2TennesseeJacksonville32:49190.05 1JacksonvilleHouston20:49180.29 Times when teams clearly should have gone for 22017 NFL season through Week 2 2New OrleansNew England45:04-170.10 2DallasDenver414:24-190.05 Magnitude is the amount that a team’s expected win percentage is improved by making the right decision.Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group. Teams made the correct decision in four of those 16 cases, for a 25 percent rate. (For comparison: Since 2015, regular season and playoffs combined, teams have gone for 2 points 27 percent of the time in “clear go” scenarios.)Of course, a decision being clear-cut doesn’t mean that it matters a whole lot, but note that even among the decisions with the most significant consequences, teams are still making the wrong choices regularly (most likely because of adherence to Dick Vermeil’s rigid and outdated system that leads them to repeat the same mistakes over and over). In particular, the aforementioned scenarios of being down 4, 8, or 11 points late are both quite clear and quite important.Another significant case is when a team scores to pull within 2: Go for 2! This may seem like an obvious one, but since 2015, teams in this situation have chosen to kick the extra point as late as the fourth quarter (once, which is way too many times), and they’ve done so half the time in the third quarter (6 of 12, and still very bad) and 77 percent of the time in the second quarter (10 of 13, and still pretty bad, especially for such an early decision).This season, teams down 4, 8 or 11 late are holding steady at a 0 percent correct rate, having attempted extra points five out of five times when they “clearly” should have gone for it. That means that over the past three season, they’ve gotten these right exactly zero times in 105 chances.On a slightly brighter note, teams have been down 2 points after a touchdown twice this season — both in the third quarter — and they’ve correctly tried to tie the game both times! It’s not quite the revolution — it isn’t really even shots fired. But maybe, just maybe … 1DetroitArizona33:07-21.28✓ 1L.A. ChargersDenver47:00-41.62 2ClevelandBaltimore24:56-80.24 1ClevelandPittsburgh43:36-52.23✓ 1DetroitArizona49:2740.43✓ Before the Super Bowl in February, we published a fairly comprehensive guide for when to go for 2, simplified into one slightly complicated (but very easy to use once you get the hang of it!) chart. In addition to hopefully demystifying how to judge a lot of borderline situations, we identified some fairly clear-cut cases in which NFL coaches should choose to go for 2 but don’t. Ever.My hope, of course, was that teams would read this (or figure it out on their own) and that we’d see an immediate and cataclysmic shift in 2-point strategy — like going for it when down 4, 8, or 11 after scoring a touchdown late (which are not only real cases, but ones that are usually clear-cut and significant). But, alas, no such luck.The logic is pretty simple: If you can estimate your team’s chances of winning with an X point lead/deficit (X points being how many points you are up or down following a touchdown) and your chances of winning with X+1 and X+2, the decision follows from simple arithmetic. In fact, given that 2-point attempts and extra-point attempts taken from the 15-yard line (under the new rules implemented in 2015) now have roughly the same expected point value (both around 0.95 points), the choice is easier than ever. Simply calculate (or estimate):The improvement in win percentage if your point margin changed from X to X+1.The improvement in win percentage if your point margin changed from X+1 to X+2.If the first number is greater, kick the extra point. If the second is, go for 2.Now, you can estimate or intuit these differences on your own on the fly, or you can use a fancy win probability model like we have,1Specifically, a version of the model built by Brian Burke of ESPN’s Stats & Information Group. but the logic is the same.Of course, we’ve taken it a bit further — our chart uses multiple sets of assumptions to create a range for each scenario covering teams that are relatively better or worse at 2-point conversions than our baseline. In case you missed it, here’s the chart:2You should be able to use this chart to pretty accurately assess most decisions you see. If you’re skeptical of the chart, you could intuit your own using the method outlined in that article. 1ChicagoAtlanta47:26-41.33 2PhiladelphiaKansas City40:08-80.05 2ArizonaIndianapolis47:38-41.28 A quick note on reading this chart: It may look a little “loud,” but that’s a feature for looking up scenarios lightning-fast. For a quick approximation, you first look at the minichart corresponding to the point spread (after the touchdown). If the quarter you’re in is shaded bright purple, you probably want to kick; if it’s bright orange, you should probably go for it. If you’re in a rush, you could stop there and be in pretty decent shape.Through the first two weeks of this NFL season, teams have gone for 2 (from the 2-yard line) eight times overall. More importantly, of the 30 times that the numbers say they should have gone for 2, they did so just four times, for a rate of 13 percent. Since 2015, in the regular season and playoffs, teams that should have gone for 2 have done so around 15 percent of the time.Now, of course it’s possible that some teams are better or worse at going for 2 than average, but it isn’t possible that 85 percent of teams are worse than average. I’ve also calculated how often teams should “clearly” go for 2 — meaning situations in which they should go for it even if they are relatively quite bad at 2-point attempts3I set this threshold at a 40 percent expected conversion rate (the same as the bottom of the range lines in the chart above). Or 7.5 percentage points lower than the baseline conversion rate assumption of 47.5 percent. This is a rough best estimate (after discussion with Burke, among others) for how bad teams who are very bad at 2-point conversions actually are). — and there have been 16 such cases through Week 2:4For this season’s scenarios, I’ve analyzed each attempt individually (down to the second), while the chart above is calculated minute by minute, so there may be slight variations between the two. WEEKTEAMOPPONENTQUARTERTIMESCORE AFTER TDMAGNITUDEWENT FOR IT 1N.Y. JetsBuffalo32:00-21.24✓ 1HoustonJacksonville39:09-130.24 1L.A. ChargersDenver48:10-110.43 1BaltimoreCincinnati21:28160.29
Mentioned Above D-Link Wi-Fi Smart Plug D-Link Wi-Fi Smart Plug Preview • Belkin’s WeMo switches have a new rival See it Comments Share your voice See It CNET may get a commission from retail offers. $49 14 The Cheapskate Best laptops for college students: We’ve got an affordable laptop for every student. Best live TV streaming services: Ditch your cable company but keep the live channels and DVR. Review • D-Link’s Wi-Fi Smart Plug needs to wise up $22 Amazon Walmart Tags Mobile Accessories Smart Home PhoneSoap I have mixed feelings about today’s deal, but it’s one of those things that’s in the “you decide” category. Because while I’m not convinced phone germs are a real problem, I strongly believe in “better safe than sorry.” So let me start with the deal, then explain my thinking.For a limited time, and while supplies last, Amazon has the PhoneSoap 3 UV Cell Phone Sanitizer for $63.90 when you clip the on-page 20%-off coupon. Note that CNET may get a share of revenue from the sale of the products featured on this page.See it at AmazonThe coupon should apply to nearly all the available colors, but here’s something I just noticed: If you choose Gold or Sand, you’ll see a price of just $48.99! Now, that’s from third-party seller On the Go Shops, and both colors show “in stock on Aug. 25.” That’s a pretty big price difference, and in the past I’ve seen a few folks get burned by third-party Amazon sellers with too-good-to-be-true pricing. That said, you’re protected by Amazon, so why not go for the better deal? Update: Those colors are no longer available.Another quick note: PhoneSoap proper is offering 30% off select bundles with promo code B2S30.See it at PhoneSoapIn case you never saw the PhoneSoap Shark Tank episode or just haven’t heard of the product, it’s a little UV oven that promises to kill 99.99% of the bacteria on your phone (and similarly small objects: earbuds, keys and so on). It’s clinically proven to work as advertised, and takes all of 10 minutes to do its thing.OK, but, do you need it? That’s where I struggle. You’ve probably heard the reports about phone screens being veritable bacteria magnets, with way more germs on average than even a public toilet. But for years I’ve heard the same thing about my computer keyboard. With all this bacteria out there that we’re constantly touching, why aren’t we all sick all the time?The counter-argument, of course, is that maybe we’d be less sick overall if we wiped our keyboards and UV-zapped our phones. Like I said: Better safe than sorry? For students in particular, who live in the petri-dish worlds of classrooms and dorm rooms, and who grope their phones pretty much 24/7, a PhoneSoap might be a wise investment.For what it’s worth, the gizmo has a 4.4-star average rating from nearly 1,000 buyers.Your thoughts on this? (I know you have some.) Bonus deal: Get a 4-pack of Wi-Fi smart plugs for $24Four for $24. Gosund Every time I write about a smart-plug deal, it sells out quickly — which makes me realize how much everyone is into smart-plug deals. So, here you go: For a limited time, and while supplies last, the Gosund WP5 Wi-Fi smart plug four-pack is just $23.99 when you clip the on-page 5%-off coupon and apply promo code GOSUNDWP5 at checkout.See it at AmazonThat’s only $6 off the regular price, but it still works out to a pretty compelling $6 per plug. Typically you’ll see one for around $10 and two for $18.Though it’s hard to tell for sure, the WP5 looks compact enough that you can plug it into an outlet without blocking the other outlet. It’s compatible with Alexa, Google Assistant and IFTTT — no hub required — though it does require a 2.4GHz Wi-Fi network. If yours can operate only at 5GHz, look elsewhere.The plugs have a 4.2-star average rating from nearly 800 buyers, and Gosund backs them with an impressive two-year warranty.CNET’s Cheapskate scours the web for great deals on tech products and much more. For the latest deals and updates, follow the Cheapskate on Facebook and Twitter. Questions about the Cheapskate blog? Find the answers on our FAQ page, and find more great buys on the CNET Deals page.
Health workers in protective suits transport Dr. Martin Salia, a surgeon working in Sierra Leone who had been diagnosed with Ebola, from a jet that brought him from Sierra Leone to a waiting ambulance that will take him to the Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, Neb., Saturday, Nov. 15, 2014. Dr. Salia is the third Ebola patient at the Omaha hospital and the 10th person with Ebola to be treated in the U.S. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A surgeon who contracted Ebola in his native Sierra Leone did not receive aggressive treatment until nearly two weeks after he first started showing symptoms — a delay that doctors said probably made it impossible for anyone to save his life.Dr. Martin Salia was in the 13th day of his illness when he reached Omaha on Saturday. He had waited three days to be formally diagnosed after an initial test for Ebola came back negative. He then waited five more days to be flown to the United States.By the time the 44-year-old Maryland man got to the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, the deadly virus had done too much damage, shutting down Salia’s kidneys and making breathing difficult, doctors said. He died Monday.“In the very advanced stages, even the modern techniques we have at our disposal are not enough to help these patients once they reach a critical threshold,” said Dr. Jeffrey Gold, chancellor of the medical center.The virus has already killed more than 5,000 people in West Africa.Salia, who chose to work in his homeland despite more lucrative opportunities elsewhere, was first tested for Ebola on Nov. 7, but the test was negative, and he was discharged from a treatment center in Sierre Leone.It’s not unusual to see false negative tests for Ebola in the early stages because the amount of the virus in the bloodstream is still low, said Dr. Phil Smith, the infectious-disease expert who leads the Nebraska Medical Center’s biocontainment unit.The U.S. government warns doctors to be wary of possible false negative tests for Ebola.Salia tested positive for the disease on Nov. 10 but did not arrive at an Omaha hospital until Saturday.Two other Ebola patients treated in Omaha this fall arrived at the hospital roughly a week earlier in their illnesses, before nausea, vomiting and more serious symptoms set in. Both of those men recovered.Government officials in Sierra Leone promised a full investigation into the treatment Salia received.“At this point, we can’t say for certain whether it was this misdiagnosis or not that led to his death,” Deputy Information Minister Theo Nicol said in a statement to The Associated Press. The government planned to request a full medical report from the hospital where he was last treated.In this April 2014 photo provided by the United Methodist News Service, Dr. Martin Salia poses for a photo at the United Methodist Church’s Kissy Hospital outside Freetown, Sierra Leone. Salia who was diagnosed with Ebola on Monday, landed at Eppley Airfield in Omaha, Neb., Saturday, Nov. 17, 2014, and was being transported to the Nebraska Medical Center. (AP Photo/United Methodist News Service, Mike DuBose)Salia, a permanent U.S. resident, was reportedly receiving blood from an Ebola survivor while in Sierra Leone, the government statement said. The treatment is believed to provide antibodies to fight the virus.The government statement questioned whether “the strain of the 16-hour trip could have had a negative impact on his recovery.”Doctors with an air-transport service assessed Salia in Sierra Leone last week before deciding he was stable enough for the long flight to Nebraska.In Omaha, Salia was placed on kidney dialysis and a ventilator and was given several medications, the hospital said. He was given the experimental Ebola drug ZMapp and received another plasma transfusion from an Ebola survivor.“I know that we gave him every possible chance to survive. I think that his family feels confident in that as well,” Dr. Daniel Johnson said Monday at a news conference.Salia’s wife, Isatu Salia, who lives in New Carrollton, Maryland, said Monday that the family believed he was treated “in the best place possible.”But by the time her husband arrived in Omaha, he was already unresponsive, doctors said.In a Friday telephone interview, she said she had spoken to her husband and prayed with him. Although his voice sounded weak and shaky, she said he told her “I love you” in a steady voice.Salia graduated from the Pan African Academy of Christian Surgeons training program in 2008. He was free to practice anywhere he wanted, but he chose to stay in Sierra Leone, where the need for surgeons is immense.“He honestly believed that’s what God wanted him to do,” said Bruce Steffes, executive director of the academy.Salia was a member of a United Brethren Church congregation in Sierra Leone, and the church helped support his medical training.Jeff Bleijerveld, director of global ministries for the church, knew Salia through missionary work. He said Salia’s death is a testament to “his Christian faith, his willingness to, if necessary, lay down his life for others.”___Associated Press writers Nedra Pickler in Washington, D.C., Clarence Roy-Macaulay in Freetown, Sierra Leone, Nelson Lampe in Omaha, Nebraska, and Krista Larson in Dakar, Senegal, contributed to this report.