Seven coaches of the Jabalpur-bound Shaktipunj Express derailed on Thursday in Sonbhadra district of Uttar Pradesh, a railway official said.“The accident occurred at around 6:25 am and we have already cleared out the site,” railway ministry spokesperson Anil Saxena said.“All passengers were put on the remaining coaches and by 7:28 AM all of them had left the spot. All of them are safe and no one was injured in the accident,” he said.The train was running at a speed of about 40 km/hr which, officials say, prevented any injuries when the incident occurred.This is the third such derailment in the State in less than a month.On August 19, the Utkal Express had derailed in Muzaffarnagar district, killing 22 people and injuring 156.About 100 passengers were wounded when 10 coaches of Kaifiyat Express train derailed after crashing into a dumper which strayed on to the tracks in Auraiya district on August 23.
Mumbai: The Council on Wednesday revoked the suspension of Prashant Paricharak, MLC. He had been suspended for a year-and-a-half for his remarks on soldiers and their wives during campaigning for local elections last year. The government formed a 10-member all-party committee comprising members of the Council headed by chairman Ramraje Nimbalkar. On Wednesday, Revenue Minister Chandrakant Patil said, “Paricharak told the committee that he made the remark casually and there was no intention to hurt the sentiments of soldiers or their families. He also apologised for the comment. Hence the committee recommended to revoke his suspension.”
Indian fast bowler Jasprit Bumrah on Sunday said their Group B match against South Africa was crucial so the team wanted to be calm and execute their plans in order to seal the semi-finals spot of the Champions Trophy Cricket Tournament.Man-of-the-Match Bumrah, who scalped two wickets for 28 runs in eight overs, also revealed the strategy and said the ball was not swinging so they wanted to bowl a tight line.”It was an important game for us. We were looking forward to the game. We wanted to be calm and wanted to execute our plans in this game, so it worked out for us,” Bumrah said after the match.”I was happy to bowl with the new ball. We contained well at the start. The ball wasn’t swinging, so we wanted to stick to a tight line. That was the basic plan for us. It was a good toss to win and bowl first because the wickets haven’t be helping the fast bowlers,” he added.India rode on a superb bowling show to thump South Africa by eight wickets and become the first team from Group B to enter the semi-finals of the tournament.Disciplined Indian bowling bowled out South Africa for 191 runs in 44.3 overs at The Oval. India chased down the target in 38 overs with eight wickets to spare.This win took India’s points tally to four points, while South Africa, with only two points from three matches, were eliminated.
Continue Reading Previous EKF: CompactPCI Serial to CompactPCI Classic bridgeNext Advantech: compact DIN-Rail fanless Embedded Box PC for intelligent manufacturing TECHWAY goes beyond the state-of-the-art FMC+ technology with the new PFP-KX7+ series. PFP-KX7+ are highly-versatile thanks to their perfect technology mix: Kintex-7 FPGA, FMC+ site, DDR3 memories, management system, 12 HSS, programmable clock generator, etc.Based on the Xilinx Kintex-7 FPGA, PFP-KX7+ is a versatile PCIe Gen2 x4 platform designed to meet the needs of high-speed applications. Its FMC+ connector (VITA 57.4) provides modularity for signal I/O thanks to a wide choice of interface mezzanines (analog and digital I/O). You also have the possibility to interface any custom mezzanines.Fully compliant with VITA 57.4 standard, PFP-KX7+ boards were designed to easily fit into existing system or brand-new architecture. The SDK delivered with the board provides VHDL design examples compliant with the AXI4 and AXI4 Lite standards to facilitate code integration.The PFP boards can be integrated in standard PC environment (drivers available for both Windows and Linux) or in stand-alone mode in your own enclosure. Not only development boards, the PFPs are deployable platforms in use by several OEM with field proven 24/7 operations.Share this:TwitterFacebookLinkedInMoreRedditTumblrPinterestWhatsAppSkypePocketTelegram Tags: Boards & Modules
Touch Football Australia is seeking feedback from the participants on the recent 2010 Masters Trans Tasman Test Series.Please be advised, the survey is in relation to the event side of the tournament rather than the team side.If you would like to participate in the survey, please click on the link below:Click here to take survey
TAMPA, FL – JANUARY 09: Head coach Nick Saban of the Alabama Crimson Tide speaks during a press conference after the Clemson Tigers defeated the Alabama Crimson Tide 35-31 in the 2017 College Football Playoff National Championship Game at Raymond James Stadium on January 9, 2017 in Tampa, Florida. (Photo by Brian Blanco/Getty Images)Former Michigan State wide receiver Plaxico Burress rang in the new year with a shot at the integrity of his former college coach Nick Saban. Today, the former NFL star again took to Twitter to rip Saban. His mini-rant came after Saban made comments this morning at SEC Media Days suggesting some Alabama players played not to get hurt in their Sugar Bowl loss because they were distracted by their NFL Draft status. I recall Nick Saban telling me to stay in school finish what I started, I wasnt 1st round pick and he left for LSU b4 the season was over— Plaxico Burress (@plaxicoburress) July 15, 2015Now Nick Saban goes on tv saying that kids are distracted by NFL projections. Well, the kids are just chasing a dream that you were. $$$— Plaxico Burress (@plaxicoburress) July 15, 2015N Saban looked his players in the face at the Duf, said he wasnt leavin, I’m committed to the program” and was gone the next day. Tru story— Plaxico Burress (@plaxicoburress) July 15, 2015Now Nick Saban players are being distracted by the NFL and chasing a dream, haha tell your story Nick. LSU showed you $$, you was GONE! Ha— Plaxico Burress (@plaxicoburress) July 15, 2015Nick Saban actually told me I was a second round pick. I said, “where are you getting your info from? Are you watching these games? Hahaha— Plaxico Burress (@plaxicoburress) July 15, 2015 Well, still doesn’t look like Plax and Nick will be sharing dinner or drinks any time soon.
One of Alabama’s top offensive linemen has committed to play for the Auburn Tigers. Austin Troxell, a four-star tackle out of Madison Academy, made his decision during a campus visit this afternoon, according to multiple reports.4-star OT Austin Troxell (@austintroxell33) has verbally committed to Auburn today during his campus visit. #MGMAuburn— Matthew Stevens (@matthewcstevens) June 18, 2016Boom!!!!!!!! #WDE— Coach Gus Malzahn (@CoachGusMalzahn) June 18, 2016Troxell’s decision comes after two trips to campus this month, solidifying his choice between the Tigers and rival Alabama. AL.com spoke to Troxell about his choice. “I have committed to the University of Auburn, so I’m ready,” Troxell said. “I’m ready to start my journey and be an Auburn Tiger… It’s a burden lifted off my shoulders. I finally got my decision made. No looking back now. It’s 100 percent Auburn now so I’m ready.”Troxell is yet to tweet about the decision himself, but has retweeted a few of his future teammates that have offered him congratulations. Troxell is Auburn’s ninth commit, and fifth blue-chip player.[AL.com]MORE FROM COLLEGE SPUN:The 10 Most Aggressive Fan Bases In CFBIn Photos: Golfer Paige SpiranacESPN Makes Decision On Dick Vitale
ESPN.ESPN’s SportsCenter made quite an error in their broadcast of Notre Dame cornerback Devin Butler’s arrest last night.First, Butler was arrested yesterday on preliminary felony charges of battery to law enforcement and resisting arrest. Then, when reporting the arrest on Saturday night’s SportsCenter, ESPN managed to confuse Butler with Phoenix Suns guard Devin Booker. They very clearly selected the wrong photo for the broadcast.The hiccup definitely didn’t go unnoticed by viewers. Social media lit up, calling out the station for the error..@SportsCenter whoops. @DevinBook pic.twitter.com/sHKYdf1ybT— JTrain (@purplePHXorange) August 21, 2016When they realized the mistake, SportsCenter issued an apology. Anchor Zuban Memento read the statement after the commercial break.You can watch it below:@DevinBook @espn @SportsCenter pic.twitter.com/uAJAgVOWF4— JTrain (@purplePHXorange) August 21, 2016The transcription of his apology is below:“We are back on SportsCenter, and an apology we’d like to make. When reporting on a story earlier this hour on Notre Dame cornerback Devin Butler, we accidentally used a photo of the Phoenix Suns’ Devin Booker. We all here at SportsCenter do sincerely apologize for that mistake.”Butler has since been indefinitely suspended by Notre Dame’s football program.
PetSmart Charities has teamed up with actor/producer Josh Duhamel and his production company, Dakotakid Media, to launch Rescue Waggin: Tales from the Road.Video: Episode 1: Rescue Waggin’ Tales From the RoadUnder the direction of Executive Producers Josh Duhamel and Jude Weng, the 8-episode web series follows homeless dogs as they travel hundreds, even thousands, of miles for a better chance of being adopted. The web series includes cameos from a cache of celebrity pet adoption advocates including Kristen Bell, Adam Shankman and Bret Michaels.Rescue Waggin’: Tales from the Road puts viewers in the passenger’s seat of the Rescue Waggin’ vehicle to experience the shelter pet transport process from start to finish. The web series chronicles real stories of dogs and puppies from communities with more pets than adopters to communities where adoptable pets are in demand. Visit www.rescuewaggin.org to view a new websiode each Monday in March.Rescue Waggin’ vehicles travel up to 3,000 miles a week giving hopeless pets a new “leash” on life. The program has saved the lives of more than 70,000 dogs and puppies since 2004.“The Rescue Waggin’ program is an extension of our adoption program and unites animal shelters from across the country in an effort to avoid euthanizing healthy, adoptable dogs,” said Jan Wilkins, executive director of PetSmart Charities, Inc. “We are excited to show the world how our Rescue Waggin’ program gives thousands of beautiful dogs and puppies a second chance at life.”After learning about the Rescue Waggin’ program last year, Josh Duhamel vowed to use his production company to help raise awareness and funding for the life-saving program.“Adopting my dachshund, Meatloaf, changed my life,” said Josh Duhamel. “He was a clumsy little dude with horrible breath–but we adored him.”Meatloaf turned the Hollywood actor into a passionate advocate for animal rescue.“I tell anybody who’s going to get a pet that adoption is the only way to go, not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because they make incredible pets. I’m honored to partner with PetSmart Charities to help share the joy of pet adoption with others.”PetSmart Charities Rescue Waggin’ program has not only helped save the lives of thousands of pets, but also helps many shelters improve their operations through spay/neuter programs, grants and mentoring. To learn about the many ways PetSmart Charities is saving the lives of homeless pets, visit www.petsmartcharities.org.
It’s Camp Day at Tim Hortons, and that means 100 per cent of the money from coffee sales will go towards helping thousands of kids go camping.The Tim Horton Children’s Foundation has seven camps across Canada and the United States which allow kids from low-income families enjoy the camp experience.Tim Hortons is also hoping people will encourage others to give by using the hashtag #CampDay and by mentioning @TimHortons on Twitter and Instagram.Last year, a record-breaking $13.7-million was raised.
TORONTO – In little more than a year and a half, budding menswear label WIL Studios has caught the eye of fashionistas, singer Daniel Caesar and now Hudson’s Bay.The massive retailer says it will showcase the emerging company along with 11 other new and established homegrown talents at a pop-up showcase this September curated by the Toronto-based fashion management firm, The Collections.Rahul Madan of WIL Studios says it’s a dream come true for his young brand, which he formed in early 2017 with university pal Eric Richards. The duo have found early success in securing the support of Caesar, who wore their clothes on tour and in a TV appearance on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” earlier this year.Madan says it’s especially surreal for the 26-year-olds to be selling their clothes at Hudson’s Bay because they each used to work at the retail chain in Toronto.“There are crazy stories of Eric working and me coming around and over the course of the summer designing clothes while he’s working,” says Madan, who met Richards while both studied and played football at Western University in London, Ont.“To think about it in that sense, I have a big smile on my face because I can’t believe that we’re going to stock the store that we used to work at.”Hudson’s Bay president Alison Coville says the three-month project is meant to give a national platform to Canadian designers who otherwise struggle to break through.The pop-up launches Sept. 4 at five locations across the country, including two stores in downtown Toronto, and one each in Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary.All five stores will feature designers Mikhael Kale, Pedram, S.P. Badu, WIL Studios, WRKDEPT, Hilary MacMillan and Sid Neigum.The Vancouver and Toronto Queen Street location will also include Atelier Guarin, Markoo and New York-based Daniel Gregory Natale, and accessories by Biko and Cuchara.Their wares will also be available online at www.thebay.com.While shoppers seem increasingly headed to e-commerce, Coville expects this showcase will entice shoppers back to brick-and-mortar Hudson’s Bay stores.“There’s entertainment value to see what’s new and see what’s exciting,” she says, adding that a strong patriotism will also help encourage shoppers to buy Canadian.“You see the impact that our Olympic wear has when we launch those collections (and) with our Hudson’s Bay company heritage line — every time we put out a new striped product and it hits social media, there’s lots of excitement around it.”Dwayne Kennedy, co-founder and fashion director at The Collections, notes this will be the first wholesale account for many of the labels.“We really want this to be an introduction for a lot of the brands,” says Kennedy.“We want to make it a lot more accessible so our price points range from $40 upwards to $1,200 but we really kept it in the midpoint of that.”The showcase is just the latest in a series of pop-ups at the department store, including one that featured eco-conscious fashion.Madan marvels at how far his label has come since he and Richards began designing T-shirts in their dorm room years ago when he studied kinesiology.Madan graduated from the University of Toronto in 2016, and followed that up with fashion courses at George Brown College in Toronto. He launched the brand in February 2017.He says that now having his T-shirts, outerwear and bags in a major retailer is a big boost.“It gives some validity to the brand, it allows people and other stores to trust your production and it allows you to sit beside other brands that are well-respected and that are already trusted in the marketplace,” says Madan.“This is obviously a major step in where we want to take the brand and where we see ourselves going.”Note to readers: CORRECTS reference to Chinook, Alta. to Calgary in para 8
MADRID – Thousands of travellers in Europe saw their plans disrupted Friday after airline Ryanair cancelled more than 200 flights because of strikes by cabin crew in Spain, Belgium, Holland, Portugal, Italy and Germany.The budget airline says it had informed passengers of possible disruptions ahead of time, giving them time to adjust.In Tenerife, Spain, hundreds of passengers queued at Ryanair counters and dozens more at the Madrid airport as 86 flights of the low-cost company from or to Spain were cancelled, affecting some 16,000 passengers, according to Spanish unions.The unions blame the Ireland-based company for breaking talks over the company’s ratio of outsourced workers, working conditions and their demand for local contracts instead of Irish ones.In a statement Thursday, the company blamed cabin crews of competitors for organizing the strikes and blocking “significant progress” in labour negotiations.But the Brussels-based European Cabin Crew Association, which says it has more than 35,000 members, supported the walkout over what it described as the airline’s “inflexibility, single-mindedness and unreasonable behaviour.”The association alleged Ryanair was intimidating strikers by threatening them with job losses.As the company and labour groups traded accusations, some passengers left on the ground by the cancellations were galled.“They (Ryanair) sent me a text saying, ‘Have a look at your email.’ I don’t have an email,” said Eddie Hughes from Norfolk, England, at Madrid airport.Spanish cabin crew workers’ unions said cancellations could be increasing throughout the day. Airports in Valencia, Mallorca and Tenerife are the most affected, the unions said.In Portugal, 13 morning flights were cancelled and in the Netherlands, 14 of 22 flights were cancelled.
LONDON — British Prime Minister Theresa May is deploying 30 members of her government throughout the country to rally support for her deal on leaving the European Union.Treasury chief Philip Hammond and Health Secretary Matt Hancock are among the senior ministers who are making appearances around Britain in an effort to win popular support for the agreement and put pressure on lawmakers to approve the deal.May says people in Britain “want us to get on with it,” and that it is important ministers speak with communities to explain how her Brexit deal “works for them.”The House of Commons is scheduled to vote on the plan Tuesday. May has shrugged off calls to postpone the vote despite forecasts that lawmakers are likely to reject it.The Associated Press
New Delhi: Denmark-based Jabra, a subsidiary of GN Netcom that makes in-ear and on-ear audio wearables, on Thursday launched its Evolve 65e soft neckband earbuds in India with up to 13 hours of battery life for Rs 20,320 (excluding GST). The Jabra Evolve 65e features Skype for business certification that ensures users enjoy crystal-clear call and music quality. The earbuds also support eight hours of talk time. “Enterprises are constantly seeking new ways to enable their employees to be productive wherever they are, making UC one of the most important mobile technologies today. But if mobile workers are to use professional headsets, they will expect the same wearing-styles and form-factors, great comfort and range of features that they get from their consumer devices,” Holger Reisinger, Senior Vice President, Enterprise Solutions, Jabra, said in a statement. The device would be available starting May at authorised Jabra channel partners and resellers. The Jabra Evolve 65e sports Skype for Business and UC-certification, courtesy its four-microphone system. With two in the microphone box capturing voice and one in each earbud, the device uses DSP algorithm to find the optimum voice-to-noise ratio for clarity.
New Delhi: Girls outperformed boys yet again in CBSE class 10 examination, in which the top rank was shared by 13 students with 499 out of 500 marks.The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) on Monday announced the class 10 results and 91.10 per cent candidates cleared the examination, an improvement of 4.40 per cent since last year. The pass percentage of girls was 92.45 per cent against last year’s 88.67 per cent, while that of boys was 90.14 per cent against last year’s 85.32 per cent. Also Read – 2019 most peaceful festive season for J&K: Jitendra SinghGirls have done better than boys by 2.31 per cent. The pass percentage of transgender candidates was 94.74 per cent. The second rank was bagged by 25 students who scored 498 out of 500 marks, while the third rank was shared by 59 students who got 497 marks. “Proud of my young friends who have successfully cleared the CBSE Class X examinations. Wishing them the very best for their journey ahead. May these young minds continue making us proud,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated students and also appreciated the hard work and sacrifice put in even by their teachers and parents. Also Read – Personal life needs to be respected: Cong on reports of Rahul’s visit abroadTrivandrum zone outperformed others in pan India circuit with 99.85 pass percentage, with Chennai coming a close second at 99 per cent and Ajmaer third at 95.89. Delhi’s pass percentage stood at 80.97. While students from Kendriya Vidyalayas and Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas had higher than average pass percentages of 99.5 percent and 98.6 percent respectively, students from government and government-aided schools lagged far behind, with pass percentages of just 77 percent and 72 percent respectively. Human Resource Development Minister Prakash Javadekar congratulated the students and the CBSE for declaring the results in record time. The results have been announced within 38 days of the conclusion of the examination. Last year, it took CBSE 55 days after the end of the exam to declare the results. “CBSE will provide Class 10 digital academic documents (Marksheets, Migration Certificate and Pass Certificate) through its own academic repository ‘Parinam Manjusha’,” official said. A CBSE press release said that, a total of 40, 296 candidates appeared from 98 exam centres in outside India. Out of them, 20, 077 were male candidates and 20, 219 were female candidates while 197 were candidates with special needs. CBSE had conducted the class 10th examination from February 21 to March 29. A total of 18, 27, 472 candidates were registered for the exam release added. The highest number of candidates who registered for Class 10, Class 12 exams and overall were from Delhi. According to the statistics released by the board, 5,69,696 candidates had registered for CBSE Class 10 and Class 12 examinations from Delhi. This year maximum female candidates (2,72,271) appeared from Delhi and the maximum male candidates (3,38,613) appeared from Uttar Pradesh (UP). Twenty four students bagged the second rank in CBSE Class 10 results with 498 marks, while 58 students shared the third spot with 497 marks. Union Minister Smriti Irani tweeted that her daughter Zoish scored 82 per cent. Siddhant Pengoriya from Lotus Valley International School in Noida, is among the 13 toppers who all scored 499 out of 500 in the exam. The names of the other toppers, each of whom are from a different school, are Divyansh Wadhwa, Yogesh Kumar Gupta, Ankur Mishra, Vatsal Varshney, Manya, Aryan Jha, Taru Jha, Bhavana Sivadas, Ish Madan among others. With agency inputs
“If you’re 6-5, 230, run a certain time, there’s like 35 guys I can compare you to that have been successful in this league. If you’re 5-11, there’s two, unless you go back to Fran Tarkenton: Doug Flutie and Russell Wilson. That’s not real good odds to me. You still might make it, but history says no. Just because you’re 5-11 doesn’t mean you can’t be successful. Johnny has magic.” — Bruce Arians, head coach of the Arizona Cardinals“I feel like I play like I’m 10 feet tall.” — Johnny ManzielAt the NFL scouting combine in February, wildly popular Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback Johnny Manziel officially measured in at 71¾ inches and 207 pounds. His diminutive stature was such a hot topic prior to the 2014 NFL draft that the media couldn’t resist the puns: “Johnny Manziel Comes Up Short At NFL Combine “(CBS Cleveland); “The Long and Short of Johnny Manziel” (ESPN Cleveland); “Will Johnny Manziel Measure Up for the Browns?” (CantonRep.com).Ultimately, the Cleveland Browns selected Manziel with the 22nd pick in the first round. With several QB-starved teams near the top of the draft (including the Browns, who passed up two earlier chances to draft Manziel, first by trading out of the fourth pick and then by selecting Justin Gilbert with the eighth), most expected him to go higher.We don’t know why Manziel went where he did, but we do know that he is undersized for his position. And historically NFL teams’ approach to undersized QBs has been not to draft them — if they’re short. My research suggests this strategy is insufficiently nuanced: If height matters at all, NFL teams have already accounted for that and then some. Being too light-weight, on the other hand, appears to be a stronger predictor of performance (or lack thereof), and NFL teams seem not to have accounted for it enough.For a QB of Manziel’s height, being drafted even late in the first round is incredibly rare. From the 1967 merger through 2013, NFL teams selected 209 quarterbacks in the first three rounds of the draft, yet just five of them were 72 inches (6 feet) or shorter. Of those five, only Michael Vick (listed as 6 feet) was selected in the first round. For comparison: Since 1987, NBA teams have drafted five players 6 feet or shorter in just the first 10 picks of the first round.If we looked at those five quarterbacks alone, drafting short QBs would look like a pretty good bet. They have a combined career Approximate Value (AV)1I’m not in love with this metric — or really any QB rating metrics — but it sums well, and for testing league-wide hypotheses, virtually any reasonable metric will do. of 260 — greater than the combined AV (210) of all 12 QBs listed as 78 inches (6 feet 6 inches) and taller.This comparison is for amusement purposes only: It’s a tiny sample, and both of these groups include a number of active players with a lot of productive years ahead of them. But it hints at bigger issues with how the NFL accounts for height.Many media pre-draft scouting reports don’t distinguish between height and weight, frequently referring to a player’s “size” or “bulk” instead. But when it comes to size metrics, the NFL appears to be much more forgiving of light quarterbacks than short ones. The average weight for a 71- to 72-inch quarterback is 202 pounds, yet 27 quarterbacks this weight or below have been drafted in the first three rounds over the same time period (1967-2013), which saw only five QBs of that height taken.To examine whether this particular reluctance to draft short QBs (while being willing to draft light ones) makes any sense, I classified the broader pool of drafted quarterbacks (limiting to those selected in the top seven rounds) based on how they compared to Manziel’s weight and height. From there I compared each group’s average AV per season to see whether any of the groups performed better than the others.Looking at the right column, we see that short QBs have done slightly better on average than non-short QBs (3.0 average AV per season versus 2.4). But even with seven rounds of draft picks this number is still pretty small: Just 29 short QBs are included in this comparison (so the results are not statistically significant).But the weight columns show a stark divide between quarterbacks on either side of Manziel (2.7 average AV per season versus 1.6 overall). There’s a broader sample, too: 107 players weighed in at 207 pounds or less, compared to 311 who were heavier.Based on that, it seems that drafting a quarterback of Manziel’s weight is a more dangerous proposition than drafting one of his height. But that’s a pretty crude binary analysis. Because the NFL draft market is fairly efficient, if there were a relationship between height or weight and career potential, we’d probably expect it to be priced into each quarterback’s draft position (or whether a quarterback gets drafted at all).So let’s expand the investigation to include each quarterback’s draft position. Then, rather than splitting the players into groups, let’s look at the overall correlations between height, weight and pick2Technically these correlations use the logarithm of each player’s pick, as do all the regressions in this article. and a few different QB metrics — Approximate Value, yards per game and yards per attempt.3If you’re wondering why I’m not using more complicated efficiency metrics like Passer Rating, ESPN’s QBR, or Brian Burke’s Win Percentage Added, it’s because I think they all correspond much too strongly with the style and quality of a QB’s team and offense — at least for these purposes. If you’re making finely grained comparisons, you may be willing to accept that cost in exchange for those metrics’ higher precision, but for evaluating the long-run impacts of hundreds of QBs, I prefer to use broader measures. Mostly what I want to know is how likely these players were to have long, productive careers. (For this comparison, I’ve filtered out QBs drafted later than 2008.)That grouping of bars on the left shows us that height is at least a little correlated to Approximate Value, yards per game and yards per attempt — but it correlates much better with the QB’s draft position. Weight, on the other hand, correlates to our QB metrics much more, and, importantly, it correlates with draft position less.In other words, height appears to tell us less than weight does, and what it does tell us we’re more likely to have already known.While correlations alone don’t tell us what’s causing what, so far this is a pretty poor showing for height as a predictor of quarterback performance. But there are still a lot of possibilities, so to get a better sense of which variables are doing what work, I created regression models that use height, weight and draft pick to predict a variety of metrics, and then compared how important each variable was to each model.Those regressions produced “t-values,” basic measures of the predictive reliability of each variable.4It’s the weight you should put on the variable divided by its average error. In this case we’re looking for a minimum value of 2.0.5This is about the cutoff for “statistical significance,” meaning that the correspondence seen in the data would happen less than 5 percent of the time by chance. This is about the minimum amount of confidence you need in a variable to make using it worth your while. Not only is height not a good predictor when combined with weight and pick location, it’s a slightly negative one (though to be a statistically significant negative predictor, we’d want to see values below -2.0). This doesn’t mean that height is bad, it just means that — whatever value it may have — NFL teams are likely overvaluing it.Weight, however, is a highly significant predictor for these metrics.6As it is for most metrics to varying degrees, though it does tend to do best on per-game and per-year bases. Since draft location is included as input for this regression, this strongly suggests that NFL teams have not been sufficiently pricing weight into their selections.There are a number of possible reasons for this. My guess would be that it has something to do with the physicality of the NFL game, and that teams may become enamored with a QB’s skill or accuracy and undervalue his strength or durability. But figuring out exactly why weight is so predictive is a whole different investigation, and one which may be too complicated for the amount of data available.7This is basically the main challenge with every NFL-related problem. So instead of diving deeper, let’s simplify.The thing we really care about is whether a QB has a minimally successful career. To test this, I’ve set the “successful career” cutoff at about 32 AV, which sets apart more or less the top 100 drafted QBs since 1967.8Note that it doesn’t really matter exactly where we draw the line so much as that we draw a line at all: Anything will do for a barometer. Basically, our “successful” cutoff is going to be all the good QBs you’ve heard of, down to about the likes of Joey Harrington, Rick Mirer, Vince Young, Byron Leftwich or (going further back) Steve Spurrier. While the worst of the “successful” quarterbacks may sound pretty bad to you (Tim Couch, Browns fans?), nearly two-thirds of quarterbacks selected 22nd overall (Manziel’s draft position) will likely be even worse.We can predict the baseline likelihood of a QB being “successful” or not by using a logistic regression9A regression that predicts binary outcomes like wins/losses, good/bad, etc. with just his draft position.10In case you’re interested, the Excel formula for this is =1/(1+EXP(-(1.1536-0.40511*[logpick]))), where [logpick] is the logarithm of the QB’s draft position in base 2 (or log([pick],2)). I’ve grouped QBs by rounding their weight to the nearest 5 pounds, then calculated how many of that group should have had “successful” careers based on each of their draft positions, and then compared that to the number of them who actually did. Once that was done, I plotted how each group succeeded relative to our expectations.The red line shows how much more or less likely a QB of a given weight is to be successful than we would expect based on his draft position alone.11In Excel, this formula is: =((1/(1+EXP(-(-7.814506+0.031653*[weight]))))-0.272723209)/0.272723209. Manziel is listed as 207 pounds. From the model, we’d expect about 19 percent fewer 207-pound QBs to be successful than we would expect based on their draft position.The odds of being “successful” for a QB taken 22nd overall are approximately 34 percent. The odds of a 207-pound quarterback selected 22nd overall being successful are around 27 percent (81 percent of 34 percent). In draft-pick terms, that’s about the same as an average-weighted quarterback drafted 38th overall — a substantial but certainly not damning drop. We can make that same kind of calculation for each draft position.On the other hand, Manziel was projected to go higher in the draft. It’s possible that he was unfairly dinged for his height, but not dinged enough for his weight.If the Browns had selected Manziel with the eighth pick, my model’s size-weight adjustment (which is basically a weight adjustment, since height didn’t meet the threshold for inclusion), would make him about as likely to be successful as a No. 16 pick. That would match up pretty well with the Browns’ actual draft day decisions: to pass on Manziel with the eighth pick, but then to trade up to take him with the 22nd.
More: Apple Podcasts | ESPN App | RSS | Embed FiveThirtyEight Embed Code Welcome to the latest episode of Hot Takedown, FiveThirtyEight’s sports podcast. On this week’s show (Nov. 15, 2016), we chat about the Pittsburgh Steelers’ loss to the Dallas Cowboys and ask whether the correct strategy is to always go for 2 points. We then turn to college football’s many upsets from last weekend and ask whether this season is just a ceremonial procession that will eventually lead to Alabama’s being crowned champion. Finally, the World Chess Championship is happening in New York, so we call up FiveThirtyEight’s Oliver Roeder to discuss draws, the history of Elo ratings and whether computers are better than people at chess. Plus, a significant digit on cricket!Links to what we discussed:Chase Stuart says more teams are going for 2-point conversions in the NFL, and that’s as it should be.ESPN’s Kevin Seifert explains how the NFL’s new extra-point rule has changed the game.Neil Paine says last weekend’s college football upsets were some of the wildest in history.You can find FiveThirtyEight’s college football predictions here.Marc Tracy in The New York Times says this season’s Alabama team is phenomenal.Oliver Roeder breaks down the action from the World Chess Championship.Even a chess draw can be gripping, Roeder writes.Significant Digit: 246 for 20. That’s the number of Australian runs scored for the number of wickets lost in the team’s recent defeat to South Africa. It’s Australia’s worst aggregate score in a home test match since cricket’s greatest ever player, Don Bradman, made his debut in 1928.
If you’ve come here during a penalty shootout, scroll down for some cool charts. The next several paragraphs explain our methodology in some detail.FiveThirtyEight has some credibility staked on the performance of the Brazilian national team. It was our pretournament favorite to win the World Cup. (Many other forecasts had Brazil favored, but not as heavily as we did.) So, like the 23 Brazilians on the pitch and the 200 million watching at home, we were sweating the outcome when Brazil went to a penalty shootout with Chile on Saturday.We were curious about the Brazilians’ chances of winning at various points in the shootout. How safe were they after Brazil’s David Luiz made his first penalty and Chile’s Mauricio Pinilla missed his? How close did things get after the shootout was tied at 2-2, and how bad would it have been if Neymar had then missed for Brazil?What follows is a series of charts to provide some reasonable estimates of these probabilities. We’ll start with the case in which both teams are assumed to be equally likely to convert penalty kicks, and then explore alternatives where one team (perhaps like Brazil against Chile) might be thought to have a marginal edge.There’s a cottage industry around predicting the outcome of penalty kicks. Some theories are worth exploring. There’s some evidence, for example, that whichever team shoots first has a slight advantage. Others are probably more dubious and may rely on overinterpreting evidence from small sample sizes (see Phil Birnbaum’s cautionary note for more on this).Our goal is not to litigate those theories. Instead, we make some simple assumptions: that the outcome of one penalty kick is independent from the next one, and that a team’s chances of making a penalty is consistent with long-run averages.In the history of the World Cup, teams have made 71.5 percent of their penalty-shootout kicks. But the sample size is not huge, and the percentage has been slightly higher — closer to 75 percent — in other major international tournaments like the European Championships. So we fudge just a pinch upward and assume that the long-run rate of made penalties in the World Cup is 72.5 percent.It’s important to clarify that this percentage pertains to penalty kicks attempted during shootouts. The success rate is higher — in the range of 75 to 80 percent — for penalties attempted after a foul is called in the box in regulation play. But those cases are a little different. A team will usually designate its best penalty taker to make the one attempt instead of having to rotate through at least five players as in a shootout. (If Neymar or Lionel Messi got to make every attempt, the success rate in shootouts would rise.) Furthermore, the rebound is live in penalties attempted during regulation play; rebounds are not live during a shootout. (Even if goals scored on the rebound are not counted as penalty-kick conversions, the possibility of a rebound may affect the strategy of the kick taker and the goalkeeper.) Finally, players may be under more pressure during a shootout, and they’ll have the opportunity to alter their behavior after observing their teammates’ kicks.So to repeat: Our initial assumption is simply that each penalty kick has a 72.5 percent chance of being made. From there, calculating the probability of a team winning the shootout is fairly straightforward given any condition of the game (for instance, a team being ahead 2-1 after each team has attempted three penalties). The technique we’re applying is technically known as a Markov chain, but that makes it sound more elaborate than it is.Time for the first chart. This assumes two-evenly matched teams, which we’ll call Team A and Team B. Team A shoots first.You can follow the action by moving down one row after every penalty-kick attempt. Whenever Team A makes a penalty, move down and to the left. Whenever Team B does, move down and to the right. When there’s a miss, move straight down (don’t alter your horizontal direction). A cell tinged in blue means that Team A is favored to win the shootout, and one tinged in red means that Team B is favored instead.As an example, we’ll take the shootout in the 1994 World Cup final between Italy (the Azzurri shot first, so they are Team A, in blue) and Brazil (Team B, in red). The teams were about evenly matched, so we’ll assume that the probability was 50-50 going in. Here’s what happened next: Italy’s first kick. An errant attempt by Franco Baresi, which sails over the crossbar. Move due south on the chart. Brazil — Team B, in red — is now a 70 percent favorite.Brazil’s first kick. But Brazil’s Márcio Santos misses, too! Terrific anticipation by Italian goalkeeper Gianluca Pagliuca. Move straight down again: we’re back to 50-50.Italy’s second kick. Italy’s Demetrio Albertini makes his penalty. Move down and to the left. Italy, up 1-0, is a 58 percent favorite.Brazil’s second kick. Romário notches a kick off the left crossbar. Move down and right. We’re tied 1-1, and the probabilities are at 50-50 again.Italy’s third kick. Brazil goalkeeper Claudio Taffarel guesses the right direction — but is much too late to stop Italy’s Alberigo Evani. Move down and to the left. Italy is ahead 2-1 and has a 59 percent chance of winning.Brazil’s third kick. Brazil’s Branco equalizes. Down and to the right. Back to 50-50.Italy’s fourth kick. This was the pivotal penalty — it affected the odds more than any other kick (including Roberto Baggio’s infamous miss later on). Taffarel anticipates Daniele Massaro’s kick and makes one of the easier-looking saves you’ll see in a shootout. Move straight down. Although the score is tied 2-2, Brazil has an attempt in hand and is a 79 percent favorite to win.Brazil’s fourth kick. Dunga’s penalty is low and to the middle — and by Baresi. Brazil up 3-2. Look down and right on the chart: The team’s now 90 percent to win the shootout.Italy’s fifth kick. Italian star Baggio gets far too much on his attempt and it goes well over the crossbar. The Brazilian reserves rush the pitch to celebrate their World Cup championship. Presumably, you’re either celebrating too or throwing things at the television screen — either way, hope you saved that bottle of grappa. But, if you insist, move straight down the chart. You’ll encounter a solid block B — in this case, representing Brazil. This is an end condition: The penalty shootout is over, and Brazil has won.Here’s the chart with the Italy-Brazil results filled in:Sometimes the shootout can persist for more than five kicks per team. For example, one shootout in the 2006 Africa Cup of Nations featured 23 consecutive made penalties before Cameroon’s Samuel Eto’o finally missed to hand Ivory Coast advancement. When this occurs, follow the loop in the chart. The situation when teams are tied after five kicks is mathematically identical to the one when they’re tied after six kicks, 12 kicks, 20 kicks or any other number.On other occasions, there may be reason to think that one team starts the shootout with an advantage. Maybe it has a better goalkeeper, or its opponent is England, or you buy the theory that the team that shoots first has an edge. There’s also some evidence that the better team based on overall measures of team quality (such as Elo ratings or the Soccer Power Index) may have some minor advantage in the shootout. Shootouts are mostly random but not entirely so.Take the case in which Team A shoots first and is the better penalty-shooting team, converting 75 percent of its penalty kicks — while Team B makes 70 percent. Team A will win the shootout about 58 percent of the time. This resembles the shootout between Brazil and Chile on Saturday: Live betting odds, before the first penalty was attempted, put Brazil’s chance of winning in the range of 55 to 60 percent. Here is the chart for that occasion:We won’t give you a complete walkthrough, but Brazil’s odds rose to 83 percent after Luiz’s make and Pinilla’s miss — and then further, to 91 percent, after Marcelo put Brazil ahead 2-0. But consecutive makes by Chile and a miss by Hulk brought Brazil’s odds down to 56 percent. Neymar made Brazil’s fifth penalty, and the team’s odds recovered to 69 percent — and Brazil won when Chile’s Gonzalo Jara hit the post. Had Neymar missed instead, Chile would have been the 83 percent favorite.Finally, here’s the case where the side that shoots second — Team B — has a slight edge and makes 75 percent of its penalties to Team A’s 70 percent.Note that Team B’s advantage amounts to the equivalent of about half a kick. If Team A makes its first penalty, and Team B still has an attempt in hand, the odds go to about 50-50. But if Team A misses, Team B’s odds rise to 77 percent despite not having yet made an attempt.
In the third minute of added extra time in Tuesday’s Belgium-U.S. World Cup match, Belgium’s Kevin De Bruyne took a pass in the box, dribbled to his right and hooked the ball into the left side of the net. Finally, after 31 shots, the Belgians had broken through. Or … wait. Was it 32 shots?It depends on which Twitter account you follow. ESPN’s Stats & Information Group tweeted that Belgium had scored on its 31st shot of the day. OptaJoe, the U.K. Twitter account of the soccer stats company Opta, said it was the 32nd.At the World Cup, shots are in the eye of the beholder. At least three major soccer stats companies are logging every match, and they have yet to all agree on each team’s number of shots and shots on goal. For every one of the 58 games so far, the companies can’t quite get their stories straight. Sometimes their counts have differed by as much as two or three.Even small discrepancies like these have repercussions beyond mere trivia. Advanced analyses of the sport, such as my colleague Benjamin Morris’s magnum opus on Lionel Messi this week, rely on match loggers for shot counts and characteristics. Some teams base tactics and personnel decisions partly on stats. And the disputes are proxy battles for soccer’s more philosophical debates: If a shot is deflected in a forest of defenders, was it on target?According to World Cup organizer FIFA, it was; but according to Opta and Prozone, two of the companies that employ analysts to log every match of the tournament and provide data for media coverage, it wasn’t. That disagreement is responsible for the bulk of the numbers mismatch. Through the round of 16, FIFA’s official match stats — which are being collected by the Italian company Deltatre — included 68 percent more shots on target than Prozone’s, and 74 percent more than Opta’s.1I used Opta data compiled by TruMedia Networks, which provides stats for ESPN. Prozone emailed me their match reports and other data, which — along with match statistics posted on FIFA.com — allowed me to compile shots and shots on goal for every match so far during the World Cup. Remove blocked shots, though, and the discrepancies drop to 4 percent and 8 percent, respectively.And what about a ball crossed in the box near the goalie — does it count as a shot or a cross? In the 120th minute of the Belgium-U.S. match, DeAndre Yedlin kicked the ball well wide of goal as the U.S. hunted desperately for an equalizer. Was he trying to score, or just to cross the ball? FIFA thinks the latter, but Opta thinks the former. Short of interviewing every player immediately after every subjective touch, the statkeepers are left to guess at the intent, divining purpose in actions that may have been performed instinctively, rather than with premeditation.With 58 of the tournament’s 64 matches in the books through Friday, there have been 116 opportunities to compare the three data providers on a team’s shooting profile in a match. There have been just 14 times, or fewer than one out of eight, that all three organizations counted the same number of shots and shots on goal for a team in a match — and none for both teams in the same match.The counts appear to reflect genuine disagreement over tricky cases — touches that look like passes to some but shots to others, say. Or, a shot that hits the post or crossbar and goes out. Typically these don’t qualify as shots on target, but they can if they are deflected onto the woodwork by the goalkeeper, who then gets credit for a save. If they are blocked onto the woodwork by a player other than the goalkeeper, that’s a block. The stats, then, pivot on an arbitrary criterion: Was the player who deflected the ball a goalkeeper or did he happen to play another position?My analysis showed that, overall, the companies weren’t consistently stingy or generous in their statkeeping. No provider consistently tallied many more shots or shots on goals than another. The major philosophical divide was over (unblocked) shots on goal: Deltatre sees more than Prozone, which sees more than Opta. But that amounted to only about one additional shot on target counted in every three matches.The disputes have touched every team, to similar degrees, but teams with less active offenses tend to have higher differences among statkeepers because one uncounted shot matters more in their overall percentages. These include the U.S., England and Cameroon. Analysts attempting to study whether Cameroon threw its matches, as Der Spiegel has reported, might get subtly different results depending on which set of stats they consult. So might England manager Roy Hodgson and U.S. manager Jurgen Klinsmann as they assess how to improve their teams.Discrepancies between data providers don’t stop at shot counts. Most soccer events are subjective. Someone must decide, was that a tackle? Was that shot weak? Was that attack a dangerous one? Possession stats also differ by provider, as Slate noted last week.Shooting stats have particular relevance for one form of analysis that tries to divine a team’s true skill by gauging whether or not they’re getting lucky. It’s a technique that’s based on the theory that generating chances is the part that teams can control — converting them is based more on luck (unless you’re named Lionel Messi). Teams that convert and save a high percentage of their chances are due for a regression in their results. Change the underlying data, and any conclusions about which teams are good and which are just lucky could shift.When I spoke with Garth Lagerwey, general manager of Major League Soccer’s Real Salt Lake, in a telephone interview last week, he said data discrepancies are a prevalent problem in soccer stats at all levels, not just a World Cup anomaly. When I contacted the companies, they declined to comment or didn’t respond to a question about why their numbers differ. In other contexts, they tout the training they provide to match analysts; the consistent guidelines they enforce across analysts, competitions and time; and the oversight of experienced checkers. Some shots just might not look like shots to everyone.Other sports’ stats also require subjective judgment: errors in baseball; assists in basketball. But in baseball and basketball, the official scorer’s decision is what goes into the record book and, generally, what fuels advanced statistical analysis. In soccer, with different leagues and competitions worldwide at varying levels of stats sophistication, third parties with standardized methods report alternative numbers to the official ones. Opta and Prozone are scoring every match alongside the official scorers and releasing their numbers in real time to media organizations — hence the potential for conflicting tweets like those about Tuesday’s Belgium-U.S. match.2ESPN Stats & Info typically uses FIFA for shot counts, and Opta stats — via TruMedia — for everything else.“Shots should not be that subjective, let alone shots on goal,” Lagerwey said. On the other hand, “A lot of companies use human beings to code this stuff. It’s easy to understand how you’re going to have an error rate.”
Redshirt senior goalie Tom Carey attempts a save against Johns Hopkins on April 9 at Ohio Stadium. Ohio State defeated Johns Hopkins 13-8. Credit: Courtesy of OSUThe No. 9 Ohio State men’s lacrosse team has faced several elite scorers this season — a trend will continue Saturday morning in Ann Arbor, Michigan.The Buckeyes will look to continue their hot streak on defense when they take on the Michigan Wolverines. While the Wolverines have struggled recently, they still possess an offensive unit capable of giving the Buckeye defense some concerns. The focal point of the concerns will be the prolific scorer, sophomore attacker Brent Noseworthy.Noseworthy has been terrorizing opposing defenses this season with a team-high 33 goals through 11 games. He is averaging three goals per game, ranking him sixth in the NCAA. Similar to the effect OSU freshman attacker Tre LeClaire has on the Buckeyes, Noseworthy brings that go-to goal scorer presence around the cage in the offensive zone.OSU has handled matchups with elite scorers successfully and contained them. Their strategy against No. 7 Penn State’s freshman attacker Mac O’Keefe limited him to just one goal. On the season, O’Keefe had been averaging 3.45 goals per game, good for second in the NCAA. While he tallied nine shots in the game, they limited his chances at getting high-quality shots.This success helps create a mantra players like junior defenseman Erik Evans love to embrace when facing challenges like this.“It’s why you come to a school like Ohio State, it’s to play the best competition possible,” he said. “When you see a guy who’s been having a great year it’s great for him, but it also gets you pumped up to shut him down.”The Buckeye’ defense has derived confidence in itself from its play on the field as it has allowed just 7.5 goals per game, the fourth lowest in the NCAA. The players credit the defensive approach to trusting their teammates and executing their roles.“We’re a good group and we have talent all around which helps take a lot of the pressure off of an individual,” Evans said. “I trust Matt Borges and Ben Randall to win their matchups. It allows me to focus more on my guy knowing I have guys behind me that I can trust to take care of their business.”While there will be considerable focus on Noseworthy, the Buckeyes will have to be cautious not to forget that he has a strong supporting cast. Senior attacker Ian King provides another weapon that OSU will not be able to overlook. With 21 goals and 19 assists on the season, King might have opportunities at the net if the Buckeyes put too much focus on Noseworthy.On the other hand, the Buckeyes are conscious to the fact that the entire Wolverine offense can strike at any time.“We just have to stay within ourselves,” said OSU sophomore defenseman Matt Borges. “It’s about playing our game and playing good off-ball defense. It’s really just focusing on our game and playing as a unit of seven.”Borges added that the defense must always stay aware of Noseworthy if Evans needs to leave his coverage to help another defender.OSU will battle the Wolverines at Michigan Stadium prior to the football team’s spring game at 10:30 a.m. It will be the first morning game of the season for the Buckeyes.