fivethirthyeight--2020-12-09--Christian Wood Might Be The Rockets’ Silver Lining

The Houston Rockets are in the middle of a dizzying offseason that saw several important , familiar faces exit stage left , while the face of their franchise , James Harden , reportedly has no interest in assuming that role for another season despite having two years left on his contract .
In most cases , this situation would foretell a Rubicon-crossing nightmare .
But Christian Wood , one of the offseason ’ s most desirable free agents , gives Houston a silver lining , whether Harden sticks around or is dealt in the near future .
Wood is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finally teased his ability toward the end of the 2019-20 regular season .
To acquire him , Houston ’ s new general manager , Rafael Stone , first had to press stop on small-ball .
He sent Robert Covington to the Portland Trail Blazers for Trevor Ariza , the 16th pick in the 2020 draft and a future first-round pick .
Stone then shuffled Ariza and that 16th pick to the Detroit Pistons in a sign-and-trade for Wood ( and a future first-round pick and future second-round pick , the latter of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
The result was a mutually beneficial three-year , $ 41 million deal that doubled as a defiant , desperate signal to the rest of the NBA : The Rockets still want to win .
It ’ s ambitious by design , intended to prolong one successful era or start fresh with something new .
But even as Harden publicly circulates his wish to play for the Brooklyn Nets , Houston must be hoping that the addition will eventually change his mind .
Wood ’ s boundless upside could be the splash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ core needs .
They head into the 2020-21 season with the world ’ s most reliable scorer ; an unknowable iteration of John Wall , acquired for the irritated Russell Westbrook ; aging , aggrieved and important holdovers P.J .
Tucker and Eric Gordon ; a few sensible role players ( Danuel House Jr. , Ben McLemore , Sterling Brown and Gerald Green ) ; and DeMarcus Cousins — a low-risk , intriguing reward calculation .
And then there ’ s the 25-year-old newcomer best suited to raise their ceiling and evolve their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points and 9.5 rebounds and shot 41 percent from downtown in his last 15 games .
Some might judge that late-season surge as more flash than substance .
But Houston is betting on him as a late-blooming star who will be the most complementary luxury item Harden and Wall have ever played with .
Only three players last season — Chris Paul , Duncan Robinson and Rudy Gobert — increased their team ’ s expected wins margin more than Wood , who finished +27 .
( Giannis Antetokounmpo came in fifth , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tatum and Kawhi Leonard were all +25 . )
“ I want to be an All-Star , ” Wood said recently .
“ I feel like I can be one of the top players in the league.
” Other catch-all metrics smiled at his production .
Wood was 16th in Real Plus-Minus ( sandwiched between Khris Middleton and Zion Williamson ) , and out of 197 players who logged at least 1,300 minutes , he ranked in the top 20 in both box score and on/off RAPTOR .
ESPN ’ s Kevin Pelton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this class , trailing only Anthony Davis and Fred VanVleet .
Under new head coach Stephen Silas , Houston won ’ t play the exact same way this year — instead of isolating as often as Harden did , there ’ s a plan to add variance to the offense .
That ’ s good news for — and probably thanks to — Wood .
He can easily slide into an offensive system keyed off of Harden ’ s stepback-or-drive brand of basketball — according to Second Spectrum , Wood ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the 81st percentile among all players who took at least 90 of them .
But using him as a taller Covington would be like crossing the Mississippi River in a yacht : He has so much more to offer .
Compare Wood with former Rockets center Clint Capela — a one-dimensional vacuum cleaner who benefited from the different ways Harden , Westbrook and Paul could manipulate his defender as they set his table .
Wood can do … this : Even though 75 percent of his baskets were assisted last season , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physical churn Harden is used to enduring every night .
With a giraffe ’ s stride , a 7-foot-3 wingspan and a relaxed handle , he has tools to create for himself and feed off the attention defenses pay elsewhere .
Wood is agile and interdependent in all the ways a big man in 2021 needs to be .
How many players his size can pick up their dribble where Wood does on the play below — veering baseline after a defender cut off his drive — and not have it result in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indirect benefit for the 31-year-old former MVP , who ’ s spent the majority of his prime assuming more offensive responsibility than any player not named LeBron James .
( Harden ’ s career usage rate is eighth-highest in NBA history ) .
His most devastating form will take place in pick and rolls , where Wood will force opponents to tinker with their base coverage , whether he ’ s in tandem with Harden or Wall .
If the defense switches , there ’ s a great chance that the door will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strain help and on-ball defenders alike .
Of the few opportunities Wood had to attack these spots head-on in Detroit , many came on disorganized , cramped floors .
But with more consistent reps , surrounded by teammates who were assembled to create space , he could do damage .
Assuming that Wall hasn ’ t completely forgotten how to maestro a pick and roll , whenever Wood partners with the five-time All-Star , opponents will swallow a stick of flickering dynamite dropping the big and trailing over ( or ducking under ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whopping 1.17 points per possession whenever Wood dove to the basket .
( Only Sixth Man of the Year winner Montrezl Harrell ranked higher last season among players who set at least 600 picks , according to Second Spectrum . )
Firework shows like that will be routine , but equally important are the plays when Wood corrals a tricky pass before finishing in traffic .
He has sticky hands , and he does a terrific job blending muscle and finesse around the basket — 102 players took at least 200 shots in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only Dwight Howard was more accurate than Wood ’ s 77 percent .
Last season — while embedded in ill-fitting lineups that featured the likes of Sekou Doumbouya , Bruce Brown , Thon Maker , John Henson and Brandon Knight — Wood ranked 13th in points per direct touch ( 93rd percentile among those who recorded at least 2,000 touches , according to Second Spectrum ) and finished fifth in effective field-goal percentage among players who took at least 500 shots .
On contested attempts ( minimum 400 shots ) , his effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Wall and Harden will appreciate having him as both a moving target and a looming threat in the dunker ’ s spot , to say nothing of the corner-three assist opportunities his dives will help generate .
Last year , Detroit shot 44.1 percent from the corner with Wood in the game , up 3.7 percent from when Wood didn ’ t play .
( From 2015 to 2018 , only James averaged more corner-three assists per game than Harden and Wall , who tore his Achilles the following year . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ alongside Wall , should come in transition .
Last year , Detroit ’ s offensive possessions were second-longest in the league , while Houston ’ s were second-shortest , according to Second Spectrum .
When Harden isn ’ t on the floor , Houston can either put the ball in Wall ’ s hands and hit the gas or let Wood have a go of it himself .
In the few instances when he actually went coast-to-coast after grabbing a defensive rebound , the outcomes were enough to make you check your blood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Wood , Detroit eviscerated transition defenses off a live rebound .
According to Cleaning the Glass , the Pistons averaged 135.1 points per 100 transition plays ( 94th percentile ) with Wood on the floor .
When he didn ’ t play , that number was a whopping 19.9 points lower ( which put his impact in the 90th percentile ) .
Wood ’ s general impact on defense is a bit harder to predict , in part because we don ’ t know how Houston will play .
Will they continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or adopt a more conservative approach ?
Wood ’ s size should allow their defensive identity to be more fluid than it ’ s been .
According to Second Spectrum , 60 screen defenders guarded at least 350 picks in a drop coverage last season ; only five allowed fewer than the 0.904 points per direct possession Wood did .
He ’ s tall , long and has fast closing speed whenever the ball gets behind him .
The problem , though , is that too often Wood diagnoses the offensive play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeing it in real time .
As a full-time anchor , that ’ s a borderline death sentence , and it ’ s one of the reasons Pistons head coach Dwane Casey resisted inserting Wood in the starting lineup .
“ He ’ s a talented young man , ” Casey said last season , “ when [ he ] gets the thinking part of the game down.
” When Wood positions himself in the right spot , Houston ’ s defense should be sound .
When he steps in the wrong direction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the ball , or incorrectly assumes what the offense is about to do , it will splinter .
The Rockets won ’ t enter 2021 on the NBA ’ s top shelf .
But if Harden stays put , Wood can help turn them into a dark horse title contender .
If Harden is traded , Houston already has an integral building block in place to kickstart the rebuild .
But until either scenario becomes reality , it ’ s not hard to picture Wood making life easier for everyone on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incoming first-round picks to bolster their chances in the short term , via the trade market .
At this stage , and until further notice , that ’ s the future Houston wants to see .
“ We ’ re going to continue to be extraordinarily aggressive , ” Stone said while introducing Silas .
“ We ’ re going to shoot for it .
Whether we get there or not , I don ’ t know , but I can guarantee you that we ’ re going to shoot for it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking forward to it.
” Acquiring Wood was either the Rockets ’ first step toward revitalizing Harden ’ s tenure or the smartest move to prepare themselves for his departure .
Either way , Houston won ’ t be sorry for pulling it off .

The Houston Rockets are in the middle of a dizzying offseason that saw several important, familiar faces exit stage left, while the face of their franchise, James Harden, reportedly has no interest in assuming that role for another season despite having two years left on his contract.
In most cases, this situation would foretell a Rubicon-crossing nightmare. But Christian Wood, one of the offseason’s most desirable free agents, gives Houston a silver lining, whether Harden sticks around or is dealt in the near future.
[How An Undrafted Rookie Stopped James Harden In The Playoffs]
Wood is an undrafted 6-foot-10 jackhammer with 3-point range who finally teased his ability toward the end of the 2019-20 regular season. To acquire him, Houston’s new general manager, Rafael Stone, first had to press stop on small-ball. He sent Robert Covington to the Portland Trail Blazers for Trevor Ariza, the 16th pick in the 2020 draft and a future first-round pick. Stone then shuffled Ariza and that 16th pick to the Detroit Pistons in a sign-and-trade for Wood (and a future first-round pick and future second-round pick, the latter of which is courtesy of the Los Angeles Lakers).
Who’s the most chaotic fictional football coach? | FiveThirtyEight
The result was a mutually beneficial three-year, $41 million deal that doubled as a defiant, desperate signal to the rest of the NBA: The Rockets still want to win. It’s ambitious by design, intended to prolong one successful era or start fresh with something new. But even as Harden publicly circulates his wish to play for the Brooklyn Nets, Houston must be hoping that the addition will eventually change his mind.
Wood’s boundless upside could be the splash of ice-cold water Houston’s norm-bending core needs. They head into the 2020-21 season with the world’s most reliable scorer; an unknowable iteration of John Wall, acquired for the irritated Russell Westbrook; aging, aggrieved and important holdovers P.J. Tucker and Eric Gordon; a few sensible role players (Danuel House Jr., Ben McLemore, Sterling Brown and Gerald Green); and DeMarcus Cousins — a low-risk, intriguing reward calculation.
And then there’s the 25-year-old newcomer best suited to raise their ceiling and evolve their offense: Wood, who averaged 22.3 points and 9.5 rebounds and shot 41 percent from downtown in his last 15 games. Some might judge that late-season surge as more flash than substance. But Houston is betting on him as a late-blooming star who will be the most complementary luxury item Harden and Wall have ever played with.
Only three players last season — Chris Paul, Duncan Robinson and Rudy Gobert — increased their team’s expected wins margin more than Wood, who finished +27. (Giannis Antetokounmpo came in fifth, at +26, while LeBron James, Jayson Tatum and Kawhi Leonard were all +25.) “I want to be an All-Star,” Wood said recently. “I feel like I can be one of the top players in the league.”
Other catch-all metrics smiled at his production. Wood was 16th in Real Plus-Minus (sandwiched between Khris Middleton and Zion Williamson), and out of 197 players who logged at least 1,300 minutes, he ranked in the top 20 in both box score and on/off RAPTOR. ESPN’s Kevin Pelton projected Wood as the third-best free agent in this class, trailing only Anthony Davis and Fred VanVleet.
[The Atlanta Hawks Are Going All-In On Offense]
Under new head coach Stephen Silas, Houston won’t play the exact same way this year — instead of isolating as often as Harden did, there’s a plan to add variance to the offense. That’s good news for — and probably thanks to — Wood. He can easily slide into an offensive system keyed off of Harden’s stepback-or-drive brand of basketball — according to Second Spectrum, Wood’s effective field-goal percentage on catch-and-shoot threes ranked in the 81st percentile among all players who took at least 90 of them. But using him as a taller Covington would be like crossing the Mississippi River in a yacht: He has so much more to offer.
Compare Wood with former Rockets center Clint Capela — a one-dimensional vacuum cleaner who benefited from the different ways Harden, Westbrook and Paul could manipulate his defender as they set his table. Wood can do … this:
Even though 75 percent of his baskets were assisted last season, Wood’s presence can reduce the physical churn Harden is used to enduring every night. With a giraffe’s stride, a 7-foot-3 wingspan and a relaxed handle, he has tools to create for himself and feed off the attention defenses pay elsewhere. Wood is agile and interdependent in all the ways a big man in 2021 needs to be.
How many players his size can pick up their dribble where Wood does on the play below — veering baseline after a defender cut off his drive — and not have it result in total disaster?
This could be an indirect benefit for the 31-year-old former MVP, who’s spent the majority of his prime assuming more offensive responsibility than any player not named LeBron James. (Harden’s career usage rate is eighth-highest in NBA history). His most devastating form will take place in pick and rolls, where Wood will force opponents to tinker with their base coverage, whether he’s in tandem with Harden or Wall.
If the defense switches, there’s a great chance that the door will have opened for two mismatches that will strain help and on-ball defenders alike. Of the few opportunities Wood had to attack these spots head-on in Detroit, many came on disorganized, cramped floors. But with more consistent reps, surrounded by teammates who were assembled to create space, he could do damage.
Assuming that Wall hasn’t completely forgotten how to maestro a pick and roll, whenever Wood partners with the five-time All-Star, opponents will swallow a stick of flickering dynamite dropping the big and trailing over (or ducking under) the screen. The Pistons averaged a whopping 1.17 points per possession whenever Wood dove to the basket. (Only Sixth Man of the Year winner Montrezl Harrell ranked higher last season among players who set at least 600 picks, according to Second Spectrum.)
Firework shows like that will be routine, but equally important are the plays when Wood corrals a tricky pass before finishing in traffic. He has sticky hands, and he does a terrific job blending muscle and finesse around the basket — 102 players took at least 200 shots in the restricted area last season, and only Dwight Howard was more accurate than Wood’s 77 percent.
Last season — while embedded in ill-fitting lineups that featured the likes of Sekou Doumbouya, Bruce Brown, Thon Maker, John Henson and Brandon Knight — Wood ranked 13th in points per direct touch (93rd percentile among those who recorded at least 2,000 touches, according to Second Spectrum) and finished fifth in effective field-goal percentage among players who took at least 500 shots. On contested attempts (minimum 400 shots), his effective field-goal percentage was in the 92nd percentile.
Wall and Harden will appreciate having him as both a moving target and a looming threat in the dunker’s spot, to say nothing of the corner-three assist opportunities his dives will help generate. Last year, Detroit shot 44.1 percent from the corner with Wood in the game, up 3.7 percent from when Wood didn’t play. (From 2015 to 2018, only James averaged more corner-three assists per game than Harden and Wall, who tore his Achilles the following year.)
[The NBA Champs Look More Dangerous Than Ever]
Another untapped area of potential, especially alongside Wall, should come in transition. Last year, Detroit’s offensive possessions were second-longest in the league, while Houston’s were second-shortest, according to Second Spectrum. When Harden isn’t on the floor, Houston can either put the ball in Wall’s hands and hit the gas or let Wood have a go of it himself. In the few instances when he actually went coast-to-coast after grabbing a defensive rebound, the outcomes were enough to make you check your blood pressure.
Thanks in no small part to Wood, Detroit eviscerated transition defenses off a live rebound. According to Cleaning the Glass, the Pistons averaged 135.1 points per 100 transition plays (94th percentile) with Wood on the floor. When he didn’t play, that number was a whopping 19.9 points lower (which put his impact in the 90th percentile).
Wood’s general impact on defense is a bit harder to predict, in part because we don’t know how Houston will play. Will they continue to switch more than any other team, or adopt a more conservative approach? Wood’s size should allow their defensive identity to be more fluid than it’s been. According to Second Spectrum, 60 screen defenders guarded at least 350 picks in a drop coverage last season; only five allowed fewer than the 0.904 points per direct possession Wood did. He’s tall, long and has fast closing speed whenever the ball gets behind him.
[Daryl Morey Needed Three Weeks To Fix One Of The Sixers’ Big Problems]
The problem, though, is that too often Wood diagnoses the offensive play after it’s happened instead of seeing it in real time. As a full-time anchor, that’s a borderline death sentence, and it’s one of the reasons Pistons head coach Dwane Casey resisted inserting Wood in the starting lineup. “He’s a talented young man,” Casey said last season, “when [he] gets the thinking part of the game down.”
When Wood positions himself in the right spot, Houston’s defense should be sound. When he steps in the wrong direction, focuses on his own man instead of the ball, or incorrectly assumes what the offense is about to do, it will splinter.
The Rockets won’t enter 2021 on the NBA’s top shelf. But if Harden stays put, Wood can help turn them into a dark horse title contender. If Harden is traded, Houston already has an integral building block in place to kickstart the rebuild. But until either scenario becomes reality, it’s not hard to picture Wood making life easier for everyone on the roster. The Rockets also suddenly have incoming first-round picks to bolster their chances in the short term, via the trade market.
At this stage, and until further notice, that’s the future Houston wants to see. “We’re going to continue to be extraordinarily aggressive,” Stone said while introducing Silas. “We’re going to shoot for it. Whether we get there or not, I don’t know, but I can guarantee you that we’re going to shoot for it, and I’m really, really looking forward to it.”
Acquiring Wood was either the Rockets’ first step toward revitalizing Harden’s tenure or the smartest move to prepare themselves for his departure. Either way, Houston won’t be sorry for pulling it off.


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-10--Trump’s Pardons Have Been Sparse and Self-Serving — And That’s Without Even Pardoning His Kids

As President Donald Trump heads into his last few weeks in the White House , there are signs that a slew of high-profile pardons could be coming , including those for close allies like Trump ’ s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani , Trump ’ s family members or even Trump himself .
These pardons , if they happen , could be quite expansive — granting blanket immunity for crimes for which Trump ’ s allies and family members haven ’ t even been charged , much less convicted .
At the very least , they would almost certainly be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s pardons already have been .
Trump wouldn ’ t be the first president to issue a lot of pardons at the end of his presidency , nor the first to grant a controversial pardon .
But legal experts say Trump ’ s record on pardons — especially if he ends up using his last days in office to issue get-out-of-jail-free cards to family members or himself — could set a dangerous precedent for two reasons .
First , Trump has been unusually stingy with the pardon power up until now , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost all of his acts of clemency ( which include commutations as well as pardons ) have gone to people he knows , like former national security adviser Michael Flynn , or to those with whom he may curry political favor , like the two Oregon cattle ranchers who were at the center of a dispute over federal land involving states ’ rights activist Ammon Bundy .
That track record , legal experts told me , is pretty much the exact opposite of how the presidential pardon power was intended to function , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the legislative or judicial branches .
“ Many of Trump ’ s pardons … could fairly be characterized as more about his personal interests than serving justice , ” Jeffrey Crouch , a law professor at American University and an expert on executive clemency , said in an email .
“ Pardons are normally granted to people who have turned their lives around , shown remorse and want a pardon , ” Crouch told me , adding that this just isn ’ t the story line that has emerged from four years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clemency approach is that clemency is less available to average people than it is to those with the right group of connections.
” Trump wouldn ’ t be the first president to go on a lame-duck pardoning binge If Trump ends up issuing a large number of pardons and commutations in the waning days of his presidency , that wouldn ’ t be a huge surprise .
As the table below shows , modern presidents have tended to wait until the end of their presidency to start breaking out their pardoning pen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , granted clemency to more than 100 people on the last day of his presidency alone , including an especially controversial pardon for Marc Rich , a fugitive financier who had fled the country and was living in Switzerland , and whose ex-wife was a longtime financial supporter of Clinton ’ s .
And President Barack Obama , as part of a broader effort to help federal prisoners serving long sentences as the result of the tough-on-crime policies of the 1980s and 1990s , commuted the sentences of nearly 2,000 drug offenders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fear of political backlash has often kept presidents from using their pardon power until they have one foot out the door , according to Rachel Barkow , a professor at New York University Law School who has studied the clemency power .
“ They ’ re not as worried about taking a political hit at that point if someone they [ grant clemency to ] unfortunately commits a heinous crime , ” she said .
That might explain why some of the most controversial pardons in modern history have come as a president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ preemptive ” pardon , in which the recipient is absolved of federal crimes of which they haven ’ t been convicted .
Trump is reportedly considering such pardons for Giuliani and some of his adult children .
Preemptive pardons are rare , but Trump wouldn ’ t be the first president to grant one .
A month after taking office , President Gerald Ford pardoned President Richard Nixon , who had resigned after being named a co-conspirator in a case involving the cover-up of the Watergate break-in .
Ford pardoned Nixon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he didn ’ t pardon him for just one specific crime either — his pardon forgave him for any federal crimes that he may have committed during his time in office .
On Christmas Eve in 1992 , President George H.W .
Bush pardoned former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger and several other people for their participation in the Reagan-era Iran-Contra scandal , effectively ending six years of legal proceedings before their trials started .
That pardon was especially controversial because Bush was scheduled to testify as a witness in Weinberger ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case to accuse Bush of participating in a “ cover-up.
” Trump ’ s pardons have been simultaneously sparse and self-serving For most presidents , though , controversial pardons are the exception , not the rule .
Preemptive pardons are few and far between , and it ’ s similarly rare for presidents to pardon family members .
Clinton did pardon his brother Roger , as part of his last-minute clemency spree , but Roger Clinton had already served time in prison .
So it would still be very far outside the norm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — much less issue a pardon for himself , which no president has ever attempted ( and may not be constitutional ) .
And even if Trump doesn ’ t preemptively pardon family members , allies or himself , experts pointed out that his use of the clemency power still looks quite different than other presidents .
For one thing , Trump has been unusually sparing with pardons and commutations — even compared to other modern presidents who were criticized for using the power too stingily .
Of course , there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but so far he ’ s granted clemency to fewer people than any other president in the modern era .
Additionally , according to an analysis by Lawfare , Trump ’ s pardons and commutations have gone almost exclusively to people he knows personally ( like former Maricopa County , Arizona , sheriff Joe Arpaio ) or whose stories he heard about on Fox News ( like former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich ) — and not ordinary people who usually receive clemency because a president concludes that their sentences were unjust or that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society .
“ He ’ s done virtually nothing for people who aren ’ t high-profile but want to cleanse their records or remove the collateral consequences of federal convictions , ” said Daniel Kobil , a professor at Capital University Law School who studies executive clemency .
“ Instead , his pardons and commutations are mostly self-serving — he ’ s given them to people who are cronies or who can help him somehow in his political battles.
” But perhaps what is especially worrying when it comes to presidential pardons is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically unlimited : Preemptive pardons are constitutional , and even a pardon obtained through bribery or a presidential self-pardon might end up standing up in court .
Ultimately , the Biden administration would likely have to be willing to challenge a Trump self-pardon in court — and it ’ s far from clear that Biden , who has been calling for unity in the wake of the election , would be willing to do that .
Because it ’ s so hard to contest a pardon — even one that is clearly outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intended use — the legal experts I spoke with were concerned that Trump ’ s use of the clemency power could pave the way for even further abuses .
A president could , for instance , convince subordinates to commit crimes with the promise of a pardon on the other end .
That last scenario isn ’ t even all that far-fetched .
As the Watergate scandal unraveled , Nixon secretly promised his aides that they would be pardoned , although he ultimately didn ’ t follow through .
So far , presidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pardon power by norms and fear of political backlash .
What ’ s more , Congress can ’ t rein in a president ’ s pardon power .
Any limits on a president ’ s ability to grant clemency — short of a Supreme Court ruling on something undecided , like a self-pardon — would have to come via a constitutional amendment , which would be very difficult to do .
In the meantime , though , Americans might come to conclude that pardons and commutations are simply an avenue for presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more of a political minefield .
That would be an issue , too , Barkow said , since people who are convicted of federal crimes aren ’ t usually eligible for parole , meaning an act of presidential clemency may be their only hope for a reprieve .
“ I ’ m a big believer in clemency , because there ’ s always a need for it — laws are written too broadly , judges give sentences that are too long , people change over time and they need their records cleared , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think presidents should be using it a lot more .
But when the power is abused , it becomes a lot harder to make that case .
”

As President Donald Trump heads into his last few weeks in the White House, there are signs that a slew of high-profile pardons could be coming, including those for close allies like Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s family members or even Trump himself. These pardons, if they happen, could be quite expansive — granting blanket immunity for crimes for which Trump’s allies and family members haven’t even been charged, much less convicted. At the very least, they would almost certainly be controversial, as many of Trump’s pardons already have been.
The electoral problems facing Republicans | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
Trump wouldn’t be the first president to issue a lot of pardons at the end of his presidency, nor the first to grant a controversial pardon. But legal experts say Trump’s record on pardons — especially if he ends up using his last days in office to issue get-out-of-jail-free cards to family members or himself — could set a dangerous precedent for two reasons.
[How Trump Changed America]
First, Trump has been unusually stingy with the pardon power up until now, even by modern standards. And second, almost all of his acts of clemency (which include commutations as well as pardons) have gone to people he knows, like former national security adviser Michael Flynn, or to those with whom he may curry political favor, like the two Oregon cattle ranchers who were at the center of a dispute over federal land involving states’ rights activist Ammon Bundy.
That track record, legal experts told me, is pretty much the exact opposite of how the presidential pardon power was intended to function, which was as a check on abuses by the legislative or judicial branches. “Many of Trump’s pardons … could fairly be characterized as more about his personal interests than serving justice,” Jeffrey Crouch, a professor at American University and an expert on executive clemency, said in an email. “Pardons are normally granted to people who have turned their lives around, shown remorse and want a pardon,” Crouch told me, adding that this just isn’t the story line that has emerged from four years of Trump. “[His] clemency approach is that clemency is less available to average people than it is to those with the right group of connections.”
Trump wouldn’t be the first president to go on a lame-duck pardoning binge
If Trump ends up issuing a large number of pardons and commutations in the waning days of his presidency, that wouldn’t be a huge surprise. As the table below shows, modern presidents have tended to wait until the end of their presidency to start breaking out their pardoning pen in earnest.
Presidents often wait to issue pardons Share of total pardons, commutations and other clemency grants issued by each president in the last fiscal year of their presidency FY President share of total clemency grants issued 1981 Carter 14% – 1989 Reagan 8 – 1993 HW Bush 49 – 2001 Clinton 56 – 2009 W Bush 19 – 2017 Obama 61 – Federal fiscal years run from Oct. 1 – Sept. 30, so this reflects the last four months of a presidency. Source: Office of the U.S. Pardon Attorney
President Bill Clinton, for instance, granted clemency to more than 100 people on the last day of his presidency alone, including an especially controversial pardon for Marc Rich, a fugitive financier who had fled the country and was living in Switzerland, and whose ex-wife was a longtime financial supporter of Clinton’s. And President Barack Obama, as part of a broader effort to help federal prisoners serving long sentences as the result of the tough-on-crime policies of the 1980s and 1990s, commuted the sentences of nearly 2,000 drug offenders during his last week in office.
Fear of political backlash has often kept presidents from using their pardon power until they have one foot out the door, according to Rachel Barkow, a professor at New York University Law School who has studied the clemency power. “They’re not as worried about taking a political hit at that point if someone they [grant clemency to] unfortunately commits a heinous crime,” she said.
That might explain why some of the most controversial pardons in modern history have come as a president was leaving office — particularly something like a “preemptive” pardon, in which the recipient is absolved of federal crimes of which they haven’t been convicted. Trump is reportedly considering such pardons for Giuliani and some of his adult children.
[What Makes A One-Term President?]
Preemptive pardons are rare, but Trump wouldn’t be the first president to grant one. A month after taking office, President Gerald Ford pardoned President Richard Nixon, who had resigned after being named a co-conspirator in a case involving the cover-up of the Watergate break-in. Ford pardoned Nixon before he could actually be charged, and he didn’t pardon him for just one specific crime either — his pardon forgave him for any federal crimes that he may have committed during his time in office.
On Christmas Eve in 1992, President George H.W. Bush pardoned former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger and several other people for their participation in the Reagan-era Iran-Contra scandal, effectively ending six years of legal proceedings before their trials started. That pardon was especially controversial because Bush was scheduled to testify as a witness in Weinberger’s trial, leading the prosecutor in the case to accuse Bush of participating in a “cover-up.”
Trump’s pardons have been simultaneously sparse and self-serving
For most presidents, though, controversial pardons are the exception, not the rule. Preemptive pardons are few and far between, and it’s similarly rare for presidents to pardon family members. Clinton did pardon his brother Roger, as part of his last-minute clemency spree, but Roger Clinton had already served time in prison. So it would still be very far outside the norm for Trump to pardon his family members — much less issue a pardon for himself, which no president has ever attempted (and may not be constitutional).
And even if Trump doesn’t preemptively pardon family members, allies or himself, experts pointed out that his use of the clemency power still looks quite different than other presidents. For one thing, Trump has been unusually sparing with pardons and commutations — even compared to other modern presidents who were criticized for using the power too stingily. Of course, there’s still time for that to change, but so far he’s granted clemency to fewer people than any other president in the modern era.
President Trump hasn’t used his pardon power much Total pardons, commutations and other forms of clemency granted by each president during their time in office President Pardons Commutations Other All Clemency Carter 534 29 3 566 Reagan 393 13 0 406 H.W. Bush 74 3 0 77 Clinton 396 61 2 459 W. Bush 189 11 0 200 Obama 212 1,715 0 1,927 Trump* 28 16 0 44 *Data from the Office of the U.S. Pardon Attorney except for the six issued in fiscal year 2021, which is sourced from news reports and is as of Dec. 9, 2020. “Other” includes forms of clemency that are less commonly used in the modern era, like respites and remissions. Source: Office of the U.S. Pardon Attorney, news reports
Additionally, according to an analysis by Lawfare, Trump’s pardons and commutations have gone almost exclusively to people he knows personally (like former Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff Joe Arpaio) or whose stories he heard about on Fox News (like former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich) — and not ordinary people who usually receive clemency because a president concludes that their sentences were unjust or that they’ve repaid their debt to society.
“He’s done virtually nothing for people who aren’t high-profile but want to cleanse their records or remove the collateral consequences of federal convictions,” said Daniel Kobil, a professor at Capital University Law School who studies executive clemency. “Instead, his pardons and commutations are mostly self-serving — he’s given them to people who are cronies or who can help him somehow in his political battles.”
Trump’s pardons could set a dangerous precedent
But perhaps what is especially worrying when it comes to presidential pardons is that the president’s power is basically unlimited: Preemptive pardons are constitutional, and even a pardon obtained through bribery or a presidential self-pardon might end up standing up in court. Ultimately, the Biden administration would likely have to be willing to challenge a Trump self-pardon in court — and it’s far from clear that Biden, who has been calling for unity in the wake of the election, would be willing to do that.
Because it’s so hard to contest a pardon — even one that is clearly outside the scope of the power’s intended use — the legal experts I spoke with were concerned that Trump’s use of the clemency power could pave the way for even further abuses. A president could, for instance, convince subordinates to commit crimes with the promise of a pardon on the other end. That last scenario isn’t even all that far-fetched. As the Watergate scandal unraveled, Nixon secretly promised his aides that they would be pardoned, although he ultimately didn’t follow through.
[How The 2020 Election Changed The Electoral Map]
So far, presidents have been constrained in their use of the pardon power by norms and fear of political backlash. What’s more, Congress can’t rein in a president’s pardon power. Any limits on a president’s ability to grant clemency — short of a Supreme Court ruling on something undecided, like a self-pardon — would have to come via a constitutional amendment, which would be very difficult to do. In the meantime, though, Americans might come to conclude that pardons and commutations are simply an avenue for presidential corruption, turning their use into even more of a political minefield. That would be an issue, too, Barkow said, since people who are convicted of federal crimes aren’t usually eligible for parole, meaning an act of presidential clemency may be their only hope for a reprieve.
“I’m a big believer in clemency, because there’s always a need for it — laws are written too broadly, judges give sentences that are too long, people change over time and they need their records cleared,” Barkow said. “In fact, I think presidents should be using it a lot more. But when the power is abused, it becomes a lot harder to make that case.”
Don’t believe anything 2020 exit polls tell you | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-10--How To Make Sure People Come Back For Their Second COVID-19 Vaccine Dose

I cried at my desk this week .
I could probably start every story I ’ ve written since February with that sentence but this was different .
They were tears of joy and hope as I watched the first people in the world receive the newly approved COVID-19 vaccines .
Now , those patients have an important task ahead of them : returning in a few weeks for a second dose .
Two the leading vaccine candidates — Pfizer ’ s and Moderna ’ s — require two doses to be effective , a daunting problem when you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How do you make sure everyone is coming back for their second shot ?
Our ability to stop the spread of COVID-19 depends on the answer .
If people only get one dose , they will not be fully protected , but may behave as if they are .
And even worse , there ’ s a fear that if enough people get only the first injection , the virus could develop resistance to the vaccine .
But this isn ’ t our first time trying to get people to take multiple doses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine for human papillomavirus ( HPV ) , for example .
The way officials ensured most people made it to that all-important follow-up appointment for that vaccine may hold important lessons for our current efforts .
First approved for use in 2006 , the vaccine to protect against HPV was slow to be adopted at first , with many parents concerned about the safety of a brand new vaccine .
HPV can cause a sexually transmitted infection that can lead to genital warts or cervical cancer , and the vaccine against it requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or three doses for patients who get the first dose after age 15 .
( It ’ s typically recommended for preteens and teens . )
At first , many patients weren ’ t getting the full course of the vaccine .
In 2008 , 37.2 percent of adolescents had received the first dose of the HPV vaccine , while 17.9 percent had received all the recommended doses , according to an annual vaccine survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
By 2019 , those rates had increased : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least one dose of the vaccine and 54.2 percent were up to date with the full course .
While about one out of every four adolescents who started the vaccine series didn ’ t complete it , that ’ s better than a decade ago , when about half of those who got a first shot never finished the series .
That gap has been closing in part due to a number of strategies — most of them pretty simple .
“ We did a study on why parents didn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most common reason was they weren ’ t reminded , ” said Dr. Rebecca Perkins , an obstetrics and gynecology professor at Boston University .
“ They ’ d say , ‘ Wait , I thought they were done.
’ They just didn ’ t realize.
” Simple strategies like booking follow-up appointments at the time of the first dose , or sending reminders via text , phone or email , have been found to be effective in increasing the likelihood that patients complete the HPV vaccine course , and may be useful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doses of the COVID-19 vaccine .
A review of this research in 2019 found that combining approaches ( such as having doctors remind patients about the second dose when they visit , as well as providing text message reminders and setting up appointments ) was most effective at increasing completion rates for the HPV vaccine .
The CDC has required every state put together a COVID-19 vaccine distribution plan that includes strategies for ensuring patients come back for their second dose .
Those strategies vary by state , but typically include some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the HPV vaccine .
States also already have vaccine database systems ( with the exception of New Hampshire , though it ’ s building one now ) that should make this easy to roll out , according to Dr. Marcus Plescia , the chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials .
“ All states but one have vaccine registries and those have been scaled back up and expanded , which will allow states to know who has had the first dose , what they had , and where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states can also use the registry proactively to send out reminders for people to come in for their second dose .
They ’ re already used this way , often , for childhood vaccines.
” There are , of course , some important differences between HPV and COVID-19 vaccines .
One is timing : The HPV doses are given months apart , while the COVID-19 doses are only spaced out by a few weeks .
The population is different , too : The HPV vaccine is typically recommended for preteens and teens , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everybody , but certain populations like medical workers , people with underlying conditions and the elderly will be prioritized .
And perhaps the biggest difference of all : the urgency .
The HPV vaccine is given to kids to protect them from a potential infection they might encounter at some point in the future .
The COVID-19 vaccine is designed to stop an ongoing , deadly global pandemic .
Those differences may make people more likely to come back for that second dose .
“ We keep seeing the number of infections , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a constant reminder to people of the severity of this pandemic , ” said Robert Bednarczyk , an epidemiologist at Emory University .
“ That helps people recognize the importance that , if they ’ re going to get vaccinated , they need to make sure they get fully vaccinated.
” So we hope .
But there are reasons that patients might not come back for the second dose .
Concerns about shortages may dissuade people , according to Bednarczyk , so health networks should offer patients backup locations at which to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first location is running low .
There ’ s also the risk of side effects .
Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines can cause fever or aches , which might make people less keen on coming back for another jab .
The pandemic ’ s urgency is such that experts say we should be making every effort to ensure complete coverage of those who decide to get vaccinated .
The stakes are incredibly high , so why not pull out all the stops ?
There are also other ideas being floated , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The idea is that if we give people a financial incentive only for the second dose of the vaccine , we ’ ll increase the likelihood of completion .
Ex-congressman and former presidential candidate John Delaney suggested the government offer a substantial cash reward of $ 1,500 for completing the vaccine series , as a stimulus check and vaccine incentive in one .
Dr. A .
Mark Fendrick , the director of the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design , says a much lower investment could do the trick .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modest and think somewhere between $ 25 and $ 50 would effectively move the needle , ” Fendrick said , adding research shows this can be effective .
“ As my mother would say , ‘ I can ’ t believe you have to do research to show if you pay people to do something they ’ ll do it more often than if you don ’ t pay them.
’ ” Given these are new vaccines , and the country is facing one of the biggest widespread public immunization efforts in half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of unknowns .
This will be a massive undertaking , but the stakes couldn ’ t be higher .

I cried at my desk this week. I could probably start every story I’ve written since February with that sentence but this was different. They were tears of joy and hope as I watched the first people in the world receive the newly approved COVID-19 vaccines.
[Related: How To Trust That A COVID-19 Vaccine Is Safe]
Now, those patients have an important task ahead of them: returning in a few weeks for a second dose. Two of the leading vaccine candidates — Pfizer’s and Moderna’s — require two doses to be effective, a daunting problem when you’re trying to vaccinate entire nations. How do you make sure everyone is coming back for their second shot? Our ability to stop the spread of COVID-19 depends on the answer. If people only get one dose, they will not be fully protected, but may behave as if they are. And even worse, there’s a fear that if enough people get only the first injection, the virus could develop resistance to the vaccine.
How COVID-19 vaccines work
But this isn’t our first time trying to get people to take multiple doses of a new vaccine: take the vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), for example. The way officials ensured most people made it to that all-important follow-up appointment for that vaccine may hold important lessons for our current efforts.
First approved for use in 2006, the vaccine to protect against HPV was slow to be adopted at first, with many parents concerned about the safety of a brand new vaccine. HPV can cause a sexually transmitted infection that can lead to genital warts or cervical cancer, and the vaccine against it requires two doses at least six months apart, or three doses for patients who get the first dose after age 15. (It’s typically recommended for preteens and teens.)
At first, many patients weren’t getting the full course of the vaccine. In 2008, 37.2 percent of adolescents had received the first dose of the HPV vaccine, while 17.9 percent had received all the recommended doses, according to an annual vaccine survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2019, those rates had increased: 71.5 percent of teens had received at least one dose of the vaccine and 54.2 percent were up to date with the full course. While about one out of every four adolescents who started the vaccine series didn’t complete it, that’s better than a decade ago, when about half of those who got a first shot never finished the series.
That gap has been closing in part due to a number of strategies — most of them pretty simple.
“We did a study on why parents didn’t have their children complete the series and the most common reason was they weren’t reminded,”said Dr. Rebecca Perkins, an obstetrics and gynecology professor at Boston University. “They’d say, ‘Wait, I thought they were done.’ They just didn’t realize.”
Simple strategies like booking follow-up appointments at the time of the first dose, or sending reminders via text, phone or email, have been found to be effective in increasing the likelihood that patients complete the HPV vaccine course, and may be useful tools for making sure patients get both doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.
A review of this research in 2019 found that combining approaches (such as having doctors remind patients about the second dose when they visit, as well as providing text message reminders and setting up appointments) was most effective at increasing completion rates for the HPV vaccine. The CDC has required every state put together a COVID-19 vaccine distribution plan that includes strategies for ensuring patients come back for their second dose. Those strategies vary by state, but typically include some of the strategies that have proven effective for the HPV vaccine. States also already have vaccine database systems (with the exception of New Hampshire, though it’s building one now) that should make this easy to roll out, according to Dr. Marcus Plescia, the chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.
[What We Know About ‘Long COVID’]
“All states but one have vaccine registries and those have been scaled back up and expanded, which will allow states to know who has had the first dose, what they had, and where,” Plescia said. “But states can also use the registry proactively to send out reminders for people to come in for their second dose. They’re already used this way, often, for childhood vaccines.”
There are, of course, some important differences between HPV and COVID-19 vaccines. One is timing: The HPV doses are given months apart, while the COVID-19 doses are only spaced out by a few weeks. The population is different, too: The HPV vaccine is typically recommended for preteens and teens, while the coronavirus vaccine will be for everybody, but certain populations like medical workers, people with underlying conditions and the elderly will be prioritized. And perhaps the biggest difference of all: the urgency. The HPV vaccine is given to kids to protect them from a potential infection they might encounter at some point in the future. The COVID-19 vaccine is designed to stop an ongoing, deadly global pandemic. Those differences may make people more likely to come back for that second dose.
“We keep seeing the number of infections, the horrific death toll. It’s a constant reminder to people of the severity of this pandemic,” said Robert Bednarczyk, an epidemiologist at Emory University. “That helps people recognize the importance that, if they’re going to get vaccinated, they need to make sure they get fully vaccinated.”
So we hope. But there are reasons that patients might not come back for the second dose. Concerns about shortages may dissuade people, according to Bednarczyk, so health networks should offer patients backup locations at which to get their second shot in case the first location is running low. There’s also the risk of side effects. Both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines can cause fever or aches, which might make people less keen on coming back for another jab.
The pandemic’s urgency is such that experts say we should be making every effort to ensure complete coverage of those who decide to get vaccinated. The stakes are incredibly high, so why not pull out all the stops?
[Related: What A Summer Of COVID-19 Taught Scientists About Indoor vs. Outdoor Transmission]
There are also other ideas being floated, too, including incentivizing patients with cash. The idea is that if we give people a financial incentive only for the second dose of the vaccine, we’ll increase the likelihood of completion. Ex-congressman and former presidential candidate John Delaney suggested the government offer a substantial cash reward of $1,500 for completing the vaccine series, as a stimulus check and vaccine incentive in one. Dr. A. Mark Fendrick, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Value-Based Insurance Design, says a much lower investment could do the trick.
“I’m a little more fiscally modest and think somewhere between $25 and $50 would effectively move the needle,” Fendrick said, adding research shows this can be effective. “As my mother would say, ‘I can’t believe you have to do research to show if you pay people to do something they’ll do it more often than if you don’t pay them.’”
Given these are new vaccines, and the country is facing one of the biggest widespread public immunization efforts in half a century, there are a lot of unknowns. This will be a massive undertaking, but the stakes couldn’t be higher.
COVID vaccine delivery day


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-11--Trump Hasn’t Pardoned Many People — But So Far They Have Been Mostly His Friends

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Galen Druke speaks with Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux about presidential pardons — why @ @ @ @ @ how they ’ ve used it in the past and how Trump ’ s record @ @ @ @ @ predecessors .

Trump Hasn’t Pardoned Many People — But So Far They Have Been Mostly His Friends
In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke speaks with Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux about presidential pardons — why presidents have that power, how they’ve used it in the past and how Trump’s record compares with that of his predecessors.
The electoral problems facing Republicans | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-10--Politics Podcast: How Trump’s Pardons Compare With Other Presidents’

According to various reports , President Trump is considering preemptively pardoning family members and allies before he leaves office , @ @ @ @ @ oldest children and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani .
Trump has already pardoned his ally Roger @ @ @ @ @ security adviser Michael Flynn .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Galen @ @ @ @ @ about why presidents have the power to pardon , how that power has been used @ @ @ @ @ s record compares with that of his predecessors .
You can listen to the episode @ @ @ @ @ ” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the @ @ @ @ @ podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
@ @ @ @ @ recorded Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a @ @ @ @ @ .
Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling @ @ @ @ @ by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

According to various reports, President Trump is considering preemptively pardoning family members and allies before he leaves office, which could include his three oldest children and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Trump has already pardoned his ally Roger Stone and his former national security adviser Michael Flynn. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke speaks with Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux about why presidents have the power to pardon, how that power has been used historically and how Trump’s record compares with that of his predecessors.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-10--Do NFL Teams Really Get A Bounce After Firing Their Coaches?

Matt Patricia didn ’ t beat the Chicago Bears once in five tries as Detroit Lions head coach .
Not only did his Lions go 0-5 against their divisional rival over three seasons , they were outscored by an average of 6.8 points per game .
But in the first game after Patricia was fired , the Lions beat the Bears 34-30 .
This prompted a slew of local media reports about how laid-back offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell had “ changed the culture ” in Detroit , less than a week after replacing Patricia on an interim basis .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Atlanta Falcons ’ interim head coach , who ’ s gone 4-3 since replacing Dan Quinn in October .
In fact , the NFL ’ s three active interim head coaches — Bevell , Morris and the Houston Texans ’ Romeo Crennel — are 9-7 on the season with a plus-63 scoring differential .
The Lions , Falcons and Texans went 4-16 under their original coaches , and they were outscored by 161 points in the process .
The financial world has a macabre name for this kind of phenomenon : The “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mid-1980s to describe a temporary rally in oil prices during a long decline , the idea is that while the body of a dead cat might bounce if you drop it from a tall enough building , the bounce doesn ’ t mean the cat isn ’ t still dead .
It ’ s since been used to describe similar patterns in all financial markets .
But does it also apply to losing NFL teams ?
In Detroit , Patricia ’ s abrasive style created “ a toxic relationship with his locker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kyle Meinke , and the public celebrations of his firing by many recent former Lions made national headlines .
It ’ s not hard to envision a celebratory locker-room mood leading to the culture change described by beat writers .
But is this kind of addition-by-subtraction really something that happens consistently across the NFL ?
There have been 11 midseason coach firings over the past five NFL seasons .
According to ESPN Stats & Information Group , the same teams performed better across the board after their coaches got their walking papers : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per-game scoring and yardage margins , and turnover and time-of-possession margins were all stronger under the interim coaches than the former skippers .
But a dead cat is still a dead cat , and “ stronger ” is relative .
A .396 winning percentage is better than .270 , but a team winning 6.3 games in a season won ’ t make most NFL fanbases much happier than winning 4.3 .
That seems to be reflected in offseason hiring cycles .
Of the eight interim head coaches who took over in the 2016-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the permanent gig : Doug Marrone , who ’ s gone 22-38 ( .367 ) in four seasons as full-time head coach of the Jacksonville Jaguars .
Marrone ’ s general manager was just fired , and as of Dec. 9 , Marrone himself was the fourth-most-likely coach to be fired next , per BetOnline.ag .
The dead-coach bounce is real — but NFL management seems to know not to mistake that bounce for life .
Looking ahead : The best game of the upcoming week on paper probably involves the Bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matchup of two top-five teams in our Elo rankings .
However , while that game has seeding consequences , particularly for Pittsburgh — which has only a 40 percent chance for the AFC ’ s No .
1 seed , despite its 11-1 record — both teams are pretty firmly in the playoff field , with the Steelers all but clinching and the Bills sitting at 96 percent .
The far more consequential game for the playoff picture pits the Colts ( the AFC ’ s No .
7 seed ) against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a battle to snag the conference ’ s final postseason slot .
Although Indy was embarrassed by Tennessee at home in Week 12 , it bounced back with a solid-enough win at the Texans , with QB Philip Rivers playing well .
At 8-4 , the Colts have a one-game lead over both the Ravens and the Raiders , who maintained their own playoff hopes after a miracle win over the Jets .
With a victory Sunday , Indianapolis would be strongly favored ( 88 percent ) to make the playoffs , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to just 23 percent — but if the Raiders win , they would leapfrog Indy in the playoff odds , 70 percent to 46 percent .
( Baltimore ’ s odds would stay at 59 percent no matter who wins . )
Despite being on the road here , the Colts are the better team in our model ’ s eyes , and it gives them a 55 percent shot at the crucial victory .
Elo ’ s spread : Indianapolis -1½

Matt Patricia didn’t beat the Chicago Bears once in five tries as Detroit Lions head coach. Not only did his Lions go 0-5 against their divisional rival over three seasons, they were outscored by an average of 6.8 points per game. But in the first game after Patricia was fired, the Lions beat the Bears 34-30.
This prompted a slew of local media reports about how laid-back offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell had “changed the culture” in Detroit, less than a week after replacing Patricia on an interim basis. These echoed stories about Raheem Morris, the Atlanta Falcons’ interim head coach, who’s gone 4-3 since replacing Dan Quinn in October.
In fact, the NFL’s three active interim head coaches — Bevell, Morris and the Houston Texans’ Romeo Crennel — are 9-7 on the season with a plus-63 scoring differential. The Lions, Falcons and Texans went 4-16 under their original coaches, and they were outscored by 161 points in the process.
The financial world has a macabre name for this kind of phenomenon: The “dead cat bounce.” First used in the mid-1980s to describe a temporary rally in oil prices during a long decline, the idea is that while the body of a dead cat might bounce if you drop it from a tall enough building, the bounce doesn’t mean the cat isn’t still dead. It’s since been used to describe similar patterns in all financial markets. But does it also apply to losing NFL teams?
Who’s the most chaotic fictional football coach? | FiveThirtyEight
In Detroit, Patricia’s abrasive style created “a toxic relationship with his locker room,” per Mlive.com’s Kyle Meinke, and the public celebrations of his firing by many recent former Lions made national headlines. It’s not hard to envision a celebratory locker-room mood leading to the culture change described by beat writers. But is this kind of addition-by-subtraction really something that happens consistently across the NFL?
[The Jets’ No-Good, Rotten, Very Bad Play]
There have been 11 midseason coach firings over the past five NFL seasons. According to ESPN Stats & Information Group, the same teams performed better across the board after their coaches got their walking papers:
Teams have performed better after coach firings Difference in key metrics between head NFL coaches who were fired and the interim coaches who replaced them, 2016-20 seasons Margin/game Total margin Coaches Win % Efficiency Points Yards Turnovers Time of Poss. Fired 0.270 34.85 -5.37 -36.88 -20 -36:50 Interim 0.396 39.06 -4.36 -29.58 -11 -20:58 Difference +0.126 +4.21 +1.01 +7.30 +9 +15:52 Includes 111 games for the coaches who were fired and 53 games for interim coaches. Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group
Winning percentage, average total efficiency, per-game scoring and yardage margins, and turnover and time-of-possession margins were all stronger under the interim coaches than the former skippers.
But a dead cat is still a dead cat, and “stronger” is relative. A .396 winning percentage is better than .270, but a team winning 6.3 games in a season won’t make most NFL fanbases much happier than winning 4.3.
[Who’s The Most Chaotic Movie Football Coach?]
That seems to be reflected in offseason hiring cycles. Of the eight interim head coaches who took over in the 2016-19 seasons, only one was then hired for the permanent gig: Doug Marrone, who’s gone 22-38 (.367) in four seasons as full-time head coach of the Jacksonville Jaguars. Marrone’s general manager was just fired, and as of Dec. 9, Marrone himself was the fourth-most-likely coach to be fired next, per BetOnline.ag.
The dead-coach bounce is real — but NFL management seems to know not to mistake that bounce for life.
FiveThirtyEight’s NFL Elo ratings How each team ranks through Week 13 of the 2020 season, according to our quarterback-adjusted predictions Chance To … Rk Team Starting QB QB Rk* Elo Rating Proj. Wins Make Playoffs Win Div. Win SB 1 Chiefs Mahomes 1 1763 14.0 100% >99% 29% 2 Steelers R’lisberger 6 1662 13.6 >99 95 10 3 Packers Rodgers 2 1649 12.0 >99 >99 9 4 Bills Allen 5 1633 11.5 96 91 5 5 Ravens Jackson 7 1611 10.0 59 0 2 6 Rams Goff 11 1604 10.7 99 60 3 7 Bucs Brady 10 1585 9.7 84 <1 2 8 Colts Rivers 15 1585 10.5 69 38 2 9 Titans Tannehill 9 1581 10.6 87 62 2 10 Browns Mayfield 20 1575 11.4 91 5 1 11 Seahawks Wilson 8 1568 10.5 97 39 2 12 Saints Hill 31 1561 12.9 100 >99 30 13 Patriots Newton 19 1546 8.1 13 2 <1 14 Vikings Cousins 14 1537 7.9 40 <1 <1 15 49ers Mullens 26 1518 7.3 26 <1 <1 16 Raiders Carr 12 1513 9.3 45 <1 <1 17 Dolphins Tagovailoa 25 1511 9.5 40 7 <1 18 Cardinals Murray 4 1485 8.0 37 2 <1 19 Wash. Smith 21 1482 7.0 43 40 <1 20 Texans Watson 3 1474 6.0 <1 <1 <1 21 Falcons Ryan 18 1473 5.4 <1 0 <1 22 Panthers Bridgewater 13 1459 5.4 <1 0 <1 23 Giants Jones 22 1456 6.8 54 53 <1 24 Broncos Lock 29 1453 5.7 <1 0 <1 25 Bears Trubisky† 23 1450 6.8 9 <1 <1 26 Eagles Hurts 28 1407 5.1 5 5 <1 27 Chargers Herbert 16 1384 4.3 0 0 0 28 Lions Stafford 17 1373 6.0 3 <1 <1 29 Cowboys Dalton 27 1342 4.6 2 2 <1 30 Jaguars Glennon 24 1288 1.8 0 0 0 31 Jets Darnold 30 1265 0.5 0 0 0 32 Bengals Allen 32 1254 3.4 0 0 0 *Ranking among Week 14 starters, according to our QB Elo ratings. ✚ Starter is currently injured and may not play. †Starter could be replaced for performance reasons. Simulations as of Dec. 10, 2020. Source: ESPN
Looking ahead: The best game of the upcoming week on paper probably involves the Bills and Steelers on Sunday night, a matchup of two top-five teams in our Elo rankings. However, while that game has seeding consequences, particularly for Pittsburgh — which has only a 40 percent chance for the AFC’s No. 1 seed, despite its 11-1 record — both teams are pretty firmly in the playoff field, with the Steelers all but clinching and the Bills sitting at 96 percent. The far more consequential game for the playoff picture pits the Colts (the AFC’s No. 7 seed) against the Raiders (No. 8) in a battle to snag the conference’s final postseason slot. Although Indy was embarrassed by Tennessee at home in Week 12, it bounced back with a solid-enough win at the Texans, with QB Philip Rivers playing well. At 8-4, the Colts have a one-game lead over both the Ravens and the Raiders, who maintained their own playoff hopes after a miracle win over the Jets. With a victory Sunday, Indianapolis would be strongly favored (88 percent) to make the playoffs, while Las Vegas’s odds would fall to just 23 percent — but if the Raiders win, they would leapfrog Indy in the playoff odds, 70 percent to 46 percent. (Baltimore’s odds would stay at 59 percent no matter who wins.) Despite being on the road here, the Colts are the better team in our model’s eyes, and it gives them a 55 percent shot at the crucial victory. Elo’s spread: Indianapolis -1½
Neil Paine contributed research.
Check out our latest NFL predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-11--How High Can You Count With Menorah Math?

Welcome to The Riddler .
Every week , I offer up problems related to the things we hold dear around here : math , logic and probability .
Two puzzles are presented each week : the Riddler Express for those of you who want something bite-size and the Riddler Classic for those of you in the slow-puzzle movement .
Submit a correct answer for either , and you may get a shoutout in next week ’ s column .
Please wait until Monday to publicly share your answers !
If you need a hint or have a favorite puzzle collecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter .
Yesterday was the first night of Hanukkah , which means millions of Jews began lighting their menorahs .
It is traditional to start with one candle in the rightmost position , which is lit using a central candle called a shamash .
On the second night , a second candle is added to the left of the first .
On the third night , a third candle is added to the left of the second , and so on , until all eight candles have been added on the final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candles , whether you are looking at the menorah from the front ( i.e.
, in your home ) or back ( i.e.
, through a window ) , you can easily determine which of the eight nights of Hanukkah it is by counting the number of candles ( other than the shamash ) .
But what if you wanted to make that same menorah capable of tracking more than eight nights ?
To do that , you ’ d have to devise a new system of adding or moving candles ( other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is always lit ) around the menorah so that it can uniquely indicate as many nights as possible .
Your system must read the same forward and backward , so that regardless of whether you ’ re looking at the menorah from the front or the back you will still know what night it is .
What is the greatest number of nights that could be indicated using your system ?
From Alex van den Brandhof comes a matter of life and death : The Potentate of Puzzles decides to give five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has countless red hats , green hats and blue hats .
She says to the citizens , “ Tomorrow , you will all be blindfolded as I place one of these hats on each of your heads .
Once all the hats are placed , your blindfolds will be removed .
At this point , there will be no communication between any of you !
As soon as I give a signal , everyone must guess — at the same time — the color of the hat atop their own head .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all of you will survive !
Otherwise … ” The potentate continues : “ The good news is that there ’ s a little more information you ’ ll have .
I will be arranging you into two rows facing each other , with two of you in one row and three of you in the other .
Citizens in the same row can not see each other , but they can see all the citizens in the other row .
Finally , each citizen will know their placement within their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are seated on the left or right or in the middle.
” Can the citizens devise a strategy beforehand that ensures their survival ?
If so , what is the strategy ?
Congratulations to 👏 Helen Jannke 👏 of Acton , Massachusetts , winner of last week ’ s Riddler Express .
Last week , a family of five had a book exchange for Christmas .
First , each person put their name in a hat .
The hat was shaken , and then each person drew a name from the hat and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if anyone drew their own name , they all put their names back into the hat and started over .
What is the probability that no one drew their own name ?
There were five possible names the first person could have drawn , four names the second person could draw , three for the third , two for the fourth and just one for the fifth .
That meant the total number of scenarios to consider here was 5·4·3·2·1 — that is , 5 !
, or 120 .
For many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it was possible to list out all 120 possibilities and count up how many of them resulted in no one drawing their own name .
But with some clever counting , you could add up these cases more efficiently .
One way to do this was to represent the five people as five points on a directed graph .
Then , if person A drew the name of person B , you drew a line from point A to point B on the graph .
After you drew all five lines ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were three possibilities : • The lines formed one big cycle , looping around all five points before returning to the start .
• The lines formed two cycles , one with three points and another with two points .
• One of the lines connected a point to itself .
It was that third case — when a line connected a point to itself — that was problematic .
It meant that someone had drawn their own name from the hat .
Fortunately , counting up the first two cases was manageable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you could pick any point to start with .
There were four remaining points to which you could draw a line .
From that selected point , there were three points to visit next — then two , and then one , before returning back to your starting point .
All told , that accounted for 4 !
, or 24 , unique cycles .
Counting up the graphs with two cycles ( one with three points and the other with two ) was a little trickier .
First you had to choose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of two , while the remaining three points were then relegated to the cycle of three .
There were 5 choose 2 , or 10 , ways to do this .
Then , for each of these 10 ways , there was just one way to link up two points to make a cycle ( each point went to the other ) , but two ways to link up three points ( i.e.
, they could loop clockwise or counterclockwise ) .
That made for 20 graphs with two cycles .
And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 44 of them ( 24 + 20 ) had no points connected to themselves .
That meant the probability that no one picked their own name was 44/120 , or 11/30 , or about 0.37 .
On average , it would take the family of five about three drawings to get a successful one in which no one chose their own name .
This problem was equivalent to finding the probability that a random permutation of five people was also a derangement , meaning no one wound up in their own starting position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objects is commonly written as !
N .
That meant the probability that no one picked their own name from a family of N could be written as !
N/N !
— a delightful notational palindrome .
As the number of family members continued to increase , !
N/N !
approached a rather remarkable value , for which 11/30 ( this week ’ s answer ) was a decent approximation .
To learn more , I recommend David Ding ’ s writeup of this puzzle .
Congratulations to 👏 Angela Zhou 👏 of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week ’ s Riddler Classic .
Last week , three friends were baking holiday cookies together .
They had a flat layer of cookie dough in the shape of an isosceles right triangle ( shown below ) .
They wanted to design a cookie cutter that would cut out three identical ( i.e.
, congruent ) cookies .
The cookies had to be as large as possible while staying within the triangle and without overlapping each other .
Had there been two friends or four friends , they could have used all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some dough went to waste .
What was the greatest percentage of cookie dough that could be used up by the three identical cookies ?
This was a delicious challenge .
Full disclosure : According to the puzzle ’ s submitter , Dean Ballard , this puzzle was proposed by Karl Scherer of Auckland , New Zealand , in the 2002-03 volume of the Journal of Recreational Mathematics .
Along with the problem , Sherer submitted a solution that used exactly 90 percent of the cookie dough .
Two issues later , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which we ’ ll return to in just a moment .
For now , here are a few of the top submissions from the past week : Bram Carlson used approximately 86.6 percent of the cookie dough with a cyclic quadrilateral cookie cutter : Ignas from London , England , used approximately 90.3 percent of the cookie dough with a a truncated parallelogram cutter : Meanwhile , Thomas Stone did a shade better than Ignas , using approximately 91.3 percent of the cookie dough with a funky-looking hexagonal cookie cutter : Angela Zhou @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used approximately 94.1 percent of the cookie dough with a trapezoidal cookie cutter .
This was exactly the same result that Dean achieved almost 20 years ago .
But the story didn ’ t end there .
According to Dean , in the very same issue in which his solution appeared , an even better solution had been identified by Robert Wainwright and Richard Hess , which used up almost 95.5 percent of the cookie dough : Dean and I believe this remains an open problem .
If you can do even better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
For extra credit , you had to make three identical cookies from a sphinx of cookie dough .
Keen-eyed solvers noted that there was no restriction on the convexity of the cookie cutter .
That made it possible to get arbitrarily close to using 100 percent of the cookie dough .
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 @ @ @

Welcome to The Riddler. Every week, I offer up problems related to the things we hold dear around here: math, logic and probability. Two puzzles are presented each week: the Riddler Express for those of you who want something bite-size and the Riddler Classic for those of you in the slow-puzzle movement. Submit a correct answer for either, and you may get a shoutout in next week’s column. Please wait until Monday to publicly share your answers! If you need a hint or have a favorite puzzle collecting dust in your attic, find me on Twitter.
Riddler Express
Yesterday was the first night of Hanukkah, which means millions of Jews began lighting their menorahs. It is traditional to start with one candle in the rightmost position, which is lit using a central candle called a shamash. On the second night, a second candle is added to the left of the first. On the third night, a third candle is added to the left of the second, and so on, until all eight candles have been added on the final night.
With this system for adding candles, whether you are looking at the menorah from the front (i.e., in your home) or back (i.e., through a window), you can easily determine which of the eight nights of Hanukkah it is by counting the number of candles (other than the shamash). But what if you wanted to make that same menorah capable of tracking more than eight nights?
To do that, you’d have to devise a new system of adding or moving candles (other than the shamash in the middle, which is always lit) around the menorah so that it can uniquely indicate as many nights as possible. Your system must read the same forward and backward, so that regardless of whether you’re looking at the menorah from the front or the back you will still know what night it is. What is the greatest number of nights that could be indicated using your system?
The solution to this Riddler Express can be found in the following column.
Riddler Classic
From Alex van den Brandhof comes a matter of life and death:
The Potentate of Puzzles decides to give five unlucky citizens a test. The potentate has countless red hats, green hats and blue hats. She says to the citizens, “Tomorrow, you will all be blindfolded as I place one of these hats on each of your heads. Once all the hats are placed, your blindfolds will be removed. At this point, there will be no communication between any of you! As soon as I give a signal, everyone must guess — at the same time — the color of the hat atop their own head. If at least one of you guesses correctly, all of you will survive! Otherwise …”
The potentate continues: “The good news is that there’s a little more information you’ll have. I will be arranging you into two rows facing each other, with two of you in one row and three of you in the other. Citizens in the same row cannot see each other, but they can see all the citizens in the other row. Finally, each citizen will know their placement within their own row — that is, whether they are seated on the left or right or in the middle.”
Can the citizens devise a strategy beforehand that ensures their survival? If so, what is the strategy?
The solution to this Riddler Classic can be found in the following column.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Express
Congratulations to 👏 Helen Jannke 👏 of Acton, Massachusetts, winner of last week’s Riddler Express.
Last week, a family of five had a book exchange for Christmas. First, each person put their name in a hat. The hat was shaken, and then each person drew a name from the hat and gave that person a book. However, if anyone drew their own name, they all put their names back into the hat and started over.
What is the probability that no one drew their own name?
There were five possible names the first person could have drawn, four names the second person could draw, three for the third, two for the fourth and just one for the fifth. That meant the total number of scenarios to consider here was 5·4·3·2·1 — that is, 5!, or 120. For many solvers, this number was small enough that it was possible to list out all 120 possibilities and count up how many of them resulted in no one drawing their own name.
But with some clever counting, you could add up these cases more efficiently. One way to do this was to represent the five people as five points on a directed graph. Then, if person A drew the name of person B, you drew a line from point A to point B on the graph. After you drew all five lines (one for each drawing), there were three possibilities:
The lines formed one big cycle, looping around all five points before returning to the start.
big cycle, looping around all five points before returning to the start. The lines formed two cycles, one with three points and another with two points.
cycles, one with three points and another with two points. One of the lines connected a point to itself.
It was that third case — when a line connected a point to itself — that was problematic. It meant that someone had drawn their own name from the hat. Fortunately, counting up the first two cases was manageable.
To make one big cycle, you could pick any point to start with. There were four remaining points to which you could draw a line. From that selected point, there were three points to visit next — then two, and then one, before returning back to your starting point. All told, that accounted for 4!, or 24, unique cycles.
Counting up the graphs with two cycles (one with three points and the other with two) was a little trickier. First you had to choose which two points belonged in the cycle of two, while the remaining three points were then relegated to the cycle of three. There were 5 choose 2, or 10, ways to do this. Then, for each of these 10 ways, there was just one way to link up two points to make a cycle (each point went to the other), but two ways to link up three points (i.e., they could loop clockwise or counterclockwise). That made for 20 graphs with two cycles.
And so, among the 120 possible graphs, 44 of them (24 + 20) had no points connected to themselves. That meant the probability that no one picked their own name was 44/120, or 11/30, or about 0.37. On average, it would take the family of five about three drawings to get a successful one in which no one chose their own name.
This problem was equivalent to finding the probability that a random permutation of five people was also a derangement, meaning no one wound up in their own starting position. The number of derangements for N objects is commonly written as !N. That meant the probability that no one picked their own name from a family of N could be written as !N/N! — a delightful notational palindrome.
As the number of family members continued to increase, !N/N! approached a rather remarkable value, for which 11/30 (this week’s answer) was a decent approximation. To learn more, I recommend David Ding’s writeup of this puzzle.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Classic
Congratulations to 👏 Angela Zhou 👏 of New York City, winner of last week’s Riddler Classic.
Last week, three friends were baking holiday cookies together. They had a flat layer of cookie dough in the shape of an isosceles right triangle (shown below). They wanted to design a cookie cutter that would cut out three identical (i.e., congruent) cookies. The cookies had to be as large as possible while staying within the triangle and without overlapping each other.
Had there been two friends or four friends, they could have used all the cookie dough, but with three friends, some dough went to waste.
What was the greatest percentage of cookie dough that could be used up by the three identical cookies?
This was a delicious challenge. Full disclosure: According to the puzzle’s submitter, Dean Ballard, this puzzle was proposed by Karl Scherer of Auckland, New Zealand, in the 2002-03 volume of the Journal of Recreational Mathematics. Along with the problem, Sherer submitted a solution that used exactly 90 percent of the cookie dough. Two issues later, Dean had his own solution published, which we’ll return to in just a moment.
For now, here are a few of the top submissions from the past week:
Bram Carlson used approximately 86.6 percent of the cookie dough with a cyclic quadrilateral cookie cutter:
Ignas from London, England, used approximately 90.3 percent of the cookie dough with a a truncated parallelogram cutter:
Meanwhile, Thomas Stone did a shade better than Ignas, using approximately 91.3 percent of the cookie dough with a funky-looking hexagonal cookie cutter:
Angela Zhou, this week’s winner, used approximately 94.1 percent of the cookie dough with a trapezoidal cookie cutter. This was exactly the same result that Dean achieved almost 20 years ago.
But the story didn’t end there. According to Dean, in the very same issue in which his solution appeared, an even better solution had been identified by Robert Wainwright and Richard Hess, which used up almost 95.5 percent of the cookie dough:
Dean and I believe this remains an open problem. If you can do even better than 95.5 percent, let us know!
For extra credit, you had to make three identical cookies from a sphinx of cookie dough. Keen-eyed solvers noted that there was no restriction on the convexity of the cookie cutter. That made it possible to get arbitrarily close to using 100 percent of the cookie dough.
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