Larry Kart

While predicting the outcomes is not perfect, the process is not random; coaches call plays based on close observation of the tendencies of their opponents and the game situation. To take an obvious example, calling a screen pass would make little sense unless one felt sure that a vigorous pass rush was in the offing. All of this, and much more, is grist for a team's analytics department. It helps of course to have better players than your opponent does, but teams do spend a lot of time and effort trying to put the right players in the right places at the right times, and when they do so it usually pays off. How many times, for example, do you see a player break free for a easy TD, and upon viewing the replay you see that he didn't make a stunning athletic move but rather that the play that was cailed left him more or less in the open/uncovered? Afterwards In the booth you may see some analytics nerd getting a pat on the back.

Good question. So-called analytics, for sure, in football but I don't think the synergistic (22 men on the field, interacting) nature of the game lends itself to Sabremetrics and its (or so I believe) tight focus on individual, isolatable performance (e.g. fielding range) and one-on-one matchups (batter vs. pitcher). For instance, you could try to measure a particular db against a particular wide receiver, but the outcome of those encounters is so dependent on, say, what the QB does or what the other defensive players do.

The final score? It got there because Mahones took a much chancier chance -- throwing a long pass to a double-covered Tyreek Hill -- than almost any chance he would have/could have taken from the Cincy 5-yard-line at the end of regulation. Also, after. the interception the KC defense then failed to stop Cincy. P.S, Didn't Mahones say afterwards that Tyreek usually catches that ball? As the color commentator -- was it Aikman?-- kept saying re: KC's play in the second half -- "Patience, Patience." When you're the better team -- and KC probably was -- you can get arrogant. ; KV I'm yjr droned la --

If I may quote from Steve Reynolds (above) and what he says about Reid's too fancy "thinking" -- thatI do understand: "They were trying to score the TD but not leave time on the clock. Too fancy. Maybe the run on first down was ok to get Cincy to take their last timeout. Then Mahomes continued to spit the bit. Score when you can and play defense.... Andy Reid has a very poor track record on these games and situations just as he & Mahomes messed up at the end of the first half." Also, Jim, what happened in OT has no bearing on Reid's prior end-of-regulation realtime decisions, which I thought were dubious right at the time. Further, KC could have lost the OT coin flip, Cincy marches downfield to score etc. Maybe KC should have tried at the five-yard-line that Matt Nagy hook-and-ladder trick play that won the Chiefs the Super Bowl.

KC had first and goal on the Bengals' 5-yard line toward the end of regulation, and it's a nitpickey question? Again, what am I missing? Score a TD there, making the score 28-24, and that probably would have been the game.

Both are good points, especially the first one, but still why did the Chiefs at the end of regulation vs. the Bengals seemingly play for a tie instead of trying to score a TD, which likely would have iced the game. Did Reid fear that Burrow was Superman and his defense was tissue paper? IIRC, the plays KC ran down there were half-hearted, and if those attempts had failed, there still would have been time to kick the FG, as they did. Throw a pass to Kelce for God's sake! Yes, Reid's first half decision was a boner, but toward the end of regulation the whole game was staring the Orange marshmallow right in the face, and he went for a tie instead of the win when he still had the FG in the bag? What am I missing?

Can't imagine what the ending of that game mustt have felt like to Bills fans. That last Biis TD pass felt like it had to be the conclusion.

I quote: "The Bengals offense held up its end of the bargain by posting two field goals and a touchdown to give Cincinnati a 24-21 lead. Kansas City’s offense stopped its drought by driving to a first and goal the Bengals' 5-yard line very late in the fourth quarter, but two sacks by Cincinnati forced the Chiefs to settle for a tying Harrison Butker field goal." Maybe I just misunderstood what was going on there, but it seemed inexplicable to me that when the Chiefs, trailing by three points, drove "to a first and goal [at] the Bengals' 5-yard line very late in the fourth quarter" they then seemingly didn't try very hard to score a TD when they pretty much knew thy could kick a field goal and send the game into overtime. Yes, attempts to score a TD could have failed, but even a failed TD attempt or two probably still would have left time for an almost certain game-tying Chiefs' field goal (barring a turnover). But to take a 28-24 lead at that very late point in the game, even if Burrow and the Bengals would have been left with some time (but not much IIRC) to mount a go-ahead drive, certainly seemed to me like the thing to do. Yes, there were those two sacks mentioned above, after which that Chiefs' game-tying FG attempt was obligatory. But those sacks came on plays from the Chiefs that seemed rather half-hearted to me, not the sort of aggressive stuff one expects from Mahones and Co. Ir's as though they were playing for the tie. If so, why?

How about that!

Just to be clear, I greatly admire PC's pizzicato work as accompanist and soloist.

I was making no such would-be joke. I just, with a few exceptions, can't stand Chambers' bowed solos.

You tell me:

The horror! The horror!

P.S. to Garland's "Please Send Me Someone To Love" -- the icing on the cake is Paul Chambers' soulful solo.

In the 1941 NARBA reallocation, WCFL moved to 1000 kHz. The same year, it was granted a Class 1-B clear channel license, and increased its power to 10,000 watts.

I think WCFL was pretty powerful.

In Chicago, Daddy-O Daylie on a number of AM stations over the years and Sid McCoy on WCFL. ("Hey, hey, old bean, and you too baby... It's time for The Real McCoy."

For me, Red Garland's version of "Please Send Me Someone To Love" from "Red Garland's Piano."

Mosaic Tristano set, trio recordings. The last several with Ind and Alan Levitt are out of sight.

I picked up many of the Singers Unlimited albums on CD at a library sale. They sound great, big improvement over the LPs, many of which I had. One performance that I can't get out my head is "The More I See You," the ending especially.

That's Mrs. Sandke (Karen IIRC) on the left with whatever instrument that is. Good record.

And magical.

BTW, looking again at some of the less prominent Mosaic sets, like the Benny Morton/Jimmy Hamilton Swingtets two-LP set, I found myself entranced by Dan's annotations (when he was the annotator). So much deep knowledge, so gracefully, lovingly conveyed.

So I blew it. All I have are the two Blue Note "Genius of Modern Music" CDs. Can't imagine why I passed on the Monk set. Who did the annotations for it?

I wondered about that when I was compiling this list, but I think I already had all of the Monk set on separate Blue Note albums.