BREAKING NEWS — The 49ers are pretty good this season.You knew that. But did you know why?The net passing yards per pass play metric, Gomer.Just as mountaineers have an innate desire to climb the next peak, just as sprinters train for months to shave a quarter-second off their time, just as barrel jumpers obsess over the 15th vessel… … so statisticians endeavor to prove what has been proven beyond all doubt in new, various and sundry manners.On Tuesday, Michael Salfino and …
Ethicists are becoming alarmed at the explosive increase in scientific fraud cases – and those are just the ones that were caught.Fraud on the RiseIt’s a truism that scientific research requires honesty (as with any intellectual endeavor). For some reason, fraud cases have increased dramatically. Is it due to better detection and reporting, or to a disturbing trend that no longer values honesty in academia? Some recent articles weigh in on the problem.In Nature News Oct 1, an article headlined, “Misconduct is the main cause of life-sciences retractions.” That’s misconduct in contrast to slipshod error, as Zoe Corbyn expressed:Conventional wisdom says that most retractions of papers in scientific journals are triggered by unintentional errors. Not so, according to one of the largest-ever studies of retractions. A survey published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that two-thirds of retracted life-sciences papers were stricken from the scientific record because of misconduct such as fraud or suspected fraud — and that journals sometimes soft-pedal the reason.Results of the survey were published in PNAS (Fang, Steen and Casadevall, “Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications,” PNAS October 1, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109). Of the 2,047 retracted papers surveyed, 43% were fraud cases and 24% were due to either duplicate publication or plagiarism. And this was from leading journals, including Nature, Science, and PNAS itself. Only a fifth, Science Insider said, were due to mistakes. Science Magazine (Random Sample, Oct 5) noted that while plagiarism predominated in China, fraud predominated in the United States. New Scientist said these numbers were “higher than thought.” The Scientist speculated about the reasons:The disproportionate number of fraud-related retractions from high-IF journals likely reflects the pressures on scientists to publish impressive data in prestigious journals. “There’s greater reward,” said Resnik, “and more temptation to bend the rules.”But lots of people work under stress without bending the rules, and temptations hit everyone. Scientists are supposed to be models of integrity, aren’t they? Whatever the reason, research misconduct is not a victimless crime. One of the ethicists conducting the survey wanted to “dispel any notion that scientific misconduct may be a crime that only affects the perpetrators.” Scientists often publish on issues society really cares about.Science Insider tried to whitewash the problem with statistics:Although retractions are on the rise, they remain relatively rare in science. Well under 0.1% of papers in PubMed have been retracted, the study found; the database contains more than 25 million papers going back to the 1940s.The problem with that analysis is that nobody knows how many papers should have been retracted but were never exposed for fraud, error, or misconduct. That’s not just an idle concern. “What’s troubling is that the more skillful the fraud, the less likely that it will be discovered, so there likely are more fraudulent papers out there that haven’t yet been detected and retracted,” said Dr. Arturo Casadevall, lead author of the paper (quoted in Science Daily). And then there’s the question, why are retractions on the rise? Why now?Science Daily listed Casadevall’s suggestions for improvement: such as, more emphasis on quality over quantity, less rating for impact, more cooperation and collaboration, and better funding processes. These would undoubtedly help, but one can imagine whole groups conspiring to commit fraud if honesty is not valued.Shocking Self-PromotionThe Scientist uncovered another trend in fraud: self-congratulation. Some scientists are logging in under another name and writing great reviews of their own work.At least four scientists have been cheating the peer review system in a whole new way: when submitting a paper to a scientific journal, they suggest reviewers with email addresses that track back to themselves; then they write a glowing review…. “I find it very shocking,” Laura Schmidt, an Elsevier publisher, told The Chronicle. “It’s very serious, very manipulative, and very deliberate.” ….This “has taken a lot of people by surprise,” Irene Hames, a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics that advises journals on how to handle misconduct, said in an e-mail to The Chronicle. “It should be a wake-up call to any journals that don’t have rigorous reviewer selection and screening in place.”Psychologist, Shrink ThyselfAs reported earlier, some high-profile cases of fraud have come from the psychologist community. Now, according to Nature News, Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman is calling on them to clean up their act. He wants them “to restore the credibility of their field by creating a replication ring to check each others’ results.” He told them in an email, “your field is now the poster child for doubts about the integrity of psychological research. I believe that you should collectively do something about this mess.”Diederich Stapel, one of the poster children for psychology fraud, is now under investigation by Dutch prosecutors, according to Science Now. 25 of his papers have been retracted and others are being considered for retraction. He had received 2.2 million euros in research funding. Other high-profile cases include Dirk Smeesters (7/05/2012), Lawrence Sanna, and Marc Hauser (9/05/2012)Kahneman proposed a “daisy chain of replication” to avoid unverified results. Norbert Schwarz, a social psychologist from U of Michigan, agrees something must be done. “I hope that this becomes part of a broader movement in psychology to be more self-critical, and to see if there are gaps in the way we do everyday science.”Sleeping at the SyringeAnother shocking fraud case was by an anesthesiologist, Yoshitaka Fujii in Tokyo. David Cyranoski wrote in Nature News, “Retraction record rocks community: Anaesthesiology tries to move on after fraud investigations.” This is not one person’s problem, Cyranoski showed:One of the biggest purges of the scientific literature in history is finally getting under way. After more than a decade of suspicion about the work of anaesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii, formerly of Toho University in Tokyo, investigations by journals and universities have concluded that he fabricated data on an epic scale. At least half of the roughly 200 papers he authored on responses to drugs after surgery are in line for retraction in the coming months.Like many cases of fraud, this one has raised questions about how the misconduct went undetected for so long. But the scope and duration of Fujii’s deception have shaken multiple journals and the entire field of anaesthesiology, which has seen other high-profile frauds in the past few years.Unquestionably, this could be serious. Fraudulent claims about drugs could conceivably reach right into the hospital where your loved one is trusting the doctor’s advice on medication. Suspicions arose about Fujii when he published more papers than seemed possible in the amount of time, and they looked “too perfect.” By spreading his publications out in multiple journals, he avoided some of the suspicion. Another trick, since he worked for five institutions, was to claim that ethics approval for studies had been granted at a previous post.While Fujii’s is an exceptional case, colleagues are worried about their field. One who suspected the fraud doesn’t want to write off Fujii as merely a bad apple. “It’s a system failure,” he said. Indeed, if peer review and replication are not working, the vaunted “self-correcting” quality of scientific research is compromised.AssessmentPerhaps no other field of scholarly activity generates as much writing as science – publications that are supposed to be peer reviewed, inspected, and replicated. Thousands of titles are printed and posted every week by labs all over the world. For the self-checking processes of science to work, fellow scientists would have to spend vast amounts of their time replicating other scientists’ results. How could they? Even if they could, they might be motivated by rivalry or the desire for approval from superiors. Some research is clearly too difficult to replicate: how many countries can build a Large hadron Collider to look for the Higgs boson? Much work is not reproducible without great effort or luck, like snapping a photo of an Ivory woodpecker.Peer review and replication remain idealistic in principle but too often unattainable in practice. Consequently, vast numbers of scientific papers slide through the process without adequate review, attaining the illusion of validity in the public’s eye. When fraud is caught, it’s often long after the damage has been done. The Scientist gave the example of the measles epidemic that resulted when parents feared, based on a fraudulent study, that inoculations caused autism.While it may be encouraging to see rising concern over scientific fraud and misconduct, who’s watching the watchers? Somebody, somewhere, has to abide by some pretty old-fashioned values: courage and integrity.Integrity: evolve that, Darwin. Rule: if it evolves, it’s not integrity.In the article on Marc Hauser (9/05/2012), we made the point that evolutionary materialists really have nothing to complain about. Cheating is part of evolutionary game theory. Cheaters are necessary to produce the evolution of morality; Hauser himself taught that in his own book, and his colleagues all agree. How can they fault him for living consistent with his own views? He was performing a necessary role. For those who take this view of morality, all the cheaters mentioned in this article should get rewards.Critics might respond that misconduct is rife in churches, too. It’s true. From time to time, high-profile pastors get exposed for sexual misconduct. Some preachers plagiarize others’ work by downloading sermons and preaching them as if their own. Yes, there are sinners in the church!The difference is that the Biblical worldview accounts for sin; evolution does not. Bible believers know that God is holy, but humans are fallen. While the Bible teaches that we are each responsible for our sin, and have no excuse, we all sin. The history of sinners, even among great men like King David, is long; even the most righteous among us knows temptation and stumbling. But the Bible is also a story of redemption. Christ came into the world to save sinners (Romans 5:6-11). Accepting his gift of righteousness, purchased by his death on the cross, provides imputed (legal) righteousness before God, but practical righteousness only over time. The Christian life is a long process of sanctification that will not be completed in this lifetime. Christ founded the church (Matthew 16:13-19) as a community of disciples who would encourage and admonish each other toward righteousness (Colossians 3), with godly leaders teaching and applying His inspired Word (I Peter 5), which is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (I Timothy 3:16).The point is that the Biblical worldview accounts for sin and has means for dealing with it. The more a church maintains high standards, is aware of sources of temptation, has policies for transparency and accountability, the less likely major cases of misconduct will appear. Nevertheless, because of our fallenness and ever-present temptation, some will stumble and fall into sin. When it happens, there are Biblical policies for dealing with it (e.g., Matthew 18), and redemptive policies for rehabilitating the sinner (II Corinthians 2:3-7).The secular scientific community, by contrast, pretends shock and dismay over the misconduct of their members, but cannot account for why the misconduct is wrong. There is no “should” in evolutionary theory. They can’t say stuff should happen, and other stuff should not happen; they can only say stuff happens.The only way secularists can set up ethics boards, policies and procedures, and investigate and punish misconduct is to borrow from Judeo-Christian moral principles. They have to steal from the smorgasbord of Christian values. This means they have to commit misconduct (plagiarism and theft) to fight misconduct! Reaching into their own beliefs, they have no grounds for calling anything of the above incidents wrong. It’s all evolutionary games; it just happens, like hyenas sneaking in bites at the lion’s catch. Conceivably, a new power could evolve that would make right wrong and wrong right. Ethics boards in an evolutionary future might punish the honest folks and reward the cheats. (Wait; that’s already happened—e.g., in communist countries built on Darwinian “ethics”.)We shouldn’t let the Casadevalls, Schmidts and Kahnemans of the secular science community pretend righteous indignation when, to the scientific consensus, righteousness evolved by an amoral, aimless process of natural selection (9/12/2012). Only those whose worldview can ground righteousness in timeless, unchanging attributes of a righteous Creator have the justification for righteous indignation. This means that only Bible believers are qualified to rise up and demand honesty and integrity from scientists. Let them do their duty with all diligence, considering themselves, lest they also be tempted (Galatians 6:1-5).(Visited 52 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Brand South Africa has found an inspiring new way to get South Africans thinking about what they will be celebrating this coming Freedom Day on 27 April. Click arrow to play video.
Good product but could be cheaper. But wish i’d gone to primark, they are way cheaper there. Great item for the perfect bun thank you. I mean is supposed to be the third biggest one but it looks more like the second one. I must say i bought the large one, aaaaaaaand, wow, is small. I mean is supposed to be the third biggest one but it looks more like the second one. Also, i asked for brown and i received black. These make doing your hair really easy. Great product at great price. Fast delivery and exactly what i needed to make a bun – am able to style as messy bun or elegant bun. Great product for great price. Good product, but i get the impression from both. Good product, but i get the impression from both my own order and other reviews that it’s a waste of time selecting a size, you’ll get the same regardless (medium). Ideal for purpose bought for. I’ve been wearing it everyday for work and it’s not become ragged or stretched quickly like others i’ve used. Does what it says on the tin. I’ve been wearing it everyday for work and it’s not become ragged or stretched quickly like others i’ve used. Arrived after a good few days but worth it. Arrived before the expected delivery date. Really eally easy to use and works well. There are small visual instructions on the product label and loads of videos on youtube to show how to use them. I got mine right on the second try, very happy :). Good product but could be cheaperI mean is supposed to be the third biggest one but it looks more like the second oneI’ve been wearing it everyday for work and it’s not become ragged or stretched quickly like others I’ve usedgood product, but I get the impression from both Great product at great priceFashion Hair Doughnut Bun Ring Donut
SHANGHAI (AP) — Third seed Daniil Medvedev flexed his muscles on Saturday to reach a final for the sixth consecutive time at the Shanghai Masters.The confident Russian, through to his ninth final of the year, outlasted sixth seed Stefanos Tsitsipas of Greece 7-6 (5), 7-5.Medvedev has won a tour-best 58 matches this season, 43 in straight sets. He has yet to drop a set this week.He next meets fifth seed Alexander Zverev of Germany or 11th seed Matteo Berrettini of Italy.The younger generation took over the semifinals. Medvedev and Berrettini are 23, Tsitsipas is 21 and Zverev is 22.Stefanos Tsitsipas of Greece reacts as he plays against Daniil Medvedev of Russia in their men’s singles semifinals match at the Shanghai Masters tennis tournament at Qizhong Forest Sports City Tennis Center in Shanghai, China, Saturday, Oct. 12, 2019. (AP Photo/Andy Wong)It is the first time an ATP Masters 1000-level tournament has had four semifinalists 23 and under since Carlos Moya (22), Mariano Zabaleta (21), Nicolas Lapentti (22) and Marcelo Rios (23) reached the last four in Hamburg in 1999.Medvedev is 28-3 in matches played since the summer hard court swing started after Wimbledon.Of the six finals he has now reached in that period, he has won two titles, in Cincinnati and St. Petersburg. He also made his first Grand Slam final at the U.S. Open, where he lost to Rafael Nadal.Tsitsipas, who will play at the year-end ATP Finals in London for the first time in November, has yet to beat Medvedev in five matches.By SANDRA HARWITTTweetPinShare0 Shares
“We’re very happy to have come to a negotiated agreement with Amazon Music and to see them enter Canada with Amazon Music Unlimited. Amazon Music and its entry will benefit both Canadian consumers and the rightsholders that we serve by offering a new point of sale and a new source of revenue for music publishers and their songwriters,” CMRRA President Caroline Rioux said.Amazon announced yesterday the launch of Amazon Music Unlimited for Canada, bringing customers a catalogue of millions of songs and thousands of playlists and personalized stations, combined with the magic of voice controls powered by Alexa. Terms of the deal are not being disclosed, but the rates apply to the reproduction of songs on Amazon Music Unlimited, which will now be available throughout Canada for the first time. Advertisement Login/Register With: LEAVE A REPLY Cancel replyLog in to leave a comment Advertisement Advertisement TORONTO – Canada’s leading reproduction rights collective welcomes Amazon Music and yesterday’s launch of its premium music streaming service, Amazon Music Unlimited, to Canada. The Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd. (CMRRA) has reached a licensing agreement with Amazon Music to ensure that its music publisher and rightsholder clients, which together represent more than 80,000 music catalogues, will receive royalties for the use of their works on the service. To learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited visit amazon.ca/music/unlimited.“CMRRA is constantly working with our licensees to create solutions to make it easier for services to come to Canadaand to provide for compensation for our valued music publisher clients,” CMRRA Vice President, Legal and Business Affairs, Veronica Syrtash said.CMRRA has taken the lead in national rate-setting efforts before the Copyright Board of Canada, as well as directly through negotiations with licensees. The organization’s work is responsible for the important flow of digital royalties paid to all publishers and songwriters. On behalf of its music publisher clients, CMRRA issues licenses and collects royalties for the reproduction of musical works. Licensees pay royalties to CMRRA, which in turn distributes the royalties to its music publisher clients on a quarterly basis.“CMRRA has established itself as a vital resource for music publishers to manage their mechanical royalties in Canada,” said Neville Quinlan, chairman of SXWorks’ Canadian Publishers Committee and managing director of peermusic Canada. “This licensing agreement underscores CMRRA’s commitment to advocating for music publishers and self-published songwriters.”CMRRA also collects publishing royalties from dozens of other digital companies, such as Apple, Google and Spotify.About CMRRA and SXWorksSXWorks provides global administration services to music publishers to support multiple licensing configurations. SXWorks, a subsidiary of SoundExchange, is governed by a board consisting of leading music publishers and SoundExchange executives. SXWorks was created in conjunction with the 2017 acquisition of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd. (CMRRA). CMRRA represents the mechanical rights of music publishers and administers the majority of songs recorded, sold and broadcast in Canada. For more information, visit http://sx-works.com/ and http://www.cmrra.ca. Facebook Twitter
MOSCOW — Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are without heating at a time when temperatures are plunging due a long-standing dispute between the national gas company and regional utility providers.Residents in Kryvy Rih, a city of 600,000 in Ukraine’s south-east, on Monday seized the building of the local gas company demanding that the heating be turned on. Temperatures are below zero at night in the area. In the town of Smila, in central Ukraine, residents on Tuesday blocked roads leading into town, demanding that authorities provide heating.Opposition lawmaker Oleh Lyashko said last week that at least six towns with a combined population over 1 million remain without heating.The troubles with central heating come after national gas company Naftagaz raised gas prices that some struggling municipalities said were impossibly high for them to pay. Naftagaz has said it will resume supply to utilities companies and powers stations only after they clear the debts or pay for supplies in advance.Ukraine is struggling with a flagging economy and a separatist conflict in the east which is weighing down on the nation’s finances. One of the conditions for the International Monetary Fund to continue providing Ukraine with loans was to increase gas prices by 23 per cent starting Nov. 1. Bills for hot water and heating are expected to increase by another 15 per cent on Dec. 1.The Ukrainian government stopped buying gas from Russia following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, citing unreasonably high prices. As a result Ukraine started to buy gas from European companies, some of which resell the gas they buy from Russia.The Associated Press
Rabat- Morocco and Portugal have agreed to set up a task force in charge of creating new mechanisms for promoting investment in Africa, announced, Tuesday in Rabat, Foreign Minister, Salaheddine Mezouar.“We have agreed to create a task force to strengthen our relations with African partners and to establish new mechanisms to promote investment in Africa, said minister Mezouar during a press briefing following a meeting with his Portuguese counterpart, Rui Machete.For his part, the head of the Portuguese diplomacy said the meeting focused on the development of new markets for investment, as well as ways to further strengthen bilateral cooperation. “We have discussed a number of issues at the regional and international levels,” as well as “various aspects of our bilateral cooperation and ways to develop them,” said Rui, who started on Monday a two-day official visit to Morocco.
CARMELO is back! As my colleague Nate Silver detailed Thursday, we’re issuing our second set of NBA player career forecasts; you can find the latest batch of projections here. For those unfamiliar with CARMELO,1Which, as a complete coincidence, stands for Career-Arc Regression Model Estimator with Local Optimization. it’s an algorithm that uses the career arcs of similar historical players to predict what’s in store for today’s stars, journeymen and scrubs.I want to dig into what CARMELO predicts for 2016-17, but first let’s look back at the best — and worst — moments of the projection’s rookie season. To help isolate its biggest hits and misses, I gathered wins above replacement2WAR can be calculated by multiplying a player’s Box Plus/Minus by the percentage of his team’s minutes he played and then multiplying that by 2.2. data for the 435 players who both played in the NBA in 2015-16 and were issued a CARMELO forecast last fall. Here’s a simple histogram of the differences in WAR between what was predicted and what transpired on the court: Kawhi LeonardSF2515.810.55.010.8 Marcus SmartPG18.104.22.168.3 R. Westbrook27OKC2449+7.312.72750+10.018.3+5.6 Kyle LowryPG3014.59.43.810.8 Anthony Davis22NO2568+6.311.82164+2.25.1-6.7 What CARMELO got wrong in 2015-16 K. Towns20MIN1859-0.21.82627+2.86.8+5.0 James HardenSG2719.514.28.011.6 M. Smart2.55.1+2.6K. Durant14.110.9-3.2 Russell WestbrookPG2822.214.171.124.8 Paul George25IND2074+2.45.12819+4.510.1+5.0 Marcin Gortat31WSH1889+1.63.82256+1.24.0+0.2 Chris PaulPG3114.910.33.411.5 T. Evans1.63.8+2.2C. Paul13.110.3-2.9 Anthony DavisPF23126.96.36.199.8 That’s a pretty good list! Nic Batum, for instance, was coming off of a down year by the conventional metrics, but CARMELO predicted he’d bounce back to something more like his old form. It also predicted that Tim Duncan, at age 39, would play at a high level, and that lottery pick Frank Kaminsky would underwhelm.So, now that we’ve assessed CARMELO’s debut season, what can it tell us going forward? Here are the players our system thinks will see the biggest improvements (or declines) by WAR in 2016-17: PLAYERAGETMMINUTES+/-WARMINUTES+/-WARDIFF Draymond GreenPF26188.8.131.520.2 Nicolas Batum27CHA2435+2.05.42448+2.05.5+0.1 Patrick Patterson26TOR1841+1.53.62020+1.03.3-0.3 DeAndre JordanC2813.98.02.911.0 Draymond Green25GS2189+4.68.02808+5.812.1+4.1 Lavoy Allen26IND1201+0.31.51599-0.61.3-0.2 Among players who were issued a forecast and played in the NBA in 2015-16.Source: Basketball-Reference.com Luis Scola35TOR1052-1.30.41636-1.20.7+0.3 Stephen CurryPG2820.5184.108.40.206 Marvin Williams29CHA1568+0.01.82338+2.75.9+4.2 Kemba WalkerPG26220.127.116.11.6 FORECASTACTUAL What CARMELO got less wrong in 2015-16 Arron Afflalo30NY1952-2.5-0.52371-2.4-0.4+0.1 By WAR, the biggest miss on CARMELO’s résumé was also the game’s biggest star: Stephen Curry. It wasn’t that the algorithm thought Curry would be bad — CARMELO predicted that he’d be the game’s most valuable player in 2015-16 — but the projection didn’t foresee the quantum leap his game would take the season after he’d already established himself as league MVP. Outlier performances are outliers for a reason; most players would regress to the mean after posting one of the top 50 seasons in modern NBA history, not one-up themselves with a campaign ranking in the top 10. Obviously, Curry isn’t “most players.”Similarly, CARMELO knew Kyle Lowry and Russell Westbrook were good, but it didn’t bank on them being quite so good. The numbers also didn’t see Kemba Walker’s breakout performance coming, or that Karl-Anthony Towns would be one of the best rookies in modern history. And it was taken completely by surprise when Anthony Davis — CARMELO’s pick as the game’s most valuable franchise player — turned in a historically disappointing season.Davis, who was less than 100 percent for much of the season, brings us to the bumps and bruises — or worse — that players have to deal with. Injuries are notoriously difficult to predict, and since playing time and performance are so fundamentally intertwined, many of the players on the list above saw various ailments rob them of both minutes and per-minute production. Joakim Noah and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, for instance, missed most of the season with injuries, and they weren’t themselves when they did suit up.And it goes without saying that CARMELO knows little about the personal-life problems of mere humans. That’s why it — like me — was so utterly, woefully wrong about Ty Lawson’s disastrous 2015-16 season.Things weren’t all bad for CARMELO’s inaugural season, though. Here are the players — among those who played at least 1,500 minutes — for whom the projected WAR totals most closely matched the player’s output in 2015-16: Frank Kaminsky22CHA1272-1.40.41708-1.20.7+0.2 FORECASTACTUAL Jimmy Butler26CHI2688+3.68.32474+4.08.1-0.2 Goran Dragic29MIA2169+1.13.72363+0.73.5-0.2 About 55 percent of the players finished with a WAR total within a win (plus or minus) of what CARMELO predicted; that grows to 80 percent if we look for players who fell within two wins of their WAR forecast. It’s tough to say how that compares to other projection systems, since there aren’t many alternatives available in the public domain, but in a vacuum that doesn’t seem like an awful rookie showing, particularly since CARMELO’s errors appear to be roughly symmetrical along the shape of a bell curve — meaning it isn’t systematically biased toward over- or undervaluing players.CARMELO wasn’t perfect, though. Here were its biggest misses, high and low, of 2015-16: BIGGEST IMPROVEMENTSBIGGEST DECLINES D. Russell0.32.7+2.5R. Westbrook18.315.2-3.1 Jae Crowder25BOS1364+0.51.92308+2.86.2+4.3 Since CARMELO uses previous seasons to inform its projections, along with a heavy dose of regression to the mean, there’s some crossover between the lists of its 2015-16 misses and its 2016-17 improvements or declines. Curry, Lowry and company can’t possibly be that dominant two years in a row, right? We’ll see; projection systems are conservative by nature, always abiding by the law of averages, and an explosive individual performance represents a rebellion against that law. Maybe some of the names on the right-hand list will buck the odds and make history again; maybe they won’t. The left-hand list, however, is the one to keep an eye on — these are largely young players the projection expects to make big improvements, as well as a few veterans (Davis, Blake Griffin, Tyreke Evans) that it expects to bounce back.On that note, here’s a list based on pure volatility — the players for whom CARMELO projects the biggest range between what could reasonably be termed their best-case (90th percentile) and worst-case (10th percentile) outcomes next season: Karl-Anthony TownsC218.104.22.1680.4 Kemba Walker25CHA2452+1.34.42885+4.09.7+5.2 Blake Griffin26LAC2581+3.98.51170+3.33.5-5.0 D. Cunningham28NO1360-1.20.61971-1.20.9+0.2 CARMELO’s most volatile players of 2016-17 WAR CARMELO’s most (and least) improved players for 2016-17 Tim Duncan39SA1652+3.55.11536+4.15.3+0.2 Among players who were issued a forecast and played 1,500 NBA minutes in 2015-16.Source: Basketball-Reference.com Tyson Chandler33PHX2045+3.25.91618-0.51.3-4.6 Kyle Lowry29TOR2307+3.57.02851+6.813.9+6.8 Kyrie Irving23CLE2743+3.38.01667+1.63.3-4.7 Jeff Teague27ATL2072+0.52.82255+0.32.9+0.0 A. Davis5.08.8+3.7S. Curry21.716.1-5.6 Kristaps PorzingisPF222.214.171.124.5 Brandon Knight24PHX2337-0.61.81870-0.31.8-0.1 Dwight Howard30HOU1920+1.13.32280+0.63.3+0.0 PLAYERPOSITIONAGEBEST CASEMEANWORST CASERANGE (+/-) B. Griffin3.45.9+2.4K. Leonard13.610.5-3.1 Andre Iguodala32GS1735+1.93.71732+1.63.5-0.2 PLAYER2016 WAR2017 WARCHANGEPLAYER2016 WAR2017 WARCHANGE Among players who will not be rookies in 2016-17. E. Mudiay-2.6-0.3+2.4P. George10.17.2-2.9 E. Payton0.83.4+2.6A. Horford8.95.7-3.2 Damian LillardPG26126.96.36.1991.1 Shane Larkin23BKN1654-2.1-0.11751-2.2-0.2-0.2 Joakim Noah30CHI2160+3.06.0635+1.91.3-4.7 K. Irving3.36.2+2.8K. Lowry13.99.4-4.5 Naturally, young players such as Towns, Davis, Kristaps Porzingis and No. 1 draft pick Ben Simmons will have wider variation in potential outcomes because we have less of a sample from which to draw their projections. But some veterans are also highly volatile because their comparable-player lists contain both stars and duds. From here out, James Harden could have the career arc of a Kobe Bryant (who stuck around in the league forever) or a Steve Francis (who was great early in his career but was out of the league by age 31).That’s the beauty of the NBA — we never truly know what will happen. But with CARMELO’s help, we have a slightly better idea than we would otherwise.Check out FiveThirtyEight’s CARMELO NBA player projections. John WallPG2613.28.02.610.7 M. Kidd-Gilchrist22CHA2260+1.54.4205-1.40.0-4.4 Jerami Grant21PHI1656-0.71.22066-1.30.9-0.3 A. Wiggins-0.22.6+2.8P. Millsap10.77.3-3.4 Gordon HaywardSF2611.26.82.09.2 T.J. McConnell23PHI387-2.8-0.21606-2.10.0+0.2 Jimmy ButlerSG27188.8.131.52.2 LeBron JamesSF3216.3184.108.40.206 K. Porzingis2.45.5+3.1L. James16.711.5-5.2 Elfrid Payton21ORL2404+2.35.72145-1.30.9-4.8 PLAYERAGETEAMMINUTES+/-WARMINUTES+/-WARDIFF Ty Lawson28—2442+1.34.41411-4.6-2.0-6.4 Al Horford29ATL2063+2.34.92631+4.19.0+4.1 Enes Kanter23OKC1824-2.00.01721-1.70.2+0.2 Paul Millsap30ATL2149+3.26.22647+5.310.8+4.6 Markieff Morris26—2073+1.13.61629-2.8-0.7-4.3 Ben SimmonsPF209.14.1-0.19.2 Paul MillsapPF3112.27.33.09.1 Derrick Favors24UTA2195+2.35.31983+2.75.1-0.2 Stephen Curry27GS2608+8.214.72700+12.521.6+6.8
Junior left fielder Ronnie Dawson (4) takes a swing during a game against Bethune-Cookman. Credit: Giustino Bovenzi | Lantern reporterThe Ohio State baseball team swept the Bethune-Cookman Wildcats over the course of the weekend, extending the Buckeyes’ season-high winning streak to seven games. The Scarlet and Gray (19-7-1) were powered by strong pitching from junior lefty Tanner Tully in the series-opening 6-2 win, a career day from senior shortstop Craig Nennig during Saturday’s 11-2 victory, and an overpowering 15 hits for a 13-5 win on Sunday.OSU has been red hot, winning 12 of its last 13 games dating back to the 8-7 win over UNLV in Las Vegas on March 15. OSU coach Greg Beals said he really likes what he’s seen from his team over that stretch of play. “The key today was getting a win and finishing out the home stretch in a very good fashion,” Beals said. “A good ball club needs to take care of business at home, and now we need to go on the road and keep the win streak alive.”Game 1 Tully set the tone early for the Buckeyes, overpowering the Wildcats throughout his career-high 8.0 innings of work on a blustery day in Columbus. The Buckeye offense broke through in the fifth inning with three runs to provide Tully with all the run support he needed to earn his fourth win of the season. Tully (4-1) struck out three, walked one and only allowed two runs in his seventh appearance of the year, lowering his ERA to 2.53.Beals said Tully’s performance was big for OSU because it allowed the bullpen to remain fresh for the rest of the series after being used heavily in the two midweek games against the Ohio Bobcats and Toledo Rockets. The Buckeyes were led offensively by junior catcher Jalen Washington and junior center fielder Troy Montgomery. Washington went 2-for-4 with an RBI and run scored and Montgomery went 1-for-4 with an RBI double, two stolen bases and a run scored in the game.Game 2 The weather played a huge role in the second game of the series, seeing sunshine, rain, snow and heavy winds that eclipsed 30 miles an hour. But Nennig wouldn’t let the bad weather hold the Buckeyes back as the Wrightstown, Wisconsin, native had a career day at the plate. Nennig went 3-for-4, including a three-run home run in the second inning to get the party started for the Buckeyes. His six RBIs accounted for more than half of OSU’s runs in the 11-2 victory. He fell a double short of hitting for the cycle. Senior pitcher Daulton Mosbarger picked up his first win of the season after his 2.2 innings of scoreless work. Redshirt sophomore pitcher Adam Niemeyer, who started the game for OSU, earned a no-decision for the fourth time this year after leaving the game in the fifth inning after pulling his hamstring, Beals said. With the weather being the way it was, Beals said the coaches “just didn’t want to push it at all.”“Hopefully it’s not too bad and (Niemeyer) is able to take his start next weekend,” he said. Game 3OSU continued to pour it on in the final game of the series, pounding Bethune-Cookman for 15 hits en route to the 13-5 victory. Senior pitcher John Havird (2-1) picked up the win for OSU after allowing two runs on four hits and a walk during his 5.0 innings of work. OSU’s offense across the board had a stellar day. Eight of the nine starters recorded a hit. But redshirt junior right fielder Jacob Bosiokovic and senior second baseman L Grant Davis perhaps had the best outings for the Scarlet and Gray. Bosiokovic went 3-for-4, including his Big Ten-leading ninth home run of the season. Davis went 2-for-5 with a career-high 4 RBIs, three of which came on a bases-clearing double in the fourth inning. Even though OSU put up 30 runs over the weekend, Davis said the Buckeyes still haven’t reached their true potential.“We haven’t really been clicking as a lineup, as a whole,” Davis said. “There’s been certain parts that have been picking each other up throughout each game. I think that if we can figure it out, in terms of getting everyone clicking and everyone putting good swings on the ball, it’s very, very scary what this team is capable of.”OSU is next scheduled to head to Kent, Ohio, on Tuesday for a matchup with Kent State. It begins a four-game road swing that ends with three games over the weekend against the Maryland Terrapins from Friday through Sunday. Edward Sutelan contributed to this story.