In the first live Glastonbury album of its kind, world-famous musicians will collaborate with the world’s best-loved festival and Oxfam to Stand As One with people forced to flee con-flict, disaster and poverty.Artists including Coldplay, Muse and Foals will contribute a song recorded during their forthcoming Glastonbury sets to Oxfam Presents: Stand As One – Live at Glastonbury 2016, a special live album in support of Oxfam’s work with refugees worldwide.The album is dedicated to the memory of Jo Cox, MP, a former Oxfam activist, who campaigned tirelessly for refugees.“We are making this special live album from Glastonbury this summer because the scale of the refugee crisis is so huge we simply had to do something,” said Glastonbury co-organiser Emily Eavis. “We want people who are far from home and frightened to know we are doing whatever we can to help. To know the artists who play here are doing whatever they can. To know the people who love their music are doing whatever they can. Now it’s time for world leaders to do the same. All of us – Glastonbury, Oxfam, musicians and music-lovers everywhere must Stand As One to demand action for refugees.”Coldplay said “Right now there are more refugees in the world than at any other time in re-cent history. They could be us and we could be them. The good news is: we can all help.” Sigur Rós, The Last Shadow Puppets, Chvrches, Wolf Alice, Laura Mvula, Jamie Lawson, John Grant, Jack Garratt, Two Door Cinema Club, The 1975, Editors, Years & Years and Fatboy Slim are also confirmed for the album, with more expected to join.The world is in the middle of the most serious refugee crisis since the Second World War. More than 65 million people have been forced to flee their homes by brutal conflict and violence, millions more by natural disaster and poverty.The crisis has prompted the biggest humanitarian response in Oxfam’s history with the international agency delivering aid to almost nine million people last year -the vast majority of whom were fleeing conflict and disaster.The album is part of Oxfam’s new campaign, to put pressure on world leaders to welcome more refugees, to prevent families from being separated and to keep people fleeing their homes safe from harm.Ahead of two major summits on the global refugee and migration crisis in New York in September, Oxfam is calling on governments to do everything in their power to help and protect people on the move, and for the UK to play a lead role in making this happen.Pre-order the album Oxfam Presents: Stand as One – Live at Glastonbury 2016 here. Profits from the album will go to Oxfam’s Refugee Crisis Appeal.Mark Goldring, Oxfam GB Chief Executive said, “We are very grateful to Glastonbury for bringing the weight of the music world in support of people in desperate need. I urge people to stand as one with the millions forced to flee and add their voices to some of the most famous voices in the world – buy the album, sign our petition, and make world leaders meeting in New York in September listen. Given Jo’s tireless work to help refugees both at Oxfam and beyond it felt appropriate to dedicate the album to her.”Now is the time to show that we stand together #StandAsOne
Like many counterfactuals, this is not an easy question to answer definitively, since having a kicker who is automatic from long range might have all kinds of ripple effects on the game that we can’t really foresee.(Although unlike many counterfactuals, it’s not a completely crazy idea: Thinking about a kicker who can usually nail it from 70 yards seems ridiculous to us now, but NFL kickers have steadily gotten better for at least 80 years, and they haven’t slowed down yet. In the 1960s, kickers made 13 of 129 kicks — 10.1 percent — from 50+ yards. In the past five years alone, NFL kickers have made 422 of 675 such attempts — for 62.5 percent. Since 2010, kickers have even made seven of 31 tries from 60+ yards — 22.5 percent.)If we simply replaced all a kicker’s misses with makes, an “automatic” kicker wouldn’t be worth much more than the worst kicker in the league. There’d be a few salvaged points here and there, but nothing major (kickers these days just don’t miss that often).But the real fun starts when we think about how a team would use a truly “automatic” kicker differently.To simplify the question, let’s assume the kicker makes 100 percent of his kicks instead of 95 percent — he’s “RoboKicker.” Using ESPN’s expected points model, we can identify all situations where a team would definitely want to make a FG attempt on fourth down if it knew it could automatically earn three points. A made kick is actually worth slightly less than that because the kicking team has to give up possession whether it makes the kick or not, but we’ll charitably give it full credit.2The actual value is probably somewhere around 2.6 points, but I think the charitable number is appropriate since the kicker is likely to be at least moderately more valuable strategically. So if a team is in RoboKicker’s range, it should want to attempt a field goal any time it’s fourth down and the expected value of its possession is less than three points. The value it gains from having that option is the difference between the two, and the kicker’s total value added is the sum of all those differences.This plot shows how much RoboKicker would be worth for an average team (since 2006) in expected points added per game, based on his range:This assumes the kicker would be just a normal kicker from longer distances than the one he’s automatic from, though if he was automatic from 50 yards he would probably be pretty good from 60,3Though if he were actually a robot, this may not be the case, as he would probably make about the same kick every time. which would carry additional value. But this is a fair first-order guess.The second wrinkle to @MattGlassman312’s question is its bit about RoboKicker being a No. 1 pick or an MVP. To answer that, we have to start to answer how valuable a No. 1 pick or an MVP is.Let’s use Peyton Manning as our stand-in for “best player in the league,” which helps us to answer at least the spirit of the question. When Manning was injured, the Indianapolis Colts’ average margin of victory dropped by 14.6 points per game (though this may have been in part because they were tanking so that they could draft Andrew Luck). And when Manning joined Denver, the Broncos’ average MOV rose by 17.1 points per game. But let’s assume that those years were outliers and assume that a typical MVP is worth about 10 points per game. To surpass that, RoboKicker would need to be able to hit from around 80 yards. (I confess, this is further out than I would have guessed.) Then, considering that even No. 1 picks have only about a 50 percent to 60 percent shot of ever making a Pro Bowl — much less of being MVP — I’d say being automatic from 50 to 60 yards would probably be sufficient to be worth the top pick in the draft most years.The Hacker Gods read FiveThirtyEight (or just love Andrew Luck)Last week’s games had a few outcomes consistent with this column’s most frequently asserted stereotypes. Most intriguingly, we saw win curve standout and two-time Gunslinger of the Week winner Andrew Luck4He won in Week 1 and again in Week 14 — you don’t remember? digging his own hole by throwing an early pick-6 that put the Colts down 7-0, and then climbing out of it to come back and win against the Houston Texans. This follows a similar Week 14 victory against the Cleveland Browns, when Luck was down 14 points in the second half after an early pick-6 (and a third-quarter fumble-6).If you’ve been reading Skeptical Football, you’ll know I’m generally pro-interception (at least certain kinds) — but as an indirect indicator of taking good risks. Normally, a quarterback will lose the games in which he throws interceptions. But so far in his young career, it seems like Luck has an uncanny talent for winning and throwing INTs in the same game. So, naturally, that got me wondering how these results compare to Peyton Manning’s and those of all other quarterbacks (since 2006):Luck shows a similar propensity for winning as his predecessor in Indianapolis, regardless of scenario. But the big caveat is that interceptions are often a function of losing as well as a cause of it. Generally this is because QBs make rational risk adjustments that lead to more interceptions when they’re behind.5There is also a smaller opposite effect, which is that QBs sometimes throw slightly more interceptions than expected in games they’re winning by wide margins, presumably because teams start playing a basic offensive set in blowouts rather than taking the extraordinary risk-avoidance measures they do to protect smaller leads. (Weird things happen in the NFL.) So to isolate the situations we’re most interested in, I limited the comparison to the number of interceptions thrown while the QB’s team was trailing (including only games in which the QB’s team trailed at some point):This is, of course, a small sample for Luck: He has two wins in the six games in which he threw two trailing INTs, and two wins in the five games he threw three. But those four wins in 11 games (36.4 percent success rate) are already more than Manning. Since 2006, Manning has just three wins in 24 games (12.5 percent) in which he threw two or more trailing interceptions, and all QBs since 2006 have only 56 wins in 1,025 such games (5.5 percent).Naturally, this relates back to my gunslinger hypothesis (that a quarterback can throw too few interceptions as well as too many). Andrew Luck is an example of someone who throws more interceptions than usual when his team is down, but wins more often. Overall, Luck has thrown one or more INT in 55.9 percent of games (19 of 34) in which he trailed and has won 52.9 percent of them (18 of 34). Other QBs have thrown one or more INT in 49.3 percent of games where they trailed, winning only 42.3 percent.You can continue like this for more drastic circumstances (more likely to require heavy risk-taking): Of the 19 games where Luck threw 1+ trailing INT, he threw 2+ in 57.9 percent (11 of 19) and won 36.8 percent (7 of 19). Other QBs have thrown an additional INT in 38.0 percent of such games and won only 16.3 percent (439 of 2,697).6And, if you need more: Of the 11 games in which Luck threw 2+ trailing INTs, he threw 3+ in 45.5 percent (5 of 11) and won 36.4 percent (4 of 11). Other QBs threw an additional INT in 30.3 percent of such games, and won only 5.5 percent.In other words, Andrew Luck is to gunslinging what Aaron Rodgers is to gunholstering.7However, for all that sound and fury about Luck, the actual Week 15 gunslinger winner was Mark Sanchez, who had two trailing interceptions for Philadelphia (in the third and fourth quarters), yet managed to take the lead (albeit briefly) in a game where the Eagles once trailed 21-0.Bonus chart of the weekAfter making the “team movement between 2013 and 2014” chart earlier, I thought it would be interesting to see how each team’s offensive and defensive performance has varied over the past five years. For this chart, I plotted expected points added per drive on offense and expected points denied per drive on defense for each of the last five years, and then connected them so you can see how each team has changed. Some teams have much tighter “shot groups” (Cleveland, New England) than others (Chicago, New York Giants), but I’ll leave you to look for yourself:Reminder: If you tweet questions to me @skepticalsports, there is a non-zero chance that I’ll answer them here.Charts by Reuben Fischer-Baum. There’s a bit of a schism in sports fandom. On one side there are those who want more and more statistical analysis (Hi, everybody!); on the other there are those who think stats are overused and blanch at how sabermetrics and analytics have changed what it means to be a good fan.But I have a theory about this latter group: In general, they’re not really anti-stats. Virtually every argument about sports on TV or online is made using stats of one sort or another.1My wife, who is not a sports fan herself, describes “Pardon The Interruption” as “a bunch of guys shouting numbers at each other until a bell rings.” A typical exchange between talking heads includes one guy emphasizing one set of stats (“He throws a lot of touchdowns!”), which is then countered by another (“But he throws too many interceptions!”). Almost no sports fans are truly anti-stats, they’re just anti-complicated, hard-to-understand stats.And to some extent, they’re right. Over-reliance on advanced metrics can lose the forest for the trees, and vice versa. But, ideally, good stats aren’t meant to eradicate classic storylines or debates, but to lend context to them (and hopefully to shed new light on difficult questions along the way). As usual, let me illustrate with an example using Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers.The Denver Broncos and Green Bay Packers each played the Buffalo Bills in Weeks 14 and 15 of this season, respectively. In both games, the MVP-candidate QBs “struggled” statistically. This shouldn’t be a total surprise: Despite having games against Manning, Rodgers and Tom Brady, Buffalo has had arguably the best defense in the NFL this year (judging by expected points denied per play).But Rodgers’s and Manning’s stats seemed particularly bad. Each threw two interceptions, no TDs and fewer than 200 yards. Manning’s 51-game TD streak ended, and Rodgers threw just his fourth and fifth INTs of the season.The media wasn’t kind to either quarterback, but much of it was particularly brutal to Manning. Here’s the Colorado NBC affiliate: “Denver wins despite Manning’s worst game as a Bronco.” Meanwhile, a number of stories about Green Bay’s loss emphasized Rodgers’s lack of interceptions this year or the fact that his receivers dropped or tipped some key passes.But not all no-TD, two-INT, 180-yard games are created equal. For example, Manning’s two interceptions were pretty “good” as far as interceptions go: the first was 42 yards downfield (which is practically a punt), and the other was 18 yards downfield on a third-and-12 — with the Broncos up 21-3. In general, it’s a bad idea to judge a QB who throws a small number of passes in a game his team led wire to wire.Besides, touchdowns and interceptions can be fickle: For example, sometimes a significant part of QB efficiency can be accounted for by whether his team likes to run or pass on first-and-goal from the 1-yard line. But a QB often has just as much of an effect on his team’s ability to run the ball as he does on its ability to throw it. (If all teams played optimally, game theory suggests he should affect them about equally, because opposing defenses should adapt to a stronger passing game by devoting more resources to it.)With some exceptions, it generally makes more sense to judge a QB by the outcomes of his team’s offensive drives. From this perspective, the difference between Manning vs. Buffalo and Rodgers vs. Buffalo was pretty stark. Here are the outcomes of each player’s drives by situation:Denver started out its game against Buffalo with a punt, then scored TDs on three of its next five drives (also, one of those drives ended in field goal range after Jacob Tamme fumbled a completed catch). Up 18 points in the second half, its offense stalled, particularly as it attempted to run more. But even counting those possessions, 10 (non-end-of-game) drives were turned into three TDs and one field goal. This may have been a bit of an off day for Peyton Manning, but that’s a good day for most QBs. Denver’s 2.18 points per drive was only slightly below its season average of 2.33, and was better than 24 teams have averaged in 2014. Green Bay’s offense, on the other hand, started out cold (punting on three of its first four drives), and basically stayed that way — ultimately scoring only 13 points on 13 drives.The point here isn’t to knock Rodgers or Green Bay. The Rodgers-led offense still leads the league with 2.7 points per drive this year, and with his TD/INT ratio (so beloved by media everywhere) still a league-best 7/1, Rodgers is still probably the MVP frontrunner. But we should understand the limitations of first-order stats that people are shouting about, and how they can be deceptive. What context do they include, and what do they ignore?Chart of the weekThe Seattle Seahawks’ defense has its own deceptive stats. The defending champions are in an odd spot. If the playoffs started today, the 10-4 Seahawks would play a wildcard game on the road against the 6-8 New Orleans Saints. And depending how the next two weeks go, they could easily end up as the top seed in the NFC, or out of the playoffs entirely.Two weeks ago, I introduced some “scoring curves,” and showed how Seattle’s defense (with the team 8-4 at the time) flirted with league average in many situations (such as when its opponent has a long way to go for a touchdown). Many readers expressed skepticism, particularly because Seattle has the best defense in the NFL by the old “yards allowed” metric, and is among the league leaders in points allowed per game (as well as yards per play against).I partially agree: I find it very unlikely that Seattle’s defense is average or below average. And I’m tempted to go further and say that it’s unlikely this defense is much worse than last year’s squad. But the stats show the defense has had a pretty huge regression to the mean in measurable defensive outcomes.To show just how much these kinds of things vary from season to season, I’ve plotted each team’s expected points allowed per play on offense vs. expected points allowed per play on defense, and then shown how this year’s iterations compare with last year’s:Seattle has had a pretty big decline on the defensive side, but this is to be expected: Last year’s results were a big outlier, and outliers are more likely to regress toward the mean. For example, Denver’s incredible 2013 offense declined similarly. Both remain among the top tier of teams for each respective side, but are much closer to the pack than they were last year.Once again, the context here is important, and this time for either side of the advanced-stats debate: Simply looking at basic defensive stats and saying that everything is fine with the Seahawks’ D misses a dramatic decline. But simply looking at the magnitude of the decline without considering the context would overvalue its importance.Twitter question of the week
RBI previously informed potential third party buyer that they would have to wait until the internal auction was complete (today) to discuss any negotiations. The final deal had MB Media, a company headed by ex-RBI publishers Tony Mancini and Rick Blesi—acquire RBI’s Construction Media Group. The 13 print and online brands included in the deal are Building Design+Construction, Custom Builder, Construction Equipment, Housing Giants, Professional Builder, Professional Remodeler, Construction Bulletin, SpecCheck, BDCnetwork.com, LogInAndLearn.com, VisibleCity.com, ConstructionEquipment.com, and HousingZone.com.Previously, Dan Hogan, former publisher of HOTELS, acquired that title as well as Foodservice Equipment and Supplies. Newly-formed CFE Media LLC, helmed by former Reed Business group publishers Jim Langhenry and Steven Rourke, acquired Control Engineering, Consulting-Specifying Engineer and Plant Engineering. Peerless Media completed its acquisition of RBI’s Logistics Management, Modern Materials Handling, Supply Chain Management Review and Material Handling Product News. After closing down 23 trade magazine brands it didn’t sell on the open market and then auctioning the majority of them off to their former managers, Reed Business Information today informed interested buyers who aren’t former RBI managers that the remaining brands are not for sale.According to an e-mail from RBI executive vice president and CFO John Poulin, the company plans to keep them in order to “generate qualified leads” through its Mardev DM2 business. The brands that were not acquired by former managers include Chain Leader, Converting, Graphic Arts Blue Book, Graphics Arts Monthly, Purchasing, Restaurants & Institutions and Tradeshow Week.When asked how exactly RBI will continue to generate leads from these brands (beyond simply renting the lists) and RBI spokesperson said the company is “evaluating strategic options with the brands.”
WILMINGTON, MA – Wilmington Public Schools is seeking substitute teachers at the elementary school, middle school and high school levels, according to a job listing posted on October 1.Substitute teacher rates in Wilmington are as follows:Day to day: $75/day without a DESE license, $85/day with a DESE license45-59 days in the same assignment: $100/day without a DESE license, $110/day with a DESE license60-90 days in the same assignment: $115/day without a DESE license, $125/day with a DESE license91 or more days in the same assignment: $250.84/day (must have a DESE license)The school system is also seeking substitute educational assistants ($60/day), substitute LPNs ($75/day), and substitute nurses ($125/day).View the job posting, which includes further information about the application process, HERE.Got a question? Contact Andrea Armstrong, Human Resources Director, at 978-694-6000 or firstname.lastname@example.org.Like Wilmington Apple on Facebook. Follow Wilmington Apple on Twitter. Follow Wilmington Apple on Instagram. Subscribe to Wilmington Apple’s daily email newsletter HERE. Got a comment, question, photo, press release, or news tip? Email email@example.com.Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading… RelatedWilmington Public Schools Hiring Substitute Teachers, Educational Assistants & Nurses For Upcoming School YearIn “Education”Wilmington Public Schools Hiring Substitute Teachers, Educational Assistants & NursesIn “Education”Wilmington Public Schools Hiring Substitute Teachers, Educational Assistants & NursesIn “Education”
Bangladesh Awami League general secretary Obaidul Quader. File PhotoThe Awami League-led 14-party alliance and the Jatiya Party-led Sammilito Jatiya Jote on Monday agreed that they will join the next general election together under the banner of Grand Alliance, reports UNB.”We’ve reached a consensus that we, the Grand Alliance, including the 14-party, will contest the election in alliance and form the government together,” said Awami League general secretary Obaidul Quader.He came up with the remarks while talking to reporters after a dialogue between the 14-party and Sammilito Jatiya Jote at the prime minister’s official residence Ganabhaban.Quader said the Jatiya Party also agreed with the 14-praty to hold the election as per the law and the constitution.He also said they did not take any decision about the seat shearing with Jatiya Party as it will be finalised later after a small-group discussion. “It’s not a problem.”In her introductory speech at the dialogue, prime minister Sheikh Hasina said the country’s ongoing development trend will continue through a meaningful general election. “There’ll be the continuation of the development trend through a meaningful election,” she said.Prime minister and Awami League president Sheikh Hasina led a 23-member 14-party delegation while Jatiya Party chairman HM Ershad a 32-member team of the Jatiya Jote at the talks that began around 7:15pm and ended around 9pm at the prime minister’s official residence Ganabhaban.Describing vote as the rights of citizens, the prime minister said the country’s people will certainly exercise their voting rights.She said it is Awami League which struggled for long to establish people’s voting rights.She mentioned that the responsibility of the politicians is to work for people’s welfare and the Awami League government has been working to this end.Sheikh Hasina said Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman developed the war-ravaged country soon after the Liberation War and turned Bangladesh into a least developed one only in three and a half years of his tenure.Following his footprint, she said, the Awami League government has worked for the socio-economic uplift of the people for which Bangladesh has now been established as a developing country.The prime minister thanked the opposition in parliament, Jatiya Party, for cooperating with the government in unleashing development.Jatiya Party senior co-chairman and opposition leader in parliament Raushon Ershad, its co-chairman GM Quader, secretary general Ruhul Amin Hawlader and presidium member and environment, forests and climate change minister Anisul Islam Mahmud were among the Jatiya Jote delegation memebrs.