上海品茶

The dwarf planet Quaoar has a ring that is too big for its metaphorical fingers. While all other rings in the solar system lie within or near a mathematically determined distance of their parent bodies, Quaoar’s ring is much farther out.

“For Quaoar, for the ring to be outside this limit is very, very strange,” says astronomer Bruno Morgado of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. The finding may force a rethink of the rules governing planetary rings, Morgado and colleagues say in a study published February 8 in Nature.
Quaoar is an icy body about half the size of Pluto that’s located in the Kuiper Belt at the solar system’s edge (SN: 8/23/22). At such a great distance from Earth, it’s hard to get a clear picture of the world.

So Morgado and colleagues watched Quaoar block the light from a distant star, a phenomenon called a stellar occultation. The timing of the star winking in and out of view can reveal details about Quaoar, like its size and whether it has an atmosphere.

The researchers took data from occultations from 2018 to 2020, observed from all over the world, including Namibia, Australia and Grenada, as well as space. There was no sign that Quaoar had an atmosphere. But surprisingly, there was a ring. The finding makes Quaoar just the third dwarf planet or asteroid in the solar system known to have a ring, after the asteroid Chariklo and the dwarf planet Haumea (SN: 3/26/14; SN: 10/11/17).

Even more surprisingly, “the ring is not where we expect,” Morgado says.
Known rings around other objects lie within or near what’s called the Roche limit, an invisible line where the gravitational force of the main body peters out. Inside the limit, that force can rip a moon to shreds, turning it into a ring. Outside, the gravity between smaller particles is stronger than that from the main body, and rings will coalesce into one or several moons.

“We always think of [the Roche limit] as straightforward,” Morgado says. “One side is a moon forming, the other side is a ring stable. And now this limit is not a limit.”

For Quaoar’s far-out ring, there are a few possible explanations, Morgado says. Maybe the observers caught the ring at just the right moment, right before it turns into a moon. But that lucky timing seems unlikely, he notes.

Maybe Quaoar’s known moon, Weywot, or some other unseen moon contributes gravity that holds the ring stable somehow. Or maybe the ring’s particles are colliding in such a way that they avoid sticking together and clumping into moons.

The particles would have to be particularly bouncy for that to work, “like a ring of those bouncy balls from toy stores,” says planetary scientist David Jewitt of UCLA, who was not involved in the new work.

The observation is solid, says Jewitt, who helped discover the first objects in the Kuiper Belt in the 1990s. But there’s no way to know yet which of the explanations is correct, if any, in part because there are no theoretical predictions for such far-out rings to compare with Quaoar’s situation.

That’s par for the course when it comes to the Kuiper Belt. “Everything in the Kuiper Belt, basically, has been discovered, not predicted,” Jewitt says. “It’s the opposite of the classical model of science where people predict things and then confirm or reject them. People discover stuff by surprise, and everyone scrambles to explain it.”

More observations of Quaoar, or more discoveries of seemingly misplaced rings elsewhere in the solar system, could help reveal what’s going on.

“I have no doubt that in the near future a lot of people will start working with Quaoar to try to get this answer,” Morgado says.

For nearly 650 years, the fortress walls in the Chinese city of Xi’an have served as a formidable barrier around the central city. At 12 meters high and up to 18 meters thick, they are impervious to almost everything — except subatomic particles called muons.

Now, thanks to their penetrating abilities, muons may be key to ensuring that the walls that once protected the treasures of the first Ming Dynasty — and are now a national architectural treasure in their own right — stand for centuries more.

A refined detection method has provided the highest-resolution muon scans yet produced of any archaeological structure, researchers report in the Jan. 7 Journal of Applied Physics. The scans revealed interior density fluctuations as small as a meter across inside one section of the Xi’an ramparts. The fluctuations could be signs of dangerous flaws or “hidden structures archaeologically interesting for discovery and investigation,” says nuclear physicist Zhiyi Liu of Lanzhou University in China.
Muons are like electrons, only heavier. They rain down all over the planet, produced when charged particles called cosmic rays hit the atmosphere. Although muons can travel deep into earth and stone, they are scattered or absorbed depending on the material they encounter. Counting the ones that pass through makes them useful for studying volcano interiors, scanning pyramids for hidden chambers and even searching for contraband stashed in containers impervious to X-rays (SN: 4/22/22).

Though muons stream down continuously, their numbers are small enough that the researchers had to deploy six detectors for a week at a time to collect enough data for 3-D scans of the rampart.

It’s now up to conservationists to determine how to address any density fluctuations that might indicate dangerous flaws, or historical surprises, inside the Xi’an walls.

Today’s red jungle fowl — the wild forebears of the domesticated chicken — are becoming more chickenlike. New research suggests that a large proportion of the wild fowl’s DNA has been inherited from chickens, and relatively recently.

Ongoing interbreeding between the two birds may threaten wild jungle fowl populations’ future, and even hobble humans’ ability to breed better chickens, researchers report January 19 in PLOS Genetics.

Red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) are forest birds native to Southeast Asia and parts of South Asia. Thousands of years ago, humans domesticated the fowl, possibly in the region’s rice fields (SN: 6/6/22).
“Chickens are arguably the most important domestic animal on Earth,” says Frank Rheindt, an evolutionary biologist at the National University of Singapore. He points to their global ubiquity and abundance. Chicken is also one of the cheapest sources of animal protein that humans have.

Domesticated chickens (G. gallus domesticus) were known to be interbreeding with jungle fowl near human settlements in Southeast Asia. Given the unknown impacts on jungle fowl and the importance of chickens to humankind, Rheindt and his team wanted to gather more details. Wild jungle fowl contain a store of genetic diversity that could serve as a crucial resource for breeding chickens resistant to diseases or other threats.

The researchers analyzed and compared the genomes — the full complement of an organism’s DNA — of 63 jungle fowl and 51 chickens from across Southeast Asia. Some of the jungle fowl samples came from museum specimens collected from 1874 through 1939, letting the team see how the genetic makeup of jungle fowl has changed over time.

Over the last century or so, wild jungle fowl’s genomes have become increasingly similar to chickens’. Between about 20 and 50 percent of the genomes of modern jungle fowl originated in chickens, the team found. In contrast, many of the roughly 100-year-old jungle fowl had a chicken-ancestry share in the range of a few percent.

The rapid change probably comes from human communities expanding into the region’s wilderness, Rheindt says. Most modern jungle fowl live in close vicinity to humans’ free-ranging chickens, with which they frequently interbreed.

Such interbreeding has become “almost the norm now” for any globally domesticated species, Rheindt says, such as dogs hybridizing with wolves and house cats crossing with wildcats. Pigs, meanwhile, are mixing with wild boars and ferrets with polecats.
Wild populations that interbreed with their domesticated counterparts could pick up physical or behavioral traits that change how the hybrids function in their ecosystem, says Claudio Quilodrán, a conservation geneticist at the University of Geneva not involved with this research.

The effect is likely to be negative, Quilodrán says, since some of the traits coming into the wild population have been honed for human uses, not for survival in the local environment.

Wild jungle fowl have lost their genetic diversity as they’ve interbred too. The birds’ heterozygosity — a measure of a population’s genetic diversity — is now just a tenth of what it was a century ago.

“This result is initially counterintuitive,” Rheindt says. “If you mix one population with another, you would generally expect a higher genetic diversity.”

But domesticated chickens have such low genetic diversity that certain versions of jungle fowl genes are being swept out of the population by a tsunami of genetic homogeneity. The whittling down of these animals’ genetic toolkit may leave them vulnerable to conservation threats.

“Having lots of genetic diversity within a species increases the chance that certain individuals contain the genetic background to adapt to a varied range of different environmental changes and diseases,” says Graham Etherington, a computational biologist at the Earlham Institute in Norwich, England, who was not involved with this research.

A shallower jungle fowl gene pool could also mean diminished resources for breeding better chickens. The genetics of wild relatives are sometimes used to bolster the disease or pest resistance of domesticated crop plants. Jungle fowl genomes could be similarly valuable for this reason.

“If this trend continues unabated, future human generations may only be able to access the entirety of ancestral genetic diversity of chickens in the form of museum specimens,” Rheindt says, which could hamper chicken breeding efforts using the wild fowl genes.

Some countries such as Singapore, Rheindt says, have started managing jungle fowl populations to reduce interbreeding with chickens.

The worst procrastinators probably won’t be able to read this story. It’ll remind them of what they’re trying to avoid, psychologist Piers Steel says.

Maybe they’re dragging their feet going to the gym. Maybe they haven’t gotten around to their New Year’s resolutions. Maybe they’re waiting just one more day to study for that test.

Procrastination is “putting off to later what you know you should be doing now,” even if you’ll be worse off, says Steel, of the University of Calgary in Canada. But all those tasks pushed to tomorrow seem to wedge themselves into the mind — and it may be harming people’s health.
In a study of thousands of university students, scientists linked procrastination to a panoply of poor outcomes, including depression, anxiety and even disabling arm pain. “I was surprised when I saw that one,” says Fred Johansson, a clinical psychologist at Sophiahemmet University in Stockholm. His team reported the results January 4 in JAMA Network Open.

The study is one of the largest yet to tackle procrastination’s ties to health. Its results echo findings from earlier studies that have gone largely ignored, says Fuschia Sirois, a behavioral scientist at Durham University in England, who was not involved with the new research.

For years, scientists didn’t seem to view procrastination as something serious, she says. The new study could change that. “It’s that kind of big splash that’s … going to get attention,” Sirois says. “I’m hoping that it will raise awareness of the physical health consequences of procrastination.”

Procrastinating may be bad for the mind and body
Whether procrastination harms health can seem like a chicken-and-egg situation.

It can be hard to tell if certain health problems make people more likely to procrastinate — or the other way around, Johansson says. (It may be a bit of both.) And controlled experiments on procrastination aren’t easy to do: You can’t just tell a study participant to become a procrastinator and wait and see if their health changes, he says.
Many previous studies have relied on self-reported surveys taken at a single time point. But a snapshot of someone makes it tricky to untangle cause and effect. Instead, in the new study, about 3,500 students were followed over nine months, so researchers could track whether procrastinating students later developed health issues.

On average, these students tended to fare worse over time than their prompter peers. They were slightly more stressed, anxious, depressed and sleep-deprived, among other issues, Johansson and colleagues found. “People who score higher on procrastination to begin with … are at greater risk of developing both physical and psychological problems later on,” says study coauthor Alexander Rozental, a clinical psychologist at Uppsala University in Sweden. “There is a relationship between procrastination at one time point and having these negative outcomes at the later point.”

The study was observational, so the team can’t say for sure that procrastination causes poor health. But results from other researchers also seem to point in this direction. A 2021 study tied procrastinating at bedtime to depression. And a 2015 study from Sirois’ lab linked procrastinating to poor heart health.

Stress may be to blame for procrastination’s ill effects, data from Sirois’ lab and other studies suggest. She thinks that the effects of chronic procrastinating could build up over time. And though procrastination alone may not cause disease, Sirois says, it could be “one extra factor that can tip the scales.”

No, procrastinators are not lazy
Some 20 percent of adults are estimated to be chronic procrastinators. Everyone might put off a task or two, but chronic procrastinators make it their lifestyle, says Joseph Ferrari, a psychologist at DePaul University in Chicago, who has been studying procrastination for decades. “They do it at home, at school, at work and in their relationships.” These are the people, he says, who “you know are going to RSVP late.”

Though procrastinators may think they perform better under pressure, Ferrari has reported the opposite. They actually worked more slowly and made more errors than non-procrastinators, his experiments have shown. And when deadlines are slippery, procrastinators tend to let their work slide, Steel’s team reported last year in Frontiers in Psychology.

For years, researchers have focused on the personalities of people who procrastinate. Findings vary, but some scientists suggest procrastinators may be impulsive, worriers and have trouble regulating their emotions. One thing procrastinators are not, Ferrari emphasizes, is lazy. They’re actually “very busy doing other things than what they’re supposed to be doing,” he says.

In fact, Rozental adds, most research today suggests procrastination is a behavioral pattern.

And if procrastination is a behavior, he says, that means it’s something you can change, regardless of whether you’re impulsive.

Why procrastinators should be kind to themselves
When people put off a tough task, they feel good — in the moment.
Procrastinating is a way to sidestep the negative emotions linked to the task, Sirois says. “We’re sort of hardwired to avoid anything painful or difficult,” she says. “When you procrastinate, you get immediate relief.” A backdrop of stressful circumstances — say, a worldwide pandemic — can strain people’s ability to cope, making procrastinating even easier. But the relief it provides is only temporary, and many seek out ways to stop dawdling.

Researchers have experimented with procrastination treatments that run the gamut from the logistical to the psychological. What works best is still under investigation. Some scientists have reported success with time-management interventions. But the evidence for that “is all over the map,” Sirois says. That’s because “poor time management is a symptom not a cause of procrastination,” she adds.

For some procrastinators, seemingly obvious tips can work. In his clinical practice, Rozental advises students to simply put down their smartphones. Silencing notifications or studying in the library rather than at home can quash distractions and keep people on task. But that won’t be enough for many people, he says.

Hard-core procrastinators may benefit from cognitive behavioral therapy. In a 2018 review of procrastination treatments, Rozental found that this type of therapy, which involves managing thoughts and emotions and trying to change behavior, seemed to be the most helpful. Still, not many studies have examined treatments, and there’s room for improvement, he says.

Sirois also favors an emotion-centered approach. Procrastinators can fall into a shame spiral where they feel uneasy about a task, put the task off, feel ashamed for putting it off and then feel even worse than when they started. People need to short-circuit that loop, she says. Self-forgiveness may help, scientists suggested in one 2020 study. So could mindfulness training.

In a small trial of university students, eight weekly mindfulness sessions reduced procrastination, Sirois and colleagues reported in the January Learning and Individual Differences. Students practiced focusing on the body, meditating during unpleasant activities and discussed the best way to take care of themselves. A little self-compassion may snap people out of their spiral, Sirois says.

“You made a mistake and procrastinated. It’s not the end of the world,” she says. “What can you do to move forward?”

In a remote corner of Brazil’s Amazon rainforest, researchers have spent decades catching and measuring birds in a large swath of forest unmarred by roads or deforestation. An exemplar of the Amazon’s dazzling diversity, the experimental plot was to act as a baseline that would reveal how habitat fragmentation, from logging or roads, can hollow out rainforests’ wild menagerie.

But in this pristine pocket of wilderness, a more subtle shift is happening: The birds are shrinking.

Over 40 years, dozens of Amazonian bird species have declined in mass. Many species have lost nearly 2 percent of their average body weight each decade, researchers report November 12 in Science Advances. What’s more, some species have grown longer wings. The changes coincide with a hotter, more variable climate, which could put a premium on leaner, more efficient bodies that help birds stay cool, the researchers say.

“Climate change isn’t something of the future. It’s happening now and has been happening and has effects we haven’t thought of,” says Ben Winger, an ornithologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor who wasn’t involved in the research but has documented similar shrinkage in migratory birds. Seeing the same patterns in so many bird species across widely different contexts “speaks to a more universal phenomenon,” he says.

Biologists have long linked body size and temperature. In colder climates, it pays to be big because having a smaller surface area relative to one’s volume reduces heat loss through the skin and keeps the body warmer. As the climate warms, “you’d expect shrinking body sizes to help organisms off-load heat better,” says Vitek Jirinec, an ecologist at the Integral Ecology Research Center in Blue Lake, Calif.

Many species of North American migratory birds are getting smaller, Winger and colleagues reported in 2020 in Ecology Letters. Climate change is the likely culprit, Winger says, but since migrators experience a wide range of conditions while globe-trotting, other factors such as degraded habitats that birds may encounter can’t be ruled out.

To see if birds that stay put have also been shrinking, Jirinec and colleagues analyzed data on nonmigratory birds collected from 1979 to 2019 in an intact region of the Amazon that spans 43 kilometers. The dataset includes measurements such as mass and wing length for over 11,000 individual birds of 77 species. The researchers also examined climate data for the region.
All species declined in mass over this period, the researchers found, including birds as different as the Rufous-capped antthrush (Formicarius colma), which snatches insects off the forest floor, and the Amazonian motmot (Momotus momota), which scarfs down fruit up in trees. Species lost from about 0.1 percent to nearly 2 percent of their average body weight each decade. The motmot, for example, shrunk from 133 grams to about 127 grams over the study period.

These changes coincided with an overall increase in the average temperature of 1 degree Celsius in the wet season and 1.65 degrees C in the dry season. Temperature and precipitation also became more variable over the time period, and these short-term fluctuations, such as an especially hot or dry season, better explained the size trends than the steady increase in temperature.

“The dry season is really stressful for birds,” Jirinec says. Birds’ mass decreased the most in the year or two after especially hot and dry spells, which tracks with the idea that birds are getting smaller to deal with heat stress.

Other factors, like decreased food availability, could also lead to smaller sizes. But since birds with widely different diets all declined in mass, a more pervasive force like climate change is the likely cause, Jirinec says.

Wing length also grew for 61 species, with a maximum increase of about 1 percent per decade. Jirinec thinks that longer wings make for more efficient, and thus cooler, fliers. For instance, a fighter jet, with its heavy body and compact wings, takes enormous power to maneuver. A light and long-winged glider, by contrast, can cruise along much more efficiently.

“Longer wings may be helping [birds] fly more efficiently and produce less metabolic heat,” which can be beneficial in hotter conditions, he says. “But that’s just a hypothesis.” This body change was most pronounced in birds that spend their time higher up in the canopy, where conditions are hotter and drier than the forest floor.

Whether these changes in shape and size represent an evolutionary adaptation to climate change, or simply a physiological response to warmer temperatures, remains unclear (SN: 5/8/20). Whichever is the case, Jirinec suggests that the change shows the pernicious power of human activity (SN: 10/26/21).

“The Amazon rainforest is mysterious, remote and teeming with biodiversity,” he says. “This study suggests that even in places like this, far removed from civilization, you can see signatures of climate change.”

Those who spent up on Patrick Mahomes and Kyler Murray will be without their studs as the Chiefs and Cardinals take the week off. Of course, Murray owners are used to that, but hopefully that will change after his bye. This week also features three Thursday games, so your start 'em, sit 'emi decisions will feel a little more rushed. Winning the week starts with deciding who to start at quarterback, and our Week 12 fantasy QB rankings can help you makes those tough start 'em, sit 'em decisions.

We mentioned Murray and Mahomes are out, but season-long stud Matthew Stafford (@ Packers) and popular streaming option Teddy Bridgewater (vs. Chargers) are back in action after their byes. For those Mahomes and Murray owners, we'll admit it's not a very deep week for streamers, but there are just enough options to get by. Again, Murray owners are used to this routine, so they should have a decent backup. 

Stafford, along with Aaron Rodgers (vs. Rams), Justin Herbert (@ Broncos), and Joe Burrow (vs. Steelers), headline the "studs with tough matchups" category, but again, it's not the greatest week for streamers, so they all remain QB1s in our rankings.
The best streamers include Mac Jones (vs. Titans), Cam Newton (@ Dolphins), Trevor Lawrence (vs. Falcons), and Justin Fields (@ Lions). Matt Ryan (@ Jaguars) is over 50-percent owned, but if you consider him a streamer, he's in play, too. Those QBs either play teams that are downright awful against the pass statistically or bottom-dwellers that haven't forced many pass-happy game scripts. So, yes, we're counting on three rookies, a guy who was just signed off the street a few weeks ago, and a boom-or-bust veteran. What else did you expect at this point in the season? Also, he's not a streamer at this point either, but start Carson Wentz (vs. Buccaneers). The matchup and game script should set him up for a nice fantasy day.

On the other side of the start-or-sit bubble, we're out on Ryan Tannehill (@ Patriots), Daniel Jones (vs. Eagles), Tua Tagovailoa (@ Panthers), and Teddy Bridgewater (vs. Chargers). These guys have been mentioned several times by us on the "start" side of the conversation, but the matchups just aren't favorable enough to tout them as viable considerations this week. They're looking at some top defenses against fantasy QBs, so we'd opt to play the guys listed above. If you're forced to start one of the three, Jones has the highest upside because of his rushing ability.

This week isn't quite as disastrous of a week as we thought it could be in the preseason, so you can survive. This is the last week with two elite fantasy QBs out of commission, so there should be less competition for streamers going forward. Still, you have to stay on top of everything. We saw last Sunday with Lamar Jackson's surprise scratch that injuries and illnesses can strike with little warning, so always have a plan going into a week.

Note: We'll be updating these QB rankings throughout the week, so check back for the latest player movement and analysis.

Fantasy QB Rankings Week 12: Who to start at quarterback
Rankings are based on standard, four-point passing TD formats.

Rank Player
1 Russell Wilson, SEA @ WAS
2 Josh Allen, BUF @ NO
3 Tom Brady, TB @ IND
4 Lamar Jackson, BAL vs. CLE
5 Dak Prescott, DAL vs. LV
6 Jalen Hurts, PHI @ NYG
7 Matthew Stafford, LAR @ GB
8 Aaron Rodgers, GB vs. LAR
9 Carson Wentz, IND vs. TB
10 Joe Burrow, CIN vs. PIT
11 Justin Herbert, LAC @ DEN
12 Mac Jones, NE vs. TEN
13 Derek Carr, LV @ DAL
14 Cam Newton, CAR @ MIA
15 Kirk Cousins, MIN @ SF
16 Matt Ryan, ATL @ JAX
17 Tyrod Taylor, HOU vs. NYJ
18 Trevor Lawrence, JAX vs. ATL
19 Justin Fields, CHI @ DET
20 Daniel Jones, NYG vs. PHI
21 Jimmy Garoppolo, SF vs. MIN
22 Ryan Tannehill, TEN @ NE
23 Tua Tagovailoa, MIA vs. CAR
24 Teddy Bridgewater, DEN vs. LAC
25 Taylor Heinicke, WAS vs. SEA
26 Baker Mayfield, CLE @ BAL
27 Joe Flacco, NYJ @ HOU
28 Ben Roethlisberger, PIT @ CIN
29 Trevor Siemian, NO vs. BUF
30 Tim Boyle, DET vs. CHI

Terence Crawford will face his toughest challenge yet to retain his WBO welterweight belt.

Crawford has fended off Jose Benavidez Jr., Amir Khan, Egidijus Kavaliauskas and Kell Brook in four defenses of his belt, but on Saturday, the stakes will be raised as he faces Shawn Porter.
Porter has, at various points in his career, held different welterweight belts. He has held the WBC-NABF title, the IBF title and the vacant WBC title in the welterweight class, but Porter has lost three times in his past 10 fights, leading to the loss of the belts.

The winner of this fight will leave Michelob Ultra Arena with a belt, but both are going to be coming away with a good deal of money for the fight. Here's a look at how much each will earn, as well as the fighters' net worth, ahead of the fight.
Terence Crawford vs. Shawn Porter purse
These two fighters will each be coming away with a comparable payday for Saturday's fight. According to ESPN, Crawford will make upwards of $6 million, while Porter will pocket at least $4 million.

What is Terence Crawford's net worth?
Crawford's unblemished record does not yet accompany the lofty earnings. Celebrity Net Worth reports that Crawford has a net worth of $8 million.

What is Shawn Porter's net worth?
Porter's payday on Saturday will be a boon to his net worth. According to Celebrity Net Worth, Crawford has a net worth of $5 million.
Terence Crawford career record
Nationality: American
Born: Sept. 28, 1987 (34 years old)
Height: 5-8
Reach: 74 inches
Record: 37-0-0 (28 KOs)
Shawn Porter career record
Nationality: American
Born: Oct. 27, 1987 (34 years old)
Height: 5-7
Reach: 69.5 inches
Record: 31-3-1 (17 KOs)
We may earn an affiliate commission when you sign up for a streaming service through our links. Sporting News' affiliates have no influence over the editorial content included in this article.

The King is back. 

LeBron James returned from an almost three-week absence for the Los Angeles Lakers against the Boston Celtics on Friday night. James had been out of the Lakers lineup since November 2, missing the team's past seven games with an abdominal strain.

He was listed as a game-time decision with the team announcing he would play just before tip-off. 

Prior to his injury, James was averaging 24.8 points - his lowest scoring average since his rookie season - while also averaging his least amount of rebounds (5.5) also since his rookie campaign and his least amount of assists (7.0) since 2015-16. Most concerning was his shooting percentage (46.7 percent) which was also his lowest since 2003-04.

James played 32 minutes against Boston, and looked like his old self for large parts of the contest, hitting fadeaways, and taking it strong to the basket and absorbing contact. 

He finished with 23 points (10-for-16 from the field), six rebounds, two assists and two steals before exiting the game for good with 4:26 left in the final quarter. 

He played 32 minutes and recorded a team-best plus-minus of -4, among Lakers players to have logged more than 20 minutes.

"Felt okay," James said postgame. "Felt like a rookie again being away from the game."

With the 130-108 loss, the Lakers have dropped to 8-9 for the season and 4-3 in games when James suits up.

Sidney Crosby has played in just two of the Penguins' first 14 games this season. And even if he isn't lighting up the stat sheet, he certainly made his presence known on Sunday.

In the Penguins' 6-1 loss to the Capitals, Crosby struggled mightily. He recorded one shot on goal in just under 17 minutes of ice time, and let his frustration boil over in the third period.
After taking his lone shot on goal less than three minutes into the third period with Washington's Martin Fehervary playing defense, the two skated behind the net where Crosby threw the young defenseman face-first into the boards.
Crosby wasn't penalized on that play but did get sent to the box for cross-checking Evgeny Kuznetzov around seven minutes later. Tom Wilson scored on the ensuing power play to make it 6-1.
After the game, the 22-year-old Fehervary didn't seem to pay much mind to Crosby's actions and didn't really have much to say on the matter.

"Yeah, I don't know. I don't even know what should I talk about it," he told reporters. "I don't care. We'll see next game."
Crosby has zero points, five shot attempts and has a plus/minus of -4 to kick start his 2021-22 campaign. The star center — who has already been named to Canada's Olympic squad — missed the first seven games of the season while recovering from offseason surgery on his left wrist. He returned Oct. 30 vs. the Devils before having to enter COVID-19 protocols on Nov. 3. Sunday's game was his first time slotting in.

The Penguins and Capitals have had some notorious and infamous battles in recent years and will next face off on Dec. 10 in Washington.

George Steinbrenner, the fiery, volatile Yankees owner who prioritized winning over pretty much everything else, died of a heart attack at 80 years old in July 2010, about nine months after his club won the 2009 World Series in six games over the Phillies.

The Yankees, who won seven World Series titles in Steinbrenner’s era (1973-2010) — and made the final round four other times — haven’t been back to the World Series since his death. The team from the Bronx has been good since then, with two 100-win seasons and nine trips to the playoffs — including four to the ALCS — but hasn’t broken through.
Maybe the most frustrating thing of all? The Yankees have had more regular season wins than the eventual World Series champ five times since that 2009 title: in 2010 (95, to the Giants’ 92), 2011 (97, to the Cardinals’ 90), 2012 (95, to the Giants’ 94), 2019 (103, to the Nationals’ 93) and 2021(92, to the Braves’ 88).

So, yeah, there’s plenty of motivation this offseason to add significant talent to what’s already a very talented roster. Here are two things we know about the Yankees’ offseason plans: They are going to acquire a shortstop, and payroll will increase.

Longtime GM Brian Cashman has spoken often since his club’s season ended about the need to upgrade at shortstop — Gleyber Torres is moving full time to second base — and he addressed the payroll issue speaking to reporters at the GM meetings this week.

“Well, it’s going to have to be (increasing). We don’t have a lot of stuff coming off,” Cashman said, according to the New York Post. “So obviously I’ll have some latitude.”

The Yankees stayed under the competitive-balance tax threshold in 2021, which was important to the club because penalties for going over the set number — it was $210 million in 2021 — increase sharply for every consecutive year a team is over. Getting back under the number for a season resets everything. So the Yankees are back to zero, but expect them to exceed the luxury tax — whatever the number might be — next year.

Let’s take a look at what the Yankees might do, at positions that Cashman has said are in play this offseason. We’ll start with the obvious one.

Yankees shortstop options
Back when Cashman made his initial comments saying shortstop was an “area of need” we took a dive into the most obvious options in front of the club, so we’ll just link to that story and give you the Cliff Notes version here.

Carlos Correa and Corey Seager are the two biggest names, meaning they’ll both demand massive contracts of at least 10 years. Trevor Story is coming off a down year, but the Yankees had a lot of success with one ex-Rockie (D.J. LeMahieu). Marcus Semien is a top-three AL MVP finisher this year, and he could move to second when/if one of the Yankees’ shortstop prospects is ready for the bigs. Javier Báez is an intriguing option.

“It’s certainly the year of the shortstop, certainly with a lot of high-end, talented players coming out at the same time,” Cashman said at the GM meetings.

After those five free agents, there are options the fan base probably wouldn’t like but wouldn’t be awful, such as signing Jose Iglesias or Andrelton Simmons (Cashman’s mentioned defense a couple of times) or trading for Paul DeJong.
Yankees starting pitcher options
Here’s what Cashman said on the topic at the GM meetings: “Always pitching, pitching, pitching, even though our pitching was a good thing for us this year. It’s always good to try to reinforce it and add to it if you can.”

Stealing this from a TSN piece earlier this week: The Yankees’ 2022 rotation options at the moment consist of perennial Cy Young candidate Gerrit Cole and about eight or nine pitchers who seem likely to post an ERA in the 4s if given 25 to 30 starts. It would seem unlikely that the Yankees would add a bottom-of-the-rotation starter this offseason, unless it’s an opportunistic trade or signing with low risk.

Here are four options to slot in there next to Cole:

Max Scherzer, free agent: Scherzer is 37 going on 29, still an effective and often dominant starting pitcher in the big leagues. The right-hander with three Cy Young wins had a 1.98 ERA in 11 starts with the Dodgers after arriving in a trade with the Nationals. He’ll have lots of teams bidding for his services, offering two or three-year deals with crazy-high annual salaries. A short-term, high AAV deal makes sense for the Yankees, who have to tackle the Aaron Judge extension issue sooner than later.

Justin Verlander, free agent: Sure, he’s coming off Tommy John surgery and will turn 39 during spring training. But that TJ surgery was 17 months ago, and Verlander impressed during his showcase throwing session earlier this week, sitting 94-97 with his fastball. And the idea of pairing Verlander with Cole atop the rotation has to be intriguing. Remember 2019, when those two finished 1-2 in the AL Cy Young race as teammates in Houston? You can bet the Yankees — who lost to those Astros in the ALCS that year — remember the duo well.

Marcus Stroman, free agent: Stroman was outstanding for the Mets in 2021, one of the few players on the team who was good start to finish. He made 33 starts for the club, posting a 3.02 ERA and 3.49 FIP, with only 2.2 walks per nine. Stroman pitched at least five full innings in 29 of his 33 starts — including every July, August and September outing — and only three pitchers topped that number: Zack Wheeler, Walker Buehler and Julio Urias. And you know Stroman would love the pressure of pitching under the Bronx microscope.

Kevin Gausman, free agent: Gausman was outstanding in 2021 for the Giants, posting the best season of his career. He had a 2.81 ERA/3.00 FIP in 33 starts, with a 10.6 K/9 and 2.3 BB/9. Plus, he played last year after accepting San Francisco’s qualifying offer, so he has no draft-pick compensation attached, which is nice for him. He knows the pressures of the AL East from his days with the Orioles, but now instead of facing the Yankees a couple times per season, he’d face an Orioles club that lost 110 games in 2021.

Yankees center field options
Aaron Hicks is a hard worker and a good teammate, but at this point in his career, he’s probably not a full-time center fielder, as much as the Yankees might want him to be. The club gave him a seven-year, $70 million contract after his breakthrough 2018 season — 27 homers, .833 OPS, 4.4 bWAR — but he only played 91 of the possible 324 games in 2019 and 2021, and though he played 54 of the 60 games in the pandemic-shortened 2020 season, his production wasn’t great: 0.8 bWAR, 6 homers, 21 RBI, .225 average.

The injury issues aren’t new. Hicks has been in the majors for eight 162-game seasons, and he’s played more than 97 games only twice. His contract has four remaining years, but using “contractual obligation” to determine starters isn’t the best way to build a World Series team. Cashman acknowledged as much at the GM meetings.

“He’s going to finish off his rehab and he very well might be our starting center fielder, but again I’m going to be open-minded and evaluate all opportunities,” Cashman said. “We just want to make sure we put the best team out there. There are no guarantees right now, for anybody. … Aaron Hicks was hurt, so he’s been off the board. He might play some winter ball, we’ll see. In the meantime, center field was an area of concern this past year because of his injury.”

Here are four options:

Starling Marte, free agent: He’s heading into his Age 33 season, but Marte still is a great player. He led the majors with 47 stolen bases despite playing just 120 games combined for the Marlins and A’s, and he posted a career-best on-base percentage (.381) and OPS+ (131), plus a bWAR of 4.0 or better for the sixth time in his career. He’s also an outstanding defensive center fielder. A three-year deal with a relatively high AAV seems reasonable.

Chris Taylor, free agent: Playing center field is just one of his many talents. The Yankees could sign him with the idea that he’s the starting center fielder, but they’d also be getting a replacement third baseman if Gio Urshella gets hurt, a replacement shortstop if the new shortstop gets hurt, a replacement second baseman if Torres goes down and he could probably catch, too, if Gary Sanchez gets hurt (OK, not the last one, but you get the picture).

Joey Gallo, on the roster: The Yankees could decide to keep this one in house, with Gallo — yes, he’s a large human but he’s an excellent defensive outfielder who has played 55 games in center in his career — as the fallback option if the club decides that Hicks is ready to take the full-time role this spring.

Brett Gardner, free agent: Yep, Gardner could possibly come back, even after both sides declined their options this offseason. Another year of “hope Hicks is healthy, but at least we have Gardy” might not be the most appealing, but if the Yankees spend big at shortstop and in the rotation, that could what winds up happening.