fivethirthyeight--2020-09-02--WNBA Star Courtney Vandersloot Has Assisted Her Way Into The Record Books

Courtney Vandersloot of the Chicago Sky may have found herself a new favorite assist on Monday night .
That one — to Vandersloot ’ s wife , Allie Quigley — set a new WNBA record of 17 assists in a single game .
( Vandersloot would record one more before the game was over , setting the record at 18 . )
“ Oh , it puts a little cherry on top , it ’ s really special , ” Vandersloot said after the game .
“ I know she was happy for me .
She wanted to do that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Vandersloot to break the previous mark of 16 assists , held by Ticha Penicheiro .
Over the past four seasons , the Chicago guard has enjoyed a run of passing prowess unlike any the WNBA has ever seen .
During the entire history of the WNBA , only eight seasons have seen a player post an assist percentage of at least 40 percent .
Four of them belong to Courtney Vandersloot , from 2017 to 2020 .
It ’ s a level of playmaking , in other words , the WNBA has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s a recognition of that — not just by marveling at the numbers , but at a gut level as well .
“ I mean , she ’ s incredible , ” Sky center Stefanie Dolson said .
“ Her stats speak for themselves .
… The first time I played with Sloot , I was like , ‘ Damn .
OK , I ’ m happy to be here.
’ She makes the game easy , and playing with someone like that is very rare.
” It isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappointment prior to her current four-year run .
After a stellar four-year career at Gonzaga that included a trip to the Elite Eight , Vandersloot made the WNBA All-Star team as a rookie in 2011 .
Between 2011 and 2016 , her first six years in the league , 57 players appeared in at least 150 games .
Only Sue Bird had a higher assist percentage over that time , and it was close : Bird ’ s was 31.7 , Vandersloot ’ s 30.7 .
She didn ’ t necessarily seek out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stats , she said , “ I ’ m not much of a numbers person.
” But she has some theories about why and how it ’ s happened .
“ For me , the last couple of years , first of all , it ’ s experience , ” Vandersloot said .
“ Being able to make the right decision .
But also , the main thing , is having the ball in my hands .
With James [ Wade , current Sky coach ] and before that , Amber [ Stocks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coaches that I played for were really just like , ‘ Look , we want you to lead .
We want the ball in your hands , we want you to make plays.
’ And so I feel like I ’ ve taken that something that I have done my whole entire life .
I ’ ve always been a pass-first point , I ’ ve taken it to another level , because I ’ ve had people really trust me.
” Her college coach , Kelly Graves , has noticed that next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shift in Chicago , noting that prior to 2017 , Vandersloot had played four seasons alongside Elena Delle Donne , who often acts as a point forward .
He isn ’ t surprised that , once unleashed , Vandersloot ’ s play was historic .
“ We ran everything through her , ” Graves said .
“ So I saw it up close for four years.
” What ’ s particularly fascinating about Vandersloot ’ s dedication to a pass-first mentality is that , even with the offense running through her , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she did when Delle Donne was still in Chicago .
In fact , after topping 11 shot attempts per 36 minutes in 2015 and 2016 , she ’ s been below 11 in three of four seasons since .
But Vandersloot said there ’ s an explanation for this counterintuitive stat .
“ We had so many plays run for Elena , especially with Elena on the team , but also before with [ Sylvia Fowles , who played on the Sky until 2014 ] where we ran a lot of things through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So they ’ d have the ball in their hands .
And my shot attempts were when players helped off me.
” It was , and is , a flawed strategy , as Vandersloot is a capable 3-point shooter .
Notably , despite the increased responsibilities , her distance shooting has improved .
After posting just one season above 36 percent from deep in her first six , she ’ s at 37.7 percent in 2020 , which would be her third season in four above 36 percent since 2017 .
Graves also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia ’ s UMMC Ekaterinburg , where Wade serves as an assistant .
Vandersloot said that the time in Europe allows both player and coach the chance to strategize during what is , for many other players , simply the WNBA offseason .
“ We have a lot of time , a lot of downtime , ” Vandersloot said of her overseas tenure with a laugh .
“ And whenever we have a chance , we talk basketball , Chicago Sky basketball .
We ’ re thinking , all the time , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful , and how he wants me and Allie and everyone on this team here to be our best.
” That manifests itself in the big picture , with Chicago once again ranking among the top WNBA teams in offensive rating — second this season , second last season — but also in the development of young bigs like Azurá Stevens and Cheyenne Parker , who have often found themselves on the receiving end of passes no one else throws quite so well and quite so often .
“ She ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever had the privilege to play with , ” Parker said .
“ She knows how to give me the ball , when you give me the ball , where to give me the ball .
So it makes it a lot easier to score.
” Parker said there ’ s a “ eureka ” moment at least once a game , even though she has played with Vandersloot for six years .
Every Sky player interviewed cited a different favorite Vandersloot assist .
Parker picked Vandersloot ’ s off-hand no-look feed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the Indiana Fever .
Before her history-making game , Vandersloot had her own recent favorite , a backdoor cut to Gabby Williams in that Aug. 22 game , visible at the 46-second mark of this video : “ I told Gabby beforehand , if you cut that backdoor as I come off a box screen , you will get a layup , ” Vandersloot recalled .
“ … She cut backdoor and I hit her and it was a layup .
She was like , ‘ Damn , how did you know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And those are the things that are special to me , because I was able to get her an easy layup on a possession we needed a basket.
” That assist wouldn ’ t stay her favorite for long .
History was waiting for her , via her wife .
“ The first play I called for Ruthy , ” Wade said when it was over .
“ And then I said , ‘ Hey Ruthy , if it doesn ’ t work , we ’ re going to Allie because we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let her down.
’ ” Even her marriage , Vandersloot said , helps play a part in her record-setting pace .
“ I think that we expect a lot from each other , ” Vandersloot said of Quigley .
“ We ’ ve grown a lot together , both on and off the court , but on the court especially .
I think that when you ’ re teammates with somebody that you have a special relationship with , that bond brings you closer .
I ’ m always telling her what I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same for me .
At the end of the day , if I get the ball in her hands at the right time , there ’ s a good chance she ’ s going to [ score ] .
” And when she does , the era-defining Vandersloot will claim that assist , like so many others .

Courtney Vandersloot of the Chicago Sky may have found herself a new favorite assist on Monday night.
That one — to Vandersloot’s wife, Allie Quigley — set a new WNBA record of 17 assists in a single game. (Vandersloot would record one more before the game was over, setting the record at 18.) “Oh, it puts a little cherry on top, it’s really special,” Vandersloot said after the game. “I know she was happy for me. She wanted to do that for me.”
Everyone had been waiting for Vandersloot to break the previous mark of 16 assists, held by Ticha Penicheiro. Over the past four seasons, the Chicago guard has enjoyed a run of passing prowess unlike any the WNBA has ever seen.
During the entire history of the WNBA, only eight seasons have seen a player post an assist percentage of at least 40 percent. Four of them belong to Courtney Vandersloot, from 2017 to 2020.
It’s a level of playmaking, in other words, the WNBA has never seen. And for her teammates, there’s a recognition of that — not just by marveling at the numbers, but at a gut level as well.
“I mean, she’s incredible,” Sky center Stefanie Dolson said. “Her stats speak for themselves. … The first time I played with Sloot, I was like, ‘Damn. OK, I’m happy to be here.’ She makes the game easy, and playing with someone like that is very rare.”
It isn’t as if Vandersloot had been a disappointment prior to her current four-year run. After a stellar four-year career at Gonzaga that included a trip to the Elite Eight, Vandersloot made the WNBA All-Star team as a rookie in 2011. Between 2011 and 2016, her first six years in the league, 57 players appeared in at least 150 games. Only Sue Bird had a higher assist percentage over that time, and it was close: Bird’s was 31.7, Vandersloot’s 30.7.
Then Vandersloot found another level.
She didn’t necessarily seek out the record — when presented with her stats, she said, “I’m not much of a numbers person.” But she has some theories about why and how it’s happened.
“For me, the last couple of years, first of all, it’s experience,” Vandersloot said. “Being able to make the right decision. But also, the main thing, is having the ball in my hands. With James [Wade, current Sky coach] and before that, Amber [Stocks, former Sky coach], the coaches that I played for were really just like, ‘Look, we want you to lead. We want the ball in your hands, we want you to make plays.’ And so I feel like I’ve taken that something that I have done my whole entire life. I’ve always been a pass-first point, I’ve taken it to another level, because I’ve had people really trust me.”
Her college coach, Kelly Graves, has noticed that next level, too. Graves cited the shift in Chicago, noting that prior to 2017, Vandersloot had played four seasons alongside Elena Delle Donne, who often acts as a point forward. He isn’t surprised that, once unleashed, Vandersloot’s play was historic.
“We ran everything through her,” Graves said. “So I saw it up close for four years.”
What’s particularly fascinating about Vandersloot’s dedication to a pass-first mentality is that, even with the offense running through her, she isn’t shooting any more than she did when Delle Donne was still in Chicago. In fact, after topping 11 shot attempts per 36 minutes in 2015 and 2016, she’s been below 11 in three of four seasons since. But Vandersloot said there’s an explanation for this counterintuitive stat.
“We had so many plays run for Elena, especially with Elena on the team, but also before with [Sylvia Fowles, who played on the Sky until 2014] where we ran a lot of things through them,” Vandersloot said. “So they’d have the ball in their hands. And my shot attempts were when players helped off me.”
It was, and is, a flawed strategy, as Vandersloot is a capable 3-point shooter. Notably, despite the increased responsibilities, her distance shooting has improved. After posting just one season above 36 percent from deep in her first six, she’s at 37.7 percent in 2020, which would be her third season in four above 36 percent since 2017.
Graves also pointed out that Vandersloot plays overseas with Russia’s UMMC Ekaterinburg, where Wade serves as an assistant. Vandersloot said that the time in Europe allows both player and coach the chance to strategize during what is, for many other players, simply the WNBA offseason.
“We have a lot of time, a lot of downtime,” Vandersloot said of her overseas tenure with a laugh. “And whenever we have a chance, we talk basketball, Chicago Sky basketball. We’re thinking, all the time, of how we’re going to be successful, and how he wants me and Allie and everyone on this team here to be our best.”
That manifests itself in the big picture, with Chicago once again ranking among the top WNBA teams in offensive rating — second this season, second last season — but also in the development of young bigs like Azurá Stevens and Cheyenne Parker, who have often found themselves on the receiving end of passes no one else throws quite so well and quite so often.
“She’s the most amazing point guard I’ve ever had the privilege to play with,” Parker said. “She knows how to give me the ball, when you give me the ball, where to give me the ball. So it makes it a lot easier to score.”
Parker said there’s a “eureka” moment at least once a game, even though she has played with Vandersloot for six years. Every Sky player interviewed cited a different favorite Vandersloot assist. Parker picked Vandersloot’s off-hand no-look feed to Ruthy Hebard in an Aug. 22 game against the Indiana Fever.
Before her history-making game, Vandersloot had her own recent favorite, a backdoor cut to Gabby Williams in that Aug. 22 game, visible at the 46-second mark of this video:
“I told Gabby beforehand, if you cut that backdoor as I come off a box screen, you will get a layup,” Vandersloot recalled. “… She cut backdoor and I hit her and it was a layup. She was like, ‘Damn, how did you know that was gonna happen?’ And those are the things that are special to me, because I was able to get her an easy layup on a possession we needed a basket.”
That assist wouldn’t stay her favorite for long. History was waiting for her, via her wife.
“The first play I called for Ruthy,” Wade said when it was over. “And then I said, ‘Hey Ruthy, if it doesn’t work, we’re going to Allie because we know her wife ain’t gonna let her down.’”
Even her marriage, Vandersloot said, helps play a part in her record-setting pace.
“I think that we expect a lot from each other,” Vandersloot said of Quigley. “We’ve grown a lot together, both on and off the court, but on the court especially. I think that when you’re teammates with somebody that you have a special relationship with, that bond brings you closer. I’m always telling her what I see, and she’s doing the same for me. At the end of the day, if I get the ball in her hands at the right time, there’s a good chance she’s going to [score].”
And when she does, the era-defining Vandersloot will claim that assist, like so many others.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-02--Ed Markey Won, But It’s Still Been A Rough Year For Incumbents

With a competitive U.S. Senate race and the potential for two U.S. House upsets , Tuesday ’ s primary elections in Massachusetts represented the last significant chance for an incumbent member of Congress to lose his or her primary this year .
It didn ’ t happen — Sen. Ed Markey defeated younger challenger Rep. Joe Kennedy III 55 percent to 45 percent , and the state ’ s U.S. representatives all survived their primaries as well .
But , Tuesday notwithstanding , 2020 has still seen an unusual amount of anti-incumbent sentiment .
The more-or-less final tally : Eight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and no U.S. senators ) lost renomination in 2020 .
Out of the 380 House members who ran for reelection this year , that may not seem like a lot .
( And it isn ’ t — incumbents have historically won their primaries at very high rates , and this year is no exception . )
But it is an unusually high number by historical standards — it ’ s twice as many as in 2018 or in the tea party cycle of 2010 .
It ’ s not unusual to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ending in -2 because those are the first cycles after congressional redistricting , when incumbents are sometimes thrown into new districts with lots of voters who are unfamiliar with them .
Sometimes , when the number of districts is reduced , incumbents are even forced to run against other incumbents , guaranteeing an incumbent loss .
( But even in redistricting cycles , incumbents still win 95 percent of the time or more . )
But it is unusual to see a lot of incumbents lose in non-redistricting cycles like 2020 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since 1984 .
In fact , to find a non-redistricting year when as many incumbents lost renomination as in 2020 , one would have to go back to 1974 , which was a historic election in its own right .
That year , eight sitting members of Congress also lost renomination as a wave of anti-incumbent sentiment swept the nation in the wake of the Watergate scandal .
It ’ s tempting to say that the rash of incumbent losses in 2020 also means that anti-incumbent fever has reached Watergate-level highs .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight incumbents who lost in 2020 all lost for the same reason .
The circumstances of their elections were pretty unique , and the incumbent losses haven ’ t been limited to one party .
That said , all three Democratic incumbents who lost definitely can be lumped together : Reps. Dan Lipinski , Eliot Engel and Lacy Clay all faced younger , more progressive challengers .
And these primaries are clearly the continuation of a trend that began in 2018 , when now-Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley also defeated long-serving , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The same activist groups ( e.g.
, Justice Democrats , Our Revolution ) also endorsed all or most of the five challengers in these districts .
What ’ s more , these districts are similar in that they are relatively racially diverse and urban , which partly explains progressives ’ success here .
But progressive insurgents defeating establishment incumbents in Democratic primaries accounted for just three of the eight incumbent losses this year .
Rather , what made 2020 stand out is the high number of Republican incumbents who lost in primaries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s much harder to detect a pattern or conclude from that that anti-incumbent sentiment is rampant on the GOP side : • Three Republican incumbents lost because they were facing scandals .
Rep. Steve King of Iowa had his committee assignments taken away after suggesting that the terms “ white nationalist ” and “ white supremacist ” were nothing to be ashamed of — this following years of other racist comments .
Rep. Steve Watkins of Kansas was charged with voter fraud a month before his primary and was also facing old accusations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ résumé .
And Rep. Ross Spano of Florida appeared to violate campaign-finance law in 2018 when he loaned his own campaign $ 167,000 around the time he borrowed a similar amount from friends , triggering a Justice Department investigation .
• One Republican incumbent , Rep. Scott Tipton of Colorado , had something in common with the Democratic incumbents who lost : He was perceived as being out of step with the party zeitgeist .
Although Tipton had Trump ’ s endorsement , his challenger , Lauren Boebert , hewed closer to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for her gun-themed restaurant where the servers are armed , and was able to argue successfully that Tipton wasn ’ t conservative enough .
( It also helped that Tipton didn ’ t appear to take his primary seriously . )
• The final Republican incumbent , Rep. Denver Riggleman of Virginia , lost for kind of a hybrid of the two reasons above .
He set off a mini-controversy in conservative circles when he officiated the same-sex wedding of two of his campaign volunteers , leading former Campbell County Supervisor Bob Good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And Good was successful in large part because the Virginia GOP held a convention , not a primary , to decide their nominee in the 5th Congressional District , and convention goers tend to be the most ideological members of the party .
But the fact that political insiders , not voters , engineered Riggleman ’ s defeat is another point against drawing too many conclusions from the fact that so many incumbents lost in 2020 .
There is certainly a significant amount of grassroots energy among both Democrats and Republicans these days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who lost in 2020 did not all fall victim to the same affliction .
The number who lost for ideological reasons is five at most , and three were due to scandals that are probably best thought of as one-off occurrences .
However , every election in every cycle brings its own idiosyncrasies .
For instance , even in 1974 there were unique circumstances , like one incumbent losing because he was under indictment on bribery charges .
One fact is undeniable , however : Eight incumbents losing renomination is a lot , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noteworthy in and of itself , even if the underlying causes aren ’ t as clear .

With a competitive U.S. Senate race and the potential for two U.S. House upsets, Tuesday’s primary elections in Massachusetts represented the last significant chance for an incumbent member of Congress to lose his or her primary this year. It didn’t happen — Sen. Ed Markey defeated younger challenger Rep. Joe Kennedy III 55 percent to 45 percent, and the state’s U.S. representatives all survived their primaries as well.
But, Tuesday notwithstanding, 2020 has still seen an unusual amount of anti-incumbent sentiment. The more-or-less final tally: Eight members of the House of Representatives (and no U.S. senators) lost renomination in 2020. Out of the 380 House members who ran for reelection this year, that may not seem like a lot. (And it isn’t — incumbents have historically won their primaries at very high rates, and this year is no exception.) But it is an unusually high number by historical standards — it’s twice as many as in 2018 or in the tea party cycle of 2010.
Incumbents rarely lose their primaries The number of U.S. House members who lost renomination, as a share of those seeking reelection, in elections since 1946 Incumbents… Year Seeking Reelection Who Lost Renomination Loss Rate 1946 398 18 4.5% 1948 400 15 3.8 1950 400 6 1.5 1952 389 9 2.3 1954 407 6 1.5 1956 411 6 1.5 1958 396 3 0.8 1960 405 5 1.2 1962 402 12 3.0 1964 397 8 2.0 1966 411 8 1.9 1968 409 4 1.0 1970 401 10 2.5 1972 393 11 2.8 1974 391 8 2.0 1976 384 3 0.8 1978 382 5 1.3 1980 398 6 1.5 1982 393 10 2.5 1984 411 3 0.7 1986 394 3 0.8 1988 409 1 0.2 1990 406 1 0.2 1992 368 19 5.2 1994 387 4 1.0 1996 384 2 0.5 1998 402 1 0.2 2000 403 3 0.7 2002 398 8 2.0 2004 404 2 0.5 2006 403 2 0.5 2008 400 4 1.0 2010 397 4 1.0 2012 391 13 3.3 2014 392 5 1.3 2016 393 5 1.3 2018 375 4 1.1 2020 380 8 2.1 Bolded rows are the first election cycle after redistricting. Figures from the 2020 cycle only include primaries that have concluded by Sept. 1. Source: Sabato’s Crystal Ball
It’s not unusual to see a lot of incumbents lose primaries in years ending in -2 because those are the first cycles after congressional redistricting, when incumbents are sometimes thrown into new districts with lots of voters who are unfamiliar with them. Sometimes, when the number of districts is reduced, incumbents are even forced to run against other incumbents, guaranteeing an incumbent loss. (But even in redistricting cycles, incumbents still win 95 percent of the time or more.)
But it is unusual to see a lot of incumbents lose in non-redistricting cycles like 2020, which have averaged only three incumbent losses since 1984. In fact, to find a non-redistricting year when as many incumbents lost renomination as in 2020, one would have to go back to 1974, which was a historic election in its own right. That year, eight sitting members of Congress also lost renomination as a wave of anti-incumbent sentiment swept the nation in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
It’s tempting to say that the rash of incumbent losses in 2020 also means that anti-incumbent fever has reached Watergate-level highs. But it’s less clear that the eight incumbents who lost in 2020 all lost for the same reason. The circumstances of their elections were pretty unique, and the incumbent losses haven’t been limited to one party.
The eight House incumbents who lost renomination in 2020 Race Date Party Incumbent Winner IL-03 March 17 D Dan Lipinski Marie Newman IA-04 June 2 R Steve King Randy Feenstra VA-05* June 13 R Denver Riggleman Bob Good NY-16 June 23 D Eliot Engel Jamaal Bowman CO-03 June 30 R Scott Tipton Lauren Boebert KS-02 Aug. 4 R Steve Watkins Jake LaTurner MO-01 Aug. 4 D Lacy Clay Cori Bush FL-15 Aug. 18 R Ross Spano Scott Franklin *Nomination decided at convention, not primary. Source: State election offices
That said, all three Democratic incumbents who lost definitely can be lumped together: Reps. Dan Lipinski, Eliot Engel and Lacy Clay all faced younger, more progressive challengers. And these primaries are clearly the continuation of a trend that began in 2018, when now-Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley also defeated long-serving, older incumbents in their Democratic primaries. The same activist groups (e.g., Justice Democrats, Our Revolution) also endorsed all or most of the five challengers in these districts. What’s more, these districts are similar in that they are relatively racially diverse and urban, which partly explains progressives’ success here.
But progressive insurgents defeating establishment incumbents in Democratic primaries accounted for just three of the eight incumbent losses this year. Rather, what made 2020 stand out is the high number of Republican incumbents who lost in primaries. And on that front, it’s much harder to detect a pattern or conclude from that that anti-incumbent sentiment is rampant on the GOP side:
There is certainly a significant amount of grassroots energy among both Democrats and Republicans these days, but ultimately, the eight incumbents who lost in 2020 did not all fall victim to the same affliction. The number who lost for ideological reasons is five at most, and three were due to scandals that are probably best thought of as one-off occurrences.
However, every election in every cycle brings its own idiosyncrasies. For instance, even in 1974 there were unique circumstances, like one incumbent losing because he was under indictment on bribery charges. One fact is undeniable, however: Eight incumbents losing renomination is a lot, and turnover in the 117th Congress is noteworthy in and of itself, even if the underlying causes aren’t as clear.
CORRECTION (Sept. 3, 2020, 11:58 a.m.): A previous version of the photo caption in this article incorrectly identified Jamaal Bowman as congressman-elect. Bowman won the Democratic primary in New York’s 16th Congressional District, but the general election has yet to take place.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-02--The Padres Are Going For It

The Padres Are Going For It

The San Diego Padres had to do something to improve their World Series odds leading into Monday ’ s Major League Baseball trade deadline .
They did a lot .
The Padres added nine major leaguers and traded away 14 players , including eight of the top 28 prospects from one of the game ’ s best farm systems .
It all occurred within a three-day period leading into Monday ’ s deadline , transactions headlined by the acquisition of Cleveland Indians starting pitcher Mike Clevinger .
San Diego is buying into , and building upon , its better-than-expected 22-15 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The FiveThirtyEight model assigned the Padres a 25 percent chance of making the playoffs in the preseason ; that ’ s up to 97 percent , as of Tuesday afternoon .
Our model , which is based on Elo ratings set according to a team ’ s record , gives the Padres just a 4 percent chance of overtaking the rival Los Angeles Dodgers to win their division and a 4 percent chance of winning the World Series .
But FanGraphs ’ playoff model , which takes roster changes into account , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9.5 percent as of Tuesday afternoon — up by a league-leading 3.7 percentage points since Friday , before their flurry of moves .
Those moves included adding one of the top starting pitchers on the market in Clevinger , the 14th-most-valuable pitcher by FanGraphs ’ wins above replacement since 2018 , and arguably the best reliever available in Trevor Rosenthal .
They also overhauled their catching position with the addition of the productive Austin Nola from the Seattle Mariners and Jason Castro from the Los Angeles Angels .
While the Padres gave up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their newly acquired talent , they did not part with any of their top three prospects , according to Baseball America ’ s rankings , including potential future aces MacKenzie Gore and Luis Patiño .
They also did not trade any or their core major league position players — the youngest group in the NL .
Even if this wide-open season doesn ’ t turn out as well as the Padres hope , it could mark the beginning of a window of contention for a club that hasn ’ t made the postseason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was made possible by the remarkable production from the club ’ s young leaders : 21-year-old sensation Fernando Tatís Jr. , center fielder Trent Grisham and second baseman Jake Cronenworth , who is among the leaders in the majors in batting , are all putting together breakout seasons .
Their play , along with that of veterans Manny Machado and Eric Hosmer , has given the Padres the best performing collection of position players in baseball , according to FanGraphs ’ WAR .
They addressed their problems at the catching position , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst-performing position in terms of WAR , by sending Austin Hedges to Cleveland and bringing in Nola and Castro .
The Padres also needed some pitching help .
The bullpen , which ranks 22nd in ERA ( 5.01 ) , was bolstered by Rosenthal , and what the club hopes is improved run prevention from Taylor Williams and Dan Altavilla .
In the rotation , Dinelson Lamet has been dominant , and Zach Davies has been productive , but they are the club ’ s only two pitchers with ERAs under 4.00 who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris Paddack has been uneven to date after an excellent rookie campaign last year .
Clevinger gives the club another front-line arm , and he won ’ t be a free agent until 2023 .
The Padres ’ young core is largely under club control through 2024 .
So while the organization is going for it now , there is still plenty in reserve , beginning what appears to be an era of meaningful baseball in San Diego .

The San Diego Padres had to do something to improve their World Series odds leading into Monday’s Major League Baseball trade deadline. They did a lot. The Padres added nine major leaguers and traded away 14 players, including eight of the top 28 prospects from one of the game’s best farm systems. It all occurred within a three-day period leading into Monday’s deadline, transactions headlined by the acquisition of Cleveland Indians starting pitcher Mike Clevinger.
San Diego is buying into, and building upon, its better-than-expected 22-15 start through Monday’s games. The FiveThirtyEight model assigned the Padres a 25 percent chance of making the playoffs in the preseason; that’s up to 97 percent, as of Tuesday afternoon. Our model, which is based on Elo ratings set according to a team’s record, gives the Padres just a 4 percent chance of overtaking the rival Los Angeles Dodgers to win their division and a 4 percent chance of winning the World Series. But FanGraphs’ playoff model, which takes roster changes into account, has San Diego’s title odds at 9.5 percent as of Tuesday afternoon — up by a league-leading 3.7 percentage points since Friday, before their flurry of moves. Those moves included adding one of the top starting pitchers on the market in Clevinger, the 14th-most-valuable pitcher by FanGraphs’ wins above replacement since 2018, and arguably the best reliever available in Trevor Rosenthal. They also overhauled their catching position with the addition of the productive Austin Nola from the Seattle Mariners and Jason Castro from the Los Angeles Angels.
While the Padres gave up a number of players in exchange for their newly acquired talent, they did not part with any of their top three prospects, according to Baseball America’s rankings, including potential future aces MacKenzie Gore and Luis Patiño. They also did not trade any or their core major league position players — the youngest group in the NL. Even if this wide-open season doesn’t turn out as well as the Padres hope, it could mark the beginning of a window of contention for a club that hasn’t made the postseason since 2006.
The flurry of trades was made possible by the remarkable production from the club’s young leaders: 21-year-old sensation Fernando Tatís Jr., center fielder Trent Grisham and second baseman Jake Cronenworth, who is among the leaders in the majors in batting, are all putting together breakout seasons. Their play, along with that of veterans Manny Machado and Eric Hosmer, has given the Padres the best performing collection of position players in baseball, according to FanGraphs’ WAR. They addressed their problems at the catching position, which is tied with left field for their worst-performing position in terms of WAR, by sending Austin Hedges to Cleveland and bringing in Nola and Castro.
The Padres also needed some pitching help. The bullpen, which ranks 22nd in ERA (5.01), was bolstered by Rosenthal, and what the club hopes is improved run prevention from Taylor Williams and Dan Altavilla. In the rotation, Dinelson Lamet has been dominant, and Zach Davies has been productive, but they are the club’s only two pitchers with ERAs under 4.00 who have started multiple games this year. Chris Paddack has been uneven to date after an excellent rookie campaign last year. Clevinger gives the club another front-line arm, and he won’t be a free agent until 2023.
The Padres’ young core is largely under club control through 2024. So while the organization is going for it now, there is still plenty in reserve, beginning what appears to be an era of meaningful baseball in San Diego.
Check out our latest MLB predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-03--Americans Are Far More Likely To Support Athlete Protests Than They Once Were

Nearly 25 years before the NBA shut down for several days to protest racial injustice , before LeBron James tweeted , “ FUCK THIS MAN !
!
!
!
WE DEMAND CHANGE .
SICK OF IT , ” and before the Milwaukee Bucks left the court in support of Jacob Blake , Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf made a protest of his own .
During the 1995-96 season , Abdul-Rauf , the Denver Nuggets ’ leading scorer , refused to stand with his teammates for the pregame playing of the national anthem — saying the flag was a symbol of racism and oppression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met with scorn , not support .
He was suspended by the league until he agreed to stand for the anthem and was traded after the season to the Sacramento Kings , where his NBA career effectively ended in 1998 .
And in a perfect encapsulation of partisan politics on race in the 1990s , the GOP ’ s 1996 presidential nominee , Bob Dole , criticized Abdul-Rauf ’ s anthem protest while his Democratic opponent , President Clinton , stayed silent on the issue .
Abdul-Rauf ’ s plight says a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general public have shifted on political activism , race and the role athletes should play in these issues .
The NBA of the 1990s was dominated by Michael Jordan and his adamantly apolitical persona .
Jordan — who infamously joked that he wouldn ’ t get involved in the racially polarized 1990 U.S. Senate campaign in his home state of North Carolina because “ Republicans buy sneakers , too ” — exemplified an era in professional sports when profits were clearly prioritized over politics .
In this environment , neither Jordan nor any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s defense .
Some even openly criticized him .
It ’ s hardly surprising , then , that most white people were also against Abdul-Rauf ’ s actions .
The one national opinion survey on the subject , a March 1996 ABC/Washington Post poll , showed that 76 percent of white people thought the NBA made the right decision by suspending Abdul-Rauf for refusing to stand during the national anthem .
In contrast to the huge partisan divides in public opinion about racial controversies today , 72 percent of white Democrats and 86 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The country has come a long way since then in support of protesting athletes , though .
When NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick first knelt during the national anthem four years ago , public opinion was still largely against him .
Only about one-third of Americans approved and thought that kneeling during the anthem was an appropriate form of protest .
But as the country ’ s racial attitudes liberalized in response to President Trump ’ s administration and the Black Lives Matter movement , so has public opinion about athlete protests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anthem has steadily increased over the past four years .
For example , the share in Fox News Polls who thought that kneeling during the anthem was appropriate increased from 32 percent in September 2016 to 41 percent in September 2017 to 48 percent in July 2020 .
Recent polls from NBC/Wall Street Journal and YouGov-Yahoo found that a majority of Americans now either support kneeling or think it ’ s appropriate to kneel during the national anthem .
In keeping with those trends , polling shows that most Americans support the NBA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the playoffs after a Kenosha , Wisconsin , police officer shot Blake seven times in the back .
Online pollster YouGov found that 57 percent of adults supported the NBA boycott , compared to only 28 percent who opposed it , while a live-caller poll of registered voters conducted Aug. 28-31 by Suffolk University/USA Today found 54 percent support and 35 percent opposition .
With the players united and public opinion on their side , the unprecedented wave of sports activism following the Blake shooting and the police killings this year of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a much different response from sports and political leaders than Abdul-Rauf and Kaepernick ’ s earlier protests .
NBA Commissioner Adam Silver penned a letter to league employees after last week ’ s strike that said , “ I wholeheartedly support NBA and WNBA players and their commitment to shining a light on important issues of social justice.
” The Democratic Party ’ s most prominent voices — including Barack Obama , Joe Biden , Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton — took to Twitter to applaud the players .
Even Michael Jordan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an NBA team , is taking strong positions in support of racial equality and player protests .
And NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell apologized in June “ for not listening to NFL players earlier , ” and he encouraged “ all players to speak out and peacefully protest.
” That doesn ’ t mean there isn ’ t still division on the issue .
Trump has been a vocal critic throughout his presidency of athletes who protest , and he said the NBA players ’ protests were going to “ destroy basketball.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While 82 percent of Democrats surveyed by YouGov supported the NBA ’ s protest , just 21 percent of Republicans did .
But something has clearly changed since Abdul-Rauf first refused to stand .
It is now less costly for Black athletes to advocate for racial justice than it was for Abdul-Rauf or Kaepernick .
Those reduced barriers seem likely to lead to even more athlete activism that shines a spotlight on racial injustices in America going forward .

Americans Are Far More Likely To Support Athlete Protests Than They Once Were
Nearly 25 years before the NBA shut down for several days to protest racial injustice, before LeBron James tweeted, “FUCK THIS MAN!!!! WE DEMAND CHANGE. SICK OF IT,” and before the Milwaukee Bucks left the court in support of Jacob Blake, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf made a protest of his own.
During the 1995-96 season, Abdul-Rauf, the Denver Nuggets’ leading scorer, refused to stand with his teammates for the pregame playing of the national anthem — saying the flag was a symbol of racism and oppression.
But Abdul-Rauf’s protest was met with scorn, not support. He was suspended by the league until he agreed to stand for the anthem and was traded after the season to the Sacramento Kings, where his NBA career effectively ended in 1998. And in a perfect encapsulation of partisan politics on race in the 1990s, the GOP’s 1996 presidential nominee, Bob Dole, criticized Abdul-Rauf’s anthem protest while his Democratic opponent, President Clinton, stayed silent on the issue.
Abdul-Rauf’s plight says a lot about how far the NBA and the general public have shifted on political activism, race and the role athletes should play in these issues.
The NBA of the 1990s was dominated by Michael Jordan and his adamantly apolitical persona. Jordan — who infamously joked that he wouldn’t get involved in the racially polarized 1990 U.S. Senate campaign in his home state of North Carolina because “Republicans buy sneakers, too”— exemplified an era in professional sports when profits were clearly prioritized over politics. In this environment, neither Jordan nor any other NBA All-Star came to Abdul-Rauf’s defense. Some even openly criticized him.
It’s hardly surprising, then, that most white people were also against Abdul-Rauf’s actions. The one national opinion survey on the subject, a March 1996 ABC/Washington Post poll, showed that 76 percent of white people thought the NBA made the right decision by suspending Abdul-Rauf for refusing to stand during the national anthem. In contrast to the huge partisan divides in public opinion about racial controversies today, 72 percent of white Democrats and 86 percent of white Republicans supported the suspension.
The country has come a long way since then in support of protesting athletes, though.
When NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick first knelt during the national anthem four years ago, public opinion was still largely against him. Only about one-third of Americans approved and thought that kneeling during the anthem was an appropriate form of protest. But as the country’s racial attitudes liberalized in response to President Trump’s administration and the Black Lives Matter movement, so has public opinion about athlete protests.
Support for athletes kneeling during the national anthem has steadily increased over the past four years. For example, the share in Fox News Polls who thought that kneeling during the anthem was appropriate increased from 32 percent in September 2016 to 41 percent in September 2017 to 48 percent in July 2020. Recent polls from NBC/Wall Street Journal and YouGov-Yahoo found that a majority of Americans now either support kneeling or think it’s appropriate to kneel during the national anthem.
In keeping with those trends, polling shows that most Americans support the NBA players’ decision last week to strike during the playoffs after a Kenosha, Wisconsin, police officer shot Blake seven times in the back. Online pollster YouGov found that 57 percent of adults supported the NBA boycott, compared to only 28 percent who opposed it, while a live-caller poll of registered voters conducted Aug. 28-31 by Suffolk University/USA Today found 54 percent support and 35 percent opposition.
With the players united and public opinion on their side, the unprecedented wave of sports activism following the Blake shooting and the police killings this year of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd was met with a much different response from sports and political leaders than Abdul-Rauf and Kaepernick’s earlier protests. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver penned a letter to league employees after last week’s strike that said, “I wholeheartedly support NBA and WNBA players and their commitment to shining a light on important issues of social justice.” The Democratic Party’s most prominent voices — including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton — took to Twitter to applaud the players. Even Michael Jordan, now the only Black majority owner of an NBA team, is taking strong positions in support of racial equality and player protests. And NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell apologized in June “for not listening to NFL players earlier,” and he encouraged “all players to speak out and peacefully protest.”
That doesn’t mean there isn’t still division on the issue. Trump has been a vocal critic throughout his presidency of athletes who protest, and he said the NBA players’ protests were going to “destroy basketball.” Most Republicans seemed to share his opinion. While 82 percent of Democrats surveyed by YouGov supported the NBA’s protest, just 21 percent of Republicans did.
But something has clearly changed since Abdul-Rauf first refused to stand. It is now less costly for Black athletes to advocate for racial justice than it was for Abdul-Rauf or Kaepernick. Those reduced barriers seem likely to lead to even more athlete activism that shines a spotlight on racial injustices in America going forward.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-03--Newton Can Replace Brady, But Can The Pats Replace Half Of Their Defense?

For the New England Patriots , Year 1 A.B .
— After Brady — starts in a little over a week , with Cam Newton under center against the Miami Dolphins at Gillette Stadium .
The shadow of Tom Brady ’ s long and storied Patriots career will hang over the team for the foreseeable future , even as No .
12 has moved on to a new home in Tampa , but it is also very much in the rearview mirror .
Now coach Bill Belichick and the Pats must steer into a new era for a franchise that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ East titles with Brady leading the way .
The FiveThirtyEight NFL prediction model , which launches in earnest next week , doesn ’ t think the post-Brady Patriots will tumble to the bottom of the league quite yet .
We still give them a 3 percent chance of winning the Super Bowl and rank them as the NFL ’ s eighth-best team on paper with a healthy Newton .
Yet we also think the AFC East — which New England has won 11 times in a row — is very much up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patriots as division favorites , with a 38 percent probability of winning , that ’ s barely ahead of the Buffalo Bills ( who check in at 34 percent ) .
The perilous state of New England ’ s division streak is just one of the many storylines that should make this the weirdest — and most fascinating — Patriots season we ’ ve witnessed in a long time .
The most obvious source of oddity will simply be the sight of someone other than Brady playing quarterback .
Not only was he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two decades , but he also ensured that the Pats would have a great passing performance for almost all of those seasons .
After predecessor Drew Bledsoe ’ s Elo QB rating — our statistical method of ranking quarterbacks — beat the NFL average for starters just once over his eight years as New England ’ s primary QB , Brady would finish above average ( often well above it ) in 16 consecutive seasons from 2002 through 2018 : Because of this , the Patriots have been the NFL ’ s most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whether ranked by traditional measures such as passer rating or by more advanced metrics like ESPN ’ s Total Quarterback Rating .
And in a league where passing has taken on ever-increasing significance , it makes sense that this would translate to so much success in New England over that span .
Now the Pats will turn to Newton as a replacement — but can he replace Brady ’ s production ?
If we ’ re talking about the 2019 version of Brady , then it ’ s very possible .
Remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seasons ended after 2018 ; he was actually a slightly below-average starter by Elo last year , after a stretch of eight subpar performances in his final 10 starts as a Patriot ( including an abysmal loss against Tennessee in the playoffs ) .
With that in mind , Newton ’ s numbers from 2018 and 2019 ( a 90.5 passer rating and a 47.8 QBR ) are very comparable to Brady ’ s full-season stats from last year ( an 86.4 passer rating and a 52.8 QBR ) , and his QB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same as Brady ’ s .
Newton will also likely bring a wider range of play-calling options to the Pats ’ offense than it has enjoyed in years , with his ability to run and a strong track record of success on zone-read plays .
Of course , that just means the Patriots might get a level of performance at QB in 2020 that ’ s similar to what they got in 2019 .
But the 2020 Pats may need more than that to keep playing to Belichick ’ s demanding standards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offensive powerhouse : According to ESPN ’ s Stats & Information Group , New England averaged only 1.7 expected points added ( EPA ) per game on offense , which ranked just 17th in the NFL .
This was in large part because the passing attack ranked 18th — easily its worst EPA ranking since 2006 , when ESPN ’ s data set begins .
Tom Terrific ?
Hardly .
( To be fair , Brady ’ s receiving corps was badly depleted for most of 2019 , which had a measurable effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result was still a mediocre passing offense at best . )
Instead , the key to the Patriots ’ 12-4 season was actually the league ’ s top defense by EPA , spearheaded by the game ’ s most fearsome bulwark against the pass .
New England easily led the NFL in interception rate and ranked sixth in sack rate .
Two of the Pats ’ three Pro Bowlers were defenders — cornerback Stephon Gilmore and linebacker Dont ’ a Hightower .
But the defense also saw numerous departures over the offseason , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Noy , Jamie Collins , Danny Shelton and Duron Harmon , but also Hightower and Patrick Chung , both of whom opted out of the 2020 season over COVID-19 concerns .
Using Pro-Football-Reference.com ’ s Approximate Value ( AV ) , that group of lost defenders added up to 66 points of value last season , or nearly half of the team ’ s total from its defensive starters .
Since 1960 , only one team — the 2001-02 Baltimore Ravens — lost more starting defensive AV over a single offseason than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the heavy losses , we would have expected New England ’ s defense to regress to the mean in 2020 .
As FiveThirtyEight ’ s Josh Hermsmeyer has detailed , NFL defenses are much less consistent both within and across seasons than their counterparts on offense , which has led many a defensive powerhouse to wonder where the magic went the following year .
The Patriots ’ talent exodus only makes a repeat performance less likely .
The Patriots ’ only hope for bucking that trend might lie in the fact that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important , yet often unpredictable , categories : turnover differential , yards per point differential and starting field position differential .
There ’ s a lot that goes into each , and Brady ’ s penchant for avoiding interceptions certainly has played a role in New England ’ s turnover numbers over the years .
But Belichick ’ s coaching no doubt also has contributed year after year .
Plus he has some new faces to work with , after devoting 63 percent of his draft capital this spring to defensive players , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source of hope in Foxborough ?
Newton ’ s ceiling .
Now healthy at long last , Newton is not too far removed from being the QB who won MVP honors — and produced one of the 25 or so best seasons by a signal-caller since 1960 — in 2015 .
If he rediscovers any version of that form , it would help the Patriots offense strike fear into opposing defenses again … and help make up for whatever deterioration is in store on defense .
At the very least , Newton is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 2019 performance than either Jarrett Stidham ( an untested former fourth-round pick ) or Brian Hoyer ( mostly a career backup ) would have been .
Still , our projections see New England as only a little better than a .500 team now , calling for it to finish 9-7 — barely ahead of the Bills and New York Jets within the division .
After literal decades of looking up at Brady and the Patriots , their fellow AFC East teams can sense that a new era may be at hand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newton will have to jump-start a mediocre offense , and Belichick will have to ride out an unprecedented wave of defensive defections .
Let the intrigue begin .

For the New England Patriots, Year 1 A.B. — After Brady — starts in a little over a week, with Cam Newton under center against the Miami Dolphins at Gillette Stadium. The shadow of Tom Brady’s long and storied Patriots career will hang over the team for the foreseeable future, even as No. 12 has moved on to a new home in Tampa, but it is also very much in the rearview mirror. Now coach Bill Belichick and the Pats must steer into a new era for a franchise that won six Super Bowls and 17 AFC East titles with Brady leading the way.
The FiveThirtyEight NFL prediction model, which launches in earnest next week, doesn’t think the post-Brady Patriots will tumble to the bottom of the league quite yet. We still give them a 3 percent chance of winning the Super Bowl and rank them as the NFL’s eighth-best team on paper with a healthy Newton. Yet we also think the AFC East — which New England has won 11 times in a row — is very much up for grabs. Although our model lists the Patriots as division favorites, with a 38 percent probability of winning, that’s barely ahead of the Buffalo Bills (who check in at 34 percent). The perilous state of New England’s division streak is just one of the many storylines that should make this the weirdest — and most fascinating — Patriots season we’ve witnessed in a long time.
The most obvious source of oddity will simply be the sight of someone other than Brady playing quarterback. Not only was he a fixture at the position for nearly two decades, but he also ensured that the Pats would have a great passing performance for almost all of those seasons. After predecessor Drew Bledsoe’s Elo QB rating — our statistical method of ranking quarterbacks — beat the NFL average for starters just once over his eight years as New England’s primary QB, Brady would finish above average (often well above it) in 16 consecutive seasons from 2002 through 2018:
Because of this, the Patriots have been the NFL’s most successful passing team of the 21st century, whether ranked by traditional measures such as passer rating or by more advanced metrics like ESPN’s Total Quarterback Rating. And in a league where passing has taken on ever-increasing significance, it makes sense that this would translate to so much success in New England over that span. Now the Pats will turn to Newton as a replacement — but can he replace Brady’s production?
If we’re talking about the 2019 version of Brady, then it’s very possible. Remember, Brady’s streak of above-average seasons ended after 2018; he was actually a slightly below-average starter by Elo last year, after a stretch of eight subpar performances in his final 10 starts as a Patriot (including an abysmal loss against Tennessee in the playoffs). With that in mind, Newton’s numbers from 2018 and 2019 (a 90.5 passer rating and a 47.8 QBR) are very comparable to Brady’s full-season stats from last year (an 86.4 passer rating and a 52.8 QBR), and his QB Elo heading into 2020 is almost exactly the same as Brady’s. Newton will also likely bring a wider range of play-calling options to the Pats’ offense than it has enjoyed in years, with his ability to run and a strong track record of success on zone-read plays.
We’re not so different, you and I … Passing metrics for Tom Brady (2019) and Cam Newton (2018-19) Player Comp% TD% Int% Sack% Yds/ Att. Air Yds/ Att. QBR Tom Brady 60.5% 3.7% 1.4% 4.0% 6.6 7.2 52.8 Cam Newton 66.1 4.3 2.5 5.7 7.1 7.3 47.8 Includes both regular-season and playoff stats. Newton played 14 games in 2018 and two games in 2019. Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group
Of course, that just means the Patriots might get a level of performance at QB in 2020 that’s similar to what they got in 2019. But the 2020 Pats may need more than that to keep playing to Belichick’s demanding standards. The 2019 version was hardly an offensive powerhouse: According to ESPN’s Stats & Information Group, New England averaged only 1.7 expected points added (EPA) per game on offense, which ranked just 17th in the NFL. This was in large part because the passing attack ranked 18th — easily its worst EPA ranking since 2006, when ESPN’s data set begins.
Tom Terrific? Hardly. (To be fair, Brady’s receiving corps was badly depleted for most of 2019, which had a measurable effect on his stats. But the end result was still a mediocre passing offense at best.)
Instead, the key to the Patriots’ 12-4 season was actually the league’s top defense by EPA, spearheaded by the game’s most fearsome bulwark against the pass. New England easily led the NFL in interception rate and ranked sixth in sack rate. Two of the Pats’ three Pro Bowlers were defenders — cornerback Stephon Gilmore and linebacker Dont’a Hightower. But the defense also saw numerous departures over the offseason, including not just transactional losses Kyle Van Noy, Jamie Collins, Danny Shelton and Duron Harmon, but also Hightower and Patrick Chung, both of whom opted out of the 2020 season over COVID-19 concerns.
(New England’s growing list of opt-outs actually prompted some around the league to speculate that it was all part of a Belichickian conspiracy, perhaps to land a top pick in next year’s draft — though it’s hard to imagine Belichick tanking any season, even in a pandemic.)
Using Pro-Football-Reference.com’s Approximate Value (AV), that group of lost defenders added up to 66 points of value last season, or nearly half of the team’s total from its defensive starters. Since 1960, only one team — the 2001-02 Baltimore Ravens — lost more starting defensive AV over a single offseason than the 2019-20 Patriots stand to:
The Pats lost a historic amount of defensive value Most total Approximate Value (AV) lost from one season to the next by a team’s defensive starters, 1960-2020 Team Seasons Defensive AV* AV Lost Share of Defense Baltimore Ravens 2001-02 117 73 62.4% New England Patriots 2019-20 136 66 48.5 Pittsburgh Steelers 1996-97 120 54 45.0 Carolina Panthers 1997-98 98 54 55.1 Philadelphia Eagles 1961-62 87 53 60.9 Phoenix Cardinals 1993-94 93 53 57.0 Denver Broncos 1966-67 76 52 68.4 Detroit Lions 1982-83 104 52 50.0 Buffalo Bills 1961-62 103 51 49.5 Los Angeles Rams 1970-71 111 50 45.0 New Orleans Saints 1997-98 95 50 52.6 Oakland Raiders 2001-02 88 50 56.8 Seattle Seahawks 2004-05 74 50 67.6 *Starters only. Source: Pro-Football-Reference.com
Even without the heavy losses, we would have expected New England’s defense to regress to the mean in 2020. As FiveThirtyEight’s Josh Hermsmeyer has detailed, NFL defenses are much less consistent both within and across seasons than their counterparts on offense, which has led many a defensive powerhouse to wonder where the magic went the following year. The Patriots’ talent exodus only makes a repeat performance less likely.
The Patriots’ only hope for bucking that trend might lie in the fact that they seem to always excel at three very important, yet often unpredictable, categories: turnover differential, yards per point differential and starting field position differential. There’s a lot that goes into each, and Brady’s penchant for avoiding interceptions certainly has played a role in New England’s turnover numbers over the years. But Belichick’s coaching no doubt also has contributed year after year. Plus he has some new faces to work with, after devoting 63 percent of his draft capital this spring to defensive players, the eighth-most of any team.
Another source of hope in Foxborough? Newton’s ceiling. Now healthy at long last, Newton is not too far removed from being the QB who won MVP honors — and produced one of the 25 or so best seasons by a signal-caller since 1960 — in 2015. If he rediscovers any version of that form, it would help the Patriots offense strike fear into opposing defenses again … and help make up for whatever deterioration is in store on defense. At the very least, Newton is a better bet to exceed Brady’s 2019 performance than either Jarrett Stidham (an untested former fourth-round pick) or Brian Hoyer (mostly a career backup) would have been.
Still, our projections see New England as only a little better than a .500 team now, calling for it to finish 9-7 — barely ahead of the Bills and New York Jets within the division. After literal decades of looking up at Brady and the Patriots, their fellow AFC East teams can sense that a new era may be at hand. To keep the old one going, Newton will have to jump-start a mediocre offense, and Belichick will have to ride out an unprecedented wave of defensive defections. Let the intrigue begin.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-03--If Kawhi Turns His Back To The Basket, Watch Out

Kawhi Leonard just might be the most complete , adaptable and technically precise basketball player in the world .
He drills threes , draws fouls , gobbles rebounds , manipulates pick and rolls and places whomever he ’ s defending in a vice grip with Defensive Player of the Year-caliber intensity .
Not only does the ball shrink into a peach pit whenever it slaps against Leonard ’ s mighty hands , but everytime he steps on the court , he brings a game that ’ s been molded to dominate areas of the floor , placing an insoluble strain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that dominance is most notable whenever Leonard posts up , which is at a higher volume and efficiency than we ’ ve ever seen from him in the playoffs .
According to Second Spectrum , Leonard averaged 2.26 post-ups per 100 possessions during the 2016-17 playoffs , which ranked him 28th of the 32 players with at least 15 post-ups .
By last year ’ s championship run , Leonard ’ s 4.14 post-ups per 100 possessions came in at 19th out of the 31 players with at least 15 post-ups , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per possession in these spots .
Against the Dallas Mavericks in the first round of this year ’ s playoffs , those numbers climbed even higher for Leonard .
No player with at least 10 post-ups has created more offense than Leonard ’ s comically absurd 1.6 points per possession on the play .
And his frequency has crept up to 5.88 post-ups per 100 possessions — placing him 12th of the 26 eligible players , according to Second Spectrum .
Some of this is because Dallas ’ s roster wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leonard .
Maxi Kleber fought as well as anyone could expect , and both Dorian Finney-Smith and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist tried to make Leonard ’ s life uncomfortable , but they … didn ’ t .
When the Clippers called for a post-up , Leonard routinely had the defense right where he wanted it — be it after a series of fluttering jab steps from the mid-post , or a methodical backdown that eventually concluded with him muscling through contact .
Kawhi ’ s footwork is second to none .
In the video below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space he creates after nailing his left foot into the ground .
If you were to go outside and try this move with nobody around , you ’ d probably slide right off the side of planet Earth .
Leonard not only does it in an NBA playoff game , but he does it with enough strength , composure and balance to drain the fall-away jump shot .
Leonard can always feast one-on-one , but the Clippers also like to position him on the left block , then have a point guard come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man and force a defensive rotation .
Thanks to Leonard ’ s refined handle and improved vision , there ’ s no obvious way to manage the action without giving up a shot Los Angeles is happy to take .
Leonard averaged over six assists per 100 direct post-ups in last year ’ s playoffs .
In this year ’ s playoffs , he ’ s at 18.8 , according to Second Spectrum .
But even when his work out of the post doesn ’ t directly lead to an assist , Leonard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of why the Clippers are scoring 1.2 points per possession when he ’ s in the game .
Once he spots a double team , Leonard doesn ’ t panic ; he doesn ’ t try to make a daring skip pass to the opposite corner or bulldoze through the incoming coverage .
Instead , he trusts the domino effect of his own influence , makes the simplest read , then watches his teammates leverage the advantage he created against a scrambling defense .
The Denver Nuggets have a few more players to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but handling him in single coverage is a tough task for any human ; the options on their roster are either too small ( Gary Harris ) or slow ( Paul Millsap ) to do anything but turn into a puddle .
Jerami Grant is Kawhi ’ s most likely matchup , but watch how the Clippers dealt with him on this play during the regular season : Paul George set an early off-ball screen to force a switch and allow Leonard to scamper toward the strong side with smaller prey on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with George flying around a stagger screen and Leonard jostling for a snug position down on the left block .
Leonard is a master at both identifying specific spots where he ’ s most comfortable and getting there pretty much whenever he wants .
That often means a one-dribble pull-up at the elbow or a rugged right-handed drive toward the baseline that ends in his patented fadeaway .
But nothing foretells doom for the defense quite like those post touches .
They ’ re exasperating , breathtaking and raw , an opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him the closest embodiment of basketball perfection .
Whenever the Clippers ’ offense slips into a drought , their smartest move might also be the least complex : dump the ball down to Kawhi Leonard and get out of the way .

Kawhi Leonard just might be the most complete, adaptable and technically precise basketball player in the world. He drills threes, draws fouls, gobbles rebounds, manipulates pick and rolls and places whomever he’s defending in a vice grip with Defensive Player of the Year-caliber intensity.
Not only does the ball shrink into a peach pit whenever it slaps against Leonard’s mighty hands, but everytime he steps on the court, he brings a game that’s been molded to dominate areas of the floor, placing an insoluble strain on the opposition.
Right now, that dominance is most notable whenever Leonard posts up, which is at a higher volume and efficiency than we’ve ever seen from him in the playoffs. According to Second Spectrum, Leonard averaged 2.26 post-ups per 100 possessions during the 2016-17 playoffs, which ranked him 28th of the 32 players with at least 15 post-ups. By last year’s championship run, Leonard’s 4.14 post-ups per 100 possessions came in at 19th out of the 31 players with at least 15 post-ups, and the Raptors generated an excellent 1.31 points per possession in these spots.
Against the Dallas Mavericks in the first round of this year’s playoffs, those numbers climbed even higher for Leonard. No player with at least 10 post-ups has created more offense than Leonard’s comically absurd 1.6 points per possession on the play. And his frequency has crept up to 5.88 post-ups per 100 possessions — placing him 12th of the 26 eligible players, according to Second Spectrum.
Some of this is because Dallas’s roster wasn’t built to slow down a player like Leonard. Maxi Kleber fought as well as anyone could expect, and both Dorian Finney-Smith and Michael Kidd-Gilchrist tried to make Leonard’s life uncomfortable, but they … didn’t. When the Clippers called for a post-up, Leonard routinely had the defense right where he wanted it — be it after a series of fluttering jab steps from the mid-post, or a methodical backdown that eventually concluded with him muscling through contact.
Kawhi’s footwork is second to none. In the video below, just look at the amount of space he creates after nailing his left foot into the ground. If you were to go outside and try this move with nobody around, you’d probably slide right off the side of planet Earth. Leonard not only does it in an NBA playoff game, but he does it with enough strength, composure and balance to drain the fall-away jump shot.
Leonard can always feast one-on-one, but the Clippers also like to position him on the left block, then have a point guard come down to set a screen on his man and force a defensive rotation. Thanks to Leonard’s refined handle and improved vision, there’s no obvious way to manage the action without giving up a shot Los Angeles is happy to take.
Leonard averaged over six assists per 100 direct post-ups in last year’s playoffs. In this year’s playoffs, he’s at 18.8, according to Second Spectrum. But even when his work out of the post doesn’t directly lead to an assist, Leonard’s willingness to bunt is part of why the Clippers are scoring 1.2 points per possession when he’s in the game.
Once he spots a double team, Leonard doesn’t panic; he doesn’t try to make a daring skip pass to the opposite corner or bulldoze through the incoming coverage. Instead, he trusts the domino effect of his own influence, makes the simplest read, then watches his teammates leverage the advantage he created against a scrambling defense.
The Denver Nuggets have a few more players to throw at Leonard than Dallas did, but handling him in single coverage is a tough task for any human; the options on their roster are either too small (Gary Harris) or slow (Paul Millsap) to do anything but turn into a puddle.
Jerami Grant is Kawhi’s most likely matchup, but watch how the Clippers dealt with him on this play during the regular season: Paul George set an early off-ball screen to force a switch and allow Leonard to scamper toward the strong side with smaller prey on his trail. The play is double trouble, with George flying around a stagger screen and Leonard jostling for a snug position down on the left block.
Leonard is a master at both identifying specific spots where he’s most comfortable and getting there pretty much whenever he wants. That often means a one-dribble pull-up at the elbow or a rugged right-handed drive toward the baseline that ends in his patented fadeaway.
But nothing foretells doom for the defense quite like those post touches. They’re exasperating, breathtaking and raw, an opportunity for him to showcase all that makes him the closest embodiment of basketball perfection. Whenever the Clippers’ offense slips into a drought, their smartest move might also be the least complex: dump the ball down to Kawhi Leonard and get out of the way.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-03--Election Update: Biden Gets Good Polls In Arizona And Wisconsin — And A Bad One In Pennsylvania

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight ’ s Election Update for Thursday , September 3 !
We ’ ve now gotten several state polls conducted entirely after the end of the Republican National Convention , and they are consistent with the tale told by post-convention national polls : The RNC hasn ’ t boosted President Trump enough to meaningfully improve his odds of winning the election .
In fact , the state polls we ’ ve gotten this week have been pretty darn good for Joe Biden — with one big exception that we ’ ll get to in a minute .
Probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News ’ s survey of Arizona , which gave Biden a healthy 9-percentage-point lead .
The poll was taken in the immediate wake of the RNC , and although candidates generally poll higher right after their conventions , Fox found Trump in a worse position compared with its previous poll .
Morning Consult appeared to confirm Biden ’ s upward trajectory in Arizona , releasing an Aug. 21-30 poll showing Biden up by 10 .
( That was a big shift from Trump ’ s 2-point lead there in Morning Consult ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona polling had been a little disappointing for Biden , given that the state appeared primed to move into the spotlight as one of the top 2020 swing states .
But these two good polls for Biden helped the Democrat jump out to a clearer lead in our Arizona forecast ( although it ’ s still pretty close to a toss-up ) : In addition , Biden now leads Trump by 4.6 points in our weighted average of polls of Arizona .
That ’ s significant because , if you were to line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden has the biggest polling lead to those where Trump ’ s lead is biggest , right now Arizona would be the Electoral College “ tipping point ” — the state that puts one candidate over the top .
( That said , our forecast , which blends the polls with election “ fundamentals ” like the economy to predict where the race will stand in November , maintains that Pennsylvania is the likeliest state to wind up as the tipping point on Election Day . )
Fox News also had good news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat ahead by 8 points .
And two other recent polls ( from Morning Consult and Opinium ) staked Biden to similarly large leads — 10 and 13 points , respectively .
Notably , all three of these polls were conducted mostly or entirely after police shot Jacob Blake , a Black man , in the Wisconsin city of Kenosha , kicking off protests where two demonstrators were killed ( a militia member has been charged with their murder ) .
But contrary to what many commentators have insisted , those tragic events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on the violent fallout and a “ law and order ” message — don ’ t appear to be boosting the president ’ s standing in the state .
Biden ’ s chances of winning it are up to 73 in 100 , per our forecast .
The one state where Trump does seem to have emerged from the conventions in better shape is Pennsylvania ; Monmouth University now has Trump and Biden in a virtual tie among likely voters there .
Biden is 3 percentage points ahead in Monmouth ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a low-turnout scenario .
In Monmouth ’ s July 9-13 poll of the Keystone State , Biden led by 10 points in the former scenario and 7 points in the latter .
As a result , our forecast shows Trump with a better chance to win Pennsylvania than he ’ s had in months .
It ’ s a bit surprising to see Biden polling relatively poorly in Pennsylvania , the state where he was born and one that he references frequently on the campaign trail .
According to the polling averages with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump by just 3.4 points there — a smaller lead than in demographically similar Michigan ( 6.5 points ) and Wisconsin ( 7.1 points ) .
That said , although Monmouth is an excellent pollster , its post-convention survey may be an outlier .
Monmouth ’ s sample sizes are on the small side , and the company isn ’ t afraid to publish results that diverge from the consensus ( that ’ s a good thing ) , so its polling can sometimes be subject to large swings .
And the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Trump to win Pennsylvania .
Indeed , as you ’ ve seen , he is more likely than Trump to win all three of these crucial states .
That ’ s a big reason why he still has a 69 in 100 chance of winning the Electoral College overall — almost exactly the same position he was in before the conventions .
Are we seeing a post-convention polling bounce ?
| FiveThirtyEight Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight ’ s full presidential forecast ; you can also see all the 2020 polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls , Florida polls , Michigan polls , Minnesota polls , North Carolina polls , Texas polls and … well … all the states , really .

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s Election Update for Thursday, September 3! We’ve now gotten several state polls conducted entirely after the end of the Republican National Convention, and they are consistent with the tale told by post-convention national polls: The RNC hasn’t boosted President Trump enough to meaningfully improve his odds of winning the election. In fact, the state polls we’ve gotten this week have been pretty darn good for Joe Biden — with one big exception that we’ll get to in a minute.
Probably the most eye-opening state poll was Fox News’s survey of Arizona, which gave Biden a healthy 9-percentage-point lead. The poll was taken in the immediate wake of the RNC, and although candidates generally poll higher right after their conventions, Fox found Trump in a worse position compared with its previous poll. Morning Consult appeared to confirm Biden’s upward trajectory in Arizona, releasing an Aug. 21-30 poll showing Biden up by 10. (That was a big shift from Trump’s 2-point lead there in Morning Consult’s Aug. 7-16 poll.)
Previously, Arizona polling had been a little disappointing for Biden, given that the state appeared primed to move into the spotlight as one of the top 2020 swing states. But these two good polls for Biden helped the Democrat jump out to a clearer lead in our Arizona forecast (although it’s still pretty close to a toss-up):
In addition, Biden now leads Trump by 4.6 points in our weighted average of polls of Arizona. That’s significant because, if you were to line up all 50 states from those where Biden has the biggest polling lead to those where Trump’s lead is biggest, right now Arizona would be the Electoral College “tipping point” — the state that puts one candidate over the top. (That said, our forecast, which blends the polls with election “fundamentals” like the economy to predict where the race will stand in November, maintains that Pennsylvania is the likeliest state to wind up as the tipping point on Election Day.)
Fox News also had good news for Biden in Wisconsin, putting the Democrat ahead by 8 points. And two other recent polls (from Morning Consult and Opinium) staked Biden to similarly large leads — 10 and 13 points, respectively. Notably, all three of these polls were conducted mostly or entirely after police shot Jacob Blake, a Black man, in the Wisconsin city of Kenosha, kicking off protests where two demonstrators were killed (a militia member has been charged with their murder). But contrary to what many commentators have insisted, those tragic events — and the Trump campaign’s focus on the violent fallout and a “law and order” message — don’t appear to be boosting the president’s standing in the state. Biden’s chances of winning it are up to 73 in 100, per our forecast.
The one state where Trump does seem to have emerged from the conventions in better shape is Pennsylvania; Monmouth University now has Trump and Biden in a virtual tie among likely voters there. Biden is 3 percentage points ahead in Monmouth’s high-turnout scenario and 1 point ahead in a low-turnout scenario. In Monmouth’s July 9-13 poll of the Keystone State, Biden led by 10 points in the former scenario and 7 points in the latter. As a result, our forecast shows Trump with a better chance to win Pennsylvania than he’s had in months.
It’s a bit surprising to see Biden polling relatively poorly in Pennsylvania, the state where he was born and one that he references frequently on the campaign trail. According to the polling averages with Monmouth factored in, he currently leads Trump by just 3.4 points there — a smaller lead than in demographically similar Michigan (6.5 points) and Wisconsin (7.1 points).
That said, although Monmouth is an excellent pollster, its post-convention survey may be an outlier. Monmouth’s sample sizes are on the small side, and the company isn’t afraid to publish results that diverge from the consensus (that’s a good thing), so its polling can sometimes be subject to large swings.
And the fact remains that Biden is still more likely than Trump to win Pennsylvania. Indeed, as you’ve seen, he is more likely than Trump to win all three of these crucial states. That’s a big reason why he still has a 69 in 100 chance of winning the Electoral College overall — almost exactly the same position he was in before the conventions.
Are we seeing a post-convention polling bounce? | FiveThirtyEight
Make sure to check out FiveThirtyEight’s full presidential forecast; you can also see all the 2020 polls we’ve collected, including national polls, Florida polls, Michigan polls, Minnesota polls, North Carolina polls, Texas polls and … well … all the states, really.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-04--The Fifth Battle For Riddler Nation

The Fifth Battle For Riddler Nation

Welcome to The Riddler .
Most weeks , I offer up two problems related to the things we hold dear around here : math , logic and probability .
But this week is special .
The time has flown , and somehow it ’ s been a year since I ( peacefully ) took over this column from my predecessor , Oliver Roeder .
It is only fitting that we continue one of Ollie ’ s ( and my ) favorite traditions here at The Riddler : the Battle for Riddler Nation .
In order to have a chance at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruler , I need to receive your battle plans before 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on Monday .
Have a great weekend !
Some readers may be familiar with the first , second , third and fourth Battles for Riddler Nation .
If you missed out , you may want to consult the thousands of attack distributions from these previous contests .
I am pleased to say that this week marks the fifth such competition — but this time , the number of castles has changed !
In a distant , war-torn land , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two warlords : you and your archenemy .
Each castle has its own strategic value for a would-be conqueror .
Specifically , the castles are worth 1 , 2 , 3 , … , 12 , and 13 victory points .
You and your enemy each have 100 soldiers to distribute , any way you like , to fight at any of the 13 castles .
Whoever sends more soldiers to a given castle conquers that castle and wins its victory points .
If you each send the same number of troops , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know what distribution of forces your enemy has chosen until the battles begin .
Whoever wins the most points wins the war .
Submit a plan distributing your 100 soldiers among the 13 castles .
Once we receive all your battle plans , we ’ ll adjudicate all the possible one-on-one matchups .
Whoever wins the most wars wins the battle royale and is crowned ruler of Riddler Nation !
Who can steal the crown from 👑 David Love 👑 of Ambler , Pennsylvania , who currently sits atop the throne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out Vince Vatter of Gainesville , Florida , a two-time champion eager to take back what was rightfully his .
Will you defeat them ?
Do you have the cunning and logic to be the next ruler of Riddler Nation ?
Congratulations to 👏 Dan Speirs 👏 of Newtown Square , Pennsylvania , winner of last week ’ s Riddler Express .
Last week , you had a giant sheet that lay flat on the ground , covering the Earth ( assumed to be a perfect sphere with a radius of 6,378 kilometers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sheet so it was instead always 1 meter off the ground .
To make it so , how much did you have to increase the area of the sheet ?
You were essentially being asked to find the difference in surface area between two spheres — one with the radius of the Earth , or 6,378,000 meters , and another whose radius was one meter longer , or 6,378,001 meters .
Most readers knew the formula : A sphere with radius r has a surface area of 4𝜋r2 .
So one approach was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two spheres and subtract them .
You could also have worked through a little algebra before plugging anything in .
If R is the radius of the Earth , then the difference in surface area was 4𝜋 ( R+1 ) 2−4𝜋R2 .
After canceling out the squared terms , this difference became 8𝜋R+4𝜋 square meters , or approximately 160.3 million square meters .
Since there are a million ( not a thousand ! )
square meters in one square kilometer , this was equivalent to 160.3 square kilometers .
In the grand scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty tiny fraction of the Earth ’ s surface — a shade over 0.00003 percent , to be precise .
For extra credit , you had to identify a city , country , land mass or body of water whose area was very close to the answer .
As far as countries went , Liechtenstein , with an area of 160 square kilometers , was the closest .
So when it comes time to grow our Earth-covering quilt , I think the most prudent thing to do would be to head to Liechtenstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll see you there !
Congratulations to 👏 Richard Guidry Jr. 👏 of Baton Rouge , Louisiana , winner of last week ’ s Riddler Classic .
Last week , you wanted to play a very special game of War .
War is a two-player game in which a standard deck of cards is first shuffled and then divided into two piles with 26 cards each — one pile for each player .
In every turn of the game , both players flip over and reveal the top card of their deck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher rank wins the turn and places both cards on the bottom of their pile .
In the event that both cards have the same rank , the rules get a little more complicated , with each player flipping over additional cards to compare in a mini “ War ” showdown .
Assuming a deck was randomly shuffled before every game , how many games of War would you expect to play until you had a game that lasted exactly 26 turns , with no mini “ Wars ?
” As you might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” game of war is very rare .
So rare , in fact , that trying to simulate it was a fruitless exercise .
Instead , your best bet was to work out an analytical solution .
A good first step was to determine the probability p of having a perfect game of War ( either for you or for your opponent — there was no such distinction in the problem ) .
If we knew the value of p , then the probability of achieving one perfect game in exactly one attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempts it would be ( 1−p ) p , in exactly three attempts it would be ( 1−p ) 2p , and so on .
By combining these probabilities , the expected number of games until having a perfect one was then p + 2 ( 1−p ) p + 3 ( 1−p ) 2p + 4 ( 1−p ) 3p + … , an infinite arithmetico-geometric series whose sum was simply 1/p .
So all you had to do was find the probability of having a perfect game of War , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Alas , determining this probability was easier said than done .
You could have tried a back-of-the-envelope calculation .
If we put aside mini “ Wars ” for a moment , pretending that each player has a 50 percent chance of winning each turn outright , what ’ s the probability of your winning a perfect game ?
You would have to win all 26 turns , meaning your chances stood at 1/226 , or approximately 1.49×10−8 .
Pretty unlikely .
But that was still an estimate .
For each turn , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent chance of winning outright , since there was a nonzero chance of a mini “ War ” in which their cards had a matching rank , leaving you and your opponent to split the leftover probability .
That meant 1.49×10−8 was an overestimate .
Finding the exact probability , it turned out , was an advanced exercise in combinatorics .
Solver Laurent Lessard defined the probability as a function of the remaining number of cards of each rank .
He then set up a recurrence relation and had his computer crunch the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Norvig similarly “ abstracted ” what a deck was , considering only how many cards there were of relative ranks ( rather than their specific ranks ) , and then tracked the probability trees in which one player won all the rounds outright .
Both Laurent and Peter found that the probability of sweeping your opponent in 26 turns was approximately 3.1324×10−9 — not too far off from our back-of-the-envelope calculation .
which meant you would expect to play about 319 million games before winning in such a fashion .
Solver Angela Zhou @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was 29,908,397,871,631,390,876,014,250,000 divided by 93,686,147,409,122,073,121 .
Wow !
This was the expected number of games until you won in a sweep .
The expected number of games until either you or your opponent won is a sweep was half as many ( since the probability of either of you achieving this was twice as high ) , or about 159,620,171 games .
The question was ambiguous as stated , so I gave credit for both answers .
Finally , if you enjoyed this riddle , you might try your hand at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solver Eric Farmer .
You ’ ll find boring snaps , Frustration Solitaire and prohibited subwords .
Sounds like just another day at The Riddler .
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 !

Welcome to The Riddler. Most weeks, I offer up two problems related to the things we hold dear around here: math, logic and probability.
But this week is special. The time has flown, and somehow it’s been a year since I (peacefully) took over this column from my predecessor, Oliver Roeder.
It is only fitting that we continue one of Ollie’s (and my) favorite traditions here at The Riddler: the Battle for Riddler Nation. In order to have a chance at 👑 winning 👑 and becoming the next ruler, I need to receive your battle plans before 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on Monday. Have a great weekend!
This week’s Riddler
Some readers may be familiar with the first, second, third and fourth Battles for Riddler Nation. If you missed out, you may want to consult the thousands of attack distributions from these previous contests.
I am pleased to say that this week marks the fifth such competition — but this time, the number of castles has changed!
In a distant, war-torn land, there are 13 castles. There are two warlords: you and your archenemy. Each castle has its own strategic value for a would-be conqueror. Specifically, the castles are worth 1, 2, 3, …, 12, and 13 victory points. You and your enemy each have 100 soldiers to distribute, any way you like, to fight at any of the 13 castles. Whoever sends more soldiers to a given castle conquers that castle and wins its victory points. If you each send the same number of troops, you split the points. You don’t know what distribution of forces your enemy has chosen until the battles begin. Whoever wins the most points wins the war.
Submit a plan distributing your 100 soldiers among the 13 castles. Once we receive all your battle plans, we’ll adjudicate all the possible one-on-one matchups. Whoever wins the most wars wins the battle royale and is crowned ruler of Riddler Nation!
Who can steal the crown from 👑 David Love 👑 of Ambler, Pennsylvania, who currently sits atop the throne? Also, don’t count out Vince Vatter of Gainesville, Florida, a two-time champion eager to take back what was rightfully his.
Will you defeat them?
Do you have the cunning and logic to be the next ruler of Riddler Nation?
The results to this Riddler can be found in the following week’s column.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Express
Congratulations to 👏 Dan Speirs 👏 of Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, winner of last week’s Riddler Express.
Last week, you had a giant sheet that lay flat on the ground, covering the Earth (assumed to be a perfect sphere with a radius of 6,378 kilometers).
You wanted to raise the sheet so it was instead always 1 meter off the ground. To make it so, how much did you have to increase the area of the sheet?
You were essentially being asked to find the difference in surface area between two spheres — one with the radius of the Earth, or 6,378,000 meters, and another whose radius was one meter longer, or 6,378,001 meters.
Most readers knew the formula: A sphere with radius r has a surface area of 4𝜋r2. So one approach was to precisely calculate the areas of the two spheres and subtract them.
You could also have worked through a little algebra before plugging anything in. If R is the radius of the Earth, then the difference in surface area was 4𝜋(R+1)2−4𝜋R2. After canceling out the squared terms, this difference became 8𝜋R+4𝜋 square meters, or approximately 160.3 million square meters. Since there are a million (not a thousand!) square meters in one square kilometer, this was equivalent to 160.3 square kilometers.
In the grand scheme of things, the answer was a pretty tiny fraction of the Earth’s surface — a shade over 0.00003 percent, to be precise.
For extra credit, you had to identify a city, country, land mass or body of water whose area was very close to the answer. As far as countries went, Liechtenstein, with an area of 160 square kilometers, was the closest.
So when it comes time to grow our Earth-covering quilt, I think the most prudent thing to do would be to head to Liechtenstein and host a quilting bee. I’ll see you there!
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, you wanted to play a very special game of War.
War is a two-player game in which a standard deck of cards is first shuffled and then divided into two piles with 26 cards each — one pile for each player. In every turn of the game, both players flip over and reveal the top card of their deck. The player whose card has a higher rank wins the turn and places both cards on the bottom of their pile. In the event that both cards have the same rank, the rules get a little more complicated, with each player flipping over additional cards to compare in a mini “War” showdown.
Assuming a deck was randomly shuffled before every game, how many games of War would you expect to play until you had a game that lasted exactly 26 turns, with no mini “Wars?”
As you might have guessed, such a “perfect” game of war is very rare. So rare, in fact, that trying to simulate it was a fruitless exercise. Instead, your best bet was to work out an analytical solution.
A good first step was to determine the probability p of having a perfect game of War (either for you or for your opponent — there was no such distinction in the problem). If we knew the value of p, then the probability of achieving one perfect game in exactly one attempt would be p, in exactly two attempts it would be (1−p)p, in exactly three attempts it would be (1−p)2p, and so on. By combining these probabilities, the expected number of games until having a perfect one was then p + 2(1−p)p + 3(1−p)2p + 4(1−p)3p + …, an infinite arithmetico-geometric series whose sum was simply 1/p.
So all you had to do was find the probability of having a perfect game of War, and then compute the reciprocal of that number. Alas, determining this probability was easier said than done.
You could have tried a back-of-the-envelope calculation. If we put aside mini “Wars” for a moment, pretending that each player has a 50 percent chance of winning each turn outright, what’s the probability of your winning a perfect game? You would have to win all 26 turns, meaning your chances stood at 1/226, or approximately 1.49×10−8. Pretty unlikely.
But that was still an estimate. For each turn, you actually had less than a 50 percent chance of winning outright, since there was a nonzero chance of a mini “War” in which their card had a matching rank, leaving you and your opponent to split the leftover probability. That meant 1.49×10−8 was an overestimate.
Finding the exact probability, it turned out, was an advanced exercise in combinatorics. Solver Laurent Lessard defined the probability as a function of the remaining number of cards of each rank. He then set up a recurrence relation and had his computer crunch the numbers via memoization.
Meanwhile, Peter Norvig similarly “abstracted” what a deck was, considering only how many cards there were of relative ranks (rather than their specific ranks), and then tracked the probability trees in which one player won all the rounds outright.
Both Laurent and Peter found that the probability of sweeping your opponent in 26 turns was approximately 3.1324×10−9 — not too far off from our back-of-the-envelope calculation. which meant you would expect to play about 319 million games before winning in such a fashion. Solver Angela Zhou calculated this value more precisely, finding it was 29,908,397,871,631,390,876,014,250,000 divided by 93,686,147,409,122,073,121. Wow!
This was the expected number of games until you won in a sweep. The expected number of games until either you or your opponent won in a sweep was half as many (since the probability of either of you achieving this was twice as high), or about 159,620,171 games. The question was ambiguous as stated, so I gave credit for both answers.
Finally, if you enjoyed this riddle, you might try your hand at a few similar combinatorial challenges, courtesy of solver Eric Farmer. You’ll find boring snaps, Frustration Solitaire and prohibited subwords. Sounds like just another day at The Riddler.
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