fivethirthyeight--2020-08-21--Can You Corral Your Hamster?

Can You Corral Your Hamster?

Welcome to The Riddler .
Every week , I offer up problems related to the things we hold dear around here : math , logic and probability .
Two puzzles are presented each week : the Riddler Express for those of you who want something bite-size and the Riddler Classic for those of you in the slow-puzzle movement .
Submit a correct answer for either , and you may get a shoutout in next week ’ s column .
Please wait until Monday to publicly share your answers !
If you need a hint or have a favorite puzzle collecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter .
From Josh Silverman comes a puzzle that ’ s out of this world : When you started your doctorate several years ago , your astrophysics lab noticed some unusual signals coming in from deep space on a particular frequency — hydrogen times tau .
After analyzing a trove of data measured at many regular intervals , you compute that you heard zero signals in 45 percent of the intervals , one signal in 38 percent of the intervals and two signals in the remaining 17 percent of the intervals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ just be random fluctuations from two sources .
Each source had some fixed probability of emitting a signal that you picked up , and together those sources generated the pattern in your data .
What do you think ?
Was it possible for your data to have come from two random fluctuations , as your adviser suggests ?
From Scott Ogawa comes a riddle about rodents of usual size : Quarantined in your apartment , you decide to entertain yourself by building a large pen for your pet hamster .
To create the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , around which you will wrap a sheet of fabric .
The sheet is 1 meter long — meaning the perimeter of your pen can be at most 1 meter — and weighs 1 kilogram , while each post weighs k kilograms .
Over the course of a typical day , your hamster gets bored and likes to change rooms in your apartment .
That means you want your pen to be lightweight and easy to move between rooms .
The total weight of the posts and the fabric you use should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if k = 0.2 , then you could make an equilateral triangle with a perimeter of 0.4 meters ( since 0.4 meters of the sheet would weigh 0.4 kilograms ) , or you could make a square with perimeter of 0.2 meters .
However , you couldn ’ t make a pentagon , since the weight of five posts would already hit the maximum and leave no room for the sheet .
You want to figure out the best shape in order to enclose the largest area possible .
What ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should use four posts rather than three ?
Extra credit : For which values of k should you use five posts , six posts , seven posts , and so on ?
Congratulations to 👏 Alban 👏 of Jacksonville Beach , Florida , winner of last week ’ s Riddler Express .
Last week , you had a large pile of squares that each had a side length of 1 inch .
One square was blue , while all the other squares were white .
You wanted to arrange several white squares so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but didn ’ t overlap with each other .
( The entire blue square did not have to be covered , while the blue area that each white square covered had to be nonzero . )
What was the greatest number of white squares you could have placed ?
First , a quick acknowledgment that this was very similar to a problem posed by Martin Gardner some years ago .
Special thanks to reader Brian Kell for pointing this out !
Nevertheless , this still proved to be a very challenging express , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hundreds of submitted responses , 2 percent said the answer was four , 3 percent said the answer was five , 14 percent said the answer was six , 56 percent said the answer was seven , 7 percent said the answer was eight , and 4 percent said the answer was nine .
( There was a smattering of other answers as well , including readers who creatively wanted to stack paper-thin squares in the third dimension . )
Nine was not the answer .
Remember , all the squares were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ placed a 3-by-3 grid of white squares over the blue one and then rotated the grid about its center , at most five of the white squares would have an overlapping area with the blue square .
The majority of readers thought the answer was seven — there must be something to that .
Solver Michael Branicky ’ s five-year-old ( ! )
daughter Lydia may have been the youngest to attempt this puzzle .
She got seven white squares to overlap with the blue square by arranging them in a rotated honeycomb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve seen that seven squares were possible , while nine squares were not possible .
So what about eight squares ?
Solver Daniel Thompson illustrated different examples , from one white square all the way up to eight : It wasn ’ t as symmetric as the seven-square solution .
But by tilting the various squares just right , it was possible to make room for that eighth white square in the middle .
While eight may not be a perfectly square number , this week it was a perfectly hip number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 👏 of Baton Rouge , Louisiana , winner of last week ’ s Riddler Classic .
Last week , the Riddler Manufacturing Company had an issue with their production of foot-long rulers .
Each ruler was accidentally sliced at three random points along the ruler , resulting in four pieces .
Looking on the bright side , that meant there were then four times as many rulers — they just happened to have different lengths .
On average , how long were the pieces that contained the 6-inch mark ?
The problem as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it on good authority that , for each ruler , the Riddler Manufacturing Company chose the three random points before doing any slicing .
( If you assumed a slice was made after each point was selected , it was possible to get different and equally interesting results . )
Solver Quoc Tran declared that “ math is for nerds , ” before running 50,000 simulations of broken rulers like a total geek .
He found that the length of the piece containing the 6-inch mark followed a rather curious distribution ( shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approximately 5.621 inches .
Julian Gerez found a similar distribution , further noting that the unusual shape was due to the mashing together of two distinct cases , depending on whether the 6-inch mark was on one of the two middle pieces or on one of the two end pieces — but more on that in a moment !
So that was the computer geeks ; now back to the math nerds .
The most rigorous way to solve this is with calculus , integrating the product of each possible length multiplied by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean value of the theoretical curve that Quoc Tran ’ s histogram approximates .
Emma Knight fearlessly worked her way through those messy integrals , arriving at an answer of 5.625 inches .
An alternative approach was to break the problem down into two cases , depending on which of the four pieces contained the 6-inch mark .
If the 6-inch mark was on one of the two end pieces of the broken ruler , that meant the three random breaks were all between the 0- and 6-inch marks ( which occurred with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6- and 12-inch marks ( which also occurred with a one-in-eight probability ) .
In other words , 25 percent of the time the three random breaks were all on one side of the 6-inch mark , while the other 75 percent of the time there was a single break on one side of the 6-inch mark and two breaks on the other side .
When all three breaks were on one side , the length of the piece with the 6-inch mark was 6 inches plus the average distance between the 6-inch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Regular solvers of Riddler Classics may know a thing or two about order statistics , particularly the result that when you choose N random values from a uniform distribution between 0 and 1 , the expected value of the smallest number is 1/ ( N+1 ) , the expected value of the second smallest is 2/ ( N+1 ) , and so on up to the largest number , which has an expected value of N/ ( N+1 ) .
So when the three random breaks all occurred ( uniformly ) over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the 6-inch mark and the nearest break was one-fourth ( since four is one more than three ) of the total range , or 1.5 inches .
Putting the two pieces together , that meant 25 percent of the time the average length was 6+1.5 , or 7.5 inches .
But what about the other 75 percent of the time ?
As we said , there were two random breaks on one side of the 6-inch mark and one break on the other side .
The average distance between the 6-inch mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( since three is one more than two ) of the length , or 2 inches .
And the average distance between the 6-inch mark and the single break on the other side was one-half ( since two is one more than one ) of the length , or three inches .
Putting these two pieces together , that meant 75 percent of the time the average length was 2+3 , or 5 inches .
No integrals required , and we almost have our answer !
Using the linearity of expectation , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ length was 0.25 ( 7.5 ) + 0.75 ( 5 ) , or 5.625 inches — the same answer we got from calculus !
But the fun didn ’ t stop there .
Several readers took this puzzle to new heights , looking at how the average length of the piece with the 6-inch mark changed with the number of break points , as well as the average length of pieces containing other points on the ruler like the 1- or 2-inch mark .
Laurent Lessard combined these into a single generalization , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fraction a along a ruler of length L broken at N random points .
By computing the distribution for the number of breaks on either side of the selected point and applying order statistics , he found this length to be ( 2−aN+1− ( 1−a ) N+1 ) L/ ( N+1 ) .
One more thing : As N got very large — meaning there were many random breaks in the ruler — the average length Laurent found approached 2L/ ( N+1 ) for any value of a .
In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point on the ruler and ask for the average length of the piece containing that point , the answer will be twice the length of the average piece .
Again , that ’ s for any point you pick !
It ’ s a bizarre paradox , to be sure .
My sense is this happens because you are looking for the next break in each of the two directions along the ruler .
If anyone happens to make further headway on this , be sure to let Laurent ( and me !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t you lucky ?
There ’ s a whole book full of the best puzzles from this column and some never-before-seen head-scratchers .
It ’ s called “ The Riddler , ” and it ’ s in stores now !

Welcome to The Riddler. Every week, I offer up problems related to the things we hold dear around here: math, logic and probability. Two puzzles are presented each week: the Riddler Express for those of you who want something bite-size and the Riddler Classic for those of you in the slow-puzzle movement. Submit a correct answer for either, and you may get a shoutout in next week’s column. Please wait until Monday to publicly share your answers! If you need a hint or have a favorite puzzle collecting dust in your attic, find me on Twitter.
Riddler Express
From Josh Silverman comes a puzzle that’s out of this world:
When you started your doctorate several years ago, your astrophysics lab noticed some unusual signals coming in from deep space on a particular frequency — hydrogen times tau. After analyzing a trove of data measured at many regular intervals, you compute that you heard zero signals in 45 percent of the intervals, one signal in 38 percent of the intervals and two signals in the remaining 17 percent of the intervals.
Your research adviser suggests that it may just be random fluctuations from two sources. Each source had some fixed probability of emitting a signal that you picked up, and together those sources generated the pattern in your data.
What do you think? Was it possible for your data to have come from two random fluctuations, as your adviser suggests?
The solution to this Riddler Express can be found in the following week’s column.
Riddler Classic
From Scott Ogawa comes a riddle about rodents of usual size:
Quarantined in your apartment, you decide to entertain yourself by building a large pen for your pet hamster. To create the pen, you have several vertical posts, around which you will wrap a sheet of fabric. The sheet is 1 meter long — meaning the perimeter of your pen can be at most 1 meter — and weighs 1 kilogram, while each post weighs k kilograms.
Over the course of a typical day, your hamster gets bored and likes to change rooms in your apartment. That means you want your pen to be lightweight and easy to move between rooms. The total weight of the posts and the fabric you use should not exceed 1 kilogram.
For example, if k = 0.2, then you could make an equilateral triangle with a perimeter of 0.4 meters (since 0.4 meters of the sheet would weigh 0.4 kilograms), or you could make a square with perimeter of 0.2 meters. However, you couldn’t make a pentagon, since the weight of five posts would already hit the maximum and leave no room for the sheet.
You want to figure out the best shape in order to enclose the largest area possible. What’s the greatest value of k for which you should use four posts rather than three?
Extra credit: For which values of k should you use five posts, six posts, seven posts, and so on?
The solution to this Riddler Classic can be found in the following week’s column.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Express
Congratulations to 👏 Alban 👏 of Jacksonville Beach, Florida, winner of last week’s Riddler Express.
Last week, you had a large pile of squares that each had a side length of 1 inch. One square was blue, while all the other squares were white. You wanted to arrange several white squares so they covered part of the blue square but didn’t overlap with each other. (The entire blue square did not have to be covered, while the blue area that each white square covered had to be nonzero.)
What was the greatest number of white squares you could have placed?
First, a quick acknowledgment that this was very similar to a problem posed by Martin Gardner some years ago. Special thanks to reader Brian Kell for pointing this out!
Nevertheless, this still proved to be a very challenging express, with a lot of disagreement: Among the hundreds of submitted responses, 2 percent said the answer was four, 3 percent said the answer was five, 14 percent said the answer was six, 56 percent said the answer was seven, 7 percent said the answer was eight, and 4 percent said the answer was nine. (There was a smattering of other answers as well, including readers who creatively wanted to stack paper-thin squares in the third dimension.)
Nine was not the answer. Remember, all the squares were the same size. So if you placed a 3-by-3 grid of white squares over the blue one and then rotated the grid about its center, at most five of the white squares would have an overlapping area with the blue square.
The majority of readers thought the answer was seven — there must be something to that. Solver Michael Branicky’s five-year-old (!) daughter Lydia may have been the youngest to attempt this puzzle. She got seven white squares to overlap with the blue square by arranging them in a rotated honeycomb pattern:
Not sure if she is the #LittlestRiddler, but 5yo Lydia loved #ThisWeeksRiddler Express and was very proud she achieved 7 squares! @xaqwg @DeanDBallard pic.twitter.com/6cuNxtm0j8 — msbits (@msbits2) August 17, 2020
At this point, we’ve seen that seven squares were possible, while nine squares were not possible. So what about eight squares?
Solver Daniel Thompson illustrated different examples, from one white square all the way up to eight:
It wasn’t as symmetric as the seven-square solution. But by tilting the various squares just right, it was possible to make room for that eighth white square in the middle.
While eight may not be a perfectly square number, this week it was a perfectly hip number.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Classic
Congratulations to 👏 Richard Guidry Jr. 👏 of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, winner of last week’s Riddler Classic.
Last week, the Riddler Manufacturing Company had an issue with their production of foot-long rulers. Each ruler was accidentally sliced at three random points along the ruler, resulting in four pieces. Looking on the bright side, that meant there were then four times as many rulers — they just happened to have different lengths.
On average, how long were the pieces that contained the 6-inch mark?
The problem as stated was slightly ambiguous. I have it on good authority that, for each ruler, the Riddler Manufacturing Company chose the three random points before doing any slicing. (If you assumed a slice was made after each point was selected, it was possible to get different and equally interesting results.)
Solver Quoc Tran declared that “math is for nerds,” before running 50,000 simulations of broken rulers like a total geek. He found that the length of the piece containing the 6-inch mark followed a rather curious distribution (shown below), with an average of approximately 5.621 inches.
Julian Gerez found a similar distribution, further noting that the unusual shape was due to the mashing together of two distinct cases, depending on whether the 6-inch mark was on one of the two middle pieces or on one of the two end pieces — but more on that in a moment!
So that was the computer geeks; now back to the math nerds. The most rigorous way to solve this is with calculus, integrating the product of each possible length multiplied by its relative probability — essentially calculating the mean value of the theoretical curve that Quoc Tran’s histogram approximates. Emma Knight fearlessly worked her way through those messy integrals, arriving at an answer of 5.625 inches.
An alternative approach was to break the problem down into two cases, depending on which of the four pieces contained the 6-inch mark. If the 6-inch mark was on one of the two end pieces of the broken ruler, that meant the three random breaks were all between the 0- and 6-inch marks (which occurred with a one-in-eight probability) or all between 6- and 12-inch marks (which also occurred with a one-in-eight probability). In other words, 25 percent of the time the three random breaks were all on one side of the 6-inch mark, while the other 75 percent of the time there was a single break on one side of the 6-inch mark and two breaks on the other side.
When all three breaks were on one side, the length of the piece with the 6-inch mark was 6 inches plus the average distance between the 6-inch mark and nearest of the three breaks. Regular solvers of Riddler Classics may know a thing or two about order statistics, particularly the result that when you choose N random values from a uniform distribution between 0 and 1, the expected value of the smallest number is 1/(N+1), the expected value of the second smallest is 2/(N+1), and so on up to the largest number, which has an expected value of N/(N+1). So when the three random breaks all occurred (uniformly) over a 6-inch range, the average distance between the 6-inch mark and the nearest break was one-fourth (since four is one more than three) of the total range, or 1.5 inches. Putting the two pieces together, that meant 25 percent of the time the average length was 6+1.5, or 7.5 inches.
But what about the other 75 percent of the time? As we said, there were two random breaks on one side of the 6-inch mark and one break on the other side. The average distance between the 6-inch mark and nearest among two breaks was one-third (since three is one more than two) of the length, or 2 inches. And the average distance between the 6-inch mark and the single break on the other side was one-half (since two is one more than one) of the length, or three inches. Putting these two pieces together, that meant 75 percent of the time the average length was 2+3, or 5 inches.
No integrals required, and we almost have our answer! Using the linearity of expectation, as solver Steve Gabriel did, the average length was 0.25(7.5) + 0.75(5), or 5.625 inches — the same answer we got from calculus!
But the fun didn’t stop there. Several readers took this puzzle to new heights, looking at how the average length of the piece with the 6-inch mark changed with the number of break points, as well as the average length of pieces containing other points on the ruler like the 1- or 2-inch mark. Laurent Lessard combined these into a single generalization, finding the expected length of the piece a fraction a along a ruler of length L broken at N random points. By computing the distribution for the number of breaks on either side of the selected point and applying order statistics, he found this length to be (2−aN+1−(1−a)N+1)L/(N+1).
One more thing: As N got very large — meaning there were many random breaks in the ruler — the average length Laurent found approached 2L/(N+1) for any value of a. In other words, as soon as you pick a point on the ruler and ask for the average length of the piece containing that point, the answer will be twice the length of the average piece. Again, that’s for any point you pick!
It’s a bizarre paradox, to be sure. My sense is this happens because you are looking for the next break in each of the two directions along the ruler. If anyone happens to make further headway on this, be sure to let Laurent (and me!) know.
Want more riddles?
Well, aren’t you lucky? There’s a whole book full of the best puzzles from this column and some never-before-seen head-scratchers. It’s called “The Riddler,” and it’s in stores now!
Want to submit a riddle?
Email Zach Wissner-Gross at riddlercolumn@gmail.com


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-21--When Joel Embiid Posts Up, The Celtics Are Ready

In TV studios , on Twitter feeds and in living rooms across the greater Philadelphia area , people want to know : Why doesn ’ t Joel Embiid just destroy the Boston Celtics in the post ?
He ’ s unstoppable down there , after all , and Boston often appears to be at a significant size disadvantage .
So , why don ’ t we just see him do all the time what he did in the first quarters of Games 1 and 2 ?
Why does Embiid carry a field-goal percentage of just 44.1 in 17 regular-season and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three seasons but make shots at a 47.8 percent clip overall in that time frame ?
And why have the Sixers averaged only 1.049 points per possession against Boston on trips that include an Embiid post-up during that time — the fourth-worst figure they ’ ve recorded against the 21 opponents whom Embiid has posted at least 50 times ?
You can blame Embiid himself for simply not being assertive enough .
You can blame 76ers coach Brett Brown for not drawing up creative enough ways to get Embiid the ball in advantageous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 194 post-ups against the Celtics since 2017-18 have come after one or more ball-reversals , per Second Spectrum . )
You can blame the Sixers ’ guards and wings for their seeming inability to throw simple entry passes .
Blame whomever and whatever you want .
But credit Boston ’ s defense as well .
During the Game 2 broadcast , TNT analyst Stan Van Gundy repeatedly made note of how Embiid was not getting his touches close enough to the rim .
That ’ s a long-running trend .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ball farther away from the basket than he has against other teams , according to Second Spectrum data provided to FiveThirtyEight .
His average post catch in all regular season and postseason games against non-Boston teams has come 13.8 feet away from the rim , compared with 14.5 feet in all games against Boston .
( And it ’ s 14.9 feet in just the playoff games against Boston . )
An extra foot or so might not seem like a lot , but it can be the difference between an easy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shot over the top of a defender .
In part because the Celtics are so good at pushing him off his spots , the Sixers have also taken longer to enter the ball to Embiid in the post against the Celtics than they have against other teams , typically waiting 3.1 seconds against the Celtics versus 2.7 seconds against other teams .
And once Embiid actually gets the ball down low , the Celtics have done a better job avoiding fouls than other teams , fouling Embiid on only 14.4 percent of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else , per Second Spectrum .
Boston has forced Embiid to pass the ball from the post more often as well , getting him to give it up 28.9 percent of the time , or 3.2 percentage points more often than he has passed against other teams .
So how does Boston deal with Embiid post-ups ?
Why do the strategies implemented by Brad Stevens and company give the Sixers trouble ?
What Boston does is both simple and complex .
The goal seems to be to force Embiid as far away from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ball ; then , once he catches the ball , plant as many bodies as possible between Embiid and the rim .
The Celtics are extraordinarily coordinated when it comes to executing pre-post-up switches .
They know Embiid wants to post up , and they know the Sixers want Embiid to post up , so they contort themselves to ensure that he does not get too advantageous a matchup .
( They ’ ll even switch during a post-up , and they can pull it off . )
If at all possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he finally touches the ball on the block .
In the clip above , Jayson Tatum and Enes Kanter flawlessly executed a switch on a back screen for Embiid , set by James Ennis .
It helped that they knew Ennis was not the target of the play , so they could just ignore him .
Tatum let Ennis set his screen and cut to the opposite side of the court , and Tatum barely moved .
He stayed where he was so he could bump Embiid on his way down and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block .
Then , as soon as Embiid caught and turned to face the rim , Marcus Smart was right there to double-team and force a deflection .
This , too , is a trend : Boston has sent a double team at Embiid in the post 20 percent more often than the other 28 teams in the league over the past three seasons , per Second Spectrum .
If the Celtics can ’ t get their center to Embiid by the time the entry pass is teed up , then they switch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ center is helping underneath the rim rather than stuck on the perimeter .
In the clip below , Gordon Hayward , Jaylen Brown and Daniel Theis executed a three-way switch so that even though Embiid was posting the much smaller Brown , the Celtics could feel comfortable knowing that Theis was the one providing help near the rim .
It helped the Celtics there that the Sixers had Ben Simmons , who is not a jump-shooting threat , as one of the two players already on the weak side , which is how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all as he made his way across the floor .
Without many shooters on the floor , the Celtics had the freedom to execute the rest of their plan .
If Embiid even steps foot in the paint , the nearest help defender slides over to deny an entry pass until the man guarding Embiid can steel himself enough to force Embiid off his spot .
Once they manage to push him farther away from the basket , the Celtics do absolutely everything they can to ignore the non-shooters .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many times two Celtics were defending three Sixers on the weak side while two were on Embiid .
Simmons , Al Horford , Matisse Thybulle … anyone who isn ’ t a plus shooter gets the full Tony Allen treatment .
What the Celtics want to avoid is Embiid just backing his man into the stanchion and easily laying it in .
Once they get him far enough out on the floor that he has to turn and face the rim , whoever is guarding the Sixer one pass away from Embiid shades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it on the floor , the helper comes all the way over , and everyone else shifts position accordingly .
It ’ s a lot of work , designed to make Embiid himself put in a lot of work to get the ball in the basket .
The Sixers , of course , know all this , and so does Embiid .
They have been seeing it in action for several years now .
They have occasionally shown a willingness to swing the ball side-to-side and get Embiid good position on duck-ins , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and before long they are back straining to make entry passes on stagnant post-ups .
Now down 2-0 in the series , the Sixers need to find some answers .
Against Boston , they ’ re unlikely to come all that easily .

In TV studios, on Twitter feeds and in living rooms across the greater Philadelphia area, people want to know: Why doesn’t Joel Embiid just destroy the Boston Celtics in the post? He’s unstoppable down there, after all, and Boston often appears to be at a significant size disadvantage.
So, why don’t we just see him do all the time what he did in the first quarters of Games 1 and 2?
Why does Embiid carry a field-goal percentage of just 44.1 in 17 regular-season and playoff games against Boston over the past three seasons but make shots at a 47.8 percent clip overall in that time frame? And why have the Sixers averaged only 1.049 points per possession against Boston on trips that include an Embiid post-up during that time — the fourth-worst figure they’ve recorded against the 21 opponents whom Embiid has posted at least 50 times?
You can blame Embiid himself for simply not being assertive enough. You can blame 76ers coach Brett Brown for not drawing up creative enough ways to get Embiid the ball in advantageous positions. (Only 45 of Embiid’s 194 post-ups against the Celtics since 2017-18 have come after one or more ball-reversals, per Second Spectrum.) You can blame the Sixers’ guards and wings for their seeming inability to throw simple entry passes. Blame whomever and whatever you want. But credit Boston’s defense as well.
During the Game 2 broadcast, TNT analyst Stan Van Gundy repeatedly made note of how Embiid was not getting his touches close enough to the rim. That’s a long-running trend. The Celtics have routinely forced Embiid to catch the ball farther away from the basket than he has against other teams, according to Second Spectrum data provided to FiveThirtyEight. His average post catch in all regular season and postseason games against non-Boston teams has come 13.8 feet away from the rim, compared with 14.5 feet in all games against Boston. (And it’s 14.9 feet in just the playoff games against Boston.) An extra foot or so might not seem like a lot, but it can be the difference between an easy layup and having to force a hook shot over the top of a defender.
In part because the Celtics are so good at pushing him off his spots, the Sixers have also taken longer to enter the ball to Embiid in the post against the Celtics than they have against other teams, typically waiting 3.1 seconds against the Celtics versus 2.7 seconds against other teams. And once Embiid actually gets the ball down low, the Celtics have done a better job avoiding fouls than other teams, fouling Embiid on only 14.4 percent of his post-ups compared with 18.5 percent against everyone else, per Second Spectrum. Boston has forced Embiid to pass the ball from the post more often as well, getting him to give it up 28.9 percent of the time, or 3.2 percentage points more often than he has passed against other teams.
So how does Boston deal with Embiid post-ups? Why do the strategies implemented by Brad Stevens and company give the Sixers trouble?
What Boston does is both simple and complex. The goal seems to be to force Embiid as far away from the rim as possible before he gets the ball; then, once he catches the ball, plant as many bodies as possible between Embiid and the rim. The Celtics are extraordinarily coordinated when it comes to executing pre-post-up switches. They know Embiid wants to post up, and they know the Sixers want Embiid to post up, so they contort themselves to ensure that he does not get too advantageous a matchup. (They’ll even switch during a post-up, and they can pull it off.) If at all possible, they want their center guarding Embiid when he finally touches the ball on the block.
In the clip above, Jayson Tatum and Enes Kanter flawlessly executed a switch on a back screen for Embiid, set by James Ennis. It helped that they knew Ennis was not the target of the play, so they could just ignore him. Tatum let Ennis set his screen and cut to the opposite side of the court, and Tatum barely moved. He stayed where he was so he could bump Embiid on his way down and give Kanter time to recover to the block. Then, as soon as Embiid caught and turned to face the rim, Marcus Smart was right there to double-team and force a deflection. This, too, is a trend: Boston has sent a double team at Embiid in the post 20 percent more often than the other 28 teams in the league over the past three seasons, per Second Spectrum.
If the Celtics can’t get their center to Embiid by the time the entry pass is teed up, then they switch off the ball to make sure the center is helping underneath the rim rather than stuck on the perimeter. In the clip below, Gordon Hayward, Jaylen Brown and Daniel Theis executed a three-way switch so that even though Embiid was posting the much smaller Brown, the Celtics could feel comfortable knowing that Theis was the one providing help near the rim.
It helped the Celtics there that the Sixers had Ben Simmons, who is not a jump-shooting threat, as one of the two players already on the weak side, which is how Theis could feel comfortable not guarding Harris at all as he made his way across the floor. Without many shooters on the floor, the Celtics had the freedom to execute the rest of their plan.
If Embiid even steps foot in the paint, the nearest help defender slides over to deny an entry pass until the man guarding Embiid can steel himself enough to force Embiid off his spot. Once they manage to push him farther away from the basket, the Celtics do absolutely everything they can to ignore the non-shooters. In the montage below, pay attention to how many times two Celtics were defending three Sixers on the weak side while two were on Embiid. Simmons, Al Horford, Matisse Thybulle … anyone who isn’t a plus shooter gets the full Tony Allen treatment.
What the Celtics want to avoid is Embiid just backing his man into the stanchion and easily laying it in. Once they get him far enough out on the floor that he has to turn and face the rim, whoever is guarding the Sixer one pass away from Embiid shades help toward him. If Embiid puts it on the floor, the helper comes all the way over, and everyone else shifts position accordingly. It’s a lot of work, designed to make Embiid himself put in a lot of work to get the ball in the basket.
The Sixers, of course, know all this, and so does Embiid. They have been seeing it in action for several years now. They have occasionally shown a willingness to swing the ball side-to-side and get Embiid good position on duck-ins, but that willingness tends not to last, and before long they are back straining to make entry passes on stagnant post-ups.
Now down 2-0 in the series, the Sixers need to find some answers. Against Boston, they’re unlikely to come all that easily.
Check out our latest NBA predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-21--Does Biden Have The Broad Appeal He Thinks He Does?

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew reacts to the fourth and final night of the @ @ @ @ @

Does Biden Have The Broad Appeal He Thinks He Does?
In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew reacts to the fourth and final night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-21--Fernando Tatís Jr. Was Already Mashing. Then He Started Hitting The Ball Harder.

Fernando Tatís Jr. ’ s grand slam on Monday got the debate going again about baseball ’ s unwritten rules , but there ’ s no debating the talent of the San Diego Padres shortstop .
The 21-year-old entered play Friday tied for first in the majors in wins above replacement , making the Padres ’ deal to acquire him look like one of the most lopsided in recent history .
Tatís has long been regarded as one of the top prospects in the game thanks to his rare set of physical tools , including elite speed and arm strength @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stardom by how quickly his ability to hit — and hit for power — has come together .
Before amassing even 500 plate appearances in the majors , he is leading the league in home runs , RBIs and steals .
And what should excite the Padres and their fans even more , and terrify the rest of the National League West , is how much Tatís has already improved .
In about half a season last year as a rookie , Tatís hit 22 home runs and stole 16 bases to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He posted a mark of 150 weighted runs created plus ( wRC+ ) , a metric that adjusts for annual ballpark factors and run environment , with an average of 100 .
That meant he was 50 percent better than a MLB-average hitter at just 20 years old , one of the youngest players in the majors .
This season , incredibly , he ’ s been even better , boasting a wRC+ of 188 in 27 games .
And his underlying skills also seem to be improving .
Tatís is second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the speed at which the ball leaves his bat , at 96.3 mph .
Among all qualified hitters this season through Tuesday ’ s games who had at least 300 plate appearances last season , Tatís was tied for the greatest improvement in exit velocity year over year .
Along with his power surge , and perhaps contributing to it , Tatís has also become more selective about the pitches he swings at .
He has reduced his out-of-zone swing rate by 8.1 percentage points — the 10th best improvement among 142 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has cut down on swings against low-and-away breaking balls , a common chase area for batters , as seen by comparing a heat map from last season with this season .
The improved discipline has helped him get ahead in the count 31.5 percent of the time this season , versus a 29.2 mark last season .
And when he ’ s ahead in the count , he ’ s posted a 1.051 slugging mark .
The improvement has resulted in shots like this : All judgments in this unusual season are being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to date in his young career , Tatís has been 59 percent more offensively efficient than the average hitter .
That ranks him first all time in such production from shortstops age 23 and younger .
While the premium , up-the-middle position has become more offensive-minded over the years — with roughly league-average wRC+ marks over the past two seasons — Tatís still stands out as an offensive force .
Given where he falls on aging curves , his prospect pedigree and the success of sons of former major leaguers , there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staying power as one of the game ’ s top players .
With any luck , he ’ ll be rewriting baseball ’ s unwritten rules — and the standard for shortstop play — for years to come .

Fernando Tatís Jr.’s grand slam on Monday got the debate going again about baseball’s unwritten rules, but there’s no debating the talent of the San Diego Padres shortstop. The 21-year-old entered play Friday tied for first in the majors in wins above replacement, making the Padres’ deal to acquire him look like one of the most lopsided in recent history.
Tatís has long been regarded as one of the top prospects in the game thanks to his rare set of physical tools, including elite speed and arm strength. But the phenom has been propelled to stardom by how quickly his ability to hit — and hit for power — has come together. Before amassing even 500 plate appearances in the majors, he is leading the league in home runs, RBIs and steals. And what should excite the Padres and their fans even more, and terrify the rest of the National League West, is how much Tatís has already improved.
In about half a season last year as a rookie, Tatís hit 22 home runs and stole 16 bases to go along with a .317 batting average. He posted a mark of 150 weighted runs created plus (wRC+), a metric that adjusts for annual ballpark factors and run environment, with an average of 100. That meant he was 50 percent better than a MLB-average hitter at just 20 years old, one of the youngest players in the majors. This season, incredibly, he’s been even better, boasting a wRC+ of 188 in 27 games. And his underlying skills also seem to be improving.
Tatís is second in the majors in exit velocity, or the speed at which the ball leaves his bat, at 96.3 mph. Among all qualified hitters this season through Tuesday’s games who had at least 300 plate appearances last season, Tatís was tied for the greatest improvement in exit velocity year over year. Along with his power surge, and perhaps contributing to it, Tatís has also become more selective about the pitches he swings at. He has reduced his out-of-zone swing rate by 8.1 percentage points — the 10th best improvement among 142 qualifying hitters through games Tuesday.
Tatís has cut down on swings against low-and-away breaking balls, a common chase area for batters, as seen by comparing a heat map from last season with this season. The improved discipline has helped him get ahead in the count 31.5 percent of the time this season, versus a 29.2 mark last season. And when he’s ahead in the count, he’s posted a 1.051 slugging mark. The improvement has resulted in shots like this:
All judgments in this unusual season are being made on small sample sizes. But to date in his young career, Tatís has been 59 percent more offensively efficient than the average hitter. That ranks him first all time in such production from shortstops age 23 and younger. While the premium, up-the-middle position has become more offensive-minded over the years — with roughly league-average wRC+ marks over the past two seasons — Tatís still stands out as an offensive force.
Given where he falls on aging curves, his prospect pedigree and the success of sons of former major leaguers, there are many indicators that suggest Tatís will have staying power as one of the game’s top players. With any luck, he’ll be rewriting baseball’s unwritten rules — and the standard for shortstop play — for years to come.
Check out our latest MLB predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-21--The NBA’s Unluckiest Lottery Team Finally Got A Good Bounce

The NBA draft lottery isn ’ t all about luck — teams tank for a reason , of course — but the bouncing pingpong balls do play a big role .
Good or bad bounces can mean the difference between drafting a future Hall of Famer and drafting just another mediocre non-star .
Before Thursday night , the Minnesota Timberwolves had firmly fit into the “ unlucky ” category .
For its 22 previous lottery picks , including picks it had traded away , Minnesota had never once landed a higher pick than the pre-lottery odds said it should — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested pre-draft slot 12 times ( or more than 54 percent of the time ) .
That trend has made the T-Wolves the unluckiest franchise of the lottery era .
But in 2020 , their luck finally changed .
Although Minnesota had the third-worst record in the NBA , it won the lottery Thursday , giving it the No .
1 overall pick in October ’ s draft .
Not only was it the first time it had ever drafted above its pre-draft slot , but it represented a huge departure for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slots below expected over the years — the most of any team in lottery history , according to data on lottery pick changes from RealGM : Minnesota ’ s ranking has been “ helped ” by the third-most lottery pick appearances of any team ; only original picks of the Sacramento Kings and L.A. Clippers have been in the lottery more since 1985 .
But on average , the Timberwolves have dropped 0.65 places each time they ’ ve been in the lottery ( even after last night ) , which also ranks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Heat are the unluckiest team on a per-lottery basis , falling from an average pre-lottery slot of the No .
6.91 pick to actually drafting at No .
7.82 .
Miami ’ s saving grace ?
It so seldom appears in the lottery — tied for the seventh-fewest times of any team — that the damage is mitigated .
( Miami is also very good at finding talent outside the draft , so who needs the lottery anyway ? )
That hasn ’ t been the case for their old rivals , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lottery relatively often ( 18 times since 1985 ) and get unlucky by an average of 0.72 pick slots on average .
Yes , New York won the first-ever lottery , grabbing Patrick Ewing and launching a thousand conspiracy theories .
But the basketball gods have seemingly made them pay for it ever since .
Including 2020 — when they got the eighth pick despite having the sixth-worst record — the Knicks have gone 17 straight lotteries without a pick above their pre-lottery slot .
During that span , their picks have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 41 percent of the time ) , with an average pick change of -0.88 slots .
At the opposite end of the spectrum have been the Philadelphia 76ers , whose picks have moved up by an average of 1.00 slots per draft over the course of 18 lotteries , good for a league-best +18 pick changes .
Perhaps surprisingly , none of that came in the Process era — ironically , they were slightly unlucky during Sam Hinkie ’ s grand experiment — but their picks moved up by an absurd average of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1997 , leading to picks that included Jerry Stackhouse , Allen Iverson and Keith Van Horn ( who was immediately traded to the Nets ) .
The Sixers weren ’ t in the lottery this year , but the Charlotte Hornets were , and they continued their own run of good luck .
Pegged by the odds to draft eighth , they instead moved up five places to snag the No .
3 overall pick .
It was the fourth time in their history that they had moved up at least four places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used that good fortune to take Larry Johnson ( +4 pick change in 1991 ) , Alonzo Mourning ( +6 pick change in 1992 ) and Baron Davis ( +10 pick change in 1999 ! )
.
Overall , Hornets picks have moved up 15 total slots in the lottery era , second only to Philadelphia .
I tend to think the luck element of the lottery is a feature , not a bug , since it should discourage teams from tanking — particularly after the changes put into place last summer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having the league ’ s worst record .
But the pingpong balls have certainly been crueler to some teams than others over the years .
Though Minnesota ’ s good fortune this season is proof that can always change , the T-Wolves also prove you have to suffer through some pretty miserable basketball to give yourself enough chances for that luck to reverse .

The NBA draft lottery isn’t all about luck — teams tank for a reason, of course — but the bouncing pingpong balls do play a big role. Good or bad bounces can mean the difference between drafting a future Hall of Famer and drafting just another mediocre non-star. Before Thursday night, the Minnesota Timberwolves had firmly fit into the “unlucky” category. For its 22 previous lottery picks, including picks it had traded away, Minnesota had never once landed a higher pick than the pre-lottery odds said it should — and the pick was lower than its suggested pre-draft slot 12 times (or more than 54 percent of the time).
That trend has made the T-Wolves the unluckiest franchise of the lottery era. But in 2020, their luck finally changed. Although Minnesota had the third-worst record in the NBA, it won the lottery Thursday, giving it the No. 1 overall pick in October’s draft. Not only was it the first time it had ever drafted above its pre-draft slot, but it represented a huge departure for a team that still has dropped 15 total slots below expected over the years — the most of any team in lottery history, according to data on lottery pick changes from RealGM:
The T-Wolves are still the unluckiest lottery team ever NBA franchises with the worst draft lottery luck since 1985, based on total number of pick slots moved vs. pre-draft expectations (based on record) Franchise Lotteries Avg. Pick Avg. Pre-Lottery Slot Avg. Pick Change Total Pick Changes Philadelphia Sixers 18 5.22 6.22 +1.00 +18 Charlotte Hornets 21 6.76 7.48 +0.71 +15 Oklahoma City Thunder 11 8.00 9.30 +1.00 +11 Los Angeles Clippers 24 5.63 6.09 +0.42 +10 Los Angeles Lakers 8 5.88 7.00 +1.13 +9 Brooklyn Nets 17 5.12 5.47 +0.35 +6 New Orleans Pelicans 11 7.91 8.45 +0.55 +6 San Antonio Spurs 4 4.00 5.50 +1.50 +6 Houston Rockets 8 10.75 11.25 +0.50 +4 Memphis Grizzlies 16 4.63 4.88 +0.25 +4 Orlando Magic 18 6.89 7.11 +0.22 +4 Portland Trail Blazers 7 7.86 8.43 +0.57 +4 Chicago Bulls 12 5.00 5.17 +0.17 +2 Indiana Pacers 10 8.30 9.33 +0.20 +2 Milwaukee Bucks 16 7.69 7.69 +0.00 0 Atlanta Hawks 14 6.00 5.77 -0.14 -2 Cleveland Cavaliers 17 7.06 6.94 -0.12 -2 Sacramento Kings 25 7.16 7.21 -0.08 -2 Toronto Raptors 15 7.07 6.93 -0.13 -2 Utah Jazz 8 11.13 10.88 -0.25 -2 Boston Celtics 11 7.00 6.73 -0.27 -3 Phoenix Suns 17 8.06 7.88 -0.18 -3 Detroit Pistons 14 8.71 8.21 -0.50 -7 Washington Wizards 21 6.71 6.33 -0.38 -8 Golden State Warriors 22 7.18 7.00 -0.41 -9 Denver Nuggets 14 7.79 7.07 -0.71 -10 Miami Heat 11 7.82 6.91 -0.91 -10 Dallas Mavericks 16 7.63 6.81 -0.81 -13 New York Knicks 18 6.67 6.12 -0.72 -13 Minnesota Timberwolves 23 6.09 5.43 -0.65 -15 Based on team’s draft lottery slots, not which team ended up owning the draft picks. Source: RealGM
Minnesota’s ranking has been “helped” by the third-most lottery pick appearances of any team; only original picks of the Sacramento Kings and L.A. Clippers have been in the lottery more since 1985. But on average, the Timberwolves have dropped 0.65 places each time they’ve been in the lottery (even after last night), which also ranks fifth-worst of any team.
The Miami Heat are the unluckiest team on a per-lottery basis, falling from an average pre-lottery slot of the No. 6.91 pick to actually drafting at No. 7.82. Miami’s saving grace? It so seldom appears in the lottery — tied for the seventh-fewest times of any team — that the damage is mitigated. (Miami is also very good at finding talent outside the draft, so who needs the lottery anyway?)
That hasn’t been the case for their old rivals, the New York Knicks, who appear in the lottery relatively often (18 times since 1985) and get unlucky by an average of 0.72 pick slots on average. Yes, New York won the first-ever lottery, grabbing Patrick Ewing and launching a thousand conspiracy theories. But the basketball gods have seemingly made them pay for it ever since. Including 2020 — when they got the eighth pick despite having the sixth-worst record — the Knicks have gone 17 straight lotteries without a pick above their pre-lottery slot. During that span, their picks have moved down in seven lotteries (or 41 percent of the time), with an average pick change of -0.88 slots.
At the opposite end of the spectrum have been the Philadelphia 76ers, whose picks have moved up by an average of 1.00 slots per draft over the course of 18 lotteries, good for a league-best +18 pick changes. Perhaps surprisingly, none of that came in the Process era — ironically, they were slightly unlucky during Sam Hinkie’s grand experiment — but their picks moved up by an absurd average of 2.00 slots per lottery from 1986 through 1997, leading to picks that included Jerry Stackhouse, Allen Iverson and Keith Van Horn (who was immediately traded to the Nets).
The Sixers weren’t in the lottery this year, but the Charlotte Hornets were, and they continued their own run of good luck. Pegged by the odds to draft eighth, they instead moved up five places to snag the No. 3 overall pick. It was the fourth time in their history that they had moved up at least four places in the lottery; previously, they used that good fortune to take Larry Johnson (+4 pick change in 1991), Alonzo Mourning (+6 pick change in 1992) and Baron Davis (+10 pick change in 1999!). Overall, Hornets picks have moved up 15 total slots in the lottery era, second only to Philadelphia.
I tend to think the luck element of the lottery is a feature, not a bug, since it should discourage teams from tanking — particularly after the changes put into place last summer, which flattened the expected draft value of having the league’s worst record. But the pingpong balls have certainly been crueler to some teams than others over the years. Though Minnesota’s good fortune this season is proof that can always change, the T-Wolves also prove you have to suffer through some pretty miserable basketball to give yourself enough chances for that luck to reverse.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-21--Progressive Groups Are Getting More Selective In Targeting Incumbents. Is It Working?

In 2018 , now-Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley shocked the political world by unseating 20-year incumbents in their Democratic primaries .
And this year , the trend continued with progressives Marie Newman , Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush winning their own upsets against long-serving congressmen .
Thanks to an increasingly powerful progressive campaign apparatus , there ’ s no question that the left is now an established player in the Democratic Party .
But is it strong enough to rival the political muscle of the party establishment ?
To find out , FiveThirtyEight has once again tracked hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor primary completed so far this year ( through Aug. 18 ) .
We looked at the win-loss records of the endorsees of eight key Democratic influencers : progressive groups Indivisible , Justice Democrats , Our Revolution and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee ; progressive figures Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders ; and two arms of the national Democratic Party , the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee .
The result is the most complete picture yet of which wing of the party is doing better at the ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have grabbed all the headlines , the numbers say the party establishment is still king of the hill .
Of the 217 Democratic incumbents who ran in the primaries we analyzed , 214 won or advanced to the general election .
Granted , that includes 19 incumbents — such as Reps. Ilhan Omar , Katie Porter , Rashida Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez herself — who were supported by one or more of the six progressive endorsers we ’ re tracking .
But in the 17 primaries where progressives ( candidates endorsed by at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went up against an incumbent , the progressive-backed candidate lost 14 times .
( Newman , Bowman and Bush were the only exceptions . )
In primaries where there wasn ’ t an incumbent on the ballot , progressives did better : 22 wins ( including Mondaire Jones in New York and Kara Eastman in Nebraska ) to 10 losses ( including Charles Booker in Kentucky ) .
That ’ s a 69 percent win rate .
However , the party establishment had even more success : 30 of the 31 candidates ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DCCC supported in incumbent-less primaries advanced to the general election .
The only exception was Senate candidate James Mackler in Tennessee .
Notably , Mackler was the first DSCC-endorsed candidate to lose a primary since 2010 .
These findings — that Democratic voters are generally voting for establishment candidates over insurgents — match what we saw in 2018 .
But that doesn ’ t mean progressive groups haven ’ t made progress in the last two years .
They ’ ve just changed their strategy .
Instead of endorsing dozens of candidates like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are picking their battles more carefully .
For instance , Justice Democrats has endorsed just three candidates in incumbent-less primaries this year , but two of them won .
Endorsing fewer candidates is part of a longer-term approach as the group ’ s political apparatus has grown more sophisticated .
As Alexandra Rojas , executive director of Justice Democrats , told HuffPost , “ We ’ ve been intentional about building infrastructure and an ecosystem that can take on decades worth of the establishment ’ s. ” This means withholding support from candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s but who are running in districts where challengers face long odds or where unseating the incumbent in a primary could hand the seat to the GOP in the general .
Certain progressive endorsers are also having more success this cycle .
Sanders has a 75 percent win rate in incumbent-less primaries so far this cycle ( 6 for 8 ) , up from 56 percent ( 5 for 9 ) around this point in 2018 .
And the PCCC has an 83 percent win rate ( 10 for 12 ) , whereas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 10 for 15 ) .
This could reflect that these endorsers ( and their ideas ) enjoy more clout in 2020 than they did in 2018 — or it could just mean they ’ ve become savvier in whom they endorse .
All told , the progressive group with the best win rate so far in primaries without an incumbent is Indivisible ; they ’ ve endorsed 10 candidates in those races , and nine of them have advanced .
Our Revolution has the worst win rate of the progressive endorsers we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also backed more candidates than the other groups ; of the 14 candidates they endorsed , five have advanced to the general .
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ’ s Courage for Change PAC has a win rate of 50 percent ( 4 for 8 ) .
Of course , part of the difficulty here is that these groups are also endorsing candidates who are challenging incumbents , and incumbency , while not necessarily as potent as it once was , is still a pretty powerful force in American politics .
However , some groups we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , Justice Democrats endorsed more candidates running against incumbents ( five ) than they did candidates in primaries without incumbents ( three ) , reflecting their status as one of the groups most urgently insisting upon drastic change in the halls of Congress .
And , notably , their challengers won three of those races against incumbents — an extremely impressive win rate considering how rarely incumbents lose overall .
Given Justice Democrats ’ success this cycle , Democratic incumbents should probably be expecting more progressive challengers in 2022 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of candidates like Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley , liberal groups made clear their intention to continue to target incumbent Democrats whose records hadn ’ t kept pace with their districts ’ politics , especially in places where demographic changes favored progressives .
Notably , this was Newman ’ s second challenge against incumbent Rep. Dan Lipinski in Illinois ’ s 3rd District — in 2018 , Lipinski won by about 2,000 votes .
So , long term , the strategy of challenging incumbents could pay dividends for the left .

Progressive Groups Are Getting More Selective In Targeting Incumbents. Is It Working? We tracked candidates’ endorsements in hundreds of races. Here’s what we found.
In 2018, now-Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley shocked the political world by unseating 20-year incumbents in their Democratic primaries. And this year, the trend continued with progressives Marie Newman, Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush winning their own upsets against long-serving congressmen.
Thanks to an increasingly powerful progressive campaign apparatus, there’s no question that the left is now an established player in the Democratic Party. But is it strong enough to rival the political muscle of the party establishment?
To find out, FiveThirtyEight has once again tracked hundreds of endorsements in every Senate, House and governor primary completed so far this year (through Aug. 18). We looked at the win-loss records of the endorsees of eight key Democratic influencers: progressive groups Indivisible, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee; progressive figures Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders; and two arms of the national Democratic Party, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The result is the most complete picture yet of which wing of the party is doing better at the ballot box.
And while the progressive upsets may have grabbed all the headlines, the numbers say the party establishment is still king of the hill. Of the 217 Democratic incumbents who ran in the primaries we analyzed, 214 won or advanced to the general election. Granted, that includes 19 incumbents — such as Reps. Ilhan Omar, Katie Porter, Rashida Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez herself — who were supported by one or more of the six progressive endorsers we’re tracking. But in the 17 primaries where progressives (candidates endorsed by at least one of these six entities) went up against an incumbent, the progressive-backed candidate lost 14 times. (Newman, Bowman and Bush were the only exceptions.)
Most progressive challengers lost to incumbents How candidates endorsed by Indivisible, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Sen. Sanders or Rep. Ocasio-Cortez have fared against incumbents in Democratic primaries for Senate, House and governor, through Aug. 18, 2020 Endorsed by … Candidate Race Indiv. J. Dems Our Rev. PCCC Sanders AOC Result Eva Putzova AZ-01 ✓ Lost Robert Emmons Jr. IL-01 ✓ Lost Marie Newman IL-03 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Won Rachel Ventura IL-11 ✓ Lost Jill Carter MD-07 ✓ Lost Cori Bush MO-01 ✓ ✓ ✓ Won Arati Kreibich NJ-05 ✓ ✓ ✓ Lost Melanie D’Arrigo NY-03 ✓ Lost Adem Bunkeddeko NY-09 ✓ Lost Jamaal Bowman NY-16 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Won Morgan Harper OH-03 ✓ ✓ ✓ Lost Albert Lee OR-03 ✓ Lost Mark Gamba OR-05 ✓ Lost Keeda Haynes TN-05 ✓ ✓ ✓ Lost Jessica Cisneros TX-28 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Lost Jason Call WA-02 ✓ Lost Rebecca Parson WA-06 ✓ Lost Some candidates were endorsed by both progressive and party establishment organizations. Sources: Indivisible, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, PCCC, Twitter, Courage to Change PAC, Associated Press
In primaries where there wasn’t an incumbent on the ballot, progressives did better: 22 wins (including Mondaire Jones in New York and Kara Eastman in Nebraska) to 10 losses (including Charles Booker in Kentucky). That’s a 69 percent win rate.
Progressives are winning lots of open primaries How candidates endorsed by Indivisible, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Sen. Sanders or Rep. Ocasio-Cortez have fared in Democratic primaries for Senate, House and governor where no incumbent was running, through Aug. 18, 2020 Endorsed by … Candidate Race Indiv. J. Dems Our Rev. PCCC Sanders AOC Result Christy Smith CA-25 ✓ Advanced Ammar Campa-Najjar CA-50 ✓ Advanced Georgette Gómez CA-53 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Advanced Andrew Romanoff CO Sen. ✓ Lost Jillian Freeland CO-05 ✓ Won Nabilah Islam GA-07 ✓ ✓ Lost Kai Kahele HI-02 ✓ Won J.D. Scholten IA-04 ✓ Won Paulette Jordan ID Sen. ✓ Won Jim Harper IN-01 ✓ Lost E. Thomasina Marsili IN-08 ✓ Won Charles Booker KY Sen. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Lost Hank Linderman KY-02 ✓ Won Betsy Sweet ME Sen. ✓ ✓ Lost Jon Hoadley MI-06 ✓ Won Tom Winter MT-AL ✓ Lost Kara Eastman NE-02 ✓ ✓ ✓ Won Ben Ray Luján NM Sen. ✓ Won Teresa Leger Fernandez NM-03 ✓ Won Samelys López NY-15 ✓ ✓ ✓ Lost Mondaire Jones NY-17 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Won Dana Balter NY-24 ✓ ✓ Won Daniel Kilgore OH-15 ✓ Lost Renee Hoyos TN-02 ✓ Won Cristina Tzintzún Ramirez TX Sen. ✓ Lost Mike Siegel TX-10 ✓ ✓ ✓ Won Candace Valenzuela TX-24 ✓ Won David Zuckerman VT gov. ✓ ✓ Won Beth Doglio WA-10 ✓ ✓ Advanced Amanda Stuck WI-08 ✓ Won Stephen Smith WV gov. ✓ ✓ Lost Paula Jean Swearengin WV Sen. ✓ Won In California and Washington primaries, the top two finishers, regardless of party, advance to the general election. Some candidates were endorsed by both progressive and party establishment organizations. Sources: Indivisible, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, PCCC, Twitter, Courage to Change PAC, Associated Press
However, the party establishment had even more success: 30 of the 31 candidates (97 percent) whom the DSCC and DCCC supported in incumbent-less primaries advanced to the general election. The only exception was Senate candidate James Mackler in Tennessee. Notably, Mackler was the first DSCC-endorsed candidate to lose a primary since 2010.
The party decides How candidates supported by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee or Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have fared in Democratic primaries for Senate, House and governor where no incumbent was running, through Aug. 18, 2020 Candidate Race Result Al Gross AK Sen. Won Alyse Galvin AK-AL Won Mark Kelly AZ Sen. Won Hiral Tipirneni AZ-06 Won Christy Smith CA-25 Advanced John Hickenlooper CO Sen. Won Margaret Good FL-16 Won Theresa Greenfield IA Sen. Won Rita Hart IA-02 Won Betsy Dirksen Londrigan IL-13 Won Christina Hale IN-05 Won Barbara Bollier KS Sen. Won Michelle De La Isla KS-02 Won Amy McGrath KY Sen. Won Sara Gideon ME Sen. Won Hillary Scholten MI-03 Won Jon Hoadley MI-06 Won Dan Feehan MN-01 Won Jill Schupp MO-02 Won Mike Espy MS Sen. Won Kathleen Williams MT-AL Won Cal Cunningham NC Sen. Won Ben Ray Luján NM Sen. Won Jackie Gordon NY-02 Won Eugene DePasquale PA-10 Won Jaime Harrison SC Sen. Won James Mackler TN Sen. Lost MJ Hegar TX Sen. Won Wendy Davis TX-21 Won Gina Ortiz Jones TX-23 Won Carolyn Long WA-03 Advanced In California and Washington primaries, the top two finishers, regardless of party, advance to the general election. Some candidates were endorsed by both progressive and party establishment organizations. Sources: DSCC, DCCC, Associated Press
These findings — that Democratic voters are generally voting for establishment candidates over insurgents — match what we saw in 2018. But that doesn’t mean progressive groups haven’t made progress in the last two years. They’ve just changed their strategy. Instead of endorsing dozens of candidates like they did in 2018, progressive groups are picking their battles more carefully. For instance, Justice Democrats has endorsed just three candidates in incumbent-less primaries this year, but two of them won.
Endorsing fewer candidates is part of a longer-term approach as the group’s political apparatus has grown more sophisticated. As Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats, told HuffPost, “We’ve been intentional about building infrastructure and an ecosystem that can take on decades worth of the establishment’s.” This means withholding support from candidates whose values may match the organization’s but who are running in districts where challengers face long odds or where unseating the incumbent in a primary could hand the seat to the GOP in the general.
Certain progressive endorsers are also having more success this cycle. Sanders has a 75 percent win rate in incumbent-less primaries so far this cycle (6 for 8), up from 56 percent (5 for 9) around this point in 2018. And the PCCC has an 83 percent win rate (10 for 12), whereas two years ago it was 67 percent (10 for 15). This could reflect that these endorsers (and their ideas) enjoy more clout in 2020 than they did in 2018 — or it could just mean they’ve become savvier in whom they endorse.
All told, the progressive group with the best win rate so far in primaries without an incumbent is Indivisible; they’ve endorsed 10 candidates in those races, and nine of them have advanced. Our Revolution has the worst win rate of the progressive endorsers we looked at, but they’ve also backed more candidates than the other groups; of the 14 candidates they endorsed, five have advanced to the general. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Courage for Change PAC has a win rate of 50 percent (4 for 8).
Which progressive endorser has the best record? How candidates endorsed by six progressive figures and groups have fared in Democratic primaries for Senate, House and governor where no incumbent was running, through Aug. 18, 2020 num. endorsed endorsees who won percent Indivisible 10 9 90% PCCC 12 10 83 Sen. Sanders 8 6 75 Justice Dems 3 2 67 Rep. Ocasio-Cortez 8 4 50 Our Revolution 14 5 36 Some candidates were endorsed by both progressive and party establishment organizations. Sources: Indivisible, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, PCCC, Twitter, Courage to Change PAC, Associated Press
Of course, part of the difficulty here is that these groups are also endorsing candidates who are challenging incumbents, and incumbency, while not necessarily as potent as it once was, is still a pretty powerful force in American politics. However, some groups we analyzed were willing to take the risk. In fact, Justice Democrats endorsed more candidates running against incumbents (five) than they did candidates in primaries without incumbents (three), reflecting their status as one of the groups most urgently insisting upon drastic change in the halls of Congress. And, notably, their challengers won three of those races against incumbents — an extremely impressive win rate considering how rarely incumbents lose overall.
Given Justice Democrats’ success this cycle, Democratic incumbents should probably be expecting more progressive challengers in 2022: After the 2018 midterms and the success of candidates like Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley, liberal groups made clear their intention to continue to target incumbent Democrats whose records hadn’t kept pace with their districts’ politics, especially in places where demographic changes favored progressives. Notably, this was Newman’s second challenge against incumbent Rep. Dan Lipinski in Illinois’s 3rd District — in 2018, Lipinski won by about 2,000 votes. So, long term, the strategy of challenging incumbents could pay dividends for the left.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-21--Politics Podcast: Biden Pitches Himself As The Good Guy

Joe Biden took center stage on the final night of the Democratic National Convention to accept his party ’ s @ @ @ @ @ a late-night taping , the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew discusses his positioning as a “ @ @ @ @ @ appeal to a broad cross-section of Americans .
Will the left reject him ?
And @ @ @ @ @ ?

Joe Biden took center stage on the final night of the Democratic National Convention to accept his party’s nomination for president. In a late-night taping, the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew discusses his positioning as a “good guy” who can appeal to a broad cross-section of Americans. Will the left reject him? And will former Republicans trust him?


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-21--Bayern Looks Unbeatable. But Can Mbappé Push PSG To Champions League Glory?

tchow ( Tony Chow , video producer ) : Well , we made it , Grace and Ryan .
The finale of what has been an eventful and unexpected ( to say the least ) European season will take place this Sunday when Bayern Munich plays Paris Saint-Germain in Lisbon in the UEFA Champions League final .
Back in mid-February , before the Round of 16 started , the FiveThirtyEight soccer model gave Bayern a 33 percent chance of making the final and PSG an 18 percent chance ; those were the second and fifth-highest odds of making the final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s start there : How surprised are you that this is the matchup we ended up with ?
grace ( Grace Robertson , FiveThirtyEight contributor and author of the Grace on Football newsletter ) : I ’ m not surprised by Bayern at all .
I think everyone had them there or thereabouts .
For PSG , the big factor that I didn ’ t understand was how such a long break would impact them — France did not restart domestic football this summer unlike most of the rest of Europe .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
ryan ( Ryan O ’ Hanlon , FiveThirtyEight contributor and author of the No Grass in the Clouds newsletter ) : Bayern is Bayern — no real surprise there .
The question with PSG has always REALLY just been : Can they keep their best players healthy for the eight games that matter ?
They finally kept their best players healthy — possibly because they had half-a-year off from playing — and well , here ’ s the result .
tchow : Yeah , Kylian Mbappé returning healthy , or somewhat healthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made a huge difference for PSG .
No surprise there .
ryan : Emmanuel Macron is the Billy Beane of soccer .
grace : I ’ m not sure I ’ d prioritize this if I were a French voter , but one World Cup and possibly a Champions League is a great record for the Macron administration .
tchow : Our model gives Bayern Munich a 64 percent chance of winning their sixth Champions League trophy .
Based on what you two just said , I don ’ t think any of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorites here .
How impressed have you been with their performance in the tournament this year ?
Dispatching Lyon 3-0 is one thing .
Beating Barcelona 8-2 is another thing entirely .
ryan : I feel like they ’ re the ultimate example of how an elite team should play against teams it ’ s better than : allow for lots of chances on both ends of the field to iron out the variance .
Better teams win more often when there are more shots , and Bayern is better , from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
tchow : I feel like this is a dig at Manchester City , but I can ’ t tell .
grace : I ’ ve weirdly been both very impressed and concerned by Bayern .
Against Barcelona , it seemed very obvious their high line could be exposed by anyone remotely quick , but Barça had no speed in the forward line .
In the Lyon match , Lyon really did create chances — 1.6 expected goals by FiveThirtyEight ’ s model — but Bayern just dominated in every other aspect .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neymar are pretty good at running into space .
tchow : In that semifinal game , if Lyon had been able to finish those earlier chances , I think you would be hearing a lot more about Bayern ’ s high defensive line .
ryan : I see that 64 percent and think it ’ s too high .
Feels like a coin flip to my brain , which admittedly is much worse at predicting performance than the FiveThirtyEight model .
PSG does seem like an especially bad matchup for Bayern , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … everyone .
grace : With all due respect to Lyon ’ s Memphis and Karl Toko Ekambi , who really caused Bayern problems without quite being able to do the damage , PSG can run those counters again but with much better players .
ryan : PSG also was even on shots with RB Leipzig in the semis .
They seem a little more comfortable with not totally controlling a match by traditional means .
tchow : This final game will actually feature the two teams with the highest goal differential in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win over Barcelona skews things a bit , but Bayern Munich has a goal differential of +34 while PSG is +20 .
Are you expecting a high-scoring game on Sunday ?
grace : I think so .
Both teams want to leave space in behind and also devastate the opponent on the counter .
I ’ m optimistic here .
ryan : I ’ m scarred by so many disappointing finals that my initial impulse is to say that any game we expect to be high-scoring will , therefore , not be high-scoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
I actually can ’ t remember the last final where both teams scored more than one goal .
grace : I think the potential big factor is if PSG plays both Ander Herrera and Idrissa Gueye .
That could give them a level of midfield control to muddy up this game when needs be .
Whereas with Bayern , it seems like manager Hansi Flick just sees his typical starters as his best lineup come rain or shine .
ryan : There hasn ’ t been a Champions League final where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2005 .
And yet , the more I think about it , the more I think there will be goals .
Bayern will concede chances ( almost by design ) , and Bayern is absolutely going to score , too .
This really has the makings of an absolutely fantastic game .
tchow : Let ’ s have some fun here and get into the nitty-gritty a bit .
If you were PSG manager Thomas Tuchel , playing against Bayern , what would be your starting XI on Sunday ?
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free to go wild here .
tchow : Choupo-Moting deserves the start after saving that game against Atalanta .
Good pick , Ryan .
grace : The only change I ’ d make is Gueye for Marquinhos , but I expect Tuchel will stick with the same lineup .
ryan : I ’ m with Grace .
I think Leandro Paredes , who started for Gueye against RB Leipzig , gives them some necessary passing .
Frankly , I ’ d just run back the lineup from the semis — unless Keylor Navas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the final .
grace : Yeah , Tuchel has found the right balance here .
Just … leave it , Thomas .
tchow : What about for Bayern ?
If you were Flick , would you make any changes to try to counter PSG ’ s attack ?
ryan : I wonder if he ’ ll consider sliding Joshua Kimmich back into the midfield next to Thiago ( and replacing Leon Goretzka ) , with Benjamin Pavard coming in at right back .
grace : I think he wants both a passer ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) in midfield .
This team has done everything he wants from it , so I ’ d just keep it the same .
grace : The question for me is less who Flick plays than what they ’ re doing .
They were so high against Barça , and that was the correct approach to squeeze the game since Barça had nothing in behind .
Lyon is all about running in behind and … Bayern was really high again .
If they could just drop off a little bit , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
ryan : Sometimes in the Champions League , you ’ ll see two great teams come up against each other , and then it ’ ll just end up being a huge blowout because these teams aren ’ t used to playing against teams that are as good as them .
The two-leg structure usually helps a bit with that , but neither PSG nor Bayern had to play against the likes of City or Liverpool to get here .
I wonder if we could see some kind of seismic result on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s a chance that Bayern ’ s way of playing just … doesn ’ t work against a truly elite team .
Same could be true of PSG , but I ’ m less convinced of that .
tchow : Ryan , you mentioned Keylor Navas earlier .
PSG has allowed the fewest goals in the tournament so far , but that was with Navas in goal for the majority of the time .
I think that injury could really be something to keep an eye on .
grace : I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realms of possibility .
David Alaba is suddenly an amazing center back !
Or he just hasn ’ t really been exposed yet .
ryan : He did briefly kick the ball into his own net against Barcelona .
grace : I know I ’ m just a stats nerd who never played the game , but it seems like kicking the ball into your own net is usually a bad idea .
tchow : What I ’ m sensing here is both of you now predict an upset .
I did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair to say ?
grace : Yeah , I put PSG as slight favorites here .
Giving up 1.6 xG against Lyon and expecting your attack to solve everything is great against Lyon .
It might not be great against Neymar and Mbappé .
ryan : I lean PSG , too .
They ’ re underdogs , sure , but they ’ ll also probably have the two best players on the field on Sunday : Mbappé and Neymar .
tchow : Ryan , your inbox might be flooded with angry emails from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
grace : The entire nation of Poland has closed the tab on this chat .
tchow : Poland has a point though .
Robert Lewandowski IS going to score .
It is written .
Not sure the same can be said about Neymar .
grace : This is FiveThirtyEight : We ’ re bound to say that Neymar should just keep kicking the ball the way he does , and one will probably go in at some point .
ryan : Per FBRef , ol ’ Ney has 1.7 xG over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t be able to recover from their star not scoring two goals ’ worth of chances , but he ’ s really done just about everything else .
He had four goal-creating actions — involvement in the final two actions before a goal — and PSG scored five goals .
That ’ s … pretty good .
tchow : All right let ’ s wrap this up with some predictions just for the hell of it .
Give me your scoreline predictions and Man of the Match picks .
ryan : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mbappé for MOTM — the pattern of this game just seems like it ’ ll be ideal for him to go off .
grace : Damn , exact match .
3-2 to PSG .
Mbappé MOTM .
If there is any player on Earth who is going to exploit this space behind , it is Kylian .
tchow : You two are no fun .
ryan : We both predicted five goals !
That ’ s fun !
grace : We ’ ve got a team that ’ s amazing at everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space , against the best player in the world at attacking into space in Mbappé .
This should be fun .

tchow (Tony Chow, video producer): Well, we made it, Grace and Ryan. The finale of what has been an eventful and unexpected (to say the least) European season will take place this Sunday when Bayern Munich plays Paris Saint-Germain in Lisbon in the UEFA Champions League final. Back in mid-February, before the Round of 16 started, the FiveThirtyEight soccer model gave Bayern a 33 percent chance of making the final and PSG an 18 percent chance; those were the second and fifth-highest odds of making the final, respectively. So, let’s start there: How surprised are you that this is the matchup we ended up with?
grace (Grace Robertson, FiveThirtyEight contributor and author of the Grace on Football newsletter): I’m not surprised by Bayern at all. I think everyone had them there or thereabouts. For PSG, the big factor that I didn’t understand was how such a long break would impact them — France did not restart domestic football this summer unlike most of the rest of Europe. And the answer seems to be extremely positively.
ryan (Ryan O’Hanlon, FiveThirtyEight contributor and author of the No Grass in the Clouds newsletter): Bayern is Bayern — no real surprise there. The question with PSG has always REALLY just been: Can they keep their best players healthy for the eight games that matter? They finally kept their best players healthy — possibly because they had half-a-year off from playing — and well, here’s the result.
grace: Hearing rumors the human body requires rest.
tchow: Yeah, Kylian Mbappé returning healthy, or somewhat healthy, to the lineup seems to have made a huge difference for PSG. No surprise there.
ryan: Emmanuel Macron is the Billy Beane of soccer.
grace: I’m not sure I’d prioritize this if I were a French voter, but one World Cup and possibly a Champions League is a great record for the Macron administration.
tchow: Our model gives Bayern Munich a 64 percent chance of winning their sixth Champions League trophy. Based on what you two just said, I don’t think any of us would be surprised that Bayern are favorites here. How impressed have you been with their performance in the tournament this year? Dispatching Lyon 3-0 is one thing. Beating Barcelona 8-2 is another thing entirely.
ryan: I feel like they’re the ultimate example of how an elite team should play against teams it’s better than: allow for lots of chances on both ends of the field to iron out the variance. Better teams win more often when there are more shots, and Bayern is better, from a talent perspective, than just about anyone.
tchow: I feel like this is a dig at Manchester City, but I can’t tell.
grace: I’ve weirdly been both very impressed and concerned by Bayern. Against Barcelona, it seemed very obvious their high line could be exposed by anyone remotely quick, but Barça had no speed in the forward line. In the Lyon match, Lyon really did create chances — 1.6 expected goals by FiveThirtyEight’s model — but Bayern just dominated in every other aspect. Against PSG, uh, Mbappé and Neymar are pretty good at running into space.
tchow: In that semifinal game, if Lyon had been able to finish those earlier chances, I think you would be hearing a lot more about Bayern’s high defensive line.
ryan: I see that 64 percent and think it’s too high. Feels like a coin flip to my brain, which admittedly is much worse at predicting performance than the FiveThirtyEight model. PSG does seem like an especially bad matchup for Bayern, though they’re a bad matchup for … everyone.
grace: With all due respect to Lyon’s Memphis and Karl Toko Ekambi, who really caused Bayern problems without quite being able to do the damage, PSG can run those counters again but with much better players.
ryan: PSG also was even on shots with RB Leipzig in the semis. They seem a little more comfortable with not totally controlling a match by traditional means.
tchow: This final game will actually feature the two teams with the highest goal differential in the tournament this season. That 8-2 win over Barcelona skews things a bit, but Bayern Munich has a goal differential of +34 while PSG is +20. Are you expecting a high-scoring game on Sunday?
grace: I think so. Both teams want to leave space in behind and also devastate the opponent on the counter. I’m optimistic here.
ryan: I’m scarred by so many disappointing finals that my initial impulse is to say that any game we expect to be high-scoring will, therefore, not be high-scoring.
tchow: Ryan, I felt that. I actually can’t remember the last final where both teams scored more than one goal.
grace: I think the potential big factor is if PSG plays both Ander Herrera and Idrissa Gueye. That could give them a level of midfield control to muddy up this game when needs be.
Whereas with Bayern, it seems like manager Hansi Flick just sees his typical starters as his best lineup come rain or shine.
ryan: There hasn’t been a Champions League final where both teams scored at least twice since 2005. And yet, the more I think about it, the more I think there will be goals. Bayern will concede chances (almost by design), and Bayern is absolutely going to score, too. This really has the makings of an absolutely fantastic game.
tchow: Let’s have some fun here and get into the nitty-gritty a bit. If you were PSG manager Thomas Tuchel, playing against Bayern, what would be your starting XI on Sunday? I’m all for Team Chaos, so feel free to go wild here.
ryan: Eric Choupo-Moting up top, for starters.
grace: Ryan Guardiola.
ryan: It me.
tchow: Choupo-Moting deserves the start after saving that game against Atalanta. Good pick, Ryan.
grace: The only change I’d make is Gueye for Marquinhos, but I expect Tuchel will stick with the same lineup.
ryan: I’m with Grace. I think Leandro Paredes, who started for Gueye against RB Leipzig, gives them some necessary passing. Frankly, I’d just run back the lineup from the semis — unless Keylor Navas is somehow healthy enough to play in the final.
grace: Yeah, Tuchel has found the right balance here. Just … leave it, Thomas.
tchow: What about for Bayern? If you were Flick, would you make any changes to try to counter PSG’s attack?
ryan: I wonder if he’ll consider sliding Joshua Kimmich back into the midfield next to Thiago (and replacing Leon Goretzka), with Benjamin Pavard coming in at right back.
grace: I think he wants both a passer (Thiago/Kimmich) and a runner (Goretzka) in midfield. This team has done everything he wants from it, so I’d just keep it the same.
tchow: If it ain’t broke …
grace: The question for me is less who Flick plays than what they’re doing. They were so high against Barça, and that was the correct approach to squeeze the game since Barça had nothing in behind. Lyon is all about running in behind and … Bayern was really high again.
If they could just drop off a little bit, I’d put them as clear favorites here.
ryan: Sometimes in the Champions League, you’ll see two great teams come up against each other, and then it’ll just end up being a huge blowout because these teams aren’t used to playing against teams that are as good as them. The two-leg structure usually helps a bit with that, but neither PSG nor Bayern had to play against the likes of City or Liverpool to get here. I wonder if we could see some kind of seismic result on Sunday because of that.
Like, there’s a chance that Bayern’s way of playing just … doesn’t work against a truly elite team. Same could be true of PSG, but I’m less convinced of that.
tchow: Ryan, you mentioned Keylor Navas earlier. PSG has allowed the fewest goals in the tournament so far, but that was with Navas in goal for the majority of the time. I think that injury could really be something to keep an eye on.
grace: I do think it’s within the realms of possibility. David Alaba is suddenly an amazing center back! Or he just hasn’t really been exposed yet.
ryan: He did briefly kick the ball into his own net against Barcelona.
grace: I know I’m just a stats nerd who never played the game, but it seems like kicking the ball into your own net is usually a bad idea.
tchow: What I’m sensing here is both of you now predict an upset. I did not see this coming, but is it fair to say?
grace: Yeah, I put PSG as slight favorites here. Giving up 1.6 xG against Lyon and expecting your attack to solve everything is great against Lyon. It might not be great against Neymar and Mbappé.
ryan: I lean PSG, too. They’re underdogs, sure, but they’ll also probably have the two best players on the field on Sunday: Mbappé and Neymar.
tchow: Ryan, your inbox might be flooded with angry emails from Bayern Munich fans with a comment like that.
grace: The entire nation of Poland has closed the tab on this chat.
ryan: Sorry, Canada!
tchow: Poland has a point though. Robert Lewandowski IS going to score. It is written. Not sure the same can be said about Neymar.
grace: This is FiveThirtyEight: We’re bound to say that Neymar should just keep kicking the ball the way he does, and one will probably go in at some point.
ryan: Per FBRef, ol’ Ney has 1.7 xG over the past two games. Most teams wouldn’t be able to recover from their star not scoring two goals’ worth of chances, but he’s really done just about everything else. He had four goal-creating actions — involvement in the final two actions before a goal — and PSG scored five goals. That’s … pretty good.
tchow: All right let’s wrap this up with some predictions just for the hell of it. Give me your scoreline predictions and Man of the Match picks.
ryan: Gimme PSG 3, Bayern 2. Mbappé for MOTM — the pattern of this game just seems like it’ll be ideal for him to go off.
grace: Damn, exact match. 3-2 to PSG. Mbappé MOTM. If there is any player on Earth who is going to exploit this space behind, it is Kylian.
tchow: You two are no fun.
ryan: We both predicted five goals! That’s fun!
grace: We’ve got a team that’s amazing at everything except protecting for fast players attacking into space, against the best player in the world at attacking into space in Mbappé. This should be fun.
Check out our latest soccer predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-24--No Sitting President Was As Far Behind As Trump Going Into The Conventions

Welcome to the FiveThirtyEight Election Update for Monday , August 24 !
As of 5 p.m. on Sunday , Joe Biden had a 73 in 100 chance of winning the 2020 presidential election , while President Trump had a 27 in 100 chance .
Biden also has a hefty lead in our forecast of the national popular vote : 53 percent to 46 percent .
This isn ’ t all that different from when we launched the forecast earlier in August , as Biden ’ s lead has been steady for months .
But with the Republican National Convention starting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having ended last Thursday — we have entered a traditionally volatile period for presidential campaigns .
So we wanted to pause and take stock of where previous races stood ahead of the conventions .
We don ’ t have retroactive data on what our forecast — with all its bells and whistles — would have said in past elections , but we have calculated what our polling averages would have said just before the first party convention .
( You can download this data on our GitHub page if you want to play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based only on the polls , Biden led nationally by an average of 8.0 percentage points last Sunday ( the day before the Democratic convention began ) .
That was the second-biggest lead for any Democratic candidate heading into the convention period since at least 1968 , and the largest for any candidate since 1996 , when Bill Clinton led by about 15 points .
Undoubtedly , it ’ s a bullish sign for Biden to be this far ahead of Trump .
In fact , since 1968 , no incumbent president has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the first convention .
However , before we get too carried away , the size of Biden ’ s pre-convention lead is unlikely to hold .
After all , two other presidential contenders led by margins similar to Biden ’ s : Jimmy Carter in 1976 and George W. Bush in 2000 , but by November their leads had all but evaporated .
Carter only narrowly beat Gerald Ford by about 2 points nationally , while Bush won the most highly contested election in modern times , which took the U.S. Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the final national margin has differed from the pre-convention polling margin by an average of about 5 points .
So if we were to apply that to the 2020 electoral environment , we ’ d be talking about only a 3-point national edge for Biden .
That , of course , would increase the possibility that Trump could win the Electoral College even while losing the national popular vote .
One thing we ’ re watching closely as the GOP convention begins is just how much of a bounce Biden and Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented virtual convention format , it ’ s hard to know how much of a bounce Trump or Biden will receive , especially considering it ’ s gotten smaller in recent years and the conventions are scheduled back-to-back .
And we ’ ve seen little change in Biden ’ s polling average — he ’ s averaged about 51 percent since last Sunday — and his lead has barely ticked up , going from 8 points to 9 points .
For his part , Trump ’ s standing in the polls also hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s slid ever so slightly , from 43 percent to 42 percent — but of course , we haven ’ t gotten that many polls yet either .
Bottom line : Ahead of the Democratic convention , Biden had the largest pre-convention lead in two decades , but past cycles show that the electoral environment can shift quite a bit from the start of the convention period to November .
In other words , this still gives Trump about two and a half months to narrow the gap , although because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convention period , it might be a little bit until we have a firmer grasp of where the race stands .

Welcome to the FiveThirtyEight Election Update for Monday, August 24! As of 5 p.m. on Sunday, Joe Biden had a 73 in 100 chance of winning the 2020 presidential election, while President Trump had a 27 in 100 chance. Biden also has a hefty lead in our forecast of the national popular vote: 53 percent to 46 percent.
This isn’t all that different from when we launched the forecast earlier in August, as Biden’s lead has been steady for months. But with the Republican National Convention starting today — and the Democratic National Convention having ended last Thursday — we have entered a traditionally volatile period for presidential campaigns. So we wanted to pause and take stock of where previous races stood ahead of the conventions.
We don’t have retroactive data on what our forecast — with all its bells and whistles — would have said in past elections, but we have calculated what our polling averages would have said just before the first party convention. (You can download this data on our GitHub page if you want to play around with it yourself.) And based only on the polls, Biden led nationally by an average of 8.0 percentage points last Sunday (the day before the Democratic convention began). That was the second-biggest lead for any Democratic candidate heading into the convention period since at least 1968, and the largest for any candidate since 1996, when Bill Clinton led by about 15 points.
Biden’s pre-convention lead was the biggest in two decades What the FiveThirtyEight nationapolling average would have said the day before the first national convention vs. the final election margin, for presidential elections since 1968 Election 1st convention Poll Margin November Margin Difference 1968 R R+4.1 R+0.7 D+3.4 1972 D R+19.6 R+23.2 R+3.6 1976 D D+7.0 D+2.1 R+4.9 1980 R R+4.3 R+9.7 R+5.4 1984 D R+12.2 R+18.2 R+6.1 1988 D D+1.7 R+7.7 R+9.4 1992 D R+2.7 D+5.6 D+8.2 1996 R D+15.3 D+8.5 R+6.8 2000 R R+7.5 D+0.5 D+8.0 2004 D D+1.3 R+2.5 R+3.8 2008 D D+1.5 D+7.3 D+5.7 2012 R D+0.0 D+3.9 D+3.9 2016 R D+2.3 D+2.1 R+0.2 2020 D D+8.0 — — Sources: Polls, Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections
Undoubtedly, it’s a bullish sign for Biden to be this far ahead of Trump. In fact, since 1968, no incumbent president has trailed by as much as Trump heading into the first convention. However, before we get too carried away, the size of Biden’s pre-convention lead is unlikely to hold. After all, two other presidential contenders led by margins similar to Biden’s: Jimmy Carter in 1976 and George W. Bush in 2000, but by November their leads had all but evaporated. Carter only narrowly beat Gerald Ford by about 2 points nationally, while Bush won the most highly contested election in modern times, which took the U.S. Supreme Court to sort out.
Since 1968, the final national margin has differed from the pre-convention polling margin by an average of about 5 points. So if we were to apply that to the 2020 electoral environment, we’d be talking about only a 3-point national edge for Biden. That, of course, would increase the possibility that Trump could win the Electoral College even while losing the national popular vote.
One thing we’re watching closely as the GOP convention begins is just how much of a bounce Biden and Trump receive from the conventions. Given the unprecedented virtual convention format, it’s hard to know how much of a bounce Trump or Biden will receive, especially considering it’s gotten smaller in recent years and the conventions are scheduled back-to-back. And we’ve seen little change in Biden’s polling average — he’s averaged about 51 percent since last Sunday — and his lead has barely ticked up, going from 8 points to 9 points. For his part, Trump’s standing in the polls also hasn’t moved very much — he’s slid ever so slightly, from 43 percent to 42 percent — but of course, we haven’t gotten that many polls yet either.
Bottom line: Ahead of the Democratic convention, Biden had the largest pre-convention lead in two decades, but past cycles show that the electoral environment can shift quite a bit from the start of the convention period to November. In other words, this still gives Trump about two and a half months to narrow the gap, although because of the uncertainty surrounding the polls during the convention period, it might be a little bit until we have a firmer grasp of where the race stands.