Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest Lake Erie anglers should experience another year of diverse fishing opportunities in 2016, according to Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR).Lake Erie walleye and yellow perch fisheries are managed through an interagency quota system that involves Ontario, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio. Each jurisdiction regulates its catches to comply with quotas and minimize the risk of over-fishing these species. Quotas for the upcoming fishing season are determined through consensus agreement by these jurisdictions through the Lake Erie Committee of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which were just recently announced for 2016.As a result of the 2016 quota allocation, the walleye daily bag limit is four, and the yellow perch daily bag limit is 30 per angler in Ohio waters of Lake Erie until April 30. The daily bag limit will be six walleye from May 1 through Feb. 28, 2017. From March 1, 2017 through April 30, 2017, the daily walleye bag limit will be four. A 15-inch minimum size limit is in effect during the entire season for walleye. The yellow perch daily bag limit will be 30 from May 1 through April 30, 2017, with no minimum size limit. Lake Erie anglers can find walleye and yellow perch bag limit information at ODNR offices, in special publications at bait and tackle shops and at wildohio.gov.Walleye Ohio walleye anglers will catch fish mostly from the 2014 and 2013 hatches, with some fish from the 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009 year classes. Additional fish from 2007 and 2003 will also be harvested by anglers. Walleye from the average 2014 hatch will range from 15-18 inches, while walleye from the 2013 hatch will be between 16-20 inches. Fish from the 2003 and 2007 hatches are likely to carry most of the Central Basin fisheries, and a good number of these walleye will be over the 26-inch range. Large walleye from strong hatch in 2003 will continue to provide “Fish Ohio” opportunities (greater than 28 inches), with this year class nearing the size that may give Ohio a new state record walleye. Additionally, in 2016, anglers should see a number of smaller (less than 15 inches) fish from the excellent 2015 hatch. Anglers are reminded of the 15-inch minimum size limit and encouraged to release these fish with as little handling as possible so they can contribute to the fisheries in future years.Yellow Perch Expect good perch fishing in 2016, with improving numbers of fish in the Western Basin and the largest fish in the eastern areas of the Central Basin. Perch anglers should encounter fish ranging from 7 to 13 inches from the 2014 through 2008 hatches this year, with major contributions from the 2014, 2011 and 2008 year classes. Fish from the average-to-better hatches in 2007 will contribute fish in the 10-plus inch range. “In 2015, yellow perch fisheries flourished in the eastern portions of Ohio’s Lake Erie, and we expect this trend to continue into 2016,” said Tyson.Black Bass Smallmouth bass fishing in 2016 is expected to be fair but improving. Smallmouth bass catch rates decreased in 2015, when compared to 2014, but are still the highest observed since the mid-1990s. Smallmouth bass should be an excellent size (14 to 22 inches and weighing up to six pounds). The best fishing for smallmouth bass will continue to be in areas with good bottom structure, which is the available habitat across much of the entire Ohio nearshore and islands. Continuing the trend from previous years, largemouth bass fishing should be excellent in 2016. This emerging fishery is producing high catch rates and some large fish in nearshore areas and harbors across Ohio’s Lake Erie. All black bass (smallmouth and largemouth) must be immediately released from May 1 through June 24. Beginning June 25, the daily bag limit for bass will be five, with a 14-inch minimum length limit.Steelhead Steelhead anglers should enjoy another year of great fishing in 2016 in Ohio’s Lake Erie open waters and in tributaries. Peak summer steelhead action on Lake Erie can be found offshore from June through August between Vermilion and Conneaut, with catches measuring 17 to 29 inches. Most Lake Erie anglers troll for steelhead in deep waters using spoons with divers or downriggers until fish move close to shore in the fall. The daily bag limit remains at five fish per angler from May 16 through Aug. 31, and two fish per angler between Sept. 1 and May 15, 2017. A 12-inch minimum size limit is in effect throughout the year.White Bass White bass continue to provide excellent seasonal fishing opportunities in the Maumee and Sandusky rivers and in the open lake. The 2016 catch will be dominated by fish from the 2012 and 2010 year classes. A few fish from the 2007 hatch could be as large as 16 inches. Anglers should focus on major Western Basin tributaries during May and June and nearshore areas of the open lake during the summer. There is no white bass daily bag limit or size limit.Other Species Bays, harbors and main lake shorelines offer excellent fishing for panfish, as well as occasional northern pike and muskellunge in vegetated areas.Anglers are reminded that fishing conditions on Lake Erie can change hourly, and adjustments are often necessary to improve success. Anglers should take into account factors such as water temperature, cloud cover, water clarity, boat traffic, wave action, structure, currents and the amount of baitfish in the area. Anglers are also reminded to carefully monitor Lake Erie weather and to seek safe harbor before storms approach.
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest The South American harvest is expected to be a record with few shipping problems.Expect the market to be range-bound until March 31, when U.S. planted acre estimates are published. Market actionWith few South American harvest concerns, I moved some of my bean hedges, which were originally placed anticipating a South American production issue similar to last year. On Oct. 5, 2016 I moved my beans hedge position:70% moved to Aug 2017 futures — 22-cent premium30% moved to Nov 2017 futures — 5-cent premium.My rationale at the time for using Nov 2017 futures was that last October I thought we would likely have a South or North American weather scare at some point before next August. Therefore, I thought the only downside risk to the Nov/Aug spread position meant I could miss out on 25 cents of market carry. Plus, the July/Nov spread would likely go from a 20-cent inverse to a 12-cent carry — meaning another 32-cent loss. That is quite a bit of risk, so I only exposed 30% of my production.If there was a weather scare, the upside potential of this trade was as much as $2 per bushel. Last year the premium on this trade was $1.80, and the last couple of years premiums ranged $2 to $3. I didn’t necessarily expect profits that high this year, but the potential outweighed the added risk for me.The spread between Aug and Nov 2017 widened through mid-Jan to a point I could have received 60-cent premium rolling my Nov futures back. But, I held out for levels similar to the last few years (i.e. $2-3). Then with all the positive South American harvest news through February, the market narrowed.Last week I rolled the 30% from Nov 2017 back to Aug for a 15-cent premium. With this combined with the initial 5-cent premium, I’m only 2 cents behind the 70% placed in August initially. In retrospect I should have made the trade in January, but I didn’t know at the time this would be the high through mid-March. Now, I don’t want to lose any more opportunity waiting, hoping for a problem in South America, which is looking less and less likely. 2017 bean spread tradeSeeing Aug futures trading at a 15-cent premium over Nov, I also moved 25% of my 2017 crop hedged in Nov 2017 back to Aug. Note, this trade adds some risk. If the South American harvest does encounter unexpected problems like last year, I could lose money. For instance, I would have lost 22 cents on this trade last year. Why make it then?The world bean supply is very high. Add the record 2016 U.S. crop and the probable record Brazil and good Argentina harvest, the market will likely have to pay someone to store beans. This trade basically allows me to use my fields as an “artificial bin” until harvest. I’m looking to add another 15 cents to this trade in later months, which would potentially mean a total of another 30 cents on 25% of 2017 production. Are you a speculator or a farmer?Many advisors shy away from this trade because of the potential risks. I’ll admit that the above trade leans speculative, but I clearly understand the risks and am willing to accept all potential outcomes. Basically, I’m prepared to take a 25-cent loss for the potential of a 30-cent gain. Also keep in mind, this is on only 25% of my production, so I won’t lose or make a lot of money either way. Essentially my goal is to just make a little extra with the information I have today, because I think odds are in my favor. Also if the market caused me to lose value on this trade there is a very likely chance that future bean prices will be higher and that would be good for me long term. A speculator doesn’t have the additional bushels to fall back on if their trades go bad. A farmer is in a unique situation because of this ability to spread risk between marketing years. The difference between a speculator and a farmerUsually experts offering grain marketing advice in the trades are “speculator-type” traders. In my opinion, this can be a big disservice to farmers, because speculators and farmers think and should trade very differently.Speculators try to predict market direction and optimize buying or selling strategies to be profitable either way. They are not forced to buy or sell at any time.Farmers are less flexible and must sell their grain, ideally at profitable levels. Farmers always have more grain to sell, so buying more corn (buying calls or futures) isn’t necessary, and is usually not profitable for farmers like it is for speculators.Speculators benefit from market movement. They may hope the market goes up, but they have to protect themselves if they are wrong. They don’t have breakeven points to worry about, they just need to make sure they aren’t losing money on all of their trades at the end of the day. Farmers on the other hand always have more grain to sell and they must sell grain at profitable levels after expenses.Be careful when listening to marketing experts in the trade because most of the time their advice is based upon how to be a profitable speculator, not a profitable farmer. There is a big difference.Jon grew up raising corn and soybeans on a farm near Beatrice, NE. Upon graduation from The University of Nebraska in Lincoln, he became a grain merchandiser and has been trading corn, soybeans and other grains for the last 18 years, building relationships with end-users in the process. After successfully marketing his father’s grain and getting his MBA, 10 years ago he started helping farmer clients market their grain based upon his principals of farmer education, reducing risk, understanding storage potential and using basis strategy to maximize individual farm operation profits. A big believer in farmer education of futures trading, Jon writes a weekly commentary to farmers interested in learning more and growing their farm operations.Trading of futures, options, swaps and other derivatives is risky and is not suitable for all persons. All of these investment products are leveraged, and you can lose more than your initial deposit. Each investment product is offered only to and from jurisdictions where solicitation and sale are lawful, and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations in such jurisdiction. The information provided here should not be relied upon as a substitute for independent research before making your investment decisions. Superior Feed Ingredients, LLC is merely providing this information for your general information and the information does not take into account any particular individual’s investment objectives, financial situation, or needs. All investors should obtain advice based on their unique situation before making any investment decision. The contents of this communication and any attachments are for informational purposes only and under no circumstances should they be construed as an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation to buy or sell any future, option, swap or other derivative. The sources for the information and any opinions in this communication are believed to be reliable, but Superior Feed Ingredients, LLC does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information or opinions. Superior Feed Ingredients, LLC and its principals and employees may take positions different from any positions described in this communication. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. He can be contacted at [email protected]
With the sudden increase in fitness smartwatches, primarily driven by Google’s Android Wear smartwatch software, the market has seen a big surge in wearables. And Acer Leap Ware is one of the newest watches to look at for your wrist.See Also: Qualcomm discusses the future of smartwatches – and they’re bullishAcer has played its part in wearables of the past, mostly in fitness bands. However, Leap Ware is a complete smartwatch, which is something new. It offers basic custom software that is compatible with iOS and Android.Like Pebble watches, the Leap Ware watch has a round, reflective display and a one-touch heart rate option. The display is protected by Gorilla Glass SR+. Extra sensors are attached to the watch: four metal plates, to be exact. Touching them causes extra health measurements to begin, including a stress monitor. Acer also claims that the watch can somehow measure blood pressure. It can monitor heart rate, stress levels, and exposure to ultraviolet rays. It’s also water-resistant.Touching them causes extra health measurements to begin, including a stress monitor. Acer also claims that the watch can somehow measure blood pressure. It can monitor heart rate, stress levels, and exposure to ultraviolet rays. It is even water resistant.But are there too many wearables to choose from?Leap Ware will need to work hard to have its product stand out from the other tons of watches and fitness bands though.With so many market entrants, from Fossil to Apple, the wearable market is packed and increasingly, consumers are getting more demanding about what they want their wearables to do. Fitness trackers and basic functionality may not cut it anymore.Acer Leap Ware will arrive on American shelves by this July. The firm plans to price it at $139 at retail. Internet of Things Makes it Easier to Steal You… How Myia Health’s Partnership with Mercy Virtua… Related Posts Follow the Puck Amanda Razani Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces Tags:#Acer#gorilla glass#Internet of Things#IoT#Leap Ware#smartwatches#wearables
Wintry storm delivers US travel woes before Thanksgiving Panelo: Duterte ‘angry’ with SEA Games hosting hassles Bloomberg: US would benefit from more, not fewer, immigrants “As one of those players who’ll still be with the team next year it’s important for me and the others to help Ate Si and Eya to get that championship,” said Viray who’s in her third playing year.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting Rondina and Laure, the top two scorers of the league, make up for most of the Golden Tigresses’ firepower especially with Season 80’s Rookie of the Year Milena Alessandrini getting sidelined with a knee injury in the first round.Although there were games when Dimdim Pacres would play as the team’s third option, Reyes wanted more offense from his players and his wishes were fulfilled against Adamson University Wednesday at Filoil Flying V Center.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSPalace wants Cayetano’s PHISGOC Foundation probed over corruption chargesSPORTSSingapore latest to raise issue on SEA Games food, logisticsCaitlin Viray had a career game for UST, putting up 14 points in the Golden Tigresses’ 25-15, 25-12, 25-16 wn and Reyes said that he’d like to see his middle blocker get into a more prominent offensive role in their next matches.“She just needs to get out of her shell more, and hopefully in our coming games she’ll do that and we’ll be able to bring her here to the pressroom,” said Reyes in Filipino. “Hopefully, there’ll be more to come of these kinds of performances from her.” Trump tells impeachment jokes at annual turkey pardon event MOST READ “She played great defense, she blocked some spikes, and of course her offense was there. We want to maximize her abilities and of course, I know she’ll be better,” added Reyes.Viray, who had 34 total points prior to facing the Lady Falcons, said it was their stinging five-set defeat to Ateneo that lit up that fire in her and be a better player.The emotions helped the whole team as well with the Golden Tigresses improving to a 6-3 record and are now tied with De La Salle for the second spot in the standings.“We were frustrated after that Ateneo game, Ate Dim and I talked and said that if we had more points that game maybe we could’ve won,” said Viray in Filipino. “Our goal is to make the finals and maybe get the title before Ate Si [Rondina] graduates.”Viray, who still has one more playing year, said she has to help those who’ll graduate and also the rookies in getting that championship.ADVERTISEMENT MANILA, Philippines—Kung Fu Reyes has seen his stars Cherry Rondina and Eya Laure do most of the heavy lifting for University of Santo Tomas in the UAAP Season 81 women’s volleyball tournament.ADVERTISEMENT Trending Articles PLAY LIST 00:50Trending Articles00:59Sports venues to be ready in time for SEA Games01:27Filipino athletes get grand send-off ahead of SEA Games02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss Colombia protesters vow new strike after talks hit snag PBA delegation heads to Pangasinan for 2019 All-Star weekend LATEST STORIES Cayetano: Senate, Drilon to be blamed for SEA Games mess Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Google Philippines names new country director View comments
About the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Chelsea ace Hazard: I’ve changed the approach to my careerby Paul Vegas10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveChelsea ace Eden Hazard admits he’s taken better care of his body in recent years.Hazard has been with Chelsea since 2012.”Football is my job, but I enjoyed it 20 years ago, I enjoyed it 10 years ago and I enjoy it now. In that respect I haven’t changed a lot.”I prepare for games exactly the same as I did when I was younger. But now the difference is that I am getting older and I need to take more care of my body. I work a bit in the gym with the physio. Five years ago I just enjoyed training and then I went home.”Now I take my time. Recovery sessions are important for me now. That’s the big change, but after that I’m the same guy, with the same happiness on the pitch.”
Quick — which NBA player is most integral to his team’s offense? Which player shoulders the biggest offensive burden? And to what degree are those questions even equivalent?Statistically, such concerns fall under the umbrella of “usage rate,” a term that colloquially describes an entire class of metrics tasked with quantifying the size of a player’s offensive role. Usage is one of the most accessible concepts in basketball analytics — rock-simple in its purview and relatable to anyone who’s ever played with a shameless ball hog or been a terrified freshman playing hot potato. In statsier circles, usage is a staple of player analysis, in part because it remains relatively constant amid a player’s shifting contexts and roles. At a glance, usage says more about how a player plays than most other basic basketball metrics.One small problem: Nobody seems to agree about what exactly usage rate is, or should be, or how it is calculated. Many analytics-minded observers don’t even know there are different, competing versions of the statistic in popular use, much less that each variant has its own philosophy about what it means to “use” a possession. For a term so common to the modern hoops lexicon, that’s more than a little strange. So let’s have ourselves a little history lesson and learn much more than you ever wanted to know about usage rate, in all its permutations.Usage through the yearsLike many concepts in basketball analytics, usage rate can be traced back to Dean Oliver and John Hollinger, still probably the field’s two most influential figures. The notion that too much (or too little) offense could flow through an individual player is as old as the game itself, but it’s hard to find anyone formally putting a number on the phenomenon before the early-to-mid-2000s, when Hollinger published his inaugural “Pro Basketball Prospectus” and Oliver wrote the seminal “Basketball On Paper.” In fact, the thought of listing a player’s rate of possession-usage at all — let alone as something other than a purely negative indicator — was alien to many of the early hoops number-crunchers.To understand why, it’s useful to look back at the primordial era of basketball metrics. NBA statheads cribbed many of their early concepts from baseball’s sabermetric movement — which effectively had a 25-year head start — including a tunnel-visioned focus on maximizing efficiency. Such a fixation makes sense in baseball, where a player’s susceptibility to making outs is unambiguously negative — you get 27 of them each game, to be guarded vigilantly — and you can draw a straight line between a player’s individual efficiency and his effect on the team. Hence the reasoning, as applied to basketball: If possessions, like outs, are the sport’s fundamental unit of opportunity, why would we celebrate a player’s propensity for using them up?Basketball is more complicated than baseball, however. Possessions alternate between teams, so at least one player must always have a hand in “using” each of them. More importantly, teammates do not take turns with their opportunities like hitters going through a batting order: Any individual player is free to use as many (or as few) of the team’s possessions as he wants. This provides a lot of complex ways for an individual to help the team beyond his own personal efficiency statistics.One of Oliver and Hollinger’s key insights was that the frequency with which a player generates offense — as proxied by usage rate — is a consideration that should always accompany (and temper) his efficiency metrics. “Some guys … are great shooters and passers, and rarely turn the ball over,” Hollinger wrote, introducing usage in the 2002 edition of his “Prospectus,” predicting the wars he’d fight over Carl Landry half a decade later. “If that’s the case, why don’t people regard them as superstars? The reason is that they cannot create their own shot as often as some other players can.” Usage rate was born out of the effort to quantify said ability to create.Hollinger’s original conception of usage, which can still be found at ESPN.com today, was a relatively simple pace-adjusted rate of shots, assists and turnovers per 40 minutes. Oliver’s, while rooted in the same basic tenets, went to a far more complex place, accounting for the additional possession-extending nature of offensive rebounds and even parceling out fractional credit to the scorer and passer on an assisted basket. But at their most elemental, both attempt to individually account for all the actions that can spell an end to any team possession: made baskets, misses that aren’t rebounded by the offense, free throws and turnovers.Neither Oliver’s nor Hollinger’s interpretation of usage, however, is the preferred version of 2015’s stathead. (At least, not according to this unscientific Twitter poll I conducted Tuesday.) Among the respondents who actually recognized differences between various flavors of usage, nearly twice as many said they use the Basketball-Reference.com (BBR) version as Hollinger’s. (Oliver’s version isn’t widely available online, except for college players.)As the stats are used today, there isn’t much separating the three. Mention that a player’s usage rate or usage percentage is in the high-20s to low-30s and you call to mind a ball-dominant focal point of an offense; drop down an octave, into the low-to-mid-20s, and you instead have a player who creates a good deal of offense but doesn’t dribble the leather off the ball. Whichever version you prefer, usage is in common enough usage that it serves as shorthand for offensive hierarchy.In most every practical application, breaking one or the other down to its atomic particles and recompiling them into the competing version will be pointless; you already get the idea. Still, it remains worthwhile to understand the differences, such as they are, and how those differences inform what it is you’re looking it. Why? Because BBR’s usage metric doesn’t include assists.Confusion reignsFull disclosure: I used to work for Sports-Reference, the company that runs BBR, so I’m close to the situation. And now, a scene from my former life running the company blog at a time when BBR founder Justin Kubatko and I staged nerd fights about this (and other statistical barnacles):ME: “Why do we use Hollinger’s definition of usage instead of Dean Oliver’s?”JUSTIN: “That’s not Hollinger’s. That’s mine.”ME: “It’s not what he uses at ESPN? I thought it was the same definition.”JUSTIN: “No. His multiplies assists by a third.”ME: “I see. But I guess the question still stands.”JUSTIN: “Mine is basically percentage of team plays used. What the heck is his actually measuring?”ME: “It’s trying to measure possessions, and failing. But Oliver’s formula gives us real possessions.”JUSTIN: “They’re not real, either! They’re estimates — better than Hollinger’s, but estimates.”ME: “I’m confused. This is Hollinger’s fault.”For most players, this distinction is largely irrelevant; among qualified players1Minimum 400 minutes. this season, the correlation between BBR usage and Oliver’s more full-bodied formula is 0.98. But for certain types of players, it can matter: It’s the difference, for instance, between claiming that DeMarcus Cousins carries the league’s biggest offensive burden (as he does under BBR’s formula) and giving the distinction to Russell Westbrook (No. 1, according to Oliver and Hollinger). One measures pure scoring affinity; the others factor in ballhandling responsibility while still strictly accounting for the player(s) who served as the conduit for every possession’s end.Neither approach is perfect. Playmaking is obviously a massive part of “creating” offense, and cutting it out entirely isn’t ideal. But just stapling assists onto a scoring metric misses huge chunks of what you’re trying to capture. Plus, heavy ballhandlers tend to have higher turnover rates than would be predicted from how often they end possessions, which suggests that even a completist accounting method such as Oliver’s is missing some fundamental aspect of how passers create shots for others.So with the advent of player-tracking data from SportVU, Seth Partnow of NylonCalculus.com set out to detect the invisible. He developed a statistic called True Usage, which incorporates “assist chances” (so-called “hockey assists,” plus passes that would have been scored as assists if the shot had been made) into the usage mix. The resulting leaderboard is decidedly skewed toward point guards and other primary ballhandlers, like LeBron James. If we’re truly interested in measuring a player’s offensive burden, that probably makes for a more accurate usage framework.The problem, of course, is that the old-hat usage figures are now entrenched in not only the analytic lexicon, but also the updating leaderboards on big industry portals like Basketball-Reference and ESPN. It’s hard to change hearts and minds without first winning over the APIs.From one stat to manyThen again, maybe the entire concept of a one-number “usage rate” has outlived its usefulness, particularly in an age of hyper-detailed SportVU possession stats. We can now see how long a player holds the ball, how often he passes, how many points those passes create — every conceivable piece of the puzzle is out there, if you know where to look. And just about every basketball analytics expert I consulted told me that they preferred a modular approach to usage, with different formulas to measure different aspects of a player’s offensive responsibility.“I don’t use just one usage stat,” Oliver told me. “I do have a shot usage, a field goal usage, and a possession usage stat. Depending on the question being asked, I will look at the one that makes the most sense.”Jacob Rosen, who writes about analytics for Nylon Calculus and the Cleveland sports blog Waiting For Next Year, concurs that today’s all-in-one usage metrics are inadequate. “Like any type of basketball stat, it’s the balance of wanting to push everything into one metric,” Rosen said. “In some ideal world, you’d have a stat that measures the dimensions of possession time, passes, potential assists, turnovers, shots, free throws, etc. But they’re on somewhat different planes of existence.”As a possible alternative to a one-size-fits-all usage formula, Rosen wondered if usage rate’s next step would be to incorporate player typologies, such as the Position-Adjusted Classification (PAC) system developed by current Cleveland Cavaliers Director of Analytics Jon Nichols. “In my mind, having those different dimensions would be more accurate,” Rosen said. “You could perhaps do a PAC definition just with usage-based things alone (i.e., passing, possession, turnovers, shots).”Given the state of today’s tools of observation, Partnow’s True Usage may have struck the best balance between the all-encompassing and the customizable, if not the most widely used and understood.“To me the ideal is True Usage,” Nylon Calculus writer2And FiveThirtyEight contributor. Ian Levy said. “It is as accurate a measure as there is of the quantity of a player’s offensive responsibilities. But the real benefit is that you can parse out the different components to see what comes from playmaking, scoring, turnovers. That’s the ideal — [a] good holistic measure [that’s] also parsable into components for descriptive uses.”If so, maybe we should all just turn our attention toward rebranding campaigns for the other myriad versions of usage rate — “Possession Rate”? “Scoring Attempt Frequency”? — or pester the bosses at ESPN or Basketball-Reference for one more column in the Advanced Stats tab. That is, until basketball’s next data revolution comes and brings with it an even more accurate way to measure offensive workload … which we can promptly christen “usage rate” and start all over again.
A homegrown WAR rate of 43 percent is well below the long-term average of 63 percent for world champs, but that number is propped up by teams that won their titles before MLB’s modern era of free agency and mass player movement. Since free agency began in 1976, the average champion got about 50 percent of its WAR from homegrown players. In comparison with the highly imported nature of the 2004 Red Sox roster, the 2016 Cubs had a pretty normal mix of developed and acquired talent.Finally, the quality of the 2016 Cubs’ position players set them apart from the 2004 Red Sox, particularly on defense. Both teams received immense contributions from their respective pitching staffs; Boston ranked 14th among champions in pitching WAR,4Per 162 games. while Chicago ranked 27th. But the Cubs’ lineup also generated the 16th-most WAR by a championship team, while the Red Sox got only the 77th-most WAR of any champion from its lineup. Some of Chicago’s impressive young position-player talent flowed from a promise Epstein made at his introductory news conference in 2011. There, Epstein declared his intention to build “a foundation of sustained success” rooted in player development, echoing a similar sentiment from early in his tenure with Boston. “We’re going to turn the Red Sox into a scouting and player development machine,” he said in 2002. Although the returns didn’t come in quickly enough for the veteran Red Sox of 2004 — only 12 percent of the team’s WAR was generated by players who began their careers in Boston, the third-lowest rate for a champ ever — Epstein’s machine did eventually produce younger, more homegrown champions in 2007 and 2013. Epstein left Boston in 2011, but his fingerprints were all over the roster that brought Boston its ’13 title. And in 2016, 43 percent of the Cubs’ WAR was generated by players who made their MLB debuts in a Chicago uniform, many of whom Epstein drafted himself. When Theo Epstein left the Boston Red Sox to become president of baseball operations for the Chicago Cubs in the fall of 2011, he told reporters he was “ready for the next big challenge.” And what a challenge it was: The Cubs were coming off of a 71-win season, without much help on the way. Famously, the team’s last pennant had come 66 years prior, and it hadn’t won a World Series in 103 years.Epstein, of course, was well acquainted with the anguish of a supposedly cursed fan base. In 2004, as general manager of the Red Sox, he’d been the architect of Boston’s first world championship in 86 years. The parallels to Chicago’s plight were obvious. But the prospect of a second Epstein miracle seemed too much to realistically expect. The 2004 Red Sox had needed one of the greatest comebacks in professional sports history to end the team’s drought — surely such lightning couldn’t strike twice, could it?It could, and did. On Wednesday night, Epstein’s Cubs did what previously had been reserved for the realm of fantasy, bringing a World Series to Chicago’s North Side for the first time in 108 years. So, having pulled off the feat twice now, how do Epstein’s two curse-breaking teams stack up?First things first: The 2016 Cubs were probably better than the 2004 Red Sox. Although the Cubs had a penchant for doing things the hard way during the playoffs, they also had one of the best couple-dozen regular seasons in MLB history. By wins above replacement (WAR),1All mentions of WAR in this story will refer to an average between the competing versions offered at Baseball-Reference.com and FanGraphs.com. Chicago was the seventh-best World Series winner ever; Boston ranked 41st out of the 112 all-time winners. The Cubs also just edged out the Sox, according to FiveThirtyEight’s Elo team ratings,2Using the more complete version that’s adjusted for the quality of a team’s starting rotation. ranking 29th among World Series winners versus Boston’s 32nd-place finish. (To be fair, by another measure of Elo the 2016 Cubs ranked as the 70th-best team ever, slightly behind the 64th-ranked 2004 Red Sox.)But more interesting than straight rankings is the contrast in how each team was built. The 2004 Red Sox were a veteran team, the fourth-oldest World Series winner in history.3Using an average for the team’s regular-season roster that weights according to how much each player contributed to the team’s overall record as determined by WAR. They had old hitters — 22nd-oldest among historical champs, as weighted by each player’s regular-season plate appearances — and positively ancient pitchers — No. 1 all time, in fact, weighted by regular-season innings pitched. Epstein was handed a team full of vets when he took over as Boston’s general manager after the 2002 season, and he doubled down further by adding the likes of Curt Schilling (age 37 in 2004), Keith Foulke (31), Kevin Millar (32), Bill Mueller (33) and Mike Timlin (38) via trades or free agency.Epstein’s Cubs, on the other hand, were pretty average as far as the age of championship rosters go: They ranked 52nd-youngest out of the World Series’s 112 winners. But they also had an interesting split between the average ages of their lineup and their pitching staff. In keeping with the tradition of the 2004 Red Sox, Epstein once again assembled a pretty old group of pitchers in Chicago — eighth-oldest among all champs (though a full year-and-a-half younger than Boston’s grizzled staff in ‘04). Chicago’s position players, however, ranked 11th-youngest in championship history. The mix between fresh-faced kids such as Kris Bryant (age 24) and Anthony Rizzo (26) on the hitting side and aging pitchers such as Jon Lester (32), Jake Arrieta (30) and John Lackey (37) built the foundation for one of the most interestingly constructed rosters of any champion. Much of that difference came down to defense: Those Red Sox ranked sixth-to-last in baseball by defensive runs saved in 2004, instead typifying the classic mashing-over-fielding profile carried by many of that era’s sabermetric darlings. The defensive-minded Cubs, by contrast, illustrated the evolution of today’s data-driven teams, ranking first in baseball (by a wide margin) in DRS this season.Those kinds of distinctions particularly help put Epstein’s accomplishment in perspective. As one of the first wave of young, Ivy League-educated, statistically savvy general managers, Epstein was able to reverse Boston’s curse by building what was effectively the prototypical early-sabermetric ballclub: patience and power at the plate, and power pitching on the mound. If the ball was ever put in play, you took your chances with the most adequate defense you could cobble together while still propping up your on-base percentage and slugging average. The 2004 Red Sox were one of the first teams to win with that formula, but Epstein’s 2016 champion Cubs show how much the winning equation has changed as sabermetrics has matured. Now, the value of dynamic free-swingers like Javier Baez has been rediscovered, as has the importance of defense. The secret to breaking Chicago’s curse was very different than the one that broke Boston’s hex 12 years earlier.And if Epstein ever molds another champion elsewhere, it’s a good bet that team will look different than either the ‘04 Sox or the ‘16 Cubs. Another good bet: It will probably set another prototype for subsequent teams to follow, whether they’re trying to end a championship drought or not.
Santi Cazorla has rejoined his former club Villarreal and will partake in the preseason with the senior side as he bids to continue with his recuperation from his ankle injuryThe Spanish midfielder has been struggling with the injury since October 2016 and has been unable to return to competitive action after undergoing 11 separate operations on his chronic Achilles injury.Part of the procedures also saw the doctors remove the skin from his arm to cover the eight centimetres of tendon he lost in his right ankle.After scoring 29 goals in 180 appearances in his six years at Arsenal, Cazorla was released at the end of the season and has since been training with the Alaves youth team in a bid to prove his fitness.Report: Former United man Rossi almost went to Barca George Patchias – September 9, 2019 Former Manchester United starlet Giuseppe Rossi almost joined Barcelona.Currently without a club, and having trained most recently back at his old stomping ground of…Now the 33-year-old will return to Villarreal and will take part in their pre-season training program for the senior side this summer.“Santi Cazorla returns home. The Asturian footballer will spend the pre-season with the first team of Villarreal with the aim of recovering from an operation in the Achilles tendon of the right leg, which was held on November 28 by Doctor Mikel Sanchez,” read a club statement.In two separate spells with El Submarino Amarillo, Cazorla made 241 appearances between 2003 and 2011.
Barcelona president Josep Maria Bartomeu confirmed that he has no doubt that Ernesto Valverde will remain at the club beyond this seasonThe 54-year-old coach enjoyed an impressive first campaign in charge of Barcelona last season with La Liga and Copa del Rey titles coming his way in record-breaking fashion.And Valverde looks set to emulate those feats this term as well with Barcelona leading La Liga at the halfway stage from Atletico Madrid by six points.But, in a recent interview, Valverde cast doubt over his long-term future at Camp Nou by suggesting he could leave at the end of this season.Match Preview: Barcelona vs Valencia Boro Tanchev – September 14, 2019 Is derby time in La Liga, as Barcelona welcomes Valencia to the Camp Nou Stadium tonight at 21:00 (CET).“We don’t have any doubts here that Valverde will be the Barcelona coach next season,” Bartomeu told Sport.“We will speak with him, of course, in time. That’s what we agreed. He’s a coach we have a lot of confidence in.“He’s doing a great job. He’s an intelligent person, he knows Barcelona’s system of play and he manages the games in a way which we like.”Barcelona will be back in action for Thursday’s second leg in their last-16 Copa del Rey tie with Levante where they hope to overturn a 2-1 deficit.