In Cooperstown a Crowded Waiting Room

Jessie Schwartz for The New York Times Baseball writers elected no one to the Hall of Fame on Wednesday, despite what might have been the deepest ballot in years.The failure of the writers to pick Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens was not a surprise given the low vote totals received in the past by Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, other players associated with the use performance-enhancing drugs. But the vote totals for Bonds and Clemens, just 36 and 38 percent, were lower than expected.Craig Biggio, who received 68.2 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, will almost certainly make it into the Hall of Fame someday. Still, his profile is quite similar to Robin Yount and Roberto Alomar, two players who did better in their first year on the ballot. (Yount got 77.5 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot in 1999, while Alomar got 73.7 percent of the vote in 2010 and made it in the next year.)Perhaps the clearest effect of the crowded ballot, however, was realized among candidates who were returning to the ballot from last year. Of the 13 players who carried over from the 2012 ballot, nine received a lower share of the vote, including Lee Smith, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly and Bernie Williams.This is atypical; instead, players usually add votes with each additional year they spend on the ballot. Since 1967, when the Hall of Fame adopted balloting rules similar to the ones it uses now, about two-thirds of holdover players gained ground from their prior year’s vote percentage.It is possible to be a bit more precise about this pattern. Based on an analysis of Hall of Fame voting between 1967 and 2011, I found that the increase in a player’s vote total is typically proportional to his percentage from the previous year. In his second year on the ballot, for example, the typical player’s vote share increases by a multiple of about 1.1.Thus, a player who received 10 percent of the vote in his first year would be expected to receive about 11 percent on his second try, while a player who got 50 percent of the vote would go up to 55 percent.The pace of improvement is typically highest in the first several years that a player spends on the ballot, slowing down once he has been eligible five or six times. (The exception is in a player’s 15 and final year of eligibility, when he may receive a fairly large boost.) But these small percentage gains can add up, something like the way in which interest compounds over time. For example, as shown in the chart below, a player who gets just 30 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot would be projected to make it in on his 14th year of eligibility if he follows the formula each year.In practice, the growth in a player’s vote share is rarely this smooth — and you should not necessarily expect the pattern to hold for Bonds and Clemens. (Instructively, the vote shares for McGwire and Palmeiro have actually been declining.) Nonetheless, Hall of Fame candidates typically have a tailwind as time passes.This year, however, veterans on the Hall of Fame ballot faced a headwind instead. The next chart compares the actual vote that each player received against that projected by the historical formula. Actual results in 2013 compared to projections based on historical patterns.Twelve of the 13 players underperformed their projection; the exception was Dale Murphy, who got a larger-than-average boost in his final year of eligibility, but still came nowhere close to winning election.Even some players who gained ground did not necessarily help their chances. Jack Morris went from 66.7 percent of the vote to 67.7 percent, below his projection of 69.4 percent. The small difference could be important because next year will be Morris’s final year of eligibility, and he projects to be very close to the 75 percent threshold for election. (Perhaps the player who had the best year, instead, was Tim Raines, whose vote share grew to 52.2 percent from 48.7 percent, and who is now a clear favorite to be elected someday by the writers.)Most other players lost ground outright. Trammell, in his 12th year of eligibility, declined to 33.6 percent from 36.8 percent of the vote. He was an underdog to make it in before, but now he seems to have very little chance. The same also holds for Smith, who lost most of what he gained last year after years of stagnant vote totals.McGriff, as Joe Posnanski writes, seemed to be a plausible candidate to gain ground this year as writers sought out players who were perceived as clean, as opposed to known or suspected of steroid use. Instead, his vote share declined to 20.7 percent from 23.9 percent. Williams had received just under 10 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, but his case was not entirely hopeless; players like Bob Lemon and Carl Hubbell were eventually selected by the writers with a similar vote total in their first year.Instead, Williams fell below the 5 percent threshold required for a player to stay on the ballot.The crowded and confusing ballot may be affecting these players in several ways. The most obvious is that the writers are limited to voting for a maximum of 10 players. This year, according to the sample of ballots collected by the Twitter user @leokitty, 24 percent of writers used all 10 of their picks. That compares with 12 percent in 2011, and just 4 percent in 2012.Did the 10-vote limit keep Biggio and Morris out of the Hall of Fame, perhaps along with other players?Actually, it was almost certainly not responsible all by itself. Of the 24 percent of writers who used all 10 ballot slots, 90 percent did name Biggio, meaning 10 percent did not. At best, therefore, if all writers who exhausted their ballots would also have named Biggio if they had unlimited votes, he would have gotten only 10 percent of the 24 percent, adding only 2.4 percentage points to his overall vote total.The logic here is that it’s hard to make a case that Biggio was only the 11th or 12th best player on the ballot. Instead, most of the writers who left him out were probably more like Jon Heyman of CBS Sports. Heyman wrote that he saw Biggio as the eighth best player on the ballot — but he also thought that only six were worthy of inclusion. Most of the writers who left Biggio out, in other words, were those who take a conservative overall approach to how many players they want in the Hall of Fame, and not those who ran out of ballot positions.Morris is a more debatable case. If all writers who maxed out their ballot slots had included him, he would have come very close to 75 percent of the vote. However, Morris is also a highly polarizing candidate. Those writers who included him often thought he was among the very best players on the ballot; on several ballots, in fact, Morris was the only player named. But other writers think he falls fall short of Hall of Fame standards and would not have picked him no matter how many votes they had to spare.Nor, obviously, were Bonds’s and Clemens’s totals affected to any material degree by the 10-player limit. Nobody left Bonds off their ballots because they thought he had only the 11th-best statistical record; they did so because they don’t think steroids users should be in the Hall of Fame. (In fact, most of the writers who maxed out their ballot slots included Bonds and Clemens; the writers who are willing to consider performance-enhancing drug users have much more crowded ballots than those who are not.)Instead, players like McGriff, Trammell, Williams and Edgar Martinez were probably most affected by the 10-player limit. The logic for McGriff, for example, is very close of the opposite of that which might be applied to Biggio. It’s fairly hard to sustain a case that McGriff was one of the best six or seven players on the ballot this year. But you might credibly argue that there is a glut of a dozen or so qualified players, McGriff among them, and you had to leave McGriff out because of the ballot limit.However, the players are not only being affected by those writers who ran out of ballot slots. There were a higher-than-average number of writers this year who listed very few players, or even none at all. Some 10 percent of voters named two or fewer players this year, according to Leokitty’s spreadsheet. That is lower than in 2012, an underwhelming year on the ballot, when 16 percent of voters did so.But it is less than 2009, 2010 or 2011, when between 3 and 8 percent of writers listed so few players. Some writers are deliberately listing very few players as a protest vote, whether against the steroids era or the Hall of Fame balloting process.Between the protest voters on the one hand, and the maxed-out voters on the other, the players are being squeezed at both ends.Finally, some players may be harmed by the psychology of the ballot. If Clemens were not on the ballot, for example, then you could credibly make a case that Curt Schilling was the best pitcher on the ballot (if you don’t think that Morris is). But Schilling’s accomplishments look poor by comparison to Clemens’s, as do those of almost any pitcher — even if you aren’t willing to vote for Clemens because of his steroids use. The same holds for outfielders whose statistics might be compared with Barry Bonds’s.There is even something to be said for the so-called “paradox of choice”: that when presented with too many options, we may be overwhelmed with information and have trouble making any decisions at all.Hall of Fame voting is ultimately designed to be a consensus process. One reason that players tend to gain votes over time is because the writers are looking at what their peers are doing and value the endorsements of their colleagues. Moreover, because they have as many as 15 chances to elect a player, many writers tend toward conservatism initially. There is no way to remove a player from the Hall of Fame once he has been elected, but you can change your mind to include him later. When a writer initially votes “no” on a player, it really means “wait and see” in many cases.But consensus is harder to achieve when members of a group have divergent values and ideologies. Instead of the typical friendly arguments about how a player’s lifetime accomplishments might be weighed against how dominant he was in his best seasons, or how to compare players at different positions, the writers are now spending most of their time arguing about who used steroids and when, and how this should affect Hall of Fame consideration. Many have passionate beliefs about this, whichever side of the argument they take. An increasing number of writers would like to elect a dozen or more players; an increasing number would like to lose the whole “steroids era” to history. Good-natured debates may be replaced by tactical considerations, as voters make guesses about who everyone else might vote for, or where their ballots might be wasted.Next year will place even more pressure on the voters, when Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas and Mike Mussina are added to the list of candidates. Those who apply little discount for steroids use may credibly claim to identify 15 or more qualified candidates, and even those who do not may have to drop one or two names that they otherwise see as worthy. The New York Times will probably not have to publish a blank page again, but no one but Maddux seems sure to make it in.,Jessie Schwartz for The New York Times Baseball writers elected no one to the Hall of Fame on Wednesday, despite what might have been the deepest ballot in years.The failure of the writers to pick Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens was not a surprise given the low vote totals received in the past by Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, other players associated with the use performance-enhancing drugs. But the vote totals for Bonds and Clemens, just 36 and 38 percent, were lower than expected.Craig Biggio, who received 68.2 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, will almost certainly make it into the Hall of Fame someday. Still, his profile is quite similar to Robin Yount and Roberto Alomar, two players who did better in their first year on the ballot. (Yount got 77.5 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot in 1999, while Alomar got 73.7 percent of the vote in 2010 and made it in the next year.)Perhaps the clearest effect of the crowded ballot, however, was realized among candidates who were returning to the ballot from last year. Of the 13 players who carried over from the 2012 ballot, nine received a lower share of the vote, including Lee Smith, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly and Bernie Williams.This is atypical; instead, players usually add votes with each additional year they spend on the ballot. Since 1967, when the Hall of Fame adopted balloting rules similar to the ones it uses now, about two-thirds of holdover players gained ground from their prior year’s vote percentage.It is possible to be a bit more precise about this pattern. Based on an analysis of Hall of Fame voting between 1967 and 2011, I found that the increase in a player’s vote total is typically proportional to his percentage from the previous year. In his second year on the ballot, for example, the typical player’s vote share increases by a multiple of about 1.1.Thus, a player who received 10 percent of the vote in his first year would be expected to receive about 11 percent on his second try, while a player who got 50 percent of the vote would go up to 55 percent.The pace of improvement is typically highest in the first several years that a player spends on the ballot, slowing down once he has been eligible five or six times. (The exception is in a player’s 15 and final year of eligibility, when he may receive a fairly large boost.) But these small percentage gains can add up, something like the way in which interest compounds over time. For example, as shown in the chart below, a player who gets just 30 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot would be projected to make it in on his 14th year of eligibility if he follows the formula each year.In practice, the growth in a player’s vote share is rarely this smooth — and you should not necessarily expect the pattern to hold for Bonds and Clemens. (Instructively, the vote shares for McGwire and Palmeiro have actually been declining.) Nonetheless, Hall of Fame candidates typically have a tailwind as time passes.This year, however, veterans on the Hall of Fame ballot faced a headwind instead. The next chart compares the actual vote that each player received against that projected by the historical formula. Actual results in 2013 compared to projections based on historical patterns.Twelve of the 13 players underperformed their projection; the exception was Dale Murphy, who got a larger-than-average boost in his final year of eligibility, but still came nowhere close to winning election.Even some players who gained ground did not necessarily help their chances. Jack Morris went from 66.7 percent of the vote to 67.7 percent, below his projection of 69.4 percent. The small difference could be important because next year will be Morris’s final year of eligibility, and he projects to be very close to the 75 percent threshold for election. (Perhaps the player who had the best year, instead, was Tim Raines, whose vote share grew to 52.2 percent from 48.7 percent, and who is now a clear favorite to be elected someday by the writers.)Most other players lost ground outright. Trammell, in his 12th year of eligibility, declined to 33.6 percent from 36.8 percent of the vote. He was an underdog to make it in before, but now he seems to have very little chance. The same also holds for Smith, who lost most of what he gained last year after years of stagnant vote totals.McGriff, as Joe Posnanski writes, seemed to be a plausible candidate to gain ground this year as writers sought out players who were perceived as clean, as opposed to known or suspected of steroid use. Instead, his vote share declined to 20.7 percent from 23.9 percent. Williams had received just under 10 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, but his case was not entirely hopeless; players like Bob Lemon and Carl Hubbell were eventually selected by the writers with a similar vote total in their first year.Instead, Williams fell below the 5 percent threshold required for a player to stay on the ballot.The crowded and confusing ballot may be affecting these players in several ways. The most obvious is that the writers are limited to voting for a maximum of 10 players. This year, according to the sample of ballots collected by the Twitter user @leokitty, 24 percent of writers used all 10 of their picks. That compares with 12 percent in 2011, and just 4 percent in 2012.Did the 10-vote limit keep Biggio and Morris out of the Hall of Fame, perhaps along with other players?Actually, it was almost certainly not responsible all by itself. Of the 24 percent of writers who used all 10 ballot slots, 90 percent did name Biggio, meaning 10 percent did not. At best, therefore, if all writers who exhausted their ballots would also have named Biggio if they had unlimited votes, he would have gotten only 10 percent of the 24 percent, adding only 2.4 percentage points to his overall vote total.The logic here is that it’s hard to make a case that Biggio was only the 11th or 12th best player on the ballot. Instead, most of the writers who left him out were probably more like Jon Heyman of CBS Sports. Heyman wrote that he saw Biggio as the eighth best player on the ballot — but he also thought that only six were worthy of inclusion. Most of the writers who left Biggio out, in other words, were those who take a conservative overall approach to how many players they want in the Hall of Fame, and not those who ran out of ballot positions.Morris is a more debatable case. If all writers who maxed out their ballot slots had included him, he would have come very close to 75 percent of the vote. However, Morris is also a highly polarizing candidate. Those writers who included him often thought he was among the very best players on the ballot; on several ballots, in fact, Morris was the only player named. But other writers think he falls fall short of Hall of Fame standards and would not have picked him no matter how many votes they had to spare.Nor, obviously, were Bonds’s and Clemens’s totals affected to any material degree by the 10-player limit. Nobody left Bonds off their ballots because they thought he had only the 11th-best statistical record; they did so because they don’t think steroids users should be in the Hall of Fame. (In fact, most of the writers who maxed out their ballot slots included Bonds and Clemens; the writers who are willing to consider performance-enhancing drug users have much more crowded ballots than those who are not.)Instead, players like McGriff, Trammell, Williams and Edgar Martinez were probably most affected by the 10-player limit. The logic for McGriff, for example, is very close of the opposite of that which might be applied to Biggio. It’s fairly hard to sustain a case that McGriff was one of the best six or seven players on the ballot this year. But you might credibly argue that there is a glut of a dozen or so qualified players, McGriff among them, and you had to leave McGriff out because of the ballot limit.However, the players are not only being affected by those writers who ran out of ballot slots. There were a higher-than-average number of writers this year who listed very few players, or even none at all. Some 10 percent of voters named two or fewer players this year, according to Leokitty’s spreadsheet. That is lower than in 2012, an underwhelming year on the ballot, when 16 percent of voters did so.But it is less than 2009, 2010 or 2011, when between 3 and 8 percent of writers listed so few players. Some writers are deliberately listing very few players as a protest vote, whether against the steroids era or the Hall of Fame balloting process.Between the protest voters on the one hand, and the maxed-out voters on the other, the players are being squeezed at both ends.Finally, some players may be harmed by the psychology of the ballot. If Clemens were not on the ballot, for example, then you could credibly make a case that Curt Schilling was the best pitcher on the ballot (if you don’t think that Morris is). But Schilling’s accomplishments look poor by comparison to Clemens’s, as do those of almost any pitcher — even if you aren’t willing to vote for Clemens because of his steroids use. The same holds for outfielders whose statistics might be compared with Barry Bonds’s.There is even something to be said for the so-called “paradox of choice”: that when presented with too many options, we may be overwhelmed with information and have trouble making any decisions at all.Hall of Fame voting is ultimately designed to be a consensus process. One reason that players tend to gain votes over time is because the writers are looking at what their peers are doing and value the endorsements of their colleagues. Moreover, because they have as many as 15 chances to elect a player, many writers tend toward conservatism initially. There is no way to remove a player from the Hall of Fame once he has been elected, but you can change your mind to include him later. When a writer initially votes “no” on a player, it really means “wait and see” in many cases.But consensus is harder to achieve when members of a group have divergent values and ideologies. Instead of the typical friendly arguments about how a player’s lifetime accomplishments might be weighed against how dominant he was in his best seasons, or how to compare players at different positions, the writers are now spending most of their time arguing about who used steroids and when, and how this should affect Hall of Fame consideration. Many have passionate beliefs about this, whichever side of the argument they take. An increasing number of writers would like to elect a dozen or more players; an increasing number would like to lose the whole “steroids era” to history. Good-natured debates may be replaced by tactical considerations, as voters make guesses about who everyone else might vote for, or where their ballots might be wasted.Next year will place even more pressure on the voters, when Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas and Mike Mussina are added to the list of candidates. Those who apply little discount for steroids use may credibly claim to identify 15 or more qualified candidates, and even those who do not may have to drop one or two names that they otherwise see as worthy. The New York Times will probably not have to publish a blank page again, but no one but Maddux seems sure to make it in. read more

The Toolsiest Player of Them All

1.2 2.6 2.1 1.5 If you’re a baseball fan, you’ve heard a scout, general manager or talk-radio yakker call somebody a “five-tool player.” The label promises that a player can do nearly everything — hit for average, hit for power, run, throw and field — better than most. While the tools don’t capture everything about being a good player, the more tools a player possesses, the thinking goes, the more well-rounded his skill set.But in a modern baseball age, the five-tool worldview can seem outdated, and scouting lingo and its 20-80 grading scales for player tools anachronistic. Now that we have a more precise understanding of what makes a baseball player valuable, we know, for example, that it’s more important to be able to hit for power than it is to throw the ball real fast.But after spending a couple of weeks with the data, I found that while certain tools are more valuable than others, estimated toolsiness actually does serve as a leading indicator for sabermetric value. To test this, I selected a representative statistic for each tool. For average, I used projected batting average, blending the ZiPS and Steamer systems. For power, I used projected isolated slugging percentage.1Projections offer a good estimate of a player’s true talent, whereas using historical statistics can leave us vulnerable to issues related to small sample sizes. Also, these numbers were all park-adjusted. For speed, throwing and fielding, I used data from the Fan Scouting Report. For each category, I calculated z-scores, an indicator of distance from the average, for every regular or semi-regular player from 2013. That allowed me to identify the players who were so far above the mean (one standard deviation) in each of the five tools that they can be called baseball’s true five-tool players.Without further ado, they are:Carlos GonzalezTroy TulowitzkiBryce HarperYasiel PuigThere’s no Mike Trout, and there’s no Miguel Cabrera. Just missing inclusion, as well, are Adam Jones and Starling Marte; the former was just shy on fielding, and the latter was just shy on power. Most impressive: Two out of the four players are on the Colorado Rockies.2The Rockies haven’t taken great advantage of this, although it’s worth noting the five tools say nothing about players staying healthy, and both Tulowitzki and Gonzalez have had their share of visits to the disabled list.But if those are MLB’s five-tool players, there’s something to be said for the toolsiest players — the ones who are most above the mean when considering all five tools combined. To measure aggregate toolsiness I just added up all the z-scores in each player’s tool set, and came up with the top 10 below. There’s an unsurprising man atop the list:Mike Trout, 9.1Carlos Gonzalez, 8.5Bryce Harper, 8.5Troy Tulowitzki, 8.3Starling Marte, 7.9Yasiel Puig, 7.8Alex Gordon, 7.6Robinson Cano, 7.3Evan Longoria, 7.2Manny Machado, 7.2While Trout doesn’t count as a five-tool player because of his roughly league-average arm, he’s so good at everything else he makes up for that and then some. He isn’t bad at any one thing, and he’s terrific at several things. See each player’s tool score below: But all tools aren’t created equal. Just adding up a bunch of tool scores assumes that speed is as valuable as slugging which is as valuable as arm strength. We know just from watching the game, though, that this isn’t the case. These days, a player’s value is synonymous with his wins above replacement (WAR) tally.I calculated projected 2014 WAR per 600 plate appearances to balance all the players and estimate their true talent. Unsurprisingly, there is a strong relationship between aggregate toolsiness and projected WAR/600. The correlation coefficient comes out to 0.66, meaning there’s a real relationship there.3An R-value can range only between -1 and 1. It’s evident that the more tools a player has, the more valuable he is.But that correlation is for aggregate toolsiness. Each tool also has its own relationship with WAR, which can tell us how important a given tool is to a player’s value. The table shows the correlation coefficient for each tool against projected WAR/600: Troy Tulowitzki Mike Trout Starling Marte Power 2.1 0.2 2.2 0.8 2.2 1.9 1.4 1.1 Speed 0.1 Power 0.13 1.7 1.5 1.1 2.0 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.3 Fielding 0.5 2.2 2.0 0.4 Average Bryce Harper 1.2 2.6 1.1 2.2 Speed 1.0 2.5 Evan Longoria Average 1.6 Robinson Cano Name 1.6 Alex Gordon 0.6 Yasiel Puig Manny Machado 2.2 1.5 1.9 Fielding 1.6 1.5 2.8 2.0 0.53 0.5 Carlos Gonzalez 0.43 2.4 0.53 2.0 Arm 1.3 Arm 2.3 0.9 0.43 0.8 The two most valuable tools are hitting for average and hitting for power, with throwing and fielding close behind. Speed, it appears, is important but not necessary. A player can be successful if he lacks any one tool, but a player who lacks speed is likely to be better than a player who lacks, say, power, if all else was equal.Intuitively, the breakdown makes sense — hitting is the biggest part of the game, for a position player, and while defense is important as well, speed makes only limited contributions to both. A player who only has speed won’t fit anywhere. A player who only has one of the other skills might be able to find a home.Taking a look at projected WAR, you can see how the tools hierarchy manifests. Miguel Cabrera is projected to be one of the best players in baseball this year, but he’s below-average in combined speed, arm and fielding. The same can be said for Joey Votto. Giancarlo Stanton projects well almost entirely because of his power. Yadier Molina and Buster Posey are well below average in speed, but they’re MVP candidates because they can hit while playing an important position.All this makes one wonder more about Billy Hamilton, the young leadoff hitter for the Cincinnati Reds. Hamilton has already broken some base-stealing records, and it’s been said he’s a 90 on the 20-80 scouting scale for foot speed. When it comes to running, there might not be anyone quicker. But Hamilton’s strength is also baseball’s least important tool, and the rest of his skill set is thought to be relatively unimpressive. He doesn’t hit for power, he hasn’t hit for much average, and though he can move around in the outfield, he hasn’t been blessed with a strong arm. Hamilton can make the most of his running, but it’s an open question whether it will allow him to be a quality regular. read more

Michael B Jordan Isnt Interested In Meeting Michael Jordan

Michel B. Jordan once got star struck upon seeing Michael Jordan. (Catherine Steenkeste/Getty Images/Tim P. Whitby/Tim P. Whitby/Getty Images)Michael B. Jordan has always had fame tied to his name. Without the B, he’s easily confused for NBA great Michael Jordan. Though the two have never met, the “Black Panther” star currently has no interest in changing that anytime soon.“I never met Michael Jordan,” the actor said in the May issue of Men’s Health. “I never want to officially meet him until I’m at a point where he knows who I am and I know who he is. And it would be our mutual respect thing. Until then it would just be a ‘this guy has your name, ha ha.’ I don’t want that. So that pushes me to keep working too. These things motivate me.”Still, it’s not like Jordan hasn’t been close to having an official meeting with the sports icon. He told The Wall Street Journal in January that he saw the baller at NBA All-Star Weekend once and got star struck. And the person who had that effect on Jordan is part of something else that motivated the actor growing up.“I’m competitive. I want to compete in anything I do. That came from my name,” the star of the upcoming big screen adaptation of “Fahrenheit 451” said. “Growing up in sports and having a name like Michael Jordan and being teased, I had to compete. I couldn’t be the guy with the name and not be good at it. That carried over to everything. I’m like, I’ve got to be just as great if not greater than he was in his field.”While Jordan’s reasoning for not wanting to meet MJ just yet may be compelling to some, several Twitter users remained largely unimpressed.“Surprising considering they both chase after White Women,🙄”  a user said.“M’kay,” someone else simply tweeted.“Weird,” another said.“What?!?” someone more enthused exclaimed. read more

Mens hockey Late goals provided momentum in Game One against Michigan

Ohio State players celebrate after a goal by junior forward Kevin Miller. Credit: Nick Clarkson | Lantern reporterGoals within the final minute of periods have the ability to build momentum, and Ohio State took advantage by netting two of them.On Friday night, the Buckeyes (17-8-6, 8-6-1-1) defeated the Michigan Wolverines (9-17-3, 2-11-2-2) by a score of 4-2. While the Wolverines took the early lead, it was a breakthrough by OSU senior forward David Gust that swung the momentum of the game in favor of the Buckeyes.An interference penalty late in the first period on Michigan defenseman Joseph Cecconi provided the first of the influential power play goals.Sophomore forward Dakota Joshua attacked the net with a powerful wrist shot that deflected off of Michigan goalie Jack Lafontaine. Simultaneously, Gust set himself up in front of goal to put in the rebound with a backhand shot with less than a second left in the first period.In the second period, a late power-play goal by senior forward Nick Schilkey increased the Buckeyes’ lead to two goals. Schilkey set himself up for a rebound similar to Gust and put the puck in net with six seconds left. His 24th goal of the season turned out to be the final tally in the game.Coaches preach to their players that the final two minutes of every period are the most crucial times in a game, and OSU’s Steve Rohlik reaffirmed that message.“It was a difference in the game,” he said. “You score with 0.1 and six seconds left, it’s a heartbreaker for the other team.”The momentum these types of goals create were evident in the flow of the game. Following Gust’s tally, the Buckeyes picked up two quick second-period goals from junior forward Kevin Miller.“Getting (Gust’s late goal) gets us back in the hockey game and you want to build off of late goals like that one,” Joshua said. “We most certainly did coming out and getting those two goals in the second period.”Miller did not focus on his two quick goals, but rather the momentum Gust’s goal had heading into the first break.“You see it all the time in hockey. If there’s a late goal in a period, it really has some momentum heading into the intermission,” said Miller.For the team, OSU will look to carry the momentum gained from Friday’s game into Saturday’s rematch with Michigan. Puck drop is at 5 p.m. for their final regular season matchup with the Wolverines. read more

Ohio State mens tennis team seeks 1st NCAA championship

The Ohio State men’s tennis team will begin NCAA Tournament action at home Friday. The Buckeyes are going into the tournament as the No. 4 seed, and they will look to bring home their first-ever national title. Sixty-four teams from around the nation were selected May 3 to be part of the 2011 NCAA Championship Tournament. The Buckeyes were one of 31 teams that automatically qualified for the tournament by winning their conference championship. OSU earned that bid May 1, when it clinched its sixth consecutive Big Ten Tournament title in Madison, Wis. OSU will begin the NCAA Tournament with home-field advantage. The team will host Notre Dame, East Tennessee State and Ball State for the first two rounds of the six-round tournament Friday and Saturday. “It’s always much easier to win at home than on the road,” said coach Ty Tucker of the advantage. OSU (30-2) opens the NCAA Tournament against Ball State (15-14). The last time the Buckeyes played the Cardinals was during the 1994–95 season. Overall, OSU is 9-3 against Ball State. “After two weeks off, you have to establish in the first round that you’re ready to play,” Tucker said of the Friday match. If the team advances past the first two rounds, the Buckeyes will travel to Stanford, Calif., to compete. “We need to focus on the first two rounds,” senior co-captain Balazs Novak said. The biggest competitors the Buckeyes could face throughout the tournament are Virginia and USC, Tucker said. OSU lost to Virginia once already this season, 4-1, in February. “There are a lot of good teams,” senior co-captain Matt Allare said. “Virginia hasn’t been beaten at all, and USC are the back-to-back champions.” The last time the Buckeyes made it to the NCAA Tournament finals was in 2009, when they fell to USC, the reigning national champion. “We’re No. 4 in the nation, but you look at other teams and they’re so good,” senior co-captain Shuhei Uzawa said. “We just need to give it everything we’ve got.” Despite the tough competition, OSU’s ultimate goal is to bring home the national title. “That’s one of the three or four goals every year,” Tucker said. “I think that has to be the goal.” Novak said winning the championship title would be a great achievement for the team and that it would mean everything. The first match in Columbus will be between Notre Dame and East Tennessee State at 10 a.m. Friday at the Stickney Tennis Center. read more

Gene Smith Urban Meyer support NCAA changes

The NCAA Board of Directors released a new, more stringent set of rules Tuesday for enforcing athletic programs’ adherence to codes of conduct. The new rules try to simplify and accelerate what has traditionally been a long and complicated rule-enforcing process. The rules also aim to increase the severity of the sanctions and make punishments more uniform instead of treating things on a case-by-case basis, according to the announcement posted on the institution’s website. Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith, first-year OSU football coach Urban Meyer and other Big Ten Conference football coaches voiced support of the revamped enforcement structure. Smith said he agrees with the new rules and says they help fix a “flawed” system. “I am supportive of the new legislation,” Smith said in an email. “It provides clarity and transparency to a system of enforcement and infraction management that was flawed. It also will improve the ability for cases to be handled more expeditiously.” Meyer said he was in favor of updating the “antiquated” system of enforcement as well. “I’m fully supportive of it. I appreciate the NCAA revisiting the discipline structure … I am in full support of very stringent penalties and keeping, or even restoring, the integrity of college football,” Meyer said during Tuesday’s Big Ten teleconference. “Throughout history, the only way to keep civilization and keep things in order is to have very strong rules and enforce them. Clear rules with very firm, swift punishment.” During the weekly teleconference, several coaches spoke on the issue, with Wisconsin coach Bret Bielema and Nebraska coach Bo Pelini saying they were fine with added responsibility for a coach. Northwestern coach Pat Fitzgerald, who was also on the call, agreed with them. “There’s no question, the level of transparency and the level of accountability needs to go up,” Fitzgerald said. “And the No. 1 person that needs to be held accountable for the coaching staff’s actions are the head coach. That’s why you are called the head coach. I think the NCAA is taking some really positive steps.” Another change involves holding head coaches more accountable for the actions of their staff. Now, violations by any member of the staff will reflect on the head coach, unless he or she can prove their personal effort for “promoting an atmosphere of compliance.” There was also a change in tiers of violations. Rather than categorizing a violation as “major” or “secondary,” there will be four levels, with a Level I violation being the most severe. The NCAA could potentially disqualify a team for multiple years of postseason play and fine the program millions of dollars for a Level I violation. Other consequences for various levels of infractions include harsher scholarship reductions, recruiting limits and head coach suspensions. Suspensions for coaches, as well as programs, can range from 10 percent of the season to a full season. The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions will expand from 10 members to 24, speeding up the infractions process and handing out violations in a more timely manner. In OSU football’s case, this could have meant serving out OSU’s bowl ineligibility during the 2011 season rather than the current season. The last of the most significant changes in the new set of rules includes a more consistent penalty system. Sanctions will no longer be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and the new standards will ensure equal treatment – and punishment – across the NCAA. NCAA President Mark Emmert said the rules aim to eliminate the temptation for teams to do whatever it takes to win. “We have sought all along to remove the ‘risk-reward’ analysis that has tempted people – often because of the financial pressures to win at all costs – to break the rules in the hopes that either they won’t be caught or that the consequences won’t be very harsh if they do get caught,” Emmert said during a press conference Tuesday. “The new system the board adopted today is the result of a lot of hard work and membership input devoted to protecting the collegiate model.” Emmert began the process of establishing a new set of rules in August 2011. The new enforcement structure will take effect on Aug. 1, 2013. Dan Hope and Evan Speyer contributed to this story. read more

Urban Meyer names Cardale Jones Ohio State backup quarterback despite disappointing Spring

Urban Meyer looks on during the OSU Spring Game April 12 at Ohio Stadium. The Gray defeated Scarlet, 17-7.Credit: Mark Batke / For The LanternThe most publicized position in all of sports is arguably the quarterback position, and at Ohio State, even the backup spot is a point of emphasis.With senior Braxton Miller out for the spring after undergoing minor shoulder surgery in February, the competition to see who would be his backup became a big storyline throughout spring practice.The two players most likely to fall next in line behind Miller — redshirt-sophomore Cardale Jones and redshirt-freshman J.T. Barrett — both got their chances to shine in front of 61,058 people Saturday, and neither seemed comfortable for a majority of the game.Neither quarterback accounted for a touchdown. However, Barrett nearly broke free twice after keeping the ball on designed run plays before being whistled down. Both he and Jones sported black, no-contact jerseys once the game got under way.Barrett finished the game 17-33 passing for 151 yards, also rushing for 25 yards on six carries. He led a pair of 80-yard scoring drives, while also leading a 90-yard drive that stalled on fourth and goal.Jones, who coach Urban Meyer said after the game is in position to be Miller’s backup, got off to a very slow start. He headed into halftime just 6-15 passing for seven yards, including a pass play that resulted in a loss of 12 yards. After losing the ball in the end zone, Jones was forced to find a receiver in order to avoid a safety and dumped it off to junior wide receiver Kato Mitchell, who was well behind the line of scrimmage.Jones improved his game in the second half, as he finished the game 14-31 passing for 126 yards while also rushing for 21 yards on four carries.Meyer said he was unhappy with Jones’ performance.“Cardale was disappointing,” Meyer said after the game. “I thought he made some misses today, but I’m not going to let that ruin his spring. He’s had a good spring for us.”Despite a poor performance, Jones said he was excited to finally be on the field.“It was pretty cool,” Jones said after the game. “I’ve been waiting for a long time and I’ve still got work to do to enhance my ability.”Junior offensive lineman Taylor Decker, who sits as the lone returning starter on the OSU offensive line, said he was pleased that under the pressure of performing in front of a large crowd, the young quarterbacks didn’t buckle.“To see that calmness in a quarterback, even though they may be a new guy, it’s still good to see from an offensive lineman standpoint,” Decker, who hardly saw time on the field Saturday, said.The lone turnover committed by a quarterback was early on when Barrett — despite wearing the no-contact jersey — was hit from behind, forcing him to lose the ball in his own end zone. Redshirt-senior defensive lineman Rashad Frazier forced the fumble, then pounced on it, resulting in the Scarlet’s only touchdown of the game.When asked if he thought he had locked up the backup spot, Jones was concise.“Oh no, not at all,” Jones said.The Buckeye quarterbacks have all summer to improve before fall camp opens, and OSU is scheduled to open the 2014 season at M&T Bank Stadium against Navy on Aug. 30 at noon. read more

Ohio State field hockey splits with Ball State Ohio moves toward Big

Members of the OSU field hockey team celebrate during a game against Ball State on Sept. 14 at Buckeye Varsity Field. OSU won, 3-2, in overtime.Credit: Melissa Prax / Lantern photographerJunior forward Peanut Johnson’s breakaway overtime goal gave the Ohio State field hockey team a 3-2 victory Sunday against the Ball State Cardinals to salvage a split of its weekend series.OSU (2-3) returned home Sunday after losing 1-0 to Ohio University (1-3) in Athens, Ohio, Friday night.The Buckeyes showed resiliency as they battled back in overtime after losing a 2-0 lead to the Cardinals.Ball State (3-2) converted off a penalty corner from senior midfielder Tori Widrick that led to an equalizing goal from sophomore midfielder Merinda Morley with 11 minutes left in regulation.In overtime, freshman midfielder Maddy Humphrey grabbed a steal in OSU’s offensive zone and quickly fired a pass to Johnson, who connected on the game winner in front of the net.“I kinda got in the zone,” Humphrey said about her crucial steal and assist. “Last week in our game against Ohio I had the same type of play, but I didn’t (center) it that well. So I did the same play, but I did it well.”OSU jumped out to its early lead thanks to two quick goals from freshman forward Annabel Sams.Sams crossed in front of the net a little more than seven minutes into the game and scored on a pass from Johnson for her first career goal.A minute later, Sams was on the board again off an assist from her fellow freshman, Humphrey.“We started out so quick,” Sams said. “We found each other. We found passes like with my first two goals.”OSU coach Anne Wilkinson said she was proud of her team’s effort. She moved Sams from her normal forward position to the midfield Sunday in order to utilize her athleticism, and said was very pleased.“We were able to create more space for her there,” Wilkinson said. “She’s good at coming from behind and attacking.”Wilkinson said she was happy to see her freshman making contributions to the team in such a big way.“It’s exciting,” Wilkinson said. “I’ve been watching them play for a few years now at a different level, but it’s nice to finally get them on the field (for OSU) and competing.”The Buckeyes lost a closely contested matchup with the Ohio Bobcats Friday before their recovery against the Cardinals.The defenses were on display with both teams combining for four shots in the first half. The game picked up a little in the second frame, but the Buckeyes were unable to capitalize despite outshooting the Bobcats, 10-6.The game’s lone goal came off a rebound shot from Ohio freshman Megan Silveira with 18:55 remaining in the game. The goal snuck just past OSU freshman goalkeeper Liz Tamburro.Friday and Sunday marked the first two times Tamburro did not record double-digit saves in 2014. She saved three shots against the Bobcats and four against the Cardinals.OSU is set to begin Big Ten play Sept. 19 against Michigan State at 3 p.m. at Buckeye Varsity Field. read more

Football Ohio State releases Week 11 depth chart

Ohio State junior kicker Sean Nuernberger (96) kicks a field goal in the second quarter in the game against Rutgers on Sep. 30. Ohio State won 56-0. Credit: Jack Westerheide | Photo EditorFour days before No. 6 Ohio State (7-2, 5-1 Big Ten) hosts No. 24 Michigan State (7-2, 5-1 Big Ten), the Buckeyes released their Week 11 depth chart, leaving the majority of the depth chart unchanged except for two changes on special teams.For the first time this season, freshman Blake Haubeil was listed as the co-starter with redshirt junior Sean Nuernberger at kicker. Nuernberger is 10-for-12 in field goal tries this season with his only two misses coming during Ohio State’s Oct. 7 matchup against Maryland. Though he drilled his lone field goal attempt against Iowa, it was a near miss as the ball appeared to fly above the left upright. Nuernberger is listed as the team’s kickoff specialist. However, Haubeil kicked off against Iowa. The only other change was redshirt sophomore running back Mike Weber being listed as a co-starter with redshirt junior H-back Parris Campbell as the kickoff returner. Sophomore H-back K.J. Hill was the listed backup kick returner despite being the co-starter on last week’s depth chart. Weber returned six kicks for Ohio State against Iowa and averaged 17.2 yards as the returner due to Campbell missing the game. Campbell has averaged 36.6 yards per return through nine kick returns this season, and has been cleared to play against Michigan State.Ohio State’s game against the Spartans kicks off at noon Saturday at Ohio Stadium. read more

Mens Hockey No 1 Ohio State opens season at Arizona State

The Ohio State men’s hockey team gathers prior to the start of the game against Wisconsin on Feb. 23 in the Schottenstein Centern. Credit: Jack Westerheide | Managing Editor for DesignThe No. 1 Ohio State men’s hockey team will open its season on the road against Arizona State (2-0) this weekend.Though the excitement and anticipation of getting on the ice for the first time could be distracting, players are trying to prepare themselves as they would for any other game. “We try to treat it like any other game, but there’s obviously the excitement of kind of getting things under way,” senior defenseman Sasha Larocque said. “We’ve been here for quite a while playing against each other and it’s kind of getting old, so to get some new competition is always a welcome opportunity.”The Buckeyes new competition in Arizona State, which had a challenging 2017-2018 campaign, finishing 8-21-5, good for the fourth-worst winning percentage in the nation. The Sun Devils recorded 72 goals in 34 games last season.. This season, the team returns 21 players and 84 percent of their scoring from last season.The Sun Devils enter their matchup having swept Alaska Fairbanks in their season-opening series, allowing zero goals in either game and killing all eight penalties they faced. Ohio State will have to look out for junior defenseman Brinson Pasichnuk, a defenseman who led the team in points last season and who has already notched three points in the first two games. Ohio State’s strong play on offense, however, should be able to create shots against Arizona State’s defense, which led the nation in shots on goal allowed per game last season.“They’re just a hard-working team,” senior forward Brendon Kearney said. “They’ve done a good job kind of turning their program into one that’s going to compete every single night and be tough to beat and we’re kind of getting more into what they do, and as of now, right, it’s just to show up and be ready to work because that’s what they bring.”As they begin their season, the Buckeyes will try and get off to a hot start after being ranked No. 1 in the nation by the USCHO and USA Today Men’s Hockey polls for the first time in team history. The puck drops for Ohio State at 10:05 p.m. on Friday and Saturday against Arizona State. read more

Football DreMont Jones selected No 71 overall by Denver in 2019 NFL

Ohio State redshirt junior defensive lineman Dre’Mont Jones (86) leads the Buckeyes out on the field to start the 2018 Spring Game on April 14, 2018. Credit: Jack Westerheide | Managing Editor for DesignOhio State produced its fifth defensive line prospect in two years Friday, when former defensive tackle Dre’Mont Jones heard his name called as the No. 71 selection by the Denver Broncos in the 2019 NFL Draft.Jones finished his Ohio State career with 114 tackles (22 TFL), 9.5 sacks, three fumble recoveries and a pick-six this past season against TCU.The former Buckeye earned third-team all-Big Ten honors at defensive tackle in 2017, followed by first-team all-Big Ten honors in 2018.Jones’ redshirt junior season was arguably his best, as he finished with career-highs in tackles for loss (13) and sacks (8.5).The St. Ignatius product declared for the NFL Draft in the weeks prior to Ohio State’s contest against Washington in the Rose Bowl, but still participated in the game. read more

Football Terry McLaurin drafted by Washington Redskins in 2019 NFL Draft

Ohio State redshirt senior wide receiver Terry McLaurin (83) catches a pass in the first half of the Big Ten Championship Game on Dec. 1. Ohio State beat Northwestern 45-24. Credit: Casey Cascaldo | Photo EditorThe second Ohio State wide receiver came off the board at the 2019 NFL Draft as Terry McLaurin was taken with the No. 76 overall pick to the Washington Redskins in the thirdround Friday.McLaurin pulled in a Big Ten second-most 11 touchdowns in 2018, along with 701 yards on just 35 receptions for team-high 20 yards-per-catch average.His 11 touchdowns this past season bring McLaurin to a career total of 19, which both rank No. 6 in program history for season and career receiving scores.McLaurin would go onto play in four victories over Michigan, three bowl game wins and assist in back-to-back Big Ten Championships in the past two seasons.The five-year receiver was a primary contributor to a Ohio State receiving core that assisted former Ohio State quarterback Dwayne Haskins in setting new records for Big Ten passing yardage and touchdowns in a single-season, along with school records for yards and touchdowns through the air in a single game.From 2015 to 2018, McLaurin did not miss any of Ohio State’s 54 games, which displays a durability that should help him at the next level, along with the 4.35-second 40-yard dash time he posted at the NFL Combine. read more

GPs carry out consultations in as little as two minutes study finds

first_imgGP If you are interested in general practice you don’t admit to it, you cover it upProfessor Maureen Baker, Chair of the Royal College of GPs Maureen Baker, chairman of the Royal College of GPs, said the “systematic denigration” of family doctors was having a noticeable impact on the number medics choosing to pursue the vocation as a career.The situation is being compounded, she said, by specialist hospital doctors, responsible for mentoring trainee medics, who too often “bad mouth” general practice, she said earlier this year. England is currently experiencing an estimated shortfall of 3,325 GPs, with 12 per cent of posts unfilled in 2015, according to the royal college, which estimates the deficit will rise to 8,371 by 2020 if the current trend continues. Researchers found patients who spent longer in the consultation room did not report higher levels of satisfaction than those with shorter appointments, and were no more likely to have trust and confidence in their GP.The study found some of those with the  shortest slots were among the most satisfied with their doctors.But the authors said more research was needed to examine the benefits of longer consultations for those with complex multiple conditions.The study, published in the British Journal of General Practice, follows calls from the British Medical Association (BMA) and the Royal College of GPs to extend appointments to at least 15 minutes.A BMA survey of 15,000 GPs found nine in ten felt 10 minutes was not enough.Earlier this year the head of the profession said medical students are being put off becoming GPs by a culture of “banter” that stigmatises general practice as “soft” and “unglamorous” . Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily  Front Page newsletter and new  audio briefings. GPs are carrying out consultations in as little as two minutes, research has found, with one in 20 patients out the door in less than four minutes. The study by Cambridge University examined 440 GP consultations, and found the average patient spent just over 10 minutes with their doctor.The shortest consultation took just two minutes 15 seconds, the study found, while the longest took more than half an hour.More than half of cases were dealt with in less than 10 minutes, with around five per cent of patients out the door in less than four minutes, the study shows. Aspiring GPs often feel they can’t reveal their ambitionsCredit:Telegraphlast_img read more

Why having a cold nose means you may be working too hard

first_imgDr Alastair Ritchie of the Bioengineering… The next time you suspect you are overdoing things mentally, a quick check of your nose temperature could prove illuminating. Scientists have discovered that a cold hooter is a sign of thinking too hard.center_img In a new study, in which researchers used thermal imaging cameras on the faces of 14 volunteers while they carried out mental tasks, they found that the nose temperature of those feeling overwhelmed dropped by around one degree centigrade. The scientists say it as a sign that the brain is overworking, and has ordered that blood should be diverted to help neurons. Extremities, like the nose, suffer first because it take more energy to pump blood to them.last_img

Teachers prepare to strike in protest at immoral exams for fouryearolds

first_imgTeachers are preparing to take industrial action in protest at “immoral” exams for four-year-olds.Members of the National Union of Teachers (NUT) have called for a major campaign against the “damaging” literacy and numeracy checks for children at the start of reception.The union, which has a long standing opposition to primary school tests, seeks to disrupt voluntary pilots of the tests next year, including the possibility of industrial action.”Baseline” checks for reception-age children in England were announced by former education secretary Justine Greening last year as part of an overhaul of primary school testing which included a decision to scrap national curriculum tests – known as Sats – for seven-year-olds.During a debate at the NUT conference in Brighton, teachers raised concerns about the assessments, arguing that it would mean young children told they are “not good enough” within weeks of starting school. "I feel it's like Victorian times", a teacher told the conference “Learning through play, establishing routines. They will become data, that is what baseline testing is all about.”What we should be most angry about though is the damage these tests will do to children. I don’t need to explain it, you can imagine. Imagine being told at four that you are not good enough.”She added: “I talked about the future, but sometimes I feel it’s like Victorian times. We are teaching kids that are coming to school with empty stomachs.”We might not be beating them with sticks or canes or rulers, but we are beating them with high-stakes tests and a curriculum that is only about preparing them for high-stakes tests.”We are forcing them to slave away in exam factories, and we are making them wear metaphorical dunces’ hats.” Teachers are preparing to take industrial action in protest at “immoral” exams for four-year-olds Credit: SUZANNE PLUNKETT Teachers are preparing to take industrial action in protest at “immoral” exams for four-year-olds  The NUT passed a resolution to call for “a major campaign aimed at encouraging schools not to take part in the pilot of baseline assessment in September 2019, using industrial action if necessary”.Alex Kenny, of the union’s executive, urged members to consider the action they can take to prevent the checks taking place next year, with the union planning to produce information packs as well as model letters for parents, governors and teachers to say they do not want their school to take part.center_img “I feel it’s like Victorian times”, a teacher told the conference Proposing the motion, Katharine Lindenberg, a delegate from Waltham Forest, London, said: “Baseline tests will be given to four-year-olds in the first weeks of reception.”They are unnecessary, they are pointless, they are expensive and above all they are damaging, and they are immoral.”Four-year-olds, in the vital settling in period, will be sat in front of a screen answering literacy and maths questions. This is a time when children should be building their confidence, gaining trust with their teachers and support staff. “Baseline is voluntary, so through the strategy outlined here, we want to pile pressure on heads and governors to say that they won’t take part, they won’t volunteer to take part in baseline in 2019,” he said.”But if that pressure doesn’t work, we will combine it with ballots. We will conduct indicative ballots so that we can identify the schools and areas where we can use industrial action if heads say they will go ahead with the pilot.”Ministers have said the baseline check, which is due to be introduced nationally in 2020 following next year’s voluntary pilots, will be used as a marker of children’s abilities at the start of their schooling, and this information will be used to track and measure youngsters’ progress up until they leave primary school.A Department for Education spokeswoman said: “Tests and teacher assessments at primary school form a fundamental part of a child’s education, but they are not intended to hinder their development or cause undue stress. We trust teachers to administer tests in a way that does not put undue pressure on pupils.”The baseline assessment is not an accountability measure and won’t be published. It is purely to assess children’s starting point so that we can see how well schools help children to make progress during their time at primary school.” Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily  Front Page newsletter and new  audio briefings.last_img read more

YouTube stars KSI and Logan Paul draw in fight dubbed the biggest

The time 16-24 year-olds spend watching television each week plummeted by 12 per cent in 2017, while 16-34-year-olds now spend just under an hour a day watching YouTube, according to Ofcom.Nine out of 10 people aged between 12 and 15 also now use the platform.But critics have blasted the “grudge match” for setting a poor example to young people.On Saturday afternoon, as a blacked-out car approached the back entrance of the arena, teenagers were seen encouraging each other to shout “she’s a ho” if Mr Paul’s girlfriend Chloe Bennet, stepped out. Big hitters: Youtube stars KSI (left) and Logan Paul go face-to-face at the weigh-in for their boxing match at the Manchester ArenaCredit:YOUTUBE “If the only check is a button that can be clicked on by anyone whatever their age then we don’t consider this to be adequate protection,” the chief executive of children’s charity Kidscape Lauren Seager-Smith told the Telegraph.“What we are urging them to do is to find a balance between commercialism and child protection.”Additional reporting by Charles Hymas Youtube stars KSI (left) and Logan Paul Coral took more bets than in 90 per cent of yearly boxing bouts, following months of build-up, during which the pair traded blows like “your head is the size of a watermelon” and rapped insults at each other in “diss tracks”. Hardly anyone over the age of 30 was watching, but millions logged-in for the biggest amateur boxing match of all time at the Manchester Arena on Saturday evening. In a sign of how cultural power is shifting online, the battle was shown on YouTube rather than a major television channel.Young people holed themselves up in their bedrooms to watch the drama unfold on their phones and laptops, as televisions gathered dust and parents went about their business, oblivious.In what is being billed as “the biggest internet event in history”, YouTube stars Logan Paul and KSI – who have 37 million subscribers between them but no professional boxing experience and don’t work for traditional entertainment outlets – fought it out in the live-streamed event.The fight, to the immediate disappointment of some fans online, was declared a majority draw, after both men failed to land heavy blows over six rounds. KSI has also been heavily criticised in the past for making misogynistic comments about women in some of his videos.The platform has come under equal scrutiny for its failure to tighten its flimsy age-restriction measures for the 18+ event, despite the YouTube pair’s legion of young fans. Logan Paul in action against KSI Credit:TOM JACOBS/Reuters YouTube stars KSI and Logan Paul drew Show more Speaking after the fight, KSI, said: “There’s only one thing to do, a re-match”.The showdown was expected to make at least £115m thanks to a £7.50 pay-per-view charge.Some fans splurged hundreds on a ticket to see KSI (real name Olajide Olatunji), a 25-year-old Londoner who has rocketed to social media fame by recording himself playing video games tussle with the 23-year-old American “goof comedy” vlogger Paul. Earlier this year, half-a-million people signed a petition to get Paul banned from YouTube after he posted a video featuring footage of a dead body, while exploring Aokigahara forest, a notorious suicide spot in Japan.YouTube temporarily suspended Paul’s sponsored ads, and the star later posted a video apology and pledged $1m (£750,000) to suicide prevention charities.He has since posted videos in which he tasers dead rats and parachutes naked out of an aeroplane.“The companies making money out of this event are showing a complete lack of integrity and should cut all connections with him. YouTube’s association with Logan Paul is is hugely problematic,” said Chris McGovern, chairman of the pressure group, Campaign for Real Education. YouTube declined to comment on how much money it will generate from streaming the event.Paul and KSI, who already have a combined net worth of more than £15 million, will also take an undisclosed cut.It is not clear whether fans recording and streaming the match for free various on platforms and online channels – including on YouTube itself – will dent the number of paying viewers.A rematch in the United States is already slated for 2019.The fight reflects a dramatic shift in viewing habits, as young people move away from broadcast television and towards internet streaming, and Youtubers become household names to rival Hollywood stars amongst the young. Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily  Front Page newsletter and new  audio briefings. In a press conference attended by the two fighters in July, KSI made lewd comments about Ms Bennet, and also called Mr Paul’s father “disgusting”.   “Some of the abuse and gutter level chat in the build-up was disgraceful,” said James Mildred from the charity CARE.“It’s no exaggeration to say this event could well incite violence and poor behaviour as those watching copy what they see.”Questions have also been raised about YouTube’s decision to broadcast an event featuring the platform’s most controversial star. YouTube stars KSI and Logan Paul drewCredit:Tom Jacobs/Reuters Logan Paul in action against KSI  read more

Baby injured as shots fired through house window in Birmingham

“If anyone saw any suspicious activity in the area, I’d urge them to get in touch as soon as possible.” Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily  Front Page newsletter and new  audio briefings. A baby was rushed to hospital after bullets were fired through the windows of two properties in the early hours of this morning.Police were called to the Alum Rock area of Birmingham at 2.55am when a gunman shot at a property on Sandbourne Road.Five minutes later, shots were fired at a second house on nearby Fernbank Road.A dark vehicle was seen driving off from the scene.The baby suffered a minor injury from broken glass as the window shattered.Det Insp Richard Marsh of West Midlands Police said: “The investigation is at an early stage, but given how close the incidents were in time and location, we are linking them.“A young child has been injured as a result of the reckless discharge of a firearm, and we’re working hard to bring whoever was responsible to justice.“Gun crime is a priority for West Midlands Police and we continue to take dangerous weapons off the streets and put those involved in firearms behind bars.“We rely on the public’s support and I’d urge anyone who knows who was responsible for the shootings to consider the fact that a baby has been injured today.“Do the right thing and tell us what you know. read more

Universitys policy sparks backlash after saying  transgender people must be positively represented

Want the best of The Telegraph direct to your email and WhatsApp? Sign up to our free twice-daily  Front Page newsletter and new  audio briefings. A university’s transgender policy has sparked a backlash after saying that transgender people must be “positively represented” in discussions.Academics have said that the inclusion of such clauses “stifle debate”, as they warn against the “Orwellian” rules. Institutions have rushed to introduce specific “transgender policies” in recent years, often in addition to their existing equality and diversity policies. But there is concern among some professors that some of parts of these policies impede on free speech and create a “chilling effect” on campus.Sussex university includes a clause in its policy which say that “any materials within relevant courses and modules will positively represent trans people and trans lives”.Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor at Sussex and director of teaching at the university’s History, Art History and Philosophy department, said that this kind of clause is “repressive”.“Universities should have policies that protect employees and students from discrimination,” Prof Stock said.“But policies which say you must always ‘positively represent’ a group of people clearly overstep the boundary. These are not fit for purpose in allowing academics to explore issues responsibly.”She said that academics need to be able to discuss societal questions about how to balance rights of trans people and others like vulnerable women in prisons, hostels and rape crisis centres.“If we want to talk about those from an academic perspective, we have to be able to talk about criminality, mental illness and anything else,” she said.Prof Stock gave the example the incarceration of transgender women in the female women’s estate and failures in policy that led to the Karen White case.  The transgender prisoner Karen White, a convicted rapist and paedophile, was born a man but used a transgender persona to attack female prisoners in a women’s prison.The prison service has since apologised over failings in the case and last year White was jailed for life. “These sorts of attempts to control academic thought are repressive and illiberal, and they have a chilling effect,” Prof Stock said.Many universities – including Sussex – base their transgender policies on a template created by the sector organisation Advance HE, previously known as the Equality Challenge Unit, which states that courses should be checked to ensure they contain material “that positively represents trans people and trans lives”.  Michael Biggs, an associate professor of sociology at Oxford, said the positive representation clause is “outrageous”. “This is really Orwellian. Universities shouldn’t be imposing transgenderism any more than they impose radical feminism,” he said.Prof Biggs and fellow academics contacted Oxford’s pro vice-Chancellor for equality and diversity to raise their concerns about the university’s transgender policy which was introduced last year. “We said you need to put in something about academic freedom in the policy,” he said.Dr Jane Hamlin, president of The Beaumont Society, a transgender support group, said she did not believe such policies “harm debate or discussion”.She said: “Even if one is being critical it shouldn’t be about the person being transgender – clearly it depends more on the actions of the individual or the comments they have made.“Clearly if something is inappropriate that is reasonable to criticise the comment or the action, not the fact that it’s made by a trans person.”A University of Sussex spokesperson said: “Like a large number of universities, our trans and non-binary equality policy statement adopts best-practice guidance for the sector. We did this because we are committed to the inclusion of all our community. “This clause in our policy statement is not at all about closing down academic debate. On the contrary, it’s about making sure there is a balance and helping our students to look beyond stereotypical views or discussions. Allowing opposing views to be heard will always be encouraged at the University of Sussex.” read more

Ganja farms with 25000 plants destroyed Police

Twenty-five-thousand (25,000) plants, ranging in heights from one foot to five feet have been photographed and destroyed by fire along with two camps and in excess of one hundred kilograms of dried cannabis at locations in the Berbice river.Dried cannabisThis is according to a press statement from the Guyana Police Force, which said that officers on Friday conducted a drug eradication operation in “the Berbice River (DeVeldt and Tabali).”According to the police no arrests were made.However, it was outlined that investigators are currently in the process of tracing the ownership of the lands with a view of instituting changes. Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Related5 acres of cannabis cultivation, including 3 camps destroyed- PoliceDecember 1, 2018In “Crime”25,000 ganja plants destroyedJuly 11, 2019In “Crime”44 acres of Marijuana fields destroyed in BerbiceMay 3, 2014In “Crime” read more

GE geared solutions to drive mills at Alderon Kami

first_imgGE’s Power Conversion business was recently awarded a contract to supply equipment to drive Alderon Iron Ore Corp’s autogenous (AG) grinding mills and ball mills. GE was awarded the contract by the engineering, procurement and construction management firm, WorleyParsons Canada, to provide medium-voltage high-efficiency electrical motors, drives, transformers and switchgear as part of the long-lead items for Alderon’s Kami iron ore project in Western Labrador, Canada.“We chose GE’s Power Conversion business for this project based on its proven technology, technical expertise and acute business passion,” said WorleyParsons’ Project Manager. “GE offered us the advantage of a long history of reliable operation combined with the ability to integrate a complete solution, allowing us to operate more efficiently and cost-effectively.” GE Power Conversion’s solution consists of four low-speed synchronous (air-cooled) motors and MV7000 medium-voltage drives operating at 7,500 kW on a dual-pinion AG mill and a dual-pinion ball mill. Both the AG grinding and ball mill motors and drives are interchangeable, allowing for a common spare motor. GE’s solution for the Kami project is capable of reducing operating costs by supplying a reactive power pack to the electrical grid and compensating for reactive loads usually found at mine sites.“With close to 500 low-speed synchronous motors currently operating on grinding mills, the Kami project joins the extensive experience list of GE large capacity-geared mill applications in Latin America, Asia and North America over the past five years,” said Rob Freeman, Mining Commercial Leader, GE’s Power Conversion business. “For example, in 2010, GE received an order for the largest geared mill in operation worldwide at 17 MW, followed by another 17 MW order in 2011. Both of these projects, located in China, have been commissioned and have been operating reliably ever since.” GE Power Conversion’s unified MV7000 is a single-drive solution that covers a wide range of power from 3 to 100 MW and voltage from 3 to 10 kv. Power scalability is provided by adding insulated gate bipolar transistors (IGBT) in series, a GE Power Conversion patented technology, in order to increase voltage. This is enabled by press-pack technology in combination with NPP (neutral point piloted) topology, which can deliver a power density of up to 1.5 MVA/m3, considerably higher than most systems available today. The MV7000 drive units are therefore less complex, lighter and take up less space—a key advantage on rigs, shipping and existing plants where space is at a premium and weight carries a costly penalty. Reliability is crucial, especially in the harshest of working environments, whether it is offshore drilling platforms, gas compression trains or heavy steel rolling mills. Downtime or lack of availability costs money. With only 18 press pack injection-enhanced IGBTs, the MV7000 design shows a “reliability-by-design” philosophy.The Kami project, owned 75% by Alderon and 25% by Hebei Iron & Steel (HBIS) through The Kami Mine Ltd Partnership, is located within Canada’s premier iron ore district and is surrounded by four producing iron ore mines. Its port handling facilities are located in Sept-Iles, the leading iron ore port in North America. The Alderon team is comprised of skilled professionals with significant iron ore expertise to advance Kami towards production. HBIS is Alderon’s strategic partner in the development of the Kami Project and China’s largest steel producer.last_img read more