Categories Sport
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
It's time for the NBA Math player power rankings heading into games on Jan. 4!
As always, these are based solely on our Rolling Player Ratings, which are determined by performance over a player's last 10 appearances:
https://t.co/cMK94AC48A
Only the last 10 games matter, and players must have played in the last week to maintain eligibility.
25. Anthony Davis, Los Angeles Lakers: 18.26
24. Jayson Tatum, Boston Celtics: 18.35
23. Damian Lillard, Portland Trail Blazers: 18.39
22. Collin Sexton, Cleveland Cavaliers: 18.77
https://t.co/cMK94AC48A
21. Paul George, Los Angeles Clippers: 18.77
20. Giannis Antetokounmpo, Milwaukee Bucks: 18.84
19. DeMar DeRozan, San Antonio Spurs: 18.89
18. Malcolm Brogdon, Indiana Pacers: 19.04
https://t.co/cMK94AC48A
17. Domantas Sabonis, Indiana Pacers: 19.13
16. Nikola Vucevic, Orlando Magic: 19.46
15. Trae Young, Atlanta Hawks: 19.33
14. Jamal Murray, Denver Nuggets: 19.64
https://t.co/cMK94AC48A
As always, these are based solely on our Rolling Player Ratings, which are determined by performance over a player's last 10 appearances:
https://t.co/cMK94AC48A
Only the last 10 games matter, and players must have played in the last week to maintain eligibility.
25. Anthony Davis, Los Angeles Lakers: 18.26
24. Jayson Tatum, Boston Celtics: 18.35
23. Damian Lillard, Portland Trail Blazers: 18.39
22. Collin Sexton, Cleveland Cavaliers: 18.77
https://t.co/cMK94AC48A
21. Paul George, Los Angeles Clippers: 18.77
20. Giannis Antetokounmpo, Milwaukee Bucks: 18.84
19. DeMar DeRozan, San Antonio Spurs: 18.89
18. Malcolm Brogdon, Indiana Pacers: 19.04
https://t.co/cMK94AC48A
17. Domantas Sabonis, Indiana Pacers: 19.13
16. Nikola Vucevic, Orlando Magic: 19.46
15. Trae Young, Atlanta Hawks: 19.33
14. Jamal Murray, Denver Nuggets: 19.64
https://t.co/cMK94AC48A
A (long) thread on why Andrew is correct but ultimately incorrect…
Andrew is correct at the neurological level. The cognitive and ecological explanations of the brain and behaviour are completely different. Saying you’re an eclectic coach at this level is like saying you
believe the earth is round and flat. It’s simply not possible.
You CANNOT say that in one activity you are helping players build representations/memory (cognitive) and in another activity you’re helping players attune to specifying information in the environment (ecological).
No matter how much we scream eclecticism, at the neurological level Andrew is correct. But after this Andrew is incorrect.
He is basing his critique of an ‘it depends’ stance at a neurological ‘representations vs information’ level (see his thread). But this isn’t the level that
‘it depends’ functions (in a coaching context). ‘It depends’ exists at the behavioural level (certainly not the neurological level). ‘It depends’ relates to decision making around individual and group differences, as well as context. Coaching, by and large, is about helping
people manage and change behaviour – how a coach does this will ‘depend’ on a number of individual, group and contextual factors. That is the most important level of coaching and we don’t have to go to the neurological level to deliver efficaciously and effectively
Andrew is correct at the neurological level. The cognitive and ecological explanations of the brain and behaviour are completely different. Saying you’re an eclectic coach at this level is like saying you
Many coaches advocate for picking and choosing methods from a variety of theoretical camps, on the premise that which is best \u2018depends\u2019 on the player, the coach, etc and you want the biggest toolkit you can get.
— Andrew D Wilson (@PsychScientists) November 27, 2020
I think this is an error, which I will now attempt to defend
believe the earth is round and flat. It’s simply not possible.
You CANNOT say that in one activity you are helping players build representations/memory (cognitive) and in another activity you’re helping players attune to specifying information in the environment (ecological).
No matter how much we scream eclecticism, at the neurological level Andrew is correct. But after this Andrew is incorrect.
He is basing his critique of an ‘it depends’ stance at a neurological ‘representations vs information’ level (see his thread). But this isn’t the level that
‘it depends’ functions (in a coaching context). ‘It depends’ exists at the behavioural level (certainly not the neurological level). ‘It depends’ relates to decision making around individual and group differences, as well as context. Coaching, by and large, is about helping
people manage and change behaviour – how a coach does this will ‘depend’ on a number of individual, group and contextual factors. That is the most important level of coaching and we don’t have to go to the neurological level to deliver efficaciously and effectively
It's Sunday, Fed blackout, am recovering from soccer match, sipping on double espresso, so of course a perfect time to take on Tyler Cowen here. 🙂
Like many people, I enjoy reading Tyler's blog. But there are times (alright, many times) I disagree with him. This is no big deal. I also disagree with myself sometimes (especially my past self). But his recent post left me
What is he trying to say here? After thinking about it for a bit, I think he's critiquing the idea that "running the economy hot" leads to employment *and* real wage gains. Perhaps the former, but only at the expense of the latter. At least, this is what a textbook IS-LM model
tells us if one "runs the economy hot" through increased fiscal stimulus (on consumption and transfers, not public infrastructure investment). If this is what he meant, then he should have just said so, instead of labeling this a "Keynesian" proposition.
In fact, this property follows as a *neoclassical* proposition that is embedded in the IS-LM framework. (For non-economists, note that Keynes did not invent IS-LM; the framework was developed later by Hicks as an interpretation of *some* parts of the General Theory.)
It is hardly phony, especially on social media, to refer to IS-LM models and the like as \u201cKeynesian.\u201d Krugman pushing it and, for better or worse, rising in popularity.
— tylercowen (@tylercowen) January 17, 2021
Like many people, I enjoy reading Tyler's blog. But there are times (alright, many times) I disagree with him. This is no big deal. I also disagree with myself sometimes (especially my past self). But his recent post left me
What is he trying to say here? After thinking about it for a bit, I think he's critiquing the idea that "running the economy hot" leads to employment *and* real wage gains. Perhaps the former, but only at the expense of the latter. At least, this is what a textbook IS-LM model
tells us if one "runs the economy hot" through increased fiscal stimulus (on consumption and transfers, not public infrastructure investment). If this is what he meant, then he should have just said so, instead of labeling this a "Keynesian" proposition.
In fact, this property follows as a *neoclassical* proposition that is embedded in the IS-LM framework. (For non-economists, note that Keynes did not invent IS-LM; the framework was developed later by Hicks as an interpretation of *some* parts of the General Theory.)
#swfc are finally back in league action tonight 8pm GMT away to Coventry #pusb
A relegation six pointer to kick off our second half of the season with 7 points separating us in 23rd and them in 16th.
A look of our numbers and theirs below and what they can tell us.
[thread]
I looked at the survival prognosis for teams in our position yesterday (https://t.co/rmVT8b5sFl).
Thankfully a prognosis is not a prediction, but it does bear out just how important tonight's game is.
Can we quantify match importance then?
Well, @FiveThirtyEight have given it a right good go and how they've done it is explained here: https://t.co/ObjB079Fjw
Their match importance rating ranges from 0 to 100 for a team.
In a game with a high match importance vs. a team with low match importance, a team's likelihood of winning increases: All else being equal, if match importance is 100 for the home team and 0 for the away team, the home team's odds of winning drop from Evens (50%) to 8/11 (58%).
If we look at the combined match importance ratings for both teams, tonight's game ranks 14th of the 317 matches with match importance ratings. Pretty important then!
Of our matches only the win against Bournemouth had a higher combined match importance than tonight's match:
A relegation six pointer to kick off our second half of the season with 7 points separating us in 23rd and them in 16th.
A look of our numbers and theirs below and what they can tell us.
[thread]
I looked at the survival prognosis for teams in our position yesterday (https://t.co/rmVT8b5sFl).
Thankfully a prognosis is not a prediction, but it does bear out just how important tonight's game is.
#swfc Derby's latest win over QPR leaves Wednesday six points adrift of 21st and safety with two matches in hand.
— Peter A. L\xf8hmann (@ploehmann) January 27, 2021
How have teams in those circumstances done in the previous 22 seasons?
[thread] pic.twitter.com/LxENys45wC
Can we quantify match importance then?
Well, @FiveThirtyEight have given it a right good go and how they've done it is explained here: https://t.co/ObjB079Fjw
Their match importance rating ranges from 0 to 100 for a team.
In a game with a high match importance vs. a team with low match importance, a team's likelihood of winning increases: All else being equal, if match importance is 100 for the home team and 0 for the away team, the home team's odds of winning drop from Evens (50%) to 8/11 (58%).
If we look at the combined match importance ratings for both teams, tonight's game ranks 14th of the 317 matches with match importance ratings. Pretty important then!
Of our matches only the win against Bournemouth had a higher combined match importance than tonight's match:
We're all loving the return of the UCL but in terms of football folklore, a fixture going down in Chile tonight may just be the most important match of the week.
It's a relegation playoff between CD Universidad & Colo Colo it has all of Chile holding it's breath. (THREAD)
It's all because the away side is Colo Colo, the country's biggest, most successful club, with 32 titles & the only Chilean Copa Libertadores trophy.
They have never even come close to relegation & the sheer thought of going down is causing all kinds of scenes across the country
From the ritualistic Grandma's doing their bit to convince the football sprits to keep them in the top
To the 5,000 fans outside who awaited the team bus outside the training ground for one last motivational
And of course the club's Barra Bravas with their own take on motivation
It's a relegation playoff between CD Universidad & Colo Colo it has all of Chile holding it's breath. (THREAD)
It's all because the away side is Colo Colo, the country's biggest, most successful club, with 32 titles & the only Chilean Copa Libertadores trophy.
They have never even come close to relegation & the sheer thought of going down is causing all kinds of scenes across the country
From the ritualistic Grandma's doing their bit to convince the football sprits to keep them in the top
The rituals to keep Colo-Colo in top flight have begun. https://t.co/KpSDvkHWAM
— Colo-Colo in English (@CaciqueENG) February 15, 2021
To the 5,000 fans outside who awaited the team bus outside the training ground for one last motivational
Bus carrying Colo-Colo team to Talca took off some time ago. This was filmed by forward Javier Parraguez. Chillz, literal chillz...
— Colo-Colo in English (@CaciqueENG) February 16, 2021
This is what Colo-Colo means in Chile. VAMOS CACIQUE! \U0001f5a4\U0001f62d pic.twitter.com/Zb5PdQN7d3
And of course the club's Barra Bravas with their own take on motivation
Colo Colo - Chile's most successful club - are one game away from the first relegation in their 96-year history. Their ultras today put up a banner outside the club's stadium: "They win or we kill them." pic.twitter.com/4alj2M6BCi
— Colin Millar (@Millar_Colin) February 16, 2021
