fivethirthyeight--2020-08-03--There Have Been 38 Statewide Elections During The Pandemic. Here’s How They Went.

In mid-March , as businesses shuttered , hospitals filled up and Americans hunkered down at home , election officials faced a difficult question : Was it even possible to hold safe and accessible elections in the age of COVID-19 ?
More than four months later , we ’ re not that much closer to answering that question .
Since the World Health Organization declared an official pandemic on March 11 , 37 states plus Washington , D.C. , have held statewide primaries for president or state-level office .
And while those that have gone poorly have tended to grab the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
Ultimately , it ’ s been hard to assess how well our democracy has adapted to the pandemic .
So here ’ s a snapshot of all 38 statewide elections since the pandemic started and what macro trends we ’ ve been able to observe so far .
First , most states — and almost all those that actually made an effort to do so — were wildly successful at getting people to vote by mail ( or at least vote before election day ) .
In 24 out of 35 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a majority of ballots were cast absentee .
In addition , every state but one made more use of absentee ballots than it did in the equivalent election in 2016 .
Considering what a massive logistical undertaking it is to switch to a predominantly mail election , this is an impressive achievement by election officials .
( Of course , as we ’ ll cover below , it didn ’ t always go off without a hitch . )
Unsurprisingly , states that mailed every voter a ballot saw the highest share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s hard to definitively say that was the reason , as these states also offered few polling places — or , in Alaska , Hawaii , Kansas , Utah and Wyoming , no polling places at all .
However , other ways of encouraging mail voting had more mixed results .
For instance , in the states that just mailed voters absentee-ballot applications or instructions for how to apply for an absentee ballot , there was anywhere from 45 percent absentee participation in Delaware to 84 percent in Nebraska .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the 100 percent absentee rates in Idaho and North Dakota — they , too , eliminated in-person voting . )
What we do know is the states that did not mail voters anything to nudge them toward voting absentee ( such as Illinois , with 9 percent absentee participation , and Oklahoma , with 14 percent absentee participation ) tended to have the lowest shares of absentee voters , and the smallest increases from 2016 .
The same was true of states like Louisiana and Texas , which still required voters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A notable exception was Wisconsin , where 75 percent of votes were cast absentee despite nothing being mailed to them .
Most likely , the intense news coverage predicting doom and gloom for Wisconsin ’ s primary caused Wisconsinites to heed the state government ’ s advice and request absentee ballots ; both Joe Biden ’ s and Bernie Sanders ’ s campaigns also encouraged their supporters to vote by mail .
Of course , just because a state conducted its primary predominantly by mail does not mean it will be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For starters , as the next table makes clear , most of these elections were low-turnout affairs : Anywhere from 3 percent to 46 percent of the voting eligible population turned out to vote in them , while presidential general elections have VEP turnout rates around 60 percent .
( And , needless to say , processing mail ballots for 60 percent of the population is a lot more challenging than processing mail ballots for 20 or 30 percent . )
But the good news is that the coronavirus doesn ’ t seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates .
Just as turnout in the presidential primaries before the pandemic hit was a bit above 2016 levels , 22 of the 34 elections for which we have the relevant data actually saw their VEP turnout race increase over the equivalent election in 2016 .
Admittedly , turnout did plummet in many states this year — but for most of them , there is a compelling reason unrelated to the coronavirus .
States like Delaware , Indiana , Louisiana , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Rhode Island and Wisconsin went from hosting contested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Republican ) in 2016 to being virtually irrelevant to the delegate math this year ( both President Trump and Joe Biden sewed up their respective nominations by the end of March ) .
And Arizona did not even hold a Republican presidential primary this year , which explains its huge drop-off in turnout .
But if the pandemic significantly suppressed turnout , it was probably in Illinois , where VEP turnout went from 40 percent in the 2016 primary to 25 percent in the 2020 primary .
The pandemic seems like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the drop-off : Illinois experienced long lines and other problems on election day ( see below ) , and because the primary was held just days after the country locked down , voters didn ’ t really have time to request absentee ballots — nor did the state have time to mail them anything .
( The lack of a competitive GOP presidential primary this year also explains a lot of the drop-off but not all . )
Similarly , there were non-pandemic-related reasons for the turnout increases in many states .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to unaffiliated voters ; Oklahoma and Utah simply had more interesting races on the ballot in 2020 than in 2016 .
There were also states like Kentucky and Nebraska that didn ’ t hold one party ’ s presidential primary in 2016 , and states like Alabama , Texas and Virginia , where there were no statewide races in 2016 ( so many residents just didn ’ t have an election to vote in ) .
But there were several elections — in states like Idaho , Montana ( on the Democratic side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Dakota and South Dakota — where turnout did increase even though those states held equally or less competitive primaries in 2020 than in 2016 .
You could arguably add Iowa to that list too ; its 2020 down-ballot primaries were pretty competitive , but not enough to explain a 14-percentage-point turnout increase from 2016 .
It ’ s plausible that these states ’ embrace of mail voting helped expand the electorate ; all of them either mailed ballots or sent absentee-ballot applications to voters .
In addition , Kansas also saw turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spurred in part by the coronavirus , switched from a caucus in 2016 to an all-mail primary in 2020 ( caucuses are notorious for their low turnout ) .
There ’ s an important caveat here , though : Just because the coronavirus did not lower turnout overall does not mean it didn ’ t disenfranchise individual voters .
We know that at least some voters were unable to vote because of the pandemic .
Indeed , the primaries conducted during the pandemic have been far from the smooth sailing suggested above .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have occurred — some serious enough that they have made it harder for people to vote and even put them at a heightened risk for infection .
Two specific problems have come up again and again .
At least 16 jurisdictions saw long lines at polling places , which had often been consolidated due to a shortage of poll workers .
The unluckiest voters in Milwaukee waited two and a half hours to vote ; in Washington , D.C. , five ; in Las Vegas , seven .
And some voters in at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absentee ballots they had requested — sometimes weeks in advance .
In some states not used to a heavy volume of mail voting , understaffed election offices were receiving ballot requests faster than they could respond to them .
In six Ohio counties , about 4,500 people who requested an absentee ballot were not sent one because their request lacked essential information .
In one Pennsylvania county , officials simply ran out of time to fulfill 400 ballot requests and sent out 6,000 ballots the day before the primary , when they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be voted .
In Maryland , 1 million ballots were delivered either late or not at all .
Other problems were less rampant — but no less concerning .
In Illinois , multiple polling places lacked the proper voting equipment or cleaning supplies .
In Georgia , new voting machines did not work correctly , either because they malfunctioned or poll workers were not adequately trained .
In Florida , Illinois and New York , truant poll workers caused some polling places to open late .
In Idaho , the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and crashed right before the deadline ( which was extended as a result ) .
In Pennsylvania and Washington , D.C. , police wrongly told voters waiting in line to disperse because of a curfew even though voters were exempt from it .
In South Carolina , polling-place consolidation and new , untrained poll workers apparently led to some voters being given the wrong ballots .
In Texas , some poll workers walked off the job after other poll workers refused to wear face masks .
The coronavirus has put American democracy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , election officials have made big strides in a short period of time .
But a lot of work must still be done .
Some states , like Idaho , Iowa , Nebraska , New Mexico , North Dakota and South Dakota , have risen to the challenge , greatly expanding their use of absentee voting and reporting few problems at the polls .
These states also saw increases in turnout relative to the equivalent election in 2016 .
However , it may be hard to replicate their success nationally , as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so their task may be easier than a state like New York or Michigan .
Similarly , Arizona , Colorado , Montana , Oregon and Utah also scored highly because they already conduct their elections mostly via absentee ballot and thus were able to avoid major problems .
On the other hand , states like Illinois , Indiana , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin bungled the execution of their primaries .
They did little to expand mail voting ( although many voters cast absentee ballots anyway ) , and their turnout fell ( which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first two points ) .
Georgia , Maryland and Washington , D.C. , are also guilty of ineptitude that surely disenfranchised some voters , although their turnout rates didn ’ t reflect it — perhaps because their efforts to expand mail voting also brought new people into the electorate .
So where does this leave us headed into November ?
It ’ s hard to say .
On the one hand , it is worth keeping in mind how states handled their primaries .
But on the other hand , don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the primary will do so in the general , or the inverse .
They may , but the general election is also a very different beast — and , with that higher turnout , one that is much more difficult to tame .
States may also learn from a bad experience during the primary and resolve to do things differently in the fall ; they may have more or less funding available for November than they did for the primary , and they may tweak rules surrounding absentee-ballot or in-person voting access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 general election will look like — and how each state will fare .

In mid-March, as businesses shuttered, hospitals filled up and Americans hunkered down at home, election officials faced a difficult question: Was it even possible to hold safe and accessible elections in the age of COVID-19? More than four months later, we’re not that much closer to answering that question.
Since the World Health Organization declared an official pandemic on March 11, 37 states plus Washington, D.C., have held statewide primaries for president or state-level office. And while those that have gone poorly have tended to grab the headlines, there have been success stories too. Ultimately, it’s been hard to assess how well our democracy has adapted to the pandemic. So here’s a snapshot of all 38 statewide elections since the pandemic started and what macro trends we’ve been able to observe so far.
First, most states — and almost all those that actually made an effort to do so — were wildly successful at getting people to vote by mail (or at least vote before election day). In 24 out of 35 states for which we have this data, a majority of ballots were cast absentee. In addition, every state but one made more use of absentee ballots than it did in the equivalent election in 2016. Considering what a massive logistical undertaking it is to switch to a predominantly mail election, this is an impressive achievement by election officials. (Of course, as we’ll cover below, it didn’t always go off without a hitch.)
Like it or not, most states are now holding mail elections Share of ballots cast absentee in statewide elections held during the pandemic, and how much that share increased since 2016 Jurisdiction Mail Ballot Access Absentee Change from 2016 Alaska Mailed ballots 100% +100 Wyoming Mailed ballots 100 +100 Kansas Mailed ballots 100 +100 Oregon Mailed ballots 100 0 Hawaii Mailed ballots 100 +100 Idaho Mailed ballot applications 100 +86 Montana Mailed ballots 100 +30 Nevada Mailed ballots 100 +89 North Dakota Mailed ballot applications 100 +73 Utah Mailed ballots 100 — Ohio Mailed instructions for requesting ballot 99 +85 Colorado Mailed ballots 99 — Maryland Mailed ballots 97 +93 Arizona Anyone could vote absentee 89 +8 Nebraska Mailed ballot applications 84 +63 Rhode Island Mailed ballot applications 83 +79 Iowa Mailed ballot applications 78 +59 Wisconsin Anyone could vote absentee 75 +65 Kentucky* Mailed instructions for requesting ballot 73 +70 Washington, D.C. Mailed ballot applications 71 +64 New Mexico Mailed ballot applications 63 +56 South Dakota Mailed ballot applications 58 +44 Indiana* Anyone could vote absentee 51 +35 Pennsylvania Mailed instructions for requesting ballot 51 +48 West Virginia* Mailed ballot applications 50 +49 Georgia Mailed ballot applications 48 — Florida Anyone could vote absentee 46 +16 Delaware Mailed ballot applications 45 +42 South Carolina Anyone could vote absentee 22 +10 Virginia Anyone could vote absentee 21 +20 Louisiana Excuse required 19 +16 Texas* Excuse required 17 +3 Oklahoma Anyone could vote absentee 14 +10 Illinois Anyone could vote absentee 9 +6 Alabama* Anyone could vote absentee 5 — *2020 data is preliminary. Data in Maine, New Jersey and New York was incomplete, so they have been omitted from the table. No 2016 data was available in Alabama, Colorado or Utah. In Georgia, there was no 2016 election to make an apples-to-apples comparison to. Figures do not necessarily reflect the percentage of ballots cast by mail. Most states do not distinguish between absentee ballots cast by mail and those cast in person at a local election office. In addition, Arizona and Nebraska do not distinguish between in-person early voting and absentee voting. Source: State election offices
Unsurprisingly, states that mailed every voter a ballot saw the highest share of their votes cast absentee, although it’s hard to definitively say that was the reason, as these states also offered few polling places — or, in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming, no polling places at all.
However, other ways of encouraging mail voting had more mixed results. For instance, in the states that just mailed voters absentee-ballot applications or instructions for how to apply for an absentee ballot, there was anywhere from 45 percent absentee participation in Delaware to 84 percent in Nebraska. (But don’t read too much into the 100 percent absentee rates in Idaho and North Dakota — they, too, eliminated in-person voting.)
What we do know is the states that did not mail voters anything to nudge them toward voting absentee (such as Illinois, with 9 percent absentee participation, and Oklahoma, with 14 percent absentee participation) tended to have the lowest shares of absentee voters, and the smallest increases from 2016. The same was true of states like Louisiana and Texas, which still required voters to provide an excuse to vote absentee. A notable exception was Wisconsin, where 75 percent of votes were cast absentee despite nothing being mailed to them. Most likely, the intense news coverage predicting doom and gloom for Wisconsin’s primary caused Wisconsinites to heed the state government’s advice and request absentee ballots; both Joe Biden’s and Bernie Sanders’s campaigns also encouraged their supporters to vote by mail.
Of course, just because a state conducted its primary predominantly by mail does not mean it will be able to turn the same trick in November. For starters, as the next table makes clear, most of these elections were low-turnout affairs: Anywhere from 3 percent to 46 percent of the voting eligible population turned out to vote in them, while presidential general elections have VEP turnout rates around 60 percent. (And, needless to say, processing mail ballots for 60 percent of the population is a lot more challenging than processing mail ballots for 20 or 30 percent.) But the good news is that the coronavirus doesn’t seem to be putting a dent in turnout rates. Just as turnout in the presidential primaries before the pandemic hit was a bit above 2016 levels, 22 of the 34 elections for which we have the relevant data actually saw their VEP turnout race increase over the equivalent election in 2016.
Despite the pandemic, turnout is up in many states Turnout as a share of the voting eligible population in statewide elections held during the pandemic versus turnout in the same election in 2016 Date Jurisdiction 2016 Turnout 2020 Turnout diff June 30 Colorado 16% 38% +21 July 14 Alabama* 2 17 +15 June 2 Iowa 9 23 +14 May 12 Nebraska 23 36 +13 June 30 Oklahoma 12 24 +12 June 2 Idaho 15 26 +11 June 30 Utah 16 27 +10 June 9 Nevada 12 22 +10 June 23 Kentucky* 21 31 +10 June 2 Montana 37 46 +9 June 9 South Carolina 11 20 +8 June 23 Virginia 2 9 +7 July 14 Texas* 3 10 +6 May 2 Kansas 2 7 +5 June 2 New Mexico 23 28 +5 June 2 South Dakota 20 24 +4 June 9 North Dakota 24 28 +4 April 10 Alaska 2 4 +2 April 17 Wyoming 2 4 +2 June 2 Washington, D.C. 20 22 +2 May 19 Oregon 41 42 +1 May 22 Hawaii 3 3 0 June 2 Maryland 34 32 -1 June 9 West Virginia* 34 32 -2 July 11 Louisiana 19 16 -3 June 2 Pennsylvania 34 30 -4 July 7 Delaware 24 17 -6 June 2 Rhode Island 24 16 -8 March 17 Florida 28 20 -9 March 17 Arizona 24 12 -12 March 17 Illinois 40 25 -14 April 7 Wisconsin 50 35 -14 June 2 Indiana* 36 22 -15 April 28 Ohio 38 21 -17 June 9 Georgia — 30 — *2020 data is preliminary. Data in Maine, New Jersey and New York was incomplete, so they have been omitted from the table. In Georgia, there was no 2016 election to make an apples-to-apples comparison to. Sources: State election offices, United States Elections Project
Admittedly, turnout did plummet in many states this year — but for most of them, there is a compelling reason unrelated to the coronavirus. States like Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin went from hosting contested presidential primaries on both sides (Democratic and Republican) in 2016 to being virtually irrelevant to the delegate math this year (both President Trump and Joe Biden sewed up their respective nominations by the end of March). And Arizona did not even hold a Republican presidential primary this year, which explains its huge drop-off in turnout.
But if the pandemic significantly suppressed turnout, it was probably in Illinois, where VEP turnout went from 40 percent in the 2016 primary to 25 percent in the 2020 primary. The pandemic seems like a good explanation for at least part of the drop-off: Illinois experienced long lines and other problems on election day (see below), and because the primary was held just days after the country locked down, voters didn’t really have time to request absentee ballots — nor did the state have time to mail them anything. (The lack of a competitive GOP presidential primary this year also explains a lot of the drop-off but not all.)
Similarly, there were non-pandemic-related reasons for the turnout increases in many states. For instance, Colorado opened its primaries up to unaffiliated voters; Oklahoma and Utah simply had more interesting races on the ballot in 2020 than in 2016. There were also states like Kentucky and Nebraska that didn’t hold one party’s presidential primary in 2016, and states like Alabama, Texas and Virginia, where there were no statewide races in 2016 (so many residents just didn’t have an election to vote in).
But there were several elections — in states like Idaho, Montana (on the Democratic side), Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota — where turnout did increase even though those states held equally or less competitive primaries in 2020 than in 2016. You could arguably add Iowa to that list too; its 2020 down-ballot primaries were pretty competitive, but not enough to explain a 14-percentage-point turnout increase from 2016.
It’s plausible that these states’ embrace of mail voting helped expand the electorate; all of them either mailed ballots or sent absentee-ballot applications to voters. In addition, Kansas also saw turnout spike after the Kansas Democratic Party, spurred in part by the coronavirus, switched from a caucus in 2016 to an all-mail primary in 2020 (caucuses are notorious for their low turnout).
There’s an important caveat here, though: Just because the coronavirus did not lower turnout overall does not mean it didn’t disenfranchise individual voters. We know that at least some voters were unable to vote because of the pandemic. Indeed, the primaries conducted during the pandemic have been far from the smooth sailing suggested above. Instead, an unusual number of problems have occurred — some serious enough that they have made it harder for people to vote and even put them at a heightened risk for infection.
Two specific problems have come up again and again. At least 16 jurisdictions saw long lines at polling places, which had often been consolidated due to a shortage of poll workers. The unluckiest voters in Milwaukee waited two and a half hours to vote; in Washington, D.C., five; in Las Vegas, seven.
And some voters in at least 12 places reported never receiving the absentee ballots they had requested — sometimes weeks in advance. In some states not used to a heavy volume of mail voting, understaffed election offices were receiving ballot requests faster than they could respond to them. In six Ohio counties, about 4,500 people who requested an absentee ballot were not sent one because their request lacked essential information. In one Pennsylvania county, officials simply ran out of time to fulfill 400 ballot requests and sent out 6,000 ballots the day before the primary, when they had little chance of being received in time to be voted. In Maryland, 1 million ballots were delivered either late or not at all.
Other problems were less rampant — but no less concerning. In Illinois, multiple polling places lacked the proper voting equipment or cleaning supplies. In Georgia, new voting machines did not work correctly, either because they malfunctioned or poll workers were not adequately trained. In Florida, Illinois and New York, truant poll workers caused some polling places to open late. In Idaho, the state’s online absentee-ballot request portal got overloaded and crashed right before the deadline (which was extended as a result). In Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., police wrongly told voters waiting in line to disperse because of a curfew even though voters were exempt from it. In South Carolina, polling-place consolidation and new, untrained poll workers apparently led to some voters being given the wrong ballots. In Texas, some poll workers walked off the job after other poll workers refused to wear face masks.
The coronavirus has put American democracy to the test — and by our reckoning, election officials have made big strides in a short period of time. But a lot of work must still be done.
Some states, like Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota, have risen to the challenge, greatly expanding their use of absentee voting and reporting few problems at the polls. These states also saw increases in turnout relative to the equivalent election in 2016. However, it may be hard to replicate their success nationally, as they all are mostly rural and sparsely populated, so their task may be easier than a state like New York or Michigan. Similarly, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Oregon and Utah also scored highly because they already conduct their elections mostly via absentee ballot and thus were able to avoid major problems.
On the other hand, states like Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin bungled the execution of their primaries. They did little to expand mail voting (although many voters cast absentee ballots anyway), and their turnout fell (which may or may not be related to the first two points). Georgia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., are also guilty of ineptitude that surely disenfranchised some voters, although their turnout rates didn’t reflect it — perhaps because their efforts to expand mail voting also brought new people into the electorate.
So where does this leave us headed into November? It’s hard to say. On the one hand, it is worth keeping in mind how states handled their primaries. But on the other hand, don’t assume a state that performed competently in the primary will do so in the general, or the inverse. They may, but the general election is also a very different beast — and, with that higher turnout, one that is much more difficult to tame. States may also learn from a bad experience during the primary and resolve to do things differently in the fall; they may have more or less funding available for November than they did for the primary, and they may tweak rules surrounding absentee-ballot or in-person voting access. Unfortunately, nobody really knows what the 2020 general election will look like — and how each state will fare.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-03--Many Americans Are Convinced Crime Is Rising In The U.S. They’re Wrong.

Will you get robbed this year ?
How would you rate your chances ?
Over 10 years , from 1994 to 2004 , the national Survey of Economic Expectations asked respondents to do just that .
People estimated their risks for a whole host of bad-news life events — robbery , burglary , job loss and losing their health insurance .
But the survey didn ’ t just ask respondents to rate their chances : It also asked whether those things had actually happened to them in the last year .
And that combination of questions revealed something important about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimating our risk of crime — much worse than we are at guessing the danger of other bad things .
Across that decade , respondents put their chance of being robbed in the coming year at about 15 percent .
Looking back , the actual rate of robbery was 1.2 percent .
In contrast , when asked to rate their risk of upcoming job loss , people guessed it was about 14.5 percent — much closer to the actual job loss rate of 12.9 percent .
In other words , we feel the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are certain crime is rising when it isn ’ t ; convinced our risk of victimization is higher than it actually is .
And in a summer when the president is sending federal agents to crack down on crime in major cities and local politicians are arguing over the risks of defunding the police , that disconnect matters .
In an age of anxiety , crime may be one of our most misleading fears .
Take the crime rate .
In 2019 , according to a survey conducted by Gallup , about 64 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more crime in the U.S. than there was a year ago .
It ’ s a belief we ’ ve consistently held for decades now , but as you can see in the chart below , we ’ ve been , just as consistently , very wrong .
Crime rates do fluctuate from year to year .
In 2020 , for example , murder has been up but other crimes are in decline so that the crime rate , overall , is down .
And the trend line for violent crime over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not up .
The Bureau of Justice Statistics found that the rate of violent crimes per 1,000 Americans age 12 and older plummeted from 80 in 1993 to just 23 in 2018 .
The country has gotten much , much safer , but , somehow , Americans don ’ t seem to feel that on a knee-jerk , emotional level .
“ The biggest challenge really , and we ’ re seeing this as a society across the board right now , is that even though our organizations , our businesses , our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we as human beings are not , ” said Meghan Hollis , a research scholar at the Ronin Institute for Independent Scholarship .
That ’ s not to say that Americans are completely clueless about crime .
When we spoke to John Gramlich , a senior writer with the Pew Research Center and one of the people who has been tracking and writing about this disconnect for years , he was quick to clarify that Pew didn ’ t like to frame Americans ’ apparent inability to register their own increased safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misinformed .
The reality , he told us , is that the nature of data collection makes it hard for the public to really assess crime rates and for experts to assess what the public knows or feels about crime rates .
Even the concept of a “ crime rate ” is messy .
When we talk about crime rates in the context of an article like this one , what we ’ re actually discussing is the number of crimes , in a set of particular categories , that get reported to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Federal Bureau of Investigation — or results from a government survey about whether people have experienced crime .
These stats document murder , rape , robbery and assault , among others , as well as several property crimes , including burglary , theft , car theft , and arson .
That covers a lot of ground , and it gives us a pretty good idea what the crime rate truly looks like — enough that experts feel comfortable saying things like “ Hey , look , the crime rate has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those statistics don ’ t tell the whole story , and that matters in ways that become important when you ’ re trying to understand the difference between how people feel and what the data say .
Not all crimes are reported to the police .
Sexual assault , in particular , is notoriously underreported .
And there are plenty of crimes we don ’ t really track well in data — like vandalism , drug use and sales , or public intoxication — which can affect how safe people feel in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t serious .
Wesley Skogan , professor emeritus of political science at Northwestern University , spent much of the 1990s attending neighborhood-level public meetings around Chicago and documenting the issues that residents told police were problems they wanted solved .
Some of these issues weren ’ t even , strictly speaking , crimes , at all .
In 17 percent of the meetings , residents asked police to do something about litter .
Loud music or other noise-related problems were discussed in 19 percent of the meetings .
Residents complained about abandoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gang problems .
Skogan thinks about these factors as measurements of social disorder , and has found evidence that these things affect how safe people feel .
If violent crimes are down , but there ’ s still a good deal of social disorder in an area , people ’ s responses to a survey might reflect how they feel about litter more than how they feel about a reduced murder rate .
The way the polls are worded also don ’ t help .
“ The polling tends to be pretty generic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political scientist at Rutgers University who studies crime and punishment , which makes it hard to capture the difference between how Americans think about murder and litter when it comes to how safe they feel .
More importantly , she said , questions like “ Do you think crime has gone up or down ?
” is not the same thing as measuring fear .
“ When people are genuinely worried about crime and really fearful , it tends to be in relation to violent crime .
That ’ s the thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure for the government to do something , ” she said .
This whole thing is further complicated because crime is extremely localized — and estimates about the national crime rate are , well , not .
“ All the homicides in Chicago occur in about 8 percent of the city ’ s census tracts , ” Skogan said .
For almost everybody , he said , that means “ the crime you hear about is crime somewhere else.
” And that matters because research suggests people are a lot better at estimating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than they are at estimating what it ’ s like across town , or across the country .
Finally , there ’ s the question of race , which permeates and complicates everything surrounding crime .
It ’ s not just trash and loitering that make people perceive a neighborhood as more dangerous regardless of the crime rate .
When Lincoln Quillian , a professor of sociology at Northwestern University , analyzed data from three surveys of crime and safety in cities across America , he found that people perceive their neighborhood as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime rate — if more young Black men live there .
That was true for both Black and white respondents of the surveys , but in some cities the effect was significantly more pronounced in white people .
This is all a long-winded way of saying the situation is messy on many levels , but it remains true that people ’ s personal fear of being victims of crimes and their perceptions of national crime rates are far from accurate .
So why do Americans still think crime is high ?
Turns out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for convincing Americans that violent crime is more common than it really is .
Researchers have consistently found that “ if it bleeds , it leads ” is a pretty accurate descriptor of the coverage that local television broadcasters and newspapers focus on .
For years , rarer crimes like murders received a lot more airtime than more common crimes like physical assault .
And that hasn ’ t changed as the crime rate has fallen .
Understandably , seeing stories about violent atrocities on the news every night seems to make people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them .
According to one study conducted in California , consumption of local television news significantly increased people ’ s perceptions of risk and fear of crime .
“ The news is not going to report on things that are going really well very often , ” Hollis said .
“ It ’ s not like ‘ Hey Austin , Texas doesn ’ t have a whole lot of crime and that ’ s our news for the day ! '
” Stories about gun violence grab attention , so you get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , crimes .
“ You can have people perceiving areas of cities as much more violent than they actually are because that ’ s what they see in the news , ” she said .
“ It really amplifies that view of criminal activity beyond what it really is.
” There ’ s a significant amount of evidence , too , that reporting on crime can prop up harmful stereotypes : Studies have found that local news media disproportionately portray Black people as perpetrators of crime , and white people as victims .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for this kind of coverage because even though crime has fallen a lot over the past few decades , the U.S. is still a pretty violent country , at least compared to other developed nations .
“ Violence remains an American problem , ” Miller said .
“ Just think about mass shootings .
So in that sense it ’ s not irrational for people to be somewhat fearful of violence.
” But often , those fears can be blown out of proportion — not just by wall-to-wall murder coverage on the news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the crime rate in press conferences and interviews .
President Trump is far from the first president to paint a dark vision of crime in American cities , but he is singularly obsessed with the topic , especially now .
According to a HuffPost analysis , the vast majority of the ads his campaign aired in the month of July dealt in some way with public safety .
In one ad , an elderly woman is robbed as text flashes across the screen reading , “ You won ’ t be safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And a recent study suggests that Trump ’ s words could have an effect .
Researchers found that news coverage and political rhetoric — as measured by mentions of crime in presidential State of the Union speeches — were significant indicators of whether Americans thought crime was a pressing issue facing the country .
The actual crime rate was not .
A HuffPost poll conducted from July 22 to 24 found something similar : Only 10 percent of Americans correctly believe that crime has fallen over the past decade , while 57 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be more receptive to tough-on-crime rhetoric than others , of course .
Republicans are generally more apt to say that crime is a serious problem facing the country than Democrats .
And although Pew analysis of polling data doesn ’ t uncover big racial differences in perceptions of crime , white and Black Americans likely think about crime very differently because criminal justice has become so inextricably tied to race .
Hakeem Jefferson , a political scientist at Stanford University who studies race and justice , told us that Black people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in part because they ’ re likelier than other demographic groups to actually live in high-crime neighborhoods and to be victims of crime .
In other research , he ’ s found that some Black people have also internalized negative stereotypes about who commits crime , and may be more likely to embrace punitive solutions as a result .
Those perceptions and experiences are hard to capture in public opinion data , but they can do a lot to shape what Black people mean when they tell a pollster that they think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
And that ’ s important , because as the past few decades have shown , Black people are also much likelier to be mistreated by police , experience incarceration or grapple with the challenges of a criminal record .
Regardless of what ’ s driving fear of crime , though , the fact that it is so out of whack with reality can make it really hard to change people ’ s minds or reform the criminal justice system .
It ’ s not that an out-of-proportion fear of crime automatically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — right now , for instance , Americans are mostly not in favor of more money for policing .
But these misperceptions can make it harder for reforms to gain traction , particularly if politicians with a big national platform — like Trump — are talking about out-of-control crime at every turn .
It ’ s not hard , for instance , to imagine that kind of rhetoric being used as a wedge against efforts to restructure local funding for the police .
Especially considering that in the past , a fear of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason to oppose criminal justice reforms like reducing incarceration or changing the bail bond system — even though research suggests those reforms don ’ t increase crime in the long term .
The history of “ law and order ” campaigns is riddled with dog whistles , and Trump ’ s recent rhetoric about sending federal agents to combat crime in cities like Chicago arguably falls into this category , according to Justin Pickett , a criminologist at the University of Albany who studies attitudes toward crime and justice .
Talking about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can turn into a cover for racist attitudes .
None of this has made us safer .
And ironically , fear of crime can actually lead to other behaviors that put us at greater risk , like buying and carrying guns .
If anxiety about crime keeps Americans from embracing different ways of thinking about criminal justice , that may be doing more harm than good , too .
For instance , there ’ s no real evidence that putting more people behind bars contributed to the decrease in crime or that imprisoning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a mountain of research points in the opposite direction to problems and inequalities linked to mass incarceration .
The trouble is that fear about crime isn ’ t rational , and it ’ s hard to convince people to think differently about a problem that they don ’ t experience on a day-to-day basis anyway .
“ You can tell Americans that the crime rate is lower today than it was in the 1990s , but it won ’ t feel real to them , ” said Kevin Wozniak , a sociologist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That is , unless politicians stop drumming up the crime rate and people stop hearing about murder every night on the local news.
” And that seems unlikely to happen in 2020 .

Will you get robbed this year? How would you rate your chances?
Over 10 years, from 1994 to 2004, the national Survey of Economic Expectations asked respondents to do just that. People estimated their risks for a whole host of bad-news life events — robbery, burglary, job loss and losing their health insurance. But the survey didn’t just ask respondents to rate their chances: It also asked whether those things had actually happened to them in the last year.
And that combination of questions revealed something important about American fear: We are terrible at estimating our risk of crime — much worse than we are at guessing the danger of other bad things. Across that decade, respondents put their chance of being robbed in the coming year at about 15 percent. Looking back, the actual rate of robbery was 1.2 percent. In contrast, when asked to rate their risk of upcoming job loss, people guessed it was about 14.5 percent — much closer to the actual job loss rate of 12.9 percent.
In other words, we feel the risk of crime more acutely. We are certain crime is rising when it isn’t; convinced our risk of victimization is higher than it actually is. And in a summer when the president is sending federal agents to crack down on crime in major cities and local politicians are arguing over the risks of defunding the police, that disconnect matters. In an age of anxiety, crime may be one of our most misleading fears.
Take the crime rate. In 2019, according to a survey conducted by Gallup, about 64 percent of Americans believed that there was more crime in the U.S. than there was a year ago. It’s a belief we’ve consistently held for decades now, but as you can see in the chart below, we’ve been, just as consistently, very wrong.
Crime rates do fluctuate from year to year. In 2020, for example, murder has been up but other crimes are in decline so that the crime rate, overall, is down. And the trend line for violent crime over the last 30 years has been down, not up. The Bureau of Justice Statistics found that the rate of violent crimes per 1,000 Americans age 12 and older plummeted from 80 in 1993 to just 23 in 2018. The country has gotten much, much safer, but, somehow, Americans don’t seem to feel that on a knee-jerk, emotional level.
“The biggest challenge really, and we’re seeing this as a society across the board right now, is that even though our organizations, our businesses, our government entities are becoming more data driven, we as human beings are not,” said Meghan Hollis, a research scholar at the Ronin Institute for Independent Scholarship.
That’s not to say that Americans are completely clueless about crime. When we spoke to John Gramlich, a senior writer with the Pew Research Center and one of the people who has been tracking and writing about this disconnect for years, he was quick to clarify that Pew didn’t like to frame Americans’ apparent inability to register their own increased safety as a product of being uninformed or misinformed. The reality, he told us, is that the nature of data collection makes it hard for the public to really assess crime rates and for experts to assess what the public knows or feels about crime rates.
Even the concept of a “crime rate” is messy. When we talk about crime rates in the context of an article like this one, what we’re actually discussing is the number of crimes, in a set of particular categories, that get reported to the police and, from there, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation — or results from a government survey about whether people have experienced crime. These stats document murder, rape, robbery and assault, among others, as well as several property crimes, including burglary, theft, car theft, and arson. That covers a lot of ground, and it gives us a pretty good idea what the crime rate truly looks like — enough that experts feel comfortable saying things like “Hey, look, the crime rate has been going down for 30 years.”
But those statistics don’t tell the whole story, and that matters in ways that become important when you’re trying to understand the difference between how people feel and what the data say. Not all crimes are reported to the police. Sexual assault, in particular, is notoriously underreported. And there are plenty of crimes we don’t really track well in data — like vandalism, drug use and sales, or public intoxication — which can affect how safe people feel in their neighborhoods, even if the crimes aren’t serious.
Wesley Skogan, professor emeritus of political science at Northwestern University, spent much of the 1990s attending neighborhood-level public meetings around Chicago and documenting the issues that residents told police were problems they wanted solved. Some of these issues weren’t even, strictly speaking, crimes, at all. In 17 percent of the meetings, residents asked police to do something about litter. Loud music or other noise-related problems were discussed in 19 percent of the meetings. Residents complained about abandoned cars more often than they complained about gang problems. Skogan thinks about these factors as measurements of social disorder, and has found evidence that these things affect how safe people feel. If violent crimes are down, but there’s still a good deal of social disorder in an area, people’s responses to a survey might reflect how they feel about litter more than how they feel about a reduced murder rate.
The way the polls are worded also don’t help. “The polling tends to be pretty generic,” said Lisa L. Miller, a political scientist at Rutgers University who studies crime and punishment, which makes it hard to capture the difference between how Americans think about murder and litter when it comes to how safe they feel. More importantly, she said, questions like “Do you think crime has gone up or down?” is not the same thing as measuring fear. “When people are genuinely worried about crime and really fearful, it tends to be in relation to violent crime. That’s the thing I’ve found really drives public pressure for the government to do something,” she said.
This whole thing is further complicated because crime is extremely localized — and estimates about the national crime rate are, well, not.
“All the homicides in Chicago occur in about 8 percent of the city’s census tracts,” Skogan said. For almost everybody, he said, that means “the crime you hear about is crime somewhere else.” And that matters because research suggests people are a lot better at estimating the crime rate in their own backyard than they are at estimating what it’s like across town, or across the country.
Finally, there’s the question of race, which permeates and complicates everything surrounding crime. It’s not just trash and loitering that make people perceive a neighborhood as more dangerous regardless of the crime rate. When Lincoln Quillian, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University, analyzed data from three surveys of crime and safety in cities across America, he found that people perceive their neighborhood as more dangerous — regardless of the actual crime rate — if more young Black men live there. That was true for both Black and white respondents of the surveys, but in some cities the effect was significantly more pronounced in white people.
This is all a long-winded way of saying the situation is messy on many levels, but it remains true that people’s personal fear of being victims of crimes and their perceptions of national crime rates are far from accurate.
So why do Americans still think crime is high?
Turns out, the local news may be responsible for convincing Americans that violent crime is more common than it really is. Researchers have consistently found that “if it bleeds, it leads” is a pretty accurate descriptor of the coverage that local television broadcasters and newspapers focus on. For years, rarer crimes like murders received a lot more airtime than more common crimes like physical assault. And that hasn’t changed as the crime rate has fallen.
Understandably, seeing stories about violent atrocities on the news every night seems to make people afraid that the same thing could happen to them. According to one study conducted in California, consumption of local television news significantly increased people’s perceptions of risk and fear of crime. “The news is not going to report on things that are going really well very often,” Hollis said. “It’s not like ‘Hey Austin, Texas doesn’t have a whole lot of crime and that’s our news for the day!'” Stories about gun violence grab attention, so you get more stories about rare, but serious, crimes. “You can have people perceiving areas of cities as much more violent than they actually are because that’s what they see in the news,” she said. “It really amplifies that view of criminal activity beyond what it really is.”
There’s a significant amount of evidence, too, that reporting on crime can prop up harmful stereotypes: Studies have found that local news media disproportionately portray Black people as perpetrators of crime, and white people as victims.
There’s also plenty of fodder for this kind of coverage because even though crime has fallen a lot over the past few decades, the U.S. is still a pretty violent country, at least compared to other developed nations. “Violence remains an American problem,” Miller said. “Just think about mass shootings. So in that sense it’s not irrational for people to be somewhat fearful of violence.”
But often, those fears can be blown out of proportion — not just by wall-to-wall murder coverage on the news, but also by politicians who bring up the crime rate in press conferences and interviews. President Trump is far from the first president to paint a dark vision of crime in American cities, but he is singularly obsessed with the topic, especially now. According to a HuffPost analysis, the vast majority of the ads his campaign aired in the month of July dealt in some way with public safety. In one ad, an elderly woman is robbed as text flashes across the screen reading, “You won’t be safe in Joe Biden’s America.”
And a recent study suggests that Trump’s words could have an effect. Researchers found that news coverage and political rhetoric — as measured by mentions of crime in presidential State of the Union speeches — were significant indicators of whether Americans thought crime was a pressing issue facing the country. The actual crime rate was not. A HuffPost poll conducted from July 22 to 24 found something similar: Only 10 percent of Americans correctly believe that crime has fallen over the past decade, while 57 percent think crime has increased.
Some Americans may be more receptive to tough-on-crime rhetoric than others, of course. Republicans are generally more apt to say that crime is a serious problem facing the country than Democrats. And although Pew analysis of polling data doesn’t uncover big racial differences in perceptions of crime, white and Black Americans likely think about crime very differently because criminal justice has become so inextricably tied to race.
Hakeem Jefferson, a political scientist at Stanford University who studies race and justice, told us that Black people’s views on criminal justice are complex, in part because they’re likelier than other demographic groups to actually live in high-crime neighborhoods and to be victims of crime. In other research, he’s found that some Black people have also internalized negative stereotypes about who commits crime, and may be more likely to embrace punitive solutions as a result. Those perceptions and experiences are hard to capture in public opinion data, but they can do a lot to shape what Black people mean when they tell a pollster that they think crime is a serious issue facing the country. And that’s important, because as the past few decades have shown, Black people are also much likelier to be mistreated by police, experience incarceration or grapple with the challenges of a criminal record.
Regardless of what’s driving fear of crime, though, the fact that it is so out of whack with reality can make it really hard to change people’s minds or reform the criminal justice system. It’s not that an out-of-proportion fear of crime automatically leads people to support more punitive policies — right now, for instance, Americans are mostly not in favor of more money for policing. But these misperceptions can make it harder for reforms to gain traction, particularly if politicians with a big national platform — like Trump — are talking about out-of-control crime at every turn.
It’s not hard, for instance, to imagine that kind of rhetoric being used as a wedge against efforts to restructure local funding for the police. Especially considering that in the past, a fear of crime has been used politically as a reason to oppose criminal justice reforms like reducing incarceration or changing the bail bond system — even though research suggests those reforms don’t increase crime in the long term.
The history of “law and order” campaigns is riddled with dog whistles, and Trump’s recent rhetoric about sending federal agents to combat crime in cities like Chicago arguably falls into this category, according to Justin Pickett, a criminologist at the University of Albany who studies attitudes toward crime and justice. Talking about the dangers of crime, he said, can turn into a cover for racist attitudes.
None of this has made us safer. And ironically, fear of crime can actually lead to other behaviors that put us at greater risk, like buying and carrying guns. If anxiety about crime keeps Americans from embracing different ways of thinking about criminal justice, that may be doing more harm than good, too. For instance, there’s no real evidence that putting more people behind bars contributed to the decrease in crime or that imprisoning fewer people will raise crime. Instead, a mountain of research points in the opposite direction to problems and inequalities linked to mass incarceration.
The trouble is that fear about crime isn’t rational, and it’s hard to convince people to think differently about a problem that they don’t experience on a day-to-day basis anyway. “You can tell Americans that the crime rate is lower today than it was in the 1990s, but it won’t feel real to them,” said Kevin Wozniak, a sociologist at the University of Massachusetts Boston. “That is, unless politicians stop drumming up the crime rate and people stop hearing about murder every night on the local news.”
And that seems unlikely to happen in 2020.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-03--Politics Podcast: Can Economic Data Predict Elections?

Last week economic data revealed the largest-ever quarterly contraction of the U.S. economy .
The second-quarter GDP shrunk by an @ @ @ @ @ percent .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew asks how @ @ @ @ @ predict the outcome of a presidential election .
They also discuss the potential consequences of @ @ @ @ @ attempts to cast doubt on election results .
You can listen to the episode by @ @ @ @ @ button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN @ @ @ @ @ platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The @ @ @ @ @ Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating @ @ @ @ @ Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” @ @ @ @ @ email , on Twitter or in the comments .

Last week economic data revealed the largest-ever quarterly contraction of the U.S. economy. The second-quarter GDP shrunk by an annual rate of nearly 33 percent. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew asks how well economic data alone can predict the outcome of a presidential election. They also discuss the potential consequences of President Trump’s repeated attempts to cast doubt on election results.
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--2020-08-03--Can Donovan Mitchell Reach His Potential In The Bubble?

High-usage bucket-getters like Donovan Mitchell are essential for most title contenders , and before the 2019-20 season began , that ’ s exactly what his Utah Jazz were .
Their preseason over/under was lower than that of only three other teams , and after opening night , the FiveThirtyEight prediction model gave them a 5 percent chance of making the NBA Finals — which , to some , is the cutoff that justifies an immediate push to win it all .
In addition to Mitchell ’ s anticipated growth into the All-Star he became this season , Utah had an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coaching .
But for a variety of reasons , the Jazz never quite coalesced like so many thought they would .
It ’ s not that Utah stunk .
Before the season restarted , they were eighth in net rating and second in effective field-goal percentage .
But they had a glut of success against weaker teams , and they went 5-5 after the All-Star break , sandwiched between the Phoenix Suns and Atlanta Hawks with the 20th-best net rating in the league .
Trading for Mike Conley was a huge source of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ season began , but the 32-year-old missed 23 games , and his player efficiency rating dropped to its lowest point in a dozen seasons .
The other significant addition was Bojan Bogdanović — Utah ’ s second-leading scorer — and he ’ s now out for the playoffs thanks to wrist surgery .
But the NBA ’ s bubble season will be a whole new world .
It ’ s fertile ground for surprises .
The circumstances are unprecedented , and in them a rising star like Mitchell can shatter assumptions .
Boundlessly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years old , Mitchell wasn ’ t the reason Utah underperformed .
But he didn ’ t make the strides as a scorer or playmaker that Utah ultimately needs if it ever wants to get over the hump .
Now , with Bogdanović out and the Jazz needing to alter how they play , Mitchell has an opportunity to progress in areas that can nudge this team back toward the doorstep of a higher tier .
For the rest of the way this year — as the team is largely counted out and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference finals once again — what ’ s best for Mitchell might be what ’ s best for the Jazz .
It ’ s fair to feel skeptical of Mitchell but also bullish about his chances .
Utah was outscored by 5.3 points per 100 possessions when its All-Star guard played without Bogdanović , and in those moments it had a worse offensive rating than the 30th-ranked Golden State Warriors .
But their probable new starting five — Conley , Mitchell , Royce O ’ Neale , Joe Ingles and Rudy Gobert — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existed for several players , while also generating more scoring opportunities , on and off the ball , for Mitchell .
Stylistically , the Jazz are unique , more egalitarian than most teams .
They set a ton of screens ( third most in the league per 100 possessions , according to Second Spectrum ) — with Gobert ’ s limited skill set both preventing Utah from taking a broader approach and sharpening their execution of the game plan they do run .
But with Bogdanović out of the frame and fresh lineups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it may make more sense to simplify that approach and feed Mitchell in ways they did not before .
The least complicated example of what this could look like is also the one that ’ s the most antithetical to how Utah plays basketball : Give Mitchell the ball and let him cook .
Among all players who isolated at least 100 times this season , Mitchell ’ s 7.4 percent frequency was dead last .
But even if he wasn ’ t the most efficient scorer in these situations , few guards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with his combination of upper-body strength , long arms and a splash of offbeat creativity .
Isolating Mitchell more often , particularly against weak defenders in lineups that can really space the floor , makes sense — as it did in the playoffs when he was a rookie .
Let him improvise downhill and unleash the sort of swindling acrobatics that make him invincible .
Jazz head coach Quin Snyder could take that idea even further by also using Conley-Mitchell-Jordan Clarkson groups — especially in crunchtime , a la Oklahoma City ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the team ’ s speed and offensive potency .
( As an off-ball complement , Mitchell hit nearly 44 percent of his spot-up threes this season — 12th-highest out of the 125 players who had at least 150 catch-and-shoot attempts . )
Now might also be a good time for the Jazz to bend a bit more toward their young franchise player ’ s athleticism by hunting for more open floor opportunities after they get a stop instead of pushing into the frontcourt and then steadying themselves in an attempt to pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its feet in half-court sets more often than any other team this season . )
Even with all this , Mitchell ’ s main function will still be in the pick-and-roll .
The Jazz will use wings and forwards to set ball screens and confuse defenders , but the lion ’ s share of Mitchell ’ s attack involves a partnership with Gobert that ’ s both a gift and a curse .
Per Second Spectrum , only six pick-and-roll tandems collaborated more than Mitchell and Gobert this season , and overall , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ran one , which ranks in the top 20 percent among all duos that logged at least 100 actions .
Gobert is a reliable lob threat , and despite having a lower usage rate than Georges Niang , he is in many ways the vertebra that holds up Utah ’ s entire offense : His picks , slips and measured dives to the rim demand attention from both his own man and defenders who slide in from the corner , which helped the Jazz generate threes from that zone at a higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the fundamental cost of those forays into the paint is an intrasquad battle over real estate that Mitchell ultimately needs to own if he wants to scrape his ceiling ; the Jazz probably can ’ t reach their apex if Mitchell and Gobert are simultaneously occupying the paint .
According to Second Spectrum , when Mitchell shoots off a Gobert screen , he averages only 0.963 points per chance — ranking in the 29th percentile of pick-and-roll tandems .
Instead of earning the layups and free throws that might be afforded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mitchell is often forced to dine on tricky floaters and pull-up twos .
He ’ s been accurate enough on these taboo shots to justify the volume at which he launches them — as in , he ’ s more accurate than Kawhi Leonard and Kyrie Irving on pull-ups — but any primary scorer who also wants to be efficient can ’ t subsist on shots that make their job more difficult than it could otherwise be .
By increasing his isolation and transition chances , Mitchell can balance out the high-risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tandem with Gobert and seek to draw more shooting fouls — which is the next step on his ladder to greatness .
Taking over an NBA game when you ’ re listed at 6-foot-1 — shorter than Damian Lillard !
— is not easy , and it ’ s even harder when you aren ’ t getting to the line .
Of the 53 players who had a usage rate higher than 25 percent this season , Mitchell ranked 44th in free-throw rate .
And the red flags travel to other venues : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logged a team-high 219 minutes and hoisted a team-high 88 shots , but he only took eight free throws — about half as many as Marcus Smart , who missed three games .
Up those attempts , and Mitchell starts to look like young Dwyane Wade with an outside shot .
Utah isn ’ t a lock to get out of the first round , and a Finals run feels like a pipe dream .
But if aesthetic changes are made to accommodate Mitchell ’ s ability in Bogdanović ’ s absence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expectations .
Mitchell ’ s potential is nearly limitless ; the Jazz should adapt as necessary to accelerate his journey there , and they should do it sooner rather than later .

High-usage bucket-getters like Donovan Mitchell are essential for most title contenders, and before the 2019-20 season began, that’s exactly what his Utah Jazz were. Their preseason over/under was lower than that of only three other teams, and after opening night, the FiveThirtyEight prediction model gave them a 5 percent chance of making the NBA Finals — which, to some, is the cutoff that justifies an immediate push to win it all.
In addition to Mitchell’s anticipated growth into the All-Star he became this season, Utah had an imposing defense, long-range shooters and ingenious coaching. But for a variety of reasons, the Jazz never quite coalesced like so many thought they would.
It’s not that Utah stunk. Before the season restarted, they were eighth in net rating and second in effective field-goal percentage. But they had a glut of success against weaker teams, and they went 5-5 after the All-Star break, sandwiched between the Phoenix Suns and Atlanta Hawks with the 20th-best net rating in the league. Trading for Mike Conley was a huge source of optimism in Salt Lake City before the season began, but the 32-year-old missed 23 games, and his player efficiency rating dropped to its lowest point in a dozen seasons. The other significant addition was Bojan Bogdanović — Utah’s second-leading scorer — and he’s now out for the playoffs thanks to wrist surgery.
But the NBA’s bubble season will be a whole new world. It’s fertile ground for surprises. The circumstances are unprecedented, and in them a rising star like Mitchell can shatter assumptions. Boundlessly athletic, assured and still only 23 years old, Mitchell wasn’t the reason Utah underperformed. But he didn’t make the strides as a scorer or playmaker that Utah ultimately needs if it ever wants to get over the hump.
Now, with Bogdanović out and the Jazz needing to alter how they play, Mitchell has an opportunity to progress in areas that can nudge this team back toward the doorstep of a higher tier. For the rest of the way this year — as the team is largely counted out and on track to go home before the conference finals once again — what’s best for Mitchell might be what’s best for the Jazz.
It’s fair to feel skeptical of Mitchell but also bullish about his chances. Utah was outscored by 5.3 points per 100 possessions when its All-Star guard played without Bogdanović, and in those moments it had a worse offensive rating than the 30th-ranked Golden State Warriors. But their probable new starting five — Conley, Mitchell, Royce O’Neale, Joe Ingles and Rudy Gobert — should remove any role-related confusion that previously existed for several players, while also generating more scoring opportunities, on and off the ball, for Mitchell.
Stylistically, the Jazz are unique, more egalitarian than most teams. They set a ton of screens (third most in the league per 100 possessions, according to Second Spectrum) — with Gobert’s limited skill set both preventing Utah from taking a broader approach and sharpening their execution of the game plan they do run. But with Bogdanović out of the frame and fresh lineups and sets needing to be deployed, it may make more sense to simplify that approach and feed Mitchell in ways they did not before.
The least complicated example of what this could look like is also the one that’s the most antithetical to how Utah plays basketball: Give Mitchell the ball and let him cook. Among all players who isolated at least 100 times this season, Mitchell’s 7.4 percent frequency was dead last. But even if he wasn’t the most efficient scorer in these situations, few guards in basketball are more explosive than Mitchell, with his combination of upper-body strength, long arms and a splash of offbeat creativity. Isolating Mitchell more often, particularly against weak defenders in lineups that can really space the floor, makes sense — as it did in the playoffs when he was a rookie. Let him improvise downhill and unleash the sort of swindling acrobatics that make him invincible.
Jazz head coach Quin Snyder could take that idea even further by also using Conley-Mitchell-Jordan Clarkson groups — especially in crunchtime, a la Oklahoma City’s three-guard lineup — that would ramp up the team’s speed and offensive potency. (As an off-ball complement, Mitchell hit nearly 44 percent of his spot-up threes this season — 12th-highest out of the 125 players who had at least 150 catch-and-shoot attempts.)
Now might also be a good time for the Jazz to bend a bit more toward their young franchise player’s athleticism by hunting for more open floor opportunities after they get a stop instead of pushing into the frontcourt and then steadying themselves in an attempt to pick the defense apart. (Utah shuffled its feet in half-court sets more often than any other team this season.)
Even with all this, Mitchell’s main function will still be in the pick-and-roll. The Jazz will use wings and forwards to set ball screens and confuse defenders, but the lion’s share of Mitchell’s attack involves a partnership with Gobert that’s both a gift and a curse. Per Second Spectrum, only six pick-and-roll tandems collaborated more than Mitchell and Gobert this season, and overall, Utah averaged 1.19 points per possession whenever they ran one, which ranks in the top 20 percent among all duos that logged at least 100 actions.
Gobert is a reliable lob threat, and despite having a lower usage rate than Georges Niang, he is in many ways the vertebra that holds up Utah’s entire offense: His picks, slips and measured dives to the rim demand attention from both his own man and defenders who slide in from the corner, which helped the Jazz generate threes from that zone at a higher frequency than every team except the Rockets.
But the fundamental cost of those forays into the paint is an intrasquad battle over real estate that Mitchell ultimately needs to own if he wants to scrape his ceiling; the Jazz probably can’t reach their apex if Mitchell and Gobert are simultaneously occupying the paint. According to Second Spectrum, when Mitchell shoots off a Gobert screen, he averages only 0.963 points per chance — ranking in the 29th percentile of pick-and-roll tandems.
Instead of earning the layups and free throws that might be afforded to someone with more room to operate, Mitchell is often forced to dine on tricky floaters and pull-up twos.
He’s been accurate enough on these taboo shots to justify the volume at which he launches them — as in, he’s more accurate than Kawhi Leonard and Kyrie Irving on pull-ups — but any primary scorer who also wants to be efficient can’t subsist on shots that make their job more difficult than it could otherwise be.
By increasing his isolation and transition chances, Mitchell can balance out the high-risk, low-reward looks he gets when in tandem with Gobert and seek to draw more shooting fouls — which is the next step on his ladder to greatness. Taking over an NBA game when you’re listed at 6-foot-1 — shorter than Damian Lillard! — is not easy, and it’s even harder when you aren’t getting to the line.
Of the 53 players who had a usage rate higher than 25 percent this season, Mitchell ranked 44th in free-throw rate. And the red flags travel to other venues: On Team USA last summer, Mitchell logged a team-high 219 minutes and hoisted a team-high 88 shots, but he only took eight free throws — about half as many as Marcus Smart, who missed three games. Up those attempts, and Mitchell starts to look like young Dwyane Wade with an outside shot.
Utah isn’t a lock to get out of the first round, and a Finals run feels like a pipe dream. But if aesthetic changes are made to accommodate Mitchell’s ability in Bogdanović’s absence, this team can easily exceed its dwindling expectations. Mitchell’s potential is nearly limitless; the Jazz should adapt as necessary to accelerate his journey there, and they should do it sooner rather than later.
Check out our latest NBA predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-03--The MLB Records* That Could Fall In A 60-Game Season

The 60-game 2020 MLB season — provided it can be completed — will be filled with all of the usual statistics baseball fans love .
But if history is any guide , expect the sport to again be embroiled in a fierce debate over asterisks , a controversial record-book remedy since Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth ’ s home run record in 162 games , instead of Ruth ’ s 154 .
While the current home run record is certainly safe , others of the game ’ s most sacrosanct records could be in serious jeopardy this season .
Leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a per-game basis , regardless of how many games are played .
But randomness plays a primary role in many baseball statistics even in a normal season .
In a much shorter one , this is more pronounced .
Consider , for example , the stabilization rates of batting average ( 910 at-bats or about 260 games ) , batting average allowed ( 630 batters faced or about 154 innings ) and homers per fly balls allowed ( 400 fly balls or about 300 to 500 innings ) .
And remember that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that doesn ’ t mean performance is fully indicative of skill ; it only means that it ’ s at least half skill ( and half random factors ) .
So stats achieved before they can stabilize are mostly the result of luck .
This could have a pronounced effect on the holy grail of baseball stats : the .400 average .
That ’ s a mark , as fans know , not reached since Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941 .
But in a sample of 60 games , the odds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era when batting average is dead , dramatically increase .
After all , Cody Bellinger was hitting .404 49 games into the Dodgers ’ 2019 season .
In 2016 , Joey Votto hit .401 between July 23 and Sept. 27 ( the dates of this year ’ s regular season ) .
If we limit ourselves to games played between those dates over the past five seasons , the list of top 10 batting averages is eye-popping .
To get a sense of the high variance possible in such a relatively small sample @ @ @ @ @ @ @ career .277 hitter , hit 90 points higher from July 23 to Sept. 27 .
Even the 10th-best average in this five-year sample is 8 points higher than any qualifying hitter managed in a 162-game season since 2015 .
What about pitching ?
Baseball ’ s most revered pitching record is Bob Gibson ’ s 1.12 ERA in 1968 — the lowest in the Live Ball Era that began in 1920 .
He was so dominant that the league decided it had no choice but to lower the mound to make things more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feat while hurling over 300 innings , including 28 complete games .
But this year , a starter will need at most 60 innings pitched to qualify for an ERA title .
So Gibson ’ s 52-year-old record seems like a strong contender to be overtaken .
Jake Arrieta would have shattered the record in 2015 , clocking in at a 0.86 ERA in 94.1 frames from July 23 through Sept. 27 en route to winning the National League Cy Young Award .
Just last season , Jack Flaherty posted a 1.00 ERA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Flaherty would have nearly broken another record last year , too , with a WHIP of 0.667 .
But Gerrit Cole would have just edged him , posting a 0.665 WHIP in 70 2/3 innings — better than Pedro Martinez ’ s live-ball era record of 0.74 WHIP over 217 innings in 2000 .
Counting stats , of course , are an entirely different matter .
While we think of 20 wins in a normal season as a milestone , getting just 10 would be a significant achievement this year .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Sept. 27 just once in the past five seasons — by Corey Kluber , who tallied 11 wins in 2017 .
Ditto for roundtrippers .
Forget 60 , 50 or even 40 homers .
A tremendous season would be 25 , given what we know about the home run leaders in this time frame since 2015 : The last time a hitter led a league in homers with a total under 30 was in the shortened season of 1981 , when Tony Armas ( A ’ s ) , Dwight Evans ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angels ) and Eddie Murray ( Orioles ) tied for the AL lead with 22 .
And before that , you have to go all the way back to the full season of 1946 , when Ralph Kiner slammed just 23 for the Pirates ( though he ’ d lead the NL six more seasons in a row , clubbing over 50 twice ) .
The most runs scored between July 23 and Sept. 27 in the past five seasons was 58 ( Brian Dozier in 2017 ) .
That same year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 65 ) — one of two players to top 60 in our sample ( the other was Giancarlo Stanton with 61 , also in 2017 ) .
No one has , over a complete season , averaged an RBI per team game this century .
The most strikeouts any pitcher has managed in that time frame since 2015 was Corey Kluber , who fanned 127 batters in 98 innings over 13 starts in 2017 .
The last time a league leader in a full season had a total lower than that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hughson and Bobo Newsom topped the AL with 113 in 1942 .
As will be the case with many stats , the 2020 strikeout leaders will seem one day like misprints on the backs of the baseball cards .

The MLB Records* That Could Fall In A 60-Game Season *If someone hits .400, you can bet there will be an asterisk.
The 60-game 2020 MLB season — provided it can be completed — will be filled with all of the usual statistics baseball fans love. But if history is any guide, expect the sport to again be embroiled in a fierce debate over asterisks, a controversial record-book remedy since Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth’s home run record in 162 games, instead of Ruth’s 154. While the current home run record is certainly safe, others of the game’s most sacrosanct records could be in serious jeopardy this season.
Leaders in MLB’s rate statistics qualify on a per-game basis, regardless of how many games are played. But randomness plays a primary role in many baseball statistics even in a normal season. In a much shorter one, this is more pronounced.
Consider, for example, the stabilization rates of batting average (910 at-bats or about 260 games), batting average allowed (630 batters faced or about 154 innings) and homers per fly balls allowed (400 fly balls or about 300 to 500 innings). And remember that when “stabilization” is reached, that doesn’t mean performance is fully indicative of skill; it only means that it’s at least half skill (and half random factors). So stats achieved before they can stabilize are mostly the result of luck.
This could have a pronounced effect on the holy grail of baseball stats: the .400 average. That’s a mark, as fans know, not reached since Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941. But in a sample of 60 games, the odds of someone doing it, even in an era when batting average is dead, dramatically increase. After all, Cody Bellinger was hitting .404 49 games into the Dodgers’ 2019 season.
In 2016, Joey Votto hit .401 between July 23 and Sept. 27 (the dates of this year’s regular season). If we limit ourselves to games played between those dates over the past five seasons, the list of top 10 batting averages is eye-popping.
Will someone hit .400 this season? MLB batters since 2015 with the highest single-season batting average from July 23 through Sept. 27 Year Name Team Games At-Bats Hits Average 2016 Joey Votto CIN 60 217 87 0.401 2016 DJ LeMahieu COL 57 223 85 0.381 2018 Justin Turner LAD 49 184 68 0.370 2016 Yadier Molina STL 54 199 73 0.367 2016 Freddie Freeman ATL 57 210 77 0.367 2019 Nelson Cruz MIN 47 180 66 0.367 2019 Tim Anderson CWS 51 223 81 0.363 2017 Avisaíl García CWS 48 180 65 0.361 2015 Francisco Lindor CLE 61 237 85 0.359 2017 Lorenzo Cain KC 58 222 79 0.356 Source: FanGraphs
To get a sense of the high variance possible in such a relatively small sample, last year Nelson Cruz, a career .277 hitter, hit 90 points higher from July 23 to Sept. 27. Even the 10th-best average in this five-year sample is 8 points higher than any qualifying hitter managed in a 162-game season since 2015.
What about pitching? Baseball’s most revered pitching record is Bob Gibson’s 1.12 ERA in 1968 — the lowest in the Live Ball Era that began in 1920. He was so dominant that the league decided it had no choice but to lower the mound to make things more fair for hitters.
Gibson pulled that feat while hurling over 300 innings, including 28 complete games. But this year, a starter will need at most 60 innings pitched to qualify for an ERA title. So Gibson’s 52-year-old record seems like a strong contender to be overtaken.
Will we see a sub-1.00 ERA? MLB pitchers since 2015 with the lowest single-season ERA from July 23 through Sept. 27 Year player team Games Innings Pitched Earned Runs ERA 2015 Jake Arrieta CHC 13 94.1 9 0.86 2019 Jack Flaherty STL 12 81.0 9 1.00 2016 Jon Lester CHC 12 79.1 12 1.36 2018 Trevor Williams PIT 12 71.2 11 1.38 2019 Gerrit Cole HOU 10 70.2 12 1.53 2019 Jacob deGrom NYM 12 82.0 14 1.54 2016 Kyle Hendricks CHC 11 74.0 13 1.58 2015 Clayton Kershaw LAD 12 89.0 16 1.62 2017 Corey Kluber CLE 13 98.0 18 1.65 2018 Clay Buchholz ARI 9 59.2 11 1.66 Source: FanGraphs
Jake Arrieta would have shattered the record in 2015, clocking in at a 0.86 ERA in 94.1 frames from July 23 through Sept. 27 en route to winning the National League Cy Young Award. Just last season, Jack Flaherty posted a 1.00 ERA in 81 innings over the same period. Flaherty would have nearly broken another record last year, too, with a WHIP of 0.667. But Gerrit Cole would have just edged him, posting a 0.665 WHIP in 70 2/3 innings — better than Pedro Martinez’s live-ball era record of 0.74 WHIP over 217 innings in 2000.
Counting stats, of course, are an entirely different matter. While we think of 20 wins in a normal season as a milestone, getting just 10 would be a significant achievement this year. That mark has been surpassed from July 23 to Sept. 27 just once in the past five seasons — by Corey Kluber, who tallied 11 wins in 2017.
Ditto for roundtrippers. Forget 60, 50 or even 40 homers. A tremendous season would be 25, given what we know about the home run leaders in this time frame since 2015:
We would be lucky to see 30 home runs MLB batters since 2015 with the highest single-season home run totals from July 23 through Sept. 27 Year Name Team Games At-Bats Home Runs 2017 J.D. Martinez ARI 58 220 29 2017 Giancarlo Stanton MIA 61 225 27 2016 Brian Dozier MIN 61 262 25 2015 Carlos González COL 62 224 25 2017 Josh Donaldson TOR 56 209 24 2018 Khris Davis OAK 58 225 24 2019 Eugenio Suárez CIN 59 208 23 2015 Chris Davis BAL 62 223 23 2018 Christian Yelich MIL 58 233 21 2015 Yoenis Céspedes DET/NYM 60 251 21 Source: FanGraphs
The last time a hitter led a league in homers with a total under 30 was in the shortened season of 1981, when Tony Armas (A’s), Dwight Evans (Red Sox), Bobby Grich (Angels) and Eddie Murray (Orioles) tied for the AL lead with 22. And before that, you have to go all the way back to the full season of 1946, when Ralph Kiner slammed just 23 for the Pirates (though he’d lead the NL six more seasons in a row, clubbing over 50 twice).
The most runs scored between July 23 and Sept. 27 in the past five seasons was 58 (Brian Dozier in 2017). That same year, J.D. Martinez had the most RBI (65) — one of two players to top 60 in our sample (the other was Giancarlo Stanton with 61, also in 2017). No one has, over a complete season, averaged an RBI per team game this century.
The most strikeouts any pitcher has managed in that time frame since 2015 was Corey Kluber, who fanned 127 batters in 98 innings over 13 starts in 2017. The last time a league leader in a full season had a total lower than that was during World War II, when Tex Hughson and Bobo Newsom topped the AL with 113 in 1942. As will be the case with many stats, the 2020 strikeout leaders will seem one day like misprints on the backs of the baseball cards.
Check out our latest MLB predictions.