first_img Farmington Voice Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) A Farmington Hills business is providing a free grocery shopping service during the COVID-19 pandemic for local seniors and those who are disabled or too ill to shop for themselves.Call or send an email to Visiting Angels with your name and address to make an appointment. The shopper will come to your home to pick up your list and funds for your purchase and deliver the order and receipt to your door.The service is available Monday-Saturday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., but you can call or send an email any day of the week.Call 248-957-8331 or write to [email protected] Angels typically provides seniors with in-home help with daily activities. The business has offered free grocery shopping service for Oakland and Wayne County seniors since April 1. Learn more at Reported bylast_img read more

first_imgA self-confessed animal lover, Colbath says the Borough needs some basic rules for animal protection and responsibility. Mayor Mike Navarre previously encouraged residents to form a proposal, but Colbath says they need a Borough-established work group to form the plan… FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendly分享Tim Colbath runs the Nikiski Extended Life Animal Sanctuary and is one of the most vocal proponents of Borough-wide animal control. Colbath and others will petition the Borough at tonight’s 6pm Assembly meeting. His goal is to have the task force in place by June 2.center_img Colbath: “Otherwise you’ve just got a bunch of people that are meeting with no authority to bring anything forward.last_img read more

first_imgYou know your character strengths make you feel good about who you are and what you do. But did you know scientific studies have shown that using and developing your character strengths can make you happier and healthier? According to a recent infographic from Happify, a website dedicated to providing science-based interactive activities and online games to improve happiness, knowing our strengths isn’t enough. We need to tap into our character strengths to improve our personal and work lives.By using your signature strengths, those strengths that are key to who you are, you can increase happiness and decrease depression for six months. Using a strength today can improve your mood tomorrow. Showing gratitude has been linked to more time spent exercising and improved optimism. I was intrigued by the top five men and women character strengths. While both genders listed honesty as the top character strength and gratitude fourth, there were interesting differences in the remaining three character strengths.My Character StrengthsIt took me less than 10 minutes to complete the free online assessment and find out my top character strengths. Unfortunately, the assessment is now (as of December 2019) only available with a Happify account. Learn more about the 24 kinds of character strengths and get tips on how you can improve your character strengths in the infographic. Or, if you prefer, check out the text version.Character StrengthsCharacter strengths—our capacity for thinking, feeling, willing, and behaving—reflect what’s best in us. They’re part of how we positively identify ourselves.How It WorksOver 10 years ago, some of the world’s leading psychologists like Martin Seligman and Christopher Peterson came together to compile character strengths that people of all ages, cultures and nations exhibit. The VIA Institute on Character created scientifically valid assessments to help people determine their unique strengths profile. Three+ million people have taken it, reaching every country on the planet!There are 24 VIA character strengths that fall under 6 broad categories:Wisdom & KnowledgeCreativityCuriosityJudgmentLove of LearningPerspectiveJusticeTeamworkFairnessLeadershipCourageBraveryHonestyPerseveranceHonestyZestTemperanceForgivenessPrudenceHumilitySelf-RegulationHumanityLoveKindnessSocial IntelligenceTranscendenceAppreciation of BeautyGratitudeHopeHumorSpirtualityEach one of us possesses all 24 strengths, but in different amounts. Your “signature strengths” are your top strengths—the ones that are most essential to who you are.The most prevalent character strengths in human beings are:KindnessFairnessJudgmentHonestyGratitudeThe least common?PrudenceModestySelf-regulationNot only do our character strengths make us feel good about ourselves, but science shows that using and developing them also makes us happier and healthier.The Key? Actually Using Your Strengths!One study found that those who use their character strengths experience greater physical and mental well-being than those who don’t.That’s because tapping into our strengths helps us make progress on our goals, boosting our feelings of independence and competence. To Use One of Your Strengths Today …Pique your curiosity by eating at a restaurant you’ve never tried before.Stoke your creativity by rearranging a room in your home.Encourage your love of learning by memorizing five new vocabulary words.Practice perseverance by chipping away at a tough project at work. Renew your zest by trying a new, physically challenging activity.Using Your Strengths Boosts Your HealthIf you’re sick, tapping into your strengths—especially bravery, kindness, and humor—can help:Research shows that physical disorders take less of a toll on life satisfaction if someone is high on these character strengths. There’s a good reason to have an attitude of gratitude:Counting your blessings is linked to fewer physical symptoms, optimism, more time spent exercising and improved well-being.Do you use your heart or your head?Turns out strengths of the “heart” (like love and gratitude) are more strongly associated with well-being than are strengths of the “head”(like creativity and judgement). Using Your Strengths at the OfficeIn one study, 81 percent of people who’ve had strengths-based career counseling are employed vs. 60 percent of people who’ve had conventional career counseling.Looking to Lean In? Research shows that women who use their signature strengths in the workplace create a “virtuous circle” in which they’re able to overcome obstacles that had impeded them from using their strengths in the past.4 is the magic numberUse 4 or more of your signature strengths at the office and you’ll have a more positive work experience. Feeling Swamped?Strengths that were determined to be a “high match” with work demands are honesty, judgment, perspective, fairness, and zest.Men vs. WomenIn a study of gender differences and character strengths:Women scored highest on:HonestyKindnessLoveGratitudeFairnessMen scored highest on:HonestyHopeHumorGratitudeCuriosityDid You Know?Women tend to be higher on gratitude than men, even though this trait ranks fourth for both sexes.Tap Into Your Strengths, Boost Your MoodThe 5 strengths that are most connected with happiness are:CuriosityZestHopeGratitudeLoveIf you’re high on zest, you’re more likely to view your work as a “calling” rather than as a means for money or career advancement.Using your signature strengths—those strengths most essential to who you are—in a new way each day has been shown to increase happiness and decrease depression for 6 months.Need Some Inspiration? Try…Showing kindness by visiting an elderly relative or neighbor in a nursing home.Showing loyalty by cooking a favorite meal for a friend this weekend.Expressing honesty by owning up to one little white lie you told this month—even if it’s just to yourself!Remembering optimism by naming one positive outcome of a recent negative event.Being grateful by writing a note to someone who influenced you as a kid.Exploring leadership by organizing a team-building activity with your co-workers.Feeling love by requesting a special date with your partner one night this week.Tapping into your humor by learning—and telling—one new joke today.Want to give your happiness the biggest boost?Send a nice, quick email to a loved one. One study showed that this amplified the mood-boosting effects of using your strengths.Use a strength today, reap the rewards tomorrowOne study found a relationship between using signature strengths the previous day and positive mood the following day.If you’re feeling a little down, it’s even more important to use one of your strengths today:Research shows a connection between decreased mood and not using a strength the next day, creating a negative cycle.So, what are your top strengths?Get to know yourself better by taking the VIA assessment on Happify! Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Like this:Like Loading…RelatedHappiness in the Workplace [Infographic]Your mood can impact your work life, how you get your work done, your interactions with others, and the quality of the work you do. Sleep, exercise, staying healthy, and keeping positive can all improve our happiness levels at work. According to this infographic from Career Savvy, by identifying the…In “Web design & development links”13 Tips to Improve Your Next WebinarYou’ve picked your presentation topic, chosen your webinar platform, picked a date and time, and marketed your webinar to your mailing list and social media. And you now have over 150 people who’ve registered to attend. Congrats! Whether you’re planning a webinar for lead generation or to educate users, webinars…In “Internet”Letters of Peace: One Handwritten Letter at a TimeLast week, on my flight to Philadelphia for the 2016 WordCamp US conference, I put away my smartphone and laptop, pulled out the airline monthly magazine from the pouch on the seatback, and settled in to read. Within the first few pages of the magazine, I found a full-page reproduction…In “Inspiration”last_img read more

first_img370 documented positive dope tests in the past 13 yearsIn the West, champions are being sent tumbling to their knees. An anti-doping investigation in the US has gone after some of track and field’s big names. Kelli White, women’s 100 m world champion, is banned while men’s champ Tim Mont,370 documented positive dope tests in the past 13 yearsIn the West, champions are being sent tumbling to their knees. An anti-doping investigation in the US has gone after some of track and field’s big names. Kelli White, women’s 100 m world champion, is banned while men’s champ Tim Mont gomery is under a cloud. Marion Jones, triple gold medallist and poster girl from Sydney 2000, may not race in Athens. What does this have to do with India? Neither does it have champion sprinters nor is it a sporting power whose success attracts suspicion. In the grim history of doping, though, India can easily be considered a rogue nation with 370 documented positive dope tests in the past 13 years. Since 2000, India has produced 113 positives. The evidence has piled up and the numbers are too large to ignore.In December 2000, the Sports Authority of India (SAI) submitted an affidavit to the Delhi High Court which contained the names of 257 athletes who had tested positive in 3,078 dope tests between 1991 and 2000.Sunita Rani’s was the most high-profile doping case Rani’s was the most high-profileIn June 2001 syringes and strips of steroids were found in the hostels of the National Institute of Sport (NIS). In 2002 weightlifter Kunjarani Devi tested positive at the Asian Championships and two Indian lifters tested positive at the Commonwealth Games.Two months later, athlete Sunita Rani tested positive after winning two medals at the Busan Asian Games. In 2003 after a total of 64 positive tests from two National Games (Punjab and Hyderabad), then sports minister Vikram Verma revealed in Parliament that 108 athletes had tested positive in national events and five in competitions overseas in four years.If nothing else, this would indicate the existence of a problem, of a phenomenon that thrives behind the smokescreen of “everybody does it” and the puerile fig leaf of guarding national prestige. As it stands today, India’s anti-doping policy, from its ethos to its practice, seems to be neither anti-doping nor much of a policy.To begin at the top, India is yet to sign the Copenhagen Declaration, a globally accepted document that recognises the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) code. India is one of only four countries that attended a 126-nation conference and agreed to sign the declaration. But it is yet to do so.Sunaina’s is the most recent positive dope testM.K. Mishra, SAI executive-director (Finance), insists,”We will sign soon, there are procedural formalities.” Not only has the global letter of the law been a hurdle for the Indian sports administration, but the country’s primary anti-doping institution also exists in a twilight zone. The status of the SAI’s Dope Control Centre (DCC) in Delhi has now become a convenient liability. The laboratory, set up in 1989, hasn’t yet been given accreditation by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) or WADA. Any positive test result from it can always be contested in court. It is the easiest escape route for any athlete, federation and administrator. The lack of an accredited laboratory is most frequently cited as the reason for India’s ineffective anti-doping programme.”This is a bad excuse,” says David Howman, WADA’S director-general. “Proper anti-doping programmes can be run efficiently even when a country doesn’t have a WADA-accredited laboratory.” There are only 31 WADA accredited laboratories worldwide.Mishra, who is also the CEO of the DCC, is confident that the day the Delhi lab is accredited the complaining will stop. Now that India has won the right to stage the 2010 Commonwealth Games, the ISO 17025 certification needed for accreditation is finally being sought. Dope-testing in India takes place on two main occasions. Before athletes go for any overseas event, samples are taken from athletes and transported to Delhi for testing. Participants are also tested at major national and international events in India. The first practice is controversial amounting, says one SAI official, to pre-event”screening”. The cheating gameadvertisementIndia recorded 370 positive dope tests in the past 13 years in both national and international events.Since 2000, 113 Indian sportspeople have tested positive for dope.After 15 years of its existence, the country’s only dope testing centre has just applied for accreditation.Allegations of rampant, organised doping at the NIS, Patiala, continue to be swept under the carpet.Athletes are not being tested to catch and punish those on dope but being systematically weeded outand dropped from the team to prevent them from being caught overseas. The cases of athlete Sunita Rani and lifter Sunaina (the most recent case of an Indian testing positive for dope) indicate that the laboratory’s standards are far from watertight as both had tested negative in India.In late 2002, experts from the SRL Ranbaxy Laboratory, Mumbai, were roped in to study Rani’s case. Their analysis of testing procedures in Korea helped exonerate Rani and got the Seoul lab stripped of its ISO/IEC 17025 certificate and IOC accreditation. Once the case was decided, SRL Ranbaxy sent out feelers to the government and the SAI for four months, offering to set up and run a modern laboratory. They also met former Andhra Pradesh chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu to set up a laboratory in Hyderabad. The response was uniformly cool. Mishra’s own comment is telling.”The DCC is not a commercial proposition. Everyone thinks they can start a laboratory.” Sumedha Sahani, director, operations and clinical trials, SRL Ranbaxy, says, “There is much merit in public-private partnerships, they must be developed.”Along with the responses at the top, the rumblings of a sustained doping programme in Indian sport continue with frequent revelations from the NIS, Patiala. Says one SAI official:”What they do in the West is systematic damage.We go in for random destruction.” A 2003 report into the functioning of the NIS by former SAI officer K. Narasimhan lies buried in the Union Sports Ministry. The report is believed to contain proof of sustained irregularities in anti-doping procedures and a nexus between the NIS authorities, federation coaches and SAI officers in Delhi. The report even recommended an inquiry by India’s professional probe agencies. Even though the inquiry was ordered by former SAI director-general Shekhar Dutt, strangely no one in either the ministry or the SAI gives the report any credence. The Sports Ministry appointed a one-man inquiry committee headed by H.S. Kingra.According to Joint Secretary R.K. Mishra,”Kingra found no evidence of allegations of doping.” Manmohan Singh, head of the IOA’s medical commission, believes the over the-counter availability of drugs in India is a spur for doping.”In most cases the competitors are more educated than doctors and coaches. There is a general tendency among sportspeople to cheat to get medals.” They may”get away” at home but in the absence of a strong anti-doping policy, continue to be”outed” overseas. India’s day of infamy in world sport could be lurking around the corner.advertisementlast_img read more

first_imgAbout the authorCarlos VolcanoShare the loveHave your say Buffon defends Juventus teammate Rabiot: Give him a breakby Carlos Volcano18 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveGigi Buffon insists Adrien Rabiot will prove himself at Juventus.The midfielder followed Buffon from PSG to Juve this summer, but has battled for minutes so far this season.However, Buffon insists: “It must be said that for ten months. Ten months, it’s as if we had seen him twice, even if he trained … He must return to the field, take his bearings, especially for someone with this great physique. “You also change teammates, you come to Juve, a club with different working methods, you change a championship … I think Adrien brings to Juve exceptional technical and physical qualities. It takes a period of adaptation for everyone. He will not be the first nor the last.” last_img read more

first_imgCollege Spun staff picks for week 12 of the 2015 college football spun staff picks week 12Last week, four top ten teams – Baylor, Stanford, LSU and Utah – fell, further complicating the College Football Playoff picture. The Pac-12, which no longer features a team with less than two losses, is in trouble. The Big 12, meanwhile, is looking more likely to see one of its squads qualify for the event. And then there’s Notre Dame, which may very well finish 11-1 and find itself on the outside looking in.This week, despite most of the SEC scheduling cupcakes, we’ve got some great games. LSU takes on Ole Miss. USC and Oregon meet. Baylor and Oklahoma State will tangle. Oklahoma will look to stay hot against TCU. And of course, Michigan State heads to Columbus to take on Ohio State.Matt Hladik is still our leader, but he isn’t in the clear yet. Here’s who we have this week:week 12 picks 1week 12 picks 2week 12 picks 3Who do you have?last_img read more

It’s championship week in men’s college basketball, the last chance for schools to make an impression on the selection committee before the NCAA tournament field is announced Sunday evening. If you’re a bubble team, you’re hoping a strong showing in your conference tournament can persuade the committee to put extra weight on those games, perhaps to the point of ignoring a previously spotty track record.Figuring out how much weight to give a late hot streak — as opposed to a team’s season-long résumé — can be tough for the committee. Fans filling out their brackets face the same decision. Conference tournaments might be the first chance you’ve had to see some schools play; a deep conference run could make the difference between marking a team down for an early exit or slotting it into the Final Four. But should it? Or is it simply recency bias to think a breakout conference tourney performance matters in the NCAA tournament?To take a few preliminary stabs at answering that question, I computed pre- and post-game Simple Rating System (SRS) scores for every conference tournament and NCAA tournament game since 1985 (when the NCAA field expanded to its familiar 64-team format), using them to establish each team’s expected win probability1The link leads to a football model, but the underlying Stern-Winston methodology can be applied to college basketball, for which Jeff Sagarin has found that the standard deviation of scoring margin around a prediction is 10 points. going into a given game.If teams that had surprising conference tournament runs (relative to their pre-tournament ratings) tended to carry that magic over into the NCAA tourney, we might expect there to be a relationship between how many “extra” wins a team had in each tournament. Take the 2010-11 Connecticut Huskies as an example: They won five Big East tournament games against an expectation of 2.5 (the ninth-most-surprising conference tournament performance of the past 30 years) and then proceeded to rattle off six NCAA tournament wins versus an expectation of 3.6 (the 12th-most-surprising NCAA run in the same span).For UConn, the conference tournament was a stepping stone to bigger things.But here’s the catch: Those Huskies were the exception, not the rule. Across the entire population of NCAA tournament-bound teams since 1985, there’s practically no relationship between how much a team outperforms its expectations in the conference tournament and the same metric in the NCAA tournament.2This is true whether we look at all conferences or restrict our sample to major conferences. An alternative way to look at whether conference tournament momentum leads to better NCAA outcomes is to see whether teams whose SRS ratings changed substantially during conference tournaments saw a commensurate change during the NCAA tournament. But again, there is essentially no relationship between a surprising performance in conference tournament play and in the NCAA tourney.The admitted flaw in both approaches is the same one I ran into when evaluating which college basketball coaches outperform NCAA tournament expectations based on seeding. Such a method ostensibly captures underperformance in the final game of a tournament, but it doesn’t detect the missing future wins expected of a favored team going forward. Moreover, these results shouldn’t be taken to say that conference tournaments have no predictive value. A team’s post-conference-tourney SRS is slightly more correlated with its eventual NCAA tournament wins than its rating before the conference tourney began.However, this analysis does serve as a warning against putting too much emphasis on the conference tournament relative to a team’s entire body of work, especially when it comes to picking unexpectedly hot conference tournament teams to go further than you’d otherwise predict for teams with their résumés.Check out FiveThirtyEight’s March Madness predictions. read more

1985-86SuperSonics-10-3 UPDATE (June 30, 5:38 p.m.): Just as we were publishing this story, it was reported that Minnesota Timberwolves’ point guard Ricky Rubio will be traded to the Utah Jazz for a first-round draft pick. The story has been updated to reflect the trade.It’s a dangerous time of year to be an NBA fan. With free agency officially getting underway on Saturday, and players such as Paul George available via the trade market, you can talk yourself into any number of far-fetched scenarios wherein your favorite team puts just the right pieces together and suddenly becomes a contender. (What if the Spurs added Blake Griffin? What if the Celtics brought in both George and Gordon Hayward?) Sometimes dreams really do come true — like when the Rockets landed Chris Paul this week — but most of the time, you’ll wind up disappointed instead.At FiveThirtyEight, we sometimes play this dangerous game with spreadsheets — specifically, with a spreadsheet that projects team records based on our CARMELO player projections. And there’s one team that really caught our spreadsheet’s eye: the Minnesota Timberwolves. The Wolves already made their big move of the summer, acquiring the Bulls’ Jimmy Butler for Zach LaVine, Kris Dunn and an exchange of first-round draft picks. When we plugged the Wolves’ CARMELO projections into the spreadsheet,1Assuming the Wolves re-sign restricted free agent Shabazz Muhammad but make no other changes. it came up with a projected record of 50-33. 2011-1276ers-8+3 Karl-Anthony Towns37+3.7+0.3 2002-03Nets-7-2 Nemanja Bjelica16-0.7+0.7 The Timberwolves look like contendersCARMELO projections for the 2017-18 Minnesota Timberwolves What could go wrong — or very, very rightIn addition to all the bad things that could happen to the Wolves from a basketball standpoint — injuries, poor chemistry, etc. — they’re also a challenging team to forecast. For the past two seasons, the Wolves have unquestionably had a lot of talent on their roster but have also unquestionably been bad. It isn’t quite as clear why this disconnect occurred. Towns, Wiggins, Rubio and LaVine are all somewhat unusual players, and they each engender disagreements both between the various statistical systems and between stats and “eye test” evaluations. The way RPM and CARMELO looked at the Wolves, Wiggins and especially LaVine were part of the problem last season, while Towns and Rubio were part of the solution. If that assessment was wrong, then jettisoning LaVine could be more costly than the system assumes. And as I mentioned, RPM and CARMELO view Butler as a borderline-superstar player and not “merely” an All-Star; that’s another source of uncertainty.On the flip side, the Timberwolves do have some additional cap space and an opportunity to round out their roster via players such as Taj Gibson, J.J. Redick or Danilo Gallinari. Even modest improvements could go a long way because they don’t have a deep rotation as currently constructed.Or the Wolves could go really bold and package Wiggins for another star. Before landing Butler, the Timberwolves were reportedly in the market for George, for example. But a straight-up trade of Wiggins for George would work under the NBA’s salary cap rules given the Wolves’ extra cap space. It would be a hugely risky move — George will be a free agent next summer and has said he wants to play for the Lakers — but a core of George, Butler and Towns could make the Timberwolves legitimate title contenders. Or at least, the spreadsheet says so. Repacement-level players43-1.7-0.3 PLAYERMIN. PER GAMEOFF. PLUS/MINUSDEF. PLUS/MINUS WINSLOSSES Justin Patton8-2.6+0.4 2010-11Timberwolves-7-2 Team total240+5.4+1.1 1994-95Trail Blazers-8-4 Timberwolves’ projected record49.532.5 ACTUAL – PYTHAGOREAN WINS 1999-2000Nets-70 Jimmy Butler33+3.8+1.0 But that doesn’t account for the significant cap space cleared by the Rubio deal. If Minnesota added free agent point Jeff Teague, for example, their projected record would improve to 53-29. If they signed Kyle Lowry instead, they’d project to finish at 58-24. They could also use the extra cap room to sign a frontcourt player.Projecting the Timberwolves to win 50-something games seems awfully daring, especially for a team that’s burned CARMELO in the past. (CARMELO boldly projected the Wolves to win 46 games last season. Instead, they won 31.) But let me walk you through what the system is “thinking.” The projection reflects a combination of three factors: Butler, the Timberwolves’ youth, and their bad luck last season.Jimmy Butler is really good, and he’s replacing players who were really badCARMELO expects Butler to be worth about 10 wins next season, as compared to a replacement-level player. Oftentimes, replacement level is too low a bar when it comes to assessing an NBA acquisition. If the Celtics added players such as George and Hayward, their minutes would partly come at the expense of other pretty good players such as Avery Bradley and Jae Crowder.2And they also might have to sacrifice players such as Bradley and Crowder as part of trades, or to clear cap room. Thus, their net gain might not be as large as you’d think.But the players the Wolves gave up for Butler weren’t making positive contributions at all, at least according to advanced statistics such as Real Plus-Minus and Box Plus/Minus. (CARMELO uses a combination of these stats to make its projections, weighting RPM more heavily.) LaVine is a good athlete who can create shots but who was woefully inadequate on defense; thus, he was no better than replacement level last season, these metrics figure. And Dunn, like many rookies, was overmatched, playing at a below-replacement-level clip. Thus, Butler is a true 10- or 11-win upgrade, relative to the players Minnesota gave up for him.We should note, however, that where Butler falls on the spectrum between “really good” and “superstar” is a matter of some debate. According to RPM, Butler was the seventh-best player in the NBA last season on a per-possession basis and the third most valuable by wins added above replacement level when also considering his playing time. By a more subjective measure — the views of sportswriters voting for the All-NBA teams — he was somewhere between the 11th- and the 15th-best player in the league, by contrast.Karl-Anthony Towns and Andrew Wiggins should continue to improveThe Wolves’ two former No. 1 overall picks are young — Karl-Anthony Towns turns 22 in November, while Andrew Wiggins will turn 23 in February — and both still have plenty of room to grow, especially on defense. Towns already has a well-rounded offensive game, having developed into a dangerous outside shooter last year (37 percent from 3-point range). But the advanced metrics are somewhat split on his defense, with RPM viewing it as below-average — unusual for a 7-footer3RPM almost always rates players that tall as net-positive defenders. — while stats based on opponents’ field goal percentages suggest that he does a respectable job of rim protection. Towns’s defense tended to fall apart in the fourth quarter last season, and overwork could have been an issue — he was second in the NBA in minutes played, behind Wiggins.Wiggins’s indifferent defense has been a subject of frequent critique at FiveThirtyEight. But the advanced metrics are uniformly in agreement that it’s poor. He allowed an effective field goal percentage of 56 percent last season on shots where he was the nearest defender.4And a maximum of 6 feet from the shooter; we consider shots where no defender was within 6 feet to have been uncontested. NBA shooters also have an effective field goal percentage of 56 percent on uncontested shots, so it’s as though he wasn’t playing defense at all. Because Wiggins is a good athlete with a long wingspan — factors that usually predict good defense — the problems mostly boil down to technique and effort, and those things can sometimes be improved.The Timberwolves were unluckyMinnesota was outscored by only 1.2 points per game last season, and yet they went 31-51. If that seems like a mismatch, it is. A team with that point differential would typically expect to go about 38-44, according to the Pythagorean record as calculated at Thus, the Wolves underperformed by seven wins last year, relative to their number of points scored and allowed. That’s because they didn’t play well in crunch time and went 10-18 in games decided by 6 points or fewer.It’s easy to come up with hypotheses for why they played so poorly in these situations. Towns and Wiggins played too many minutes; Wiggins and LaVine took poor shots; Rubio isn’t a scorer, which limited their options in the half-court; they were bad on defense overall, and those differences are magnified in crunch time.The fact is, however, that teams who underperform their Pythagorean records by as much as the Wolves did last season usually don’t have the same problem the next time around, or at least not to the same extent. There had been 19 previous cases since the NBA-ABA merger where a team underperformed its Pythagorean record by seven or more wins. On average, they fell only one win short of their Pythagorean record in the following season. There’s certainly some skill in which teams fare best in crunch time — and Butler, who’s both a good defender and a versatile scorer, can help the Wolves with that — but losing so many games in the clutch is usually partly a matter of bad luck. Shabazz Muhammad16-0.1-3.1 2013-14Timberwolves-8-3 Tyus Jones15-0.3-0.8 Cole Aldrich10-2.2+2.6 1997-98Pistons-9-3 Source: 2007-08Raptors-80 1992-93Kings-8+2 1996-97Celtics-7+3 1994-95Bulls-7+2 Gorgui Dieng30-1.0+2.6 1976-77Suns-9-2 1991-92Timberwolves-8-2 1989-90Timberwolves-7-1 Average-8-1 1984-85Trail Blazers-7-4 1982-83Pacers-7-2 1978-79Bucks-9-2 2006-07Celtics-7-1 SEASONTEAMSEASONFOLLOWING SEASON Andrew Wiggins32+1.5-1.9 Teams like the Timberwolves usually improved their luckDifference between actual and Pythagorean wins for teams that underperformed their Pythagorean record by 7 or more wins, 1976-2017 read more

Opponents’ block %-0.09 Opponents’ FTA/FGA-0.02 Cavaliers’ block %+0.00 Cavaliers’ 3-point %+0.58 Cavaliers’ steal %+0.36 Opponents’ free throw %-0.01 Cavaliers’ offensive rebound %+0.13 Cavaliers’ 2-point %+0.32 MetricCorrelation with the Cavaliers’ efficiency Opponents’ offensive rebound %-0.26 Opponents’ steal %-0.23 Opponents’ turnover %+0.36 By far the statistic that tracked most closely with the Cavaliers’ overall efficiency in any given game was their 3-point percentage, which had a correlation coefficient of 0.58. (By comparison, the correlation between the Warriors’ 3-point percentage and their efficiency margin was 0.44; for the Rockets, the correlation was 0.38; and for the Celtics, it was 0.28.)Now, it is fair to ask which direction the causation goes here. The Cavs’ offense is mainly predicated on LeBron James coming off a ball screen and either creating for himself or finding the open man when the opponent brings help. And certainly James himself has taken on a huge percentage of Cleveland’s 3-point shooting load. So maybe the Cavs are simply getting better looks because the rest of their offense — i.e., LeBron — is functioning at a higher level. (For example, the Cavs have shot a very healthy 20-for-32 on passes from James in the Eastern Conference Finals so far.)But if LeBron is generating more open shots only in games where the Cavs are rolling, it’s not showing up in the numbers. According to Second Spectrum’s Quantified Shot Quality metric (which calculates an expected shooting percentage for each shot based on its difficulty), Cleveland doesn’t tend to get better deep looks in its good games than its bad ones. In wins during the playoffs, the Cavs have an expected effective field goal percentage of 52.4 percent on 3-pointers; in losses, that number barely drops, to 52.0 percent. Instead, it’s Cleveland’s ability to capitalize on those 3-pointers that has varied wildly: from an eFG% 4.4 points higher than expected in postseason wins to one 10.6 points lower than expected in losses.Game 2 against Boston was a great case study of Cleveland’s Jekyll-and-Hyde shooting tendencies. In the first half, the Cavs built a 7-point lead while going 7-for-14 (50 percent) from deep; in the second half, they watched that lead slip away as they shot a dismal 3-for-17 (18 percent) from beyond the arc. Their shot quality on threes (again according to Second Spectrum) declined by 2.1 points of expected eFG% between halves, so the Celtics did a better job of challenging the Cavs’ shooters as the game went on.3According to ESPN’S Stats and Information Group, the Celtics contested 92 percent of Cleveland’s shots in the second half of Game 2. But a far bigger factor in Cleveland’s decline was its massive 35-point drop in eFG% versus expected — in other words, the kind of streaky variance that can’t be explained by shot quality alone.And what does explain it? Maybe the Cavs shoot so many threes — they’re third in the playoffs in attempts per game — that they’re bound to run up stretches of good- and bad-shooting games like this. Or maybe they’re just collectively trying to provide further evidence that the hot hand really does exist. Whatever the explanation, Cleveland has to hope that its shooting starts fluctuating in the opposite direction, and fast. Because not even James, with his 42 points, 12 assists and 10 rebounds in Game 2, could keep the Cavs from digging themselves a deeper hole in this series.We’ve seen the Cavaliers brush off these kinds of cold shooting performances in the past, burying opponents under an onslaught of threes that can make you wonder how they ever got cold in the first place. But that’s also the point: Cleveland needs a sustained 3-point resurgence if it’s going to claw its way back against the Celtics. As crucial as LeBron’s production is to the Cavs, it might be just as important for his teammates to step up and knock down their shots when they get the chance.Check out our latest NBA predictions. Opponents’ 3-point %-0.30 Cavaliers’ FTA/FGA+0.05 Opponents’ 2-point %-0.22 Opponents’ 3PA/FGA+0.01 Opponents’ assist %-0.12 Cavaliers’ assist %+0.13 Three-point accuracy determines Cleveland’s fateCorrelation between the Cavaliers’ efficiency differentials and various metrics for games in the 2017-18 season, through May 16 Pace-0.04 Cavaliers’ turnover %-0.19 Source: Cavaliers’ 3PA/FGA+0.00 The Cleveland Cavaliers have plenty of problems right now, and many of them concern their struggles on defense. Through two games in these Eastern Conference finals — both losses — they’re allowing 112.8 points per 100 possessions against a Boston Celtics team that averaged only 105.2 during the regular season (according to Advanced NBA Stats).1And All-Star guard Kyrie Irving contributed to that regular-season mark for most of the year, but he was lost to injury late in the regular season and has missed the entire playoffs. They’ve been torched by Jaylen Brown (who’s scored 23 each game) and they have no answer for the threat Al Horford poses from both the inside and outside.But the Cavs being inept on defense is not really breaking news. They’ve ranked among the league’s worst at that end of the floor all season. Instead, they win games with their offense, and not just because LeBron James can decide to take over games whenever he wants (although that helps). More than perhaps any other team in the NBA, the Cavs’ fortunes rise and fall based on how well they knock down shots from the perimeter. And they’d better heat up soon against the Celtics, or their bid for a fourth consecutive East title will clang harmlessly off the rim like so many of their 3-point shots.The playoffs have helped crystallize the Cavaliers’ reputation as a team that lives and dies by its shooting. This is, after all, the same group who struggled to get past the Indiana Pacers while making only 32 percent of their 3-pointers, then turned around and hit 41 percent from deep while steamrolling the Raptors a week later. Even during the regular season, though, Cleveland was unusually dependent on the hotness of its shooting hand: In wins, the Cavs made threes at a 41 percent clip, versus just 31 percent in losses — a 10-percentage-point gap that was the biggest in the league. And that regular-season gap has only widened, to nearly 11 percentage points, during the playoffs.Every team shoots better in wins than losses; making shots is kind of the point of the game, after all. But some teams can get by during poor shooting nights more readily than others. The Minnesota Timberwolves, for instance, were as good on offense as the Cavs this season, but they had the league’s third-smallest difference between their 3-point percentage in wins and losses (3 percentage points) because they didn’t really rely on threes for a strong offensive performance.2Indeed, the T-Wolves tried the fewest threes per 100 possessions of any team in the NBA this year. For the Cavs, though, threes are the leading indicator of their overall health as a team. Here are the correlations between various metrics and Cleveland’s efficiency margin in each game this season: Cavaliers’ free throw %+0.32 read more