Ted Hoffman's Actuarials
@tedhoffman.bsky.social
Guy who does the actuarials on stuff. Also does analytics, not "teh analytics." Follows weather for a hobby. Ascended in Nethack twice. Defeated the arcade game Gauntlet. Probably other stuff you don't care about either. Pretty funny for an actuary.
This is a team that has good pieces that don't fit together.
They've changed the head coach (x2!), they've trimmed around the edges on the roster, ... either the core needs broken up or the person that put all of this together needs to fall on his sword.
Or, hope for another back-half miracle run.
They've changed the head coach (x2!), they've trimmed around the edges on the roster, ... either the core needs broken up or the person that put all of this together needs to fall on his sword.
Or, hope for another back-half miracle run.
November 16, 2025 at 6:33 PM
This is a team that has good pieces that don't fit together.
They've changed the head coach (x2!), they've trimmed around the edges on the roster, ... either the core needs broken up or the person that put all of this together needs to fall on his sword.
Or, hope for another back-half miracle run.
They've changed the head coach (x2!), they've trimmed around the edges on the roster, ... either the core needs broken up or the person that put all of this together needs to fall on his sword.
Or, hope for another back-half miracle run.
It's a mess that's been predictable for a while, and has been papered over by mid-season coaching changes and the "new coach" effect.
But there's no masking what this roster is - and importantly, what it's not. It's not a good roster, pieces don't fit together, and this could go on for years.
But there's no masking what this roster is - and importantly, what it's not. It's not a good roster, pieces don't fit together, and this could go on for years.
November 16, 2025 at 5:58 PM
It's a mess that's been predictable for a while, and has been papered over by mid-season coaching changes and the "new coach" effect.
But there's no masking what this roster is - and importantly, what it's not. It's not a good roster, pieces don't fit together, and this could go on for years.
But there's no masking what this roster is - and importantly, what it's not. It's not a good roster, pieces don't fit together, and this could go on for years.
44-51-8, 76.4 points/82 through 28 games the last 3 seasons + the current one doesn't scream "serious playoff / Cup threat."
Fortunately for Steen, it's not his problem until next year.
Unfortunately for Steen, he's still going to inherit this + whatever his boss does between now and then.
Fortunately for Steen, it's not his problem until next year.
Unfortunately for Steen, he's still going to inherit this + whatever his boss does between now and then.
November 16, 2025 at 5:56 PM
44-51-8, 76.4 points/82 through 28 games the last 3 seasons + the current one doesn't scream "serious playoff / Cup threat."
Fortunately for Steen, it's not his problem until next year.
Unfortunately for Steen, he's still going to inherit this + whatever his boss does between now and then.
Fortunately for Steen, it's not his problem until next year.
Unfortunately for Steen, he's still going to inherit this + whatever his boss does between now and then.
Will there be a roster shakeup? No clue.
Should there be? Absolutely.
Will it fix anything? No clue.
But I know Alex Steen is going to have his hands full trying to fix this roster to be competitive night in and night out when in recent years it's half-assed it.
Should there be? Absolutely.
Will it fix anything? No clue.
But I know Alex Steen is going to have his hands full trying to fix this roster to be competitive night in and night out when in recent years it's half-assed it.
November 16, 2025 at 5:54 PM
Will there be a roster shakeup? No clue.
Should there be? Absolutely.
Will it fix anything? No clue.
But I know Alex Steen is going to have his hands full trying to fix this roster to be competitive night in and night out when in recent years it's half-assed it.
Should there be? Absolutely.
Will it fix anything? No clue.
But I know Alex Steen is going to have his hands full trying to fix this roster to be competitive night in and night out when in recent years it's half-assed it.
I really doubt ownership wants to pay ~3 years on a head coach that's no longer here.
And I *really* don't think the head coach is the problem here, given how this roster for the last 8-9 years responds to change or the lack of.
And I *really* don't think the head coach is the problem here, given how this roster for the last 8-9 years responds to change or the lack of.
November 16, 2025 at 5:52 PM
I really doubt ownership wants to pay ~3 years on a head coach that's no longer here.
And I *really* don't think the head coach is the problem here, given how this roster for the last 8-9 years responds to change or the lack of.
And I *really* don't think the head coach is the problem here, given how this roster for the last 8-9 years responds to change or the lack of.
It's a question the organization needs to ask and answer, because Jim Montgomery is under contract for 3 years beyond this one and Drew Bannister is still getting paid the 2nd year of his 2-year contract signed before the 2024-25 season.
I doubt ownership wants to pay a 3rd head coach.
I doubt ownership wants to pay a 3rd head coach.
November 16, 2025 at 5:50 PM
It's a question the organization needs to ask and answer, because Jim Montgomery is under contract for 3 years beyond this one and Drew Bannister is still getting paid the 2nd year of his 2-year contract signed before the 2024-25 season.
I doubt ownership wants to pay a 3rd head coach.
I doubt ownership wants to pay a 3rd head coach.
Is this all the better the roster is, absent a coaching change and the ensuing bump?
Is this a roster with good players but poor synergy?
Is it tough scheduling? Is it just really bad luck?
Or is it a roster that's gotten really comfortable knowing if there's a problem, the coach gets the blame?
Is this a roster with good players but poor synergy?
Is it tough scheduling? Is it just really bad luck?
Or is it a roster that's gotten really comfortable knowing if there's a problem, the coach gets the blame?
November 16, 2025 at 5:47 PM
Is this all the better the roster is, absent a coaching change and the ensuing bump?
Is this a roster with good players but poor synergy?
Is it tough scheduling? Is it just really bad luck?
Or is it a roster that's gotten really comfortable knowing if there's a problem, the coach gets the blame?
Is this a roster with good players but poor synergy?
Is it tough scheduling? Is it just really bad luck?
Or is it a roster that's gotten really comfortable knowing if there's a problem, the coach gets the blame?
But history says "absent a coaching change, they're probably going to play around this pace." Looking at past seasons, the final 54 has looked a lot like the first 28 absent a coaching change or an injury [Schwartz in 2018, vs. Buffalo in game 31].
Why? Great question.
Why? Great question.
November 16, 2025 at 5:44 PM
But history says "absent a coaching change, they're probably going to play around this pace." Looking at past seasons, the final 54 has looked a lot like the first 28 absent a coaching change or an injury [Schwartz in 2018, vs. Buffalo in game 31].
Why? Great question.
Why? Great question.
That brings us to this season's 6-9-4 start.
Teh analytics might say "they haven't been that bad." The eye test says "they're absolutely that bad." Do they have enough talent to play better? Absolutely, and I wouldn't bet on them to finish at 69 points (their current pace).
Teh analytics might say "they haven't been that bad." The eye test says "they're absolutely that bad." Do they have enough talent to play better? Absolutely, and I wouldn't bet on them to finish at 69 points (their current pace).
November 16, 2025 at 5:41 PM
That brings us to this season's 6-9-4 start.
Teh analytics might say "they haven't been that bad." The eye test says "they're absolutely that bad." Do they have enough talent to play better? Absolutely, and I wouldn't bet on them to finish at 69 points (their current pace).
Teh analytics might say "they haven't been that bad." The eye test says "they're absolutely that bad." Do they have enough talent to play better? Absolutely, and I wouldn't bet on them to finish at 69 points (their current pace).
That leaves 2022-23, when the Blues were coming off a 49-22-11 season and started off 12-5-1. They'd go 25-23-6 the rest of the way to finish 37-38-7, 81 points. It was a 11.8-point improvement on pace. Maybe a little "they weren't as bad as they'd played" but also some "they weren't that good."
November 16, 2025 at 5:40 PM
That leaves 2022-23, when the Blues were coming off a 49-22-11 season and started off 12-5-1. They'd go 25-23-6 the rest of the way to finish 37-38-7, 81 points. It was a 11.8-point improvement on pace. Maybe a little "they weren't as bad as they'd played" but also some "they weren't that good."
The 4 times the Blues started off at under a 90 points/82 games pace through 28 games, they've played at least 10 points/82 better the rest of the way.
The coaching changes to Berube, Bannister and Montgomery? They've played 43.6, 19.6 and 21.3 per 82 better.
The coaching changes to Berube, Bannister and Montgomery? They've played 43.6, 19.6 and 21.3 per 82 better.
November 16, 2025 at 5:38 PM
The 4 times the Blues started off at under a 90 points/82 games pace through 28 games, they've played at least 10 points/82 better the rest of the way.
The coaching changes to Berube, Bannister and Montgomery? They've played 43.6, 19.6 and 21.3 per 82 better.
The coaching changes to Berube, Bannister and Montgomery? They've played 43.6, 19.6 and 21.3 per 82 better.
[Why 82 games? Yes, it's arbitrary - but Berube was fired 28 games into the 2023-24 season. It's a "common" point." Yeo was fired 19 games into the 2018-19 season. Bannister was canned 22 games into the 2024-25 season. It mostly catches the before/after impact of a coaching change.]
November 16, 2025 at 5:36 PM
[Why 82 games? Yes, it's arbitrary - but Berube was fired 28 games into the 2023-24 season. It's a "common" point." Yeo was fired 19 games into the 2018-19 season. Bannister was canned 22 games into the 2024-25 season. It mostly catches the before/after impact of a coaching change.]
Looking at the Blues through 28 games, on average they're about 14-11-3 for 31 points, or a 92-point pace. After that, they're 30-19-5, 65 points, 99-point pace.
Huge difference? Maybe not, but it's important to understand how they get there.
Huge difference? Maybe not, but it's important to understand how they get there.
November 16, 2025 at 5:08 PM
Looking at the Blues through 28 games, on average they're about 14-11-3 for 31 points, or a 92-point pace. After that, they're 30-19-5, 65 points, 99-point pace.
Huge difference? Maybe not, but it's important to understand how they get there.
Huge difference? Maybe not, but it's important to understand how they get there.
In the last 9 years prior to the current one, the Blues have averaged 96.7 points per 82 games. High: 109, in the 2021-22 season. Low: 81, in the 2022-23 season.
November 16, 2025 at 5:05 PM
In the last 9 years prior to the current one, the Blues have averaged 96.7 points per 82 games. High: 109, in the 2021-22 season. Low: 81, in the 2022-23 season.
And why shouldn't they? They've been told for a long time how great they are, how valuable they are, and top guys have never been seriously challenged. It's always been "let me find something else to help you, let me try to help you feel even more comfortable here."
Enough.
Enough.
November 16, 2025 at 2:47 PM
And why shouldn't they? They've been told for a long time how great they are, how valuable they are, and top guys have never been seriously challenged. It's always been "let me find something else to help you, let me try to help you feel even more comfortable here."
Enough.
Enough.
That might start with making a major change to this roster.
Guys need a wake up call. They're clearly very comfortable being here because none of them have been made to feel like they're playing for a job, like they have to bust their ass to avoid being replaced by someone else.
Guys need a wake up call. They're clearly very comfortable being here because none of them have been made to feel like they're playing for a job, like they have to bust their ass to avoid being replaced by someone else.
November 16, 2025 at 2:45 PM
That might start with making a major change to this roster.
Guys need a wake up call. They're clearly very comfortable being here because none of them have been made to feel like they're playing for a job, like they have to bust their ass to avoid being replaced by someone else.
Guys need a wake up call. They're clearly very comfortable being here because none of them have been made to feel like they're playing for a job, like they have to bust their ass to avoid being replaced by someone else.
"... and this is how Kevin and @radiofreetom.bsky.social ended up in that argument over a movie."
November 16, 2025 at 3:04 AM
"... and this is how Kevin and @radiofreetom.bsky.social ended up in that argument over a movie."
At least the lines last night looked vaguely reasonable.
The defensive effort was ... completely unreasonable, but that's what this team is right now. Lots of focus on offense, not nearly enough focus on defense.
The defensive effort was ... completely unreasonable, but that's what this team is right now. Lots of focus on offense, not nearly enough focus on defense.
November 15, 2025 at 6:47 PM
At least the lines last night looked vaguely reasonable.
The defensive effort was ... completely unreasonable, but that's what this team is right now. Lots of focus on offense, not nearly enough focus on defense.
The defensive effort was ... completely unreasonable, but that's what this team is right now. Lots of focus on offense, not nearly enough focus on defense.
Texas A&M adopts this and then the football team is getting *utterly fucking embarrassed* at home.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
November 15, 2025 at 6:45 PM
Texas A&M adopts this and then the football team is getting *utterly fucking embarrassed* at home.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
You can hear Don Henley's "Boys of Summer" playing in the background of that picture.
If you're particularly unlucky, you can hear Nuzzi and RFK Jr. singing it as a duet - her trying to sound Marilyn Monroe chic, him sounding like emphysema personified in an acoustic feedback loop.
If you're particularly unlucky, you can hear Nuzzi and RFK Jr. singing it as a duet - her trying to sound Marilyn Monroe chic, him sounding like emphysema personified in an acoustic feedback loop.
November 14, 2025 at 7:18 PM
You can hear Don Henley's "Boys of Summer" playing in the background of that picture.
If you're particularly unlucky, you can hear Nuzzi and RFK Jr. singing it as a duet - her trying to sound Marilyn Monroe chic, him sounding like emphysema personified in an acoustic feedback loop.
If you're particularly unlucky, you can hear Nuzzi and RFK Jr. singing it as a duet - her trying to sound Marilyn Monroe chic, him sounding like emphysema personified in an acoustic feedback loop.
In this Iowa diner, there's 3 questions: How's the breaded tenderloin? How's the corn harvest look? And can I still sexually assault teenage girls legally if I write DO NOTE REPEAT THIS in an e-mail?
November 14, 2025 at 3:15 AM
In this Iowa diner, there's 3 questions: How's the breaded tenderloin? How's the corn harvest look? And can I still sexually assault teenage girls legally if I write DO NOTE REPEAT THIS in an e-mail?
ACA was very [semi-wildly?] popular with voters. Obamacare was not [never?] popular voters, and Republicans mentioned Obamacare at every opening of a door.
Yes, they're the same thing - but Democrats decided to play along with Rs on the name game and lost years of building more support for ACA.
Yes, they're the same thing - but Democrats decided to play along with Rs on the name game and lost years of building more support for ACA.
November 13, 2025 at 1:53 PM
ACA was very [semi-wildly?] popular with voters. Obamacare was not [never?] popular voters, and Republicans mentioned Obamacare at every opening of a door.
Yes, they're the same thing - but Democrats decided to play along with Rs on the name game and lost years of building more support for ACA.
Yes, they're the same thing - but Democrats decided to play along with Rs on the name game and lost years of building more support for ACA.
Every person mentioned in Jeffrey Epstein's e-mails as a character from Game of Thrones
by Chris Cillizza
by Chris Cillizza
November 13, 2025 at 3:47 AM
Every person mentioned in Jeffrey Epstein's e-mails as a character from Game of Thrones
by Chris Cillizza
by Chris Cillizza