You can't look at two games of any type and know too much about a team but even that analysis finds a weak but actual predictive power from something we think is entirely meaningless. It's predictive as an additive factor to prior expectations, not as a thing devoid of context. x.com/kmedved/stat...
Another year without a repeat champ, clearly
A reminder that preseason performance is surprisingly predictive of regular season performance. We all think it’s meaningless but the correlation is quite strong.
Five hundred people on hunger strike inside a for-profit ICE concentration camp in Georgia.
Classic "smallest man on the pitch scores with a header" goal
Actual Cancel Culture of a significant cultural figure [unlike where far right extremists engage in hate speech & are held accountable]. It’s extremism like this, & the disinterest of the current UK Labour govt in stopping the shift to the far right, that’s deeply worrying.
LASK made a strategic mistake in not doing years of cheating to build up a better roster
this pic of dario asmodeus saying something like "soon my synthetic minds’ crime spree will be unstoppable!" going around really underlines the connection between always looking *almost* like jj abrams and being rotten somewhere structurally vital inside, like pre-egg nate silver or justin theroux
The Washington Monumentals
The cost is probably #1 but #2 would be that you can’t channel surf during commercial breaks or when you’re nervous and want to relieve tension.
A player option of a non-guaranteed year should almost always result in the contract ending because both sides have to want it. A coincidental opt-in (mutual option) should almost always result in the contract continuing because only either one of the two sides has to want it.
Yeah, I guess from a messaging point I get it. I just wish we would start arresting executives for the harms they cause in the name of Business under existing law.
The "Mutual Options" that we've been seeing lately (and I assume Pritchard's is the same) are really coincidental opt-ins. Either side can opt in unilaterally. In theory, these should almost always get picked up by one side unless they have pre-negotiated a new deal to replace it.
Do you even need a new law for that? I know we don't enforce it but isn't that just... the law?
I have now seen Yamal's Fake Rabona and... what?
Interesting extension for Pritchard. It's as much as they could give him per year but short and as flexible as possible. PP being a 23yo late 1st who had his rookie scale extension come up following his worst season has always been in a difficult negotiating position. Stuck there again.
Payton Pritchard is extending via the Estimated Average Player Salary (EAPS). Because his current contract is less than EAPS, Prichard is eligible to extend for 140% of EAPS with 8% raises. That should look like this for Pritchard: 28-29: $21.2M 29-30: $22.9M (mutual option)
Either PP could opt in an extend off that or they could both forego the options and let him go to free agency with a new deal informally agreed to
Payton Pritchard's new deal is the 15th contract extension negotiated by Brad Stevens. Under very different rules, Danny Ainge negotiated only six player extensions in 18 years.
It's a coincidental opt-in so either party can pick it up unilaterally. If PP is bad/injured he can pick it up. If he outperforms his contract the C's can pick it up. If both sides are unhappy, or if they've negotiated a new contract to replace it, neither side opts in and he becomes a free agent.
