Earlier this month, Major League Baseball said it was considering a rule change to require pitchers to face at least three batters per appearance — or finish an inning — as part of a series of initiatives to improve the pace of play. I don’t hate this; I’ve always been a fan of relief pitchers working longer outings. But I think the MLB proposal misses the real problem.The issue isn’t really with relievers who face just one hitter at a time. In fact, LOOGYs — Left-handed One-Out Guys — are already fading in popularity as teams realize that if a pitcher isn’t good enough to face multiple hitters in a row, he may not belong in the bullpen pecking order at all.Instead, the problem concerns teams that use a parade of relievers who enter the game from the sixth inning onward and throw the hell out of the ball, knowing they’ll probably max out at one inning at a time. (The Yankee bullpen is a prime example.) You might call these pitchers OMGs: One-inning Max-effort Guys. They can be incredibly, game-changingly effective, but they aren’t necessarily all that skilled.In fact, the whole problem is that OMGs are a renewable resource, with no real constraints on supply. Teams can take failed starters with two decent pitches and, after some weeding out, turn them into OMGs who will strike out 25 or 30 percent of the batters they face, provided they only have to throw one inning every second or third day. It also yields rosters that are grossly imbalanced relative to the amount of value that these relievers generate. According to FanGraphs, relief pitchers accounted for only about 9 percent of the value (in wins above replacement) that all position players and pitchers created last year. And yet, they occupy about 25 percent of roster slots.And to a larger degree than you probably realize, these OMGs bear responsibility for the ever-increasing rate of strikeouts in baseball — something that was easier to shrug off until MLB attendance started to decline.More relievers means more strikeoutsStrikeouts have been increasing for more or less the entirety of baseball history. Here’s the trajectory from 19081I’m using 1908 as the cutoff because that’s the earliest season for which Baseball-Reference.com has data on the number of pitchers used per game, which we’re comparing the strikeout rate against. up until last year — when, for the first time, more plate appearances ended with strikeouts than with base hits. As starterAs reliever That looks a lot like the previous graph showing the strikeout rate — the correlation is 0.96 — including a dip in both pitchers used and strikeouts at the end of the Deadball Era in the late 1910s and again at the end of the Second Deadball Era in the early 1970s, and then an especially steep acceleration in both strikeouts and pitchers used over the past few years.It’s not just a coincidence that relief pitcher usage and strikeout rate are correlated in this way. When you take a starter and use him in relief — especially in a short stint that typically lasts only an inning or so — his strikeout rate will be usually be higher, and sometimes a lot higher. You can also expect him to throw harder and to use a more dangerous repertoire consisting of more fastballs and sliders.Here’s the tale of the tape. Using data from FanGraphs, I looked at all pitchers who worked both as starters and relievers between 2016 and 2018, providing for a direct, head-to-head comparison of how the pitchers performed in each role. These pitchers’ strikeout rates were about 12 percent higher when they came on in relief than when they started. They also threw about a mile per hour harder in relief.4In my analysis, observations are weighted by the lesser of the number of batters a pitcher faced as a starter or as a reliever. For example, a pitcher who threw to 500 batters as a starter and 200 batters as a reliever would receive a weight of 200. Pitchers who averaged fewer than 15 batters faced per start, i.e. who served as “openers” or tandem starters, are excluded from the analysis. RH set-up60085 Share fastballs54.1%55.1% Games PitchedGames StartedInnings Pitched Strikeout rate18.7%20.6% Observations are weighted by the lesser of the number of batters a pitcher faced as a starter and in relief from 2016 to 2018. For example, a pitcher who threw to 500 batters as a starter and 200 batters as a reliever would receive a weight of 200. Pitchers who averaged fewer than 15 batters faced per start, i.e. who served as “openers” or tandem starters, are excluded from the analysis.Source: Fangraphs Observations are weighted by the lesser of the number of batters a pitcher faced as a starter and in relief from 2016 to 2018. For example, a pitcher who threw to 500 batters as a starter and 200 batters as a reliever would receive a weight of 200. Pitchers who averaged fewer than 15 batters faced per start, i.e. who served as “openers” or tandem starters, are excluded from the analysis.Source: Fangraphs Share sliders13.9%15.0% Five or fewer batters It’s much easier to throw an inning at a timeStatistics for MLB pitchers who worked as both starters and relievers, 2016-18, by how many batters faced per relief appearance No. 2 starter3333210 Long reliever/spot starter403100 Share fastballs53.6%54.0% There are a couple of peaks marking the end of the Deadball Era in the late 1910s and then another pitchers’ era in the mid-to-late 1960s, but overall the trend is very steady. Over this period, the correlation between the year and the strikeout rate is 0.91.One other baseball trend has been equally if not more relentless, however: As time has passed, teams have relied more and more on their bullpens. As a result, both starting pitchers and relievers have seen increasingly shorter stints. Thus, the number of pitchers per team per game has steadily increased, from 1.4 in 1908 to around 4.4 now.The correlation is stronger still if you look at the number of pitchers used relative to the number of plate appearances in a typical game.2This accounts for the fact that other things held equal, strikeouts reduce offensive output, and less offense means fewer plate appearances per game, since the team doesn’t get through the order as often. For instance, if you take the number of pitchers used per 38 plate appearances3More precisely, per 38.23 plate appearances. — over the long run, MLB teams average about 38 plate appearances per game — you get this: Share fastballs53.6%56.9% As starterAs reliever Emergency Pitchers10020 Strikeout rate18.4%20.6% Fastball velocity91.6 mph92.2 mph Fastball velocity91.5 mph92.3 mph September call-up starters5525 Share sliders12.6%13.6% Strikeout rate16.7%17.7% Total4671621,450 No. 5 starter3022150 RoleGames PitchedGames StartedInnings Pitched What a 10-man pitching staff might look like Fastball velocity91.7 mph93.6 mph Share sliders17.7%19.4% Fastball velocity91.6 mph92.5 mph Those are meaningful gains, but the really big differences come when you use pitchers in short stints that are roughly one inning long. In the next table, I’ve assigned the pitchers who worked both as starters and relievers into three groups: first, those who averaged five or fewer batters faced per relief appearance (these are guys who usually threw just one inning at a time — the OMGs); second, those who averaged more than five but fewer than eight batters faced (a mix of one-inning and multi-inning appearances); and third, those who averaged eight or more batters faced (mostly multi-inning appearances). Position players could still pitch, but they wouldn’t be allowed to pitch to a greater number of batters than the number of plate appearances they’d recorded so far on the season as hitters. A backup catcher with 100 plate appearances could face up to 100 batters as a pitcher, for instance (which works out to roughly 20 or 25 innings). With this rule, teams could use position players to pitch on an emergency basis basically whenever they wanted, but they couldn’t designate pitchers as position players just to circumvent the 10-pitcher requirement. Brooks Kieschnick types would need to have their innings and plate appearances monitored carefully.8Or teams could designate their Kieschnicks as pitchers; nothing in what I’m proposing would prevent a team’s 10 pitchers from being used at other positions.After the roster expanded to 40 players in September, minor league call-ups who were not on the 10-pitcher list could start games, subject to a requirement that they threw at least 60 pitches or five innings or — a mercy rule — gave up at least five runs. They could not appear in relief, however.Relief pitchers, especially the OMGs, aren’t going to like this, so the restrictions could be phased in over several years. For instance, you could start with a 12-pitcher limit beginning in 2020, then ratchet it down to 11 pitchers in 2022 and 10 pitchers in 2024 as teams adapted to the new requirements.As you can see, the goal here is to be fairly strict: While we want to provide for a bit of flexibility, we mostly want to force teams to stick to the 10 players they designate as pitchers as much as possible. For that matter, we’d probably also want to tighten rules surrounding the injured list and minor-league call-ups, which teams regularly use and abuse to add de facto roster slots — but that’s not a part of this proposal per se.Toward a new equilibriumSo how would teams use their pitching staffs under these rules? That’s anyone’s guess, and part of the fun would be in seeing the different strategies that teams adopted. But my guess is that the average team would do something like this to fill the roughly 1,450 innings that major league teams pitch in each regular season: Share fastballs55.6%55.8% Ace starter3434230 As starterAs reliever As starterAs reliever No. 3 starter3333195 Position players5010 LH set-up70075 Starters supercharge their K rate when working in reliefStatistics for MLB pitchers who worked as both starters and relievers, 2016-18 RoleGames PitchedGames StartedInnings Pitched Closer60080 Between five and eight batters Share sliders13.4%13.9% Strikeout rate19.9%23.9% The first group — the OMGs — got a massive, 20 percent boost to their strikeout rate as relievers. They also gained about 2 mph worth of fastball velocity. And they were able to throw fastballs or sliders — the pitches that seem to be at the core of increasing K rates — 76 percent of the time in relief as compared with 71 percent of the time as starters.Conversely, the third group — the long relievers who routinely worked multi-inning stints — got only a 6 percent gain in their strikeout rates relative to the ones they had as starters, and they added only 0.6 mph to their fastballs.LOOGYs aren’t really the problemThe MLB proposal would effectively kill off the LOOGY, along with its much rarer companion, the ROOGY. So it’s worth asking: If relief pitchers are especially effective when they’re limited to only one inning of work, does it follow that they do even better when limited to just one or two hitters? That is to say, could MLB’s proposal to require that pitchers face at least three batters cause an especially large reduction in strikeout rates?The answer is: not really. If you further break down our sample of pitchers and look at those who threw very short stints in relief,5Those who averaged fewer than four batters faced per relief appearance between 2016 and 2018. they actually had fewer strikeouts than those who averaged around an inning per appearance.6Four or five batters faced. A lot of this is selection bias: Guys who are brought in to face only one or two hitters at a time are usually mediocre pitchers with big platoon splits. Left-handers who became LOOGYs are generally worse as starting pitchers than the rest of the sample; indeed, they’re quite a bit better in relief than in their starting roles. Nonetheless, they’re not all that effective in relief — much less effective than the OMGs — and because they throw so few innings, they don’t affect the bottom line that much in terms of baseball’s strikeout rate. Durable middle reliever55090 Eight or more batters No. 4 starter3232180 This strategy envisions that starting pitchers would throw 6.0 innings per start, up from 5.4 innings per start in 2018 but a bit less than the 6.2 innings per start that pitchers averaged in the 1980s. Relievers would average around 1.6 innings per appearance, meanwhile — considerably up from 2018 (1.1 inning per appearance) and about the same as in the 1980s.Overall, this plan would entail using 2.9 pitchers per team per game, which is close to where baseball was in the late 1980s. But we could balance out the workload more effectively than teams did back then. As you can see in the table, we could get the necessary innings from a 10-man staff without having to ask starters to throw 270 or 280 innings, as ace starters sometimes did in the 1980s, and without having to ask closers to throw 140 innings a year, as sometimes happened too. Starters would have to work through the third time in the order a bit more often, but there would still be plenty of room for discretion on the part of the manager.The most consequential change would be that we’d cut down on the number of OMG innings. There would still be plenty of them, to be sure. But if you went overboard, it would come with a lot of trade-offs. If a team tried to employ five relievers who each worked 70 appearances of one inning each, for instance, its five starters would have to average about 6.5 innings per start, so they’d be working through the third time in the lineup a lot more often.And if you did want to use a pitcher to face only one or two batters, you could still do it, but it would be more costly still — with a 10-man pitching staff, someone else is always going to have to pick up the slack.This would also relieve (pun somewhat intended) the monotony of the OMGs. We wouldn’t be removing any spots from the 25-man roster. (In fact, we’d essentially be adding one for the Emergency Pitcher.) But we’d be requiring at least 15 of them to be used on position players. Pinch runners, pinch hitters, platoon players, defensive replacements and third catchers — all of whom have become endangered species as teams use every marginal roster slot on an OMG — would begin to roam the baseball field freely again.I’m reluctant to estimate the overall amount by which my rule change would reduce strikeouts or improve pace of play. That’s because baseball strategy is a dynamic system, and our goal is to change teams’ overall attitudes toward pitcher usage. Pitching to contact might become more common again, for instance, as starters would need to throw longer outings. Keep in mind that if starters are only expected to work through the order two or two-and-a-half times, tossing perhaps five or six innings, they can also throw at relatively high effort. So we wouldn’t just be reducing strikeouts by exchanging some OMGs for multi-inning relievers; starters would also have to pace themselves more, too.But if relief-pitcher usage has as close a relationship with strikeout rates as I think it does, the net effects could be substantial. This rule would essentially roll relief-pitcher usage back to what it was in the late 1980s or early 1990s and could bring strikeouts back toward what they were back then too, when pitchers struck out about 15 percent of the batters they faced instead of the 22 percent they do now.That’s probably too optimistic; at least some of the increase in strikeout rate undoubtedly has to do with pitchers being bigger and stronger and throwing harder than ever before.9Then again, hitters are probably also better than ever before. But some kind of intervention is needed. The OMG-dominated equilibrium of today may be ruthlessly efficient, but it isn’t making for an aesthetically or strategically rewarding form of baseball. And because LOOGYs are fading in popularity, they don’t necessarily contribute all that much to slowing down the game. Of the roughly 16,000 pitching changes in 2018, only about 5,000 occured in the middle of the inning, according to data provided to FiveThirtyEight by David Smith of Retrosheet. These midinning changes are indeed time-consuming — adding about 3 minutes and 15 seconds worth of game time, Smith estimates. (Pitching changes between innings add only about 15 seconds, by contrast.) But they aren’t all that common.How to bring balance back to bullpensThere’s a better idea than the MLB minimum batters proposal, one that would also speed up the game but that would yield more interesting strategy and — most importantly, from my point of view — cut down on the number of strikeouts, perhaps substantially. The core of my proposal is simple: Each team should be limited to carrying 10 pitchers on its 25-man active roster, plus an Emergency Pitcher.Like it? Hate it? Well, let me give you some of the details first:What’s an Emergency Pitcher? He’s a pitcher who could be signed either on a game-by-game basis — in the way that emergency goalies are used in the NHL — or for any length of time up to a full season. The Emergency Pitcher couldn’t be a member of a team’s 40-man roster, although — just for fun — he could be a member of a team’s coaching staff.7Maybe Bartolo Colon could play into his 60s as an Emergency Pitcher/pitching coach. Emergency Pitchers could enter the game only under certain circumstances:If the starting pitcher left the game because of injury;If one team led by at least 10 runs;If it were the 11th inning or later; orIf it were the second game of a doubleheader.
For representational purposesReuters/Leonhard FoegeAkshaya Tritiya, also known as Akha Teej, falls on the third lunar day of the waxing moon, according to the Indian Vaishakha. In 2019, Akshaya Tritiya will be celebrated on Tuesday, May 7.On this day, many believe that Parusharam, an avatar of Lord Vishnu, was born on Akshaya Tritiya. It is also believed that the sage Ved Vyas began writing the Mahabharat on this day.On Akshaya Tritiya, Hindu households worship the Goddess Lakshmi. They buy cars, houses, and invest in new ventures. Many also buy gold on Akshaya Tritiya believing that the purchase of the jewellery would keep the Goddess happy. One of the reasons to buy gold is to make sure that there are jewellery two months before the Sharavana month which is a favourable time for engagements and marriages. For those not buying gold, who may bring a photo of Goddess Lakshmi’s feet and do a puja for them. Brahmins are advised to donate pots, food, sugar, ghee, for the happiness of their ancestors. Here are some Akshaya Tritiya wishes you can share with your loved ones on an auspicious daySanskrit Word Akshaya means one that never diminishes. May this day of Akshaya Tritiya bring you good luck and success which never diminishes. Happy Akshaya Tritiya.Buying gold is a popular activity on Akshaya Tritiya as it is the ultimate symbol of wealth and prosperity Gold and gold jewellery bought and worn on this day signify never diminishing good fortune. Happy Akshaya Tritiya.Akshaya Tritiya is a very sacred and auspicious day. There is a belief that valuables bought on this special day will bring prosperity, luck and success. So purchase gold of your wish. Happy Akshaya Tritiya.May Lord bless you on this auspicious day of Akshaya Trithiya, and May it be a new beginning of greater prosperity, success and happiness. Greetings on Akshaya Trithiya.
– / 3Downtown got only about 6 inches of rain but more than twice that fell miles away in Northwest Houston along the White Oak Bayou watershed.That water ended-up where the Bayou merges with Buffalo Bayou in downtown Houston.Floodwaters topped street bridges near the University of Houston Downtown main campus.In the nearby Theater District, maintenance workers erected a four foot high metal floodgate across a loading dock that faces the bayou.Northwest of downtown in the Heights, just like what happened Memorial Day last year, White Oak Bayou Drive went underwater, inundating a few units and a few cars in a condo complex.The Katy Freeway at Taylor Street flooded, routing big trucks through otherwise quiet residential streets.Where Houston Avenue dives down under Memorial Drive, the underpass flooded.But unlike in past floods, one of the newly installed flood warning gates came to life, it’s arm dropping down to block drivers, a yellow warning light came on to call attention to a “road closed” sign.The gate was installed last summer and the city hopes to someday have the automatic warning barriers at a total of 27 flood-prone underpasses. Share
Share Yasin Akgul/AFP/Getty Images/Via NPRA new report finds that 2017 was one of the hottest years ever recorded. Here, a man dives into the sea in Istanbul in July 2017 during a heat wave that caused record temperatures in much of Turkey.NOAA has released the latest State of the Climate report, its annual checkup on our planet.So, how did Earth fare in 2017?Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere: record highs. Global surface temperature: near-record high. Sea surface temperature: near-record high. Global sea level: highest on record.Warm global temperatures have been a strong trend in recent years: the four warmest years on record all occurred since 2014, and last year was among them. In fact, 2017 was the warmest non-El Niño year ever recorded.The past three years were “substantially warmer than the previous — kind of establishing a new neighborhood in terms of global temperature,” said Deke Arndt, a climatologist at NOAA and the lead editor of the report. “And 2017 reinforced that.”Several countries reported record high annual temperatures: Argentina, Uruguay, Spain and Bulgaria. And Mexico had record high annual temperatures for the fourth year in a row.NOAA’s report, based on contributions from 500 scientists in 60 countries, was released today on the website of the American Meteorological Society.The findings show the extent to which humans have already changed key aspects of our climate as we’ve increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.The Arctic continued to warm, and preliminary data show that the world’s glaciers have continued to diminish, with the average glacier losing 72 feet off its top since 1980.A coral bleaching event from 2014 to 2017 was “the longest, most widespread, and almost certainly most destructive on record,” the report notes. Mass coral bleaching used to occur at a rate of once every 25–30 years in the 1980s. But now it happens about every six years, and it’s expected to accelerate as the oceans keep warming. Severe bleaching is now occurring faster than reefs can recover.The report shows a number of small shifts in our climate metrics – shifts that can drive extreme events like the heat waves, downpours and wildfires we’ve seen in recent weeks.“We’ve had something on the order of one degree [Celsius] or so of global warming,” says Radley Horton, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, who wasn’t involved in the new report. “It doesn’t sound like much, but already it’s producing more frequent heat waves. We’ve had globally less than a foot of sea level rise in the last century. Again it doesn’t sound like much, but for certain regions it’s already causing a fourfold increase in the frequency of coastal flooding.”What’s most surprising in the report, he says, are the hints that we may be reaching tipping points where change accelerates or becomes irreversible.“The further we push the climate system by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, the greater the potential that we get a sudden surprise — something that climate models and their predictions aren’t able to prepare us for,” Horton says.Last year saw a new record low in the extent of Arctic sea ice in the winter. As sea ice melts, there is less of its white surface reflecting the sun’s rays, and more dark blue ocean absorbing the sunlight. That can create a positive feedback loop in which warmer oceans drive a faster decline of Arctic sea ice than climate models had predicted.Just a decade ago, Horton says, the models predicted that the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2100, while more recent models suggested that could happen by 2050. “Scientists are now concerned it could happen in the next couple decades,” he says.However, not every aspect of climate was record-breaking last year. Tropical cyclones were only slightly above average. Only the North Atlantic basin had an above-normal season, with hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria all causing huge destruction, in the basin’s seventh most active season in 164 years.And fire activity was at its lowest globally since at least 2003 – but the U.S. had by far its most expensive fire season ever, with more than $18 billion in damages.The report “highlights the urgency for us as a society to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” says Horton, “and prepare our most vulnerable communities for some of these climate changes that we’re locked into.”Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.
Explore further More information: Fluid flow control with transformation media, Yaroslav A. Urzhumov, David R. Smith, arXiv:1106.2282v1 [physics.flu-dyn] arxiv.org/abs/1106.2282AbstractWe introduce a new concept for the manipulation of fluid flow around three-dimensional bodies. Inspired by transformation optics, the concept is based on a mathematical idea of coordinate transformations, and physically implemented with anisotropic porous media permeable to the flow of fluids. In two different situations – for an impermeable object situated either in a free-flowing fluid or in a fluid-filled porous medium – we show that the object can be coated with a properly chosen inhomogeneous, anisotropic permeable medium, such as to preserve the streamlines of flow and the pressure distribution that would have existed in the absence of the object. The proposed fluid flow cloak completely eliminates any disturbance of the flow by the object, including the downstream wake. Consequently, the structure helps prevent the onset of turbulence by keeping the flow laminar even above the typical critical Reynolds number for the object of the same shape and size. The cloak also cancels the viscous drag force. This concept paves the way to energy-efficient, wake-free propulsion systems, which control and prevent wake formation through a smart spatial distribution of propulsion forces.via PhysicsWorld Citation: Wake cloaking simulated in lab – objects move through water without leaving a trace (2011, July 25) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2011-07-cloaking-simulated-lab-.html Velocity prole and streamlines of flow around and through the porous spherical shell surrounded by a viscous fluid. (See ref. below for details). Image credit: arXiv:1106.2282v1 This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. © 2010 PhysOrg.com (PhysOrg.com) — Metamaterials researchers Yaroslav Urzhumov and David Smith, working at Duke University have built a simulation of an object that can move through water without leaving a trace and claim it’s a concept that could be built and used in the real world provided more research is done. In their paper, published on arXiv, the two describe how they programmed the use of metamaterials applied to an object, along with tiny water pumps, into a model to simulate an actual object moving through water without dragging some of the water with it that would normally cause turbulence. The two show, by use of a sphere, how an object could be covered with several layers of a mesh of wire or blades, from large ones nearest the object, too much smaller ones farthest away. The idea is to make up for the difference in movement between the object, and the stillness of the water it’s moving through, all while parting the water in ways gentle enough to cause cloaking and then allowing it to reseal after the object passes. The metamaterials provide the cloaking, while pumps are used to move the water at differing speeds in the different layers to keep the water from being dragged along as the object moves through it.The paper comes after what seems like one announcement after another in new cloaking technologies; first an invisibility cloak, then ones that cloaked sound, electric and ocean waves and even a time cloaking device; all are based on new so-called metamateriasl (materials with properties not found in nature).The advantages of the use of such technology are obvious; without drag, boats or submarines could go farther and faster while using less fuel, and if they ran nearly silent in doing so, it would herald the age of new stealth boats and ships that would be difficult if not impossible to detect by enemies looking for them. In the model created, the object was bullet sized and moves just a few millimeters per second, but the authors suggest that if an actual boat was to be made, it might make more sense to try to reduce just the drag, rather than try to hide the wake as well, as that would likely be much easier to actually make. The authors do not plan to try to build a real world boat, due they say, to lab constraints, but suggest a collaboration with another facility might be feasible. Next generation cloaking device demonstrated
Senior Pakistan batsman Younis Khan is contemplating calling it a day from one-day internationals after the series against England in the UAE.Well-informed sources told PTI on Monday that Younis might announce his retirement from one-day internationals during or after the four-match series.“There has been so much controversy over his selection in the one-day team and plus the clear indications from the team management that they want to build a young team for the World Cup 2019 that Younis is contemplating retirement,” one source confirmed. Also Read – A league of his own!He said that Younis, 37, has been waiting for the right time to call it a day from 50-overs cricket and the series against England gives him this chance.“He has not decided as yet but he himself is keen to end the controversy surrounding his selection for ODIs and there is a chance he might decide to take a bow himself after having played the series against England,” the source said. Younis was recalled to the Pakistan squad for the series last week after he last played an ODI in the World Cup in Australia and New Zealand in March 2015. Also Read – Domingo named new Bangladesh cricket coachSince March 2013 the senior batsman, who has been in record breaking form in Test cricket, has been out of the ODI squad for long periods and has played just 11 matches in the last two and half years. “His close friends and cricket advisors also feel Younis should retire from ODIs when he is in the team and do it himself,” the source stated. Sources close to the national selectors also said they got vibes from Younis that he might quit ODIs next month. The selectors earlier this year had made an offer to Younis to lead the team in Zimbabwe when Azhar Ali was not available but quit afterwards but he declined the offer saying he will quit on his own terms. Head coach Waqar Younis during his recent meetings with chief selector Haroon Rasheed in Sharjah assured him that Younis would not sit on the bench and get a chance to play the full series. The chief selector after much difficulty managed to convince the head coach to give the in-form Younis a shot in the ODI series.