piece that passes along word that the prospects for selling out even Opening Day are tenuous...yikes. Back to Crains and the matter at hand, Hammond’s article examines how the three major sports teams in Cleveland are adapting to the economy as well as to what their expectations are for the future of their attendance.

While the Cavaliers and Browns have clearer futures (for differing reasons), the current Indians do not fall into the category of “Cleveland’s Mistress” the way that the current Cavs do or “Cleveland’s Spouse”, the way that the Browns always have. The Indians, by virtue of the success of the Cavs and the perpetual support of the Browns, find themselves in a precarious position as they enter their second rebuild/reload/whatever in the past decade and their ticket sales reflect that:
“The Indians have adjusted downward their sales goals for this year after a 65-win season in which attendance fell 17.6% from 2008.

“They’re most vulnerable because of their ticket price point,” said Cleveland State economist Ned Hill. “The Cavs and Browns draw the more serious fan, while the Indians draw more pure entertainment dollars. That entertainment dollar goes to movies, dinner, the bingo table and now gambling.”

The Indians, though, are undeterred, citing improvement in attendance when they’ve won: In 2005, when the Indians won 93 games and fell just short of a playoff berth, attendance jumped 11% from the year before; in 2007, when the Indians were one win away from the World Series, 14% more fans bought tickets than in 2006. That’s nothing like the 455 straight sellouts of the mid-1990s, but it’s nothing at which to sneeze, either.

The whole piece is worth a read, even if I’m regrettably not linking until nearly a month after it was written, as it puts some hard data on Northeast Ohio’s ability to support sports teams, but I’ll get to that a little later.

First off, let’s use Hammond’s piece, and specifically the part that the Indians “are undeterred, citing improvement in attendance when they’ve won” as a jumping off point to introduce a bit of heavy analysis done by Sky Andrechek of Baseball Analysts, who did a comprehensive study examining “What Puts Fan The Seats”.

For the study, Andrechek used data from as far back as the 1950s to analyze attendance for each team and how attendance was affected by winning percentage, previous year’s performance, playoff berths, new stadiums, and expansion teams. Since the new stadium and expansion team aspects haven’t applied for quite some time, let’s start off with Andrechek’s analysis on the effect of winning percentage on a team’s attendance:
The average .500, non-playoff team that does not have a new park or any other advantages draws about 24,500 fans. Every extra game won adds about 300 fans per game. Of course, the relationship is not linear, but that’s an approximate estimate. All else being equal, a .400 team will draw about 20,100 fans, while a .600 team will draw 29,900 - difference of about 10,000 fans per game. Obviously, winning teams draw more fans and the effect is quite large.

Starting from there, let’s see if these numbers have held up over the last 7 seasons in Cleveland, beginning with the first full season after the Colon deal:
2003 Attendance – 21,358 (24th in MLB) - .420 Winning Percentage
2004 Attendance – 22,400 (25th in MLB) - .494 Winning Percentage
2005 Attendance – 24,861 (24th in MLB) - .574 Winning Percentage
2006 Attendance – 24,666 (25th in MLB) - .481 Winning Percentage
2007 Attendance – 28,448 (21st in MLB) - .593 Winning Percentage
2008 Attendance – 27,192 (22nd in MLB) - .500 Winning Percentage
2009 Attendance – 22,492 (25th in MLB) - .401 Winning Percentage
If Andrechek asserts that “a .400 team will draw about 20,100 fans, while a .600 team will draw 29,900”, he’s not far away from where the Indians’ attendance finished in 2007 (28,448 with a .593 winning percentage) and in 2003 (21,358 with a .420 winning percentage) or 2009 (22,492 with a .401 winning percentage). Using those numbers, the lows don’t go quite as low as Andrechek’s findings suggest they should have in 2003 or 2009 (though we’ll see about 2010) when the team is losing nor as high as they “should have” when the team was winning, most notably in 2007.

The attendance generally fell in line with what the study found based on the criteria of winning percentage, with the outlier happening in 2008. In that year, the team that finished the season at .500 outdrew Andrechek’s assertion that “the average .500, non-playoff team that does not have a new park or any other advantages draws about 24,500 fans” as an average of 27,192 people attended the 2008 games.

The reason for that is one that Andrechek addresses in two parts, one having to do with the attendance following a season in which the team won at a .600 winning percentage and following a season in which the team made the playoffs. Starting off with the “previous year winning percentage” (WPCT) portion, Andrechek writes:
As you might expect, the team WPCT from the year before also has a very large effect. This effect is not as large, but a .500 team who was a .400 team the year before draws 22,700, while a .500 team who was a .600 team the year before draws 26,400. This “year before” effect makes sense. At the beginning of the season, fans don’t really have an idea if their team will be good, so it makes sense that they use last year's performance as a guide. The previous season’s success draws fans back to the park, even if that success isn’t repeated the following year.

Putting this back in the context of the Indians’ attendance in the 2000s, the 2004 team finished with a .494 winning percentage after the 2003 team finished with a .420 winning percentage and drew an average of 22,400 people, a mere 300 per game less than Andrechek’s findings predict. The 2008 season (winning percentage of .500) on the heels of the 2007 season (winning percentage of .593) saw an average of 27,192, above the 26,400 that the study predicts in terms of expected attendance.

The reason for that bump (and not the one in other years) is obvious as Andrechek examines the impact that making the playoffs the previous year has on attendance. He states that “making the playoffs the year before raises a .500 team's attendance by about 3,000 fans per game - a major boost.” Thus, if the attendance for the 2008 season (.500 winning percentage) was 27,192 and the study asserts that a .500 team generally draws 24,500 people, the numbers are right about spot-on.

What’s surprising to me is that the Indians did not get a perceivable leap in attendance after the 2005 and 2007 seasons on the surface, or at least the bump that may have been in their expectation. However, the numbers for each season actually fall right in line with what the expectations for attendance should be based on their performance and accomplishments on the field from Andrechek’s study.

Obviously, the club would like to see the attendance jump higher than what the findings of Andrechek findings assert they should do, but the attendance numbers over the past seven years might ultimately be what the Indians are looking at in terms of expected attendance.

It’s been pointed out that the lack of consistency in winning is a major factor as the Indians were never able to build on their success from one season to the next. To that end, the one issue that the Indians have unquestionably been sabotaged was their slow starts. However, it is worth mentioning that the average home attendance in 2008 (just after the ALCS appearance) was 25,240 (58% capacity filled at Progressive Field) from the Home Opener until the beginning of June in their first 32 home games, meaning that the crowds were not showing up en masse because of the ALCS appearance and prior to the trade of CC or while the bottom dropped out.

As a quick aside here (and to debunk the notion that “activity” in an off-season generates more fan interest), the average home attendance in 2009 – the season after the Indians signed Kerry Wood to the 10th largest contract, per annual salary, in the off-season) – was 22,453 (52% capacity filled at Progressive Field) from Opening Day to the end of May in their first 25 home games.

But I digress…the most surprising aspect of applying these numbers to the performance and attendance of the Indians over the past 7 years is that Andrechek’s findings look to be consistent with the amount of people going through the turnstiles at the corner of Carnegie and Ontario…and yet, the highest the Indians ranked in MLB in that 7-year stretch is 21st in MLB in 2007 instead of closer to the middle of the pack.

For a possible explanation on that, we go back to the excellent article from Joel Hammond in Crain’s, in as much that the Northeast Ohio area may be incapable of supporting three teams in the major sports. Obviously, the conclusions of the study that Hammond cites shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone with a good sense of the dwindling population in Northeast Ohio as “the TPI (Total Personal Income) needed to support the city's three sports teams at $160.4 billion — baseball at $86.7 billion, football at $37.6 billion and basketball at $36.4 billion annually — for a huge disparity” due to the fact that Cleveland’s TPI is “only” $83.2 billion.

Why is this all relevant now?
As most of us have now received the letter to tell us to anticipate another letter with our Census information (the US government…like a finely-tuned machine), let’s just examine the Census data for the city of Cleveland for the last 50 years:
1960 Census – 876,050 people (8th largest city in US)
1970 Census – 750,903 people (10th largest city in US)
1980 Census – 573,822 people (18th largest city in US)
1990 Census – 505,616 people (23rd largest city in US)
2000 Census – 478,403 people (33rd largest city in US)
2010 Census Estimate – 433,748 people (41st largest city in US)

I know that those numbers simply relate the population of the city of Cleveland proper and that the Combined Statistical Area of Cleveland-Akron-Lorain still ranks as the 15th largest in the US, but that doesn’t hide the fact that the area is shrinking and the obvious effect on the Indians is that there have to be MAJOR concerns about the Indians’ ability to draw in 2010, much less into the future.

How much of a concern is it?
That brings us to the reason that this whole attendance examination becomes interesting as the recent article from Tom Verducci introduced the idea of “floating” re-alignment. If you’re confused by the term, “floating” re-alignment would mean that “teams would not be fixed to a division, but free to change divisions from year-to-year based on geography, payroll and their plans to contend or not.”

If you parse through the whole concept, the idea ostensibly boils down to just showcasing the big-market teams to increase attendance (and revenue) for non-divisional teams that generally wouldn’t play them very often because of the unbalanced schedule instead of attempting to legitimately level the playing field.

Yeah…pick your chin up off the floor as here’s how Verducci presented the idea in concrete terms:
One example of floating realignment, according to one insider, would work this way: Cleveland, which is rebuilding with a reduced payroll, could opt to leave the AL Central to play in the AL East. The Indians would benefit from an unbalanced schedule that would give them a total of 18 lucrative home dates against the Yankees and Red Sox instead of their current eight.

Really…this is the solution that MLB is proposing for narrowing the gap in competitive balance to find, as Verducci writes “a work-around to the Boston-New York axis of power in the AL East” because “in the 15 seasons during which the wild-card system has been in use, the Red Sox and Yankees have accounted for 38 percent of all AL postseason berths.”

Forget just going back to a balanced schedule…this concept gained “strong support” among committee members?
Lest you were wondering who voiced that “strong support”, here’s the list of the 14 committee members:
Tony La Russa - St. Louis Cardinals
Jim Leyland - Detroit Tigers
Mike Scioscia - Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Joe Torre - Los Angeles Dodgers
Andy MacPhail - Baltimore Orioles
Terry Ryan - Minnesota Twins
John Schuerholz - Atlanta Braves
Mark Shapiro - Cleveland Indians
Chuck Armstrong - Seattle Mariners
Paul Beeston - Toronto Blue Jays
Bill DeWitt - St. Louis Cardinals
Dave Montgomery - Philadelphia Phillies
Frank Robinson
George Will

And maybe now we start to come full circle on this as the committee proposing this (with “strong support” includes the man who will be stepping up from his GM post to a more business-related position in an attempt to maximize revenue after this year.

Do you not think that Shapiro knows that the Indians averaged 30,065 “fans” at the 4 Yankees games in 2009 and 21,514 at the other 77 games?

If this is the “solution”, what does that tell you in terms of expectations for ever seeing a more level playing field?

Ultimately, it means that nothing within the structure of MLB is going to change anytime soon and these small-to-mid-market teams are attempting to maximize revenue and to capitalize at their gates when they go through the down cycles of their circular tear down/rebuild existences. These “cycles” are the new reality of MLB and, if a team like Cleveland is not going to generate revenue in those down cycles through their gate (nor should they if they aren’t winning), then you start to see the rationale behind this, as flawed as it may be in that it doesn’t solve anything and only exacerbates the competitive balance issue at hand.

Consider what Shapiro told Tyler Kepner in a piece for the New York Times:
“What we try to do is to aggressively manage the cycles,” Shapiro said. “Take that as the underlying premise, that cycles, as our market has evolved, are a given. It’s not New York, it’s not Boston; there aren’t the resources to artificially go through the cycles. We’re going to have them. What you’re trying to avoid is what’s occurred in similar markets, where you go into the down cycle and you’re unable to get out.”

Kepner then continues on his own regarding the “down cycles” in “similar markets” when he points out the struggles of other small-market teams:
The Pittsburgh Pirates have had 17 consecutive losing seasons, a major league record. The Baltimore Orioles have had 12, the Cincinnati Reds 9, the Royals 6.

As a quick aside here, anyone else notice that those four once-proud franchises captured 7 of the 16 World Series flags from 1970 to 1985 and have won one (CIN in 1990) World Series since then?

Even if the Indians’ attendance per game is going to fluctuate between 20,000 and 30,000, depending largely on the success of the team, that may be where the Indians are going to sit for the foreseeable future. Where does this leave us for expectations for the 2010 attendance?

Not good…and obviously a fast start would help to generate some interest (you hear that Manny?), though it is likely that the length of the NBA playoffs (and the assumed participation of the Cavs in said playoffs) would affect attendance and interest until the end of the Cavaliers season.

So, a fast start is probably going to have to continue until June or so to legitimately generate enough interest in this team out outpace last year’s average attendance of 22,492 people. While PECOTA has now amended their projections for the 2010 season and now project the Indians to finish 84-78, with the Indians’ offense projected to score the 5th most runs in the AL while allowing the 10th most runs in the AL, one would have to hope that a majority of those wins are going to come in April, May, and June – if only to generate interest in a team that isn’t generating much local interest just three weeks away from Spring Training.

Maybe the Indians surprise some people and finish around where PECOTA has them pegged for, not unlike the 2004 season (remember that we’re still attempting to compare the two seasons). It should be noted that the average game attendance for a .500 team in the 2004 was 22,400 people…or a little less than 100 fewer people per game than what the Indians drew last year.

It could be a long summer down at the corner of Carnegie and Ontario and the longer it gets, the lonelier it might become.

Let's review the Hall of Fame Probability calculator from our previous post. The calculator, used by Basketball-Reference.com, attempts to determine the probability of a given NBA player making the Naismith Hall of Fame given the player's statistics and accomplishments. I've always been interested in extending this calculator to the WNBA, and now I've finally been able to do it. pilight provided the MVP shares data and made some suggestions that I've incorporated into the final product. Of course, the WNBA and the NBA are not the same. Extending WNBA data to an NBA metric required overcoming some problems. As we go through the metric, we'll explain the glitches and the resolutions to those problems. Another problem - not really a problem, if you think about it - is that Hall of Fame selection for basketball depends upon factors other than one's pro career, regardless if one examines Naismith HOF or Women's Basketball HOF criteria. Contributions in college ball and the international career of a player can be considered whereas the HOF probability calculator ignores each of those. In the end, the number yielded by the HOF probability calculator is the probability that a player would make the (in our case) a hypothetical women's pro basketball HOF solely based on her professional career statistics. In real life, a player could have a probability significantly less than 100 percent but might be assured HOF selection given a strong college career or a coaching career - the HOF considers all contributions made by a player to the sport. With that in mind, let's look at each of the factors in the linear metric used by Basketball-Reference.com and check them for relevance. Player statistics: Player statistics are probably the most important part of any metric to determine player greatness - how good could a player be if her greatness doesn't show up in a box score? There must be dozens of metrics out there to evaluate player greatness; which one should be used? The answer is the "tried and true" metric of points per game/rebounds per game/assists per game, usually represented by numbers separated by slashes - 17.2/10.1/1.8. Any one who has worked with basketball metrics knows that numbers such as points per game can be misleading - point production depends on offensive pace. Your average player will have more points per game playing for the 2009 Phoenix Mercury than for the 2009 Indiana Fever. Statistics must be weighed by circumstances. Unfortunately, the average person doesn't weigh by circumstances. Bill James said that in the end a player's statistics are all that she has. Take say, Katie Smith. Everyone who has seen her knows that Smith's good. Smith, however, is getting long in the tooth and will probably retire in a couple of years, and all that women's basketball fans will have are memories of great games she played - and of course, her stats. However, people die. The cohort of fans that saw Katie Smith in a WNBA game will begin to progressively shrink after she retires, and in several decades will dwindle to the point where no one living has actually seen her play. (See: Cobb, Ty.) All we'll have are a few tantalizing film clips, and the bulk of the visual record will remain unviewed. As time passes, Smith's stat line - the only thing that will not change about her - will gain greater and greater prominence. The problem is that out of the statline, the only stats most people will care about are PPG/RPG/APG, deprived of context. What I admire about the HOF probability calculator is that it weights on the things that most fans consider to be important and not on the things statisticians consider to be important. Do we have to adjust these stats to make the metric work? Yes. The metric depends on a 48 minute game; the WNBA has always played for only 40 minutes. Stats have to be ballooned to 48 minutes by multiplying by 6/5. There is another problem in that the WNBA has not always used a 24 second clock - this problem is handled in another part of the metric. A final problem is that due to a set of indeterminate factors, assists are not as common in the WNBA as they are in the NBA. That part of the metric, sadly, can't be fixed and those players like Lindsay Whalen who can deal the dimes get shortchanged. Most Valuable Player Shares: We've already written about MVP Shares. A review of the idea: one looks at Most Valuable Player voting for any given year. The top voter getter in any year - the MVP - is given a full MVP share of "one (1)" for the year, and the runners up are given a fraction of a share based on how close they came to the player who was chosen MVP. A player's MVP shares are added across her career. This part of the metric determines what the working press thought of the player's career. Part of what makes a player a member of the Hall of Fame is good press. Players that made an impression on a city's beat reporters and HOF balloters get credit in the metric. All-Star Selections: The metric also positively weights players who for one reason or another were fan favorites. Creators of Hall of Fame metrics - of any sport - disdain All-Star selections, not wanting to turn their respective Halls of Fame into popularity contests. This doesn't make much sense, since in a manner of speaking being a member of the Hall of Fame is exactly like winning a popularity contest - the only difference is in the reasons given for being chosen Prom Queen, so to speak. A better way to put it is that fans of the sport fear that the Hall of Fame will be open to charismatic (but mediocre) players. Seeing as how the Naismith HOF has few women - players or otherwise - in their HOF and that the Women's Basketball HOF is just getting started, this isn't much of a concern...[i]yet[/i]. Filling a Hall of Fame is always difficult. You don't want to be like the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame where gaining membership is rather difficult, but you don't want to open the floodgates either where fans begin to talk about "weak Hall of Famers". You want the balance to be "just right". On the other hand, you have to give the fans credit for something. Most of the fans selections are spot on, but there are a few perpetual Hall of Famers, particularly in women's basketball where the players aren't well known and a visitor might cast an All-Star ballot for the few names he or she recognizes. However, players like that had to be doing something right to begin with to become so well-known. There are two problems in counting All-Star Game selections. The first is that the WNBA had one year - 2008 - where it held no All-Star Game. Another problem is that the WNBA has only been holding All-Star games since 1999 but the league has been around since 1997. pilight suggested that players who won medals in the Olympic Games should be given credit for an All-Star selection. I agreed, provided that the medal earned was bracketed by ABL/WNBA years on either side of their Olympic appearance. Lauren Jackson gets some honorary All-Star selections (but nothing earned before 2001). Beijing Becky Hammon gets an honorary All-Star selection for playing with the Russians. Technically, this method could be extended to the 1998 FIBA games to create some pseudo-All Stars. However, I don't have the data that I need. Besides, the ABL players had All-Star games before 1999; let's give those players an advantage for once. Height: Height is the only part of the metric with a negative coefficient - the taller you are, the more credit the metric takes away. It isn't because tall players aren't any good. The reason is that if you have player who is 5-foot-6 and a player who is 6-foot-6 and their stats are exactly alike, you assume that the smaller player is better because she did more with less. The problem is that WNBA are (obviously) not as tall as NBA players. I've thought about the height problem a lot. I found somewhere on line where it stated that female height is distributed the same way as male height - the probability that some female is 20 percent less than a female of average height is exactly the same as the probability that some male is 20 percent less than a male of average height. The only difference in both problems? The average heights. My conclusion was that the average ABL/WNBA player was 6'1" and the average NBA player was 6'7". I therefore granted each WNBA player an increase of six inches in height so that the NBA metric would work. pilight states that the difference in average heights is closer to seven inches that it is to six but I'm keeping the six inch difference for now. Last year played: After the 2005 season, the WNBA made two changes to the game - they abandoned the halves system in favor of quarters, and they dumped the 30-second college clock for the 24-second pro clock. The transition from 2005 to 2006 provides a useful benchmark between the two styles of play. Furthermore, if a player's pro career ended before 2005, there's a good chance that she got cheated out of some of her productive years. If she retired at age 35 in 2005, she was born in 1970 and by the time pro ball started again in the US she was 26 or 27. Therefore, if a player's career ended in 2005 or before, the player was granted a bonus in the metric. If your last year of play is 2005 or earlier, you get the bonus. If the year is later, you don't get the bonus. It's strictly an either-or proposition. If the league is still around in 2020, I might move the "switch" to give a bonus to any player whose career ended in 2009 or earlier - but for now, we stick with 2005. Rings: It's the old argument: "yeah, Chamique Holdsclaw is a great player, but how many rings does she have?" The idea is a simple one: great players win championships. They excel in the post-season, they elevate their teams, whatever you want to call it. How can one be a Hall of Famer without the hardware to prove it? It's simple - players get extra weight in the metric for championship rings, even if they were just the water-carriers on championship teams. (Ask Bill James about all the New York Giants players from the 1920s that ended up in the Hall of Fame.) Out of the 11 players who got a perfect score in the metric, only three of those players don't have a ring - and for two of those players, their career ended before the start of the 2006 season. Houston Comets fans will rejoice; New York Liberty fans not so much. The hard part is determining who got a ring - who was on the roster at the end of the season - and who wasn't. I did the best I could with that. (* * *) Now, we take all of these numbers, throw them into a blender, and have them spell "mother". The final number yielded is a number between 0 and 100. This number represents the probability that the player could get in a hypothetical Hall of Fame based solely on their professional career. Let's walk through the case of Player X. (Maybe you can even guess who Player X is.) Ms. X played 216 games, all in the WNBA so we don't have to worry about ABL rings or MVP shares. Her averages per game were 13.4 points per game, 4.5 rebounds per game and 1.2 assists per game. (I've rounded the exact numbers, and exact numbers are used in the calcuation.) Multiplying each of these by 6/5 gives us 16.1 PPG, 5.4 RPG and 1.4 APG - these are what her numbers would be if she was an NBA player. What about MVP shares? She got 303 votes for MVP in 1998, but Cynthia Cooper got 426, so that's 303/426 = 0.71 shares. Add another 0.01 share for the three MVP votes she received in 1999. She never got any other votes, so she has a total of 0.72 MVP shares. All-Star Games? Only one. She was tagged in 1999 but was never called an All-Star again. Her listed height was 6'3", or 75 inches. We add six inches to that to make her an NBA player, giving her 81 on our inches metric. Was her last season before 2005? Her last season was in 2003, so she gets the "2005 and before bonus" which is equal to one (1). Any championship rings? Not a one. She gets a "zero" in the rings department. Now let's add everything: The sum is used as an exponent in the formua e^x/(1+e^x). We calculate e^0.203/(1+e^0.203) and get 0.551, which is a probability of 55 percent. In other words, given this player's professional career, the chances that that player would end up in the HOF based solely on her pro years is 55 percent. There are ten players on the list of perfect scores - each player got 100 percent in the metric, rounding up. One of these players is already in the Women's Basketball Hall of Fame. Barring insanity in Knoxville, Tennessee, the other nine soon will be. In alphabetical order, those players are: Tamika Catchings: She's the only player in the Perfect Ten who doesn't have a ring and is still playing. She got very close in 2009, though. Clearly one of the great-uns. A freshman on the undefeated 1998 Tennessee NCAA Championship team. Also a member of the All-Decade Team. Cynthia Cooper: Coooooop. Four rings. What's so amazing about Cooper is that she lost a great hunk of her pro career and ended up with four rings in spite of it all. She's the only member of the Perfect Ten that's already in the Hall of Fame. All-Decade Team member. Yolanda Griffith: Those Sacramento Monarchs fans out there will Stand Up and Testify. She didn't have a college career at a Big Name University, but Griffith won an MVP award in WNBA and two Olympic gold medals Someday, Yo will be in Knoxville. Yo is also an All-Decade Team member. Lauren Jackson: The Aussie. Every year, fans in Seattle hold their breath in hopes that LJ will return. Even if she moves to the Outback and never touches American soil again - she's done enough. She's won a lot of silver for the Australian team and she is also an All-Decade Team member. Lisa Leslie: If she were Leroy Leslie, she would have averaged a double-double in the NBA. Some say she's a primadonna, but she sure belted out beautiful arias in the WNBA. A good argument could be made that Leslie is the Best Player Ever. All-Decade team member. Katie Smith: I think of her as the Lou Gehrig of the WNBA. The Iron Woman. Rings in two different pro leagues. The most games played out of the Elite Eleven. All-Decade team member. Sheryl Swoopes: If you say Coop, you must say Swoop(es). Game Texas Tech an NCAA championship in 1993. First women's basketball player to have a shoe named after her. She kept playing for as long as she could, and she still wants to play. We might not have seen the last of Swoopes. All-Decade team member. Diana Taurasi: For those who argue that Leslie is the best ever, there are voices from Phoenix saying "Dee ain't finished yet." The youngest player on the list. Led Connecticut to three straight NCAA championships. When she steps on the floor, fans say "that's the best player here" even if they know nothing about women's basketball - or, for that matter, basketball. All-Decade team honorable mention. Tina Thompson: When the sun goes cold and the earth is a lifeless rock floating freely in space, Katie Smith and Tina Thompson will still be playing one-on-one with the last basketball in existence. Second to Lisa Leslie in all-time points scored. All-Decade team member. Natalie Williams: I never knew how good Natalie Williams was. It sounds like I missed a lot. First woman to be named an All-American in basketball and volleyball. Great internatioal player. All around great athlete. ABL superstar.   All of the above received 100 percent on the Hall of Fame probability calculator. All of these women could get into a Hall of Fame based on their American pro career alone. But with names like this, you don't need a calculator to tell you they're great. Coming next: those players who fell short of 100 percent. Like, for example, that nameless player who got 99 percent. But she made it in anyway.

• Ramona Shelburne of ESPNLosAngeles.com: "I've seen a lot of press releases in my career. What the Clippers sent late Tuesday afternoon -- a sharp-tongued, 230-word document titled 'CLIPPERS, DUNLEAVY SEVER TIES' -- was not a press release. It was a mission statement and something of an apology to season-ticket holders who paid good money to watch one of the most frustrating teams in the NBA the past couple of seasons. Trust me, team president Andy Roeser saw each of those 'Fire Dunleavy' signs floating around Staples Center as the team won 19 games last season and stumbled through this one. Although the powers that be had good intentions, allowing Mike Dunleavy to step down as coach and keep his job as general manager on Feb. 4 wasn't enough of a bloodletting. When a fan base is as frustrated as Clipper Nation has become, someone's head has to roll. ... Generally, even in the worst professional breakup, people pretend to like each other. They use phrases like 'go in a different direction' and 'We thank Coach So-and-so for his efforts and commitment to the franchise.' In this case, the Clippers wanted it known that this was not a clean break."
• Bill Plaschke of the Los Angeles Times: "Control of the Clippers is now there for the taking. An organization with the most underutilized potential in all of sports is now open for shaping. The office is empty for the strongest of general managers. The bench is available for the best of head coaches. The building is even unlocked for someone who can do both. Now introducing Clippers general manager, coach and forward LeBron James. Crazy, sure, but you have to wonder whether the Clippers didn't suddenly ax Dunleavy because they received word that there's somebody out there who could deliver them potential free-agent James. Now introducing, Clippers forward LeBron James and two of his high school chums as general manager and coach. Crazy, too, but that's the thing about what happened Tuesday. The Clippers didn't lose a general manager, they gained a world of possibilities."
• Lisa Dillman of the Los Angeles Times: "The big question to analyze: Why now, and not a clean sweep in February? Team President Andy Roeser was not available to answer that specific question, but did provide insight into the decision making. 'With all due respect to Mike, we arrived at the realization that we weren't going to be able to move forward together in the long term, and we felt that, in order to give us the most flexibility as we approach this opportunity-filled off-season, making a clean break was our best option at this time,' Roeser said in an e-mail to The Times. 'We think Neil Olshey is well prepared to meet the mandate to lead us to a 'win-now' mentality, and to take advantage of the many opportunities that lie ahead.' (Subtext: Let's get everything in order before LeBron James comes to visit this summer.) Olshey has been with the Clippers since the 2003-04 season and was considered a Dunleavy protege."
• Mike Bresnahan of the Los Angeles Times: "Not that the suddenly overtaxed Lakers need the reminder, but their top player is spending a lot more time on the court. Kobe Bryant is averaging 38.8 minutes a game after averaging only 36.1 last season, a relatively large jump that makes him and 22-year-old Andrew Bynum the only Lakers starters logging more minutes this season. 'It shows maybe the need, the desire to have him on the floor, something along the lines that we need him out there to win games,' Coach Phil Jackson said. Jackson said he was surprised by the size of the increase in playing time but not troubled by it, perhaps because Bryant took an 18-day break last month while sidelined by an ankle injury for five games."
• Chris Iott of Booth Newspapers: "All of Rodney Stuckey’s tests there came back negative, and it’s a good bet those tests are being repeated now that Stuckey is back in Detroit. If there is even an inkling that his collapse had anything to do with his heart, he will not be back on the court anytime soon. No one involved in the NBA has forgotten about Reggie Lewis. No one wants that tragedy to repeat itself. Pistons coach John Kuester won’t discuss a timetable for Stuckey’s return, but he sounds like a guy who expects to see his starting point guard back on the court. ... Of course, in the end, the decision about when -- or if -- Stuckey comes back is up to one person: Stuckey. It really is none of our business. But whether or not doctors find something wrong with Stuckey, he has only two options when it comes to basketball: Quit or play. No one would blame Stuckey for taking option No. 1. It is his life. But if he chooses option No. 2, there’s no reason to wait until fall. Either Stuckey is healthy enough to return to his career as an NBA player, or he’s not. If he is, he should come back whenever he feels like it. Waiting until October won’t change a thing."
• Tom Enlund of the Journal Journal: "The NBA's time machine has to be dialed back to 1987 to find the last time that the Milwaukee Bucks clashed with the Boston Celtics in a playoff series. The Celtics won that Eastern Conference semifinal series in seven games in what was the conclusion to an almost annual playoff rivalry between Milwaukee and Boston in the mid-'80s. Boston coach Doc Rivers recalls some of those classic Bucks-Celtics playoff tussles. At the time he was a big man on campus at Marquette University. 'Those were great series,' said Rivers Tuesday. 'It was just that the Bucks couldn't win them (except for 1983). They were so close. We were talking about that a couple weeks ago, how people forget how good the Bucks were back then because the Sixers and the Celtics won every year (in the East). But the team that was always nipping on their heels was the Bucks. They just had the misfortune of being in the wrong conference. You could make the case if they were in the other conference, they might have made some of those Finals.' The Celtics defeated the Bucks in seven games in the 1974 NBA Finals. There is still a long way to go before this season's first-round playoff matchups are determined, but the way things are going now, there is a chance Milwaukee and Boston could meet."
• Mike Baldwin of The Oklahoman: "Kevin Durant is surprised people like Magic Johnson, who recently interviewed him, is shocked he’s comfortable with small-market Oklahoma City instead of playing in New York, Los Angeles or Chicago. 'I was watching the Larry Bird-Magic Johnson documentary the other day,' Durant said. 'I’m similar to Bird. I like being at home. I like staying at my mom’s house and her cooking. That’s the kind of person I am. I’m not into the big city lights and the paparazzi, that type of stuff. I just love playing basketball and chillin’ out.' In the HBO documentary Durant referred to, Bird was comfortable in French Lick, Ind., while Johnson preferred the constant entertainment in Hollywood. 'I can relate to both of those guys -- Magic Johnson for how much he loves the game and his enthusiasm for the game and Larry Bird for how laid back and relaxed he is,' Durant said. 'That’s the kind of guy I am off the court. I’m good in Oklahoma City. I love it here. I like going outside and seeing the neighbors and they say, ‘Hello.’ They make me cookies and give me Skittles. There are cities you may not get that.' "
• Frank Isola of the New York Daily News: "Donnie Walsh is skipping the Big East Tournament to keep a trained eye on the Big Wreck that is his basketball team. The Knicks' president was expected to accompany the club on its five-game trip with the growing sense within the organization that the entire basketball staff is on high alert. The Knicks (22-41) enter Wednesday's game against the Spurs on pace to lose 50 games for the second straight season. The roster will be overhauled, especially with Walsh having enough salary-cap space to sign two 'max' free agents. Walsh is still deliberating which Knicks to re-sign, including David Lee, and he may also be contemplating changes to the support staff, particularly since the team has struggled defensively. In typical Walsh fashion, he's downplaying his presence on the trip, saying, 'This gives me a chance to be around the team. It's really the last chance this season for me to do this.' Still, Walsh's scheduling change comes days after an ugly home loss to the Nets and after he accepted responsibility for the Knicks' wretched season and deflected blame from his head coach, Mike D'Antoni."
• Mary Schmitt of The Plain Dealer: "Well, what did you expect? Naming Michael Jordan as the Cavaliers' top antagonist of all-time was almost as easy as selecting LeBron James as the top Cavs player of all-time. For all the cumulative damage Jordan did throughout his career, nothing crushed the franchise like The Shot -- over an outstretched Craig Ehlo -- that gave the Chicago Bulls a 101-100 victory in the deciding Game 5 of the first-round of the Eastern Conference playoffs on May 7, 1989. That shot, and the game, propelled Jordan and the Bulls into the stratosphere. Neither they, nor the Cavs, were ever the same again. It was Cleveland's misfortune to field some of its best teams as Jordan was at his greatest. 'You look at the top 10 players on our team and then compare them to the their top 10 and we were the better team,' Wayne Embry, the Cavs' general manager from 1986-96, recently told The Plain Dealer's Terry Pluto. 'But they had greatness. It's just so hard to beat greatness.' "
• Mike McGraw of the Daily Herald: "Utah coach Jerry Sloan delivered several good lines while meeting with reporters before Tuesday's game against the Bulls. Sloan was asked how he's lasted 22 years with the Jazz when most other NBA coaches seem to lose touch with their players within a few seasons. 'I tell our players, 'I'm going to be here and you may not,' ' he said. 'I've been real fortunate that our owner gave me the opportunity to say that when he first started out. Coaches are going to be here and players are expendable. -- If you don't have support, you don't have a fighting chance.' Someone asked Sloan what he thought about his 1970s-era photo on a mural honoring Bulls legends that went up outside the locker room this year. He hadn't seen it. 'I don't think it affects me in any way,' Sloan said. 'Like my friend said, 'I'll still eat hamburgers.' ' When it was pointed out that Jazz rookie Othyus Jeffers, a West Side native, requested 150 tickets for Tuesday's game, Sloan responded, 'I couldn't afford to buy tickets when I played. These young guys make a lot more money.' "
• Ted Kulfan of The Detroit News: "Isn't it strange that Jonas Jerebko could be playing better in the NBA this season than he ever did in Europe? Jerebko thinks there might be a reason why. In Europe, said Jerebko, 'The game is so much more compact. It's more wide (open) here and you can do a lot more. I've grown in every aspect of the game (here).' Jerebko said 7-footers stay in the lane in Europe, waiting for opponents to drive to the basket. The NBA game is more open. 'You have to be on the move, it's an up-and-down game, and that shows my skills,' he said."
• Chris Dempsey of The Denver Post: "Generally, when Johan Petro has been called upon to fill in, he's played well. Last season, when Chris Andersen was unexpectedly out of the lineup for the Nuggets' game at Orlando in February, Petro answered the bell with two points, seven rebounds, a block and a steal. A reserve the majority of his career, Petro understands having to stay ready. But it didn't make waiting this season any easier. 'It was super hard,' Petro said. 'I had some ups and downs. Sometimes I didn't feel like coming (to practice). I felt like quitting, a little bit. But I always found a way to keep myself going. The league is about opportunities, and you never know when your number will be called. So you want to be ready for it, and I think that's what I've been trying to do here. 'I'm probably going to be more focused because I definitely have a lot to prove.' Petro started Sunday and may get that chance again tonight against Minnesota, but expect him to be used in a mix-and-match strategy going forward with Malik Allen and Joey Graham."
• Jonathan Feigen of the Houston Chronicle: "On the way out of the Verizon Center visitor's locker room, I passed Luis Scola and thought I'd make a modest suggestion, perhaps overstepping my position as a guest there, but still seeming on safe ground. 'Take tomorrow off,' I told him, knowing that the Rockets were not practicing and that he had been carrying such a heavy load. 'Oh, he won't,' said Wizards center Fabricio Oberto and Scola's former teammate with Argentina's national team. 'I can't,' Scola said. 'I took yesterday off.' The guy played an average of 42.5 minutes on the three-game road trip. He has had double-doubles in four-consecutive games, averaging 21.8 points and 16 rebounds. Scola has played 1,949 minutes this season and in three NBA seasons has still never missed a game. But he will be at Toyota Center on Wednesday, along with guys that rarely play, taking free throws and pushing through drills. 'That's his mentality,' Rockets assistant strength and conditioning coach Dave Macha said. "He'll shoot, work on his footwork, agility stuff. That's how he gets ready. With him, if he feels like he's prepared, he'll play a lot more aggressively, more confidently. Confidence breeds success. 'That's him. He's got to get ready, make sure he outworks the next guy.' "
• Dave Feschuk of the Toronto Star: "That Hedo Turkoglu is at the point of having to salvage a much-hyped season is disappointing for Raptors fans, of course. Turkoglu's improbable off-season acquisition was a joyous moment for a franchise whose depth chart could have been far shallower if not for some nifty navigation of the NBA's salary-cap regulations. But after playing at a high level in a contract year for the NBA finalist Orlando Magic last season, Turkoglu has clearly slacked off for parts of this season. The team gave him time off for fatigue to open training camp. He since has been plagued by poor conditioning and nagging injuries. And though his numbers aren't abhorrent – he is slightly below his career averages in most major statistical categories – there is a sense he has under-delivered. He has blamed his role instead of adapting to it, publicly stated his wish to have the ball more often on a team that sometimes plays point guards Jarrett Jack and Jose Calderon simultaneously. But those arguments are old now. And a lot will be forgotten if, as the Raptors steer themselves into the final quarter of the regular season, Turkoglu finds his form."
• Ira Winderman of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel: "Michael Jordan, Charlotte’s impending majority owner, not only is becoming more of a fixture at Bobcats games, but now sits at the end of the team’s bench. Somehow, we couldn’t envision Pat Riley sharing fist pumps with Yakhouba Diawara."
• Mike Wells of The Indianapolis Star: "Don't get nervous about the Pacers beating the 76ers. The Pacers will have plenty of opportunities to lose games down the stretch. They've got to go to Cleveland twice, along with games against Boston, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Oklahoma City, Utah, Atlanta, Miami, Houston and Orlando. You should probably get nervous if they win in Boston and Milwaukee this weekend."
• Ailene Voisin of The Sacramento Bee: "The Kings are ramping up the rhetoric and festivities because, frankly, Tyreke Evans hints at a future beyond furloughs and foreclosures. How long has it been? How many years now? Accordingly, for tonight's game against the Toronto Raptors, the first 10,000 fans will receive a commemorative 'Rally for RekeROY' T-shirt. Another 5,000 can poke around with an Evans 'Face on a Stick.' There will be a highlight video during introductions, testimonials from fans and, for those who have forgotten what spontaneous applause is , cheat sheets will explain when to start and stop the R-O-Y chant. Small town? Small time? For sure. But as that English chap wrote, 'To thine own self be true.' (Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene III). This is exactly the type of boosterism and corny behavior that plays well in Salt Lake City, Orlando, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Memphis and Indianapolis, and would be absolutely ridiculed in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and even Bay Area. The Warriors, for instance, are shuttling ROY candidate Stephen Curry between sports talk shows and media gatherings, and otherwise leaving the theatrics to others. Others, say, like Sacramento."
• Jerry Briggs of the San Antonio Express-News: "San Marcos resident Charles Austin is known by one member of the New York Knicks as a former Olympian, a gold-medal winning champion and 'basically, the highest-jumping person in the United States.' Austin is also credited as a man who showed 29-year-old Knicks forward Jonathan Bender the way back to the NBA. 'I give him a lot of credit,' Bender said. 'When you're working out on your own, you can only go to a certain level. When you have someone who can come in and help you get there, it's a little different.' A personal trainer and owner of So High Sports and Fitness in San Marcos, Austin told Bender in November 2008 that he could assist the former No. 5 overall NBA draft pick if he wanted to return to basketball. The dream came true for Bender in December 2009 when he signed as a free agent with the Knicks."

Premier League chairmen have rejected the idea of a introducing a playoff to decide who takes the fourth UEFA Champions League place. The motion was beaten after it failed to gather the 14 votes needed to pass.

The controversial idea of introducing play-offs for the final Champions League spot was proposed last month. Under its premise teams finishing between fourth to seventh place would then go into a playoff to decide the leagues last place in the Champions League.

At best the proposal received a mixed reception from Premier League managers with some very much for the idea while others were dead set against it.

The idea was examined by Premier League chairmen at their meeting on London on Thursday after Peter Scudamore brought forward a mandate for the proposal and they have voted against it, meaning the status quo will stay as is.

While managers from Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, and Liverpool provided vehement opposition to the proposition, they were the four clubs with the most to lose. They were also somewhat ironically the four clubs who would have gained most.

Given the finances that the four clubs enjoy over every other team it is highly unlikely that any of these clubs would have finished outside the top seven positions in the short to medium term future.

The initial move was sparked by the growing gap between the top four teams and the rest of the Premier League and was originally greeted with much anticipation by certain chairmen.

Up to 10 chairmen were of an open disposition while four were dead against the idea. Needing 14 votes for any motion to be carried, it would seem that the "no campaign" received at least three of the floating voters.

While the playoff was originally intended to bridge the gap of wealth between the top four and the rest, it is worth noting that a recent UEFA survey stated that the 20 teams in the Premier League have a combined debt of some £3.5billion. With the top four teams owning £2billion of that total.

Looking at it another way, UEFA pointed out that the EPL owns 56 percent of all the debt in European football—a quite remarkable statistic.

Only this week the idea of introducing a playoff was mooted by the Scottish Premier League after they began looking at ideas to increase interest in the league.

The EPL has no such problems, it is the most widely watched league in the world and its teams are on the verge of agreeing a new £1billion television deal.

Playoffs could have offered the EPL a way around the controversial 39th game, as these matches could have been played on foreign soil.The motion has been rejected this time, but should the top four teams' domination continue it is very likely that it could be proposed again in the future.

This article was also published on Premier League Report

To read the original article on the proposal click here

 

Ever since the expenses scandal first hit the headlines in May last year, political commentators have been desperate for some robust evidence which might provide clues about its likely impact on voting behaviour and wider forms of political engagement. Without detailed polling data, derived from questions which have been put to the British public over a number of years, there has been little scope to measure how public opinion has changed post-expenses. In the absence of such data, we have had to speculate about the likely impact, or draw tentative conclusions from whatever scraps of evidence we could unearth.

Perhaps understandably, some reformers – sensing that the expenses scandal offered a ‘once in a generation opportunity’ for change – jumped on any fragments of supportive data they could. One-off opinion polls asking people whether they favoured specific reforms were cited as evidence of widespread desire for reform. Even the results of the combined local and European elections of June 2009, when over 50 per cent of voters stayed at home, were proffered by some as proof of a popular mood for change.  As one of us has previously argued, these claims rarely stood up to closer scrutiny; if any messages could be discerned from opinion polls and the June elections, they seemed to consist of 1 part rage to 5 parts ambivalence.

Almost a year later, as we await the General Election which may (or may not) clarify the exact make-up of the public mood, we are predictably being flooded with data which enables us to make more meaningful and informed judgements about the impact of the expenses crisis. At the end of January, the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey was published, offering scope to assess shifts in responses to a number of longstanding BSA questions about politics and society. In early March, the Hansard Society will publish their 8th annual Audit of Political Engagement, which will provide us with further insight into how MPs’ expenses have impacted upon public attitudes towards politics. Sandwiched in-between these, published in mid-February, we have had the results of the latest Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust (JRRT) ‘State of the Nation’ poll, which it has commissioned periodically since 1991. Evidently, longitudinal opinion polls are a bit like buses; you wait ages for one, and then three come along at once.

As was widely reported, the BSA poll  found that 18 per cent now feel ‘it’s not really worth voting’, compared to just 8 per cent in 1991, while the proportion regarding it as ‘everyone’s duty to vote’ has dropped from 68 per cent to 56 per cent over the same period. These findings have been widely seen as an indicator of likely low turnout in the 2010 General Election. The State of the Nation poll provides us with much more detailed insight into public attitudes towards the political parties and the political system more generally, yet has received virtually no media attention at all. This may be down to the funders releasing the raw data without commissioning anyone to undertake a detailed analysis of the 164 pages of statistical tables produced by ICM.

Yet, if print and broadcast media journalists have found it hard to identify the obvious ‘headlines’ in the ‘State of the Nation’ poll, the data does appear to tell a very clear story, particularly to anyone with a knowledge of the previous JRRT-funded polls. That story is as follows: the expenses crisis has, on average, made the public more indifferent to politics than they were earlier in the decade and prompted no discernable increase in support for constitutional reform. Perhaps the media are doing us reformers a favour; this is not the narrative which we would usually wish to shout from the roof-tops.

Let’s start, though, by noting that the 2010 poll does underscore that the public are unhappy with our political system. The survey confirms that there has been a rise in the proportion of people who think the UK’s system of government could be improved ‘quite a lot’ or ‘a great deal’: 74 per cent feel there is a need for improvement on this scale, compared to 63 per cent in 2004 and 64 per cent in 2000. Yet, when it comes to specific reforms, the 2010 poll suggests that public attitudes have changed very little and that, if anything, most reforms have less popular support now than they did six years ago.

Among all the reform proposals put to them, the proposal to introduce a written constitution is most clearly endorsed by the public, with 74 per cent support - although this represents a clear fall from the 2004 figure of 80 per cent. There is a modest increase in support for a more proportional electoral system, which stands at 66 per cent, up from 63 in 2004, but a flat-lining in support for a fully elected House of Lords at 27 per cent (compared to 28 in 2004).  Support for state funding of political parties has fallen from 62 to 56 per cent over the same period.

If the public have become marginally less certain about which political reforms they would endorse, they are greatly less certain about how they feel about the political parties. Comparing the 2004 and 2010 findings, it is apparent that all parties have experienced a drop in both the proportion of people who say they might vote for them and in the proportion who say they would never vote for them (the only partial exception to this pattern is in attitudes towards the SNP). Instead, respondents have shifted overwhelming to opt for a third category on the questionnaire which allows them to hedge their bets by saying neither ‘might do’ or ‘never would’.

The change here is truly dramatic. Only 4-5 per cent expressed this ‘neither’ view towards the three main parties in 2004; yet in 2010 it varied between 25 and 29 per cent. Similar patterns are evident in relation to the BNP, the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, and most dramatically in the case of the Greens where the proportion declaring that neither would they consider voting for them nor definitely not vote for them has risen from 3 to 34 per cent. All this is an unanticipated development in ‘voter de-alignment’ from the parties – rather than ‘floating voters’ we increasingly have  ‘indifferent voters’.

This evidence of growing ambivalence runs right through the results of the poll. The respondents were asked to say how much they like or dislike individual political parties on a 7-point scale. Measured against 2004, there is a clear fall in the proportion indicating that they ‘like’ any of the political parties - other that the Conservatives, whose ‘liking’ rating has risen from 24 per cent in 2004 to 29 per cent in 2010. So far, so predictable. Yet, the data also contains some real surprises. For one, there is no discernable increase in the extent to which the public express a dislike of individual parties. Indeed, all of the parties actually have a smaller proportion of the electorate expressing dislike towards them than they did in 2004, with the exception of Labour where ‘dislike’ is static at 42 per cent.

Again, the key shift is towards the category on the scale indicating ambivalence. For each party, with the exception of the BNP, between one-third and a half of those surveyed opted for the neutral point on the scale.  In each and every case, there is an increase compared to 2004, ranging from a 1 percentage point rise in people expressing a neutral view of the Conservatives (from 30 to 31 per cent) to a remarkable 25 percentage point increase in neutral attitudes towards Plaid Cymru (from 21 to 46 per cent).

Perhaps most surprisingly of all, the 2010 poll highlights what appears to be a growing doubt in the public’s view of who should exert most influence on government policy. While 87 per cent said that ordinary voters should have power over government policy, this represents a slight decline from the 90 per cent who thought so in 2004. Similarly, fewer people now think that Parliament should have such power over policy (82 per cent, compared to 89 in 2004). The same applies to the public view of media influence (28 per cent feel that should have the power to shape government decisions, compared to 31 per cent in 2004) and corporate influence (31 per cent, down from 35 per cent in 2004). In short, the experience of political and economic crisis in 2009 appears to have left voters less certain about who the agents of change should be in our democracy.    

Overall, the 2010 ‘State of the Nation’ poll suggests that the results of the 2009 combined European and local elections may be a fair predictor of what is in store at this year’s general election. The turnout is likely to be low. The Conservative vote is likely to be up, and the Conservatives will therefore make gains – but only enough for a majority if Labour voters prove more likely to stay at home. Smaller parties may make a limited impact at the margins, though this will be highly localised and will again crucially depend on what happens to the Labour vote.  The election results will undoubtedly provide fascinating data for psephologists to analyse; but they are highly unlikely to express a clear popular desire for constitutional reform. 

oD-wide classification

Topics: 

Democracy and government

Armadillo is a C++ linear algebra library (matrix maths) aiming towards a good balance between speed and ease of use. Integer, floating point, and complex numbers are supported, as well as a subset of trigonometric and statistics functions. Various matrix decompositions are provided through optional integration with LAPACK and ATLAS libraries. A delayed evaluation approach, [...]

Armadillo is a C++ linear algebra library (matrix maths) aiming towards a good balance between speed and ease of use. Integer, floating point, and complex numbers are supported, as well as a subset of trigonometric and statistics functions. Various matrix decompositions are provided through optional integration with LAPACK and ATLAS libraries. A delayed evaluation approach, based on template meta-programming, is used (during compile time) to combine several operations into one and reduce or eliminate the need for temporaries.

Changes: This release has minor speedups as well as bugfixes in complex number versions of several functions.

Release Tags: minor enhacements, Minor bugfixes

Tags: Scientific/Engineering, Mathematics, Software Development, Libraries, machine learning, Statistics

Licenses: LGPL

A new drug trial promised to be the magic bullet that would rid Gary Greenberg of his depression. But, as this exclusive extract from his acclaimed new book, Manufacturing Depression, reveals, he couldn't hide his suspicions at the motives of the pharmaceutical giants who peddle the pills

Toward the end of my second visit to Massachusetts General Hospital, just before I got my pills, the psychiatrist leading the trial for a new antidepressant treatment, George Papakostas, asked me how long it had been since I had felt good for any appreciable time.

"Good?" I asked him.

"Symptom free," he said.

"For how long?" I asked.

"Thirty days," he said. "Or more."

I wanted to remind him that I was a writer, that I counted myself lucky to feel good from the beginning of a sentence to the full stop.

I wanted to ask him if he had ever heard of betrayal, of disappointment, of mortality.

But after having spent nearly two hours co-operating with him, helping him to transmute my messy words into precise data – the formulaic questions of the Hamilton Depression Rating scale that had determined that my complaints added up to "major depression" – I somehow didn't feel free to remind him that we hadn't really agreed that I had symptoms. I'd submitted to his alchemy. I couldn't just turn myself back into lead.

"I'm sorry," I said. "But I have no idea what a month of feeling good would feel like."

I'm sure this only confirmed his diagnosis.

But "30 days" was ringing in my ears as I left his office with my brown bag full of pills. And much as I wanted to dismiss the very possibility of that symptom-free month, chalk up the idea to a laughably circumscribed view of humankind, much as I wanted to point to Aristotle and Abraham Lincoln and other important sad sacks as evidence against the neurochemical reductionism that lay behind this whole antidepressant enterprise, I had to admit something: 30 days of unbroken contentment, of peace of mind, of resilience and, yes, even of optimism, a month of bright light unfiltered by a black veil – that sounded pretty good. If health is happiness in month-long blocks, then suddenly the idea that unhappiness is a curable disease didn't seem like such a bad one.

I ducked inside a restaurant. I wasn't hungry, but I ordered a sandwich anyway. And a glass of water. I gulped down my six golden pills. I waited for my month to begin.

Was George Papakostas thinking of the placebo effect when he asked me that question? I don't think so. But maybe he should have been.

Placebos trouble doctors. There's too much magic in them and not enough science. They highlight a subject that most physicians would prefer to avoid: that they may not entirely deserve the power that they wield. The word itself, which is Latin for I will please, contains more than a hint of condescension, as if the doctor is merely tossing a pill at whiners, and as if the reason that the placebo effect persists is that people are too credulous (or perhaps too dumb) to get well by virtue of science alone.

It is, though, possible to specify how a placebo will affect its taker. Especially when it comes to psychoactive drugs, you can fool many of the people a great deal of the time. You can, for instance, give people fake alcohol (without, of course, telling them that it only tastes like the real thing) and put them in a crowd of socialising drinkers and watch them get "drunk". You can give them fake morphine and hear them sigh in relief as their pain goes away. You can tell one group of subjects that caffeine will impede their co-ordination, another group that it will improve it, give both groups decaf, and observe as everyone behaves accordingly.

Psychologists have had a great deal of fun investigating this phenomenon, and while they disagree about much of it, they have been able to arrive at the not-so-startling conclusion that when it comes to mind-altering drugs, expectation shapes response. People given fake alcohol already know how to be drunk, knowledge they have acquired from experience, perhaps, or from observing others – in short, from what Norman Zinberg, a drug researcher of the 1960s and 1970s, called the "setting" of drug use. Setting, Zinberg argued, was only one of three interacting factors that determined the nature of drug experience. The other two were the biochemistry of the drug and the mindset of the user – his psychological makeup, his expectations and desires and motivations for taking the drug in the first place. The effects of drugs, Zinberg said, had to be understood in all three dimensions – drug, set and setting.

Zinberg cited all kinds of evidence for the importance of this trinity. He found, for instance, that the effects of marijuana had changed over time. Research in the 1950s and 1960s showed that people had to smoke pot two or three times before they could get high on the drug – an effect thought to be the result of some kind of neurochemical process. But by the late 1970s, this was no longer the case. "As a result of accumulated knowledge about the effects of marijuana use," he wrote, "even first-time users are prepared to experience the high and therefore many have done so." Pot use had become so widespread that virtually no one, not even a pot virgin, could be naive to its effects – and this change in setting changed the effect of the drug.

Zinberg, who died in 1989, never wrote about antidepressants like Prozac. But there is an obvious connection between his theory and the magic-bullet ideas behind them. After all, if pain goes away when people think they are taking morphine, then it doesn't make much sense to talk about psychiatric drugs as compounds that merely straighten out the twisted molecules that give rise to psychic suffering – at least not without giving due consideration to the expectations the doctor hands the patient along with the prescription.

And it really doesn't make sense to pretend that what happens between doctor and patient doesn't matter, that when he asks you about your sleep and your appetite and your sex drive, or about that elusive 30 days, he is only assessing your symptoms, and that when he tells you you are getting better he is only reporting the facts. He's also loading the dice, helping his drug give you a particular experience by telling you what to look for.

The first drug touted as an antidepressant was amphetamine. An ad that ran in a 1945 issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry featured a photograph of a man in a business suit, hands on hips, smile on his face, eyes on the horizon as if he is glimpsing the good fortune that awaits him there. Looming behind him, barely distinguished from the background, is a close-up of his face in a different mood – brow furrowed, eyes downcast, mouth curling into a frown. "If the individual is depressed or anhedonic, you can change his attitude by physical means," the ad copy reads. Doctors, it continues, have known this for at least 20 years, but only in the last decade has the "agent of cure" been available: Benzedrine, "a therapeutic weapon capable of alleviating depression."

Smith Kline & French, maker of Benzedrine, wasn't suggesting that doctors give amphetamine to psychotic manic-depressives – people who would be hospitalised and for whom the cure of choice was still the shock therapies – but to outpatients with what were then thought of as reactive or neurotic depressions. And amphetamine often pulled such patients out of their funks. Its problems – chiefly that it was addictive and its effects unstable – were soon obvious, however, and it fell into disfavour (until it was resurrected in the 1960s as a cure for attention deficit disorder, an indication that was worth $1.5bn in sales of various stimulants in 2008).

In 1955, Wallace Laboratories, an arm of the company that made Carter's Little Liver Pills, came up with an alternate treatment for neurotic depression: meprobamate, which the company named Miltown. Full-page ads in medical journals told doctors of the "outstanding effectiveness … with which Miltown relieves … anxious depression". And, perhaps most important, patients loved it. Within a few years of its introduction, people were "miltowning": turning on with a "Miltown cocktail" – a pill washed down with a bloody mary – and then tuning in to "Miltown" [comedian Milton] Berle in such large numbers that drugstores often had to hang out "No Miltown today" signs.

By 1965, Wallace had sold 14bn of its little brain pills to 100 million satisfied customers. The only limit on Miltown's sales was another group of minor tranquillisers – the benzodiazepines, which included Valium and Librium, both invented in the early 1960s by Hoffman-La Roche. The industry pushed the minor tranquillisers hard – not only to psychiatrists but also to general practitioners, the doctors most likely to see the "minorly" depressed.

Valium eventually took up more medical journal advertising pages than any other pharmaceutical drug, and by 1972, it was the most commonly prescribed drug in the world – a position it occupied until the end of the decade.

The minor tranquillisers' success wasn't all hype. In 1972, David Wheatley, one of the earliest antidepressant researchers in the UK, reported on a series of trials testing antidepressants against minor tranquillisers and concluded that the latter were better at treating neurotic depression – a finding echoed in studies that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

But the real boon to the drug industry was not so much the drugs themselves as the emergence of a vast new market: people whose suffering wasn't bad enough to warrant a visit to a psychiatrist's office but who would confess it to their family doctor and then gladly take Miltown or Valium. Miltown, according to medical historians Christopher Callahan and German Berrios, was the first "product of the pharmaceutical industry (rather than academia) [that] responded to consumer demand", and the success of the minor tranquillisers capitalised on this response. It's impossible to know how much patients' newfound willingness to talk about their discontents was due to their knowledge that it might be rewarded with a Miltown buzz, but industry executives didn't need to consider that. What they knew was that patients were now convinced that the whole world, including them, could be insane, that the insanity could be treated with a minor tranquilliser, and that family doctors, and not psychiatrists, held the keys to the Valium kingdom.

In the years since – years in which sales of the family of drugs including Prozac have superseded Valium as the magic bullets of choice – doctors were ready to give their patients a pitch: that they had a disease, that it was no different from any other disease (except perhaps for how widespread it is), and that the cure was waiting for them at the chemist. They were ready, in other words, to change the setting in which antidepressant use takes place, to name their patients' pain and create expectation for its cure, to mobilise, whether or not they meant to, the placebo effect.

And it wasn't only the doctors. The drug industry had help from a news media more than willing to report breathlessly on the new wonder drug (within a couple of years of its introduction, Prozac was featured on the covers of both Newsweek and Time).

And when the JAMA reported in early 1997 that still only 10% of the depressed were getting treatment, it seemed that the rising tide was capable of floating as many boats as the drug companies could launch. It was in that year that Lilly, the makers of Prozac, hired the Leo Burnett agency, to launch an ad campaign for Prozac.

According to a Burnett vice-president, "This is one of the most serious assignments we've ever had", and its mission was clear: to inform the public that, as Mike Grossman, Burnett's director of public relations, put it, "[Depression] isn't just feeling down. It's a real illness with real causes." Lilly spent $22m in the last six months of 1997 – nearly two-thirds of its entire advertising budget for the year – "assisting people in their depressed stupor," as Grossman put it, "to raise their hand for help."

The first ad was a three-page spread: a drawing of a rain cloud over the caption "Depression Hurts", a sun shining on the slogan "Prozac Can Help" and, on the last page, the fine print about side effects. It turned out that you didn't need to be in a depressed stupor at all, but merely under the weather, to have the "real illness" that "doctors believe" may be caused by "an imbalance of serotonin in your body". The copy under the cloud suggested: "You may have trouble sleeping. Feel unusually sad or irritable. Find it hard to concentrate. Lose your appetite. Lack energy. Or have trouble feeling pleasure."

And when people feel this way, the reader discovered, just before moving to the sunny side, "the medicine doctors now prescribe most often is Prozac."

You have to admire the economy of ads like these. They distil a century and a half of medical history into the simple message that if you are suffering, you may very well be sick, that your sickness is internal and biological, that it can be cured with a precision-targeted medicine and, above all else, that anyone can be depressed, that indeed the whole world can be insane.

Some critics worried that it just wasn't fair to deploy the techniques of consumer advertising – which, as the British Medical Journal put it in an editorial decrying the practice, is "the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it" – on vulnerable people. Adam Block, an independent researcher at Harvard, estimated in 2007 that in America more than a half million doctors' office visits were inspired every year by consumer advertising of antidepressants. Using epidemiological data, he estimated that only one in 15 of those patients was likely to be depressed, but using statistics derived from other studies, he determined that more than half of them would get a prescription, which meant, he said, that only "6 percent of the increase in antidepressant use due to [direct-to-consumer] advertising is by people who are clinically depressed."

If you go to the Myths and Facts page of Pfizer's website you find the assertion that "Depression doesn't mean you have something wrong with your character. It doesn't mean you aren't strong enough emotionally. It is a real medical condition, like diabetes or arthritis." It's easy to see why the depression doctors want to make that comparison. Diabetes provides a classic magic-bullet scenario: your pancreas stops producing insulin (or, in the case of type 2 diabetes, your cells lose their ability to absorb insulin), and the deficiency is treated with regular medication. No one would be ignorant or insensitive enough to suggest that your illness is related to your character or your emotional strength. No one would blame the victim or imply that a diabetic is weak for taking his medicine. A depressed person who thinks of himself this way, in other words, is a loyal patient for life.

But doctors don't have to convince their diabetic patients that they have a "real illness". The symptoms generally speak for themselves. The doctor takes a urine sample and does a blood test. He doesn't have to talk about chemical imbalances that he knows aren't really the problem or contend with package inserts that say, in plain black and white, that the drug makers have no idea at all why their drug works.

And above all else, the diabetes doctor doesn't have to tell the patient that he is getting better. Which is what they kept telling me at Mass General. At the end of my fourth visit, George Papakostas finished jotting in his notebook and told me that my Hamilton score had dropped to 14, from my baseline of 18. This was the week after he had asked me about the 30 days of symptom-free living that I'd apparently been missing out on because of my disease. Had I heard him right? I asked. How long did he say I should be feeling good?

"For at least a month," he said.

Then I asked him why he wanted to know.

"People, when they're depressed," he answered, "they get a sort of recall bias. They tend to feel that their past is all depressed."

Which meant, I wanted to point out, that depression is more like an ideology than an illness, more false consciousness than disease, and that telling me I was getting better was like dispatching propaganda from a new regime.

But this wasn't the only way in which Papakostas was telling me what my disease consisted of or what health would be like. He also did it through the tests. They asked me about my sleep and appetite; they asked me if I thought my life had been a continuous process of learning, changing and growth.

They gave me zero points for seeing myself "as equally worthwhile and deserving as other people" and three for "thinking almost constantly about major and minor defects in myself". You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way that wind is blowing.

When Papakostas added up my Hamilton numbers and concluded that I was getting better, he didn't have to say in what way that was true. It was already in the air. And when he asked me, "Are you content with the amount of happiness that you get doing things that you like or being with people that you like?" he didn't have to tell me outright that this was the whole point: that to be healthy, to be back to yourself, was to be content. Which is a deep philosophical statement, and one that seems at odds with a consumer society and an economy that depends on our never being content, at least not too content to think that there is always some other happiness you could be pursuing at the mall. But he didn't make this claim as a philosopher.

He made it as a doctor. So we didn't have to talk about any of that.

On my last visit to Mass General I was seen not by Papakostas but by a woman named Christine Dording. She just had to look in the binder, riffle the pages, pause and then smile. "Look at your scores. Nice response."

I wasn't sure whom she was congratulating, but there wasn't any question who – or what – was responsible for my improved mental health. Or so I found out when she started talking about my next visit.

"Next visit?" I asked. "I thought this was the last."

"You're not coming in for the follow-up?" She seemed surprised and hurt and a little incredulous, as if no one with such a nice response would pass up the opportunity to get even better. I asked her if the follow-up would be any different from what we'd been doing. It wouldn't, she said. So I declined.

But she wasn't done with the subject. By then we'd adjourned to an examination room, where she was performing a cursory physical.

"I think you've done very well," she said as she looked into my eyes with a scope. "You're much improved."

But if the treatment made me better, I wanted to know, then why did I need any more follow-up? And for that matter, how did she know I wasn't on the placebo?

"I don't think we unblind the study," she told me, looking again through my binder.

"No, not in this one. No unblinding."

I protested. "I don't get to find out?" Was it possible that being much improved could have no other meaning than that the drug had worked its magic? Wasn't that what the study was supposed to find o ut?

"No," she said. "But you had a good response."

I didn't see the point in arguing, but a few months later, I called the doctor in charge of the study. I asked him why Dording had offered to keep me on the drugs when she didn't know if I'd been on them in the first place, and why neither of us was allowed to find out. He explained that clinical trials remain blinded so that researchers don't get tipped off by associating certain patterns of response with certain outcomes and thus start behaving differently toward patients whose condition they have deduced. But, he told me, seemingly unaware that he was contradicting himself, it is common practice for the doctors to "take their best guess" and offer follow-up accordingly.

I wasn't going to let this mystery stand. I didn't know if I was really better. Some days I thought so. I wasn't feeling content exactly. But sometimes, on some days, there was some ineffable feeling, a flicker of belief, a floor beneath me that kept me from plunging into darkness, where I could stand and catch and hold love and goodness, dwell with it and feel, if just for a moment, that life wasn't only cruel and stupid. And maybe it was the pills that were making me feel that way.

Or maybe not.

I had some extra capsules. I sent them off to a commercial lab.

The report came back a couple of weeks later. I'd been on the placebo.

Extracted from Manufacturing Depression by Gary Greenberg, published by Bloomsbury on Tuesday, price £20.

Jeremy Rifkin: The third industrial revolution

My sense is that we're nearing an endgame for the modern age. I think we had two singular events in the last 18 months that signal the end. First, in July 2008 the price of oil hit $147/barrel. Food riots broke out in 30 countries, the price of basic items shot up and purchasing power plummeted. That was the earthquake; the market crash 60 days later was the aftershock. It signaled the beginning of the endgame of a great industrial era based on fossil fuels. The second event, in December 2009, was the breakdown in Copenhagen, when world leaders tried to deal with our entropy problem and failed.

John Michael Greer: Why factories aren't efficient

Last week’s Archdruid Report post fielded a thoughtful response from peak oil blogger Sharon Astyk, who pointed out that what I was describing as America’s descent to Third World status could as well be called a future of “ordinary human poverty.” She’s quite right, of course. There’s nothing all that remarkable about the future ahead of us; it’s simply that the unparalleled abundance that our civilization bought by burning through half a billion years of stored sunlight in three short centuries has left most people in the industrial world clueless about the basic realities of human life in more ordinary times.

It’s this cluelessness that underlies so many enthusiastic discussions of a green future full of high technology and relative material abundance. Those discussions also rely on one of the dogmas of the modern religion of progress, the article of faith that the accumulation of technical knowledge was what gave the industrial world its three centuries of unparalleled wealth; since technical knowledge is still accumulating, the belief goes, we may expect more of the same in the future. Now in fact the primary factor that drove the rise of industrial civilization, and made possible the lavish lifestyles of the recent past, was the recklessness with which the earth’s fossil fuel reserves have been extracted and burnt over the last few centuries. The explosion of technical knowledge was a consequence of that, not a cause.

Interview with Dr. Colin Campbell

Colin Campbell, founder of the Association for the Study of peak Oil and Gas, is officially retired from his career as oil geologist and Peak Oil pundit but kindly agreed to this interview for the zone5 podcast.

Oil Declines as Dollar Rises, U.S. Fuel Stockpiles Increase

(Bloomberg) -- Crude oil fell for the first time in three days as the dollar strengthened and an industry report showed an increase in U.S. fuel supplies, fanning concern that demand in the world’s biggest energy user is slow to recover.

Oil dropped from a four-week high as the U.S. currency extended gains against the euro, damping investor demand for commodities. The American Petroleum Institute said U.S. gasoline inventories rose last week to the highest since March 1999 and distillate fuel stockpiles ended a four-week drawdown. An Energy Department report today is forecast to show crude oil supplies increased, according to a Bloomberg News survey.

Gasoline, Diesel Surpass Crude in Floating Storage, Poten Says

(Bloomberg) -- Traders are choosing to store oil products in floating tankers instead of crude oil as freezing temperatures and rising demand boost the need for distillates, Poten & Partners said in a report.

Crude oil stored in tankers fell to about 25 million barrels currently from levels exceeding 80 million barrels last year, Poten said in a report to clients last week. Floating storage for clean products such as gasoline and gasoil reached a peak in December at 80 million barrels in 127 vessels. That’s down to 57 million barrels currently, it said.

Shipyard Order Books Dwindle on Global Recession, SSY Says

(Bloomberg) -- Orders for vessels to transport commodities such as iron ore and coal have dwindled since the end of 2008 because of the global recession, a surplus of newly commissioned ships and cancellations, according to a report by SSY Consultancy & Research Ltd.

The order book for bulk carriers has declined by 7.5 percent or 21.2 million deadweight tons to its lowest level since mid-2008, according to the report on Feb. 16, based on data from Lloyd’s Register-Fairplay.

Iran aims for an energy break-out

While Western attention was focused on Saudi Arabia's possible provision of energy guarantees to China in return for a "yes" vote on Iran sanctions, Iran was working to leverage its natural gas reserves into economic alliances with China, India and Pakistan.

Thailand: Tight security at energy plants

Stringent security measures have been put in place at tank farms, oil refineries, natural gas separation and power plants as the Feb 26 judgement day draws near, Energy Minister Wannarat Channukul said on Thursday afternoon.

“I have ordered responsible authorities to ensure the safety of these plants. Natural gas should not be transported during the night hours, to prevent the tanker trucks being seized as happened in the April riots,” Mr Wannarat said.

Norway Growth Will Slow This Year on Oil Spending, Agency Says

(Bloomberg) -- Norway’s economy will expand at a slower pace than previously forecast as lower petroleum investments and a struggling manufacturing sector curb growth, the country’s statistics office forecast.

The mainland economy, which excludes oil, gas and shipping, will grow 2.0 percent this year, the Oslo-based agency said in a report on its Web site today. The office in December forecast 2.2 percent expansion in 2010. Gross domestic product will expand 2.7 percent next year, it said.

Russia to seize Kovytka gas field from BP venture

Russia is poised to seize control of Kovytka, one of the world's largest gas fields, from TNK-BP, a joint venture between BP and four Russian oligarchs.

Reliance Falls on Speculation of Higher Lyondell Bid

(Bloomberg) -- Reliance Industries Ltd. declined the most in almost two weeks after reports said India’s biggest company by market value may have to increase its bid to buy bankrupt chemicals and fuels-maker LyondellBasell Industries AF.

Poweo Expects 2009 Operating Loss; May Sell Assets on Law Delay

(Bloomberg) -- Poweo SA, a French power company, estimated an operating loss for 2009 and said it may sell assets amid delays for legislation to further open the French market.

The operating loss was about 85 million euros ($115 million) as sales fell 2.2 percent to 565 million euros, Paris- based Poweo said today in an e-mail. It had forecast it would break even, after an operating loss of 21 million euros in 2008.

ABB Deepens Savings, Says Outlook Still ‘Cautious’

(Bloomberg) -- ABB Ltd., the world’s biggest builder of power grids, said it aims to cut costs by $3 billion by the end of 2010, 50 percent more than previously planned, to meet profit targets as customers remain hesitant to invest.

"The Plan" by Edwin Black

Author Edwin Black's niche is to, assisted by dozens of volunteers, sieve through libraries and archives and write extremely well-researched books. He usually spends a couple of years doing research before he cranks out a new book, but he made an exception for the sleek, no more than 130 pages long "The Plan: How to rescue society when the oil stops - or the day before."

Why the TTC should get liquored up

We’re not suggesting that alcohol should be readily available on subway cars and in stations (but could you imagine?). But see, the LCBO is a government institution with a veritable monopoly on its product, and yet it also provides one of the most enjoyable retail experiences this side of Tiffany’s. Ideally, the TTC, as a government institution with a monopoly on public transit, should strive to provide the best goddamn rider experience of any public transit provider in the world.

The Spotless Garden

Mr. Torcellini’s greenhouse wouldn’t look out of place on a wayward space station where pioneers have gone to escape the cannibal gangs back on Earth. But then, in a literal sense, Mr. Torcellini, a 41-year-old I.T. director for an industrial manufacturer, has left earth — that is, dirt — behind.

What feeds his winter crop of lettuce is recirculating water from the 150-gallon fish tank and the waste generated by his 20 jumbo goldfish. Wastewater is what fertilizes the 27 strawberry plants from last summer, too. They occupy little cubbies in a seven-foot-tall PVC pipe. When the temperature begins to climb in the spring, he will plant the rest of the gravel containers with beans, peppers, tomatoes and cucumbers — all the things many other gardeners grow outside.

Why Obama's Nuclear Bet Won't Pay Off

If you want to understand why the United States hasn't built a nuclear reactor in three decades, the Vogtle plant outside Atlanta is an excellent reminder of the insanity of nuclear economics. Its original cost estimate was less than $1 billion for four reactors. Its eventual price tag in 1989 was nearly $9 billion for only two reactors. But now there's widespread chatter about a nuclear renaissance, so the Southern Co. is finally trying to build the other two reactors at Vogtle. The estimated cost: $14 billion. And you can be sure that number is way too low, because nuclear cost estimates are always way too low.

Cellulosic Fuel Gets Cheaper, Companies Say

Two of the world’s leading companies in the enzyme business, Novozymes and Danisco of Denmark, announced this week that they had found a way to produce enzymes that could reliably and affordably convert agricultural waste into so-called cellulosic ethanol.

Utility Executives Like Nuclear Power. Climate Science, Not So Much.

American utility industry executives see nuclear energy as the most promising carbon-free power source, are skeptical of climate change science, and are uncertain about the future, according to a report to be issued Thursday by Black & Veatch, the engineering and consulting giant.

Environmental Advocates Are Cooling on Obama

WASHINGTON — There has been no more reliable cheerleader for President Obama’s energy and climate change policies than Daniel J. Weiss of the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

But Mr. Obama’s recent enthusiasm for nuclear power, including his budget proposal to triple federal loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors to $54 billion, was too much for Mr. Weiss.

Top UN climate official resigning

AMSTERDAM – Top U.N. climate change official Yvo de Boer told The Associated Press Thursday that he was resigning after nearly four years, a period when governments struggled without success to agree on a new global warming deal.

His departure takes effect July 1, five months before 193 nations are due to reconvene in Mexico for another attempt to reach a binding worldwide accord on controlling greenhouse gases.

Methane: the quick fix for global warming?

Its short lifespan and greater potency means tackling methane emissions now could have a dramatic effect on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

Overpopulation and Climate Change

PUTNEY, VERMONT — With the continuing failure of governments to reach agreements on combating climate change, the outlook for both humans and nature remains bleak.

And nowhere is the failure more conspicuous than in the avoidance of the subject of population growth. Population is a double-barreled environmental problem — not only is population increasing; so are emissions per capita.

I can't believe I'm the first person to get this section going! After all the talk it gets on here! I only learned about it through this forum.

I am obsessed with FLT's special roast dong ding. I prefer it to both FLT's greener and traditional dong dings. It has a gorgeous full-mouth honey aftertaste. It just tastes "deep." I'm not sure how else to describe it. All I know is that I want to swim in a tub full of these leaves.

I am also a huge fan of her muzha TGY. It think she describes it very accurately as having a delicious dark chocolate fragrance.

The other oolongs of hers that I've tried are also excellent: alishan, lishan, lalashan, the second place baozhong (which seems to have gotten some attention on this forum). The only tea I've been somewhat disappointed with was her Oriental Beauty. I don't know. I've had a wide variety of bai hao oolongs (my gateway tea?) and this landed somewhere in the inoffensive, good middle ground. It just didn't "rock my world."

Just
...

Statistics : Posted by oedipa • on Jan 20th, '10, 12:43 • Replies 1 • Views 59

---

Last time, I used my mod powers to look at one of the primary evaluative tools for position players, WAR.  This time, we'll focus on pitching.

Construction

The basic formula for pitcher WAR goes something like this:

((((B/A)^(((A+B)/0.92)^0.28)/((B/A)^(((A+B)/0.92)^0.28)+1))-C)*D/9) +
((((B/A)^(((A+B)/0.92)^0.28)/((B/A)^(((A+B)/0.92)^0.28)+1))-0.C)*D/9)*(E-1)

Where A = the pitcher's ERA

And B = the league average ERA (which should be different for starters and relievers)

And C = a replacement level pitcher's neutral winning percentage, which is set around .38 for starters and .46 for relievers

And D = innings pitched

And E = the pitchers leverage index

The formula really isn't that complicated when you break it down into individual steps.  That formula is just one that I used for the Cardinals WAR spreadsheet, and it has a lot of repitiion in it.  When you break pitcher WAR down into individual steps, it goes like this:

1) Find the average run environment that a pitcher will pitch in.  This is equal to the pitcher's run average (RA) plus the league RA for his role (starter or reliever).  So for Chris Carpenter last year, he gave up 2.28 runs per 9 compared to a league average of 4.7 R/9 for starters.  Add that up, and you get

2) You then figure out the expected winning percentage (W%) of that pitcher.  This is done by using PythagenPat, which is a modification of the Pythagorean formula.

Remember, the Pythagorean formula is just a way to figure out the W% of a team given it's runs scored and runs allowed.  Pythagenpat is a slight modification of that formula, using a floating exponenent, depending on the run environment of that team, instead of 2.  This is done to insure that, for example, teams who play in a really low run environment (like the Padres) get more credit towards expected W% for each marginal run scored than a team like the Yankees.  The same concept can be applied towards pitchers in the WAR formula.

I won't go through the blood details, but Chris Carpenter's expected W% would be .77

3) Once you have the pitcher's expected W%, you compare it to that of a replacement level player's and multiply by innings pitched per 9.  So Carp's WAR would be 8.3 in 192.2 innings last year.        

4) Add leverage.  This primarily for relievers who's innings are more important than those of starters.  Basically, you figure out the equivalent innings pitched of a reliever (so if a reliever pitches 60 innings, but on average, the are 175% more important than a starters, they count as 105 innings) and do the same thing as above.  I won't go into detail about leverage in this post, mainly because I have not yet solidified my views on the matter.

 

That's the very basic construction of WAR.  However, figuring out a pitcher's value isn't as simple as my example with Carp.  I made a bunch of assumptions with that example, that aren't necessarily right.  As you might have noticed, a pitcher's WAR depends heavily on three things:

1) His run average or estimated run average

2) A replacement level pitcher's run average

3) The way we handle leverage

I'll go through each of those things in detail.  

Run estimators

It turns out when Carpenter gave up 2.28 runs per 9 last year, some of that wasn't directly related to his performance.  The batters, umpires, fielders and ballpark each had something to do with how many runs Carpenter gave up last year, and attributing all of that to him kinda misses the point of pitcher evaluation.  Because so much of what goes into a pitcher's runs allowed is out of his control, there have been many attempts to model the pitcher's performance.  I'll go through each of them now.  

Before I start, let me say that there are two different goals of run estimators.  1) To credit the pitcher simply with what's under his control, or 2) To credit the pitcher with everything, except for the performance of his defenders. 

For a while, those two were thought to be pretty much the same thing.  However, I've been doing some research at the THT, that suggests, in my opinion, that pitchers really don't really have that much control over even their defense independent outcomes.  When a pitcher strikes out a batter, that is usually a combination of good pitches from the pitcher, bad swings from the hitter, and often favorable calls from the umpire.  Every stat that a pitcher has is influenced by luck.

However, even if you concede to my viewpoints on that matter, defense independent pitching stats (DIPS) still can be used for value purposes.  When retroactively analyzing a pitcher, you really care more about properly attributing blame.  For example, Chris Carpenter gives up a double to left on a 95 MPH fastball down and away.  The fact that he allowed the hard contact certainly wasn't his fault, as the batter obviously had to make a very special effort to hit such a pitch, however, you can't blame it on anyone else on the team so, even if it's just bad luck, you attribute that hard contact to the pitcher.  The fielder is another story.  Once the ball is hit in play, the responsibility shifts from the pitcher to the fielder and so we can debit both of the players accordingly.  

There is also an argument for only crediting pitcher's with the things they can control for retrospective value.  Why should we give a pitcher credit or debit for things that aren't in his control.  Aren't we only trying to measure the pitchers value?  Either way, I think it's a matter of preference.  I personally would rather isolate the pitcher's performance, rather than just eliminate defensive performance.

Anyway... most of the DIPS estimators just try to eliminate defense rather than isolate pitcher performance, however, some are obviously better than others, so consider the following your quick hit guide to DIPS.

FIP

Aah, FIP.  How can one stat that breaks down a pitchers' at bats into 4 possible outcomes, has conveniently rounded coefficients in the formula, and can be figured out on the back of a napkin be so good at estimating future performance and so commonly sited?  

For one, it's the fact that it is simple and so easy to understand.  As I said above, FIP breaks down each at bat into 4 possible outcomes: strikeout, walk, home run and ball in play.  Basically, FIP assigns a value to each of those 4 outcomes based off of Linear Weights.  The formula multiplies those values by the number of each of the 4 outcomes that pitcher gives up, translates to on a per 9 basis and sets itself to the league average ERA. 

Strengths:

• Simple, easy to remember: (13*HR + 3*(BB+HPB-IBB) - 2*K)/IP + 3.2
  
• Rooted in logic
• Can be calculated for almost all levels of the minors and historically

Weaknesses:

• Will underrate pitchers who are better than average at allowing less damaging balls in play
• Will underrate pitchers who are better than average at sequencing their events (home run after walk vs. home run before walk, if that makes sense)
• Will somewhat underrate good pitchers and overrate bad pitchers.  The coefficients in it are tailored to league average, however, each pitcher has it's own run environment, so the values should change slightly based on how many expected runners are on base. 

tRA

tRA is very similar to FIP.  However, instead of assuming that all balls in play are created equal, it separates them based on whether they are fly balls, ground balls, line drives or popups.  It then multiplies each event (strikeout, walk, home run, and the four batted ball types previously mentioned) by their run value and divides by expected outs.  So it's estimated runs per outs multiplied by 27 (cause there are 27 outs in a game).  That gets it to match up pretty much with the league average runs per 9.

Strenghts:

• Like FIP, it's intuitive and rooted in logic
• Unlike FIP, it accounts for a pitchers ability to induce "better" balls in play (like ground balls and popups)
• Park adjusted by individual component.  This helps to balance out park effects that can effect strikeouts, walks, home runs and even batted balls.

Weaknesses:

• Will underrate pitchers who can better sequence their events
  
• Not all fly balls are created equal, ditto ground balls and line drives.  Some guys just allow weaker contact.
• Cannot be calculated for many levels of the minors and historically
  
• Will underrate good pitchers and overrate bad pitchers
• Are prone to errors in batted ball classification (one guys fly ball is another guys line drive, and depending on the data source, this can have big implications on the final product)

SIERA

This is BPro's brand new metric.  The purpose of it is to compensate for interacting skills in a way that FIP or tRA do not, as they treat each stat independently of each other.  For example, guys who allow a lot of ground balls aren't as hurt by walks as others, and SIERA should encapsulate that. 

The problems with SIERA are that it hasn't been thoroughly tested yet, and doesn't have a lot of logical backing in the formula.  With FIP and tRA, we can understand their strengths and flaws, however, that's simply impossible at this point with SIERA. 

SIERA may be the most accurate; however it's too early to tell.

xFIP

This is kind of weird stat.  It's basically FIP, except it replaces the home runs with .11*FB.  This is done because pitchers have very little control over how many of their fly balls leave the yard, or at the very least, it's hard to identify such a skill based on the numbers. 

The problem I have with xFIP is that it can't really be used for retrospective value, because you have to credit those extra home runs to someone.  It's a decent stat for identifying luck in small sample size; however, HR/FB and run value of BIP clearly aren't the only things that are influenced by luck.  As I've mentioned before, I really hate the idea of a "luck" stat.  Every stat contains a bit of luck and a bit of skill, and I would like to see xFIP do some sort of weighting for each event based on the estimated ratio of luck/skill as a function of innings pitched. 

Right now it's kind of a hybrid stat, that's useful, but (and should) be a lot better.   

tRA*

This is exactly the kind of stat I wish xFIP would be like.  Instead of assuming luck on one statistic (HR/FB) it regresses each statistic to the mean as a function of innings pitched.  So say a guy strikes out 26% of his batter's faced in 29 innings.  There is most likely a significant amount of luck in that percentage, so tRA* will regress that to the mean to account for that expected luck, and his "true" K% during that time will be around 18%.  tRA will regress strikeouts less than HR/FB ratio, or line drive percentage, etc. as strikeouts are more in the pitchers control than those stats.  However, from what I gather, tRA* treats no stat as a "luck" or "skill" stat and instead treats them all as somewhere in between.  I love it.  The problem is that I don't really know how the regression is calculated. 

ERA/RA

RA is just how many runs the pitcher gave up per 9 innings.  A while ago, some dumbass had the idea that the only way pitchers can be effected by their defense was through errors, so he invented a stat that only debited pitchers when the run scored was deemed to be their fault.  However, errors are hilariously not correlated at all with actual defensive value (or at least estimated defensive value).  Anyway, the problems with ERA and RA are like I said above.  They give credit for everything the pitcher does, when that clearly shouldn't be the case in real life.

Still, they contain some information in them that all of the other metrics don't.  For one, they contain info related to sequencing of events, pickoff moves, runner holding ability, batted ball skill, and other things that none of the DIPS estimators capture.  And a lot of the discrepancies between ERA/RA and DIPS are just based on luck, rather than defense.  And I'm not really sure that we should count luck against the pitcher when judging Retrospective value.          

All of these metrics have some strengths and weaknesses to them.  I would personally just use some sort of combination of RA and tRA for judging Retrospective value, and basically just tRA* for judging Retrospective skill.

Adjustments

These are key to put players on an even playing field.  A pitcher who plays in Coors is much more likely to have a higher ERA or DIPS than a player who plays in Petco.  Furthermore, a guy who faces the Yankees every couple of weeks is likely to have a higher ERA than a guy who faces the Royals.  

Adjustments should include park at the minimum, and probably batter's faced as well.

Replacement level

Whatever metric you decide to use for WAR, it will basically model how many runs a pitcher should have given up per 9 innings.  For that to be useful in a value sense, you have to compare that to some sort of baseline.  The baseline for WAR is "Replacement", which is, simply put, the expected production of the last resort guy in the minor leagues or on the waiver wire.

I'm not exactly sure how replacement level is calculated for pitchers; however, I assume it's determined in a similar manner to that of hitters.  Basically, you look at the projections of the tweeners (guys between the majors and the minors) and average them out.  For starters, it's around a 5.50 ERA and for relievers it's around 4.50.  

Leverage

Leverage is basically the weight of a pitchers innings, determined by their volatility in expected winning percentage.  So the 9th innings will have a much greater impact on which team wins than the first inning.  For starting pitchers, leverage doesn't make much of a difference, but for relievers it is instrumental in how they are valued.  Like I said, I won't go into great detail about leverage and it's effects on WAR in this post.    

It's getting kind of late, so I'll sign off on this post.  Basically, WAR is pretty simple for starting pitchers.  The most important aspects are the run estimators you use, and what kind of adjustments you make.  For relievers, it becomes a lot more complicated and I'll go into that, as well as describing some implementations of pitcher WAR in the next post.

I'm all for helping women stay safe in a dangerous world. But do female-only facilities really support women's security? Or do they infantilize women and patronize men? Here's the perfect example of this misogyny disguised as feminism: The brand new women-only pink and purple parking lot at the Wanxiang Tiancheng shopping center in Hebei Province, China.

Wider parking spaces for those clumsy female drivers! No pesky numbering for non-mathy brains to remember! (Just look for the cartoon animals.) And can't find a parking spot because you're nervous and have poor spatial perception? Look for the South-Korean trained parking guides! Brought to you, no doubt, by the same folks in Korea who created women-only parking spaces. These guides "use graceful body language to bring pleasant feeling to [the] customers," according to the lot design manager, Mr. Wu of Tiencheng Entreprise Group, who was quoted by Wall Street Journal (WSJ) blogger Sue Feng. Feng also noted: "While some say [the parking lot] is a waste of space and unnecessary, some say it’s an 'act of civilization,' especially from a feminist point of view."

Absolutely, if by "feminist" you mean "not feminist." While I believe that most people involved in this project probably had the best interests of women at heart, the parking lot provides too much of a venue for propagating noncontextualized, sexist data like this (from the same WSJ post): "The lot offers wider parking spaces especially designed for female drivers, who tend to cause twice as many collisions in parking lots than in other places, according to insurance company data."

I would have liked to have seen a specific source for this. What I've often read is that statistics show men are generally worse drivers overall than women. Yet we don't see any "men-only" highways. If they neglect to provide actual sources and contexts, pundits can find statistics to support just about views. Therefore, the floating stats should be taken with not just a grain, but mounds and mounds of salt. If the insurance companies have found this, and their math is correct (and we all know that insurance companies are scrupulous and competent), maybe women do drive worse in parking lots. That doesn't justify citing this fact -- and building a parking lot because of it -- without considering analyses that indicate men drive worse at higher speeds.

This women-only parking lot focuses attention on stereotypes and relatively arbitrary statistics about women. And it chooses to "protect" women by segregating them. Instead of creating all-female subway cars (like those in China and Japan), we should concentrate on educating, chastising, or disemboweling people who commit violence or harassment of others. Women-only taxis (such as in Mexico, the U.K.,  and Kuwait) send the message that misogynistic men cannot be educated or reformed, and therefore the only solution is to squirrel the women out of sight. This sounds similar to one of the rationales behind the hijab and other Islamic coverings: men can't control themselves, so the women need to hide.

Photo credit: SebastianFritzon

• Sale winger admits England took cautious approach
• Flutey set to return to Johnson's side against Italy

The psychological gulf between winning and losing was visible for all to see at the England team hotel in Bagshot. Even the absence from training of their captain, Steve Borthwick, suffering from a stomach upset, could not dispel the healthy afterglow among the remainder of the squad following Saturday's flawed but significant victory over Wales. The road to Rome this weekend is appreciably straighter as a result.

It also makes life easier for the selectors. Following reassurances about the fitness of Riki Flutey, who is set to return in place of Toby Flood, the team manager Martin Johnson is likely to keep faith with the majority of his starting XV, having released nine fringe players back to their clubs today . Chris Ashton, Matt Banahan, Dan Hipkiss, Shontayne Hape, Ben Youngs, Lee Mears, Courtney Lawes, Jordan Crane and Dan Ward-Smith have all been deemed surplus to requirements, although the Leicester tighthead Dan Cole, the Worcester loosehead Matt Mullan and the Harlequins flanker Chris Robshaw have been retained. Cole won his first cap off the bench against Wales and is already pushing Davey Wilson hard.

Individual ambitions aside there remains the recurring conundrum of England's collective mindset. Interestingly the Sale winger Mark Cueto revealed that, for all the pre-game talk of liberation, his team were admonished by the management at the interval for trying to play too much rugby in their own half last week. Freedom of expression is a noble objective but old habits clearly die hard.

Part of the reason, according to Cueto, was rustiness. England did not want to allow the Welsh back into the game and Jonny Wilkinson was instructed to kick more as a result. If England feel unable to expand their horizons when they are leading 20-3 at home, though, it raises the question of when the time will ever be right. The imminent return of Flutey, forced to withdraw from the Welsh game with a dead leg, will help in that respect but there are still one or two mixed messages floating around the England camp.

One of the main themes of the coaches' post-match debrief, for example, was that launching attacks from your own half a la Phil Bennett should only be attempted in extremis. "In the first half we probably went out and tried to play too much," said Cueto, gallantly sticking to the party line. "Realistically, you're not going to score a try from your own half at international level." In almost the same breath, however, he admitted the tape had highlighted several instances when greater ambition could have paid dividends, even against Wales's blitz defence. "We just need to be a little bit braver and put that pass out at times," he said. "It comes back to rustiness a little bit." It also comes down to players backing themselves under pressure which comes with confidence.

The more enlightened attack coaches still argue that attacking from your own half is perfectly legitimate in certain circumstances, not least if an element of surprise is involved. If England are simply going to adhere to a territory-based kicking game – statistics showed that Wilkinson threw only five passes against Wales in the entire game – they risk ending up in a series of dogfights which might just suit the forward-orientated Italians this weekend. If England aspire to winning a World Cup next year – notwithstanding South Africa's no-nonsense modus operandi in 2007 – they need a few more party tricks up their sleeves.

Cueto, as a player with 15 Test tries to his name, would also dearly love to end a barren personal sequence of seven internationals without crossing the whitewash. On the other hand, England are finally developing a steelier core, with the likes of Lewis Moody, Nick Easter and Simon Shaw offering reliability, experience and a sense of perspective. Moody, taking no chances, has even scribbled a note on the back of his hand to remind himself to pack his passport . "It's up to the senior players to make sure the guys who haven't been to Italy before understand it's going to be a tough game," said the Leicester flanker. "It's going to take every bit of our dog, enthusiasm and spirit to come away with the right result. They're never to be underestimated. Long gone are the days w\hen you put 50 or 60 points on Italy."

Cueto feels the same way – "We've spoken about the potential we have but last week means nothing if we don't back it up" – and also went out of his way to praise Moody's trademark contribution. "He's the ultimate leader by example. He'll run into a brick wall or run in front of a bus if you want him to. That's exactly what we want. It's inspiring for everyone else."

Armadillo is a C++ linear algebra library (matrix maths) aiming towards a good balance between speed and ease of use. Integer, floating point, and complex numbers are supported, as well as a subset of trigonometric and statistics functions. Various matrix decompositions are provided through optional integration with LAPACK and ATLAS libraries. A delayed evaluation approach, [...]

Armadillo is a C++ linear algebra library (matrix maths) aiming towards a good balance between speed and ease of use. Integer, floating point, and complex numbers are supported, as well as a subset of trigonometric and statistics functions. Various matrix decompositions are provided through optional integration with LAPACK and ATLAS libraries. A delayed evaluation approach, based on template meta-programming, is used (during compile time) to combine several operations into one and reduce or eliminate the need for temporaries.

Changes: This release has an extended and overhauled expression evaluation framework for faster handling of compound expressions. Several new functions were added and the documentation has been improved: there is now a conversion table between Matlab and Armadillo syntax.

Release Tags: Major architecture enhancement, Documentation Updates, Speedups

Tags: Scientific/Engineering, Mathematics, Software Development, Libraries, machine learning, Statistics

Licenses: LGPL

If you ask anyone what were Pete Carroll’s two worst defeats at USC, they would probably say Stanford…and Stanford. 

The first loss was three seasons ago when the 41-point underdog Cardinal knocked USC from first place in what some call college football’s most stunning defeat. The loss cost Carroll and the Trojans another shot at a third national title.

The second Stanford defeat occurred just this past season as the Cardinal handed Carroll his worst defeat ever and the Trojans' worst home loss in years, 55-20.

The 13-9 UCLA loss a few years ago was also a huge upset. But the Bruins weren’t 41-point underdogs.

The man responsible for those two impressive Stanford victories as well as their recent resurgence in the Pac-10 may just wind up at USC as early as Monday.

No, it is not Jim Harbaugh but David Shaw, his offensive coordinator.

The Chicago Tribune has reported that Stanford has hired former Bears’ offensive coordinator, Ron Turner. His job title has not been designated as yet, but I would highly doubt it to be anything less than offensive coordinator.

This would most likely mean that Shaw has already agreed to come to USC.

Shaw has been with Harbaugh since 2006 when he was his passing coordinator and receivers coach at San Diego University. Prior to that, Shaw was the Ravens wide receivers coach from 2002-2005 and quarterbacks/wide receivers coach from 2002-2004. Before that, he was the quarterbacks coach for the Oakland Raiders from 1998-2001.

While Shaw will be leaving his alma mater, Turner will be repeating his role as Stanford’s offensive coordinator which he held from 1989-1991 under head coach Dennis Green. He will also be reuniting with Harbaugh. Turner was Harbaugh’s offensive coordinator with the Bears in 1993.

So, this will finally end all those Norm Chow rumors that have been floating around these days. And maybe for the better.

Shaw’s offense at Stanford has been nothing short of spectacular. Since Shaw took over, the Cardinal offensive statistics—scoring, touchdowns, passing and rushing yardage—have skyrocketed.  

The Cardinal, a perennial Pac-10 bottom-dweller, were just one overtime score away from winning the Pac-10 title and going to the Rose Bowl this past season. Additionally, Toby Gerhart, who lead the Pac-10 in rushing, was one of this year’s Heisman Trophy finalists.

And Shaw has done all this at a school that does not normally get four-and-five star recruits because of Stanford’s high academic requirements.

So, I hope I am not jumping the gun. But if things turn out Monday the way I expect them to, then let me be one of the first to welcome David Shaw to USC and also congratulate Lane Kiffin on keeping his promise to put together the best college coaching staff in the nation.

We get our first look at, and our hands on, the next game in the Settlers strategy series.

Developer Blue Byte has worked on The Settlers for quite some time, but the next game in the series, The Settlers 7: Paths to a Kingdom, will make big changes. The game is being developed with a brand-new 3D engine that allows for highly detailed close-ups on its colorful new landscapes, its long horizons, and its stylized characters and buildings, which recall the exaggerated fairy tale art of the motion picture Shrek and the colorful characters of Team Fortress 2. More importantly, it's being enhanced with a number of new changes and additions that will make the gameplay at once deeper, more varied, and potentially more appealing to a wider audience, thanks to the input of consultant Bruce Shelley, a cofounder of the dearly departed Ensemble Studios--creator of the Age of Empires series. We watched a brief demonstration of the game's features, then tried it out for ourselves.

If you're a longtime Settlers fan, you may recall that the previous game in the series had a streamlined economy system which some players found to be a bit on the shallow side. The new game's economy has been retuned to not only return Settlers 7's economic game to the depth of its predecessors, but also to tie it in more closely to either military operations, or the game's new strategic track, research. Research takes place at religious structures, where studious monks (powered by such crucial economic resources as books and beer) can develop game-winning techs while your opponents are busy building their economies or their armies. However, military victory has been enhanced with the ability to give your armies direct move and attack orders, and should you care to, you can definitely opt to tilt your economy in favor of the gold and food required to commission an army quick.

Like with other games in the series, The Settlers 7 takes place on the planet we know as Earth, and focuses its early action in Europe approximately during the Age of Sail, where pikemen and musketeers march side by side into battle and where trade routes to India and Africa are potentially huge moneymakers. However, the story of the single-player campaign starts in the fictitious country of Tandria with the princess Zoe, who has been commissioned by her father, the king, to ride off into an unruly colony and take her place as monarch. The campaign will offer the usual requisite tutorial mission to open and lead into a comprehensive story-based set of missions, though the game will also include standalone skirmish maps and a statistic-heavy competitive multiplayer with extensive leaderboards to track anything from which players are the most successful in deathmatch to which players have baked the most bread.

More importantly, the game will have in-depth customization tools to create both your own custom castle (with a variety of options to customize towers, pennants, balconies, and other features), and an extremely powerful custom map editor which will let you tweak available resources, number of players, and victory conditions with a single click. For instance, a certain map might default to requiring players control a handful of key territories, and unflagging all key territories but one will automatically turn it into a king-of-the-hill match. And as soon as you've tweaked the map to your liking, you can start a skirmish or multiplayer map with a single click--no need to save the map or do anything else.

We then skipped ahead to a hands-on session with a single-player skirmish map set to standard victory conditions. Winning a basic game of Settlers 7 will be about securing key victory conditions--there will be 20 in all, which include military, economic, and research trees as well as accruing the most resources as possible. Once you secure enough victory points (in a basic game, you need to lock down six of them), a timer will begin to count down, and the player in the lead will win unless another player can seize away some victory conditions (by accruing more resources or tech), or eliminating that player with a military victory.

In our case, we decided to shoot for an economic victory by aggressively building up a strong infrastructure. The key to a good economy is quickly seizing as many resource-producing nodes on the map as possible, construct resource collection and processing buildings (and storehouses) nearby, connected smartly by well-maintained roads that can ferry your goods to your processing plants to produce advanced goods, such as higher-grade food and clothing. Finding these key resource nodes is easy, since they're marked in the world by floating icons, and since the game has a real-time strategic zoom feature vaguely reminiscent of the camera in Supreme Commander.

Placing key structures is simply a matter of opening up a build menu, then placing them in a smart location. Most basic buildings themselves are miniature hubs onto which you can build up to three add-ons--for instance, farms can be developed with grain fields or piggeries. However, many of these add-ons have co-dependencies with each other, different types of resources, and with other structures--grain fields need wells (which produce unlimited water), while piggeries need grain and water. While the series' classic base resources of iron ore, gold, stone, and coal are still the foundation of the economy, more-advanced structures and techs require different combinations of basic and advanced resources, such as forged tools to support workshops that upgrade your transportation infrastructure, or books printed on paper used to support the research of monks.

Even as an economy-based player, you'll still need to dip your toe into other areas of the game, particularly military development. This is because, like in previous games of the series, nearby territories on the map surrounding your initial holdings will be guarded by armies of neutral forces (or forces controlled by opposing players), and in order to get at these new territories and their precious, precious resources, you'll need to send troops into that territory to cut down the opposition, then occupy it to convert it to your side. The whole process is considerably more interesting than it sounds, and seems to require a good mix of micromanagement skills and strategic oversight, making sure each of your farms, workshops, and forges is working at peak capacity, while also keeping an eye on the bigger picture of how close to victory conditions you or your enemies are, and which key resources you either lack or have in surplus.

The Settlers 7 seems like it will offer deep economic strategy and lots of solid improvements to a series that has already carved out a legion of loyal fans over the years. It's scheduled to ship in March.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

---

Recent statistics have been published showing that Europe has now installed over 2,000MW of offshore wind capacity, with more than a quarter installed in the past year, and lots more to come in the next few years. I discussed these numbers in more detail here, but wanted to give you here some insights on what these numbers mean on the ground.

Left: Offshore wind installations. Source: EWEA - The European offshore wind industry
key trends and statistics 2009 (PDF) )
Right: Transition pieces for the Belwind offshore wind farm, Zeebrugge harbor, 22 January 2010

I recently visited the port site in Zeebrugge, Belgium, where the foundations for the Belwind offshore wind farm (the financing of which I worked on) were stored before their installation. This is a good opportunity to give you a glimpse of the kind of logistics involved, and what kind of problems can happen (and how they are solved), on offshore wind installations.

Follow me below for a tour of a small bit of Europe's fastest growing heavy industry.

Part of the windpower series.

As a quick reminder, there are 3 main types of foundations for offshore turbines: monopiles, gravity-based, and jackets/tripods.

Source: www.offshorewind.net

Here are gravity-based foundations and tripods (you can see more pictures here: The unexpected weight of hope)

Monopiles have typically been used for smaller turbines and lowers depths, as their size (diameter and thickness) needs to increase with the load to be carried and their cost can become an issue. The price of steel will heavily influence the choice between the technologies when several are possible. In this case, with 3MW turbines in 20m depth, monopiles were the most logical choice.

Foundations include two main parts, the foundation itself (the part that's driven into the subsoil) and the transition piece (the part that's affixed on top of the foundation and carries the turbine tower).

two foundations on the ground
with several transition pieces in the background

The transition piece usually includes the boat landing, access platform and j-tubes (the steel tube that protects the electrical cable going to other turbines and/or the transformer station, it is curved near the ground to allow the cable to go from its underground trench to the turbine, thus its name).

On the left, you can see the bottom part of the j-tube,
while the right picture has the more complex set of j-tubes for the transformer station,
which has several cables going to several "strings" of turbines.
Note the anti-corrosion protection on the j-tubes.

It also plays a vital role in that it corrects any flaws in the verticality of the foundation: turbines require the towers to be within one half degree of perfect verticality in order not to have to bear inappropriate loads, and it is not so easy to hammer 50m long steel columns in the sea ground to such precision; the transition piece is designed to be adjusted to provide the perfect position required for the turbine over the water.

Another aspect which requires a lot of precision is the roundness of the foundation and the transition piece. The two of them must fit together (more on this in a second), and the transition piece needs to be in the exact size for the first part of the turbine tower to be bolted on top of it - tolerances are below a centimeter (the bolts are big ones - a couple centimeters thick, but they need to fit in over the whole diameter of the two parts...) for equipment measured in tens of meters.

The foundations here have a smaller diameter in their top part, in order for the transition piece to be lowered on top of them and around them. The two parts are then grouted together (a special concrete is injected between the two pieces, this is done on site, naturally, and under water).

the narrower top part of the foundation is quite visible on this picture.
Note the steel tubes alongside the transition piece in the foreground;
the j-tubes will be attached to these alongside the foundation part under water.

Some offshore windfarms use a different connection between foundation and transition piece, with the trnasition piece snuggling inside the foundation. One European windfarm has quality issues on the grouting in that configuration, and there are worries that the turbines could slip lower into the foundations (which is not that important) and lose their horizontality (which is a big problem...). with the design here this is less of an issue as the wider diameter below acts as a stop should the grouting fail.

"Ovality" is also an issue for foundations as the transition pieces need to fit on top of them, and it needs to be checked carefully.

oops - ovality

As you can see, the above foundation has a serious problem: it's really not round. In that case, it is not a manufacturing problem: that foundation sank during the transport to site and hit the seabed... The project company, together with the insurance companies, is investigating the best way to deal with this problem: replace it completely, try to improve its roundness by squeezing it back into shape (the giant steel "pinch" for that was being prepared on site when we visited) or, quite possibly, use it as it is (by luck, it is the bottom part which was damaged, ie the part that goes in the sand, so ovality is less of an issue there as long as the vertical penetration in the soil can still be controlled).

The reason the foundation sank is that it was transported to site by floating it - plugs were installed on each end and the foundation could simply be pulled on the water.

the two plugs used to float a foundation,
installed on the next one about to go to site.
One of these is filled with foam, as it needs to be taken off underwater,
when the foundation has been raised vertically,
and the foam makes it float back to the surface to be recovered.

But the design of a plug was found (after a number of trips) to be slightly faulty and water seeped in, leading to the incident. The foundation was recovered, and the design flaw was identified and has now been corrected. Transport of the foundations to the site was of course interrupted during the investigation, but by luck the weather was poor at that time so no work could have been done in that period... The pictures above show the new improved plug system, which includes a more comprehensive set of sensors to warn of any risk of infiltrations...

This is a fairly typical offshore construction incident, in that it was unexpected, hitting a system that had worked fine previously and had not altogether minor consequences. It was a technical problem, to which a technical solution could be found reasonably easily. It had an impact on the schedule, which could be absorbed by the buffers put in place (and indeed in this case did not require more buffers than were required because of bad weather anyway). In terms of financial impact for the project, it will be fairly minor as this can be largely minimized by repairs or covered by insurance. It goes to confirm that the goal cannot be to expect a flawless project, but to have teams which are able to deal with problems as they appear, because they _inevitably_ will appear at some point, and to have a budget and scheduled which include contingencies and are able to withstand such incidents. Resiliency is the key word here...

this is the special piece of equipment used to "grab" foundations
and bring them from their horizontal transport position to the vertical on site.
It was temporarily on site for some repairs/maintenance.

The project is expected to finish installing the foundations and transition pieces in the short future, and move on to the installation of the turbines. These are going to be soon delivered to a harbour site nearby (so, no pictures this time), with completion in the course of this year. The turbines will be erected on their towers on the site inland, and transported as a whole to the site - the erection is expected to attract quite a bit of attention in the area as it will be highly visible.

Editorial Note:
This post was originally published on TOD:Europe on 24 January under the title "There is (offshore wind powered) light at the end of the tunnel!" and with the following picture on the front page:

bankers walking inside a foundation for the Belwind offshore windfarm,
Zeebrugge, Belgium, 22 January 2010

Armadillo is a C++ linear algebra library (matrix maths) aiming towards a good balance between speed and ease of use. Integer, floating point, and complex numbers are supported, as well as a subset of trigonometric and statistics functions. Various matrix decompositions are provided through optional integration with LAPACK and ATLAS libraries. A delayed evaluation approach, based on template meta-programming, is used (during compile time) to combine several operations into one and reduce or eliminate the need for temporaries.

Changes: Several bugs were fixed. Functionality was added for forward compatibility with future 0.9.x releases.

Release Tags: Minor bugfixes

Tags: Scientific/Engineering, Mathematics, Software Development, Libraries, machine learning

Licenses: LGPL

SEnuke is the number one software for those interested in dominating the search engines. Check out http://SEnuke.SECRETBEST.com To earn income online you need traffic, and plenty of it. And not just any traffic, you need people who will be interested in your offer - you want focused traffic. you may have the most stirring and exciting promotional letter, and you may have an offer that nobody would be in a position to turn down, but if nobody comes to your internet site to check out what you're announcing, you might as well be talking to the wall. Think that would take your business to another level entirely? You're right . aside from spending thousands of greenbacks in PPC and banner advert, there truly has been no straightforward way to do that. There really has been no way to flood your website with thousands of targeted visitors every day without paying an arm and a leg for every one. till now that is... And what we are about to share with you could have a larger result on your business than anything else you've ever seen on the internet. Try the success story after success story! Here's only a few of them : Reached $500 in twenty four hours with Clickbank - Thanks to SE Nuke CPA Success- $5000 ( Passive ) over $50,000 total Brand New Domain Now PR5 In six Weeks High End affiliate success thanks to SeNuke Got my first sale in 9days with SENuke!!!! And 92 more success stories just like this! I guarantee you, you won't find such a big number of success stories for any other profitable software on the internet. ... To witness first-hand ... Money practically being revealed on demand? Just check out these stats : 87% of all visitors come from a page 1 position More than 250 million searches carried out daily in the US & UK alone 73% of all online transactions begin with search sites sadly, if you are stuck spending hours at a time manually submitting to high authority sites, then reaping the benefits of these statistics can be more than a task, because at some point soon you may burn out! but once you say yes to this powerful tool that we have made, you'll : raise your web traffic efficiently Save cash and time related to web promotion Reach out to a bigger, tighter targeted audience Reel in the profits that you truly merit and You'll be FLOODED with new and constant traffic With this one-of-a-kind tool that we've been informing you about, you'll : Empower yourself with the search website ranking secret that top promoting gurus use select the perfect keywords to generate the highest amount of traffic Discover how it's possible to get your internet site mentioned on leading search engines five times quicker than you normally would 'How does SEnuke work? What's it do, and ultimately how is it able to help me make more money?' SEnuke Works For Anyone! you do not Even need to have A Website! Why? Because all you need are affiliate links! Imagine having your affiliate links floating around all over the internet. There's almost NO way you cannot make money! And for those who have web sites, you have access to gallons of link juice that you can pour on your site to make them rise in the search websites like a Helium balloon!

The answer to the question of where ­Manchester United would be without Wayne Rooney is third in the Premier League, eight points behind ­Arsenal and Chelsea. And that is just by working out how many points the champions owe to his goals.

Without him, they might be anything up to £100m better off but the one positive thing about Manchester United's debt is that it is so brain-numbingly vast, it ­cannot be eliminated through player sales. And in any case, it is hard to ­imagine any team that Rooney might join. He may be among the best ­footballers in the world but he is not what Ruud ­Gullit called a "world ­footballer", equally at home in Madrid, Milan or Manchester.

And that is perhaps what Sir Alex ­Ferguson meant when he responded to a question about how Rooney had ­blossomed in the absence of Cristiano Ronaldo, now that he was "the main man" at Old Trafford. The United manager was dismissive. "I don't think that comes into it," he said. "He always was the main man."

What Ferguson meant was that ­however brilliantly Ronaldo shone, he knew his time at Old Trafford was temporary and that, in fact, Manchester United did well to keep him for six years. Rooney was always for the long term.

Rooney said he had never scored four before in professional football – a glance through the statistics for Everton Boys' 1995-96 season reveals that he scored nine in a 15-0 win over Preston and eight against Leeds. He is almost as important to his team now as he was in that season, in which he celebrated his 10th birthday.

He arguably occupies the ­position in this United side that George Best did 40 ­seasons ago, as the supreme footballer in a team on the turn. In 1970 Best scored six times at Northampton – a ­performance that in part assuaged the pain of being beaten in a League Cup semi-final by ­Manchester City.

Anthony Gardner was marking Rooney on Saturday, and the Hull centre-half did ­reasonably well until the 82nd minute, when the floodgates opened.

"He is crucial to Manchester United's title hopes," Gardner said. "You can see him cutting through teams week in and week out. He has all the attributes you need – great awareness and strong on the ball; he even scored with his head. He has everything.

"Rooney is hard to mark because he goes deep and operates as a kind of ­floating striker. As a defender, sometimes you want someone who goes right up against you but when Rooney goes into the hole you can't pick him up and it can disturb where you are on the pitch."

The truth was that after Rooney's early goal, driving in a half-saved shot from Paul Scholes, Hull were not overly ­disturbed until the end of the match, when everything came crashing down. For United, Nani, finally, produced a performance of note while Michael Owen disproved ­Ferguson's theory that he and Rooney are not natural partners.

Nevertheless, just before United's second, when Rooney and ­Dimitar Berbatov combined just as they did for the fourth, Gardner sensed a goal coming. He thought it would be scored by the team in amber.

His manager, Phil Brown, who has been charged by his chairman, Adam Pearson, with cutting £8m from a wage bill that is bigger than Bolton's and which dwarfs Burnley's, might be correct in his ­thinking that this game was not critical to Hull's survival. But he acknowledged that ­Saturday's match at home to Wolverhampton Wanderers would be.

Some of the more stilted passages of play, at a stadium shrouded in a thin mist that did not conceal the second-lowest league crowd of the season, were ­perfect for the "Glazer out" chants, some of which were uttered by supporters wearing the green and gold of Newton Heath, the club that became Manchester United. If those supporters had read Ferguson's programme notes, in which he had made a passionate appeal for unity, they chose to ignore them.

However, at Old Trafford at least the champions are still knocking over the makeweights of the division. Their ­previous home games in the league had pitched them against Wolves, who last won at Old Trafford in 1980; Wigan, who have never beaten United; and Burnley, who last won here in 1962. Hull's last ­victory in this corner of Manchester came 10 years before that.

Next up at Old Trafford in the league are the bottom side, Portsmouth, and there are plenty of tickets available to see a team who last picked up a point here in 1957. If, as Rafael Benítez half-jokingly suggested, Ferguson controls the fixture list, he could not have selected a more straightforward series of games.

Man of the match Wayne Rooney (Manchester United)

275-378-5.

Who Dat?

That's the all-time regular season record of the Johnny Come Lately New Orleans Saints.

Geaux Saints!

N'awlins.

Just some of the fake-ass French mannerisms that seem to be floating around as of late.

As the title of this article indicates, I challenge any and all, real Saints fans to wear their old faded No. 21 Dalton Hilliard jerseys among others that will prove their real loyalty to the team I refer to as the Bandwagon Bayou. Instead we will see brand-new pitch black No. 25 Reggie Bush or "Drew Brees" jerseys. Go figure.

I realize the number of actual Saints contributors is limited since you really aren't used to winning and haven't been blessed with the same winners the Vikings have had historically but at least try and dig up and old Wayne Martin or Morten Andersen jersey or two. That will prove your commitment to the team.

Hilliard, a Louisiana native son, played for the putrid Saints from 1986-1993, whose career while plagued by injuries was a fan favorite-probably because oftentimes, he was the only one worth giving a damn about.

"Who dat gonna beat dem Saints?" is the complete phrase of the ebonics-esque chant. Oxymoron as it is since A. the answer from much of their failed history is, well, just about everyone but B. its eerily familiar to another failed franchise, the Bengals' "Who Dey!" chant.

With a 276-377-5 record against the rest of the league, a more appropriate motto might be, who hasn't beat "dem Saints?"

How original—even if yours came first, New Orleans—excuse me, N'awlins.

I realize its just a quirky phrase that is similar to our Skol Vikings! chant which pays tribute to our Nordic themed history but come on, think of the irony behind that rally cry; that's all I have to say.

Besides, everyone knows that the only real football that matters is in Baton Rouge and LSU.

How many of you are French?

How many of you know anything more than "Geaux " "Frere Jacques " and "Au Revior " among your limited French vocabulary?

I get a lot of you are just playing it up because its just a game and this is your team (at least since 2003) or is it 2007, I forget.

Again, to all the real Saints fans who can more than three players off the 3-13 1996 team, for example without looking it up, this doesn't apply to you as there are good and real fans in every market that support the team good and bad.

But there are also a growing number of you who don't realize or don't remember the brown bag years. For a fond reminder of those glory days, just Google it.

Excuse me: "Geaux" Google it. Is that better?

"Saints Brown bag over heads." Unfortunately the first thing that comes up first as a 'brown bag mask' explanation with the Saints specifically cited as examples, but under the Saints' own wikipedia history, it lists their rather dubious tradition that effectively labeled them the 'Aints.

I always thought it was a good look for you. It was your own, it was personal, and most of all, it matched those lovely gold pants so nicely.

Speaking of pants , Brett Favre has the Vikings locker room all united and rallying around in a New York Yankees-esque atmosphere of yesteryear. Literally, as in last year when they won it all, something neither of our teams know about, but at least we've been there-four times.

What about you?

All you have is know-it-all Brees barking at the camera in the infamous but stupid "Who are we? Saints! Who are we? Saints! This-is-New Orleans!"

First off, I appreciate him speaking slowly at the end since most of us don't speak idiot, but more importantly, thanks to him for reminding us who they are, a history of losers.

That loser mentality is going to be hard to shake, especially coming from Brees, a former San Diego Choker, uh, Charger.

A similar Google search of "Vikings Brown bag over heads" didn't seem to reveal anything.

Maybe that's because their 395-322-9 .550 percent record may have had something to do with it. Maybe its because of the 48 years Minnesota has had a team, only 13 of them, or 27 percent of the time has their record been below .500.

Three of these years were the teams' first three in existence.

They are a model NFL franchise. They play in a real division, with tradition, rivalries, and winning. The Saints and their fans are still learning what its takes and what its like to be winners.

Forgive me, but I'll take Brett Favre's childlike desire to play the game, complete with his tackling of his own wide receivers after the catch his throw or him picking up a tight end over Drew Brees whose appears to have the personality of a gym bag and comes off as a jerk because he tries to hard to fit in.

Everyone wants to talk about x-factors. Hopefully punter Chris Kluwe learned his lesson from punting to all-or-nothing Reggie Bush the last time these two teams played and the Vikings won 32-31 in a too-thrilling game.

 

Breaking down the game:

The Vikings have several x-factors: Jared Allen and the rest of the defensive line against the Saints under-whelming tackles John Stinchcomb and Jermon Bushrod at right and left tackle respectively, whom Cris Carter already called out as a weakness for the Saints.

• Adrian Peterson and the fact he hasn't rushed for 100 yards since week 10 or eight games ago. If he gets 100, especially early due to a long run or two, it could be a whole new ballgame right there.
• Super Rookie Percy Harvin and his migraine situation. He can turn a game field position-wise on either a kick return or two or a long reception. I personally, don't expect anything out of him because of the above, so anything productive will be a bonus as he goes into decoy mode.
• The fact Bernard Berrian and Visanthe Shaincoe have yet to really emerge. Similar to Peterson, if they do anything, which I'm not counting on, the Vikings could find themselves in surprisingly good shape.
• The real key is Brett Favre. He's battle tested. This is why we brought him in and many fans put up with his retirement flip-flopping.

As for me who quit hating him when he was a Packer, because at some point you just have to accept and recognize greatness even if it is for a rival, the transition was easy and effortless. He gives us our best chance to win which is what its all about at the end of the day.

If it comes to an end today, it was worth it and I thank Brett Favre for leading the most fun Vikings season since 1998 and I hope he comes back to do it all again next year.

The only two things that bother me concerning the Saints is their secondary who could take one back to the house at any moment, and the all-too-quiet defensive line which has to be better than advertised. That to me could be their x-factor if the Vikings overlooked this area. That bothers me.

As for their offense, the Vikings can only do what the can do and let the chips fall where they may. Limit the big play, try and pressure Brees like they did to Tony Romo and stop the Saints rushing attack.

Winning the toss and scoring first would do wonders for taking the crowd out of it, but that alone won't be good enough.

I think the real key is to get the first turnover of the game and most importantly cash in on it, via touchdown. The earlier the better. The Vikings must also consistently score touchdowns and not settle for field goals unless it is to pad a lead or close out a half when they have no other option.

Oh, and New Orleans, don't even try and play up the underdog hype that each team so desperately wants.

You have the No. 1 offense in the entire league which says a lot when Peyton Manning and the Cowton Colts are playing in your same league, you are the number one seed, and thus you are hosting the playoff game. All that aside, at least if we lose, we have a built in excuse.

As Vikings fans, we're used to suffering and choking in the big games. We've seen both the heartbreaking 1998 loss to the Atlanta Falcons at home which we gave away and I wrote about, linked above, and we've seen the absolute opposite, ass-kicking on the road in The Meadowlands in 2000 when the Vikings really shouldn't have went that far and surprised many, before curling up to a 41-0 beat down.

What's the worst you can do to us?

The better question would be, what would a loss today do for you?

Despite being the home team, 53 percent of ESPN's SportsNation picked the Vikings to win the game.  

But I can't rip dem Saints too bad, after all, should they win the game, I'm gonna need them to beat boring Peyton Manning and his methodical comotose offense in the Super Bowl. NFC teams gotta stick together, just not today.

Hopefully you are going to Miami—just that its next week for the Pro Bowl, while our 10 players, roughly 20 percent of the entire NFC roster, are resting up for the big day.

You need this win to unite a city and continue the hype, we need this win to save our existence in the state of Minnesota before they get relocated to Los Angeles. Think of the greater good.

We haven't been in a Super Bowl since 1976, or 34 years, you've never been in. Your time will come, ours may have less than two years in its present state, literally-no pun intended.

Minnesota needs this as I wrote in a previous column: 4 Sport Droughts: Which Market Will Win Next? Washington D.C. or Twin Cities?

With any luck New Orleans, you might be known for more than just natives Chubby Checker, Fats Domino and the appropriately titled "Aint that a Shame " which pretty much summarizes your history thus far.

Skol Vikings!

Statistics and information courtesy of ESPN.com, FOX, ESPN SportsNation, ESPN, Wikipedia, and Youtube directly contributed to this article.

Give it the gas: On the road to a cleaner energy future, natural gas offers an alternative route

Every few weeks, it seems, fresh news arrives telling of impressive discoveries of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico, an area that, until recently, was viewed as well worked over and unlikely to yield any new bonanzas.

Last September brought word of a giant Gulf oil field reeled in by British Petroleum. And the latest Gulf headline-maker is a potentially major gas play offshore Louisiana that appears likely to add new trillions of cubic feet of gas to growing domestic reserves of the cleanest-burning carbon fuel.

So much for worked over. The new take on the Gulf is decidedly more optimistic.

Goldman Sees ‘Upside Risk’ for China’s Oil Demand

(Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said it sees “significant upside risk” to its forecast for China’s oil demand this year.

China’s oil consumption growth may exceed the bank’s forecast of 625,000 barrels a day in 2010, analysts including Jeffrey Currie said in an e-mailed report today. The country is the world’s second-biggest fuel user.

Pakistan: Rise in fertilizer rates to cause Rabi yield decline

LAHORE - The sudden raise in the prices of fertilizers after acute shortage of water in the country could lead to decline production of Rabi crops particularly wheat up to 20 to 30 per cent of the total production.

Experts said that the quantity of fertilizers is usually increased in case of water shortage.

Zambia: State to Plan Ahead for Indeni Maintenance

MINISTRY of Energy and Water Development Permanent Secretary Teddy Kasonso has said that advance preparations in the face of routine maintenance closures at Indeni Oil Refinery will help address the fuel shortages in the country during the period.

In the past, the nation has experienced fuel shortages because of starting the preparations for sufficient fuel stocks at the last minute.

Ethiopia inflation soars to 7.1 pct y/y in Dec

ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) - Ethiopia's year-on-year inflation rose to 7.1 percent in December from 0.6 percent in November on the back of rising fuel, food and construction material prices, the statistics office said on Friday.

Inflation in the vast Horn of Africa nation hit a high of 64.2 percent in July 2008. It then entered a period of deflation from July to October last year.

Life getting harsher in North Korea

Food shortages have been made more painful because "it's the elite that creams off the food produce," said Muntarbhorn, whose six-year term expires this year, at a press conference in Tokyo.

"There's also a shortage of medicines, particularly now the H1N1 flu has arrived," said Muntarbhorn, who said he had interviewed many refugees from North Korea but never been allowed to visit the isolated country.

Indonesia: Gasoline prices in Timika skyrocket

This shortage of fuel had caused a two-kilometer long queue of hundreds of motorbikes and cars for gasoline at two fuel stations in Timika over the past week.

In response to the situation, Nawaripi fuel station`s supervisor, Rifai, said the state oil company, Pertamina, just delivered him eight to 10 kilo litres a day over the past six days.

That supply was much lower than 29 kilo litres a day he normally received from Pertamina, he said.

Hawaii school bus service being cut back as costs soar

Public school bus routes, which were cut back in November, will be reduced further next school year and the fare may climb to $1 from 75 cents.

The Department of Education will eliminate more school bus routes on O'ahu next school year by increasing the distance students will be required to walk to school.

Walk distances for students were increased in November from 1 mile to 1.5 miles for secondary students, and the fare jumped from 35 cents to 75 cents for a one-way trip.

Asia Fuel Oil-India Essar offers second Feb cargo

SINGAPORE, Jan 22 (Reuters) - India's Essar Oil has issued a tender offering up to 60,000 tonnes of February-loading fuel oil, its second cargo for the month, amid an improving market, tender documents showed on Friday.

Oil Caused Recession, Not Wall Street

The take home from my work and that of Hamilton’s is that the received wisdom may be wrong. Wall Street, sub-prime and regulatory failure are not the ultimate cause of the economic melt down. The root of this crisis is probably oil.

Are You Prepared for the 5 Deadly Emergencies?

Oil prices are on the devil’s own roller coaster, but the big picture is that we are still in a head-on collision with peak oil. What’s more, the cheap, easy-to-pump oil is fast being used up.

To be sure, there were plenty of oil discoveries in 2009, especially in Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico. A whopping 10 billion barrels of oil was added to reserves, the highest rate since 2000. However, the world is consuming around 83 million barrels a day, which equates to 31 billion barrels a year. So, even in a good year, we barely replaced one third of the oil we consumed.

Biofuels: The New Alchemy

At the World Future Energy Summit, some of the most influential people in the renewable energy industry will strategize for solutions to the global climate crisis. Read about some of these new technologies.

Solar Power: Sunshine's Cloudy Days

After a period of rapid expansion, panel manufacturers today are reeling from a pronounced supply surplus, falling prices and stagnating sales. In 2009, industry revenue plunged by nearly 40% to about $25 billion from $40 billion the previous year, according to BankAmerica Merrill Lynch alternative-energy analyst Steven Milunovich. Solar-panel output far outstripped demand last year; manufacturers made 66% more product than they were able to sell, estimates research firm iSuppli located in El Segundo, Calif. Some analysts believe the dismal conditions will persist into 2011, setting up marginal players worldwide for failure. "A large number of manufacturers will not survive," says Paul Semenza, an analyst with research company DisplaySearch, based in San Jose, Calif.

Cutting Carbon: Should We Capture and Store It?

The potential impact of CCS is huge. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that CCS could contribute between 10% and 55% of the cumulative worldwide carbon mitigation effort over the next 90 years. The International Energy Agency says that CCS is "the most important single new technology for CO2 savings" in power generation and industry, and will need to account for about one-fifth of the carbon mitigation effort this century — reducing carbon emissions as much as renewable energy sources will.

Though it requires up to 40% more energy to run a CCS coal power plant than a regular coal plant, CCS could potentially capture about 90% of all the carbon emitted by the plant. To solve the problem of climate change, we "need to use every option we can," says Nick Otter, head of the newly-created Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI) in Australia, which will fund pilot programs and network CCS efforts around the world. "And we've got to have some realism to the approach."

In Abu Dhabi, the Green Economy is in Rude Health

The feeling among many conference-goers can be summed up like this: the politicians might have failed to act on climate change, but everybody else is going to push on regardless. Take Bill Gross, founder of eSolar, a California-based firm that builds solar power plants that use mirrors to concentrate sunlight and boil water that then turns a turbine. Gross has just cut a deal with a privately-owned Chinese power equipment manufacturer to build, over the next 10 years, solar power plants that will generate 2 gigawatts of electricity. To put that in perspective, that's about four times more power than what's produced by all the solar power plants in the world right now. There's interest beyond China, too. After a lunchtime presentation, would-be buyers from the Middle East and Europe milled around to talk to Gross about possible projects, as well.

Real People, Real Preparation, Part 6 With Faith Carr and Carolyn Baker

Faith Carr, after working hunched over a desk for 35 years, ended up disabled. Exhausted after even more years of progressive political activism with no success, she turned her hand to her own backyard. The 25 square-foot herb garden turned into a homestead. Come the revolution, she'll bring the eats.

Pick-your-own vegetables to replace flowers in high street

A Lancashire town is experimenting with using traditional floral displays, including hanging baskets and herbaceous borders, to grow slightly less colourful but more practical greens.

The idea taking shape in Clitheroe is to replace flowers with edible vegetables and offer a modest "pick-your-own" service of plantings to anyone passing by.

Growing Home—Urban Agriculture in Chicago

"Well over 50 percent of the world's population lives in urban communities," says Orrin Williams, the employment training coordinator for Growing Home, as he explains the importance of urban agriculture.

“Urban agriculture is, in my mind, critical to the rebirth of cities and communities that have fallen on hard times,” Williams says.

Oilrigs should be used for homes in areas at risk of flooding, report says

Decommissioned North Sea oil platforms should be towed to the waterfronts of coastal cities at risk of flooding and converted into homes, shops and universities protected from rising sea levels, a study recommends.

Britain should not retreat from the waves but embrace them, adapting to climate change and consequent flooding by building new communities, either on stilts or floating platforms.

Should energy independence be a high priority in the US?

The year is 2013, five years after peak oil. Gas is now over 11.00 a gallon. The average American no longer drives a car. Only the government and the military have access to large amounts of gasoline. It is a world none of us could have imagined.

The average American family of four has made drastic changes to survive. It is a cold Midwest morning, the alarm goes off at 7 AM. The family wakes up to a cold, 55 degree house. An electric spacer heater is the only form of heat, and all electric, nation wide, is shut off from 11PM-7AM. Through out the winter months, only three rooms are heated, the living room, the kitchen, and one bathroom. Because of this, all the beds are now set up in the living room. On top of each bed, are sub zero sleeping bags. These sleeping bags are the difference between life and death, as all across the nation people freeze to death every night in their homes. This has become so common that no one even takes notice anymore.

Oil Falls to Lowest in a Month on Concerns Over Demand, China

(Bloomberg) -- Crude oil fell for a third day, dipping below $76 a barrel in New York to its lowest in a month, after a U.S. government report showed refineries in the biggest energy consumer cut processing in response to lower fuel demand.

U.S. refineries ran at 78.4 percent of capacity last week, the lowest rate outside the Atlantic hurricane season since at least 1989, according to the Energy Department. Oil is headed for a second weekly drop after U.S. President Barack Obama proposed restrictions on risk-taking at financial institutions while concerns grew that China may take more steps to curb price increases.

Commodities Have Further to Advance, Hermes Fund’s O’Shea Says

(Bloomberg) -- Commodities, as measured by the S&P; GSCI Light Energy Index, may gain as much as another 10 percent this year, led by oil, sugar and coffee, according to Colin O’Shea, head of commodities at Hermes Fund Managers Ltd.

The index, which Hermes uses as a benchmark, advanced 15 percent last year, buoyed by Chinese demand for oil, copper and other commodities. The gauge has a 36 percent weighting in energy, 30 percent in agriculture and almost 18 percent in industrial metals, based on data from Jan. 21.

Russia Sees Oil, Gas Share of GDP Falling to 14%

(Bloomberg) -- Russia, the world’s biggest energy supplier, may see the share of oil and natural gas in gross domestic product fall to 14 percent within a decade from about 25 percent now, Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said.

Oil prices may average less than $70 in the course of the next 10 years, undercutting revenue and reducing the energy industry’s share of GDP, Kudrin said at a conference in Moscow today. Budget revenue from the mineral extraction tax and export tariffs on oil and gas may drop as much 4 percent during this decade, Kudrin said.

Russia Considers Shift From Crude Oil Export, Extraction Taxes

(Bloomberg) -- Russia is considering shifting from oil export and mineral extraction taxes to a levy on “excess profit,” said Ilya Trunin, director of the Finance Ministry’s tax and customs department.

Schlumberger Profit Falls as Customers Cut Spending

(Bloomberg) -- Schlumberger Ltd., the world’s largest oilfield-services provider, said fourth-quarter profit fell 31 percent after oil producers slashed spending during the global recession.

Net income dropped to $795 million, or 65 cents a share, from $1.15 billion, or 95 cents, a year earlier, Schlumberger said today in a statement. Excluding one-time items, profit was 67 cents a share, 3 cents higher than the average of 26 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Venezuela’s Planta Centro Generator Sputters Amid Energy Crisis

(Bloomberg) -- Planta Centro, Venezuela’s biggest fossil-fueled power plant, is operating at less than a fifth of its designed capacity, exacerbating a power crisis that has shuttered businesses from aluminum plants to shopping malls.

The plant operated at 267 megawatts of power on Jan. 20, or at about 13 percent of its 2,000 megawatt capacity, according to a daily report from Venezuela’s grid manager, the National Electric System Administration Center, known by its Spanish acronym CNG. The plant hasn’t produced at more than 26 percent of capacity in at least three months, according to CNG.

Venezuela rejects Junin 10, Mariscal Sucre offers

CARACAS (Reuters) - Offers made by foreign companies to help develop Venezuela's Mariscal Sucre offshore gas field and its Junin 10 extra-heavy crude field "did not meet expectations," oil minister Rafael Ramirez said on Thursday.

Nigerian Court Tells Cabinet to Decide on Presidency

(Bloomberg) -- Nigeria’s Federal High Court said the Cabinet must decide within 14 days whether ailing President Umaru Yar’Adua is unfit to discharge his duties as leader of Africa’s top oil producer.

Justice Dan Abutu issued the ruling today in one of three lawsuits seeking to force Yar’Adua to step down and hand power to Vice President Goodluck Jonathan.

'We can survive -- but we must change`

Human population has been on overdrive since the Civil War, he said, and a sustainable level of human population may be no more than 1 billion people. That has created quite a predicament -- the long emergency. A group of 500 scientists gathered for an energy conference in Denver last fall agreed that the global rate of oil production peaked in July of 2008. From that point on, oil will be increasingly expensive and harder to pump.

"Our governments are not prepared for peak oil any more than they were for the recent recession," Brownlee said.

The experts are telling us we need a 20-year crash program to prepare for and avoid the coming devastating consequences, but "it`s not even being considered yet. We`re likely to be caught short. Local communities will feel the pain."

Reliance Industries Q3 profit rises 15.8 percent

MUMBAI — Indian refining and energy giant Reliance Industries announced its first profit rise in over a year on Friday as its performance was boosted by higher natural gas production.

Reliance, India's largest private sector company, said net profit rose 15.8 percent to 40.08 billion rupees (878 million dollars) in the fiscal third quarter to December from 34.62 billion rupees a year earlier.

The electric car revolution will soon take to the streets

For years, the promise and hype surrounding electric cars failed to materialize. But as this year's Detroit auto show demonstrated, major car companies and well-funded startups — fueled by federal clean-energy funding and rapid improvement in lithium-ion batteries — are now producing electric vehicles that will soon be in showrooms.

Swiss pilots aim to circle world in a solar-powered plane

ABU DHABI (AFP) – Bertrand Piccard is no conventional environmental activist -- he hopes to raise awareness about the potential of renewable energy by flying a solar-powered aircraft around the world.

"What we want to do is to fly day and night to show that, with renewable energies, you can have unlimited duration of flight, no restriction," Piccard told AFP at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi, where he had a booth to promote his venture.

British State May Have to Subsidize Nuclear Power, Auditor Says

(Bloomberg) -- The British government may have to subsidize construction of nuclear power plants because it lacks a guarantee from Electricite de France SA that new stations will be built, the country’s auditor said today in a report.

Economic considerations, including the price of carbon, difficulties getting plants approved and EDF’s financial position may hamper the company’s efforts to complete projects, the National Audit Office said.

NRC cites fire hazards at Alabama nuclear plant

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal regulators warned the Tennessee Valley Authority on Thursday about "apparent violations" involving fire safety at the utility's Browns Ferry nuclear plant in north Alabama.

Officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the findings don't pose an immediate safety risk but are urging TVA to fix the three-reactor plant, which suffered a nearly disastrous fire in 1975 and later had to shut down for more than two decades due to problems.

Governments 'must tackle' roots of nature crisis

Governments must tackle the underlying causes of biodiversity loss if they are to stem the rate at which ecosystems and species are disappearing.

That was one of the conclusions of an inter-governmental workshop in London held in preparation for October's UN biodiversity summit in Nagoya, Japan.

China-led group may discuss climate fund for poor

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - A meeting of four of the world's fastest-growing carbon emitters on Sunday ahead of a January 31 deadline for countries to submit their action plans to fight climate change may discuss a climate fund for poorer nations.

Senators Want to Bar E.P.A. Greenhouse Gas Limits

WASHINGTON — In a direct challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, introduced a resolution on Thursday to prevent the agency from taking any action to regulate carbon dioxide and other climate-altering gases.

Protecting against climate change could cost nothing

Fresh air is valuable stuff. Climate change mitigation measures needn't cost us a penny, because the clean-air benefits could more than repay the price, according to a new study.

Low-cost carriers greener than full-service

Ryanair has emerged as an unlikely model for sustainable travel in new research showing that low-cost carriers produce up to 35 percent less carbon emissions per passenger than their full-service counterparts, due to higher load factors and seat density, as well as newer fleets.

Global Warming Increases Flood Risk in Mountain Areas

ScienceDaily — The world's mountainous regions are home to about 800 million people and the source of some of the world's major rivers. In these regions, runoff is strongly affected by temperature. This suggests that flooding could be quite sensitive to global warming, but there has been some lack of scientific consensus on the effects of temperature variations on floods.

Stronger Atlantic Hurricanes Seen Increasing, Damaging Property

(Bloomberg) -- The strongest Atlantic hurricanes may almost double in frequency by the end of the century as the planet warms, U.S. scientists said in the journal Science.

Occurrence of the most destructive hurricanes may rise 81 percent over 80 years while the total number of storms, including weaker systems, is projected to drop by 28 percent, the researchers said. The net effect may be to increase property damage by 30 percent, Tom Knutson, a co-author of the study, said in a telephone interview from Princeton, New Jersey.

Temperatures in Past Decade Were Warmest Since 1880, NASA Says

(Bloomberg) -- Temperatures in the decade that ended in 2009 were the warmest since record-keeping began in 1880, NASA said, backing up data from the U.K. Met Office and the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization.

For the past three decades, surface temperatures rose about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per decade, said Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Average global temperatures have increased by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880.

“It’s completely unambiguous that the last 10-year period from January 2000 to December 2009 is very clearly the warmest decade in the historical record,” Schmidt said yesterday.

State schools should start working on their ability to attract clever children

It is certainly quite a statistic. Last year, in all of England, only 79 students receiving free school meals at state school got three As at A-level. In the same year, at Eton alone, 175 people achieved the highest grades. Michael Gove, shadow education secretary and adopted son of an Aberdeen fish merchant, highlighted this profound disparity. (He can afford to at the moment, because he's in opposition.) His point, of course, is not that there is something sinister afoot at Britain's top private school, but that educational opportunities for the poorest of Britain's children are appalling.

Many people believe, however, that success at Eton, and in the private sector generally, damages the ability of the state sector to thrive. It's a valid viewpoint. Children who are particularly academically able do best when they are taught among other children of similar abilities, and worst when they are isolated in their brilliance, and marked apart by it.

Clever children don't need to be in a class, or a school, made up exclusively of eggheads in order to achieve their potential. But there does need to be a critical mass of similarly gifted children among their educational peer group in order for them to feel relaxed about trying hard and doing well.

What's more, the presence and influence of a group of very bright children in a mixed-ability school raises standards among all pupils in the school, not by boosting statistical averages, but by making everyone else also feel more relaxed about trying hard and doing well.

This phenomenon can be seen most clearly in those educational authorities that have retained grammar schools. Children who are taught in grammars attain grades substantially better than average. But the snag is that the pupils in the area's other schools do worse. Overall, the local authorities that have stuck with grammars obtain poorer results than those that run a comprehensive system. This is acknowledged by the opposition, which defies the passionate view of the Conservative grassroots and refuses to adopt the reintroduction of grammars as a policy.

Now, since the vast majority of private schools are academically selective, it could be argued that their very presence in the system distorts the delivery of the full spread of abilities that is needed for the state sector to function well. However, those who are most virulently opposed to private education are, extremely often, the very people who do most to undermine this important observation.

Are private schools filled with pampered Hooray thickos whose near-total domination of the top universities and professions is based on nothing more substantial than money, cramming and connections? Or are many of the mere 7% of children who attend these elite-dominating schools so bright that they are responsible for a catastrophic state-school brain-drain? Which is it?

It is an important question, because unless it is answered dispassionately and honestly, this society does not have a hope of tackling the problems that it faces in promoting social mobility. Yet, the issue is routinely tackled not with clear-eyed wisdom, but with grandstanding, resentment-based, chip-on-the-shoulder prejudice.

Brendan Barber, the TUC general secretary, was busy doing that very thing the other day. "The UK's age-old culture of careers being based on who you know rather than what you know must be tackled if we want our top professions and universities to be filled with the best people, and not simply the richest," he pronounced. Well, I don't think it is that simple. Barber was commenting on the final report of the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, published this week. This document was produced by a group led by Alan Milburn, and commissioned last year by Gordon Brown, to look into ways of breaking the stranglehold that independent schools have on elite higher education and elite professions.

It has made 88 recommendations, some of which have already been rejected by the government. It also boasts some spectacular statistics. For example, that the typical doctor or lawyer comes from a background better off than five out of six families in Britain. This would seem to bear out Barber's assertion: that it's all about money and handy contacts. But while these factors are undeniably of huge importance, I think that the most telling factor is being stubbornly, wilfully, ignored. The elite are not only the products of their material privilege. They are, whisper it, quite often exceptionally bright in the first place as well.

Why is it so important gracefully to acknowledge this? Because all the railing against money and privilege in the world – and there's a lot – doesn't help to make cleverness and educational attainment something to value and aspire to in itself. On the contrary, it delivers the message that if your parents don't have money and privilege enough to buy you an elite start in life, then you might as well not bother even to attempt to "get somewhere", however smart you may be.

Yet even if they do not have privilege and connections, the simple presence of clever children is an asset to a school and to all the pupils within that school. Raw intelligence is a free asset, and state schools should take a leaf out of the feint-ruled jotter of the private sector and start working on their ability to attract clever children, then properly to support them in their academic development. It's time for Britain to grow up and admit the obvious – that academic excellence in the private sector is down not only to cash, but also to rigorous academic selection.

Obviously, that's a dirty brace of words to many people on the left. But this is a dreadful mistake, and one that blights the state sector as much as it favours the private. The very best idea floating around in the educational world is selective banding (not embraced in Milburn's report), in which all schools are expected to balance their intakes, so that they all contain a critical mass of children who have high academic potential, and indeed of other ability groups. Obviously, schools would have to ensure that they had the staff and opportunities to attract high-flying pupils in the first place. Finally, real competition would be introduced into the state sector. This would benefit not only gifted children, but raise the game of all the others too.

Selective banding would also disrupt the pattern whereby people buy their way into "good" state schools by obtaining an address that is near them, and other people are left with no alternative but to send their child to a school with a poor academic record because their financial circumstances oblige them to live in an area where poverty is already highly concentrated.

I'd imagine that in the short term, in areas where educational apartheid is already endemic, the implementation of such a policy would provide a fillip for the private sector. But in the medium term, placing aspiration at the heart of schools is the best possible way to place aspiration in the hearts of children. That's something successful private schools understand very well indeed.

Who can say how far Manchester City's fortunes will rise compared to United's across the next 10 years?

The question of the week, now that the financial tables at least are thoroughly turned, seems to be whether Manchester City can ever be bigger than Manchester United.

Roberto Mancini doesn't see why not, although he would say that, wouldn't he? David Beckham says definitely not, never ever, though the loyal and slightly mischievous lifelong United supporter was not exactly speaking as the voice of impartiality.

What Beckham said was interesting, however, because he said it can never be about just money, it is all about tradition and history, and in those areas United can never be caught. He certainly knows how to put the parvenu rivals in their place, yet, just as with Liverpool's taunts to Chelsea whenever the pair meet in the Champions League, mentioning history always sounds a little desperate, a tacit admission that while the present may be unpredictable and unsatisfactory, at least the past is unchanging and inviolate. It is safe for United to assume, in other words, that oil will run out in the Middle East and Craig Bellamy will grow tired of arguing with people before City overhaul Old Trafford's rich accumulation of trophies, legends and memories, no matter how successful they intend to be.

He is probably right, as it happens, though maybe not completely right, for this is a highly subjective area. Beckham was speaking for himself and his generation when he said United would always be top dogs in Manchester. The situation may not appear so clear cut in 10 years' time if United have spent that period in slow decline and City have been to a few Champions League finals. Yes, the history books and statistics will still show United in the ascendancy, but history books are not necessarily what spark the imagination of football-mad schoolboys. Beckham may have idolised United from afar in his formative years, but who is to say future generations will not grow up venerating the deeds of Carlos Tevez and Shay Given instead? Right now there must be hundreds of 13- and 14-year-olds who think that Chelsea are a far better side and a much more dynamic club than Liverpool, whatever the Kop might have to say on the subject.

Chelsea have never won a European Cup, which puts them miles behind Liverpool and United in the English pecking order, yet they are Champions League regulars with a habit of reaching the later stages. This puts them miles ahead of, say, Spurs, in the London pecking order, despite the fact that Spurs are supposed to have all the history. Spurs have never even played in the Champions League, let alone lost a final on penalties and been robbed of a second by some iffy refereeing. Whatever you think about where their money comes from (and bear in mind Chelsea were playing Champions League football before Roman Abramovich's takeover) or how they have gone about their business, it has to be admitted that Carlo Ancelotti's team are the capital's big cheeses at the moment and it has all come about in a relatively short space of time. The season that Liverpool last won a league title, 1989-90, was Chelsea's first up from a short spell in the Second Division. No one at Anfield or Stamford Bridge 20 years ago would have imagined the next couple of decades would pan out in quite the way they have.

Say what you like about them lacking class or manners, Chelsea have also given themselves a history. In addition to their ancient history (1955 title and 1970 FA Cup), the Blues can now boast four more FA Cup triumphs, back-to-back league titles in 2005 and 2006, and (almost) back-to-back Champions League finals in 2008 and 2009. So the house is hardly empty, and the decorators are still at work. Manchester City's house, it must be said, is achingly, groaningly empty, as a banner updated at Old Trafford every season joyously points out. But things can change, and even a Carling Cup final would be a start. Win the thing and that banner will have to come down as well – every journey starts with a single step and all that. City do have a sort of history in any case, apart from the couple of titles and handful of FA Cups they accrued before United got their act together. Matt Busby used to play for City, how's that for starters? Before he moved to Liverpool, of course. Maine Road was not only the largest club ground in England when it opened, it was temporarily home to United after the second world war while bomb damage to Old Trafford was repaired.

City are not complete arrivistes, in other words; they have not come from nowhere. One can easily understand resentment in less well-connected circles about the way they suddenly came into money, and certainly the way they have been trying to throw it about, but there is no morality in football at the moment, only cash or the lack of it. Look at the mess Liverpool find themselves in at present, after all those years of careful husbandry, doing the right thing by their fans and building up a base for outstanding achievement through solid footballing principles. All United's current woes can be traced directly to the club's own decision to raise money by floating itself on the Stock Exchange, becoming a publicly owned company and therefore a saleable commodity. City have simply been taken over by someone with more money, though it is possible United fans are also piqued by the fact that City's owners follow football a tad more closely than the Glazers.

Precisely because football success is now more likely to stem from the bank vault rather than the boot room, it is unsafe to say history cannot be challenged or quickly rewritten. Ask Arsène Wenger or Rafa Benítez about how hard it is to compete with opponents who can keep buying rather than building, constantly topping up their quality level by an expensive process of trial and error. Or ask Wolves about history. With Manchester United, Stan Cullis's side could claim to have been the team of the 1950s, with three titles, the captain of England and some pioneering European exploits, but since then they have been to the bottom division and back, and are now owned by a businessman who really wanted to buy Liverpool. When David Jones went to Molineux in 2001 he took down the pictures of the Billy Wright era from the walls, because he felt the club should not be living in the past. Sam Allardyce, in contrast, has just had photographs of Blackburn winning trophies under Kenny Dalglish and Graeme Souness restored to Ewood corridors, because he wants his players to be proud of the club and does not imagine the past will be returning any time soon. "Everyone knows what Jack Walker did for this club, but anyone wanting to do the same now would have to pump in £150m or £200m, not £30m or £40m," he said. "It would be very unusual for anyone to want to do that, don't you think?"

Blackburn always were an anomaly in the Premier League. But if there are two major clubs in the same major city, and one is filthy rich while the other is so mired in debt it is considering selling the family silver, it is at least possible, let's not put it any stronger than that, that the next 10 years will be nothing like the last. History, like everything else in football, can be bought.

There has been plenty of worthwhile conversation this past week due to our ungraceful, and early, playoff exit. There has been talk about Brady being past his prime, Moss not being worth his baggage, how our Pass-Happy offense is losing us games and more. However, how deserving is this talk? I can't give an answer. However, looking at the key stats, (just the numbers) from NFL.com, of the factors we have believed to be the main problem, I can offer some insight into what issues needs to be pushed further. I compiled straight statistics from the past decade (2000-2009) to see where we've gone- and what's been going right.

Scanning this blog in this past week, I've compiled a list of reasons, according to posters, as to why the Patriots are no longer an Elite team.

I've come up with:

Poor Offensive and Defensive performance on 3rd downs

Lack of a premier sacker

Weak Secondary

Lack of a strong RB

Too much focus upon Moss and Welker

Not a balanced enough attack

Poor Rush and Pass defense

Weak Rush Offense (this season)

Using these proposed reasons, I have compiled a list of stats from the Patriots teams of this past Decade. After I recorded the basic stats I believe directly relate to the above issues, I ranked each team in respect to the other seasons. I came up with 26 stats and, creatively, labeled them Stats A-Z.

Let's look Offensively first.

More after the jump.

The statistics I believe relate to the offensive issues are:

First Down +/-

	Stat A
Year	First Down +/-	Rank
2000	-43	10
2001	-11	8
2002	-11	8
2003	1	7
2004	54	5
2005	28	6
2006	66	4
2007	114	1
2008	88	2
2009	84	3

Looking at these numbers, it would appear that we are still winning the first down battle during the season. I thought the First Down +/- was important because when you get the first downs, you 1) move the chains, 2) run the clock and 3) win the game. We have been on a slow incline in our first down increase. That's a great sign because we have a young defense.

 

Offensive 3rd Down Conversion Rate

	Stat B
Year	Offensive 3rd Down Conversion Rate	Rank
2000	35.04%	10
2001	41.18%	8
2002	42.73%	5
2003	37.00%	9
2004	45.15%	2
2005	42.08%	7
2006	42.48%	6
2007	48.17%	1
2008	43.24%	4
2009	43.69%	3

It was also disappointing to see us hand the ball off to the up-back in crunch time this season. However, we still had the 3rd best 3rd down conversion rate of the decade (Behind the 16-0 season and the 2004 Super Bowl season and ahead of Cassel's 2008 team). Apart from our 2007 anomaly, our 3rd down Conversion Rate with Brady AND Cassel has been fairly consistent.

 

Offensive 4th Down Conversion Rate

	Stat Y
Year	4th Down Conversion O	Rank
2000	50.00%	6
2001	41.18%	9
2002	45.00%	7
2003	42.86%	8
2004	40.00%	10
2005	76.47%	3
2006	80.00%	1
2007	71.43%	4
2008	77.27%	2
2009	50.00%	5

4th and 2. It doesn't matter how you feel about that subject, our 4th down conversion rate has definitely decreased over the year. We haven't even been attempting them more, with out 4th down attempts floating between the 15-20 range this decade. That said, our worst year of conversion, in 2004, we won the Super Bowl. Same with our second worst and third worst. What does that say? Perhaps we might be going for the jugular too much- we haven't NEEDED to try the 4th downs like we did earlier in the decade. Maybe the fact that we go for the throat so much ends up biting us in the butt?

 

RBs with 500+ Yards (to show a strong tandem, or 1 strong elite back)

	Stat J
Year	RBs with 500+ Yards	Rank
2000	1	4
2001	1	4
2002	1	4
2003	2	1
2004	1	4
2005	1	4
2006	2	1
2007	1	4
2008	2	1
2009	1	4

We've either had 1 or 2 backs with 500+ yards. It stands to be said that the first two years we had 2 backs with 500+ yards, we made the AFCG game, and won the Super Bowl the first time. The third time we had to shift our offense for Cassel. I don't think we can blame our lack of multiple rushing producers for our lack of post season success, however I do believe that the next fact shows where we dropped off this year.

 

Players with 70+ carries (to see how we did switching from Tandem to Backs by Committee)

	Stat K
Year	RBs with 70+ Carries	Rank
2000	2	2
2001	1	7
2002	1	7
2003	2	2
2004	1	7
2005	1	7
2006	2	2
2007	2	2
2008	5	1
2009	2	2

Apart from Cassel's year, when we had BJGE step up in the middle of the season for injuries and Cassel himself pulled out 70 runs (lets see Wonder Tom do that!), we have only had 1 or 2 backs with 70+ carries. I chose 70 as a number because it means the back gets at least 4-5 carries a game. It might not be a lot, but its enough to be having an impact every game. In the past 4 seasons, we've had 2+ backs carry 70+ times. Only in 2006 (Corey Dillon + Laurence Maroney) and 2008 (Sammy Morris + Kevin Faulk) did we have multiple backs run for 500+ yards.  Yes, we have been getting more overall yardage on the ground. However, our individual backs need to step up and perform more. The quality of our stable needs to increase.

 

WRs with 800+ Yards (to show how our top receivers play)

	Stat L
Year	WRs with 800+ Yards	Rank
2000	2	1
2001	1	7
2002	2	1
2003	1	7
2004	2	1
2005	1	7
2006	0	10
2007	2	1
2008	2	1
2009	2	1

Oh 2006...with Senor Caldwell as our #1, we failed to notch an 800+ yard receiver. Take what you want from this, our top receivers are doing their job. Hate Randy if you want, he's still putting up the best receiving this team has seen. Also note, however, that only in 2004 did we win a Super Bowl with 2+ receivers catching 800+ yards. This is more of a stat I looked at to see if having 2 top receivers is detrimental. I don't see the harm.

 

WRs with 30+ receptions (to see how we perform when we spread the ball)

	Stat M
Year	WRs with 30+ Receptions	Rank
2000	3	8
2001	3	8
2002	5	2
2003	5	2
2004	4	4
2005	3	8
2006	4	4
2007	6	1
2008	4	4
2009	4	4

There isn't a real visible correlation between spreading the ball passing and end of season success. We've made it to the Super Bowl with 3, 4, 5 and 6 receivers catching 30+ passes. However, in addition to spreading the ball, the Patriots have had success when a strong running game accompanies the passing game (duh). Utilizing an aerial attack is great, but it can be stopped when it matters if you don't have a strong running game for the rest of the time. Our running game needs more juice.

 

Article continues here!

 

 

This is the third update of Lightning prospects / property that we've conducted thsi season. It's a shallow statistical take on what is going on throughout the Lightning system in regards to production. The listed playersare largely based off of teh attendees of training camp, with a few exceptions.

Below the fold, you'll find a list of players who didn't make the opening night roster for the Lightning and where they are now and just how they are performing in their current location.  Consider this a system update. 

Of course, the more complete place to find updates on Lightning prospects and just how they are producing is over at Bolt Prospects.  You'll find updates on more players in the Lightning system, unsigned draftees, college hockey recruits and those playing abroad on a game-by-game basis.  For the meantime, here's where things stand with some of the top prospects (and depth) in the system on January 13th, 2010:

Previous updates:  November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 (Current)

Forwards

Name		Team	League		Goals	Assists	Points
Carter Ashton		Lethbridge Hurricanes / Regina Pats (Combined stat total)	WHL-Juniors		17	18	35
Brandon Bochenski**		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		16	16	32
Ryan Craig***		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		12	8	20
Kyle DeCoste		Sault Ste. Marie / Belleville Bulls (Combined stat total)	OHL - Juniors		13	8	21
Mitch Fadden		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		0	0	0
Adam Hall		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		8	11	19
Alex Hutchings		Barrie Colts	OHL-Juniors		26	23	49
Blair Jones***		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		6	13	19
Martins Karsums x		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		4	12	16
Chris Lawrence		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		0	3	3
Richard Panik		Windsor Spitfires / Belleville Bulls (Combined stat total)	OHL-Juniors		11	10	21
Juraj Simek		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		10	10	20
Radek Smolenak***		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		5	10	15
Matias Sointu		Ottawa 67's / Sudbury Wolves (combined stat total)	OHL-Juniors		5	9	14
Paul Szczechura**		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		6	8	14
Lauri Tukonen		Lukko Rauma	FNL-Europe		7	11	18
Dana Tyrell		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		0	9	9

x waived / released to Europe
**currently with the Lightning
***Has spent time at NHL level this season

Player movement summarizes what has transpired in the last month for Lightning forward prospects and property. There is the obvious moves of forwards such as Blair Jones and Brandon Bochenski spending time with the Lightning (Joens was just sent back to the AHL while Bochenski is now spending quality time in TB). But there is also the not-so-obvious moves of junior players being shuffled by their OHL clubs.

Carter Ashton was surprised by his trade from the Lethbridge Hurricans to the Regina Pats on December 9th:

"I'd heard some talk (of a possible trade) here and there, but going to the rink (Wednesday), it was like every other day — until I got called into the office," Ashton said from Lethbridge. "The news kind of hits you and it's almost not real until you start packing your bags.

"I was definitely a little surprised."

Panik, part of a blockbuster deal between Belleville and Windsor last week, was a forced inclusion in the deal with thanks to the Spitfires only being allowed to have two import players on their roster. One of the key cogs of the trade was Windsor bringing in a German goaltender and that left Panik the odd-man-out.

Back to the AHL player movement: Blair Jones never recorded a point in his 14 games in Tampa Bay between several stints the last month. He was also a minus-5 over that time as well. Brandon Bochenski has done the job that was requested of him on his callup last week. he's played five games with the Bolts and recorded five points (1 goal, four assists) and has been an even plus-minus. While one could spot him floating during the Flyers / Lightning matchup on Saturday, he has provied some offensive spark the Bolts have been looking for.

Defense

Name		Team	League		Goals	Assists	Points
Mark Barberio		Moncton Wildcats	QMJHL-Juniors		8	26	34
Scott Jackson		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		0	7	7
Matt Lashoff		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		3	6	9
Mike Lundin**		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		2	14	16
Vladmir Mihalik		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		0	8	8
Kevin Quick		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		0	2	2
Ty Wishart		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		4	8	12

** currently with Tampa Bay Lightning
***Has spent time at NHL level this season

Statistics that are missing here and important to getting a better idea of how defensemen are performing are average time-on-ice and plus/minus raitings. Unfortunately the stats are not universally presented among junior age players and the AHL, and that's been part of the reason why I have not included it. Admirals players stats are presented with plus/minus ratings, however, so I do encourage you to jump over there if you are curious.

I think the happy story here is Lundin arriving in Tampa. he flirted with the club in November when injuries left the big club short handed. He has worked his way not only into the daily defensive rotation in Tampa Bay since his recall (and subsequent demotion of Lukas Krajicek), but into the top pairing with Mattias Ohlund. Not bad for a guy who seemed all-but-finished in Tampa after being demoted before the season started.

Goaltenders

Name		Team	League		Win	Loss	OTL	Save %	GAA
Riku Helenius***		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		5	7	0	.896	2.75
Jarsolov Janus		Erie Otters	OHL-Juniors		7	4	2	.918	2.81
		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		0	3	0	.923	2.03
Kari Ramo		Omsk Avangard	KHL		18	14	2	.912	2.05
Dustin Tokarski		Norfolk Admirals	AHL		11	13	0	.911	2.67
Michael Zador		Oshawa Generals	OHL-Juniors		11	14	3	.894	3.60

***Has spent time at NHL level this season

This is where the plot is thickest regarding Lightning prospects. Jaroslav Janus was signed by Brian Lawton and re-assigned from juniors to the AHL - on the cusp of the AHL. This has signaled Riku Helenius as an odd-man-out.

But it gets more interesting when you factor in last night's game between the Lightning and Washington Capitals. Mike Smith pulled himself from the game in the second period and is listed as day-to-day with a cervical strain.(quit giggling, it's a neck injury). The Bolts may be inspired to make a recall to err on the side of caution. If they have confidence that Smith will be fine, it will be Riku Helenius.

But if they aren't? If that happens, then you will likely see the top goaltender in Norfolk make his NHl debut -- that being Dustin Tokarski.

Long range, however, Janus has become the defeacto backup to Tokarski in Norfolk, and Helenius has become expendable. He may be loaned out to an ECHL or AHL team... But it doesn't look like Brian Lawton and scouts are planning for him to be a long-term answer for the Lightning in net..

I've been reading this forum a bit since last summer.

As much as Teavana seems to get a bad wrap, the good thing it does is serve as a gateway to enjoying loose tea. I've gone from drink no tea at all, because I hated the taste of it (Had only black tea in the past), to really enjoying tea.

One tea that I have found myself really enjoying, though, is just a green tea that I picked up from Costco. From it's description it is a Sencha with a bit of Matcha. (Of course, I assume it is not going to be a good Matcha, since we are talking about a tea in a bag.)

I tried something from Teavana that was a mix of Kukicha and Matcha, and I prefer my Costco tea bags for a basic green tea.

I figure that if I like this particular tea, that there should be something that tastes better. I'm on my quest for an even better green tea.

I see lots of green tea terms floating around this forum that mean nothing to me.

At this point, I've considered a green tea sampler from Adagio.

I've also considered
...

Statistics : Posted by Sleepytiger • on Jan 13th, '10, 17:42 • Replies 0 • Views 1

---

Yeah. So, I apparently needed a week off from blogging. Weird how when you're all busy living life you don't have time to blog about it...

In busy-person fashion, here are some bullet points via list format to share:

1. I had an ultrasound last Wednesday. Both babies looked great. I was irrationally afraid that something had happened over the holidays, but they are fine. And mighty cute.

For your viewing pleasure, the standard creepy Skeletor-face view of Flicker/Paul McCartney/Joe-Cletus the Fetus/Baby B:

Rawr! I'm a creepy skull baby!

And Sparkle/John Lennon/Earline/Baby A being quite the modest little mite (he/she is twisted at the waist to avoid giving a good view of the crotch. Little contrarian...):


So the ultrasound was uneventful, other than the discovery that (shock of shocks!) the cysts on my right ovary are stubbornly refusing to recede at all. There's nothing to be done about it at all, but they will continue to be monitored with each ultrasound... Speaking of cysts--

2. I called this morning because over the weekend, I was awakened in the middle of the night with some pretty severe pain a la pain I had previously endured when ovulating through a cyst. While I know my body is a fucked up place sometimes, I don't think it's messed up enough to try to ovulate while pregnant (though I suppose it wouldn't really shock me that much if that were the case...). Anyhow, the doctor on duty insisted that I go in today to have the cyst looked at, which meant I had the pleasure of sitting around waiting to be worked in at the very busy Fetal Care Center associated with my clinic. I ended up waiting an hour and 45 minutes, which was juuuuust at the point that I was about to lose my shit and pitch a frickin' fit.

At my last OB appointment on Friday (more on that later), the doctor told me that if I had another ultrasound at this point, they'd DEFINITELY be able to see gender, if the ultrasound tech was willing to look. So, when I laid down today, I repeated that my doc had said that they could see gender if they looked, and she said, "Hmm. Fifteen weeks? No, it'll have to be later." As I was pretty beaten down, I didn't scream, "Fifteen weeks AND SIX DAYS.", nor did I sarcastically ask aloud why my DOCTOR would have said so, was she lying, etc. I just laid back and watched while she jabbed the shit out of my abdomen in an effort to actually see the ovary under all the babies, while at the same time skillfully (and I think purposely) avoiding EVER giving more than a fleeting glimpse of a random limb or bone of a baby.

And then (what a thrill!), it was determined that she couldn't see well enough and we had to switch to the internal probe. Dildo cam! It's been so long since we last met! So she then spent the next ten minutes roughly jabbing me with the probe, still carefully avoiding even so much as a glimpse of a baby (even managed to find an angle at which to measure the heartbeat of each baby without so much as a single clear shot of any part indicating that what we might be looking at was a future infant and not the contents of my bladder or bowels).

We then switched back to the external scanner-thingy when it was determined that my vagina was not made out of stretchy plastic and the left ovary could not be viewed trans-vaginally.

Anyhow, the long and short is that I got probed with the dildo cam and didn't even get to see the babies at all. Result is that there isn't a single damn thing to be done with these cysts. I just get to endure the pain and hope they don't every cause any ovarian torsion. Excellent. Speaking of excellent results...

3. At my regular standing OB appointment this past Friday, I got to meet the other doc who practices with my main doctor. She's okay, but she was in such a rush that I felt like I didn't really get a chance to ask what I wanted to ask. As I walked in, the nurse commented that she would need to get the ultrasound machine because the policy with twin pregnancies is to confirm heartbeat via ultrasound at every appointment, no matter what (which explains why I had my NT scan one morning and had another ultrasound with the nurse practitioner the same afternoon). And so, as the doctor makes it clear that she's wrapping up the appointment, I ask whether or not I need to wait there for the ultrasound, and she *almost* rolled her eyes as she said that I had already had an ultrasound two days prior and I didn't really need one, since their machine in that part of the office is really old and doesn't show much detail. I mean, I'm an ultrasound whore, just like any pregnant woman would be, but I was only asking because the nurse was really specific that I needed to have one at EVERY SINGLE APPOINTMENT NO MATTER WHAT.

Whatever. Not a huge deal, but it just made me feel like she thought I was asking for something that I wasn't allowed to have. The bigger deal is the fact that this clinic seems to have either horrible record keeping skills or a terribly confused staff. At my ultrasound before leaving for Texas, the ultrasound tech commented on the fact that I am a diabetic. And I clarified that I am not, in fact, diabetic whatsoever, and she said that they had marked my chart as I was diabetic. I'm guessing that this is the standard careless mistake that seems to be made by health care workers of presuming that one takes whatever medication strictly for labeled purposes. But you'd think that in an OB/GYN practice, they'd be accustomed to seeing patients who take Metf.ormin for PCOS, and not presume without asking that you are diabetic.

And at the last OB appointment, the doc enters and says, "Oh, I see that this is not just a routine visit. We have some things to talk about. How's it going on the Lex.apro?" And I'm like, "Um, I'm not taking Lexa.pro." And she asks why I didn't fill my prescription, and I share with her that the nurse practitioner that I last saw had suggested that if I needed it, I could call in and ask for Lexap.ro, in the event that trying Benadr.yl didn't keep me asleep but that the Benadry.l had been working just fine so far. And so then we had to have a discussion of what kinds of anxiety I was having (um, standard 'holy shit, I'm pregnant with twins' kind of stuff, frankly), and she seemed really disturbed that I was still waking up 1-2 times a night to pee (sorry, I'm a water-drinking freak. I woke up at least once a night to pee even before I was knocked up).

So I don't know. I just felt like she didn't really know anything about me as a patient, nor did she want to know. I know she's busy, so I get it, but still. It just irked me a little. I'm just not all that confident that this office keeps decent records and I sometimes worry that it might impact my care. I suppose as long as I keep setting them straight, it should be fine, but frankly, isn't that just a baseline part of a practice, to keep good records on your patients?

4. If it sounds like I've basically been making non-stop trips to the OB/Fetal Care Clinic office, you'd be close to right. However, in addition to my constant baby stalking, I've also managed to ditch fucking Time Warner cable (and phone and internet). After returning home to a $172.59 bill for service that we didn't use (not that I expect free service just because we are out of town-- it just stings more because of that fact...), I called the Evil Empire and asked what we could do to ease their exhorbitant prices, and was told they' give me a whole $20 off my bill for a year. When I said that I had competing offers from two different companies that I was viewing at that exact moment that came in around $100 a month, the imbecile I was speaking to snarkily told me that they'd never be able to match the price, but that they provided superior customer service. I suppose they define 'superior' as most snarky, but whatever.

The point is that last week, I switched to Clear WiMax phone and internet ($50 per month for both, forever), and today, DirecTV came out to get us set up for non-cable television ($40 a month for a year and $60 a month after that for 250 channels--Time Warner wants $60/month for basic effin' cable. Excellent). I know whereabouts on the house he was installing the dish, but I cannot see it from the ground, no matter where I stand outside our house, which is awesome.

So as of today, I am officially free from Time Warner. Good riddance to your overpriced and incompetent service!

5. If you thought I'd been spending all my time organizing service changes and running around taking care of babies that aren't even born yet, you'd be right. But you'd be leaving out the fact that I also have been reorganizing my house from top to bottom. We went to the Motherland (aka IKEA) on Friday evening (my new preferred time to visit the Motherland, I think) and bought some more furniture. We got a corner TV stand, a new less-tippable place to store CDs and DVDs, a rug and a cabinet for our kitchen. And so I spent the weekend assembling all of this furniture and then filling it up with newly organized stuff. After this weekend, we now have a rack upstairs (courtesy of a rack that was in the kitchen whose contents are now housed in a new cabinet) to hold craft items from a closet in our dining room. And after those contents are shifted upstairs to the new craft/alternate office room, the dishes that are currently in the china hutch can go into the closet in the dining room and the hutch can go to the basement and the dining room can become a playroom. Well, once the new outlets are installed in the kitchen so I can move the fridge so that we can fit the dining room table in our kitchen... and once the outlet is installed by the TV, the main computer can move out into the living room and the remaining junk and furniture from the office can be moved so that the office can finally become a nursery.

Geez. I hope these babies know what they're doing to our house...

I do feel a bit superstitious, that I shouldn't be doing all this stuff when I'm only fifteen weeks (AND SIX DAYS) but truth be told, if we wait any longer, we'll have to hire someone to help, because already, my flexibility is getting limited. It's like I woke up one morning and suddenly, my toes were a mile away. I just can't bend at the waist, really, and I'm feeling like just generally moving from one position to another is taking a bit more effort. It's partially because I'm carrying close to 20 extra pounds (net gain of about 14.5 since IVF), but mostly it's because I have two half-pound six-inch beings occupying a lot of volume in my lower abdomen. It makes things just a wee bit more difficult than before. So these things need to get done by me (aka the FREE way), which means they need to be done sooner rather than later. I really hope that I'm not heartbrokenly undoing all of this work a month from now... statistics say it won't happen, but you know what infertile people think about statistics and odds (not often on the right side of them, that's for sure).


So. One of these days, I'll get around to posting pictures of the bison (!) in my parents' back yard, and a few more from Austin-times, but for now, you'll have to settle with a super-long super-wordy post/list-style update on the ever-busier life of Kate. Speaking of, after bloodwork tomorrow morning (yep, another trip to the OB's office), I go back to work. Sigh. The money will be great, I tell myself, but I can't say there's much other reason to be that excited (except that by the end of my tenure there, I should know the sex of the babies! Something to occupy my time while I wait...).


That's what's up in my world. What about you?

.
(Oh, you may notice that even though I said I wouldn't, I put a creepy floating baby ticker up on my sidebar. It's slightly less creepy than some I've seen before, but I like this one mostly because you can push a button to tickle the babies, which I think is SO STUPID that it's funny. So enjoy the creepy floating baby ticker...)

As someone who picked Thaddeus Young as a 10th-round steal in a fantasy basketball league, believe me when I say that it pains me to even float this question.

But as a fond owner and fan of Thad, I noticed a trend of inconsistent performances coming from No. 21 in the past few weeks.

And that's before I started looking more deeply at the stats.

While coach Eddie Jordan's been plagued with questionable lineup decisions for most of the season, one of the only ones he likely hasn't considered may be his best hope of all to save the struggling Sixers from fading out of serious playoff contention before the All-Star break.

That is: move Thaddeus Young to the bench, for the first time since his rookie season.

Before you jump down my throat screaming, "He's the future of the franchise!", "It's all Allen Iverson's fault!" or "You're an idiot!," hear me out.  I've come armed with statistics...some pretty alarming ones.

Towards the beginning of the season, I noticed that young Thad seemed to be having struggles with Jordan's Princeton offense out of the gate.  (And this wasn't altogether unexpected—Jordan himself expected the team to struggle early.)  But he quickly righted the ship, at one point scoring in double digits for 13 straight games (including seven 20+ point performances.)

Yea, the Thad fantasy owner was happy.

And while his season averages look relatively normal (thanks to that 13-game spurt), his most recent 10 games should be giving Sixers fans and management some cause for concern.

Ever since Jordan moved Brand back to the bench and put Young in his spot as the starting power forward, his play has become extremely up-and-down.  He'll go from scoring 20 points one game to four points the next.  

In fact, after only scoring in the single digits four times in the Sixers' first 25 games, he's recorded a single-digit point total in five of the Sixers' past 11 games.  

"He had a tough time early in the season, and then he got it going," Jordan said to the Philadelphia Inquirer . "He's got to work through it. The NBA is a roller-coaster. Physically, sometimes your body feels good, sometimes it doesn't. Emotionally, sometimes you're feeling good, sometimes you're not feeling good. Mentally, sometimes you think this, and sometimes you're just playing. You get yourself involved in defense and running the floor. You do that, and you make your own breaks.'

During the Sixers' first 25 games of the season (six wins), Young averaged 15.3 points, 5.3 rebounds, 1.7 assists, a steal, a three-pointer and 2.2 turnovers on 37.2 minutes per game.  He shot 46.9 percent from the field, 38.8 percent from three, and 67.6 percent from the free throw line.

In the past 11 contests, he's averaging 11.1 points, 5.3 rebounds, an assist, 1.3 steals and 1.7 turnovers in 29.4 minutes.  He shot 38 percent overall, only hitting two of 23 three-pointers and 62 percent from the charity stripe.

Nay, Young's fantasy owners have frowned lately.

The drop in scoring can likely be attributed to his decreasing minutes, but his plummeting shooting percentages (especially from behind the three-point line) raise cause for concern.

Thad's gone from a Player Efficiency Rating of 16.5 in his 2007-08 rookie season to a career-low 13.1 currently, according to basketball-reference.com.  (Keep in mind, the average NBA player is expected to have a 15.0 PER.)

And his performance during crunch time, where the Sixers have lost a number of games this season, is downright alarming.

Young's got an effective field goal percentage of .390 within the final five minutes of the fourth quarter with neither team up more than five points, according to 82games.com. (eFG is generally a more accurate measure of a shooter's true shooting percentage, accounting for his three-point attempts.)

There's also a surprising disparity in his offensive/defensive ratings in crunch time: He scores 90.4 points per 100 possessions while allowing 114.5 points per 100 possessions to opponents.  In the final five minutes of close games, a huge imbalance like that can easily sway the tide for the Sixers' opponents.

With Young shooting less than 10 percent from downtown lately, one would have to hope that he would start driving inside more.

Instead, he's only drawn four and-one plays all season, yet he's managed to have 31 of his shots blocked according to Hoopdata.com

And when he does drive to the rim, he's had a surprisingly difficult time converting on the "bunny" shots.  He's only knocked down 31 of his 59 shots from around the rim lately, an area on the court where players should be able to drain nearly everything.

He's also been averaging 2.2 shots from 16-22 feet out and 2.4 three-pointers per game this season, while trying less than one shot per game from 11-15 feet (a much easier shot).

A team's starting small forward/power forward should be expected to knock down close-range jumpers and layups, and Thad's difficulty doing so lately has hurt the Sixers down the stretch.

Is it time for Jordan to consider yet another lineup change?

One suggestion: The Sixers were reportedly floating the idea of benching Elton Brand for Marreese Speights before Speights got knocked out back in late November.   Why not put Speights as the starting power forward?  (Besides the fact that Brand would probably have an aneurysm.)  

Speights' biggest liability is his defense, and center Sam Dalembert's biggest liability is his offense...if Speights allows his man to get through, 7-foot Sam will be there to help out.

Then the Sixers have Thad, Brand, and Holiday ready to come off the bench.  Paired with some combination of Iverson, Lou Williams, Andre Iguodala, and the two guys mentioned above, the Sixers have a solid eight-man rotation and guys can rotate in-and-out much more interchangeably than they currently can.  Just a thought, though.

Thad acknowledged he's been slumping lately, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer : "Every player goes through it," Young said, he then acknowledged that he's been "slumping."

"Right now, you have other guys that are playing well. We're just going with the flow. I'm just going out there doing the things I normally do. I'm going out there taking the same shots, and doing the same things. It's just not falling right now."

Well, if Thad's "slump" doesn't warrant a temporary benching, at least keep him on the bench in crunch time.  That offensive/defensive rating disparity is atrocious.  (Almost as atrocious as the Eagles' performance against the Dallas Cowboys these past two weeks.)

Or they can keep playing him in crunch time...as long as the Sixers have decided to throw in the towel this season, and they're getting ready to battle the Nets for the rights to John Wall.

 

2010 NFL Draft Rankings: Offensive Tackles

1.     Russell Okung (Oklahoma State)

Height: 6-5

Weight: 300

Projected Round: Top 5

Okung is a complete tackle, one that will do very well in the NFL. He is one of the few offensive players in this year’s draft to show true progression, both in his statistical achievements and understanding of the game. He is an ox on the line and a light foot in the open field. He has every quality needed to succeed at the next level, and maybe even take the first pick in the draft.

Okung is a strong, patient pass blocker that does a great job at extending blocks and using his long arms and legs to sustain the rush. He needs to learn to keep his pads lower at times, but if he senses any sort of defeat, he is quick to push his man off balance or get low for the cut block.

He has great force in blocking down the field, getting a great initial pop on the defender. Okung is better at using angles to cut his man inside or outside rather than sheer strength, something that will benefit him at the professional level and only requires a little time in the weight room to perfect.

Okung has all the pieces you look for in a left tackle in the NFL and will most assuredly be the first tackle taken in April. He has no character problems and will be a great addition to any squad.

Teams that will target him: St. Louis, Kansas City, Cleveland

 

2.     Anthony Davis (Rutgers)

Height: 6-6

Weight: 325

Projected Round: Top 25

Davis is in the second position of my board simply for his dominance in his run blocking. He hasn’t been asked to do a whole lot in Rutgers’ offensive scheme (traps, pulls), but he has all the athleticism you look for in a left tackle. He has a flawless work ethic and can play a number of positions at the line, a true scholar of the game.

Davis’ size will be his greatest attribute at the line; his long arms are well suited in knocking over undersized ends and linebackers taking poor angles. At times, he depends upon his initial pop to sustain the block rather than sticking to his man and extending the play.

Davis has the sheer force and tenacity to create a gaping hole on either side of the line. He has the athleticism to catch the Sam linebacker off balance and drive the lane into the secondary. He does a great job staying within the defender’s pads; he is rarely victim of a holding penalty. His durability typically outlasts the man on the other side of the line and he is consistent as he is strong.

Although questionable at times, Davis will show up big at the combine and cause his draft stock to rise considerably, making him my number two tackle taken in the draft. He will fit in well with a team who has more than one hole at the line as he can assist in whatever capacity is required.

Teams that will target him: Oakland, Indianapolis, Houston

 

3.     Charles Brown ( USC)

Height: 6-6

Weight: 295

Projected Round: Top 25

Brown was a tackle with great potential at the beginning of his junior season, finally getting the starting position after Sam Baker was taken in the 2008 draft. Even then, his potential was evident but after a stunning senior season, Brown is among the O-line elite in this year’s draft.

His athleticism is more dominant than his strength, but that isn’t meant to imply that Brown isn’t one of the stronger tackles in this year’s class. He relies on a quick pop to throw his defender off balance but doesn’t always drive his feet to sustain the block. His major strength is his ability to discern the motives of the rusher, going inside to cut off the blitz and jumping outside to mirror the defender.

Although he is an adequate run blocker, his technique and mechanics still need considerable work. He leans on the defender at times rather than driving him down the field. He is considered a quick lineman but doesn’t always follow through with his blocks down the field and could do a better job at creating additional run lanes in the secondary.

All in all, Brown is a gifted young man with enormous potential at the next level and, with proper coaching, could blossom into a pro-bowl tackle within his first three years. Look for a team with a low draft pick and pedigreed coaching to give Brown a spot on their roster.

Teams that will target him: San Diego, Indianapolis, New Orleans

 

4.     Trent Williams (Oklahoma)

Height: 6-5

Weight: 290

Projected Round: 1-2

As the only returning starter on Oklahoma’s offensive line, Williams had his work cut out for him, both in physical demand and leadership potential. Moved from right to left and back to right tackle throughout his career, he has had the chance to prove himself on both sides of the line.

As a run blocker, Williams is above average at best. His speed isn’t consistent and his arm extension is his best weapon against blitzes from the secondary. He will struggle against quick undersized ends in the NFL.

When blocking for the runner, though, Williams is dominant at the very least. Fires off the line faster than anyone else on this list. His snap anticipation sometimes causes trouble in the form of false starts, but he makes up for it with a tenacious push on his man.

He struggles in a zone blocking scheme, failing to move his feet adequately at times.  He is best when confined to a small space in traffic; he struggles when given the responsibility of managing open space.

Williams’ progression isn’t great, but it isn’t bad either. His return to school for his senior year will play a major role in the way teams look at him, but it’s unclear as to how long he will have to wait to be drafted. Look for a team to look at him as a potential player at the guard position or an anchor on the right side to pick him up.

Teams that will target him: Detroit, Washington, New England

 

5.     Bruce Campbell (Maryland)

Height: 6-7

Weight: 310

Projected Round: 1-2

Campbell was unlikely to enter this year’s draft until he, well, declared for this year’s draft. Although there is little to no doubt of his potential at the next level, there are some concerns about his past injuries and whether or not his durability can remain intact in the NFL.

Campbell gave the struggling Tarrapin offense a decent chance for success in ’09, although Turner and company still haven’t found their stride. With more than a few offensive line starters departing, Campbell was among the few elite players left and had to overachieve the entirety of the year.

While most expect him to hit his ceiling early in the NFL, Campbell is strong as he is quick. He has a tremendous pop in the pass blocking scheme, though he overextends at times, causing the outside rushers to use a second move to get to the quarterback.

Campbell has elite strength as a run blocker and will undoubtedly do the same at the next level. I don’t know if he is ready to be an NFL left tackle, but he could certainly provide some girth in any position on the front. He has the speed to get down the field quickly and provide a second and third block for an advancing runner.

Campbell’s issue with grades will cause his stock to fall further than he’d like, but he can prove his physicality at the combine and make himself a contender to be a top five OT rookie in 2010. Look for a team that has a sufficient enough line to make Campbell a personal project.

Teams that will target him: Denver, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati

 

6.     Ciron Black (LSU)

Height: 6-5

Weight: 322

Projected: 2-3

Black is another offensive lineman who could have done very well had he declared for the 2009 draft, but he opted to stay to further develop his technique. Although he lacks superior athleticism, he has great strength and versatility on the line.

As a pass blocker, Black is marginal at best due to his slow kick slide and his sluggishness off the snap. His long reach, though, will make up for it as he can reach the outside rusher and use a mean cut block if all else fails.

Black’s size is his greatest asset in creating run lanes and he has sufficient straight-line speed to reach the next level and bowl over small corners and safeties. He has elite upper body strength and does very well at staying low and using his low center of gravity to create a push and open up the lanes.

He doesn’t always seal off the rush when it matters most, but has a level of consistency that most other lineman at his level lack. His progression in college is something scouts look for and, while his stock is floating between elite and above average, the combine will be his opportunity to prove he is ready to compete at the next level.

Even though he has only ever played as the blind side anchor for LSU, he has the ability to play multiple positions and that may be the deciding factor for a team looking at Black. Look for a team with needs in their run blocking scheme to look closely at him.

Teams that will target him: Houston, Arizona, Philadelphia

 

7.     Bryan Bulaga (Iowa)

Height: 6-6

Weight: 312

Projected Round: 2-3

Bulaga comes from a long pedigree of good linemen at Iowa and will likely continue the trend in the NFL. His progression at Iowa is something to be desired by other fellow linemen in this year’s class and, while he lacks the physicality needed to be dominant at this position at times, his athleticism makes up for it.

Bulaga’s pass blocking skills are marginal, but it’s unclear as to how well he could do with an offensive scheme that features it. Iowa isn’t a passing juggernaut but he has all the tools needed to be elite at the next level.

As a run blocker, he is better than most, progressing nicely from year to year. Most noticeably, he became less content to focus solely on the first line of defense his senior year and turned his sights on getting to the next level and create the secondary blocks needed to turn the back loose.

Bulaga is one of those linemen who could go either way in the NFL; he could become a backup who excels at filling the holes in most teams’ revolving door line or he could find a permanent home as a guard and, eventually, a right tackle. Of course, I’ve been surprised before and it’s always possible for a marginal player to find their stride at the professional level. Look for a team with shallow depth on the line to look closely at Bulaga.

Teams that will target him: Carolina, New York Jets, Green Bay

 

8.     Selvish Capers (West Virginia)

Height: 6-5

Weight: 298

Projected Round: 3-4

Protecting Pat White in the versatile West Virginia offense has forced Capers to remain athletic and quick, creating a unique profile for the upcoming draft. Capers made the switch from Tight End to right tackle in ’07, but showed no signs of difficulty in the transition. Rather, he excelled and began to increase his build to adjust to the new position.

It is Caper’s athleticism that sets him apart from the other linemen on this list. He lacks consistency in some of the mechanics that most others have mastered, but he has a desire to learn and the ability to progress that will overcome those downsides.

Even though he has a tremendous cut block, he goes to it too quickly at times. He presents a solid anchor as a pass blocker but doesn’t always keep his body low enough and loses his balance.

As a run blocker, Caper presents a tenacious pop and uses his quick feet to drive the defender far from the play. West Virginia’s spread offense doesn’t always call Capers to get set in a three point stance so transitioning to the next level may be difficult for the young man. He is quick off the line, but loses count of the snap sequence too much, resulting in unnecessary penalties.

He runs with surprising fluidity for a lineman down the field, getting to the next level fast and causing damage to an unsuspecting secondary. No matter the position he is called on to play, Capers is a football player at heart and his tenacity on the line will not go unnoticed by scouts. Look for teams to depend on his versatility and athleticism to contribute at the professional level and give Capers a chance at success.

Teams that will target him: Minnesota, Baltimore, Houston

 

9.     Kyle Calloway (Iowa)

Height: 6-7

Weight: 317

Projected Round: 3-4

Calloway is another lineman that comes from the Iowa pedigree of NFL-ready players who transition to the next level well. The only real controversy surrounding Calloway is his run-in with the law when he was pulled operating a moped while intoxicated. Other than that, he is good at what he does and should receive deserved recognition come draft day.

Calloway does a wonderful job at mirroring the defender as a pass blocker. He stays low and becomes a wall at which defenders love to punch and get through but have little success. He uses his reach at times when he should use his feet and doesn’t use his lower body to drive the outside rush, but he adjusts nicely to a variety of moves by elite ends and utilizes a mean cut block.

Run blocking is arguably Calloway’s forte, using his size to push the defender in any direction he desires. He does well to keep his hands inside and avoid penalties that often call the play back. He is a fighter at heart; he plays through the whistle each and every play.

Calloway has efficient speed and uses that quickness to get down the field and reach the secondary to create an extended run lane. Overall, he has tremendous upside and, even though he won’t be a top five tackle in the draft, will eventually blossom into an elite player at any position on the line.

Teams that will target him: San Francisco, Seattle, Cleveland

 

10. Sam Young (Notre Dame)

Height: 6-8

Weight: 320

Projected Round: 3-4

Young comes from a pro-style offense which will make his transition easier than most. Although he lacks superior athleticism and quickness, he has massive size and strength, an upside that will not go unnoticed by pro scouts.

Pass blocking is not something that Young excels in which is a large concern for a pass-happy NFL. His lack of quickness inhibits his lateral agility and ability to reach the outside rusher and maintain his balance. Against the elite ends of the NFL, Young will most likely have to rely on the cut block to protect his quarterback.

What keeps Young on the top ten list is his ability to be a wrecking ball in the run game. His technique still leaves something to be desired, but his size allows him to create holes that otherwise wouldn’t have been possible. He has tremendous initial pop and, if he can keep his balance, will drive the defender all the way down the field.

Four years as a starter has given Young more than enough experience and tremendous awareness on the field. He hasn’t shown as much consistency as some would like to see, but his sheer physicality will demand attention on draft day. He will probably never reach left tackle status, but could be a force on the right side or in the middle should that become a factor at the professional level. Look for a team needing beef on the front to give Young a spot on their roster.

Teams that will target him: Houston, Seattle, Tampa Bay

The last time the Dallas Cowboys won a playoff game was the NFC Wild Card match with Minnesota on December 28, 1996. Since then, the team has played in six playoff games with no success.

In probably one of the toughest games in this playoff drought, Tony Romo was nabbed on the two-yard line by a shoestring tackle following a botched field goal set up. In the press conference following the game, the Big Tuna—clearly deflated—looked like he sniffed something foul. Romo said, "I don't know if I have ever felt this low," while owner Jerry Jones added: "I feel empty."

To help fans move forward and change team playoff history 13 years in the making, the Cowboys must do seven things on Saturday against the Philadelphia Eagles. If they fail to do just one of these, it's over.

1. Punish the Eagles for the Blitz

Whether Romo utilizes a quick snap count, a draw or screen to Marion Barber, a slant to Miles Austin, or a quick shot up the middle to Jason Witten, the Cowboys must find a way to kill the Eagles for each and every blitz.

Otherwise, the risks are out of this world. Romo gets beat up, the line gets jumpy, and large losses mount, making it tough to regain the first down advantage without the throw. The offense loses rhythm, and the defense spends too much time on the field.

Worse yet, just one successful blitz—imagine Romo getting blind-sided while holding the ball out like a loaf of bread—could erase even an awesome 99-yard drive.

A blitz can be a game changer. Dallas must punish Philly every time they bring it.  Without fail.

2. Stop the Big DeSean Jackson Play

He’s young. He’s fast. He’s tough. He’s tweeting trash. And he has the ability to make a monstrous, momentum-changing play. During the regular season, DeSean Jackson caught 63 passes for nine touchdowns and a total of 1,167 yards. He averages over 18 yards a catch and ran two punts home for six.

Versus the Cowboys in two regular season games, Jackson has a goose egg for touchdown statisticly and a total of five catches for 76 yards. It’s nothing to brag about, but things could change on a moment’s notice.

Remember Week 17 when Jackson got behind everyone and McNabb overthrew the ball.  Don’t expect that to happen in the playoffs.

Jackson’s speed is unmatched, and in fact, a botched big play is the exception to the rule for this player. Jackson has at least 10 plays for over 40 yards and eight touchdowns on 50-plus yard plays. If America’s Team expects to advance in the playoffs, they have to hold this guy down as they have in the first two meetings.

3. Get Good Yardage Out of Early Down Cowboy Runs

The Cowboys earned nearly 75 per cent of their first downs on either first or second down. Maybe it was a long pass. Maybe it was a good run. In any event, the team rests the defense and, for the most part, moves the ball when it’s not looking down the barrel of frequent third-down situations.

When it comes to third and some change, Dallas has about a 40 per cent chance of moving the chains. And, stating the obvious, converting is harder in long situations. Not to mention, the defense has a better idea of what’s coming.

Therefore, it’s critical to keep third down short. The offense has to avoid penalties like the plague and Romo can’t cough up gains by getting sacked in a collapsed pocket.  Most importantly, Jason Garrett has to find a way to unleash Marion Barber and Felix Jones on first and second down.

Let Barber steam roll some guys with a few punishing seven-yard gains. Eventually, he’ll open it up. f the run won't work, take a few shots to the seams and then go back to it. 

Also, find a way to involve Felix Jones in another 90-yard, one-touchdown performance.  If the backs combine for early down gains, short or long, other opportunities will open up and the Eagles won’t be able to contain this team.

4. Push The Eagles Out of Field Goal Range

In basketball, when a player goes cold, it’s common to give up on the jumper and take it to the hole. That way, the player either gets a high percentage shot or goes to the free throw line. After a few freebies from the line, some flow comes back and the player may just hit some clutch threes.

In football, when you get shut out one week, a good coach will want to end the drought as soon as possible by putting some points on the board. The Eagles blanked Week 17, but don’t expect that to continue with the first playoff match. 

If the Cowboys stop Philly short of the red zone, expect David Akers to go for three, even if it’s a 50-yard field goal.

This may seem like a statement of the obvious, but allowing a couple early field goals keeps the Eagles in the game. It gives them flow, and Akers is pretty much money in the bank.

He hit 32 of 37 field goals this year. One of the five misses was blocked. The nation saw the other miss on television the other day. That thing had some wicked action—after floating left, it came back right a touch, and then the god that blessed Texas carried it left of the upright. Don’t expect that to happen this week.

The kicker is 8-of-9 from 30-plus yards and 11-of-13 from the 40-plus yards. He’ll even hit a third of what you give him beyond the 50.

Dallas needs to keep this guy away from the goal posts. Three points is about half a touchdown, and one swing of the leg is enough to make the difference in the momentum and conclusion of a game.

5. Help Tony Romo Protect the Ball

Early in the season, when the Cowboys and Giants played, Romo had a pick six and two interceptions that resulted in touchdowns. It was a horrible game. Two games later, the once-formidable Denver defense sacked Romo five times and forced one interception and a fumble.

Had eBay been selling Tony Romo voodoo dolls, sales would have been through the roof. 

But Romo’s been doing better these days. In the last two shutout games by the Cowboys, Romo threw an interception in each. Luckily, the defense mitigated that damage and prevented the Redskins and Eagles from scoring.

Similarly, on Saturday, if Romo throws an interception, the Cowboy defense has to equalize it with a defensive stop. It sounds simple, but this has to happen.

Also, the players have to protect Romo’s backside. The guy, for whatever reason, has an internal sensor that doesn’t seem to recognize trouble from the back. If protection requires a couple holds or penalties, fine. 10 yards is better than giving up the ball in good field position. Nothing short of an entire team effort will be required to help Romo protect the ball on Saturday.

6. Pressure Donovan McNabb in the Pocket

Donovan McNabb is by no means infallible. Just this year, the player bobbled the ball 10 times (three times for a loss) and threw 10 interceptions. Moreover, with all his running, he only has two rushing touchdowns. 

However, McNabb has thrown for 22 touchdowns.  Keep in mind that nine of these went to DeSean Jackson; hence, my second point. If you shut down DeSean Jackson, you shut down half of McNabb, too. 

But the thing about this 11-year veteran is he tends to make some plays on the fly.  Part of this is his receivers find a way to get open. The other part of this is McNabb can improvise well.

On Saturday, Dallas needs to enclose McNabb with pressure. Philadelphia is clearly better at passing than rushing, so expect McNabb to drop back quite often. When he does, Keith Brooking, Jay Ratliff, Anthony Spencer, and DeMarcus Ware have to pound him while in the pocket.

7. Block Out the Wins and the History

To be sure, the Cowboys probably enjoyed winning the NFC East. Congrats, Big D. But McNabb, after the loss to the Cowboys, had it right when he said, "You know, when it comes down to it, if you don't win this game, I don't think too many people are going to remember who won the NFC East."

Not to mention, all this talk about the Eagles goldbricking the last game of the year to save their best stuff for the playoff rematch. If the Cowboys start thinking about that, it's over. Block it out.

The Cowboys not only have to block out the two prior wins against Philadelphia, but they also have to block out at least 13 years of playoff history. Otherwise, when the going gets tough, players get tight and choke and the drought continues for all involved.
It’s easier said than done, but the best of the best find a way to do it.  If the Cowboys can do these seven things, we will all witness a new history for America’s Team.

Filed under: 76ers, Bobcats, Bulls, Jazz, Magic, Rockets, Suns, NBA All-Star Game, NBA Fans

The third returns of the 2010 NBA All-Star balloting are in, and unfortunately, not much has changed since the first returns were released three weeks ago. Allen Iverson of the 76ers and Tracy McGrady (still technically) of the Rockets are in line to start the mid-season exhibition, as both hold close leads on the second place spots at their respective positions.

It's right about now that I feel the overwhelming urge to include the #10yearsago hashtag that's been floating around Twitter today.

Going into a long-winded diatribe on how wrong it is to let the fans vote is pointless, because the All-Star game is, well, for the fans; the event's unapologetic purpose is to bring even the most casual observer's attention to the league during its weekend-long extravaganza. But it is worth noting that, by letting people who obviously aren't paying attention to how things have played out in the current season choose who makes the team, it leaves those players who statistically deserve to be recognized for their efforts holding the short end of the stick.

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

When the American hardcourt swing began, the landscape at the top of the game had altered considerably since the start of 2009.

Ruthlessly brilliant in taking the Australian Open in January, Nadal had been failed by severe tendinitis in his knees. His chances of defending his Wimbledon crown and retaining his place at the top were quite literally crippled. The return of Rafa was anxiously anticipated.

Are you ready to write off this past decade of your life? According to Thomas Friedman's New York Times Op-Ed piece in the December 27, 2009 New York Times, the 2000's were "The Big Zero." Apart from the many other circumstances that we coped with in the past 10 years, the economy certainly hit hard for large numbers of people. But, as you'll learn here, fulfillment is more than economic progress. Economic fulfillment doesn't necessarily translate into psychological fulfillment.

Though I often agree with Friedman, I would have to say that this time he, like many others who shape public opinion, are using overly narrow definitions to conceptualize the past decade including Time magazine who proferred the label "Decade from Hell." Yes, there has been doom, and yes, there is much to be gloomy about. However, we also know that the human psyche is remarkably adaptive. We can cope through almost any trauma, and emerge successfully.

Friedman's analysis reminds me of the debates I have with my colleague from my university's Economics Department who teaches in the lecture hall before my class. We've started an enjoyable and amiable debate in the 15 minutes we have while he unplugs his laptop from the podium and I insert mine. Our exchanges cover just about everything from neuroeconomics to prospect theory to behavioral marketing. Though we typically do not agree with each other, we've developed a healthy respect for the value of each other's perspectives and I've learned a great deal from him about the factors that influence global and national trends.

However, it remains the case that economists, naturally enough, tend to gauge human achievement in terms of gains measured in indexes such as the GDP, GNP, and so on. When they do look at happiness, at least professionally, they tend to rely on pretty unsophisticated measures such as your answer to the question "how happy are you?" The answers they receive, if you trust them, show certain trends in the huge aggregate but really don't say much about one individual's particular happiness and what affects it.

As an example, consider the paper by Blanchflower and Oswald, published in early 2008 showing the "definitive" U-shaped pattern of happiness over the adult years. Concluding that they have shown a clear dip in happiness in midlife,  they failed to take into account the many artefacts in their data not the least of which includes the fact that they did not study people over time, their measure of happiness was brutally simple, and they had such a large sample that almost anything would have emerged as statistically significant in the data analyses. However, their findings were blasted all over the media, reaffirming the anecdotal evidence that emerges so large in the public's mind, that of course they have validated the existence of the midlife crisis.No one questioned the fact that those findings amounted to very small if not infintesmial blips.

Ironically enough several years ago the Nobel Prize for Economics went to psychologist Daniel Kahneman, who with his co-author Amos Tversky showed the beautiful illogic of the human mind. It was Kahneman and Tversky who showed us that we easily fall victim to faulty conclusions if presented with information that, on the surface, overwhelms our power of analytic thinking. We focus on what's in front of us and forget about everything in the background. Most of us would rather accept a conclusion given by someone else than question its basic assumptions.

So economics and psychology do not have to diverge; one can inform the other. Of course given my profession I'm likely to say that psychology informs economics rather than vice versa. So, what I would like to tell Friedman is that though of course he's right about the many challenges we faced over the past (at least) 10 years, where he's not right is in equating economic progress with human happiness.

My research on fulfillment in midlife baby boomers, to be published in my upcoming book The Search for Fulfillment shows that wealth does not bring happiness; money cannot buy you love. The 180 plus participants in my study followed from college through the late 50s lived through very arduous personal and social times, including previous recessions, personal tragedy, and the terrorist acts of the late 1990s up through 2001. Some of the wealthiest participants were the least happy and the many of the happiest were not the wealthiest.

In my study, I chose to measure happiness not by a simple survey question, but by a series of lengthy questionnaires that attempted to tap into such qualities as what Erik Erikson called "ego integrity" and "generativity." These psychosocial qualities reflect a person's feelings of inner fulfillment: the belief that you are making a difference in other people's lives and that you will be remembered after you're gone. I also went beneath the surface and cross-referenced statements that people made across various questionnaires rather than take any one statement at face value. Finally, I had the value of hindsight in that I could look backwards at what these people were like when they were in college and see who would weather the storms better of the following decades. Having a solid bedrock of personality certainly helped in making through even the worst of times. However, many who eventually became the most fulfilled started out in life a few steps back from their hardier classmates. It's possible to achieve fulfillment in midlife even if everything seems to be working against you.

Our lives are too short to lop off 10 years and throw them in the wastebasket. A decade of zero may be a nice pun on the number, but even if yours did not meet your grand expectations of the turn of the millennium, there are ways you can look back and derive some contentment from what you have accomplished. First, don't just focus on the big and ignore the small. Avoid the mental traps that Kahneman pointed to in our ability to reason. Take stock of the many times that something went right for you. Get out a photo album or rummage through those picture files on your hard drive and think back on the enjoyable holidays, vacations, or even quiet times spent with your kids, your pets, or your partner. Or, since one of your new year's resolutions probably involves some closet cleaning (and whose doesn't?), start on some of that now and recall a favorite movie or play you saw as you sort through old ticket stubs. Even if you didn't keep a journal or diary, you can go through old email chats, calendars, or letters and cards floating around in the bottom of your desk, and see what surprising things you said or thought that you had totally forgotten about. And even if the events you're remembering now were difficult and painful, the fact that you had friends to support you through those tough times might make you feel grateful to have had them there for you. If nothing else, you're still here and however badly things went, surviving your share of trials by fire can give you confidence in your own coping abilities.

So before getting ready to ditch the whole decade, think back on what worked for you and how you became a better person over the past 10 years. Who knows, you might be just that much better at coping with the decade to come. 

References:

Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2008). Is well-being U-shaped over the life cycle? Social Science & Medicine, 66, 1733-1749.

Erikson, E.H. (1963). Childhood and Society (2nd Ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.

 

"And Young is back to throw, he's going deep for Jerry, he caught it! He's gone! Touchdown 49ers!! After just a minute and 24 seconds, touchdown pass to Jerry Rice!"

More or less, those are the words of former long-time voice of the 49ers, Joe Starkey, as he called Steve Young's opening touchdown pass to Jerry Rice in Super Bowl XXIX.

Young was perfect in that game, throwing for a record six touchdown passes on the game's biggest stage.

What did Alex Smith do yesterday against a 2-12 Lions team? His lone touchdown pass came on a play where he shouldn't have even thrown the ball.

While the quarterbacking statistics look more than solid from the current 49er QB yesterday: 20-31 passing for 230 yards, one touchdown, and zero interceptions for a passer rating of 97.5, Smith left much to be desired in the hopes of the 49er faithful.

It wasn't just the numerous overthrown balls, under-thrown balls, four tipped balls at the line of scrimmage, but even the plays he was able to complete made you scratch your head and say, "What the hell was that?"

After being named the starter for next season earlier in the week, Smith came out and laid a dud of a performance in the first half against a Detroit Lions team that was ripe for a shellacking by the 49ers offense.

Detroit is ranked dead last in the NFL in both passing yards and passing touchdowns, with 265.4 yards allowed per game and 31 touchdowns allowed through the air.

Yet Smith managed just 230 yards and only a single touchdown pass on a play that he should have run for the touchdown rather than risk the throw? Yiiiiiikes.

Of course, if Smith had just thrown the ball down the Lions throat and made the big play in the first half, his nearly bone-headed touchdown pass in the second half would have been his second of the game.

After a perfect play fake late in the first quarter, Smith had a streaking Michael Crabtree wide open for what should have been a touchdown. But the 49er quarterback severely under-threw the ball, forcing Crabtree to slow down and adjust to make the catch. Crabtree was then stopped short of the end zone, and the drive ended in a field goal instead of a touchdown.

Fifty yard-passes are nice, but 60-yard touchdowns are better. According to Mark Purdy's article in the San Jose Mercury News today, Smith was apparently afraid of an overthrow, telling Purdy "It's like a layup—you don't want to necessarily make that too difficult on [Crabtree]."

Is this the guy the 49ers want leading their football team? A quarterback who is so worried about an overthrow that he under-throws his receiver on purpose? A quarterback who (to borrow Smith's basketball analogy) would ignore a wide open three-point opportunity to win the game by risking another pass?

As former Jets head coach Herm Edwards and current ESPN analyst Herm Edwards says, "You play to win the game. Hello?!? You play to win the game!"

In this instance, how can Smith even contemplate not airing the ball out and attempting to fit it into Crabtree, perfectly in stride? If the ball indeed drops incomplete, what is the problem? You are still playing the Lions, the game is as close to an automatic win that you can get in the NFL (although I say that because I don't believe in any given Sunday).

Even when Smith had nothing to lose, he still played it safe. An attribute nobody should want in their starting quarterback.

Now this poor throw on Crabtree's 50-yard gain got me thinking: When have we seen Smith ever hit a receiver perfectly in stride? How many times this season have we seen a receiver not have to adjust his route to make the catch? Not often.

On most of those deep middle passes to Vernon Davis, the 49er tight-end has had to slow down and jump up for the ball. The majority of Crabtree's catches have been extremely athletic plays by the rookie; when he snatches the ball either from over his head or way out in front of his body, and Delanie Walker usually has to reach behind him to make the catch.

Smith almost never hits a receiver perfectly in stride, and watching Sunday night football last night made me wish the 49ers had Tony Romo as their quarterback.

Granted, the Dallas Cowboys quarterback has struggled during the postseason so far in his career, but he made one perfect pass last night that made me think, "Wow, that was Steve Young/Joe Montana-like."

In the middle of the second quarter, Romo hit his tight-end Jason Witten about 25 yards down field on a crossing pattern. The safety was right on Witten's heels, but the throw was on the money: a perfect spiral that hit Witten right between eight and two on his jersey, and he didn't have to break stride at all. With such an amazingly accurate throw, Witten was able to scamper another 44 yards down inside the Redskins five yard line before being tackled.

While Romo has had his fair share of inconsistencies throughout his career, it is plays like this one that show he has the ability to overcome his mistakes and should eventually enjoy playoff success.

However, with Smith, we very rarely—if ever—see plays of this fashion that make us fans think, "Okay, he can be the guy," and because of that, it has become clear that Smith is not the guy to lead the 49ers to their sixth Super Bowl title.

Am I saying that Smith is terrible? No, I'm not. Could he lead the 49ers to the playoffs? Sure he could, but he won't be able to succeed when he gets there, because he doesn't play at the same speed as everyone else on the field. Five years into his career, and he is still a step behind on almost every throw.

For those of you here on B/R who think I have a vendetta against the 49er quarterback, let me state that I agree with Smith being the quarterback next season. The 49ers have a goal to get back to the playoffs, and Smith gives them the best chance. He is a very capable quarterback.

But to win championships, teams need a quarterback who is more than just "capable." They need a quarterback that is "unstoppable" when he's on his game. Young/Montana/Favre/Elway/Roethlisberger/Manning/Brady/Brees/Warner/McNair/Aikman/Marino/Simms etc., are all guys who fit this bill.

Over 90 percent of Super Bowl-caliber teams have quarterbacks who can beat the best of the best when it matters most. For every Trent Dilfer who wins a Super Bowl, there are at least three other Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks who had the talent to dominate opposing defenses.

Alex Smith doesn't show this ability in the slightest. And I wouldn't have any basis for writing this article if it wasn't for his two bone-headed plays on Sunday. The first of which was the aforementioned under-thrown ball to Crabtree, and the second was his lone touchdown to Davis.

After another excellent play fake, Smith had the entire right-half of the end zone wide open to run the ball in for the score. Had he sprinted to the corner right away, he could have walked into the end zone once he reached the goal-line.

However, Smith took an odd circular route to the corner and the linebacker closed in on him. As he approached the corner, Smith still could have scored, albeit with some contact, had he dove into the end zone. But instead, he pulled up short and risked floating a pass to Davis in the back corner for the touchdown.

The stupidity of the play was twofold: Not only did Smith risk another batted ball or incomplete pass that should have been a touchdown, but the replays showed that 99.99 percent of his body was past the line of scrimmage. Detroit challenged the play, and it very easily could have been reversed, but the refs claimed irrefutable evidence (although almost everyone watching thought that it was going to be overturned).

Regardless of the ref's call, it was clear Smith was not thinking about where he was on the field, and that is simply inexcusable. I mean what was going on? Did Smith have Davis on his fantasy team or what? There was no reason to risk a throw when he could have simply run the ball in for the score untouched.

When have you seen any other respectable starting quarterback make as odd looking of a play as that?

The 49ers forced another six turnovers against the Lions on Sunday and the offense managed just 20 points. Two weeks ago against Arizona they forced seven turnovers and the offense managed only 24 points. Good quarterbacks turn these high amount of turnovers into absolute blowout victories for their team.

Smith, on the other hand, led his team to just five touchdown drives in those two games, even with his defense forcing 13 turnovers to his benefit. Not exactly the points of turnovers that one would expect from a good quarterback.

Supporters of the first round pick may once again pull out the five offensive coordinators in five years defense, but not having continuity in the offense doesn't excuse a quarterback from having a poor football mentality.

Five different coordinators in his first five seasons means missing a pass because of miscommunication, not understanding the complexity of certain plays, or not having chemistry with teammates. But it has no affect on a quarterback making the wrong assumption when the right play to make is so incredibly obvious.

If Smith can't impress the fan base against the Lions, how is he going to impress the fanbase if he ever gets to the playoffs?

The 49ers finally have a quarterback who has the ability to get them to the postseason, but don't bet on them winning if he ever manages to get them there.

Mathematics / Statistics Filter: I have some pairs of numbers that are the result of a process. Given just that data set, and a rule that relates them, can you determine the integer values that could have resulted in those sets?

Apologies for the phrasing of the FPP -- I know it doesn't make much sense. Hopefully some mathematics / statistics types will click through and see this longer version.

I have some sets of numbers, shown below. I'm trying to reverse engineer the numbers that could have resulted in these sets, based on some known mathematical relationships between them.

In general, a given Device(n) consumes a resource in integer Quantities at a floating point Rate(n), resulting in a total Cost for that consumption run. What I have is pairs of Device/Cost, for several different Device for several runs each, and I'm trying to determine the floating point Rate. The Rate is constant for a given Device. The Quantity consumed is different for each run, but the one key here is that I know that the Quantity values are integers.

So for a given Device run, we have:

Quantity(int) x Rate(float) = Cost(float)

All I have is Cost data for each Device, but I have multiple sets of these and am hoping there's some sort of numeric analysis that can tell me the likely Quantity values that fit.

Here's a sample of the data:

Device / Cost
Device1 / 1235
Device1 / 988
Device1 / 1003
Device1 / 1526
Device2 / 3652
Device2 / 1207
Device2 / 1729
Device2 / 518
Device3 / 745
Device3 / 2115
Device3 / 1415
Device3 / 334

So, for example, using the Device1 / 988 and Device1 / 1003 set, I could eyeball it and see that the Cost difference of 15 is due to 1 unit of Quantity difference in the runs. Thus the first run consumed 66 x 14.97 = 988 and the second run consumed 67 x 14.97 = 1003 . (Alas, the Rate values should be more in the 30-50 range, so 14.97 doesn't make much sense) But I'm hoping that with a larger population of data, there's some analysis I can do that will give a more confident answer.

Perhaps this can even be solved without ensuring that the Quantity values are integers, but it's a constraint that the data is supposed to have so I thought I'd mention it.

I'll monitor this thread for the next couple hours to answer any questions. And will add better tags! I used the science category because this seems like the kind of math that a lab scientist might be familiar with, trying to analyze a data set to work out the conditions that created it. I'm especially hoping for a statistic analysis that produces some sort of confidence measure, because a couple of these data points might be outliers, screwing up what might otherwise be a closed solution.

Note: this is not homework filter, or even do-my-job filter. It's just something I'm trying to reverse engineer.

Editor’s Note; The following is an article reprinted, with permission, by Alejandro Sanchez. Alex says: It was the first time that I can think of that an e-book reading population was polled regarding its thoughts on a non-ebook related issue, with a pragmatic political proposal being the end result. Paul Biba

McCarthyism, the Patriot Act and the Kindle Nation
By Alejandro Sanchez

An AP poll conducted last year found that 25% of Americans did not read a single book last year while a Harris Interactive poll found the number of non-readers was 9%. These polls both have their own internal/external weaknesses so I –on a pure hunch- would place the number of non-book readers as somewhere between 16-20% of the U.S. population. This statistic is relevant in that it paints a picture in which a considerable number of Americans are receiving their information from such sources as the internet, television and/or radio. The reality is troubling when one takes into account the gross amount of subconscious bias present in these sources; one excellent example being the recent documentary “Out Foxed” which uncovered glaring inconsistencies, regarding which stories the network aired and how it aired them.
The survey that I constructed was advertized on four separate locations, myspace.com, facebook.com, kindleboards.com, and lastly on Amazon’s Kindle user forum. The first two sites netted zero results due to user inactivity. The postings on the last two sites pulled in a total of 57 respondents. The people on these Kindle sites are unique in that they are avaricious readers; they have purchased and/or are considering purchasing an electronic device whose sole purpose is to read books, newspapers, documents and magazines on. In using a rather crude cost-benefit argument-this being that a person would purchase this $260 device only if they could offset their buy in costs with an equal amount of reading material- one would have to assume that there is a high likelihood that these people would form the 60% of Americans-on the Harris Interactive poll- who read and/or purchase at least 4 or more books a year.The first question posed was regarding how many days did McCarthy hold hearings for, 46.3% got the answer right at 189 days-most respondents guessed considerably less than that. When it was paired with question 4- Do you believe that Congress -but in particular Sen. McCarthy- was excessive or not thorough enough in their anti-communist efforts? It reveals that 92.5% of respondents believed that the efforts were excessive. What I found most revealing is that such a high number-92.5% for too excessive- came up when 37.3% of respondents felt that communism posed an existential threat to the United States. The narrative that I am painting is that these well-read participants had a low threshold for what they perceived as government intrusiveness-most guessed considerably less than 189 days- even those who felt that national security was being threatened showed an adverse reaction to government hearings resulting in the aforementioned 92.5% figure.

How all this relates to the Patriot Act is interesting, in that a picture is evolving in which the theoretically least emotionally driven and most rational Americans-due to their love of reading- loathe government intrusions. There are two things of note: First, this emotional predisposition, not an actual flaw or fault, may be driving the movement to alter and/or revoke the Patriot Act.. Second, there is also the reality that many Americans are grossly underestimating the capabilities of our country’s enemies. When this group of readers was posed question 7: How many books, and/or International Relations publications/journals which discuss Terrorism have you read in the past year? 38.8% respondent zero, another 37.3% responded 1-5. The second set although promising must be taken in with a considerable degree of caution- i.e. what books, which viewpoints etc must be considered.

What I find most troubling is that 92.5% of participants did not read the Patriot Act in its entirety. If this sample is representative of 60% of our country’s populace -lets also remember the free floating 16-20% of people who do not read books- then what we are seeing is a movement to change a legislative act without an attempt to seriously discuss it. This lack of rational discourse is as troubling as the lack of discourse that led us into the Iraq war, and ironically enough the creation of this Act. I recommend that if the Patriot Act must be changed for it to be done gradually over a course of years so we don’t compromise security needlessly, while also giving our fellow citizens a chance to read the smaller sections which are being debated.

Survey Data

Total Survey Participants= 67

Note that when the question has a correct/preferred answer it will be in bold lettering. Some questions do not have exact answers; I have chosen to use approximations in order to test perceptions as opposed to testing to see how many people knew the precise answers.

1.) Over how many days did the McCarthy and Army McCarthy hearings take place?

39 days answered 16.4%/ 11 people out 67
69 days answered 23.9%/ 14 people out 67
99 days answered 13.4%/ 9 people out 67
189 days answered 46.3%/ 23 people out 67
Surveyors note: McCarthy held hearings for two years from Jan 1953 to 1955. An exact count is hard to come by but Congress is in session 140 days on average. If McCarthy spent ½ his time over those two years on these hearings plus the 39 days of the Army-McCarthy hearings the number would fall closest to 189 days. An argument for 99 days could be made also using a different time scale.

2.) How many people were contacted and/or summoned by the McCarthy hearings?
12 people were contacted answered 1.5%/ 1 person out of 67
59 people were contacted answered 11.9%/ 8 people out of 67
250 people were contacted answered 25.4%/ 17 people out of 67
500+ people were contacted answered 61.2%/ 41 people out of 67

3.) Which political party did Senator McCarthy belong to?
Republican answered 74.6%/ 50 people out of 67
Democrat answered 19.4%/ 13 people out of 67
Independent answered 6.0%/ 4 people out of 67

4.) Do you believe that Congress -but in particular Sen. McCarthy- was excessive or not thorough enough in their anti-communist efforts?
yes, too excessive answered 92.5%/ 62 people out of 67
no, could have been more thorough answered 7.5%/ 5 people out of 67

5.) Do you believe that Communism posed an existential threat to the United States and/or its citizens?
yes answered 37.3%/ 25 people out of 67
no answered 62.7%/ 42 people out of 67

6.) What do you believe is the educational level of most terrorists?
Basic Elementary schooling answered 25.4%/ 17 people out of 67
Some High School answered 29.9%/ 20 people out of 67
College graduates answered 41.8%/ 28 people out of 67
Advanced degree holders answered 3%/ 2 people out of 67
Surveyors note: Traditional economic disenfranchisement theories posit that poor undereducated people form the largest population segment of non-violent criminals. Violent criminals such as terrorists tend to have much broader educational representation in their populations. Take for instance Al Qaeda number two man Ayman al-Zawahiri, who holds a doctorate and worked as a surgeon in the Egyptian Army.

7.) How many books, and/or International Relations publications/journals which discuss Terrorism have you read in the past year?

0 books and/or publications/journals answered 38.8 %/ 26 people out of 67
1-5 books and/or publications/journals answered 37.3 %/ 20 people out of 67
5-10 books and/or publications/journals answered 11.9 %/ 7 people out of 67
10 or more books and/or publications/journals answered 11.9 %/ 7 people out of 67

8.) Have you read the Patriot Act in its entirety?
Yes answered 9.0%/ 6 people out of 67
No answered 91.0%/ 61 people out of 67

9..) Do you feel that terrorists desire to kill over bargaining should play a role in how they are dealt with?
Yes answered 43.3 %/ 29 people out of 67
No answered 20.9%/ 14 people out of 67
Depends on the situation answered 35.8%%/ 24 people out of 67

10.) How many countries do you think Al-Qaeda operates in?
3 countries answered 6..0%/ 4 people out 67
12 countries answered 25.4%/ 17 people out 67
50 countries answered 35.8%/ 24 people out 67
100 countries answered 32.8%/ 22 people out 67
Surveyors note: According to the Council on Foreign Relations the answer is about 100 countries.

Digg us. Slashdot us. Facebook us. Twitter us. Share the news.