Congratulations to the following athletes and referees who have been selected to represent Australia in the Open Divisions at the 2017 Trans Tasman.Men’s OpenDaniel Barton NSW – Parramatta District Touch AssociationStuart Brierty WA – Southern District Touch Association Sam Brisby NSW – Manly Warringah Touch Association Scott Buckley NSW – Penrith Touch AssociationScott Bundy NSW – Doyalson Touch Association Shaun Francis QLD – Townsville Castle Hill Touch Association Nick Good NSW – Penrith Touch Association Cody Green QLD – Brisbane Metropolitan Touch Association Dylan Hennessey NSW – Hornsby Touch Association Cormac Hoch QLD – Rockhampton Senior Touch Association Jordan Marshall NSW – Paramatta District Touch Association Ben Moylan NSW – Penrith Touch Association Peter Norman QLD – Gold Coast Touch Association Jonathan Palau NSW – Manly Warringah Touch Association Matt Prowse NSW – Canterbury Touch Association Ciaran Toner NSW – Hornsby Touch Association Coach: Tony TradAssistant Coach: Paul SfeirAssistant Coach: Phil GyemoreWomen’s OpenElizabeth Campbell QLD – Brisbane Metropolitan Touch Association Tayla Clifford NSW – Manly Warringah Touch Association Madison Crowe NSW – Central Coast Touch Association Danielle Davis NSW – Manly Warringah Touch Association Rachelle Davis NSW – Manly Warringah Touch Association Hannah Dyball NSW – Manly Warringah Touch Association Emily Hennessey QLD – Brisbane Metropolitan Touch Association Ashleigh Kearney QLD – Ipswich Touch Association Hayley Maddick QLD – Caboolture Touch Association Patricia Michaelopoulos NSW – Western Suburbs Touch Football Association Laura Peattie NSW – Manly Warringah Touch Association Samantha Rodgers NSW – Manly Warringah Touch Association Catherine Sargent QLD – Caboolture Touch Association Kimberley Sue See QLD – Caboolture Touch Association Tamika Upton QLD – Rockhampton Senior Touch Association Marikki Watego QLD – Gold Coast Touch Association Coach: Swain RovelliAssistant Coach: Craig MorrowManager: Kim SolmanMixed OpenJayden Benbow QLD – Rockhampton Senior Touch Association James Blackwood NSW – Western Suburbs Touch Football Association Justin Costello NT – Darwin Touch Association Tim Glazebrook SA – City Touch Touch Association Simon Lang NSW – Manly Warringah Touch Association Jackson Mills NSW – Parramatta District Touch Association Cameron Nicholls NSW – Western Suburbs Touch Football Association Adam Pryde QLD – Redlands Touch Association Michael Singh QLD – Labrador Touch Association Jared Townson QLD – Townsville Castle Hill Touch Association Elin Mortimer NSW – Western Suburbs Touch Football AssociationZara Nicholas NSW – Manly Warringah Touch Association Leah Opie NSW – Western Suburbs Touch Football Association Paige Parker QLD – Caboolture Touch Association Leah Percy VIC – Melbourne City Lions Touch Association Katherine Stevens QLD – Brisbane Metropolitan Touch Association Coach: Mick LovettAssistant Coach: Justin CreightonAssistant Coach: Dave NolanManager: Mark HarringtonReferee Contingent Dave Baggio NSW – Wagga Wagga Touch AssociationRob Bowen NSW – Berkley Vale Touch AssociationBrett Freshwater QLD – Redcliffe Touch Association Luke McKenzie QLD – Wagga Wagga Touch Association Kim Skelly NSW – Central Coast Touch AssociationRelated Files2017_open_trans_tasman_teams_and_referees-pdfRelated Links2017 Trans Tasman
MONTREAL – Management at the ABI aluminum smelter in Becancour, Que., agreed on Friday to restart negotiations with its 1,030 locked-out employees.The announcement was made by Quebec Labour Minister Dominique Vien, who told reporters she had “satisfactory” meetings with both sides at her office in Quebec City.“Very good meetings, we are very satisfied,” she said. “Both sides are aware of the economic issues and they are ready to sit down again.”Management at the ABI smelter locked out its employees on Jan. 11. The smelter is 75 per cent owned by Pittsburgh-based Alcoa Corp. and 25 per cent by Montreal-headquartered Rio Tinto Alcan Inc.A mediator is expected to contact both sides and schedule a meeting, Vien said, adding the dispute is between a private company and its employees and the government can’t interfere.She said, however, that she asked both sides to choose representatives who are competent to negotiate and who have a mandate to reach a deal.The union said Friday it has never stopped wanting to negotiate.Alain Croteau, head of the Quebec section of the United Steelworkers, said “we have been waiting for a call for one month.”Local union president Clement Masse said “as soon as the employer says they are ready to return to the negotiating tale, we will return.”Masse said he’s ready to work on the company’s offer but he won’t submit the same one that was recently rejected by 80 per cent of his members.
New Delhi: Trinamool Congress strongman and Bhatpara MLA Arjun Singh is all set to join the BJP here in the presence of senior party leaders, party sources said on Thursday. The legislator was miffed with the Trinamool leadership as he was denied a Lok Sabha ticket from Barrackpore parliamentary constituency, presently represented by Dinesh Trivedi. Singh on Thursday reached here and met Bharatiya Janata Party leaders Kailash Vijayvargiya and Mukul Roy, in whose presence he will join the saffron party on Thursday afternoon. He is also likely to be fielded from Barrackpore parliamentary constituency.
Tokyo: Former Nissan chief Carlos Ghosn was rearrested early Thursday in Tokyo while out on bail, local media said, as prosecutors investigate a fresh charge against the auto tycoon. Authorities arrested the 65-year-old less than a month after he was dramatically freed on bail following more than 100 days in detention. Public broadcaster NHK and other media said prosecutors had entered Ghosn’s temporary accommodation in central Tokyo early Thursday morning and that he left with them by car shortly afterwards. An AFP reporter outside the home saw three men in dark suits guarding the entrance to the building’s car park and a police officer patrolling, as dozens of journalists gathered. Reports emerged Wednesday that prosecutors were weighing rearresting Ghosn as they investigate claims related to at least USD 32 million in Nissan funds transferred to a distributor in Oman. According to a source familiar with the matter, some of this money is believed to have been used to buy a luxury boat for Ghosn and his family. The former high-flying executive already faces three charges of financial misconduct related to allegations he under-reported his compensation and sought to transfer losses to Nissan’s books. He has denied any wrongdoing and took to Twitter for the first time Wednesday, using a newly created account that his spokespeople confirmed was authentic, to announce plans for a press conference. “I’m getting ready to tell the truth about what’s happening. Press conference on Thursday, April 11,” said the tweet, sent in English and then Japanese. Ghosn currently faces two separate charges of deferring his salary to the tune of nine billion yen (USD81 million) and not revealing this in official documents to shareholders.
The first two days of March Madness came in like a lion and went out like a lamb. On Thursday, two of the first three games in the men’s tournament featured major upsets, with No. 14 seeds UAB and Georgia State defeating No. 3 seeds Iowa State and Baylor. Those games were enough to ruin more than 99 percent of people’s prefect brackets.Then No. 6 Southern Methodist lost to No. 11 UCLA on a terrible goaltending call. And No. 7 seed VCU lost to No. 10 Ohio State (although Ohio State had been favored according to Vegas odds and the FiveThirtyEight forecast).But that was pretty much it. In fact, the better seed won 23 consecutive games on Thursday evening and Friday until No. 11 Dayton finally beat No. 6 Providence late Friday night. (That game wasn’t much of an upset either: Dayton had a 49 percent chance per the FiveThirtyEight model.) Somehow No. 5 seeds even avoided their historic “curse,” going 4-0. Upset magic dissipated into a cloud of chalk.So where does 2015 rank historically? Is it an upset that there were so few upsets?I came up with a quick way to score upsets in the round of 64 in men’s tournaments since 1985, when the field expanded to 64 teams. Every time the inferior seed wins, it accumulates “upset points” based on the difference in seeding. (See the footnote for more detail.1More technically, upset points are based on the typical power ratings associated with each seed. On average, for instance, No. 4 seeds have a power rating 8 or 9 points better than No. 13 seeds, which means they’d be favored by 8 or 9 points on a neutral court. That translates into the No. 13 seed having a 79 percent chance of being defeated. When the inferior seed wins, its number of upset points is calculated as its probability of losing minus 50 percent. So when a No. 13 seed beats a No. 4, it gets 29 upset points (a 79 percent chance of losing minus 50 percent), for example.) The more unlikely an upset, the more upset points. When a No. 9 seed beats a No. 8, it gets just 2 upset points. But a No. 16 would score 49 upset points for beating a No. 1 (something that’s never happened in the men’s tournament.)This year, underdogs scored 105 upset points in the round of 64:No. 14 UAB got 37 upset points for beating Iowa StateNo. 14 Georgia State got 37 points for beating BaylorNo. 11 UCLA got 12 points for beating SMUNo. 11 Dayton got 12 points for beating ProvidenceNo. 10 Ohio State got 7 points for beating VCUThis total is below average, especially by the standard of recent tournaments. Last year, there were 130 upset points in the round of 64. In 2012 and 2013, there were 195 and 192, respectively, the highest totals since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. However, this year’s tournament hasn’t been an outlier, by any means. The first round of the 2000 tournament featured just 26 upset points, while 2007 had just 30.In theory, we might expect to see upsets increase as parity increases in the men’s game and the differences between the teams becomes smaller. And it might not be so surprising that there have been fewer of them in this year’s tournament, which bucked the trend toward greater parity.But the NCAA has also made one move to reduce the number of upsets: It’s gotten better about seeding the teams correctly. The FiveThirtyEight model had the inferior seed favored in only 3 of the 32 games between Thursday and Friday, as did Las Vegas odds.2In fact, the FiveThirtyEight model and Vegas had the same favorite in all 32 games. So while real upsets like UAB over Iowa State may be increasing, “fake upsets” like Ohio State over VCU are on the wane.Check out FiveThirtyEight’s March Madness predictions.
O Kobe! My Kobe! On Sunday night, after publishing a retirement poem that no one was waiting for, Bryant went 4 for 20, including a ghastly air ball in crunch time. It was yet another ugly loss for the Los Angeles Lakers and yet another data point suggesting that Bryant is toast. Sunday’s verse fit nicely in the sad ballad of the gray mamba — a morose composition marked by terrible shot selection, poor lift on a rickety jumper and a stubborn commitment to taking too many shots. But that’s not what Kobe has always been.Bryant is a shell of his former self, and he knows it. “My body knows it’s time to say goodbye,” he wrote in the poem. His numbers suggest the same: This season, Bryant has been the worst volume shooter in the NBA. So far this year, 57 players have attempted at least 200 shots from the field; within that group, the 37-year-old Bryant ranks dead last in effective field goal percentage.If shot charts could talk, this one would apologize: That’s one of the saddest charts I’ve ever made. On the one hand, it’s unsurprising to see aging scorers start to slip; on the other, it’s always alarming to see someone as iconic as Bryant slip so far so fast.Over the next few months, recency bias may be very unkind to Bryant. But his NBA career started the same autumn that Bill Clinton was elected to his second term in office. Kristaps Porzingis was 1-year-old and Karl-Anthony Towns hadn’t even had a birthday when Kobe made his debut. If those guys play as long as Bryant, they will retire in 2035.Still, as bleak as this year has been, this is not the Kobe Bryant we will remember.During the preseason, I went to Staples Center to interview Chris Paul. We were talking about his all-world ability to knock down elbow jumpers, when he suddenly had a flashback: “Do you remember Lakers versus Phoenix, a playoff game in 2006? Kobe. There was a jump ball. I think the game was tied up. Lakers won the tip. Kobe got it. And he just sort of dribbled. Dribbled. Dribbled. And he got over to the right elbow. And he just shot it.”“Kobe never even looked at the rim,” Paul continued. “It’s like he was getting to a spot. Looking at that play, it’s like there was an ‘X’ somewhere on the court and Kobe was like, ‘Once I get to it, I’m like, boom.’ ”That shot to beat the Suns happened almost a decade ago. From a scoring standpoint, that season — 2005-06 — might be Bryant’s finest hour. He averaged 35.4 points per game. Only three scoring champs in NBA history have averaged 35 points per game: Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan and Bryant. If shot charts could talk, this one would talk all kinds of smack. When he was on the floor, Bryant used a ridiculous 38.7 percent of the Lakers possessions in the 2005-06 season but still somehow managed to perform pretty efficiently. That’s the Kobe to remember, the one who created, took and sunk any shot he wanted. The one who thumbed his nose at the very idea of a usage-efficiency curve. The one who was one of the most truly versatile scoring threats the NBA had ever seen.
The Boston Celtics, after whiffing on trades for Jimmy Butler and Paul George, finally got some good news this week when Gordon Hayward announced that he was leaving the Utah Jazz to play for the Celtics. Although Isaiah Thomas would have some beef with this assessment, Hayward’s well-rounded combination of skills will probably make him the best player on the Celtics next year. He’s a good fit with the team’s approach.And yet, projection systems (including our own CARMELO) are somewhat skeptical of the Celtics, not expecting them to improve on last year’s 53-29 performance or to seriously challenge the Cleveland Cavaliers for Eastern Conference supremacy. Hayward is also fairly expensive; he’ll cost the Celtics $128 million over four years (the fourth season, 2020-21, is a player option). So let’s ask a tough question of Boston and general manager Danny Ainge: If Hayward is the best player on your team, could that team plausibly be good enough to win a championship?The answer is probably not. Hayward made the All-Star team last season, but he’s a long way from being a superstar. A handful of modern NBA teams — the 1988-89 and 1989-90 Detroit Pistons, the 2003-04 Pistons, and the 2013-14 San Antonio Spurs — won a title with someone about as good as Hayward as their best player. But this is unusual: It requires a team to be constructed almost perfectly, with above-average players at nearly every position, a deep bench, and a cohesive rotation. It sometimes also requires a fair amount of luck.1The “Bad Boys” Pistons peaked just as the 1980s Celtics and Lakers were declining, but before Michael Jordan’s Bulls really took off, for example.But Hayward can be a building block toward a championship. He’s roughly as good as the second-best player on a typical championship team. That might sound like faint praise, but it’s no small achievement.Let’s develop some terminology to describe degrees of the stardom in the NBA. I’ll introduce three types of players: Alphas, Betas and Gammas.An Alpha is a player who’s as good as the best player on a typical championship-winning team. This is an MVP contender — one of the half-dozen best players in the league.A Beta is as good as the second-best player on a typical NBA champion. As I mentioned, Hayward is a good example of a Beta. Betas are usually All-Stars, perhaps even All-Star starters, and they’re among the best players at their position. But they’re not among the very best players in the league.And a Gamma is good as third-best player on a typical championship team. A Gamma might be an All-Star, but he usually won’t make one of the three All-NBA teams. He probably has one or two weaknesses (defense, shooting, etc.) along with his obvious strengths. But he’s still a very good player and might be the best player on a non-contending team. Thomas, although he’s somewhat difficult to evaluate because of his defense — various statistical systems rate it anywhere from mediocre to execrable2There’s a big difference between mediocre and execrable. If Thomas’s defense is merely somewhat below average, as the NBA’s opponents’ shooting data suggests, then his offense more than makes up for it and he’d probably qualify as a Beta. If it’s terrible, as RPM suggests, then Thomas is barely even an above-average player overall. Classifying Thomas as a Gamma, as CPM does, is something of a compromise between these assessments. — is a reasonably good example of a Gamma.At any given time, only a few dozen players in the league will rated as Alphas, Betas or Gammas. (CARMELO projects that there will be 35 of them in 2017-18, for example.) It’s these players who determine who competes for NBA championships. Doesn’t depth matter also? Well, sure. A well-rounded roster is often the difference between winning a title and losing one. But a team needs its share of star-level talent to compete for a championship in the first place. Otherwise, it’ll usually wind up like last year’s Celtics, a well-constructed team that was overmatched in the playoffs.Below, you’ll find a table listing the top three players on NBA championship teams since 1984-85 — the first year the league used a salary cap — as rated by a statistic called Consensus Plus-Minus. Consensus Plus-Minus, or CPM, is a statistic I use when I don’t want to get into arguments about the value of individual players. It reflects a combination of four popular statistics — Real Plus-Minus,3RPM is available from the 2000-01 season onward. For seasons prior to 2000-01, I use BPM twice in the average. Box Plus/Minus, Win Shares and player efficiency rating — equally weighted and translated to the same scale. It also adjusts for the player’s position, which the other metrics do not,4CPM measures a player’s value relative to the positional average, rather than relative to the league average. Right now, there’s an excess of good centers and point guards but less depth among small forwards and shooting guards. This adjustment helps Hayward, who plays both those positions. and it regresses players’ ratings to replacement level if they fall below a certain threshold of playing time.5If the player plays less than 20 minutes per team game — or 1640 minutes over an 82-game season — his actual CPM is blended with a replacement-level CPM of -2 points per 100 possessions. For predictive purposes, we think CPM is liable to be slightly less accurate than the blend of statistics CARMELO uses (a combination of RPM and BPM), but CPM is still a perfectly reasonable stat and much more in line with the consensus view of NBA players. Like BPM and RPM, CPM is expressed in net points added or subtracted per 100 possessions. So a player with a CPM of +2.5, teamed with four average players, would help his team to outscore his opponents by 2.5 points per 100 possessions, for example. 2000LakersO’Neal10.0Bryant5.0Horry2.5 1999SpursRobinson6.9Duncan5.2Elie2.8 Kyle Lowry3.7Paul Millsap2.6 2002LakersO’Neal8.4Bryant4.7Horry1.9 2006HeatWade8.0O’Neal5.2Mourning2.4 2011MavericksNowitzki4.9Chandler2.8Kidd1.9 216721.2– Rudy Gobert3.6Kevin Love2.4 2016CavaliersJames8.9Love3.2Irving2.1 PLAYER+/-PLAYER+/-PLAYER+/- 1993BullsJordan9.4Pippen3.6Grant2.7 DeMarcus Cousins4.1Isaiah Thomas2.8 STAR POINTSTEAMSCHAMPIONSCHAMPIONSHIP PROBABILITY How much star power does an NBA team need?Probability of team winning a championship based on star points 2004PistonsB. Wallace4.3Billups3.8R. Wallace*1.7 This makes for a fairly intuitive list. LeBron, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Stephen Curry, Kevin Durant and Kawhi Leonard are the league’s six Alphas. Chris Paul falls just short of the Alpha category; instead, he joins players such as Hayward, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Rudy Gobert and Anthony Davis on the Beta list. Gammas include players like Isaiah Thomas, Kyrie Irving, Kevin Love, John Wall, DeAndre Jordan and Paul Millsap.So then all you need is an Alpha, a Beta and a Gamma and — presto! — you win an NBA championship? Actually, your options are more flexible than that. A team with an Alpha and a Beta — say, this year’s Houston Rockets — could probably skip the Gamma if they had a deep rotation. A team with no Alphas but three Betas — say, Jimmy Butler, Antetokounmpo and Kyle Lowry — would more than likely be good enough to contend for a title. A team with a very strong Alpha could go without a Beta and make up for it with two or more Gammas instead — that’s sort of how the current Cavaliers are constructed.To help teams think through these decisions, let’s invent one more statistic, which I’ll call star points. The formula is simple: A team gets three star points for each Alpha on its roster, two for each Beta, and one for each Gamma. Next year’s Warriors project to have 9 star points, for example: three each for Curry and Durant, two for Draymond Green and one for Klay Thompson.Even having that much talent on your roster doesn’t necessarily guarantee a title. But historically, a team’s chances of winning a title are remote if it has four or fewer star points. It has a fighting chance with five or six star points, depending on how the rest of the roster is constructed. And its probability increases rapidly once it acquires seven or more star points. CPM reflects a combination of Real Plus-Minus, Box Plus/Minus, Win Shares and player efficiency rating 1987LakersJohnson8.2Abdul-Jabbar2.2Worthy2.0 1991BullsJordan10.9Pippen4.9Grant3.6 2001LakersO’Neal8.9Bryant4.8Fox0.6 57479.5– 2015WarriorsCurry9.9Green4.4Thompson4.3 114700.0 Hassan Whiteside2.0 2010LakersBryant4.5Gasol3.7Odom2.2 YEARTEAMNO. 1 PLAYER+/-NO. 2 PLAYER+/-NO. 3 PLAYER+/- ALPHASBETASGAMMAS How good were the best players on recent NBA champions?Player ratings based on Consensus Plus-Minus (CPM) 1992BullsJordan8.7Grant5.7Pippen5.6 2007SpursGinobili7.2Duncan6.6Parker3.4 1997BullsJordan7.7Pippen5.5Kukoc4.1 Kevin Durant6.7Karl-Anthony Towns4.1Mike Conley2.9 1989PistonsLaimbeer3.8Rodman3.1Johnson1.3 Kemba Walker2.2 1995RocketsDrexler*6.1Olajuwon5.7Smith1.0 1985LakersJohnson5.6Abdul-Jabbar5.3Worthy1.6 2012HeatJames10.8Wade7.5Bosh1.7 This system isn’t perfect, but it lines up intuitively with how we evaluate teams. After the Warriors and their nine projected star points next season, the Cavaliers and Rockets are the closest thing the league has to ready-made title contenders, as they’re tied for second at five star points each. They’re followed by the Thunder, Timberwolves and Pelicans at four each; these four-point teams probably need at least one more thing to click (say, George taking the next step in Oklahoma City) to be title-worthy. The Celtics are one of several teams with three star points.This measure can underrate the importance of team depth; the Spurs, who have only three star points, are rated too low, for instance. The Celtics — although they’re losing a few players to make room for Hayward — are also a deep team, with lots of average or slightly-above-average players and lots of draft picks to keep priming the pump. They could probably compete for a title with five star points, therefore, instead of needing six or seven. Adding another Beta-level player might be enough to do the trick.It’s hard to see where that player comes from, however. The Celtics lost some of their financial flexibility in signing Hayward. And while they could develop a star player rather than acquiring one, giving more playing time to young players such as Jaylen Brown and rookie Jayson Tatum could make them less competitive in the short run.If there’s one Celtics move that looks bad in retrospect, it isn’t necessarily trying and failing to acquire Butler or George, it’s trading the No. 1 draft pick for Philadelphia’s No. 3 pick, with which they chose Tatum. While Tatum has a fairly promising projection, he doesn’t have the upside of No. 1 pick Markelle Fultz, whose comparables include players such as Harden, Westbrook and Wall. The trade might have made sense for a team that already had its stars in place and wanted to develop complementary players around them, but the Celtics have plenty of complementary players and are short on stars.At the same time, it would be easy to underestimate the challenge Ainge faced. The Celtics’ 53-29 record last year was deceptive, in that it came against a weak conference and relied on what were arguably career years from several players, including Thomas.7The Celtics also outperformed their 48-34 Pythagorean record by several games. In many respects, they were a rebuilding team dressed up as a competing team. And precisely because the Celtics weren’t just one player away from contending for a title, Ainge needed to acquire a player like Hayward or Butler without compromising the Celtics’ ability to acquire or develop another such player down the road. Even if the Celtics are still a star away from seriously contending for a title — maybe even a superstar away — that’s closer than they were last week. Average126.96.36.199 To no one’s surprise, the best players on title-winning teams are usually extraordinary talents. Among the 33 NBA champions since 1985, the top-rated player on the team, according to CPM, was one of the three best players in the league that season on 23 occasions. And the team’s best player was among the top 10 in the league on all but three occasions. The exceptions were Bill Laimbeer of the 1988-89 and 1989-90 Pistons (CPM, perhaps dubiously, rates Laimbeer ahead of his teammate, the other Isiah Thomas) and Ben Wallace of the 2003-04 Pistons. Pretty much all the other No. 1 players are current or future Hall of Famers, however, with the possible exception of Manu Ginobili, who may be a borderline case.No matter how brightly he shines, however, a superstar usually can’t deliver a title without a good sidekick or two.6Take LeBron James’s 2012-13 season, for example, when he had a CPM of +10.6 and played almost 38 minutes per game — about as good as an NBA player can be under modern conditions. A team with that version of LeBron, plus a roster full of replacement-level players, would still project to go only 41-41, according to our forecasting method. A team with that version of LeBron plus a roster full of league-average players (as opposed to replacement-level players) would project to go 59-23, which is closer to being a title contender. League-average players don’t just grow on trees, however. On average, the second-best player on these championship teams was the 14th-best player in the league, according to CPM. And although not every champ had a classic “Big Three” like LeBron James’s Miami Heat, the third-best player on the championship team rated as the 37th-best player in the league, on average — still very solid.So let’s get back to the idea of Alpha, Beta and Gamma players, which were meant to correspond to a typical championship team’s best, second-best and third-best players. By looking at the historical data, we can define these classifications as follows:An Alpha has a CPM of +6.0 or higher.A Beta has a CPM of between +3.5 and +6.0.And a Gamma has a CPM of between +2.0 and +3.5.I re-ran CARMELO using CPM instead of its usual blend of statistics, and it projected the following players to be Alphas, Betas and Gammas for the upcoming NBA season: 1990PistonsLaimbeer3.8Rodman2.6Thomas1.7 2014SpursGinobili4.8Leonard4.8Mills3.2 Klay Thompson2.1 2009LakersBryant6.0Gasol3.6Odom3.0 2017WarriorsDurant8.3Curry6.7Green3.7 Stephen Curry7.0Nikola Jokic4.8DeMar DeRozan3.0 Who are the NBA’s championship-caliber players?Projections based on Consensus Plus-Minus for 2017-18 2003SpursDuncan7.5Robinson3.8Ginobili1.1 314342.8– CONSENSUS PLUS-MINUS Gordon Hayward3.8DeAndre Jordan2.7 1994RocketsOlajuwon5.8Horry1.9Thorpe1.6 Blake Griffin3.7Otto Porter Jr.2.5 2008CelticsGarnett7.8Pierce4.5Allen2.8 Victor Oladipo2.1 Kawhi Leonard6.8Anthony Davis4.3Paul George2.9 410321.9– CJ McCollum2.1 021600.0% James Harden7.4Jimmy Butler5.5Bradley Beal3.2 2005SpursDuncan7.5Ginobili7.1Barry1.9 1998BullsJordan6.0Pippen5.0Kukoc2.5 LeBron James7.0G. Antetokounmpo5.2John Wall3.0 Russell Westbrook8.2Chris Paul5.9Damian Lillard3.3 Draymond Green3.8Kyrie Irving2.8 1996BullsJordan9.4Pippen5.6Kukoc4.6 Star points: 3 points per Alpha player, 2 points per Beta player, and 1 point per Gamma player. Table includes all teams since the 1984-85 season. 1986CelticsBird7.7McHale5.4Parish2.5 CPM reflects a combination of Real Plus-Minus, Box Plus/Minus, Win Shares and player efficiency rating.* Player was acquired midseason. His +/- total reflects performance for entire season, and not just for the acquiring club. 642614.3– 725832.0– 8 or more13430.8– 1988LakersJohnson5.2Scott3.1Worthy1.9 2013HeatJames10.6Wade5.8Bosh1.2
Then freshman Kyle Snyder during a match against Minnesota on Feb. 6 at the Schottenstein Center. OSU won, 22-13. Credit: Lantern File PhotoThe No. 4 Ohio State wrestling team used bonus points from three pins to defeat the No. 12 Illinois Fighting Illini 29-18 on Sunday.The Buckeyes got off to a slow start, as Illinois’ Travis Piotrowski cruised to a 10-0 upset over twelfth ranked Jose Rodriguez in the 125-pound weight class. The team followed the loss in the first matchup with a 12-4 major decision victory by redshirt junior and No. 2 nationally ranked Nathan Tomasello over No. 4 Zane Richards.OSU true freshman Luke Pletcher continued his impressive first year, picking up a 10-4 decision over Mousa Jodehat at 141 pounds.In the 149-pound matchup, fifth-ranked Micah Jordan and Eric Barone got off to a slow 0-0 start after one period, but Jordan eventually defeated Barone with an emphatic pin in the third period, putting the Buckeyes up 13-4 for the day.Ohio State then dropped three matchups in a row, starting with an 18-4 technical fall loss by 157-pounder Anthony DeCarlo to Kyle Langenferder, which allowed Illinois to make up some ground. The teams went into halftime with an overall score of 13-9.Redshirt sophomore Cody Burcher was defeated by top-ranked Isaiah Martinez 22-7. Martinez, a two-time national champion, easily handled Burcher at 165 pounds before redshirt senior Justin Kresevic dropped a 18-9 major decision to No. 12 Zac Brunson at 174 pounds.However, the Buckeyes dominated the higher weight classes, starting with an 18-7 major decision by No. 10 Myles Martin over No. 13 Emery Parker. No. 5 Redshirt freshman Kollin Moore followed that performance up with a pin victory over Illinois’ Andre Lee.“When you get a guy taken down, you just gotta smell the blood,” Moore said about his victory over Lee. “You want the pin.”World champion and heavyweight Kyle Snyder returned for the Buckeyes after not competing in their Jan. 6 tilt against Wisconsin in dominant fashion, finishing with nine takedowns in less than two rounds en route to pinning Deuce Rachal of Illinois to put an exclamation point on the Buckeyes’ performance.“It’s huge (winning a match with a pin), you want to finish the match with a pin,” Tomasello said after the dual. “That’s six points for the team, and looking at the Big Ten and Nationals (championships) it’s going to come down to some big wins and to get bonus points, that’s huge.”The fourth-ranked Buckeyes are not lacking confidence, as shown by their head coach, Tom Ryan.“We know that we’re in the hunt for a championship this year. We also know that these bonus points are critical, not in a dual, but in the national tournament,” Ryan said. “We have got to be a team that scores bonus points come March.”Ohio State will travel to Olney, Maryland to take on the University of Maryland on Jan. 22 at Good Counsel High School. Good Counsel is the high school of Snyder, who amassed a 179-0 record while wrestling there.
Bayern Munich defender Niklas Süle says he is delighted with his current role in the team after manager Niko Kovac made him number one center back ahead of Mats Hummels and Jerome Boateng.Responding to questions from Sport1 via Bavarianfootballworks, Nikas Süle gave his perspective on the situation:Match Preview: RB Leipzig vs Bayern Munich Boro Tanchev – September 14, 2019 RB Leipzig will have the chance to prove their title-winning capabilities when they host Bayern Munich today at 18:30 (CET).“I have been allowed to play a lot of games and am very satisfied with my role. I think that I’ve earned the trust of the club, and they see that they can trust me as well. At Bayern you have to deliver in every game; we have two players at every position and only have top players. If you don’t play one or two games so well, you’re back out of the team pretty fast.”Süle admits the club is always under pressure to win every single game they play and that doesn’t make the job of the manager easy as he has to think every decision through.