fivethirthyeight--2020-09-24--Russell Wilson Is Finally Throwing Early And Often

Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson is no stranger to the big moment .
Last season , he tied for the NFL lead in both fourth-quarter comebacks and game-winning drives , adding to a career resume that already has him zooming up into Hall of Fame territory after just eight-plus pro seasons .
But this season , the Seahawks are preemptively unleashing Wilson in a way that might not require him to be quite so heroic at the ends of games for Seattle to have a chance at winning .
The battle cry for Seahawks fans has long been to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to expand the passing game and lean on Wilson ’ s individual brilliance more frequently .
( Otherwise , what is the point of having an all-time great quarterback ? )
But even more specifically , it ’ s about calling on Wilson earlier in the game .
Seattle coach Pete Carroll has been criticized in the past for running the ball too often ; he ’ s even said before that he loves the run because “ it ’ s the best way to not screw it up.
” So it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carroll to sign off on passing throughout the Wilson era : Since 2012 ( Wilson ’ s first season as starter ) , Seattle has called designed runs on a league-high 42.7 percent of its offensive plays , according to ESPN ’ s Stats & Information Group .
Of course , Seattle has also been one of the best teams in the NFL over that span , and it ’ s not uncommon for even forward-thinking teams to let their rushing be dictated by the game ’ s situation , since one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chew clock when you already have the lead .
But the Seahawks are also the second-most run-happy team in the first quarter of games since 2012 ( trailing only the Jets ) , running 46.9 percent of the time .
Rather than Letting Russ Cook all game , the Seahawks have tended to try to establish the run early … and if that didn ’ t work , then they asked Wilson to save the day .
Sometimes , that tactic triumphed — witness all of those comebacks in 2019 .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustained success .
Wilson told reporters in August that he would be happy to pass more early in games “ rather than us having to be in the fourth quarter to be able to make stuff happen.
” “ I definitely believe in finishing strong .
We ’ ve won a lot of games in the fourth quarter , ” Wilson said .
“ We ’ ve been able to do some fun stuff at the end of games in the fourth quarter .
But let ’ s treat every quarter like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of my mentality.
” The early signs are encouraging for those who want to see more Cooking With Russ this year .
In the first two games of the 2020 season , Seattle has run the ball only 36.8 percent of the time overall , including just 33.3 percent in the first quarter ( the fifth-lowest frequency in the league ) .
That ’ s by far the lowest rate of first-quarter run plays called by Seattle in any season of the Wilson era : It ’ s helped that Wilson has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) in the first quarters of games this season , which is easily the best of any passer so far this season .
The strategy also hasn ’ t gone off completely without a hitch — Wilson has a 36.9 QBR in second quarters , causing him to have to play exceptionally well ( 96.9 QBR ) in the third quarter to stake Seattle to its average lead of 13.5 points per game headed into the fourth .
But the important takeaway is that Wilson has the Seahawks ’ destiny in his hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And individually , the results speak for themselves .
Wilson is completing passes at a rate 13.9 percentage points higher than we would expect based on the characteristics of his throws — edging out the reigning MVP , Baltimore ’ s Lamar Jackson ( +12.2 ) , for the top spot in the league .
And according to our QB Elo ratings , Wilson has been the best quarterback in the NFL so far this season on a per-start basis : Although the Seahawks needed their defense to deny Cam Newton in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patriots and secure a victory on Sunday night , Seattle had the lead to defend because of their offense .
According to ESPN ’ s expected points added ( EPA ) , the Seahawks ’ passing attack was worth 12.3 EPA ( eighth-most of any team in Week 2 ) against a defense that had easily been the best in football against the pass last season .
If we adjust for strength of schedule using last year ’ s EPA numbers to guide our expectations , Seattle has had the second-best overall offense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and it ranks No .
1 specifically through the air .
That ’ s a major reason that our predictions think the Seahawks are now NFC West favorites , and we give them a 7 percent chance of winning the Super Bowl — fourth-best in the league .
All it took was giving an all-time great QB more chances to put his stamp on games .
( What a concept . )
Looking ahead : Week 3 ’ s top game is clear — Chiefs at Ravens on Monday Night Football , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No .
2 .
Baltimore has looked as formidable as ever in its first couple of games , showcasing a dominant defense ( No .
1 in EPA ) to complement Jackson , our top-ranked QB .
Kansas City needed a late comeback against the Chargers to join the Ravens at 2-0 , but that ’ s kind of Patrick Mahomes ’ s thing .
Neither team ’ s offense has been operating at quite as high a level as last season , when Baltimore and K.C .
finished 1-2 in EPA , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably just getting warmed up .
We give the Ravens a 54 percent chance of winning at home in a rematch of last year ’ s 33-28 Chiefs win at Arrowhead .
Elo ’ s spread : Baltimore -1

Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson is no stranger to the big moment. Last season, he tied for the NFL lead in both fourth-quarter comebacks and game-winning drives, adding to a career resume that already has him zooming up into Hall of Fame territory after just eight-plus pro seasons. But this season, the Seahawks are preemptively unleashing Wilson in a way that might not require him to be quite so heroic at the ends of games for Seattle to have a chance at winning.
The battle cry for Seahawks fans has long been to “Let Russ Cook” — i.e., to expand the passing game and lean on Wilson’s individual brilliance more frequently. (Otherwise, what is the point of having an all-time great quarterback?) But even more specifically, it’s about calling on Wilson earlier in the game. Seattle coach Pete Carroll has been criticized in the past for running the ball too often; he’s even said before that he loves the run because “it’s the best way to not screw it up.” So it’s usually been an uphill battle getting Carroll to sign off on passing throughout the Wilson era: Since 2012 (Wilson’s first season as starter), Seattle has called designed runs on a league-high 42.7 percent of its offensive plays, according to ESPN’s Stats & Information Group.
Of course, Seattle has also been one of the best teams in the NFL over that span, and it’s not uncommon for even forward-thinking teams to let their rushing be dictated by the game’s situation, since one of rushing’s best roles is to chew clock when you already have the lead. But the Seahawks are also the second-most run-happy team in the first quarter of games since 2012 (trailing only the Jets), running 46.9 percent of the time.
Rather than Letting Russ Cook all game, the Seahawks have tended to try to establish the run early … and if that didn’t work, then they asked Wilson to save the day. Sometimes, that tactic triumphed — witness all of those comebacks in 2019. But it’s a tough way to build sustained success.
Wilson told reporters in August that he would be happy to pass more early in games “rather than us having to be in the fourth quarter to be able to make stuff happen.”
“I definitely believe in finishing strong. We’ve won a lot of games in the fourth quarter,” Wilson said. “We’ve been able to do some fun stuff at the end of games in the fourth quarter. But let’s treat every quarter like the fourth. I think that’s kind of my mentality.”
The early signs are encouraging for those who want to see more Cooking With Russ this year. In the first two games of the 2020 season, Seattle has run the ball only 36.8 percent of the time overall, including just 33.3 percent in the first quarter (the fifth-lowest frequency in the league). That’s by far the lowest rate of first-quarter run plays called by Seattle in any season of the Wilson era:
It’s helped that Wilson has a 98.6 Total Quarterback Rating (QBR) in the first quarters of games this season, which is easily the best of any passer so far this season. The strategy also hasn’t gone off completely without a hitch — Wilson has a 36.9 QBR in second quarters, causing him to have to play exceptionally well (96.9 QBR) in the third quarter to stake Seattle to its average lead of 13.5 points per game headed into the fourth. But the important takeaway is that Wilson has the Seahawks’ destiny in his hands earlier in games than in the past.
And individually, the results speak for themselves. Wilson is completing passes at a rate 13.9 percentage points higher than we would expect based on the characteristics of his throws — edging out the reigning MVP, Baltimore’s Lamar Jackson (+12.2), for the top spot in the league. And according to our QB Elo ratings, Wilson has been the best quarterback in the NFL so far this season on a per-start basis:
No QB has played better than Wilson so far Best quarterbacks of the 2020 NFL season according to FiveThirtyEight’s quarterback Elo ratings per start (relative to an average starter) Quarterback Team Yds/G Net YPA TD/G Int/G QBR QB Elo vs. Avg. 1 Russell Wilson SEA 305.0 8.3 4.5 0.5 87.4 +271.6 2 Josh Allen BUF 364.5 8.4 3.0 0.0 85.2 241.4 3 Dak Prescott DAL 358.0 7.9 1.0 0.0 79.2 209.1 4 Cam Newton NE 276.0 8.3 0.5 0.5 71.7 179.4 5 Aaron Rodgers GB 302.0 7.9 3.0 0.0 91.0 173.8 6 Matt Ryan ATL 361.5 7.4 3.0 0.5 79.0 168.6 7 Kyler Murray ARI 258.0 6.7 1.0 1.0 83.8 158.8 8 Ryan Tannehill TEN 244.0 7.0 3.0 0.0 83.6 138.8 9 Patrick Mahomes KC 256.5 6.3 2.5 0.0 86.0 120.6 10 Derek Carr LV 260.5 7.0 2.0 0.0 74.8 103.1 Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group
Although the Seahawks needed their defense to deny Cam Newton in order to hold off the New England Patriots and secure a victory on Sunday night, Seattle had the lead to defend because of their offense. According to ESPN’s expected points added (EPA), the Seahawks’ passing attack was worth 12.3 EPA (eighth-most of any team in Week 2) against a defense that had easily been the best in football against the pass last season. If we adjust for strength of schedule using last year’s EPA numbers to guide our expectations, Seattle has had the second-best overall offense of any team so far in 2020 — and it ranks No. 1 specifically through the air.
That’s a major reason that our predictions think the Seahawks are now NFC West favorites, and we give them a 7 percent chance of winning the Super Bowl — fourth-best in the league. All it took was giving an all-time great QB more chances to put his stamp on games. (What a concept.)
FiveThirtyEight’s NFL Elo ratings How each team ranks through Week 2 of the 2020 season, according to our quarterback-adjusted predictions Chance To … Rk Team Starting QB QB Rk* Elo Rating Proj. Record Make Playoffs Win Division Win SB 1 Chiefs Mahomes 3 1682 12-4 93% 75% 16% 2 Ravens Jackson 1 1675 12-4 92 62 15 3 Seahawks Wilson 5 1610 11-5 78 38 7 4 Packers Rodgers 8 1609 11-5 82 59 8 5 Steelers Roethlisberger 6 1598 11-5 77 31 5 6 49ers Garoppolo✚ 24 1597 9-7 54 16 5 7 Saints Brees 4 1594 10-6 71 56 6 8 Rams Goff 15 1587 10-6 71 30 5 9 Bills Allen 9 1582 10-6 71 55 5 10 Titans Tannehill 10 1577 10-6 75 59 5 11 Patriots Newton 12 1569 9-7 59 38 3 12 Cowboys Prescott 2 1567 9-7 73 67 4 13 Bears Trubisky 25 1545 10-6 65 34 3 14 Buccaneers Brady 20 1535 8-8 49 29 3 15 Colts Rivers 18 1527 8-8 44 24 2 16 Raiders Carr 11 1522 9-7 54 18 2 17 Cardinals Murray 13 1522 9-7 56 17 2 18 Browns Mayfield 27 1491 8-8 37 6 <1 19 Falcons Ryan 7 1483 6-10 21 12 <1 20 Chargers Herbert 30 1478 7-9 27 4 <1 21 Vikings Cousins 28 1478 6-10 18 5 <1 22 Eagles Wentz 22 1472 6-10 19 14 <1 23 Texans Watson 14 1469 6-10 19 10 <1 24 Broncos Lock✚ 31 1463 6-10 12 3 <1 25 Jets Darnold 26 1419 5-11 9 4 <1 26 Lions Stafford 16 1419 5-11 10 2 <1 27 Jaguars Minshew 23 1416 6-10 18 7 <1 28 Dolphins Fitzpatrick 17 1411 5-11 8 3 <1 29 Panthers Bridgewater 19 1396 5-11 7 3 <1 30 Giants Jones 21 1392 5-11 10 7 <1 31 Washington Haskins 32 1390 6-10 16 12 <1 32 Bengals Burrow 29 1375 4-12 4 <1 <1 *Ranking among Week 2 starters, according to our QB Elo ratings. ✚ Starter is currently injured. Simulations as of Sept. 23, 2020. Source: ESPN
Looking ahead: Week 3’s top game is clear — Chiefs at Ravens on Monday Night Football, Elo’s No. 1 versus No. 2. Baltimore has looked as formidable as ever in its first couple of games, showcasing a dominant defense (No. 1 in EPA) to complement Jackson, our top-ranked QB. Kansas City needed a late comeback against the Chargers to join the Ravens at 2-0, but that’s kind of Patrick Mahomes’s thing. Neither team’s offense has been operating at quite as high a level as last season, when Baltimore and K.C. finished 1-2 in EPA, but the past two NFL MVPs are probably just getting warmed up. We give the Ravens a 54 percent chance of winning at home in a rematch of last year’s 33-28 Chiefs win at Arrowhead. Elo’s spread: Baltimore -1
Check out our latest NFL predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-25--Can You Save Some Cold Pizza?

Can You Save Some Cold Pizza?

Welcome to The Riddler .
Every week , I offer up problems related to the things we hold dear around here : math , logic and probability .
Two puzzles are presented each week : the Riddler Express for those of you who want something bite-size and the Riddler Classic for those of you in the slow-puzzle movement .
Submit a correct answer for either , and you may get a shoutout in next week ’ s column .
Please wait until Monday to publicly share your answers !
If you need a hint or have a favorite puzzle collecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter .
From Dan Levin comes a hazardous riddle for the ironclad and eagle-eyed : The U.S. Open concluded last weekend , with physics major Bryson DeChambeau emerging victorious .
Seeing his favorite golfer win his first major got Dan thinking about the precision needed to be a professional at the sport .
A typical hole is about 400 yards long , while the cup measures a mere 4.25 inches in diameter .
Suppose that , with every swing , you hit the ball X percent closer to the center of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were 75 percent , then with every swing the ball would be four times closer to the hole than it was previously .
For a 400-yard hole , assuming there are no hazards ( water , sand or otherwise ) in the way , what is the minimum value of X so that you ’ ll shoot par , meaning you ’ ll hit the ball into the cup in exactly four strokes ?
Dean ordered a personal pizza that was precisely 10 inches in diameter .
He ate half of it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ semicircle of pizza in his refrigerator .
He has circular plates of all different sizes , so to save space in his fridge , he ’ ll place the pizza on the smallest plate that holds the entire semicircle ( i.e.
, with no pizza hanging off the plate ) .
Unfortunately , the smallest plate that can hold half of a 10-inch pizza is just a circle with a 10-inch diameter .
So much for saving space .
But Dean has a thought : If he cuts the pizza , he can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a smaller circular plate — again , with no pizza hanging off the plate and without the pieces lying on top of each other .
If Dean makes a single straight slice , what is the diameter of the smallest circular plate onto which he can fit the two resulting pieces ?
Extra credit : Dean wants to save even more space in his fridge .
So instead of one straight slice , he will now make two straight slices .
First , he will cut the semicircular pizza into two pieces .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ those pieces and make his second slice , giving him a total of three pieces .
What is the diameter of the smallest circular plate onto which he can fit all three pieces ?
Congratulations to 👏 Graham E. McGrath 👏 of Boston , Massachusetts , winner of last week ’ s Riddler Express .
( This problem might have hit a little too close to home for Graham , who is a lab technician and uses centrifuges for a living ! )
Last week , you were doing your best not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equipment that separates components of a liquid by spinning around very rapidly .
Liquid samples were pipetted into small tubes , which were then placed in one of the microcentrifuge ’ s 12 slots evenly spaced in a circle .
For the microcentrifuge to work properly , each tube had to hold the same amount of liquid .
Also , importantly , the center of mass of the samples had to be at the very center of the circle — otherwise , the microcentrifuge would not be balanced and likely break .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In which slots ( numbered 1 through 12 , as in the diagram above ) could you have placed them so that the centrifuge was balanced ?
Balancing centrifuges is certainly not a new problem , and was previously addressed on the Numberphile YouTube channel , with Holly Krieger explaining the solution .
In the case of 12 slots , it was always possible to balance the centrifuge for any even number of tubes .
All you had to do was arrange them into pairs and place each pair on diametrically opposite ends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mass of each pair was at the center of the circle , which meant the total center of mass was also at the center .
Alas , the problem asked how you could place seven tubes , and seven is not an even number .
Several readers suggested adding an eighth tube , which was against the spirit of the puzzle .
As for odd numbers of tubes , balancing a single tube was not possible .
However , it was indeed possible to balance three tubes by arranging them evenly around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an equilateral triangle ( e.g.
, in positions 1 , 5 and 9 in the diagram above ) .
It was further possible to balance five tubes by again arranging three so they formed an equilateral triangle ( e.g.
, in positions 1 , 5 and 9 ) and another two on opposite sides ( e.g.
, in positions 2 and 8 ) .
Again , because the centers of mass for both the trio and the pair were at the center of the circle , their combined center of mass was also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Returning to the original puzzle , it was possible to balance seven tubes by arranging three in an equilateral triangle , another two on opposite sides and the last two on a different pair of opposite sides .
( Alternatively , some solvers noted that placing seven tubes was equivalent to choosing the five slots that didn ’ t have tubes , which was essentially the same problem as placing five tubes . )
There were several correct answers here — more on that in a second — one of which was slots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 8 , 9 and 12 , found by solver Alicia Zamudio .
For extra credit , you had to find the total number balanced arrangements for seven tubes .
It turned out that there were exactly 12 arrangements , all rotations of each other .
Solver Reece Goiffon verified this by finding all the ways seven vectors on a unit circle could add up to zero : Meanwhile , in what I believe is a first for The Riddler , Chris Sears wrote code in Commodore 64 BASIC , checking all 792 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways to place seven tubes in 12 slots .
The general version of this problem , with N slots and k tubes , was addressed in the aforementioned Numberphile video and was further proven by T. Y. Lam and K. H. Leung back in 2000 .
As for how many arrangements there are for given values of N and k , there ’ s an OEIS sequence for that !
( Thanks to solver Eric Thompson-Martin for spotting it . )
When N = 12 and k increased from 0 to 12 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 0 , 6 , 4 , 15 , 12 , 24 , 12 , 15 , 4 , 6 , 0 and 1 .
If you look closely , you ’ ll see that the sequence is symmetric , since placing k tubes was exactly the same problem as choosing where not to place k tubes .
I encourage readers to verify these results for themselves .
But not the grad students or technicians out there .
I don ’ t need angry lab directors emailing me about broken centrifuges .
Congratulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Washington , winner of last week ’ s Riddler Classic .
( Lowell is finally joining his son in the winner ’ s circle . )
Last week , you were introduced to an online game , Guess My Word , in which you tried to guess a secret word by typing in other words .
After each guess , you were told whether the secret word was alphabetically before or after your guess .
The game stopped and congratulated you once you had guessed the secret word .
The secret word @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly 267,751 entries .
If you had this dictionary memorized and played the game as efficiently as possible , how many guesses should you have expected to make to uncover the secret word ?
Most solvers recognized that the most efficient strategy was a binary search , where you first guessed the middle word in the dictionary .
If the secret word came later , you then guessed the middle word in the second half of the dictionary .
But if the secret word came earlier , you guessed the middle word in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With each guess , you narrowed the possibilities by approximately half , and there was also a chance that the guess itself was the secret word .
The sequence of guesses could therefore be structured as a complete binary tree whose top node was your first guess ( the exact middle word in the dictionary ) .
If the secret word came earlier in the dictionary , you moved to the right ; if the secret word came later in the dictionary , you moved to the left .
Eventually , you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you had the optimal guessing strategy , all that was left was calculating the average number of guesses .
In your binary tree , one word — the middle word in the dictionary — would be guessed on the very first attempt .
Two words required two guesses , four words required three guesses , eight words required four guesses , 16 words required five guesses , and so on .
For each additional guess , there were twice as many words .
It turned out that the number of words in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ + 21 + 22 + 23 + … + 216 + 217 + 5608 .
And each term in the sum required one more guess than the term before it .
To find the average number of guesses , you had to divide each of these terms by 267,751 and then multiply by the corresponding number of guesses .
In the end , the average was approximately 17.042 guesses .
Several solvers , like Michael Branicky , Josh Silverman and Rajeev Pakalapati , generalized this method , finding a formula for the expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any number of words .
Meanwhile , Emma Knight went in a completely different direction — recursion — still arriving at the same solution .
Thanks again to Oliver Roeder for introducing Riddler Nation to this fun word game .
( If only it weren ’ t so darn addictive . )
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
From Dan Levin comes a hazardous riddle for the ironclad and eagle-eyed:
The U.S. Open concluded last weekend, with physics major Bryson DeChambeau emerging victorious. Seeing his favorite golfer win his first major got Dan thinking about the precision needed to be a professional at the sport.
A typical hole is about 400 yards long, while the cup measures a mere 4.25 inches in diameter. Suppose that, with every swing, you hit the ball X percent closer to the center of the hole. For example, if X were 75 percent, then with every swing the ball would be four times closer to the hole than it was previously.
For a 400-yard hole, assuming there are no hazards (water, sand or otherwise) in the way, what is the minimum value of X so that you’ll shoot par, meaning you’ll hit the ball into the cup in exactly four strokes?
The solution to this Riddler Express can be found in the following week’s column.
Riddler Classic
From Dean Ballard comes a pernicious pizza puzzle:
Dean ordered a personal pizza that was precisely 10 inches in diameter. He ate half of it, and he wants to save the remaining semicircle of pizza in his refrigerator. He has circular plates of all different sizes, so to save space in his fridge, he’ll place the pizza on the smallest plate that holds the entire semicircle (i.e., with no pizza hanging off the plate).
Unfortunately, the smallest plate that can hold half of a 10-inch pizza is just a circle with a 10-inch diameter. So much for saving space.
But Dean has a thought: If he cuts the pizza, he can squeeze both of the resulting pieces onto a smaller circular plate — again, with no pizza hanging off the plate and without the pieces lying on top of each other.
If Dean makes a single straight slice, what is the diameter of the smallest circular plate onto which he can fit the two resulting pieces?
Extra credit: Dean wants to save even more space in his fridge. So instead of one straight slice, he will now make two straight slices. First, he will cut the semicircular pizza into two pieces. Then, he will take one of those pieces and make his second slice, giving him a total of three pieces. What is the diameter of the smallest circular plate onto which he can fit all three pieces?
The solution to this Riddler Classic can be found in the following week’s column.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Express
Congratulations to 👏 Graham E. McGrath 👏 of Boston, Massachusetts, winner of last week’s Riddler Express. (This problem might have hit a little too close to home for Graham, who is a lab technician and uses centrifuges for a living!)
Last week, you were doing your best not to break a microcentrifuge, a piece of equipment that separates components of a liquid by spinning around very rapidly. Liquid samples were pipetted into small tubes, which were then placed in one of the microcentrifuge’s 12 slots evenly spaced in a circle.
For the microcentrifuge to work properly, each tube had to hold the same amount of liquid. Also, importantly, the center of mass of the samples had to be at the very center of the circle — otherwise, the microcentrifuge would not be balanced and likely break.
You needed to spin exactly seven samples. In which slots (numbered 1 through 12, as in the diagram above) could you have placed them so that the centrifuge was balanced?
Balancing centrifuges is certainly not a new problem, and was previously addressed on the Numberphile YouTube channel, with Holly Krieger explaining the solution.
In the case of 12 slots, it was always possible to balance the centrifuge for any even number of tubes. All you had to do was arrange them into pairs and place each pair on diametrically opposite ends of the circle. The center of mass of each pair was at the center of the circle, which meant the total center of mass was also at the center.
Alas, the problem asked how you could place seven tubes, and seven is not an even number. Several readers suggested adding an eighth tube, which was against the spirit of the puzzle.
As for odd numbers of tubes, balancing a single tube was not possible. However, it was indeed possible to balance three tubes by arranging them evenly around the circle so they were the vertices of an equilateral triangle (e.g., in positions 1, 5 and 9 in the diagram above). It was further possible to balance five tubes by again arranging three so they formed an equilateral triangle (e.g., in positions 1, 5 and 9) and another two on opposite sides (e.g., in positions 2 and 8). Again, because the centers of mass for both the trio and the pair were at the center of the circle, their combined center of mass was also at the center of the circle.
Returning to the original puzzle, it was possible to balance seven tubes by arranging three in an equilateral triangle, another two on opposite sides and the last two on a different pair of opposite sides. (Alternatively, some solvers noted that placing seven tubes was equivalent to choosing the five slots that didn’t have tubes, which was essentially the same problem as placing five tubes.) There were several correct answers here — more on that in a second — one of which was slots 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12, found by solver Alicia Zamudio.
For extra credit, you had to find the total number balanced arrangements for seven tubes. It turned out that there were exactly 12 arrangements, all rotations of each other. Solver Reece Goiffon verified this by finding all the ways seven vectors on a unit circle could add up to zero:
@xaqwg (an attempt at) solving #thisweeksriddler has become a routine break when I'm working through the weekend. Thanks for that! This is my first time making a nice picture. This one was nice and intuitive, so that helps. pic.twitter.com/1YqLfEPZH1 — Reece J. Goiffon, MD, PhD (@ReeceJGoiffon) September 20, 2020
Meanwhile, in what I believe is a first for The Riddler, Chris Sears wrote code in Commodore 64 BASIC, checking all 792 (i.e., 12 choose 7) ways to place seven tubes in 12 slots.
https://twitter.com/TheProfAbides/status/1308262134577590272
The general version of this problem, with N slots and k tubes, was addressed in the aforementioned Numberphile video and was further proven by T. Y. Lam and K. H. Leung back in 2000. As for how many arrangements there are for given values of N and k, there’s an OEIS sequence for that! (Thanks to solver Eric Thompson-Martin for spotting it.)
When N = 12 and k increased from 0 to 12, the number of balanced arrangements was 1, 0, 6, 4, 15, 12, 24, 12, 15, 4, 6, 0 and 1. If you look closely, you’ll see that the sequence is symmetric, since placing k tubes was exactly the same problem as choosing where not to place k tubes.
I encourage readers to verify these results for themselves. But not the grad students or technicians out there. I don’t need angry lab directors emailing me about broken centrifuges.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Classic
Congratulations to 👏 Lowell Vaughn 👏 of Bellevue, Washington, winner of last week’s Riddler Classic. (Lowell is finally joining his son in the winner’s circle.)
Last week, you were introduced to an online game, Guess My Word, in which you tried to guess a secret word by typing in other words. After each guess, you were told whether the secret word was alphabetically before or after your guess. The game stopped and congratulated you once you had guessed the secret word.
The secret word was randomly chosen from a dictionary with exactly 267,751 entries. If you had this dictionary memorized and played the game as efficiently as possible, how many guesses should you have expected to make to uncover the secret word?
Most solvers recognized that the most efficient strategy was a binary search, where you first guessed the middle word in the dictionary. If the secret word came later, you then guessed the middle word in the second half of the dictionary. But if the secret word came earlier, you guessed the middle word in the first half of the dictionary. With each guess, you narrowed the possibilities by approximately half, and there was also a chance that the guess itself was the secret word.
The sequence of guesses could therefore be structured as a complete binary tree whose top node was your first guess (the exact middle word in the dictionary). If the secret word came earlier in the dictionary, you moved to the right; if the secret word came later in the dictionary, you moved to the left. Eventually, you’d find the secret word.
Now that you had the optimal guessing strategy, all that was left was calculating the average number of guesses. In your binary tree, one word — the middle word in the dictionary — would be guessed on the very first attempt. Two words required two guesses, four words required three guesses, eight words required four guesses, 16 words required five guesses, and so on. For each additional guess, there were twice as many words.
It turned out that the number of words in the dictionary, 267,751, was 1 + 21 + 22 + 23 + … + 216 + 217 + 5608. And each term in the sum required one more guess than the term before it. To find the average number of guesses, you had to divide each of these terms by 267,751 and then multiply by the corresponding number of guesses. In the end, the average was approximately 17.042 guesses.
Several solvers, like Michael Branicky, Josh Silverman and Rajeev Pakalapati, generalized this method, finding a formula for the expected number of guesses for a dictionary with any number of words. Meanwhile, Emma Knight went in a completely different direction — recursion — still arriving at the same solution.
Thanks again to Oliver Roeder for introducing Riddler Nation to this fun word game. (If only it weren’t so darn addictive.)
Want more riddles?
Well, aren’t you lucky? There’s a whole book full of the best puzzles from this column and some never-before-seen head-scratchers. It’s called “The Riddler,” and it’s in stores now!
Want to submit a riddle?
Email Zach Wissner-Gross at riddlercolumn@gmail.com


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-25--Why Four Pivotal Swing States Likely Won’t Be Called On Election Night

The 2020 election is already underway in several states , but that doesn ’ t mean the rules aren ’ t still changing .
( We ’ re tracking them all here . )
In the past eight days alone , four important swing states have tentatively extended the deadline by which mail ballots must be received .
• The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that ballots can arrive as late as Nov. 6 and still count as long as no evidence ( e.g.
, a postmark ) exists that they were mailed after Election Day ( Nov. 3 ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ballots can be counted as long as they are postmarked by the day before the election ( Nov. 2 ) and received by Nov. 17 .
• A federal judge ordered Wisconsin to count absentee ballots that are postmarked by Nov. 3 as long as they arrive by Nov. 9 .
• And North Carolina reached a tentative court settlement with plaintiffs that , among other things , would allow ballots to count as long as they are postmarked by Nov. 3 and arrive by Nov. 12 .
( However , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a judge before it officially goes into effect . )
Importantly , however , these changes aren ’ t set in stone ; Republicans may continue to contest them in court .
At the very least , GOP legislative leaders in Wisconsin have already appealed that decision to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals , and Republicans say they plan to take the Pennsylvania decision to the U.S. Supreme Court .
If they stand , though , these rulings could be significant .
First , they obviously make it easier to vote by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepting ballots means fewer voters will be disenfranchised for mailing their ballots too late .
In terms of the horse race , that ’ s likely to give Democrats a small boost in these states , since Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say they plan to vote by mail this year .
Second , these rulings increase the odds that media outlets won ’ t be able to declare a winner in these four states on election night .
And given the pivotal role these states will play in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 56 percent chance that one of them will decide the Electoral College , according to the FiveThirtyEight presidential forecast — this in turn increases the odds that we won ’ t know the winner of the presidential race for days after the fact .
We haven ’ t written much about which states are expected to report most of their election results on election night and which will be delayed , because it ’ s actually pretty difficult to predict .
Several different variables factor into how quickly a state counts its votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots ( which take longer to count than in-person ballots ) , how early the state is allowed to start processing mail ballots , and how well-resourced state election officials are .
And with new court decisions and executive orders being issued on what feels like a daily basis , those variables are still subject to a lot of change .
But perhaps the surest sign that a state won ’ t be called on election night is if it accepts mail ballots that arrive after Election Day .
By definition , any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be incomplete because at least some ballots — and probably quite a few — will still be in transit .
And with the recent developments in Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin and North Carolina , that means a majority of presidential swing states now fall into this category ( at least for now ) .
Right now , it looks like our best chance of getting a call on election night in a major swing state is in Florida .
In addition to not accepting ballots that arrive after Election Day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several weeks early , enabling them to release results extremely quickly on election night .
On paper , Arizona also looks like it could be called on election night , although it doesn ’ t have a good track record of fast counting : In 2018 , it took almost a week to declare a winner in some close races there .
But it looks increasingly unlikely that we ’ ll be able to declare an election-night winner in Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin .
In addition to possibly having thousands of ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these states will probably be slow to count even the mail ballots that have already arrived , since all three prohibit processing mail ballots before Election Day .
( By contrast , North Carolina is allowed to process mail ballots well in advance , so we should learn the results of mail ballots that arrive by Nov. 2 shortly after polls close — but then have to wait days for the remainder . )
If Biden is leading in those states in the wee hours of Nov. 4 , that may be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lean heavily Democratic , his margin will probably only increase as more mail ballots are counted .
But if Trump is leading in these states , we could be in for days of waiting on the edge of our seat for every ballot dump .
Since this is a distinct possibility , we must continue to prepare ourselves for a world in which we won ’ t know the identity of the next president until mid-November .

The 2020 election is already underway in several states, but that doesn’t mean the rules aren’t still changing. (We’re tracking them all here.) In the past eight days alone, four important swing states have tentatively extended the deadline by which mail ballots must be received.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that ballots can arrive as late as Nov. 6 and still count as long as no evidence (e.g., a postmark) exists that they were mailed after Election Day (Nov. 3).
Supreme Court ruled that ballots can arrive as late as Nov. 6 and still count as long as no evidence (e.g., a postmark) exists that they were mailed after Election Day (Nov. 3). A state judge in Michigan decreed that ballots can be counted as long as they are postmarked by the day before the election (Nov. 2) and received by Nov. 17.
decreed that ballots can be counted as long as they are postmarked by the day before the election (Nov. 2) and received by Nov. 17. A federal judge ordered Wisconsin to count absentee ballots that are postmarked by Nov. 3 as long as they arrive by Nov. 9.
to count absentee ballots that are postmarked by Nov. 3 as long as they arrive by Nov. 9. And North Carolina reached a tentative court settlement with plaintiffs that, among other things, would allow ballots to count as long as they are postmarked by Nov. 3 and arrive by Nov. 12. (However, the settlement still needs to be approved by a judge before it officially goes into effect.)
Importantly, however, these changes aren’t set in stone; Republicans may continue to contest them in court. At the very least, GOP legislative leaders in Wisconsin have already appealed that decision to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Republicans say they plan to take the Pennsylvania decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
4 Senate races to watch as GOP rushes to fill Justice Ginsburgâs seat
If they stand, though, these rulings could be significant. First, they obviously make it easier to vote by mail — a more generous window for accepting ballots means fewer voters will be disenfranchised for mailing their ballots too late. In terms of the horse race, that’s likely to give Democrats a small boost in these states, since Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say they plan to vote by mail this year.
Second, these rulings increase the odds that media outlets won’t be able to declare a winner in these four states on election night. And given the pivotal role these states will play in the presidential election — there’s a 56 percent chance that one of them will decide the Electoral College, according to the FiveThirtyEight presidential forecast — this in turn increases the odds that we won’t know the winner of the presidential race for days after the fact.
We haven’t written much about which states are expected to report most of their election results on election night and which will be delayed, because it’s actually pretty difficult to predict. Several different variables factor into how quickly a state counts its votes, including how many people cast mail ballots (which take longer to count than in-person ballots), how early the state is allowed to start processing mail ballots, and how well-resourced state election officials are. And with new court decisions and executive orders being issued on what feels like a daily basis, those variables are still subject to a lot of change.
But perhaps the surest sign that a state won’t be called on election night is if it accepts mail ballots that arrive after Election Day. By definition, any results these states release on election night will be incomplete because at least some ballots — and probably quite a few — will still be in transit. And with the recent developments in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina, that means a majority of presidential swing states now fall into this category (at least for now).
Most swing states will be counting ballots after Election Day The deadline for mail ballots to be received in likely tipping-point states State Tipping-Point Chance Mail Ballot Receipt Deadline Accepts Ballots After Election Day? Pennsylvania* 33% Nov. 6 ✓ Florida 12 Nov. 3 Wisconsin* 9 Nov. 9 ✓ Michigan 8 Nov. 17 ✓ Arizona 6 Nov. 3 North Carolina* 5 Nov. 12 ✓ Ohio 3 Nov. 13 ✓ Nevada 3 Nov. 10 ✓ Minnesota 3 Nov. 10 ✓ Colorado 3 Nov. 3 New Hampshire 2 Nov. 3 Georgia* 2 Nov. 6 ✓ Virginia 1 Nov. 6 ✓ Texas 1 Nov. 4 ✓ *Subject to being overturned by a court. Deadlines are for ballots mailed domestically; overseas ballots often have later deadlines. “Tipping-point chance” is the chance that a given state will provide the decisive vote in the Electoral College. Tipping-point chances are as of Sept. 24 at 5 p.m. Eastern. Sources: State election officials, news reports
Right now, it looks like our best chance of getting a call on election night in a major swing state is in Florida. In addition to not accepting ballots that arrive after Election Day, the Sunshine State begins processing mail ballots several weeks early, enabling them to release results extremely quickly on election night. On paper, Arizona also looks like it could be called on election night, although it doesn’t have a good track record of fast counting: In 2018, it took almost a week to declare a winner in some close races there.
But it looks increasingly unlikely that we’ll be able to declare an election-night winner in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In addition to possibly having thousands of ballots still in transit on election night, these states will probably be slow to count even the mail ballots that have already arrived, since all three prohibit processing mail ballots before Election Day. (By contrast, North Carolina is allowed to process mail ballots well in advance, so we should learn the results of mail ballots that arrive by Nov. 2 shortly after polls close — but then have to wait days for the remainder.)
If Biden is leading in those states in the wee hours of Nov. 4, that may be the ballgame: Because mail ballots are expected to lean heavily Democratic, his margin will probably only increase as more mail ballots are counted. But if Trump is leading in these states, we could be in for days of waiting on the edge of our seat for every ballot dump. Since this is a distinct possibility, we must continue to prepare ourselves for a world in which we won’t know the identity of the next president until mid-November.
Trump Won’t Commit To Peaceful Transfer Of Power | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-25--Most Americans Want To Wait Until After The Election To Fill The Supreme Court Vacancy

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our weekly polling roundup .
The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opened up a rare vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court , and Republicans are moving quickly to fill the seat .
President Trump says he will nominate a replacement for Ginsburg on Saturday , and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pledged a vote on the nominee this year .
( And it looks as if he might have the votes to confirm her . )
But polling conducted in the wake of Ginsburg ’ s death shows that this may be an unpopular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls so far that have asked some version of the question , “ Should Ginsburg ’ s seat be filled this year by Trump , or next year by the winner of the 2020 presidential election ?
” And on average , 52 percent of respondents have said to wait , while only 39 percent have said Trump should fill the seat now .
If that split sounds familiar , that ’ s because it closely echoes both polls of Trump ’ s approval rating ( 43 percent approval vs. 53 percent disapproval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls between Trump and Joe Biden ( which average out to Biden 50 percent , Trump 43 percent ) .
In other words , partisanship is probably driving people ’ s opinions of when the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled .
You also saw this in the crosstabs of almost every poll this week : On average , 78 percent of Republican respondents said Trump should fill the vacancy now , while 84 percent of Democratic respondents said it should be up to the winner of the election .
( This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally believed then-President Obama should have been allowed to fill Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s seat , while Republicans supported having the winner of the election decide . )
But this issue is also a great example of when question wording can really affect the results of a poll .
For example , Americans felt differently about whether Trump should appoint a replacement and whether the Senate should confirm her if he does .
For example , registered voters told YouGov by a 51 percent to 42 percent margin that Trump should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were more divided when asked , “ If President Donald Trump appoints a new Supreme Court Justice before the presidential inauguration in January 2021 , do you think the U.S. Senate should confirm the nominee ?
” : 45 percent said yes , 48 percent said no .
Similarly , Global Strategy Group/GBAO/Navigator found that registered voters thought 56 percent to 36 percent that the winner of the election should be responsible for nominating Ginsburg ’ s replacement — but when asked what they thought what should happen if Trump nominates someone anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right for the Senate to vote on the nominee , while 47 percent thought it would be wrong .
In addition , some polls asked if Ginsburg ’ s seat should be filled before Election Day ( Nov. 3 ) , while others asked if it should be filled before inauguration day ( Jan. 20 ) .
And while many voters would prefer to wait until after the election , that doesn ’ t mean they necessarily oppose Trump naming a nominee .
In the SurveyMonkey/Insider poll , 45 percent of registered voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should appoint the next justice , and the Senate should not vote until the election is decided , ” while 28 percent said the Senate should confirm her “ as soon as possible , before the 2020 election.
” But another 13 percent said it should happen “ after the 2020 election but before the next inauguration , regardless [ of whether ] President Trump wins or loses.
” So that suggests that 58 percent of voters want to wait until after the election , but that 41 percent of voters want Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat .
Relatedly , Reuters/Ipsos returned two seemingly contradictory findings : First , 62 percent of adults ( including 49 percent of Republicans ) agreed with the statement , “ The winner of the election should be able to appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s replacement on the Supreme Court.
” ( Only 24 percent disagreed . )
But the pollster also found that respondents agreed , 46 percent to 40 percent , with the statement , “ President Donald Trump should nominate a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg before his term ends.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s right to nominate a replacement but don ’ t want to see her confirmed until we know the results of the election .
Or it could be that many Republicans believe Trump will be the winner of the election , so the two statements aren ’ t contradictory to them .
Another good example of how question wording might have affected people ’ s answers came from The Economist/YouGov , which asked , “ Do you think Donald Trump should nominate someone to fill the vacancy , or should the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes office in January 2021 ?
” Referring to the seat as “ remain [ ing ] vacant , ” rather than saying that winner of the election would fill it , might have emphasized to respondents that the Supreme Court would be understaffed for at least four months in this scenario ; the use of the phrase “ new president ” might also have implied “ not Trump.
” That could explain why this was one of the best polls for McConnell and Trump : Respondents supported waiting to fill the seat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent margin .
Overall , it seems clear that forging ahead with the confirmation process now is somewhere between a mildly unpopular decision and a very unpopular one .
But it ’ s unclear whether it will actually hurt Republicans at the ballot box .
As I wrote on Tuesday , only 5 percent of registered voters told SurveyMonkey/Insider that the Supreme Court vacancy made them less certain of their vote , and a plurality of respondents told Reuters/Ipsos that it would have no impact on their presidential vote .
And although the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to many Americans — “ very important ” to 52 percent of them and “ somewhat important ” to 23 percent , according to The Economist/YouGov — it might not be as important as the other issues they were already basing their vote on .
According to the HuffPost/YouGov survey , only 21 percent of voters said the Supreme Court is one of their top three issue priorities — well behind the economy ( 42 percent ) , the coronavirus ( 41 percent ) and health care ( 34 percent ) .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 69 percent of Americans don ’ t have confidence in Trump ’ s assurances that a coronavirus vaccine would be effective ; only 27 percent placed a “ great deal ” or “ good amount ” of confidence in the president .
In addition , the pollster found that the number of Americans who said they are likely to get the vaccine has dropped from 74 percent in May to 64 percent in September .
• According to a Harvard Institute of Politics survey , 63 percent of young Americans ( under age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” vote in the general election — higher than the 47 percent who said so in 2016 .
Among these young likely voters , Biden held a 60 percent to 27 percent lead .
• Traditional campaign field organizations — like knocking on doors to ask people for their vote — have been greatly diminished in 2020 amid the coronavirus pandemic .
Indeed , some Democrats are worried that Biden ’ s campaign is doing so little on-the-ground outreach .
But a new Morning Consult/Politico survey may validate Biden ’ s approach : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apprehensive about answering the door for canvassers , while just 28 percent said they were comfortable with it .
• The race in California ’ s 53rd Congressional District won ’ t help decide who controls the U.S. House ; the campaign is between two Democrats who both advanced from March ’ s all-party primary .
But there are still big differences between 31-year-old self-funder Sara Jacobs , a moderate , and San Diego City Council President Georgette Gómez , a progressive who would also be the first openly LGBTQ Latina in Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for KGTV-TV and the San Diego Union-Tribune gives Jacobs a 38 percent to 24 percent lead in the general election .
• Just want 2020 to be over already ?
You ’ re in good company .
When YouGov asked Americans how the year 2020 has been for them , 21 percent said “ bad , ” and another 21 percent said “ terrible.
” While 37 percent of Americans said 2020 has been “ okay , ” only 12 percent said it has been “ good , ” and just 5 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 42.9 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 53.2 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -10.3 points ) .
At this time last week , 43.3 percent approved and 52.7 percent disapproved ( a net approval rating of -9.5 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 41.6 percent and a disapproval rating of 54.7 percent , for a net approval rating of -13.0 points .
In our average of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats currently lead by 6.4 percentage points ( 48.8 percent to 42.3 percent ) .
A week ago , Democrats led Republicans by 6.4 points ( 48.6 percent to 42.2 percent ) .
At this time last month , voters preferred Democrats by 7.4 points ( 48.3 percent to 41.0 percent ) .
Check out all the polls we ’ ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections .

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opened up a rare vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, and Republicans are moving quickly to fill the seat. President Trump says he will nominate a replacement for Ginsburg on Saturday, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pledged a vote on the nominee this year. (And it looks as if he might have the votes to confirm her.) But polling conducted in the wake of Ginsburg’s death shows that this may be an unpopular decision.
We’ve identified 12 polls so far that have asked some version of the question, “Should Ginsburg’s seat be filled this year by Trump, or next year by the winner of the 2020 presidential election?” And on average, 52 percent of respondents have said to wait, while only 39 percent have said Trump should fill the seat now.
Americans want the election winner to choose a new justice Polls conducted since Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death asking whether the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by President Trump now or by the winner of the 2020 election The seat should be filled by … Pollster Dates Trump now the 2020 winner SurveyMonkey/Insider Sept. 18-19 28% 45% Data for Progress Sept. 18-19 39 53 YouGov Sept. 19 42 51 ScottRasmussen.com Sept. 19 41 52 Reuters/Ipsos* Sept. 19-20 46 62 Rasmussen Sept. 20 45 51 Morning Consult/Politico Sept. 18-20 37 50 Global Strategy Group/Navigator Sept. 19-21 36 56 HuffPost/YouGov Sept. 19-22 36 49 The Economist/YouGov Sept. 20-22 41 46 CNN/SSRS Sept. 21-22 41 59 Yahoo News/YouGov Sept. 21-23 40 53 Average 39 52 *Reuters/Ipsos numbers sum to more than 100 percent because the poll asked two separate questions: whether respondents thought Trump should fill the seat, and whether they thought the 2020 winner should fill the seat. Source: Polls
If that split sounds familiar, that’s because it closely echoes both polls of Trump’s approval rating (43 percent approval vs. 53 percent disapproval, on average) and national horse-race polls between Trump and Joe Biden (which average out to Biden 50 percent, Trump 43 percent).
In other words, partisanship is probably driving people’s opinions of when the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled. You also saw this in the crosstabs of almost every poll this week: On average, 78 percent of Republican respondents said Trump should fill the vacancy now, while 84 percent of Democratic respondents said it should be up to the winner of the election. (This is a reversal from 2016, when Democrats generally believed then-President Obama should have been allowed to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat, while Republicans supported having the winner of the election decide.)
But this issue is also a great example of when question wording can really affect the results of a poll. For example, Americans felt differently about whether Trump should appoint a replacement and whether the Senate should confirm her if he does. For example, registered voters told YouGov by a 51 percent to 42 percent margin that Trump should not appoint a new justice, but they were more divided when asked, “If President Donald Trump appoints a new Supreme Court Justice before the presidential inauguration in January 2021, do you think the U.S. Senate should confirm the nominee?”: 45 percent said yes, 48 percent said no. Similarly, Global Strategy Group/GBAO/Navigator found that registered voters thought 56 percent to 36 percent that the winner of the election should be responsible for nominating Ginsburg’s replacement — but when asked what they thought what should happen if Trump nominates someone anyway, 42 percent thought it would be right for the Senate to vote on the nominee, while 47 percent thought it would be wrong.
4 Senate races to watch as GOP rushes to fill Justice Ginsburgâs seat
In addition, some polls asked if Ginsburg’s seat should be filled before Election Day (Nov. 3), while others asked if it should be filled before inauguration day (Jan. 20). And while many voters would prefer to wait until after the election, that doesn’t mean they necessarily oppose Trump naming a nominee. In the SurveyMonkey/Insider poll, 45 percent of registered voters agreed that “whoever wins the election should appoint the next justice, and the Senate should not vote until the election is decided,” while 28 percent said the Senate should confirm her “as soon as possible, before the 2020 election.” But another 13 percent said it should happen “after the 2020 election but before the next inauguration, regardless [of whether] President Trump wins or loses.” So that suggests that 58 percent of voters want to wait until after the election, but that 41 percent of voters want Trump to be the one to fill the seat.
Relatedly, Reuters/Ipsos returned two seemingly contradictory findings: First, 62 percent of adults (including 49 percent of Republicans) agreed with the statement, “The winner of the election should be able to appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement on the Supreme Court.” (Only 24 percent disagreed.) But the pollster also found that respondents agreed, 46 percent to 40 percent, with the statement, “President Donald Trump should nominate a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg before his term ends.” It could be that Americans acknowledge Trump’s right to nominate a replacement but don’t want to see her confirmed until we know the results of the election. Or it could be that many Republicans believe Trump will be the winner of the election, so the two statements aren’t contradictory to them.
Another good example of how question wording might have affected people’s answers came from The Economist/YouGov, which asked, “Do you think Donald Trump should nominate someone to fill the vacancy, or should the seat remain vacant until a new president takes office in January 2021?” Referring to the seat as “remain[ing] vacant,” rather than saying that winner of the election would fill it, might have emphasized to respondents that the Supreme Court would be understaffed for at least four months in this scenario; the use of the phrase “new president” might also have implied “not Trump.” That could explain why this was one of the best polls for McConnell and Trump: Respondents supported waiting to fill the seat by only a 46 percent to 41 percent margin.
Overall, it seems clear that forging ahead with the confirmation process now is somewhere between a mildly unpopular decision and a very unpopular one. But it’s unclear whether it will actually hurt Republicans at the ballot box. As I wrote on Tuesday, only 5 percent of registered voters told SurveyMonkey/Insider that the Supreme Court vacancy made them less certain of their vote, and a plurality of respondents told Reuters/Ipsos that it would have no impact on their presidential vote.
And although the choice of who succeeds Ginsburg is important to many Americans — “very important” to 52 percent of them and “somewhat important” to 23 percent, according to The Economist/YouGov — it might not be as important as the other issues they were already basing their vote on. According to the HuffPost/YouGov survey, only 21 percent of voters said the Supreme Court is one of their top three issue priorities — well behind the economy (42 percent), the coronavirus (41 percent) and health care (34 percent).
Other polling bites
An Ipsos/ABC News poll has found that 69 percent of Americans don’t have confidence in Trump’s assurances that a coronavirus vaccine would be effective; only 27 percent placed a “great deal” or “good amount” of confidence in the president. In addition, the pollster found that the number of Americans who said they are likely to get the vaccine has dropped from 74 percent in May to 64 percent in September.
According to a Harvard Institute of Politics survey, 63 percent of young Americans (under age 30) said they would “definitely” vote in the general election — higher than the 47 percent who said so in 2016. Among these young likely voters, Biden held a 60 percent to 27 percent lead.
Traditional campaign field organizations — like knocking on doors to ask people for their vote — have been greatly diminished in 2020 amid the coronavirus pandemic. Indeed, some Democrats are worried that Biden’s campaign is doing so little on-the-ground outreach. But a new Morning Consult/Politico survey may validate Biden’s approach: 63 percent of voters said they felt apprehensive about answering the door for canvassers, while just 28 percent said they were comfortable with it.
The race in California’s 53rd Congressional District won’t help decide who controls the U.S. House; the campaign is between two Democrats who both advanced from March’s all-party primary. But there are still big differences between 31-year-old self-funder Sara Jacobs, a moderate, and San Diego City Council President Georgette Gómez, a progressive who would also be the first openly LGBTQ Latina in Congress. But a new SurveyUSA poll conducted for KGTV-TV and the San Diego Union-Tribune gives Jacobs a 38 percent to 24 percent lead in the general election.
Just want 2020 to be over already? You’re in good company. When YouGov asked Americans how the year 2020 has been for them, 21 percent said “bad,” and another 21 percent said “terrible.” While 37 percent of Americans said 2020 has been “okay,” only 12 percent said it has been “good,” and just 5 percent said it has been “great.”
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 42.9 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 53.2 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -10.3 points). At this time last week, 43.3 percent approved and 52.7 percent disapproved (a net approval rating of -9.5 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 41.6 percent and a disapproval rating of 54.7 percent, for a net approval rating of -13.0 points.
Generic ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 6.4 percentage points (48.8 percent to 42.3 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 6.4 points (48.6 percent to 42.2 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 7.4 points (48.3 percent to 41.0 percent).
Derek Shan contributed research.
Check out all the polls we’ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-25--How Amy Coney Barrett Could Change the Supreme Court

Tomorrow will mark the start of what could be one of the swiftest Supreme Court fights in modern history .
On Saturday , just a week after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , President Trump is expected to announce his nominee for her replacement : Judge Amy Coney Barrett , who is currently serving on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals .
The nomination battle over Barrett will be bitter .
If she is confirmed — and right now , Republicans have the votes — her presence on the court will give the conservative wing a solid 6-3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bypass Chief Justice John Roberts .
Or , put another way , Roberts will no longer be the court ’ s median .
( He has cast several pivotal votes with the liberal justices over the years , often out of apparent concern for the court ’ s institutional legitimacy . )
Barrett ’ s appointment marks an enormous shift in the Supreme Court ’ s center of gravity .
According to one estimate of her ideological leanings , Barrett will be the third-most conservative justice on the court , just to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clarence Thomas , and to the right of Trump ’ s two previous nominees , Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh .
That ’ s a best-case scenario for liberals , too .
Several experts told me that based on Barrett ’ s previous rulings as a federal judge and writings as a law professor , she could end up to the right of Alito — or even Thomas .
But even in that third-place slot , Barrett replacing Ginsburg is one of the largest swings on the modern court since 1953 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to predict how any given nominee will vote once she is on the court , and in the past , several of the court ’ s most liberal justices were appointed by Republican presidents .
But over the past several decades , the conservative legal movement has worked to cultivate a stable of potential justices who are consistent ideological conservatives .
Barrett is in many ways the poster child for that effort .
Trump has even said that he was “ saving ” Barrett for Ginsburg ’ s seat .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christians in particular , and is widely seen as a justice who would be willing to significantly expand states ’ ability to restrict abortion access , or even vote to overturn Roe v. Wade , the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion .
She also criticized Roberts ’ s 2012 vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act in a recent law review article , which is significant if she ’ s confirmed by early November , as the Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the law a week after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screams ‘ reliable conservative , ’ ” said John Kastellec , a politics professor at Princeton University who studies Supreme Court nominations .
“ If you wanted a person who seems like a very safe bet to strike down Roe v. Wade , she ’ d be it.
” So it ’ s hard to imagine that Barrett won ’ t turn out to be the steadfast conservative her boosters are hoping for — and that ’ s a point Democrats are likely to drive home during her confirmation hearings .
This line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Democrats , though .
When Barrett was nominated to the 7th Circuit in 2017 , she was criticized for her conservative ideology , but that backfired somewhat on Democrats , in part because Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggested during the hearings that Barrett , a Catholic , would be guided by “ dogma ” in her judicial decision-making — a comment that many religious conservatives saw as an anti-Catholic dog whistle .
But this time around , Kastellec and other experts told me , Democrats are likely to steer clear of attacking Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what a hard conservative swing on the court could mean for abortion , the Affordable Care Act , gun restrictions , and a host of other liberal precedents .
Barrett is young , too .
At 48 , she could be on the court for decades to come .
That means the confirmation hearings , which are likely to start around October 12 , will probably be extremely rancorous .
But it ’ s doubtful that would stop the GOP from steaming ahead with a vote on Barrett ’ s nomination after only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambitious timeline like that seems very possible , since Senate Republicans currently have a solid majority willing to vote on Trump ’ s pick for the Supreme Court even before Barrett was named .
And several Republicans , including Trump , have indicated that they want to make sure the vote happens before Election Day so that the new justice is seated in time to resolve any election-related disputes — potentially giving Trump ’ s new nominee enormous power over the result of the election .
The rush to confirm a new justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking , however .
It could galvanize some religious conservatives and other Republican stalwarts who care a lot about judicial nominations , but it could also turn off other voters , since recent polls have indicated that many Americans are not enthusiastic about the idea of confirming a new Supreme Court justice so close to the election .
But having a solid 6-3 conservative majority on the court is a big enough win for Republicans that they may be willing to risk a lot to achieve it .

Tomorrow will mark the start of what could be one of the swiftest Supreme Court fights in modern history. On Saturday, just a week after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Trump is expected to announce his nominee for her replacement: Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is currently serving on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The nomination battle over Barrett will be bitter.
If she is confirmed — and right now, Republicans have the votes — her presence on the court will give the conservative wing a solid 6-3 majority, allowing the other conservative justices to bypass Chief Justice John Roberts. Or, put another way, Roberts will no longer be the court’s median. (He has cast several pivotal votes with the liberal justices over the years, often out of apparent concern for the court’s institutional legitimacy.)
Barrett’s appointment marks an enormous shift in the Supreme Court’s center of gravity. According to one estimate of her ideological leanings, Barrett will be the third-most conservative justice on the court, just to the left of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, and to the right of Trump’s two previous nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. That’s a best-case scenario for liberals, too. Several experts told me that based on Barrett’s previous rulings as a federal judge and writings as a law professor, she could end up to the right of Alito — or even Thomas.
4 Senate races to watch as GOP rushes to fill Justice Ginsburgâs seat
But even in that third-place slot, Barrett replacing Ginsburg is one of the largest swings on the modern court since 1953:
Big swings in the court’s makeup are rare Supreme Court justice replacements by the biggest changes in ideological rank, where 1 is most liberal and 9 is most conservative the biggest shifts on the modern supreme Court term Justice Rank Replacement rank change 1991 Marshall 1 Thomas 9 +8 1969 Warren 2 Burger 9 +7 2020 Ginsburg 2 Barrett 7 +5* 1969 Fortas 3 Blackmun 8 +5 1990 Brennan 2 Souter 5 +3 1962 Frankfurter 8 Goldberg 5 -3 1965 Goldberg 5 Fortas 2 -3 *Estimated change, based on JCS score
When there were more than nine justices in a term, we dropped the justice(s) who voted in the fewest cases (e.g., O’Connor in 2005, Douglas in 1975). Source: Martin-Quinn scores
Of course, it’s difficult to predict how any given nominee will vote once she is on the court, and in the past, several of the court’s most liberal justices were appointed by Republican presidents. But over the past several decades, the conservative legal movement has worked to cultivate a stable of potential justices who are consistent ideological conservatives. Barrett is in many ways the poster child for that effort.
Trump has even said that he was “saving” Barrett for Ginsburg’s seat. That’s because Barrett is a favorite of conservative Christians in particular, and is widely seen as a justice who would be willing to significantly expand states’ ability to restrict abortion access, or even vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion. She also criticized Roberts’s 2012 vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act in a recent law review article, which is significant if she’s confirmed by early November, as the Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the law a week after the election.
“Everything about her screams ‘reliable conservative,’” said John Kastellec, a politics professor at Princeton University who studies Supreme Court nominations. “If you wanted a person who seems like a very safe bet to strike down Roe v. Wade, she’d be it.”
So it’s hard to imagine that Barrett won’t turn out to be the steadfast conservative her boosters are hoping for — and that’s a point Democrats are likely to drive home during her confirmation hearings. This line of attack isn’t without risks for Democrats, though. When Barrett was nominated to the 7th Circuit in 2017, she was criticized for her conservative ideology, but that backfired somewhat on Democrats, in part because Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggested during the hearings that Barrett, a Catholic, would be guided by “dogma” in her judicial decision-making — a comment that many religious conservatives saw as an anti-Catholic dog whistle.
But this time around, Kastellec and other experts told me, Democrats are likely to steer clear of attacking Barrett on personal traits, and instead emphasize what a hard conservative swing on the court could mean for abortion, the Affordable Care Act, gun restrictions, and a host of other liberal precedents. Barrett is young, too. At 48, she could be on the court for decades to come.
That means the confirmation hearings, which are likely to start around October 12, will probably be extremely rancorous. But it’s doubtful that would stop the GOP from steaming ahead with a vote on Barrett’s nomination after only a few weeks of deliberation. An ambitious timeline like that seems very possible, since Senate Republicans currently have a solid majority willing to vote on Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court even before Barrett was named. And several Republicans, including Trump, have indicated that they want to make sure the vote happens before Election Day so that the new justice is seated in time to resolve any election-related disputes — potentially giving Trump’s new nominee enormous power over the result of the election.
The rush to confirm a new justice is something of a gamble, electorally speaking, however. It could galvanize some religious conservatives and other Republican stalwarts who care a lot about judicial nominations, but it could also turn off other voters, since recent polls have indicated that many Americans are not enthusiastic about the idea of confirming a new Supreme Court justice so close to the election. But having a solid 6-3 conservative majority on the court is a big enough win for Republicans that they may be willing to risk a lot to achieve it.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-25--The Most Surprising Teams Of This Short MLB Season

A glance at the most likely playoff teams in our MLB prediction model shows a lot of the usual suspects from before the season began .
Teams like the Los Angeles Dodgers , New York Yankees , Minnesota Twins and Houston Astros were all supposed to make the playoffs , and all have either clinched spots or are overwhelmingly likely to do so now .
But not every team in the playoff picture was destined to make it on opening day .
So let ’ s break down the most surprising teams in this year ’ s postseason race based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here from the start — and grouped by what their own expectations for contention might have been heading into the season .
Nobody expected much more than another rebuilding season from the Marlins in 2020 , given the strength of their division , their low payroll and their lack of established talent .
Still fewer thought they could rally after they were MLB ’ s first high-profile instance of a team significantly sidelined by positive COVID-19 tests .
And yet , here Miami is , poised to make the playoffs for the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Florida Marlins ) in 2003 .
Seemingly out of nowhere , the Marlins have gotten strong seasons from shortstop Miguel Rojas ( 4.2 wins above replacement per 162 games ) and a host of pitchers including Pablo López ( 4.2 ) , Yimi García ( 1.9 ) , Elieser Hernández ( 1.8 ) and James Hoyt ( 1.5 ) , plus a breakout from prospect Sixto Sánchez ( 3.3 ) .
Miami has also gotten pretty lucky : Based on run differential , the Marlins have won 4.3 more games than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s easily the largest windfall in MLB this year — and easily enough to make the difference between a playoff berth and an early end to the season .
The Giants aren ’ t guaranteed to make the playoffs , but that they are even in the mix this late is a surprise .
After losing manager Bruce Bochy and ace Madison Bumgarner over the offseason , and seeing catcher Buster Posey opt out over COVID-19 concerns , San Francisco looked bound for the NL West basement .
But the projections didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playing like an MVP candidate ( 6.6 WAR/162 ) , nor did they foresee the total quality of a lineup powered by rejuvenated franchise standbys ( Brandon Belt , Brandon Crawford ) plus a procession of castoffs and journeymen ( Austin Slater , Donovan Solano , Darin Ruf , Wilmer Flores , Alex Dickerson and Mauricio Dubón ) .
As a result , the oldest team in baseball is battling for the NL ’ s final playoff spot in — yes , that ’ s right — an even-numbered year .
Young , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a breakout , but the Blue Jays seemed more likely to make a splash in 2021 and beyond .
However , despite its recent struggles , Toronto has secured a playoff spot sooner than expected — and it ’ s been about more than just the kids .
Although 25-year-old second baseman Cavan Biggio has played like an All-Star ( 4.0 WAR/162 ) , fellow up-and-comers Bo Bichette ( 2.5 ) and Vlad Guerrero Jr. ( 1.1 ) weren ’ t the team ’ s very best players .
( Bichette missed half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Guerrero has improved only incrementally this year . )
Instead , Toronto ’ s playoff run has been powered by great performances from veterans Hyun-jin Ryu ( 7.0 ) and Teoscar Hernández ( 4.4 ) , an elite bullpen ( fifth in WAR ) and — like the Marlins — good fortune .
With 2.9 more wins than expected based on run differential , the Jays have been baseball ’ s third-luckiest team behind Miami and the Tampa Bay Rays .
We thought the Padres had a coin flip ’ s chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , they ’ ve been the second-best team in all of baseball by run differential ( behind the divisional-rival Dodgers ) .
The obvious driver of their success ?
The MVP-caliber emergence of shortstop Fernando Tatís Jr. , who has 7.5 WAR per 162 games even after fading recently .
But San Diego also has a stunningly complete ballclub , from a stacked lineup with four other batters ( Manny Machado , Trent Grisham , Wil Myers and Jake Cronenworth ) playing at a 4.7-WAR or above pace per 162 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lamet ( 6.6 ) and Zach Davies ( 3.8 ) , to the imposing late-game tandem of Drew Pomeranz ( 3.5 ) and Trevor Rosenthal ( 2.2 ) , who have allowed just five combined earned runs in nearly 40 innings this season .
And not for nothing , but the Padres also have been giving off the best vibes in MLB for most of the season — the perfect ingredient for a team to wildly exceed expectations and take the league by storm .
Chicago has been steadily building talent for years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s new playoff format was installed , it was clear the rising White Sox would have a serious chance at ending the franchise ’ s 12-year playoff drought .
What wasn ’ t clear was just how great they could be .
With the help of a historic Cuban connection ( José Abreu , Luis Robert , Yasmani Grandal and Yoan Moncada ) , the excellent play of shortstop Tim Anderson ( 6.3 WAR/162 ) and left fielder Eloy Jiménez ( 4.0 ) , top-tier starters Dallas Keuchel ( 5.5 ) and Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a sturdy bullpen led by closer Alex Colomé ( 2.0 ) , Chicago looks like one of the playoff teams opponents will least look forward to facing .
We can ’ t say it ’ s a surprise to see the White Sox in the postseason , but the emphatic way in which they got there has been remarkable to watch .

A glance at the most likely playoff teams in our MLB prediction model shows a lot of the usual suspects from before the season began. Teams like the Los Angeles Dodgers, New York Yankees, Minnesota Twins and Houston Astros were all supposed to make the playoffs, and all have either clinched spots or are overwhelmingly likely to do so now. But not every team in the playoff picture was destined to make it on opening day. So let’s break down the most surprising teams in this year’s postseason race based on how unlikely they were to be here from the start — and grouped by what their own expectations for contention might have been heading into the season.
Total surprises
Miami Marlins
Preseason playoff odds: 14 percent
Current playoff odds: 93 percent (+79 ppts)
MLB payroll rank: 27th
Average age: 28.2 (16th-youngest)
Nobody expected much more than another rebuilding season from the Marlins in 2020, given the strength of their division, their low payroll and their lack of established talent. Still fewer thought they could rally after they were MLB’s first high-profile instance of a team significantly sidelined by positive COVID-19 tests. And yet, here Miami is, poised to make the playoffs for the first time since winning the World Series (as the Florida Marlins) in 2003. Seemingly out of nowhere, the Marlins have gotten strong seasons from shortstop Miguel Rojas (4.2 wins above replacement per 162 games) and a host of pitchers including Pablo López (4.2), Yimi García (1.9), Elieser Hernández (1.8) and James Hoyt (1.5), plus a breakout from prospect Sixto Sánchez (3.3). Miami has also gotten pretty lucky: Based on run differential, the Marlins have won 4.3 more games than they “should” have. That’s easily the largest windfall in MLB this year — and easily enough to make the difference between a playoff berth and an early end to the season.
San Francisco Giants
Preseason playoff odds: 13 percent
Current playoff odds: 44 percent (+31 ppts)
MLB payroll rank: 8th
Average age: 29.6 (30th-youngest)
The Giants aren’t guaranteed to make the playoffs, but that they are even in the mix this late is a surprise. After losing manager Bruce Bochy and ace Madison Bumgarner over the offseason, and seeing catcher Buster Posey opt out over COVID-19 concerns, San Francisco looked bound for the NL West basement. But the projections didn’t count on outfielder Mike Yastrzemski playing like an MVP candidate (6.6 WAR/162), nor did they foresee the total quality of a lineup powered by rejuvenated franchise standbys (Brandon Belt, Brandon Crawford) plus a procession of castoffs and journeymen (Austin Slater, Donovan Solano, Darin Ruf, Wilmer Flores, Alex Dickerson and Mauricio Dubón). As a result, the oldest team in baseball is battling for the NL’s final playoff spot in — yes, that’s right — an even-numbered year.
Ahead of schedule
Toronto Blue Jays
Preseason playoff odds: 34 percent
Current playoff odds: 100 percent (+66 ppts)
MLB payroll rank: 18th
Average age: 27.4 (5th-youngest)
Young, talented teams always have the potential for a breakout, but the Blue Jays seemed more likely to make a splash in 2021 and beyond. However, despite its recent struggles, Toronto has secured a playoff spot sooner than expected — and it’s been about more than just the kids. Although 25-year-old second baseman Cavan Biggio has played like an All-Star (4.0 WAR/162), fellow up-and-comers Bo Bichette (2.5) and Vlad Guerrero Jr. (1.1) weren’t the team’s very best players. (Bichette missed half the season with a knee injury, and Guerrero has improved only incrementally this year.) Instead, Toronto’s playoff run has been powered by great performances from veterans Hyun-jin Ryu (7.0) and Teoscar Hernández (4.4), an elite bullpen (fifth in WAR) and — like the Marlins — good fortune. With 2.9 more wins than expected based on run differential, the Jays have been baseball’s third-luckiest team behind Miami and the Tampa Bay Rays.
San Diego Padres
Preseason playoff odds: 50 percent
Current playoff odds: 100 percent (+50 ppts)
MLB payroll rank: 9th
Average age: 27.0 (2nd-youngest)
We thought the Padres had a coin flip’s chance at the expanded postseason on opening day. Instead, they’ve been the second-best team in all of baseball by run differential (behind the divisional-rival Dodgers). The obvious driver of their success? The MVP-caliber emergence of shortstop Fernando Tatís Jr., who has 7.5 WAR per 162 games even after fading recently. But San Diego also has a stunningly complete ballclub, from a stacked lineup with four other batters (Manny Machado, Trent Grisham, Wil Myers and Jake Cronenworth) playing at a 4.7-WAR or above pace per 162, to a dominant rotation headlined by Dinelson Lamet (6.6) and Zach Davies (3.8), to the imposing late-game tandem of Drew Pomeranz (3.5) and Trevor Rosenthal (2.2), who have allowed just five combined earned runs in nearly 40 innings this season. And not for nothing, but the Padres also have been giving off the best vibes in MLB for most of the season — the perfect ingredient for a team to wildly exceed expectations and take the league by storm.
Aspirations to contend
Chicago White Sox
Preseason playoff odds: 58 percent
Current playoff odds: 100 percent (+42 ppts)
MLB payroll rank: 19th
Average age: 27.6 (9th-youngest)
Chicago has been steadily building talent for years — and, especially after MLB’s new playoff format was installed, it was clear the rising White Sox would have a serious chance at ending the franchise’s 12-year playoff drought. What wasn’t clear was just how great they could be. With the help of a historic Cuban connection (José Abreu, Luis Robert, Yasmani Grandal and Yoan Moncada), the excellent play of shortstop Tim Anderson (6.3 WAR/162) and left fielder Eloy Jiménez (4.0), top-tier starters Dallas Keuchel (5.5) and Mr. No-Hitter Lucas Giolito (3.9), and a sturdy bullpen led by closer Alex Colomé (2.0), Chicago looks like one of the playoff teams opponents will least look forward to facing. We can’t say it’s a surprise to see the White Sox in the postseason, but the emphatic way in which they got there has been remarkable to watch.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-25--Is Josh Allen Actually Good Now?

Is Josh Allen Actually Good Now?

Josh Allen has had his share of doubters since entering the league .
Perhaps his most outspoken critic — Jalen Ramsey — will be playing across the line of scrimmage from him this Sunday .
Ramsey , a starting cornerback for the Los Angeles Rams , infamously described Allen as “ trash ” after the Bills selected him with the seventh overall pick in the 2018 draft .
At the end of Allen ’ s 2018 rookie season , there weren ’ t many who would argue with Ramsey ’ s assessment ; in its annual QB Index , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 33 NFL quarterbacks with at least 500 snaps .
The next year , in 2019 , Allen improved to 18th despite completing just 58.8 percent of his passes and averaging 6.7 yards per attempt , numbers that didn ’ t do much to quell his skeptics .
This year — at least so far — things have been quite different .
During his first two years in the league , Allen never threw for more than 266 yards in a game .
In his first two games this season , Allen has already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first Bills quarterback to have back-to-back 300-yard-plus games since Drew Bledsoe in 2002 .
Allen is just the fourth QB in NFL history to start the season with 700-plus passing yards , six-plus touchdowns and no interceptions .
Allen ’ s Total Quarterback Rating ( QBR ) is fourth-best in the NFL , behind only Aaron Rodgers , Russell Wilson and Patrick Mahomes .
That ’ s heady company for a guy who ranked 24th in ESPN ’ s signature metric both of the past two seasons .
His top-line season-to-date stats are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of his passes for 727 yards against the New York Jets and Miami Dolphins .
He passed for six touchdowns and zero interceptions despite facing the fourth-most blitzes of any quarterback through Week 2 .
And he ’ s been particularly good when forced to operate on the fly : On passes outside the pocket , Allen has the third-best QBR in the league ( 97.3 ) .
Allen has also made strides in the small things coaches expect from a franchise QB .
In Week 1 against the Jets , facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Allen coaxed an offside penalty from the Jets defensive line with his hard count .
The flag was enough to give the Bills the first down , but Allen wisely wanted more .
He used the free play to take a deep shot downfield to John Brown , who narrowly missed catching the ball for a 30-yard gain .
The Bills have an analytically inclined front office and have surrounded Allen with talent .
They traded four draft picks — including a 2020 first-rounder — to Minnesota for wide receiver Stefon Diggs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 16 catches for 239 receiving yards on the year .
The offensive line has done a good job of protecting its QB , posting the sixth-best Pass Block Win Rate in the league .
And Bills offensive coordinator Brian Daboll has also done his part to give Allen the best chance for success , dialing up play-action — the most efficient play type in all of football — 34.8 percent of the time , good for fourth-most frequent in the league .
It ’ s paid off : 54.4 percent of the Bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play-action calls , tops in the NFL .
There ’ s been a lot to like in Allen ’ s game this year .
But how confident should we be that this season is the new normal , and not just a mirage ?
After all , we have two seasons of Allen playing below average and just two games of him playing close to elite .
One way to make sense of the numbers is to divide them into two groups : stats we know are predictive of future performance and stats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stats that tend to be stable over time include passing efficiency from a clean pocket , passing efficiency with no play-action , completion percentage over expected and the share of throws that are off target or negatively graded .
Each of these aspects of a QB ’ s performance is indicative of their true skill and is less affected by circumstances and luck .
Stats that aren ’ t predictive of future performance — and that tend to be highly affected by circumstances and luck — include passing under pressure , passing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play-action .
Allen ’ s numbers are great in the unstable , less predictive metrics and middle of the road in their stable , more predictive counterparts .
Allen ’ s QBR when not under pressure ( 79 ) is good for just 19th in the league .
His off-target throw percentage ( 16.3 ) has improved from previous years but is still good for just 16th in the NFL .
And his completion percentage over expected , an NFL Next Gen Stats metric that compares the difficulty of each pass to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation , is just 2.1 , 16th in the league .
Given the Bills ’ opponents so far , this should probably give us pause .
Both the Jets and the Dolphins are rated as bottom-10 teams by our Elo rating system , while the Rams , the Bills ’ upcoming Week 3 opponent , are a top-10 team .
Allen has raised his ceiling this year , performing at a level many would have considered improbable before this season .
But if the math holds up , and Jalen Ramsey has anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunday ’ s game , we should probably expect Allen to begin looking a little less like Mahomes and Wilson and a bit more like the player we ’ ve seen take the field the past two years .

Josh Allen has had his share of doubters since entering the league. Perhaps his most outspoken critic — Jalen Ramsey — will be playing across the line of scrimmage from him this Sunday.
Ramsey, a starting cornerback for the Los Angeles Rams, infamously described Allen as “trash” after the Bills selected him with the seventh overall pick in the 2018 draft. At the end of Allen’s 2018 rookie season, there weren’t many who would argue with Ramsey’s assessment; in its annual QB Index, the NFL network ranked him 32nd among the 33 NFL quarterbacks with at least 500 snaps. The next year, in 2019, Allen improved to 18th despite completing just 58.8 percent of his passes and averaging 6.7 yards per attempt, numbers that didn’t do much to quell his skeptics.
This year — at least so far — things have been quite different. During his first two years in the league, Allen never threw for more than 266 yards in a game. In his first two games this season, Allen has already eclipsed 300 yards passing twice, the first Bills quarterback to have back-to-back 300-yard-plus games since Drew Bledsoe in 2002. Allen is just the fourth QB in NFL history to start the season with 700-plus passing yards, six-plus touchdowns and no interceptions.
Allen’s Total Quarterback Rating (QBR) is fourth-best in the NFL, behind only Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson and Patrick Mahomes. That’s heady company for a guy who ranked 24th in ESPN’s signature metric both of the past two seasons. His top-line season-to-date stats are just as impressive: Allen completed 70.4 percent of his passes for 727 yards against the New York Jets and Miami Dolphins. He passed for six touchdowns and zero interceptions despite facing the fourth-most blitzes of any quarterback through Week 2. And he’s been particularly good when forced to operate on the fly: On passes outside the pocket, Allen has the third-best QBR in the league (97.3).
Allen has also made strides in the small things coaches expect from a franchise QB. In Week 1 against the Jets, facing a third-and-5 early in the second quarter, Allen coaxed an offside penalty from the Jets defensive line with his hard count. The flag was enough to give the Bills the first down, but Allen wisely wanted more. He used the free play to take a deep shot downfield to John Brown, who narrowly missed catching the ball for a 30-yard gain.
The Bills have an analytically inclined front office and have surrounded Allen with talent. They traded four draft picks — including a 2020 first-rounder — to Minnesota for wide receiver Stefon Diggs in the offseason. Diggs already has 16 catches for 239 receiving yards on the year. The offensive line has done a good job of protecting its QB, posting the sixth-best Pass Block Win Rate in the league. And Bills offensive coordinator Brian Daboll has also done his part to give Allen the best chance for success, dialing up play-action — the most efficient play type in all of football — 34.8 percent of the time, good for fourth-most frequent in the league. It’s paid off: 54.4 percent of the Bills’ passing yards have come from those play-action calls, tops in the NFL.
There’s been a lot to like in Allen’s game this year. But how confident should we be that this season is the new normal, and not just a mirage? After all, we have two seasons of Allen playing below average and just two games of him playing close to elite. One way to make sense of the numbers is to divide them into two groups: stats we know are predictive of future performance and stats that are not.
For quarterbacks, the stats that tend to be stable over time include passing efficiency from a clean pocket, passing efficiency with no play-action, completion percentage over expected and the share of throws that are off target or negatively graded. Each of these aspects of a QB’s performance is indicative of their true skill and is less affected by circumstances and luck. Stats that aren’t predictive of future performance — and that tend to be highly affected by circumstances and luck — include passing under pressure, passing outside the pocket and passing efficiency with play-action.
Allen’s numbers are great in the unstable, less predictive metrics and middle of the road in their stable, more predictive counterparts. Allen’s QBR when not under pressure (79) is good for just 19th in the league. His off-target throw percentage (16.3) has improved from previous years but is still good for just 16th in the NFL. And his completion percentage over expected, an NFL Next Gen Stats metric that compares the difficulty of each pass to that of a league-average quarterback in a similar situation, is just 2.1, 16th in the league.
Given the Bills’ opponents so far, this should probably give us pause. Both the Jets and the Dolphins are rated as bottom-10 teams by our Elo rating system, while the Rams, the Bills’ upcoming Week 3 opponent, are a top-10 team.
Allen has raised his ceiling this year, performing at a level many would have considered improbable before this season. But if the math holds up, and Jalen Ramsey has anything to say about the outcome of this Sunday’s game, we should probably expect Allen to begin looking a little less like Mahomes and Wilson and a bit more like the player we’ve seen take the field the past two years.
Check out our latest NFL predictions.