fivethirthyeight--2020-09-17--Jacob DeGrom Just Keeps Throwing Faster

Jacob DeGrom Just Keeps Throwing Faster

There was no better pitcher in Major League Baseball over the last two seasons than Jacob deGrom , and in this shortened season he had taken his performance to another level .
The New York Mets ’ ace entered play Wednesday ranking first in the NL in ERA ( 1.67 ) and second among pitchers in wins above replacement ( 2.3 ) .
DeGrom left his Wednesday night start after just two innings due to what the club described as a hamstring spasm .
But if he can continue to excel through September ( deGrom believes he can make his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a chance to post the best ERA , adjusted ERA , strikeout rate and swinging strike rate of his career and become the third pitcher in MLB history to win three consecutive Cy Young Awards , joining Greg Maddux ( 1992-95 ) and Randy Johnson ( 1999-2002 ) , who each won four straight .
What is also interesting about deGrom is that he ’ s doing all this at 32 years old , an age when most pitchers are in decline .
Already elite , deGrom just keeps getting better .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ skill that often diminishes with time : fastball velocity .
Pitching speed — which directly correlates to opposing batters ’ offensive performance — typically begins to slow in a pitcher ’ s late 20s , and the decline accelerates in his 30s .
But through games played on Sept. 14 , deGrom has the speediest average fastball ever for a given season , among starting pitchers who ’ ve tossed at least 30 innings in a season since 2008 .
He also owns three of the top five seasons by average fastball velocity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , deGrom has increased his fastball speed in four straight seasons and in each of his age-30-something years .
The faster a pitch , the less time a batter has to decide whether to swing and to adjust his swing .
Greater fastball velocity often makes batters more susceptible to swinging and missing at breaking balls and changeups too , which , in deGrom ’ s case , travel faster than some pitchers ’ fastballs .
Since 2018 , deGrom has posted the top three seasons by average slider velocity and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All that speed has meant a lot of batters swinging at air .
DeGrom ’ s 2020 swinging-strike rate — how often he induces batters to whiff — would be the best on record ( and by more than 3 full percentage points ) .
So how is deGrom improving so late in his career ?
What ’ s behind these mysterious skill gains that seem impervious to aging ?
Well … it could be a number of factors .
One NL scout said deGrom had unusual upside late in his career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mound , converting from shortstop to pitcher in his final season at Stetson University .
“ He didn ’ t pitch until late in his college career , so there ’ s some relative freshness to his arm , ” the scout told FiveThirtyEight .
An NL pitching development official agreed that deGrom may very well be younger in pitching years than his age suggests .
He added that deGrom combines an ideally long , lean pitching build with exceptional mechanics .
“ He has a lot of similar physical traits to Nolan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the player development official told us .
“ Long limbs and exceptional mechanical efficiency .
Pitchers who lack mechanical efficiency are more reliant on the creation of power to throw hard .
When the guys in that bucket stop working hard they lose [ velocity ] fast , start getting injured , etc.
” This is also an era when new training practices and technological advances have helped some pitchers improve their velocity .
DeGrom recently told reporters that he used the offseason and pandemic pause to refine his delivery .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just working on my delivery , I actually feel like it ’ s coming out with less effort than in years past , ” deGrom said .
“ I think just with that time off , I continued to work on my delivery , and feel like everything ’ s kind of in line where I want it to be.
” It ’ s also plausible that deGrom is airing it out in a shortened season , knowing he won ’ t have to work as many innings .
During his outing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former major league pitcher and SNY television analyst Ron Darling said of deGrom : “ He ’ s never thrown harder , easier .
… He ’ s become so efficient in his mechanics.
” With that added speed , deGrom now owns a fastball that averages 99 mph and has retained exceptional command .
Perhaps deGrom can continue to defy aging curves and pitch at an elite level well into his 30s .
FanGraphs analyst Jeff Zimmerman found pitchers who maintain their velocity tend to maintain their performance .
And deGrom isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s increasing it .
While Maddux won his fourth consecutive — and final — Cy Young Award in his age-29 season in 1995 , Johnson won four straight Cy Young Awards from his age 35 to age 38 seasons .
deGrom ’ s recent performance makes us ask : What if he ’ s on the Johnson career track ?
What if , at a time when he should be slowing , deGrom just keeps getting better ?

Jacob DeGrom Just Keeps Throwing Faster At an age when most pitchers slow down, the Mets’ ace keeps adding more zip to his fastball.
There was no better pitcher in Major League Baseball over the last two seasons than Jacob deGrom, and in this shortened season he had taken his performance to another level. The New York Mets’ ace entered play Wednesday ranking first in the NL in ERA (1.67) and second among pitchers in wins above replacement (2.3). DeGrom left his Wednesday night start after just two innings due to what the club described as a hamstring spasm. But if he can continue to excel through September (deGrom believes he can make his final two scheduled starts), deGrom has a chance to post the best ERA, adjusted ERA, strikeout rate and swinging strike rate of his career and become the third pitcher in MLB history to win three consecutive Cy Young Awards, joining Greg Maddux (1992-95) and Randy Johnson (1999-2002), who each won four straight.
What is also interesting about deGrom is that he’s doing all this at 32 years old, an age when most pitchers are in decline. Already elite, deGrom just keeps getting better. In particular, he keeps improving a skill that often diminishes with time: fastball velocity.
Pitching speed — which directly correlates to opposing batters’ offensive performance — typically begins to slow in a pitcher’s late 20s, and the decline accelerates in his 30s. But through games played on Sept. 14, deGrom has the speediest average fastball ever for a given season, among starting pitchers who’ve tossed at least 30 innings in a season since 2008. He also owns three of the top five seasons by average fastball velocity among players 30 and older. In fact, deGrom has increased his fastball speed in four straight seasons and in each of his age-30-something years.
The faster a pitch, the less time a batter has to decide whether to swing and to adjust his swing. Greater fastball velocity often makes batters more susceptible to swinging and missing at breaking balls and changeups too, which, in deGrom’s case, travel faster than some pitchers’ fastballs. Since 2018, deGrom has posted the top three seasons by average slider velocity and the top two seasons by average changeup speeds.
All that speed has meant a lot of batters swinging at air. DeGrom’s 2020 swinging-strike rate — how often he induces batters to whiff — would be the best on record (and by more than 3 full percentage points).
So how is deGrom improving so late in his career? What’s behind these mysterious skill gains that seem impervious to aging? Well … it could be a number of factors.
One NL scout said deGrom had unusual upside late in his career because he started so late on the mound, converting from shortstop to pitcher in his final season at Stetson University.
“He didn’t pitch until late in his college career, so there’s some relative freshness to his arm,” the scout told FiveThirtyEight.
An NL pitching development official agreed that deGrom may very well be younger in pitching years than his age suggests. He added that deGrom combines an ideally long, lean pitching build with exceptional mechanics.
“He has a lot of similar physical traits to Nolan Ryan, minus the cowboy strength,” the player development official told us. “Long limbs and exceptional mechanical efficiency. Pitchers who lack mechanical efficiency are more reliant on the creation of power to throw hard. When the guys in that bucket stop working hard they lose [velocity] fast, start getting injured, etc.”
This is also an era when new training practices and technological advances have helped some pitchers improve their velocity. DeGrom recently told reporters that he used the offseason and pandemic pause to refine his delivery.
“This break and even in spring, just working on my delivery, I actually feel like it’s coming out with less effort than in years past,” deGrom said. “I think just with that time off, I continued to work on my delivery, and feel like everything’s kind of in line where I want it to be.”
It’s also plausible that deGrom is airing it out in a shortened season, knowing he won’t have to work as many innings. During his outing on Friday against the Toronto Blue Jays, former major league pitcher and SNY television analyst Ron Darling said of deGrom: “He’s never thrown harder, easier. … He’s become so efficient in his mechanics.”
With that added speed, deGrom now owns a fastball that averages 99 mph and has retained exceptional command.
Perhaps deGrom can continue to defy aging curves and pitch at an elite level well into his 30s. FanGraphs analyst Jeff Zimmerman found pitchers who maintain their velocity tend to maintain their performance. And deGrom isn’t just maintaining velocity, he’s increasing it. While Maddux won his fourth consecutive — and final — Cy Young Award in his age-29 season in 1995, Johnson won four straight Cy Young Awards from his age 35 to age 38 seasons. deGrom’s recent performance makes us ask: What if he’s on the Johnson career track? What if, at a time when he should be slowing, deGrom just keeps getting better?


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-17--Don’t Blame The Refs For All Of These Replay Reviews

The first thing to know is that you ’ re not imagining it .
Instances of replay reviews have , indeed , spiked significantly in the NBA bubble at Walt Disney World .
Reviews jumped about 7 percent from the pre-hiatus portion of the regular season to the seeding games , and they ’ re up another 20 percent from there during the playoffs .
The second thing to know about the spike is that it ’ s not being orchestrated , according to Monty McCutchen , a longtime referee who is now the NBA ’ s vice president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not from a directive from me , ” McCutchen told FiveThirtyEight .
In other words , the league has not instructed referees to review plays more often to ensure a greater degree of call accuracy inside the bubble .
The third thing to know , of course , is why .
Currently , NBA play-by-play logs categorize reviews three different ways .
There ’ s “ altercation , ” which is self-explanatory .
When , say , Marvin Williams of the Milwaukee Bucks and James Ennis of the Orlando Magic get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separated by some combination of players , coaches and officials , the refs head to the replay monitor to see if any punches were thrown or if anyone made contact with a referee , and determine whether to assess technical fouls .
Then there ’ s “ challenge , ” a new option for coaches this season .
For example , if Pascal Siakam picks up his third foul at the 7:44 mark of the second quarter of Game 3 in a series where the Toronto Raptors are already down 2-0 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be on Boston Celtics forward Grant Williams instead , he can call a timeout , then light up the little green light at the end of the bench to trigger a review .
( In this particular case , an unsuccessful one . )
The third classification is tagged as “ request , ” meaning the game officials themselves requested the review , and that type of review can be triggered in 15 different ways .
Notably , any flagrant foul called on the floor triggers an automatic review in which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the floor , upgrade a flagrant one to a flagrant two ( or downgrade from two to one ) or downgrade a flagrant to a common foul .
Referees can also review any common foul that they feel could be upgraded to a flagrant .
Any of the other 14 triggers requires what McCutchen calls “ doubt on the part of the referee.
” To explain the concept , McCutchen flashed back to Game 1 of the 2018 NBA Finals between the Golden State Warriors and Cleveland Cavaliers , and specifically to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LeBron James .
“ When [ the viewer ] is watching this , and now he knows he is supposed to be looking at LeBron ’ s feet , and now he ’ s only concentrating on that when he ’ s watching the replay , and LeBron ’ s feet are 8 inches outside the restricted area , everyone goes , ‘ Oh my God !
That ’ s so obvious that he ’ s out of the restricted area , ’ ” McCutchen said .
“ But when you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Durant , a blocking foul , or whether he ’ s gon na hit his arm , or whether someone in the post is holding another player , you ’ re not exactly always looking at what we end up looking at on TV and replay .
And therein lies how doubt is created in a referee .
Once we know what to look for , things become obvious .
When you ’ re concerned with all things at one time , things become less obvious — and that ’ s what constitutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reviews that tend to agitate viewers — or announcers , in the case of ESPN analyst Jeff Van Gundy .
The league is cognizant of the fact that constant reviews ( particularly late in games ) can be bothersome , and they are studying the issue .
But according to McCutchen , that issue doesn ’ t affect a referee ’ s decision on whether to review a specific play .
“ We need to get those plays right , ” he said .
“ If [ we go to replay review ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go on the seventh , and the seventh is the one that you screw up the game , all anyone is gon na talk about is the seventh time .
They ’ re not gon na talk about the 15 minutes it took to play the [ last minute of ] the game.
” The decision to review a play is also not subject to the whims of what ESPN ’ s Kevin Arnovitz recently called the “ small claims court , ” where players and coaches continuously lobby referees to change calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they believe is incorrect .
“ A player or a coach might genuinely create doubt in you .
But in and of itself , a player or a coach trying to create doubt or passionately believing they are correct does not necessarily mean you should go to replay , ” McCutchen said .
“ That being said , if you have the potential for a trigger , and you ’ re not honest with yourself about there being doubt , and you end up being wrong — then you do run the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While officials are held accountable for their calls on the floor , they ’ re not fined for judgment , according to McCutchen — only for “ misapplication of rules or behavior.
” So referees face no additional incentive review a call just to make sure it is correct , and thus improve their grade , which can affect their playoff game assignments .
So , about the playoffs .
Reviews are up approximately 20 percent from the seeding games to the playoffs , and they ’ re up around 28 percent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ season .
But that ’ s actually not abnormal .
In each of the past two seasons , the league saw a similar spike in reviews during the postseason — an average of about 20.8 percent .
But this year ’ s spike started from a higher level : Pre-hiatus reviews this year were already up from the previous two regular seasons , and they jumped even more in the seeding games .
Explaining why the rate of reviews tends to rise in the playoffs is fairly easy .
“ The importance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCutchen said .
“ And I think that ’ s just a human nature thing .
You can understand if you ’ re in Game 6 , and someone ’ s going home , you better be right on the play.
” Part of the reason the baseline review rate was higher this year , though , is because of the introduction of the coach ’ s challenge .
Non-challenge replay reviews per game were actually down during the pre-hiatus regular season compared to the past two regular seasons , and that continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of the seeding-game bump can be explained by increased use of the coach ’ s challenge .
In other words , that spike you ’ re seeing in replay reviews isn ’ t the fault of the refs .
It ’ s being caused by the coaches .
( In particular , it ’ s being caused by Eastern Conference coaches .
Four of the top five teams in postseason reviews per game are the four teams that made the Eastern Conference semifinals . )
It ’ s worth asking , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coaches even particularly good at challenges ?
Do challenges result in overturned calls any more often than requests from the referees themselves ?
It depends on what your definition of “ worth it ” is , but coach ’ s challenges have certainly resulted in more instances of overturned calls than have requests .
The NBA has three classifications for the result of a coach ’ s challenge or non-altercation replay request ) : “ Overturn ” means the call on the floor was incorrect , and the ruling is reversed ; “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floor was correct ; and “ stands ” means there was insufficient evidence to overturn the call on the floor .
In the seeding games , the rate of calls receiving each of those designations was pretty similar to where it was during the regular season .
In the playoffs , calls have been more likely to get the “ support ” ruling than “ stands , ” indicating slightly more confident review decisions .
All of this is on the NBA ’ s radar .
The league is studying what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as those outside of it are , and that includes looking at the replay system .
“ We ’ re using this as an opportunity to really understand our game at a higher level , ” McCutchen said .

The first thing to know is that you’re not imagining it. Instances of replay reviews have, indeed, spiked significantly in the NBA bubble at Walt Disney World. Reviews jumped about 7 percent from the pre-hiatus portion of the regular season to the seeding games, and they’re up another 20 percent from there during the playoffs.
The second thing to know about the spike is that it’s not being orchestrated, according to Monty McCutchen, a longtime referee who is now the NBA’s vice president of referee development and training. “It’s not from a directive from me,” McCutchen told FiveThirtyEight. In other words, the league has not instructed referees to review plays more often to ensure a greater degree of call accuracy inside the bubble.
The third thing to know, of course, is why.
Currently, NBA play-by-play logs categorize reviews three different ways. There’s “altercation,” which is self-explanatory. When, say, Marvin Williams of the Milwaukee Bucks and James Ennis of the Orlando Magic get into a tussle and have to be separated by some combination of players, coaches and officials, the refs head to the replay monitor to see if any punches were thrown or if anyone made contact with a referee, and determine whether to assess technical fouls.
Then there’s “challenge,” a new option for coaches this season. For example, if Pascal Siakam picks up his third foul at the 7:44 mark of the second quarter of Game 3 in a series where the Toronto Raptors are already down 2-0, and Raptors coach Nick Nurse believes the foul should be on Boston Celtics forward Grant Williams instead, he can call a timeout, then light up the little green light at the end of the bench to trigger a review. (In this particular case, an unsuccessful one.)
The third classification is tagged as “request,” meaning the game officials themselves requested the review, and that type of review can be triggered in 15 different ways. Notably, any flagrant foul called on the floor triggers an automatic review in which the referees can either confirm the call on the floor, upgrade a flagrant one to a flagrant two (or downgrade from two to one) or downgrade a flagrant to a common foul. Referees can also review any common foul that they feel could be upgraded to a flagrant. Any of the other 14 triggers requires what McCutchen calls “doubt on the part of the referee.”
To explain the concept, McCutchen flashed back to Game 1 of the 2018 NBA Finals between the Golden State Warriors and Cleveland Cavaliers, and specifically to a contested block-charge call involving Kevin Durant and LeBron James.
“When [the viewer] is watching this, and now he knows he is supposed to be looking at LeBron’s feet, and now he’s only concentrating on that when he’s watching the replay, and LeBron’s feet are 8 inches outside the restricted area, everyone goes, ‘Oh my God! That’s so obvious that he’s out of the restricted area,’” McCutchen said. “But when you’re also worried about a travel on Kevin Durant, a blocking foul, or whether he’s gonna hit his arm, or whether someone in the post is holding another player, you’re not exactly always looking at what we end up looking at on TV and replay. And therein lies how doubt is created in a referee. Once we know what to look for, things become obvious. When you’re concerned with all things at one time, things become less obvious — and that’s what constitutes doubt.”
It’s those doubt-inspired reviews that tend to agitate viewers — or announcers, in the case of ESPN analyst Jeff Van Gundy. The league is cognizant of the fact that constant reviews (particularly late in games) can be bothersome, and they are studying the issue. But according to McCutchen, that issue doesn’t affect a referee’s decision on whether to review a specific play.
“We need to get those plays right,” he said. “If [we go to replay review] six times and you don’t go on the seventh, and the seventh is the one that you screw up the game, all anyone is gonna talk about is the seventh time. They’re not gonna talk about the 15 minutes it took to play the [last minute of] the game.”
The decision to review a play is also not subject to the whims of what ESPN’s Kevin Arnovitz recently called the “small claims court,” where players and coaches continuously lobby referees to change calls and implore them to review a call they believe is incorrect. “A player or a coach might genuinely create doubt in you. But in and of itself, a player or a coach trying to create doubt or passionately believing they are correct does not necessarily mean you should go to replay,” McCutchen said. “That being said, if you have the potential for a trigger, and you’re not honest with yourself about there being doubt, and you end up being wrong — then you do run the risk of being held accountable to that.”
While officials are held accountable for their calls on the floor, they’re not fined for judgment, according to McCutchen — only for “misapplication of rules or behavior.” So referees face no additional incentive review a call just to make sure it is correct, and thus improve their grade, which can affect their playoff game assignments.
So, about the playoffs. Reviews are up approximately 20 percent from the seeding games to the playoffs, and they’re up around 28 percent in the playoffs compared to the pre-hiatus regular season. But that’s actually not abnormal. In each of the past two seasons, the league saw a similar spike in reviews during the postseason — an average of about 20.8 percent. But this year’s spike started from a higher level: Pre-hiatus reviews this year were already up from the previous two regular seasons, and they jumped even more in the seeding games.
Yes, there have been more reviews this postseason Replay reviews per game in the NBA by segment of the season, plus the change in reviews from the regular season to the playoffs, by season Season Regular season Seeding games Playoffs Change 2019-20 1.937 2.068 2.477 27.9% 2018-19 1.781 — 2.012 13.0 2017-18 1.733 — 2.232 28.8 Reviews per game in the 2019-20 playoffs are through games played on Friday, Sept. 11. Source: NBA.com
Explaining why the rate of reviews tends to rise in the playoffs is fairly easy. “The importance of the moment creates more doubt,” McCutchen said. “And I think that’s just a human nature thing. You can understand if you’re in Game 6, and someone’s going home, you better be right on the play.”
Part of the reason the baseline review rate was higher this year, though, is because of the introduction of the coach’s challenge. Non-challenge replay reviews per game were actually down during the pre-hiatus regular season compared to the past two regular seasons, and that continued through the seeding games. Just about all of the seeding-game bump can be explained by increased use of the coach’s challenge.
Coach’s challenges are the big offenders Replay reviews per game in the NBA by type and segment of the season 2017-18–2018-19 2019-20 Review Type Reg. season Playoffs Reg. season Seeding Playoffs Non-challenge 1.757 2.122 1.350 1.352 1.683 Altercation 0.055 0.116 0.044 0.057 0.063 Request 1.702 2.006 1.306 1.295 1.619 Challenge — — 0.587 0.716 0.794 Total 1.757 2.122 1.937 2.068 2.477 Reviews per game in the 2019-20 playoffs are through games played on Friday, Sept. 11.
Coaches were granted one challenge per game for the 2019-20 season. Source: NBA.com
In other words, that spike you’re seeing in replay reviews isn’t the fault of the refs. It’s being caused by the coaches. (In particular, it’s being caused by Eastern Conference coaches. Four of the top five teams in postseason reviews per game are the four teams that made the Eastern Conference semifinals.)
It’s worth asking, then: Is it worth it? Are coaches even particularly good at challenges? Do challenges result in overturned calls any more often than requests from the referees themselves? It depends on what your definition of “worth it” is, but coach’s challenges have certainly resulted in more instances of overturned calls than have requests.
Coaches have been getting calls overturned this year Outcome of replay reviews in the 2019-20 NBA season by type of call and season segment Referee Request Coach’s Challenge Outcome Regular Seeding Playoffs Regular Seeding Playoffs Overturned 28.3% 34.2% 29.4% 44.7% 48.0% 42.0% Supported 61.7 58.8 62.7 35.8 38.1 46.0 Stands 10.0 7.0 7.8 19.5 15.9 10.0 Reviews per game in the 2019-20 playoffs are through games played on Friday, Sept. 11. Source: NBA.com
The NBA has three classifications for the result of a coach’s challenge or non-altercation replay request): “Overturn” means the call on the floor was incorrect, and the ruling is reversed; “support” means the call on the floor was correct; and “stands” means there was insufficient evidence to overturn the call on the floor. In the seeding games, the rate of calls receiving each of those designations was pretty similar to where it was during the regular season. In the playoffs, calls have been more likely to get the “support” ruling than “stands,” indicating slightly more confident review decisions.
All of this is on the NBA’s radar. The league is studying what’s happening in the bubble just as much as those outside of it are, and that includes looking at the replay system.
“We’re using this as an opportunity to really understand our game at a higher level,” McCutchen said.
Check out our latest NBA predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-17--More And More Americans Aren’t Religious. Why Are Democrats Ignoring These Voters?

Democrats are once again doubling down on religion this year .
Faith was on full display during the Democratic National Convention , where Joe Biden closed out the week with several pointed references to his Catholic faith .
And the Biden campaign is also making an ambitious play for white evangelical Protestants and Mormons , two loyal Republican groups where Democrats hope to make some inroads .
Often lost in this , though , is the fact that Democrats are mostly ignoring a massive group of voters who are becoming an increasingly crucial part of their base : people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all .
Right now , voters with no religious affiliation look like they might back Biden in record numbers .
According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in early August , 72 percent of nonreligious voters — a group that includes people who identify as atheists , agnostics and nothing in particular — are planning to support Biden .
That ’ s 4 percentage points higher than the 68 percent who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
And that ’ s a big deal , because despite being frequently overlooked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the electorate .
An analysis of validated voters by Pew found that religiously unaffiliated voters accounted for one-quarter of the electorate in 2016 , and 30 percent in 2018 .
The unaffiliated are a key demographic for Democratic candidates in particular .
More than one-third of the people who voted for Clinton in 2016 were religiously unaffiliated , making them just as electorally important for Democrats as white evangelical Protestants are for Republicans .
Yet despite constantly hearing about the importance of white evangelical voters in an election cycle , Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growing number of nonreligious people who vote for them .
Why ?
In the past , the challenges of organizing the religiously unaffiliated have made it easy to understand why Democrats haven ’ t made a real effort to appeal to them more .
As most don ’ t regularly gather like a church congregation , religiously unaffiliated Americans can be difficult to reach .
A lack of institutional leadership also means there aren ’ t many prominent people or groups showing up to nudge politicians to pay attention to their issues .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonreligious people in American culture , overt appeals to the nonreligious still run the risk of turning off the majority of voters who are people of faith .
But there are signs that antipathy toward President Trump has mobilized some religiously unaffiliated voters in unprecedented ways .
Although Trump is not an overtly pious figure , he ’ s embraced a vision of American culture that privileges Christian identity and heritage .
That ’ s a view that most nonreligious Americans reject , which is likely a part of the reason that their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite the campaign ’ s minimal outreach efforts .
In the coming years , though , that calculus might have to change , since the growing size of the country ’ s nonreligious population could make these voters more difficult for Democrats to ignore .
“ I think in future elections we ’ re going to see more of an effort to reach a secular voting bloc and the reason is simply that they ’ re continuing to grow , ” said David Campbell , a political science professor at the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It ’ s too ripe a target for politicians to ignore.
” Over the past 10 years , the share of Americans who identify as Christian has fallen by 12 percentage points , while the share of people who say they have no religious affiliation is up 9 percentage points .
That breaks down to 1 in every 4 Americans who are now religiously unaffiliated , including 40 percent of millennials .
Meanwhile , there ’ s no sign that nonreligious Americans are returning to religion as they get older .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than they benefit Republicans .
Nearly two-thirds of religiously unaffiliated Americans identify as Democrats , a sharp increase from just a few decades ago , when the ( much smaller ) nonreligious population was fairly evenly split between the parties .
And in 2018 , a record-high share ( 75 percent ) of religiously unaffiliated voters supported Democratic candidates .
As the table below shows , that kind of extreme partisan tilt is rivaled by only two other major religious groups : Black Protestants and white evangelical Protestants .
One reason we haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unaffiliated people is because they are often dismissed as less likely to vote , even as their share of the total population has grown .
But that perception of nonreligious voters as less engaged could be increasingly wrong , as there are indications that the voting gap between secular and religious Americans has shrunk in recent elections .
And surveys also indicate that nonreligious people are just as likely as religious Americans to donate and engage in other political activities .
A recent working paper also suggests that a lack of religious engagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower turnout among secular people .
Instead , religiously unaffiliated voters were more likely to have other characteristics ( in particular , being young ) that also correlate with low turnout .
“ It turns out that when you put in basic statistical controls , most of the secular voting gap in recent years disappears and nonreligious people appear to turn out at about the same rate as [ religiously ] affiliated people , ” said Evan Stewart , the study ’ s author and a sociology professor at the University of Massachusetts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters are now older — roughly one-third of nonreligious people are younger than 30 — it ’ s possible that this bloc will start voting more regularly , too .
Additionally , anger at Trump is motivating many nonreligious voters to get more politically involved .
A majority ( 56 percent ) of religiously unaffiliated Americans — including nearly three-quarters ( 73 percent ) of atheists and agnostics — say Trump has been a “ terrible ” president .
And there are signs that religiously unaffiliated people have become more politically engaged since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 found that nonreligious people were more likely than their religious peers to have attended a rally or contacted a political official .
That anger and energy could help drive up support for Biden among religiously unaffiliated voters this year , even without much outreach from the campaign .
( Not to mention , nonreligious voters ’ views on issues like abortion , immigration , health care and climate change do tend to align pretty well with Democratic policies overall — which might suggest that Democrats can reach this group simply by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
But Sarah Levin , a political consultant who focuses on secular groups and communities , said Democrats shouldn ’ t see this election as a sign that they can take nonreligious voters for granted .
Secular people have values too , she said , and hearing politicians and parties speak to those values can motivate them to get more politically involved .
Meanwhile , support for progressive policies doesn ’ t necessarily translate to enthusiasm for mainstream Democratic candidates .
Sen. Bernie Sanders , for instance , was consistently the favorite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary , and Democratic candidates appear to have gotten record-high support from nonreligious voters in the 2018 midterms in part because they peeled off people who voted for third-party candidates like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in 2016 .
Levin said there are ways to make appeals to secular voters that can also speak to religious Democrats — for example , emphasizing the importance of protecting religious minorities and nonreligious people through the separation of church and state , or focusing on science-based issues like climate change .
That kind of big-tent strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The last thing Democrats want is to be portrayed as the godless party , because that would probably turn off a lot of voters , ” Campbell said .
But he added that Democrats may be missing a big political opportunity if they don ’ t start thinking about ways to engage with nonreligious voters as a group .
“ Until parties and politicians start talking to secular voters as a bloc , voters won ’ t see themselves that way either , ” he said .
“ What you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a distinct group that can be courted and discussed .
The left hasn ’ t figured out how to do that with nonreligious voters .
But we could see more efforts in that direction going forward.
” What ’ s the chance Trump loses the popular vote but wins the election again ?

Democrats are once again doubling down on religion this year. Faith was on full display during the Democratic National Convention, where Joe Biden closed out the week with several pointed references to his Catholic faith. And the Biden campaign is also making an ambitious play for white evangelical Protestants and Mormons, two loyal Republican groups where Democrats hope to make some inroads.
Often lost in this, though, is the fact that Democrats are mostly ignoring a massive group of voters who are becoming an increasingly crucial part of their base: people who don’t have any religion at all.
Right now, voters with no religious affiliation look like they might back Biden in record numbers. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in early August, 72 percent of nonreligious voters — a group that includes people who identify as atheists, agnostics and nothing in particular — are planning to support Biden. That’s 4 percentage points higher than the 68 percent who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016. And that’s a big deal, because despite being frequently overlooked, nonreligious people make up a sizable part of the electorate. An analysis of validated voters by Pew found that religiously unaffiliated voters accounted for one-quarter of the electorate in 2016, and 30 percent in 2018.
The unaffiliated are a key demographic for Democratic candidates in particular. More than one-third of the people who voted for Clinton in 2016 were religiously unaffiliated, making them just as electorally important for Democrats as white evangelical Protestants are for Republicans. Yet despite constantly hearing about the importance of white evangelical voters in an election cycle, Democratic politicians have been slow to embrace the growing number of nonreligious people who vote for them. Why?
In the past, the challenges of organizing the religiously unaffiliated have made it easy to understand why Democrats haven’t made a real effort to appeal to them more. As most don’t regularly gather like a church congregation, religiously unaffiliated Americans can be difficult to reach. A lack of institutional leadership also means there aren’t many prominent people or groups showing up to nudge politicians to pay attention to their issues. And despite rising tolerance for atheists and nonreligious people in American culture, overt appeals to the nonreligious still run the risk of turning off the majority of voters who are people of faith.
But there are signs that antipathy toward President Trump has mobilized some religiously unaffiliated voters in unprecedented ways. Although Trump is not an overtly pious figure, he’s embraced a vision of American culture that privileges Christian identity and heritage. That’s a view that most nonreligious Americans reject, which is likely a part of the reason that their support for Biden is so high, despite the campaign’s minimal outreach efforts. In the coming years, though, that calculus might have to change, since the growing size of the country’s nonreligious population could make these voters more difficult for Democrats to ignore.
“I think in future elections we’re going to see more of an effort to reach a secular voting bloc and the reason is simply that they’re continuing to grow,” said David Campbell, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame who studies religion and politics. “It’s too ripe a target for politicians to ignore.”
Over the past 10 years, the share of Americans who identify as Christian has fallen by 12 percentage points, while the share of people who say they have no religious affiliation is up 9 percentage points. That breaks down to 1 in every 4 Americans who are now religiously unaffiliated, including 40 percent of millennials. Meanwhile, there’s no sign that nonreligious Americans are returning to religion as they get older.
These shifts stand to benefit Democrats more than they benefit Republicans. Nearly two-thirds of religiously unaffiliated Americans identify as Democrats, a sharp increase from just a few decades ago, when the (much smaller) nonreligious population was fairly evenly split between the parties. And in 2018, a record-high share (75 percent) of religiously unaffiliated voters supported Democratic candidates. As the table below shows, that kind of extreme partisan tilt is rivaled by only two other major religious groups: Black Protestants and white evangelical Protestants.
Most nonreligious voters voted for a Democrat in 2018 Share of voters who reported voting for Democratic and Republican candidates in 2018 Dem. Rep. Margin Black Protestant 94% 5% D+89 Religiously unaffiliated 75 22 D+53 Hispanic Catholic 71 27 D+44 Jewish 72 28 D+44 Other 66 33 D+33 Protestant, other race 47 50 R+3 White mainline Protestant 42 55 R+13 White Catholic 39 59 R+20 White evangelical Protestant 17 81 R+64 Source: Pew Research Center
One reason we haven’t heard as much about religiously unaffiliated people is because they are often dismissed as less likely to vote, even as their share of the total population has grown. But that perception of nonreligious voters as less engaged could be increasingly wrong, as there are indications that the voting gap between secular and religious Americans has shrunk in recent elections. And surveys also indicate that nonreligious people are just as likely as religious Americans to donate and engage in other political activities. A recent working paper also suggests that a lack of religious engagement may not be the main driver of lower turnout among secular people. Instead, religiously unaffiliated voters were more likely to have other characteristics (in particular, being young) that also correlate with low turnout.
“It turns out that when you put in basic statistical controls, most of the secular voting gap in recent years disappears and nonreligious people appear to turn out at about the same rate as [religiously] affiliated people,” said Evan Stewart, the study’s author and a sociology professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston. And because more religiously unaffiliated voters are now older — roughly one-third of nonreligious people are younger than 30 — it’s possible that this bloc will start voting more regularly, too.
Additionally, anger at Trump is motivating many nonreligious voters to get more politically involved. A majority (56 percent) of religiously unaffiliated Americans — including nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of atheists and agnostics — say Trump has been a “terrible” president. And there are signs that religiously unaffiliated people have become more politically engaged since Trump was elected — one survey conducted in 2018 found that nonreligious people were more likely than their religious peers to have attended a rally or contacted a political official.
That anger and energy could help drive up support for Biden among religiously unaffiliated voters this year, even without much outreach from the campaign. (Not to mention, nonreligious voters’ views on issues like abortion, immigration, health care and climate change do tend to align pretty well with Democratic policies overall — which might suggest that Democrats can reach this group simply by doing what they’re already doing.)
But Sarah Levin, a political consultant who focuses on secular groups and communities, said Democrats shouldn’t see this election as a sign that they can take nonreligious voters for granted. Secular people have values too, she said, and hearing politicians and parties speak to those values can motivate them to get more politically involved.
Meanwhile, support for progressive policies doesn’t necessarily translate to enthusiasm for mainstream Democratic candidates. Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, was consistently the favorite of religiously unaffiliated voters during the Democratic primary, and Democratic candidates appear to have gotten record-high support from nonreligious voters in the 2018 midterms in part because they peeled off people who voted for third-party candidates like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in 2016.
Levin said there are ways to make appeals to secular voters that can also speak to religious Democrats — for example, emphasizing the importance of protecting religious minorities and nonreligious people through the separation of church and state, or focusing on science-based issues like climate change. That kind of big-tent strategy isn’t without risk, though. “The last thing Democrats want is to be portrayed as the godless party, because that would probably turn off a lot of voters,” Campbell said. But he added that Democrats may be missing a big political opportunity if they don’t start thinking about ways to engage with nonreligious voters as a group.
“Until parties and politicians start talking to secular voters as a bloc, voters won’t see themselves that way either,” he said. “What you have on the right with white evangelical Protestants is a distinct group that can be courted and discussed. The left hasn’t figured out how to do that with nonreligious voters. But we could see more efforts in that direction going forward.”
What’s the chance Trump loses the popular vote but wins the election again?


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-16--When It Comes To Playoff Disappointment, The Clippers Are In A League Of Their Own

An entire documentary could , and perhaps should , be done on the Denver Nuggets , who played the part of “ dead man walking ” in each of their playoff series before doing the unthinkable and coming back from a 3-1 deficit twice .
There would be a spotlight on Gary Harris , formerly one of the league ’ s best role players , whose return from injury has given the club a much-needed defensive stopper on the wing .
We ’ d get an entire segment on the importance of Paul Millsap ’ s series-saving third quarter in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pair of clutch plays that Michael Porter Jr. made in the fourth .
Star center Nikola Jokić ’ s one-legged , leaning fadeaways , which nearly touch the rafters before swishing through , would get the “ Sport Science ” treatment .
And Jamal Murray ’ s shot-making would be edited into slow motion , the way we ’ re used to seeing it done with the NFL Films specials .
Over time , it might behoove us all to go back and see how it all came together — especially if the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming round by taking down the Lakers .
But for every bit of credit Denver ’ s survival merits , the Los Angeles Clippers — heavily favored to win even before squandering their 3-1 edge in the series — deserve to be interrogated until next season begins .
And the first and perhaps only question would be : How could this happen again — especially with Kawhi Leonard and Paul George , who were supposed to erase this narrative ?
This is the fifth time in seven seasons under coach Doc Rivers that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after holding a series lead at some point .
The losses weren ’ t necessarily equal .
The first-round defeat against the Jazz in 2017 , for instance , came after just a 2-1 edge .
And the 2-0 lead they lost to Portland in the 2016 first round could be forgiven as stars Blake Griffin and Chris Paul went down with injuries .
But even setting those aside , the hard-luck Los Angeles club has given its fans an abundance of heartburn and nightmare fuel over the last seven years .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 defeat in Oklahoma City , in which the Clippers held a 7-point lead and a 99.3 percent win probability with 49 seconds left before all hell broke loose .
There was the original 3-1 series collapse , back in 2015 , when they blew a 19-point advantage over James Harden and the Houston Rockets in Game 6 of the conference semis .
And now , just when the franchise looked ready to have a baptism of sorts , to wash away the past and make its first-ever trip to the conference finals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short again — this time as co-favorites to win the NBA championship .
The Clippers — who somehow keep managing to track down canteens in the desert , only to find them empty — now continue on their walk through the wilderness as they enter decade No .
5 of Wait Until Next Year .
Based on their pre-playoff Elo ratings — using a logistic regression to predict each team ’ s chances of making the conference finals — the Clips would have been expected to make just over three conference finals since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to the playoffs after a six-year drought .
( The -3.1 disparity between conference finals appearances and expected appearances is basically twice as wide as that of the next closest team : Utah has registered a -1.56 over the span . )
Using those same odds , we can conclude that a team with L.A. ’ s Elo profile over that span would have been given a 98.7 percent chance of reaching at least one conference final in that window .
For everything the Nuggets did to earn their series victory , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their third-leading scorer in Will Barton , Los Angeles did just as much to squander it .
With the Clippers needing a single victory to advance , they led by as many as 15 in Game 5 , 19 in Game 6 and 12 in Game 7 .
But Denver outscored Los Angeles 181-117 in the second halves of those potential close-out games , a span in which Leonard and George combined to shoot just 18-of-65 from the floor , for a dismal 27 percent .
Amazingly , in Game 7 they combined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neither player managed to score at all during the fourth quarter — a brutal outcome for a team that , before landing these stars , was statistically the league ’ s best in clutch situations .
Even with those two struggling , the Clippers should have been able to rely on Lou Williams , who ’ s long been one of the NBA ’ s premier bucket-getters .
But he was awful in the series , averaging 10 points on 11 shots while shooting just 14.8 percent ( 4-of-27 ) from three .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Game 7 , missing all 12 of its corner 3-point tries after hitting them consistently in the first round and Games 1 through 6 of the second .
Individual no-shows from the big names doomed the club ’ s chances .
But the common denominator in the team ’ s late-series failures over this seven-year run is Rivers , who ’ s now watched six of his teams blow a 3-1 or 3-2 lead .
The coach , who won a title in Boston in 2008 , sometimes waits too long to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The most obvious example : Rivers used Montrezl Harrell too frequently despite the Sixth Man of the Year failing to make an impact on defense .
Jokić and the Nuggets feasted their way to 120.4 points per 100 possessions when Harrell was on the floor , a night-and-day contrast from the 106 points per 100 they scored when Ivica Zubac was serving as the Clippers center .
And in the moments when Jokić wasn ’ t raining jumpers from all over the place , he showcased why he ’ s discussed as perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever seen .
He stood at the free-throw line with 4-on-3 advantages and all but played with his food by looking off defenders before firing passes to open 3-point shooters .
He was able to pick apart those power plays in the third quarter because of the ineffective traps Los Angeles tried throwing onto Murray , who had dropped 20 points in the second quarter alone .
That was the reality for the Clippers these past three games : They would adjust too slowly to fix one problem , but then when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Nuggets would pick that apart , too .
And the players who were supposed to give the Clippers a talent advantage , Leonard and George , had no answer when push came to shove late in the game .
Without that answer , the Clippers now prepare for yet another offseason that will end up being longer than it should have been — exactly what their stars were supposed to insulate them from .

When It Comes To Playoff Disappointment, The Clippers Are In A League Of Their Own Their new stars couldn’t change their history of falling short of postseason expectations.
An entire documentary could, and perhaps should, be done on the Denver Nuggets, who played the part of “dead man walking” in each of their playoff series before doing the unthinkable and coming back from a 3-1 deficit twice.
There would be a spotlight on Gary Harris, formerly one of the league’s best role players, whose return from injury has given the club a much-needed defensive stopper on the wing. We’d get an entire segment on the importance of Paul Millsap’s series-saving third quarter in Game 5 against L.A., and the pair of clutch plays that Michael Porter Jr. made in the fourth. Star center Nikola Jokić’s one-legged, leaning fadeaways, which nearly touch the rafters before swishing through, would get the “Sport Science” treatment. And Jamal Murray’s shot-making would be edited into slow motion, the way we’re used to seeing it done with the NFL Films specials.
Over time, it might behoove us all to go back and see how it all came together — especially if the Nuggets beat the odds again in this coming round by taking down the Lakers. But for every bit of credit Denver’s survival merits, the Los Angeles Clippers — heavily favored to win even before squandering their 3-1 edge in the series — deserve to be interrogated until next season begins. And the first and perhaps only question would be: How could this happen again — especially with Kawhi Leonard and Paul George, who were supposed to erase this narrative?
This is the fifth time in seven seasons under coach Doc Rivers that the Clippers have lost a playoff matchup after holding a series lead at some point. The losses weren’t necessarily equal. The first-round defeat against the Jazz in 2017, for instance, came after just a 2-1 edge. And the 2-0 lead they lost to Portland in the 2016 first round could be forgiven as stars Blake Griffin and Chris Paul went down with injuries. But even setting those aside, the hard-luck Los Angeles club has given its fans an abundance of heartburn and nightmare fuel over the last seven years.
In 2014, there was the unbelievable Game 5 defeat in Oklahoma City, in which the Clippers held a 7-point lead and a 99.3 percent win probability with 49 seconds left before all hell broke loose. There was the original 3-1 series collapse, back in 2015, when they blew a 19-point advantage over James Harden and the Houston Rockets in Game 6 of the conference semis.
And now, just when the franchise looked ready to have a baptism of sorts, to wash away the past and make its first-ever trip to the conference finals and face the Lakers, it fell short again — this time as co-favorites to win the NBA championship. The Clippers — who somehow keep managing to track down canteens in the desert, only to find them empty — now continue on their walk through the wilderness as they enter decade No. 5 of Wait Until Next Year.
Based on their pre-playoff Elo ratings — using a logistic regression to predict each team’s chances of making the conference finals — the Clips would have been expected to make just over three conference finals since 2012, when Chris Paul led them back to the playoffs after a six-year drought. (The -3.1 disparity between conference finals appearances and expected appearances is basically twice as wide as that of the next closest team: Utah has registered a -1.56 over the span.) Using those same odds, we can conclude that a team with L.A.’s Elo profile over that span would have been given a 98.7 percent chance of reaching at least one conference final in that window.
The Clippers should have made a deep run by now Largest differentials between actual and expected* conference finals appearances for NBA teams since the 2011-12 season Conf. Finals Appearances Team Playoffs Avg. Pre-Playoff Elo Actual Expected Diff. Cavaliers 4 1592.5 4 0.84 +3.16 Celtics 8 1577.1 4 1.54 +2.46 Heat 6 1598.9 4 1.57 +2.43 Warriors 7 1673.1 5 3.55 +1.45 Pacers 8 1549.7 2 0.84 +1.16 Hawks 6 1535.4 1 0.60 +0.40 Lakers 3 1587.5 1 0.60 +0.40 Thunder 8 1629.2 3 2.89 +0.11 Spurs 8 1666.3 4 4.06 -0.06 Pistons 2 1506.7 0 0.07 -0.07 Timberwolves 1 1551.4 0 0.10 -0.10 Nuggets 4 1611.0 1 1.16 -0.16 Grizzlies 6 1567.7 1 1.16 -0.16 Hornets 2 1567.2 0 0.23 -0.23 Bucks 6 1544.1 1 1.23 -0.23 Pelicans 2 1564.0 0 0.25 -0.25 Magic 3 1528.8 0 0.27 -0.27 Nets 5 1517.1 0 0.31 -0.31 Wizards 4 1531.3 0 0.39 -0.39 Knicks 2 1597.7 0 0.42 -0.42 Raptors 7 1627.1 2 2.49 -0.49 Trail Blazers 7 1592.8 1 1.51 -0.51 Mavericks 5 1561.1 0 0.63 -0.63 Rockets 8 1623.5 2 2.80 -0.80 76ers 4 1580.1 0 0.84 -0.84 Bulls 5 1575.5 0 1.00 -1.00 Jazz 5 1611.8 0 1.56 -1.56 Clippers 8 1635.4 0 3.10 -3.10 *Expected conference finals appearances are based on a logistic regression using a team’s pre-playoff Elo rating each season. Source: Basketball-Reference.com
For everything the Nuggets did to earn their series victory, overcoming a rest disadvantage and playing without their third-leading scorer in Will Barton, Los Angeles did just as much to squander it. With the Clippers needing a single victory to advance, they led by as many as 15 in Game 5, 19 in Game 6 and 12 in Game 7.
But Denver outscored Los Angeles 181-117 in the second halves of those potential close-out games, a span in which Leonard and George combined to shoot just 18-of-65 from the floor, for a dismal 27 percent. Amazingly, in Game 7 they combined for just 5 second-half points, while neither player managed to score at all during the fourth quarter — a brutal outcome for a team that, before landing these stars, was statistically the league’s best in clutch situations.
Even with those two struggling, the Clippers should have been able to rely on Lou Williams, who’s long been one of the NBA’s premier bucket-getters. But he was awful in the series, averaging 10 points on 11 shots while shooting just 14.8 percent (4-of-27) from three. The entire team went cold from deep in Game 7, missing all 12 of its corner 3-point tries after hitting them consistently in the first round and Games 1 through 6 of the second.
Individual no-shows from the big names doomed the club’s chances. But the common denominator in the team’s late-series failures over this seven-year run is Rivers, who’s now watched six of his teams blow a 3-1 or 3-2 lead. The coach, who won a title in Boston in 2008, sometimes waits too long to adjust to problems within a matchup. The most obvious example: Rivers used Montrezl Harrell too frequently despite the Sixth Man of the Year failing to make an impact on defense.
Jokić and the Nuggets feasted their way to 120.4 points per 100 possessions when Harrell was on the floor, a night-and-day contrast from the 106 points per 100 they scored when Ivica Zubac was serving as the Clippers center. And in the moments when Jokić wasn’t raining jumpers from all over the place, he showcased why he’s discussed as perhaps the greatest big-man passer the league has ever seen. He stood at the free-throw line with 4-on-3 advantages and all but played with his food by looking off defenders before firing passes to open 3-point shooters.
He was able to pick apart those power plays in the third quarter because of the ineffective traps Los Angeles tried throwing onto Murray, who had dropped 20 points in the second quarter alone. That was the reality for the Clippers these past three games: They would adjust too slowly to fix one problem, but then when they actually got around to trying something different, the Nuggets would pick that apart, too. And the players who were supposed to give the Clippers a talent advantage, Leonard and George, had no answer when push came to shove late in the game.
Without that answer, the Clippers now prepare for yet another offseason that will end up being longer than it should have been — exactly what their stars were supposed to insulate them from.
Jay Boice contributed research.
Check out our latest NBA predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-16--Aaron Rodgers Is Playing Like Aaron Rodgers Again

An annual rite of recent autumns has been to wonder whether Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers truly belongs among the game ’ s elite signal-callers anymore .
The reason : Rodgers ’ s stats , routinely off-the-charts when he was younger , have been more average of late — and so have the Packers ’ offenses .
As Danny Heifetz of The Ringer wrote in August , the perception of Rodgers sitting on top of the QB world looked like it needed some refreshing .
But Rodgers is sneaky .
When you write him off as being past his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a game like Sunday ’ s vintage performance — 364 yards , 73 percent of passes completed , four touchdowns and zero interceptions — against the Minnesota Vikings .
According to our quarterback Elo ratings , Rodgers on Sunday had the best QB game ( relative to league average ) of Week 1 , the sixth-best game of his career and his second-best game since 2010 .
So much for the narrative about his best days passing him by — for now , at least .
Much was made over the offseason about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receiver , and Rodgers ’ s top targets against Minnesota were little changed from last year ’ s list , aside from the absences of tight end Jimmy Graham ( who was released in March ) and receiver Geronimo Allison ( who signed with the Detroit Lions ) .
Nor did his receivers suddenly start getting open at a higher rate : According to the NFL ’ s Next Gen Stats , Rodgers ’ s targets had an average separation of 3.11 yards from their nearest defender per attempt at the arrival of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year .
In 2019 , 50.7 percent of Rodgers ’ s throws were to receivers with at least 3 yards of separation from the nearest defender ; on Sunday , that share was just 45.5 percent .
But Rodgers did more with what he had to work with on Sunday .
Based on Next Gen Stats ’ completion probability metric , which looks at factors including receiver separation , pass air distance and QB pressure to calculate the rate at which an average signal-caller would complete a given pass , we would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of his passes Sunday — third-lowest among qualified QBs .
Instead , he completed 72.7 percent of them , a rate 14.2 percentage points higher than expected .
On his five throws into what NGS considers “ tight coverage ” ( with a separation under a yard at the pass ’ s arrival ) , Rodgers completed four of them for 103 yards and two touchdowns , including this 45-yard TD strike to Marquez Valdes-Scantling : Completing passes he had no business completing used to be a Rodgers hallmark .
We don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seasons earlier than 2016 , but that was probably Rodgers ’ s most recent truly great season — he led the NFL in touchdown passes , completed more than 65 percent of his throws and directed the league ’ s fourth-best passing offense according to expected points added ( EPA ) .
That year , Rodgers had a completion percentage 3.4 points higher than we ’ d expect from an average QB .
Ever since , though , he had completed fewer passes than we ’ d expect based on the characteristics of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The 14.2-point gap between actual and expected completion percentage against Minnesota was Rodgers ’ s best differential in any game since Dec. 11 , 2016 : Rodgers did other Rodgers-like things on Sunday that recalled an earlier era of the quarterback ’ s career .
He had two TD passes and a 97.9 Total Quarterback Rating ( QBR ) on his four throws from outside the pocket , an area where he once ranked among the game ’ s best : He was seventh in QBR on those passes from 2010 through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recent years , dropping to 22nd in QBR from 2017 through 2019 .
Rodgers had a much better QBR under pressure ( 40.7 ) this week than he ’ d had over the previous three seasons ( 13.9 ) .
( He also faced less of it than usual , spending only 16 percent of his dropbacks under duress after being pressured 26 percent of the time last season . )
He went deep more often and made fewer off-target throws .
It was vintage Rodgers , in just about every sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or part of a larger resurgence for Rodgers remains to be seen .
He has a healthy Davante Adams back after the wideout missed four games last season — and clearly Rodgers will be targeting Adams early and often .
But although talented quarterbacks can still show flashes of greatness even after their primes end , the bigger challenge is doing it consistently .
For what it ’ s worth , this single game raised Rodgers ’ s ranking in our QB Elo ratings from 12th in the league before the season to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll have to see if he can rise even higher as the season goes on , or if he simply regresses back to his reduced form of the previous few seasons .
Looking ahead : On paper , the best game of Week 2 sees Russell Wilson and the Seattle Seahawks host the Cam Newton-led New England Patriots on Sunday night .
Seattle is a home favorite in our Elo model , which makes sense given its impressive 38-25 shellacking of the Falcons in Atlanta last week .
But all eyes will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Pats ’ starter .
According to EPA , Seattle had a better defense last year than Miami , though the Seahawks ’ D was soft ( 23rd ) against the run — and allowed the fourth-most rushing yards to QBs of any team — which could give Cam plenty of chances to run .
Elo ’ s spread : Seattle -2½

An annual rite of recent autumns has been to wonder whether Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers truly belongs among the game’s elite signal-callers anymore. The reason: Rodgers’s stats, routinely off-the-charts when he was younger, have been more average of late — and so have the Packers’ offenses. As Danny Heifetz of The Ringer wrote in August, the perception of Rodgers sitting on top of the QB world looked like it needed some refreshing.
But Rodgers is sneaky. When you write him off as being past his prime, he might just respond with a game like Sunday’s vintage performance — 364 yards, 73 percent of passes completed, four touchdowns and zero interceptions — against the Minnesota Vikings.
According to our quarterback Elo ratings, Rodgers on Sunday had the best QB game (relative to league average) of Week 1, the sixth-best game of his career and his second-best game since 2010. So much for the narrative about his best days passing him by — for now, at least.
Rodgers was as good as he’d been in a long time Best games of Aaron Rodgers’s NFL career according to FiveThirtyEight’s quarterback Elo ratings, relative to an average starter Date Location Opponent Playoffs? QB Elo vs. Avg. Starter 10/2/2011 Home Broncos +399.3 10/20/2019 Home Raiders 395.0 1/15/2011 Away Falcons ✓ 366.4 10/14/2012 Away Texans 352.7 12/26/2010 Home Giants 329.1 9/13/2020 Away Vikings 323.1 12/25/2011 Home Bears 320.7 9/28/2015 Home Chiefs 317.7 9/15/2013 Home Washington 306.3 12/23/2012 Home Titans 297.9 QB Elo ratings are based on passing and rushing performance, adjusted for the quality of opposing defense. Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group
Much was made over the offseason about the Packers’ lack of upgrade at receiver, and Rodgers’s top targets against Minnesota were little changed from last year’s list, aside from the absences of tight end Jimmy Graham (who was released in March) and receiver Geronimo Allison (who signed with the Detroit Lions). Nor did his receivers suddenly start getting open at a higher rate: According to the NFL’s Next Gen Stats, Rodgers’s targets had an average separation of 3.11 yards from their nearest defender per attempt at the arrival of the pass, down from 3.68 yards last year. In 2019, 50.7 percent of Rodgers’s throws were to receivers with at least 3 yards of separation from the nearest defender; on Sunday, that share was just 45.5 percent.
But Rodgers did more with what he had to work with on Sunday. Based on Next Gen Stats’ completion probability metric, which looks at factors including receiver separation, pass air distance and QB pressure to calculate the rate at which an average signal-caller would complete a given pass, we would expect Rodgers to have completed just 58.6 percent of his passes Sunday — third-lowest among qualified QBs. Instead, he completed 72.7 percent of them, a rate 14.2 percentage points higher than expected. On his five throws into what NGS considers “tight coverage” (with a separation under a yard at the pass’s arrival), Rodgers completed four of them for 103 yards and two touchdowns, including this 45-yard TD strike to Marquez Valdes-Scantling:
Aaron Rodgers is on a mission. 45-yard TD to Marquez Valdes-Scantling with time running out in the first-half. That's two TD passes in a span of 24 seconds for Rodgers. pic.twitter.com/vrE7ajMXWq — Ari Meirov (@MySportsUpdate) September 13, 2020
Completing passes he had no business completing used to be a Rodgers hallmark. We don’t have expected completion percentage for seasons earlier than 2016, but that was probably Rodgers’s most recent truly great season — he led the NFL in touchdown passes, completed more than 65 percent of his throws and directed the league’s fourth-best passing offense according to expected points added (EPA). That year, Rodgers had a completion percentage 3.4 points higher than we’d expect from an average QB. Ever since, though, he had completed fewer passes than we’d expect based on the characteristics of the throws he attempted — until now. The 14.2-point gap between actual and expected completion percentage against Minnesota was Rodgers’s best differential in any game since Dec. 11, 2016:
Rodgers did other Rodgers-like things on Sunday that recalled an earlier era of the quarterback’s career. He had two TD passes and a 97.9 Total Quarterback Rating (QBR) on his four throws from outside the pocket, an area where he once ranked among the game’s best: He was seventh in QBR on those passes from 2010 through 2016, but he had fallen off in recent years, dropping to 22nd in QBR from 2017 through 2019. Rodgers had a much better QBR under pressure (40.7) this week than he’d had over the previous three seasons (13.9). (He also faced less of it than usual, spending only 16 percent of his dropbacks under duress after being pressured 26 percent of the time last season.) He went deep more often and made fewer off-target throws. It was vintage Rodgers, in just about every sense.
Whether this was just a one-off or part of a larger resurgence for Rodgers remains to be seen. He has a healthy Davante Adams back after the wideout missed four games last season — and clearly Rodgers will be targeting Adams early and often. But although talented quarterbacks can still show flashes of greatness even after their primes end, the bigger challenge is doing it consistently. For what it’s worth, this single game raised Rodgers’s ranking in our QB Elo ratings from 12th in the league before the season to seventh after Week 1. We’ll have to see if he can rise even higher as the season goes on, or if he simply regresses back to his reduced form of the previous few seasons.
FiveThirtyEight’s NFL Elo ratings How each team ranks through Week 1 of the 2020 season, according to our quarterback-adjusted predictions Chance To … Rk Team Starting QB QB Rk* Elo Rating Proj. Record Make Playoffs Win Division Win SB 1 Chiefs Mahomes 3 1671 12-4 89% 71% 15% 2 Ravens Jackson 1 1667 12-4 89 61 14 3 Saints Brees 2 1629 11-5 83 69 10 4 Packers Rodgers 7 1596 10-6 74 50 7 5 Steelers Roethlisberger 6 1588 10-6 72 32 5 6 Seahawks Wilson 5 1586 10-6 70 38 6 7 49ers Garoppolo 25 1575 8-8 49 18 4 8 Patriots Newton 19 1571 9-7 65 45 4 9 Titans Tannehill 12 1564 10-6 70 54 4 10 Bills Allen 13 1561 9-7 62 43 4 11 Rams Goff 15 1552 9-7 58 27 4 12 Cowboys Prescott 4 1547 9-7 59 50 3 13 Bears Trubisky 22 1545 9-7 60 33 4 14 Vikings Cousins 16 1525 8-8 35 13 2 15 Buccaneers Brady 23 1519 8-8 40 16 2 16 Colts Rivers 17 1502 7-9 34 18 1 17 Eagles Wentz 24 1500 7-9 34 24 1 18 Cardinals Murray 14 1498 8-8 47 17 2 19 Texans Watson 10 1487 7-9 29 16 <1 20 Raiders Carr 11 1485 8-8 37 12 1 21 Falcons Ryan 8 1480 7-9 23 10 <1 22 Broncos Lock 29 1479 7-9 22 7 <1 23 Browns Mayfield 28 1476 7-9 31 6 <1 24 Chargers Taylor 31 1471 8-8 37 11 <1 25 Jets Darnold 27 1438 6-10 17 7 <1 26 Lions Stafford 9 1438 6-10 16 5 <1 27 Jaguars Minshew 26 1417 7-9 23 12 <1 28 Panthers Bridgewater 20 1415 5-11 12 4 <1 29 Dolphins Fitzpatrick 18 1414 6-10 14 6 <1 30 Washington Haskins 32 1408 7-9 25 17 <1 31 Giants Jones 21 1405 5-11 15 10 <1 32 Bengals Burrow 30 1379 5-11 7 1 <1 *Ranking among all current starters, according to our QB Elo ratings. Simulations as of Sept. 16, 2020. Source: ESPN
Looking ahead: On paper, the best game of Week 2 sees Russell Wilson and the Seattle Seahawks host the Cam Newton-led New England Patriots on Sunday night. Seattle is a home favorite in our Elo model, which makes sense given its impressive 38-25 shellacking of the Falcons in Atlanta last week. But all eyes will be on Newton after his incredibly efficient debut as the Pats’ starter. According to EPA, Seattle had a better defense last year than Miami, though the Seahawks’ D was soft (23rd) against the run — and allowed the fourth-most rushing yards to QBs of any team — which could give Cam plenty of chances to run. Elo’s spread: Seattle -2½
Check out our latest NFL predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-16--Election Update: Where Biden And Trump Have Gained The Most Ground

From 30,000 feet , the presidential race looks much as it did when we first launched our presidential election forecast in August .
Joe Biden has about a 3 in 4 chance of winning compared to President Trump ’ s roughly 1 in 4 shot , according to FiveThirtyEight ’ s forecast .
Biden ’ s chances did dip down to a 2 in 3 shot after the Republican National Convention on Aug. 31 , but overall , his chances of winning have hung out in the low- to mid-70 percent range .
By contrast , Trump ’ s chances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to high-20s .
But underneath the topline numbers , there has still been some fairly big movement in a handful of key battleground states , and the news has been mostly good for Biden .
If we look at how much Biden ’ s odds have changed in states where both he and Trump have at least a 1 in 10 shot of winning since we launched the forecast on Aug. 12 , Biden has improved his chances in 17 of 20 states .
And in some cases , Biden ’ s improvement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Minnesota , +12 points in Arizona and +10 points in Wisconsin , for instance .
By comparison , Trump ’ s odds have really only improved in Florida , although he hasn ’ t lost much ground in states such as Georgia and Ohio , which may signal that Biden ’ s electoral gains will not be that expansive .
( Trump still leads in Texas , for instance , despite Biden ’ s improvement there . )
But Biden ’ s improvement in Arizona is particularly noteworthy as Arizona is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Trump wins .
That is , if Trump carries the state , he wins the election 59 percent of time , according to our forecast ; but if Biden wins Arizona , Trump has less than a 7 percent chance of winning overall .
And three polls released in the last few days show Biden ahead in the Grand Canyon State , although by varying margins .
A CBS News/YouGov poll found him up by 3 points while a Gravis Marketing survey gave him just a 2-point lead over Trump .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a much larger 10-point advantage , 52 percent to 42 percent .
Meanwhile , Biden ’ s improvement in Minnesota is also bad news for Trump , as the campaign has long viewed Minnesota as a potential target to expand the map — the president only lost the state by about 2 points in 2016 .
However , Minnesota seems to be steadily moving away from Trump .
An ABC News/Washington Post survey released today gave Biden a sizable 16-point edge , 57 percent to 41 percent , among likely voters .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBS News/YouGov and the New York Times/Siena College each found Biden ahead by 9 points in Minnesota , 50 percent to 41 percent .
Still , a Morning Consult survey released yesterday might buoy the Trump campaign ’ s hopes of breaking through in Minnesota , as it put Biden ’ s lead at only 4 points .
And Trump is doing better in Wisconsin , although he ’ s still an underdog there as recent polls suggest Biden has a fairly sizable advantage .
A CNN/SSRS survey released yesterday gave Biden a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post survey out today gave Biden a 6-point edge .
And this past weekend , the New York Times/Siena College found Biden up by 5 points there .
Florida is the only battleground state where Trump ’ s odds have increased appreciably , but that ’ s an important silver lining for the president , as winning Florida is make or break for Trump ’ s chances of winning the election .
If Trump wins the Sunshine State , he wins the presidency in 57 percent of our forecast ’ s simulations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump less than a 2 percent shot at victory .
And at this point , Florida polls continue to give Trump a decent shot at winning the state , although they haven ’ t been universally positive .
Perhaps most notably , a poll released on Tuesday by Monmouth University found Biden up by 3 to 5 points among likely voters , depending on turnout .
However , another poll out yesterday from Florida Atlantic University found the two candidates tied in a dead heat at 50 percent after undecided voters were pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this point , Florida remains ultra-competitive with Trump gaining ground there .
Trump ’ s chances haven ’ t improved much elsewhere , but it ’ s worth noting that his standing hasn ’ t really worsened in a couple of right-leaning battleground states that Democrats have eyed , like Georgia and Ohio , either .
That ’ s important for Trump because not only would losing either state dramatically hurt his chances of winning overall ( Trump would have about a 1 percent chance of winning if he lost in either one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this election might not be a blowout where Democrats turn states like Georgia and Texas blue .
Bottom line : The broad electoral picture hasn ’ t changed much since we launched the forecast in mid-August , but we ’ ve observed some real changes in a number of key battleground states .
The problem for the president is that most of those shifts have been to Biden ’ s benefit , except for the all-important state of Florida .
Trump very much remains in contention , but he is an underdog for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Texas could go blue in 2020 | FiveThirtyEight

From 30,000 feet, the presidential race looks much as it did when we first launched our presidential election forecast in August. Joe Biden has about a 3 in 4 chance of winning compared to President Trump’s roughly 1 in 4 shot, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast. Biden’s chances did dip down to a 2 in 3 shot after the Republican National Convention on Aug. 31, but overall, his chances of winning have hung out in the low- to mid-70 percent range. By contrast, Trump’s chances have mostly bounced around in the mid- to high-20s.
But underneath the topline numbers, there has still been some fairly big movement in a handful of key battleground states, and the news has been mostly good for Biden. If we look at how much Biden’s odds have changed in states where both he and Trump have at least a 1 in 10 shot of winning since we launched the forecast on Aug. 12, Biden has improved his chances in 17 of 20 states. And in some cases, Biden’s improvement has been considerable — +15 percentage points in Minnesota, +12 points in Arizona and +10 points in Wisconsin, for instance. By comparison, Trump’s odds have really only improved in Florida, although he hasn’t lost much ground in states such as Georgia and Ohio, which may signal that Biden’s electoral gains will not be that expansive. (Trump still leads in Texas, for instance, despite Biden’s improvement there.)
Biden’s odds improved in most battleground states Change in Joe Biden’s chances of winning in states where he or Donald Trump has at least a 10 percent chance of winning, between forecast launch on Aug. 12 and Sept. 16 (as of 9:30 a.m. ET) Biden’s chance of winning State Aug. 12 Sept. 16 Change Minnesota 71.8% 86.6% +14.8 Arizona 55.2 67.6 +12.4 Wisconsin 69.8 79.9 +10.0 Michigan 81.2 86.9 +5.7 Maine 77.3 82.6 +5.3 North Carolina 49.0 52.9 +3.9 Nevada 76.7 80.2 +3.5 Pennsylvania 73.4 75.8 +2.4 Texas 29.1 31.4 +2.3 Iowa 31.4 33.5 +2.0 Colorado 84.9 86.4 +1.5 New Hampshire 71.6 73.0 +1.3 Georgia 34.3 35.4 +1.2 Montana 12.1 13.0 +1.0 Alaska 19.0 19.6 +0.7 Ohio 44.8 45.2 +0.4 Mississippi 12.8 12.9 +0.1 South Carolina 12.8 12.8 +0.0 Missouri 12.9 10.3 -2.6 Florida 64.1 60.7 -3.4
But Biden’s improvement in Arizona is particularly noteworthy as Arizona is a cornerstone of most Electoral College maps in which Trump wins. That is, if Trump carries the state, he wins the election 59 percent of time, according to our forecast; but if Biden wins Arizona, Trump has less than a 7 percent chance of winning overall. And three polls released in the last few days show Biden ahead in the Grand Canyon State, although by varying margins. A CBS News/YouGov poll found him up by 3 points while a Gravis Marketing survey gave him just a 2-point lead over Trump. But an OH Predictive Insights poll gave Biden a much larger 10-point advantage, 52 percent to 42 percent.
Meanwhile, Biden’s improvement in Minnesota is also bad news for Trump, as the campaign has long viewed Minnesota as a potential target to expand the map — the president only lost the state by about 2 points in 2016. However, Minnesota seems to be steadily moving away from Trump. An ABC News/Washington Post survey released today gave Biden a sizable 16-point edge, 57 percent to 41 percent, among likely voters. And two separate polls released this weekend by CBS News/YouGov and the New York Times/Siena College each found Biden ahead by 9 points in Minnesota, 50 percent to 41 percent. Still, a Morning Consult survey released yesterday might buoy the Trump campaign’s hopes of breaking through in Minnesota, as it put Biden’s lead at only 4 points. And Trump is doing better in Wisconsin, although he’s still an underdog there as recent polls suggest Biden has a fairly sizable advantage. A CNN/SSRS survey released yesterday gave Biden a 10-point lead, while an ABC News/Washington Post survey out today gave Biden a 6-point edge. And this past weekend, the New York Times/Siena College found Biden up by 5 points there.
Florida is the only battleground state where Trump’s odds have increased appreciably, but that’s an important silver lining for the president, as winning Florida is make or break for Trump’s chances of winning the election. If Trump wins the Sunshine State, he wins the presidency in 57 percent of our forecast’s simulations, while a Biden win there would give Trump less than a 2 percent shot at victory. And at this point, Florida polls continue to give Trump a decent shot at winning the state, although they haven’t been universally positive. Perhaps most notably, a poll released on Tuesday by Monmouth University found Biden up by 3 to 5 points among likely voters, depending on turnout. However, another poll out yesterday from Florida Atlantic University found the two candidates tied in a dead heat at 50 percent after undecided voters were pushed to pick a candidate, so at this point, Florida remains ultra-competitive with Trump gaining ground there.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: Trump Narrows The Gap With Latino Voters
Trump’s chances haven’t improved much elsewhere, but it’s worth noting that his standing hasn’t really worsened in a couple of right-leaning battleground states that Democrats have eyed, like Georgia and Ohio, either. That’s important for Trump because not only would losing either state dramatically hurt his chances of winning overall (Trump would have about a 1 percent chance of winning if he lost in either one), but it also signals that this election might not be a blowout where Democrats turn states like Georgia and Texas blue.
Bottom line: The broad electoral picture hasn’t changed much since we launched the forecast in mid-August, but we’ve observed some real changes in a number of key battleground states. The problem for the president is that most of those shifts have been to Biden’s benefit, except for the all-important state of Florida. Trump very much remains in contention, but he is an underdog for reelection at this point.
Confidence Interval: Texas could go blue in 2020 | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-16--Teams Don’t Win The Stanley Cup With A Goal Deficit. Can The Dallas Stars Change That?

When the NHL playoffs began , the bookmakers didn ’ t give the Dallas Stars much of a chance to win the Stanley Cup .
The Stars had a decent regular season , buttressed by their excellent goaltending tandem of Ben Bishop and Anton Khudobin , who each ranked among the league ’ s top 10 in terms of save percentage and quality start percentage .
But Dallas was still far from a great team .
Its power play was middling , its penalty kill was below average and it scored fewer goals per game than all but five other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Simple Rating System ( SRS ) , which estimates the strength of every team in the NHL , Dallas ranked in the middle of the pack .
The bookmakers didn ’ t give Dallas much of a chance to win the Stanley Cup because Dallas hardly proved it was good enough to qualify for the playoffs , let alone win once it got there .
Its overall regular-season mediocrity aside , Dallas ’ s goaltending was something to behold in 2019-20 .
Thanks to Bishop and Khudobin , the Stars gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just 2.52 , bettered only by the Boston Bruins .
But that number has been much worse during the playoffs .
Dallas is suddenly leaking goals , giving up 3.05 per game , the worst mark among teams that have played at least 10 playoff games this season .
Some of that can be blamed on an injury to Bishop , which has limited Dallas ’ s No .
1 netminder to just three starts of the Stars ’ 21 playoff games .
But Khudobin was even better than Bishop during the regular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posting the league ’ s best save percentage and second-best quality start percentage among goalies who made at least 26 starts .
Tides have shifted for the Russian netminder during the playoffs , however .
Khudobin has posted a quality start just 47 percent of the time , far lower than his 2019-20 regular-season mark of 73 percent and his career mark of 59 percent .
We have written time and time again about the role good goaltending plays in a successful Stanley Cup run .
It ’ s not easy — though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cup without good goaltending , and that good goaltending is usually more a function of good goaltender play carrying over from the regular season , not the sudden and miraculous discovery of good form in the midst of the playoffs .
Bishop ’ s injury was unfortunate , but Dallas had a backup in place who was equally as good , if not better , to take over in case of emergency .
Khudobin ’ s regular-season form suggested the Stars would be in good shape for a deep playoff run , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notwithstanding .
Instead , Khudobin has been off the mark so far in the bubble , playing some of the worst hockey of his career .
The Stars qualified for the playoffs on the back of league-best goalie play and in spite of overall mediocrity .
A precipitous dip in goaltending form for an otherwise average hockey team wouldn ’ t appear to be the formula for a deep playoff run , and yet it hasn ’ t mattered to this point : The Stars are , somehow , just four wins away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second time in franchise history .
So , what ’ s been the source of the Stars ’ success , if not their formerly great goaltending ?
For starters , they ’ ve made vast improvements in their special teams play while in the bubble .
During the regular season , Dallas converted just 21.1 percent of its power play opportunities ( 13th in the league ) and had a penalty kill percentage of 79.7 ( 17th in the league ) .
Those numbers have jumped quite a bit during the playoffs : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their power play opportunities ( fifth in the league ) and have a penalty kill percentage of 83.3 ( ninth in the league ) in the bubble .
The exceptional offensive play of second-year defenseman Miro Heiskanen hasn ’ t hurt , either .
The young Finn has scored five goals from the blueline and has assisted on 17 more .
If the Stars do end up winning this thing , Heiskanen is a good bet for the Conn Smythe Trophy , awarded to the playoff MVP .
But will better-than-average special teams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young defenseman be enough against a team like the Tampa Bay Lightning , which score and defend at elite rates ?
To be sure , Dallas is getting enough offense to win the Stanley Cup , averaging 2.95 goals per game .
Since the lockout of 2004-05 , five cup winners have averaged fewer goals per game .
But no team since the lockout has lifted the cup after scoring fewer goals than it conceded .
The logic behind that fact may seem fundamental — it ’ s hard to win hockey games @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after all — but the Stars just advanced to the Stanley Cup Final having scored fewer goals during the first three rounds of the playoffs than they have allowed .
It ’ s possible that Dallas could get blown out in three games during the finals , win the other four by tight margins and become the first team since at least the lockout to lift the Stanley Cup after conceding more goals than it scored .
More likely , the Stars will get punished by a team like Tampa Bay if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate .

When the NHL playoffs began, the bookmakers didn’t give the Dallas Stars much of a chance to win the Stanley Cup. The Stars had a decent regular season, buttressed by their excellent goaltending tandem of Ben Bishop and Anton Khudobin, who each ranked among the league’s top 10 in terms of save percentage and quality start percentage. But Dallas was still far from a great team. Its power play was middling, its penalty kill was below average and it scored fewer goals per game than all but five other teams. And in terms of HockeyReference.com’s Simple Rating System (SRS), which estimates the strength of every team in the NHL, Dallas ranked in the middle of the pack. The bookmakers didn’t give Dallas much of a chance to win the Stanley Cup because Dallas hardly proved it was good enough to qualify for the playoffs, let alone win once it got there.
Its overall regular-season mediocrity aside, Dallas’s goaltending was something to behold in 2019-20. Thanks to Bishop and Khudobin, the Stars gave up the second-fewest goals per game: just 2.52, bettered only by the Boston Bruins. But that number has been much worse during the playoffs. Dallas is suddenly leaking goals, giving up 3.05 per game, the worst mark among teams that have played at least 10 playoff games this season.
Some of that can be blamed on an injury to Bishop, which has limited Dallas’s No. 1 netminder to just three starts of the Stars’ 21 playoff games. But Khudobin was even better than Bishop during the regular season — albeit in fewer starts — posting the league’s best save percentage and second-best quality start percentage among goalies who made at least 26 starts. Tides have shifted for the Russian netminder during the playoffs, however. Khudobin has posted a quality start just 47 percent of the time, far lower than his 2019-20 regular-season mark of 73 percent and his career mark of 59 percent.
We have written time and time again about the role good goaltending plays in a successful Stanley Cup run. It’s not easy — though not impossible — to win the Stanley Cup without good goaltending, and that good goaltending is usually more a function of good goaltender play carrying over from the regular season, not the sudden and miraculous discovery of good form in the midst of the playoffs. Bishop’s injury was unfortunate, but Dallas had a backup in place who was equally as good, if not better, to take over in case of emergency. Khudobin’s regular-season form suggested the Stars would be in good shape for a deep playoff run, the loss of their No. 1 choice notwithstanding. Instead, Khudobin has been off the mark so far in the bubble, playing some of the worst hockey of his career.
The Stars qualified for the playoffs on the back of league-best goalie play and in spite of overall mediocrity. A precipitous dip in goaltending form for an otherwise average hockey team wouldn’t appear to be the formula for a deep playoff run, and yet it hasn’t mattered to this point: The Stars are, somehow, just four wins away from hoisting the Stanley Cup for the second time in franchise history.
So, what’s been the source of the Stars’ success, if not their formerly great goaltending? For starters, they’ve made vast improvements in their special teams play while in the bubble. During the regular season, Dallas converted just 21.1 percent of its power play opportunities (13th in the league) and had a penalty kill percentage of 79.7 (17th in the league). Those numbers have jumped quite a bit during the playoffs: The Stars have converted 27.3 percent of their power play opportunities (fifth in the league) and have a penalty kill percentage of 83.3 (ninth in the league) in the bubble.
The exceptional offensive play of second-year defenseman Miro Heiskanen hasn’t hurt, either. The young Finn has scored five goals from the blueline and has assisted on 17 more. If the Stars do end up winning this thing, Heiskanen is a good bet for the Conn Smythe Trophy, awarded to the playoff MVP.
But will better-than-average special teams play and the emergence of a great young defenseman be enough against a team like the Tampa Bay Lightning, which score and defend at elite rates? To be sure, Dallas is getting enough offense to win the Stanley Cup, averaging 2.95 goals per game. Since the lockout of 2004-05, five cup winners have averaged fewer goals per game. But no team since the lockout has lifted the cup after scoring fewer goals than it conceded.
Dallas is on the wrong side of the goals ledger Goals per playoff game scored for and against the eventual Stanley Cup winner since the 2004-05 lockout, plus the 2019-20 Dallas Stars* Goals per playoff game Season Team For Against Diff. 2019-20 Dallas Stars 2.95 3.05 -0.15 2018-19 St. Louis Blues 2.88 2.69 +0.19 2017-18 Washington Capitals 3.58 2.54 +1.04 2016-17 Pittsburgh Penguins 3.08 2.28 +0.80 2015-16 Pittsburgh Penguins 3.04 2.29 +0.75 2014-15 Chicago Blackhawks 3.00 2.61 +0.39 2013-14 Los Angeles Kings 3.38 2.69 +0.42 2012-13 Chicago Blackhawks 2.78 2.09 +0.69 2011-12 Los Angeles Kings 2.85 1.50 +1.35 2010-11 Boston Bruins 3.24 2.12 +1.12 2009-10 Chicago Blackhawks 3.55 2.82 +0.73 2008-09 Pittsburgh Penguins 3.29 2.67 +0.62 2007-08 Detroit Red Wings 3.27 1.86 +1.41 2006-07 Anaheim Ducks 2.76 2.14 +0.62 2005-06 Carolina Hurricanes 2.92 2.40 +0.52 *Dallas stats are through the first three rounds of the playoffs. Source: NHL
The logic behind that fact may seem fundamental — it’s hard to win hockey games without scoring more frequently than the opposition, after all — but the Stars just advanced to the Stanley Cup Final having scored fewer goals during the first three rounds of the playoffs than they have allowed. It’s possible that Dallas could get blown out in three games during the finals, win the other four by tight margins and become the first team since at least the lockout to lift the Stanley Cup after conceding more goals than it scored. More likely, the Stars will get punished by a team like Tampa Bay if they continue to concede at their current rate.