fivethirthyeight--2020-07-06--Bryson DeChambeau’s Power Boost Is Off The Charts

Bryson DeChambeau entered last weekend ’ s Rocket Mortgage Classic riding an incredible hot streak : In his previous six tournaments , he had finished fifth , second , fourth , third , eighth and sixth ( including ties ) .
The only thing he hadn ’ t yet done this season was win an actual golf tournament , but that came to an end Sunday when he blew past the field in Detroit for a 23-under-par finish that was enough for his sixth professional win .
DeChambeau is the biggest story in golf .
And that ’ s because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biggest human in golf .
By now , DeChambeau ’ s weight gain is the stuff of legend : The 26-year-old American began the 2019-20 season noticeably thicker , adding 20 to 30 pounds of muscle by the Presidents Cup in Australia in December .
Then when the coronavirus outbreak gave him an additional offseason , DeChambeau did what most all of us did in quarantine : He ate a lot .
All told , DeChambeau ’ s expansive diet , which includes seven protein shakes a day ( seven ! )
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to add some 40 pounds of muscle since last September .
The notoriously data-minded golfer viewed this as a calculated experiment to gain a competitive advantage — more bulk means more power and distance off the tee .
And at least for now , the experiment seems to have worked .
DeChambeau currently ranks first on the PGA Tour in average yards per drive at 323 yards .
The only golfer within 7.5 yards of DeChambeau is Cameron Champ , who is averaging at 322.6 .
Both golfers are currently challenging Hank Kuehne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — still the only full season over 320 yards since the Tour started tracking the stat in 1980 .
But while Champ has been one of the Tour ’ s biggest bombers — he led the the Tour in distance a year ago at 317.9 yards — DeChambeau was never a mega-hitter .
Last year , he averaged 302.5 yards per drive , which was tied for 34th .
His best year was 2018 , when he hit 305.7 yards per drive ( 25th best ) .
DeChambeau has improved his average driving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easily the most of any current player .
Looking beyond 2020 , DeChambeau ’ s single-season increase in driving distance is even more impressive .
Only three other players have improved their driving distance by more than 20 yards per drive between seasons since 1980 , when the Tour began tracking the statistic .
And unlike DeChambeau , the other players on the above table saw their increases in the 1990s and early 2000s , a period when technological advances allowed driving distance to make its greatest gains of the past 40 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going through a distance boom during this period , in part because of the new equipment and in part because of Tiger Woods , whose ability to gain distance — and thus strokes — off the tee allowed him to dominate the Tour for years while the rest of the field played catch-up .
In 2003 alone , the year after Woods collected his seventh and eighth majors , four of Woods ’ s biggest competitors saw significant gains in driving distance .
Phil Mickelson , Ernie Els , Retief Goosen and Vijay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , third , fifth and seventh in the world respectively — all saw Bryson-like increases in their driving distance , with each improving by at least 16 yards .
As you might expect , DeChambeau ’ s historic power surge has come at the expense of accuracy .
Last season , DeChambeau hit 65.02 percent of fairways off the tee , which was 66th on Tour .
This year , that number is down to 61.05 percent , which ranks 112th .
He likely doesn ’ t care about that ( at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tirades being caught on camera , thus damaging his brand ) .
According to strokes gained , which assesses the value of every shot based on how it increased or decreased a player ’ s expected score on the hole , DeChambeau ’ s drives helped him gain 0.42 strokes per round on the field last season ( which ranked 24th ) .
This year , he ’ s picking up 1.113 strokes per round on the field through his driving alone , which ranks second behind Champ .
Better positioning off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pin .
He ’ s hitting 72.6 percent of greens in regulation this year , up from 66.2 percent , and his ranking in strokes gained “ tee-to-green ” has improved from 37th to sixth .
DeChambeau ’ s final two holes on Sunday — when he was chasing off a late bid from runner-up Matthew Wolff — showed the added advantage at work .
On the par-5 17th , he uncorked a 355-yard bomb that missed the fairway to the left .
Though his ball sat in the rough , it had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an 8-iron to find the green for an eventual birdie .
It was on the par-4 18th , though , when Bryson fully unleashed the “ Kraken ” ( his expression , not ours ) .
His drive went careening down the left side of the fairway for 367 yards — the longest drive anyone had hit on No .
18 that week and DeChambeau ’ s longest of the day .
He had just an easy wedge left to set up his eighth birdie of the round , which sealed the victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or a power forward or even a third baseman , this would all make good sense .
Golfers have gotten much more fit this century , but adding raw muscle mass has never been a clear path to on-course success .
If anything , we hear more stories of golfers losing weight to improve their games .
Because DeChambeau ’ s story is so unusual , there have been a fair number of skeptics .
Some , including a few of his competitors , are concerned about the long-term health implications of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meanwhile , seems to think DeChambeau ’ s driver represents an existential crisis for the sport .
Whatever it means , it ’ s working for DeChambeau now .
But he is not a one-trick pony .
DeChambeau ’ s recent success may have just as much do with the short stick as it does with the driver .
It certainly did last weekend , when DeChambeau led the field in strokes gained off-the-tee and strokes gained putting , highlighted by a 30-foot birdie on the 70th hole .
This season , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from 28th on Tour to 12th .
So it ’ s not all about the long ball for Bryson — but ask any pro golfer , and they ’ ll tell you that an extra 20 yards of distance per drive certainly doesn ’ t hurt to have .

Bryson DeChambeau entered last weekend’s Rocket Mortgage Classic riding an incredible hot streak: In his previous six tournaments, he had finished fifth, second, fourth, third, eighth and sixth (including ties). The only thing he hadn’t yet done this season was win an actual golf tournament, but that came to an end Sunday when he blew past the field in Detroit for a 23-under-par finish that was enough for his sixth professional win.
DeChambeau is the biggest story in golf. And that’s because he’s attempting to become the biggest human in golf. By now, DeChambeau’s weight gain is the stuff of legend: The 26-year-old American began the 2019-20 season noticeably thicker, adding 20 to 30 pounds of muscle by the Presidents Cup in Australia in December. Then when the coronavirus outbreak gave him an additional offseason, DeChambeau did what most all of us did in quarantine: He ate a lot. All told, DeChambeau’s expansive diet, which includes seven protein shakes a day (seven!), and his rigorous weight-lifting regimen allowed him to add some 40 pounds of muscle since last September. The notoriously data-minded golfer viewed this as a calculated experiment to gain a competitive advantage — more bulk means more power and distance off the tee. And at least for now, the experiment seems to have worked.
DeChambeau currently ranks first on the PGA Tour in average yards per drive at 323 yards. The only golfer within 7.5 yards of DeChambeau is Cameron Champ, who is averaging at 322.6. Both golfers are currently challenging Hank Kuehne’s 2003 record average of 321.4 — still the only full season over 320 yards since the Tour started tracking the stat in 1980. But while Champ has been one of the Tour’s biggest bombers — he led the the Tour in distance a year ago at 317.9 yards — DeChambeau was never a mega-hitter. Last year, he averaged 302.5 yards per drive, which was tied for 34th. His best year was 2018, when he hit 305.7 yards per drive (25th best). DeChambeau has improved his average driving distance by 20.5 yards this year — easily the most of any current player.
Nobody has muscled up like DeChambeau Largest year-over-year increase in average yards per drive for qualified players on the 2020 PGA Tour Avg. Yards per Drive Player 2019 Season 2020 Season Diff. Bryson DeChambeau 302.5 323.0 +20.5 Jonathan Byrd 281.6 294.8 13.2 Brian Gay 274.9 288.0 13.1 Adam Scott 299.3 310.3 11.0 Tommy Fleetwood 298.7 309.5 10.8 Webb Simpson 288.6 298.4 9.8 Lee Kyoung-hoon 286.2 295.8 9.6 Danny Willett 293.8 302.8 9.0 Ryan Moore 282.2 291.1 8.9 Seamus Power 295.9 304.6 8.7 Source: PGA TOUR
Looking beyond 2020, DeChambeau’s single-season increase in driving distance is even more impressive. Only three other players have improved their driving distance by more than 20 yards per drive between seasons since 1980, when the Tour began tracking the statistic.
DeChambeau has a place in distance-gaining history Largest year-over-year increase in average yards per drive for qualified players on the PGA Tour since 1980 Player Year Avg. Yards/Drive Prev. Season Diff Brett Quigley 2001 298.5 276.4 +22.1 Ernie Els 2003 303.3 281.4 21.9 Billy Ray Brown 1995 260.0 239.3 20.7 Bryson DeChambeau 2020 323.0 302.5 20.5 José Coceres 2003 282.8 263.2 19.6 Retief Goosen 2003 299.4 279.8 19.6 Robert Gamez 1994 278.4 259.1 19.3 Joey Sindelar 2001 291.5 273.2 18.3 Phil Mickelson 2003 306.0 288.8 17.2 Jeff Sluman 2001 281.6 265.0 16.6 Source: PGA TOUR
And unlike DeChambeau, the other players on the above table saw their increases in the 1990s and early 2000s, a period when technological advances allowed driving distance to make its greatest gains of the past 40 years. The sport as a whole was going through a distance boom during this period, in part because of the new equipment and in part because of Tiger Woods, whose ability to gain distance — and thus strokes — off the tee allowed him to dominate the Tour for years while the rest of the field played catch-up. In 2003 alone, the year after Woods collected his seventh and eighth majors, four of Woods’s biggest competitors saw significant gains in driving distance. Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, Retief Goosen and Vijay Singh — who began 2003 ranked second, third, fifth and seventh in the world respectively — all saw Bryson-like increases in their driving distance, with each improving by at least 16 yards.
Tiger’s top rivals added distance while in the hunt PGA Tour players ranked in the Top 10 to start 2003 who added at least 15 yards per drive that season over the previous season, plus Tiger Woods Avg. Yards/Drive Player ’03 World Ranking 2002 Season 2003 Season Diff. Ernie Els 3 281.4 303.3 +21.9 Retief Goosen 5 279.8 299.4 19.6 Phil Mickelson 2 288.8 306.0 17.2 Vijay Singh 7 285.6 301.9 16.3 Tiger Woods 1 293.3 299.5 6.2 Source: PGA TOUR
As you might expect, DeChambeau’s historic power surge has come at the expense of accuracy. Last season, DeChambeau hit 65.02 percent of fairways off the tee, which was 66th on Tour. This year, that number is down to 61.05 percent, which ranks 112th. He likely doesn’t care about that (at least as much as he cares about his tirades being caught on camera, thus damaging his brand). According to strokes gained, which assesses the value of every shot based on how it increased or decreased a player’s expected score on the hole, DeChambeau’s drives helped him gain 0.42 strokes per round on the field last season (which ranked 24th). This year, he’s picking up 1.113 strokes per round on the field through his driving alone, which ranks second behind Champ. Better positioning off the tee has also helped DeChambeau attack the pin. He’s hitting 72.6 percent of greens in regulation this year, up from 66.2 percent, and his ranking in strokes gained “tee-to-green” has improved from 37th to sixth.
[Related: Tiger Woods Used To Be One Of Golf’s Longest Hitters — Until The Sport Caught Up]
DeChambeau’s final two holes on Sunday — when he was chasing off a late bid from runner-up Matthew Wolff — showed the added advantage at work. On the par-5 17th, he uncorked a 355-yard bomb that missed the fairway to the left. Though his ball sat in the rough, it had traveled so far that he needed only an 8-iron to find the green for an eventual birdie. It was on the par-4 18th, though, when Bryson fully unleashed the “Kraken” (his expression, not ours). His drive went careening down the left side of the fairway for 367 yards — the longest drive anyone had hit on No. 18 that week and DeChambeau’s longest of the day. He had just an easy wedge left to set up his eighth birdie of the round, which sealed the victory.
If DeChambeau were a right tackle or a power forward or even a third baseman, this would all make good sense. Golfers have gotten much more fit this century, but adding raw muscle mass has never been a clear path to on-course success. If anything, we hear more stories of golfers losing weight to improve their games.
Because DeChambeau’s story is so unusual, there have been a fair number of skeptics. Some, including a few of his competitors, are concerned about the long-term health implications of his weight gain. Golf legend Colin Montgomerie, meanwhile, seems to think DeChambeau’s driver represents an existential crisis for the sport.
Whatever it means, it’s working for DeChambeau now. But he is not a one-trick pony. DeChambeau’s recent success may have just as much do with the short stick as it does with the driver. It certainly did last weekend, when DeChambeau led the field in strokes gained off-the-tee and strokes gained putting, highlighted by a 30-foot birdie on the 70th hole. This season, his putting strokes gained has improved noticeably, from 28th on Tour to 12th. So it’s not all about the long ball for Bryson — but ask any pro golfer, and they’ll tell you that an extra 20 yards of distance per drive certainly doesn’t hurt to have.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-07--Lou Whitaker Turned A Damn Good Double Play

Second base is one of the most important positions on the baseball diamond , always ( quite literally ) in the middle of the action .
But it doesn ’ t necessarily get the same attention as other , flashier roles in the sport .
In the three decades since Joe Morgan and Rod Carew were inducted in back-to-back years in 1990 and 1991 , only three more second basemen — Ryne Sandberg , Roberto Alomar and Craig Biggio — have been voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the baseball writers .
Along the way , a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fallen off the ballot because they lacked voting support — and none may have been treated less fairly than former Detroit Tigers second baseman Lou Whitaker , this week ’ s pick for our Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players .
When it came to playing baseball , Whitaker did just about everything well : He hit for average better than most batters .
He had above-average pop ( particularly for a second baseman ) .
He excelled at drawing walks and getting on base .
He even had 20-steal speed when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his career .
But of course , the thing Whitaker is most remembered for now is his smooth defense , particularly as half of a fabled double-play combination with longtime Tigers shortstop Alan Trammell .
Over 19 seasons in the big leagues , Whitaker took part in 1,527 career double plays , which ranks fourth among all second basemen in baseball history .
( And Trammell ranks seventh among shortstops , with the vast majority of his twin killings compiled in tandem with Whitaker . )
In terms of keystone combos , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Johnny Evers and Joe Tinker of the early-1900s Chicago Cubs — and they , of course , had a famous poem devoted to them ( along with first baseman Frank Chance ) .
According to fielding runs above average , Whitaker and Trammell saved a combined 178.5 runs during their 14 seasons together as the Tigers ’ primary second baseman and shortstop , which ranks second to Evers and Tinker in that regard among MLB 2B/SS tandems since 1901 : There is a question about just how potent Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance was as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either Tinker or Evers led their position in twin killings was 1905 , when Tinker turned two 67 times in a 155-game schedule .
But there ’ s no such doubt for Trammell and Whitaker , who led the league on multiple occasions and had six seasons where both eclipsed 90 double plays in the same year .
Between the two , the pair earned seven Gold Gloves and a reputation as one of the most balletic pairings to ever dance around second base .
Most importantly , Detroit started to win — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whitaker and Trammell arrived late in the summer of 1977 .
The Tigers had won the World Series in 1968 and made the playoffs as recently as 1972 , but they were putting the finishing touches on their fourth consecutive losing season by September ’ 77 .
In 1978 , however , Detroit improved its record by 12 games , going 86-76 as a 21-year-old Whitaker finished third on the team in wins above replacement ( with 3.6 ) and easily won Rookie of the Year honors over Paul Molitor , the Brewers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the first of 11 consecutive winning seasons for the Tigers , a span over which Detroit won the second-most ballgames of any team in baseball , averaged 89.3 victories per 162 games and won the 1984 World Series with one of the greatest single-season teams in MLB history .
Whitaker was a star , recording 44.4 WAR over that span — which led all MLB second baseman ( edging out New York ’ s Willie Randolph at 43.5 ) and ranked second on Detroit behind Trammell ’ s 50.9 WAR .
Largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whitaker ended up starting in 1,134 Detroit victories during his career , which ranks fourth all-time for one of baseball ’ s oldest franchises .
He also ranks fourth all-time for the Tigers in WAR , in both cases trailing only Hall of Famers Ty Cobb , Al Kaline ( “ Mr .
Tiger ” ) and Charlie Gehringer — and ranking one spot ahead of Trammell .
And yet , when it came time to vote for the Hall of Fame in 2001 , Whitaker ’ s first year of eligibility ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , “ Sweet Lou ” received just 2.9 percent of the writers ’ vote , well below the 5 percent threshold necessary to stay on future ballots .
Trammell got 15.7 percent of the vote in his debut the following year , and though he never came close to the 75 percent needed for induction through the writers ’ balloting , he did make it via the Veteran ’ s Committee in 2018 .
Will Whitaker ’ s turn come as well ?
Although he is MLB ’ s 10th-best second baseman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of career and peak WAR ) , rating better than 63 percent of Hall of Famers at the position ( including Alomar and Sandberg ) , Whitaker was denied by the Hall of Fame ’ s Modern Era Committee last December , meaning he ’ ll have to wait until 2022 to be reconsidered yet again .
But it remains mystifying that Trammell made it without his longtime partner by his side — particularly considering how similar their careers were , both statistically and narratively .
As Trammell put things in his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I had been linked with one person .
For 19 years , Lou Whitaker and I formed the longest running double-play combination in the history of baseball .
I doubt that record will ever be broken .
Lou and I were called up to the big leagues from Double-A on the same day .
We both played our first big-league ballgame at Fenway Park on the same day .
We both got hits at our first major league at-bats off the same pitcher , Reggie Cleveland .
And both got our last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pitcher , Mike Fetters .
Can you believe that ?
That ’ s truly amazing .
For all those years , it was Lou and Tram .
Lou , it was an honor and pleasure to have played alongside you all those years .
And my hope is some day you ’ ll be up here as well.
” For now , Whitaker is firmly in the Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players .
We ’ ll see if someday he gets the Cooperstown upgrade he deserves .

Lou Whitaker Turned A Damn Good Double Play The longtime Tiger was one of the best ever at second base. So why isn’t he in the Hall of Fame?
Second base is one of the most important positions on the baseball diamond, always (quite literally) in the middle of the action. But it doesn’t necessarily get the same attention as other, flashier roles in the sport. In the three decades since Joe Morgan and Rod Carew were inducted in back-to-back years in 1990 and 1991, only three more second basemen — Ryne Sandberg, Roberto Alomar and Craig Biggio — have been voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame by the baseball writers. Along the way, a number of deserving candidates at the position have fallen off the ballot because they lacked voting support — and none may have been treated less fairly than former Detroit Tigers second baseman Lou Whitaker, this week’s pick for our Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players.
HOF resume: Lou Whitaker, 2B Category Value Rank at Pos. Career WAR 74.5 7 Peak WAR 37.7 20 JAWS 56.1 10 HOF Monitor 93 20 HOF Standards 43 12 Black Ink Test 1 79 Gray Ink Test 31 68 Implied HOF%* 30% 17 Years on ballot 1 — Vote share 2.9% — HOF track** — — *Hall of Fame probability based on traditional stats. **Hall of Fame track based on most recent vote share and years on the ballot. Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, FanGraphs
When it came to playing baseball, Whitaker did just about everything well: He hit for average better than most batters. He had above-average pop (particularly for a second baseman). He excelled at drawing walks and getting on base. He even had 20-steal speed when he was younger, with above-average base-running value for his career. But of course, the thing Whitaker is most remembered for now is his smooth defense, particularly as half of a fabled double-play combination with longtime Tigers shortstop Alan Trammell. Over 19 seasons in the big leagues, Whitaker took part in 1,527 career double plays, which ranks fourth among all second basemen in baseball history. (And Trammell ranks seventh among shortstops, with the vast majority of his twin killings compiled in tandem with Whitaker.)
In terms of keystone combos, Whitaker and Trammell are probably only rivaled by Johnny Evers and Joe Tinker of the early-1900s Chicago Cubs — and they, of course, had a famous poem devoted to them (along with first baseman Frank Chance). According to fielding runs above average, Whitaker and Trammell saved a combined 178.5 runs during their 14 seasons together as the Tigers’ primary second baseman and shortstop, which ranks second to Evers and Tinker in that regard among MLB 2B/SS tandems since 1901:
Baseball’s best defensive 2B-SS combos For seasons when a pair of teammates were their team’s primary second baseman and shortstop, most total fielding runs above average (FRAA) Second Baseman Shortstop Team Years* Player FRAA Player FRAA Total CHC 1903-12 Johnny Evers +89.0 Joe Tinker +135.0 +224.0 DET 1978-91 Lou Whitaker 87.3 Alan Trammell 91.3 178.5 BAL 1973-76 Bobby Grich 55.6 Mark Belanger 105.8 161.4 CHW 1956-62 Nellie Fox 65.5 Luis Aparicio 87.1 152.6 PHI 2005-14 Chase Utley 110.8 Jimmy Rollins 41.4 152.2 CHC 1932-38 Billy Herman 58.0 Billy Jurges 75.0 133.0 PIT 1965-70 Bill Mazeroski 60.1 Gene Alley 66.9 126.9 NYY 1977-81 Willie Randolph 48.4 Bucky Dent 73.9 122.2 DET 1931-38 Charlie Gehringer 52.0 Billy Rogell 63.0 115.0 NYG 1911-19 Larry Doyle 5.0 Art Fletcher 106.0 111.0 CLE 1904-10 Nap Lajoie 43.0 Terry Turner 64.0 107.0 CHW 1950-55 Nellie Fox 41.9 Chico Carrasquel 61.0 102.8 STL 1988-91 Jose Oquendo 34.4 Ozzie Smith 66.9 101.2 BOS 1901-06 Hobe Ferris 57.0 Freddy Parent 39.0 96.0 STL 1982-87 Tom Herr -2.7 Ozzie Smith 97.1 94.5 * Represents the total range of players’ time together as primary players at the positions; may include some seasons in the range in which one or both players were not the primary starter at the position. FRAA measures a player’s defensive value relative to the average player at his position, and is calculated by averaging together the defensive metrics found at Baseball-Reference.com and FanGraphs. Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, FanGraphs
There is a question about just how potent Tinker-to-Evers-to-Chance was as a double-play duo specifically — the only time either Tinker or Evers led their position in twin killings was 1905, when Tinker turned two 67 times in a 155-game schedule. But there’s no such doubt for Trammell and Whitaker, who led the league on multiple occasions and had six seasons where both eclipsed 90 double plays in the same year. Between the two, the pair earned seven Gold Gloves and a reputation as one of the most balletic pairings to ever dance around second base.
[Related: Our Hall Of Pretty Damn Good Players]
Most importantly, Detroit started to win — and win, and win — after Whitaker and Trammell arrived late in the summer of 1977. The Tigers had won the World Series in 1968 and made the playoffs as recently as 1972, but they were putting the finishing touches on their fourth consecutive losing season by September ’77. In 1978, however, Detroit improved its record by 12 games, going 86-76 as a 21-year-old Whitaker finished third on the team in wins above replacement (with 3.6) and easily won Rookie of the Year honors over Paul Molitor, the Brewers’ future Hall of Famer.
It was the first of 11 consecutive winning seasons for the Tigers, a span over which Detroit won the second-most ballgames of any team in baseball, averaged 89.3 victories per 162 games and won the 1984 World Series with one of the greatest single-season teams in MLB history. Whitaker was a star, recording 44.4 WAR over that span — which led all MLB second baseman (edging out New York’s Willie Randolph at 43.5) and ranked second on Detroit behind Trammell’s 50.9 WAR.
Whitaker was a driving force behind the Tigers’ renaissance Ranking in wins above replacement (WAR) among MLB primary second basemen and members of the Detroit Tigers, 1978-88 MLB Second Basemen Detroit Tigers Player Team(s) WAR Player Pos WAR 1 Lou Whitaker DET 44.4 Alan Trammell SS 50.9 2 Willie Randolph NYY 43.5 Lou Whitaker 2B 44.4 3 Bobby Grich CAL 33.9 Jack Morris P 37.8 4 Ryne Sandberg CHC 27.2 Lance Parrish C 30.7 5 Frank White KCR 27.1 Chet Lemon OF 28.3 6 Bill Doran HOU 25.0 Kirk Gibson OF 23.6 7 Johnny Ray 2 Tms. 22.2 Dan Petry P 17.7 8 Joe Morgan 5 Tms. 20.2 Milt Wilcox P 15.4 9 Tom Herr 2 Tms. 19.9 Darrell Evans 1B 14.8 10 Glenn Hubbard 2 Tms. 16.9 Steve Kemp OF 14.5 WAR is measured using JEFFBAGWELL (Joint Estimate Featuring FanGraphs and B-R Aggregated to Generate WAR, Equally Leveling Lists), which averages the metrics found at Baseball-Reference and FanGraphs. Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, FanGraphs
Largely on the strength of that run, Whitaker ended up starting in 1,134 Detroit victories during his career, which ranks fourth all-time for one of baseball’s oldest franchises. He also ranks fourth all-time for the Tigers in WAR, in both cases trailing only Hall of Famers Ty Cobb, Al Kaline (“Mr. Tiger”) and Charlie Gehringer — and ranking one spot ahead of Trammell.
Sweet Lou’s place among the greatest Tigers ever Career ranking in wins above replacement (WAR) and team wins started for members of the Detroit Tigers franchise, 1901-2020 WAR Leaders Most Wins Started Player Pos WAR Player Pos Starts 1 Ty Cobb OF 144.1 Ty Cobb OF 1,473 2 Al Kaline OF 90.8 Al Kaline OF 1,392 3 Charlie Gehringer 2B 81.1 Charlie Gehringer 2B 1,165 4 Lou Whitaker 2B 71.6 Lou Whitaker 2B 1,134 5 Alan Trammell SS 67.3 Alan Trammell SS 1,131 6 Harry Heilmann OF/1B 65.9 Sam Crawford OF/1B 1,018 7 Hal Newhouser P 62.1 Norm Cash 1B 978 8 Sam Crawford OF/1B 61.8 Donie Bush SS 975 9 Justin Verlander P 56.5 Harry Heilmann OF/1B 951 10 Hank Greenberg 1B/OF 55.4 Bill Freehan C/1B 883 WAR is measured using JEFFBAGWELL (Joint Estimate Featuring FanGraphs and B-R Aggregated to Generate WAR, Equally Leveling Lists), which averages the metrics found at Baseball-Reference and FanGraphs. Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, FanGraphs
And yet, when it came time to vote for the Hall of Fame in 2001, Whitaker’s first year of eligibility (he retired after the ’95 season), “Sweet Lou” received just 2.9 percent of the writers’ vote, well below the 5 percent threshold necessary to stay on future ballots. Trammell got 15.7 percent of the vote in his debut the following year, and though he never came close to the 75 percent needed for induction through the writers’ balloting, he did make it via the Veteran’s Committee in 2018.
Will Whitaker’s turn come as well? Although he is MLB’s 10th-best second baseman since 1901 by JAWS (an average of career and peak WAR), rating better than 63 percent of Hall of Famers at the position (including Alomar and Sandberg), Whitaker was denied by the Hall of Fame’s Modern Era Committee last December, meaning he’ll have to wait until 2022 to be reconsidered yet again. But it remains mystifying that Trammell made it without his longtime partner by his side — particularly considering how similar their careers were, both statistically and narratively. As Trammell put things in his own induction speech:
“My whole career, I had been linked with one person. For 19 years, Lou Whitaker and I formed the longest running double-play combination in the history of baseball. I doubt that record will ever be broken. Lou and I were called up to the big leagues from Double-A on the same day. We both played our first big-league ballgame at Fenway Park on the same day. We both got hits at our first major league at-bats off the same pitcher, Reggie Cleveland. And both got our last hits of our careers off the same pitcher, Mike Fetters. Can you believe that? That’s truly amazing. For all those years, it was Lou and Tram. Lou, it was an honor and pleasure to have played alongside you all those years. And my hope is some day you’ll be up here as well.”
For now, Whitaker is firmly in the Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players. We’ll see if someday he gets the Cooperstown upgrade he deserves.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-07--Offensive Team Names Are On Notice — For Real, This Time

We start with the announcement , made on Friday , that Washington is going to explore changing its team name to something that hopefully isn ’ t a racial slur against Native Americans .
We all agree that now there ’ s enough social and economic pressure on majority owner Dan Snyder that a name change will happen , likely before the 2020 NFL season gets started .
But with the most egregious example of appropriating indigenous names and symbols out of the way , it remains to be seen what will become of teams like the Cleveland Indians , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Super Bowl champion Kansas City Chiefs .
We unpack a little bit of how we came to have so many Native American team names — the majority sprang up in the early 20th century after the U.S. government had begun a draconian assimilation program against native peoples , effectively making them , in the minds of white Americans , mythic and abstract characters — and some of the nuance into how Native Americans themselves view the problem .
The name change will be a good thing , and long overdue , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other , more pressing , tangible problems that deserve our attention far more than this issue .
Next , we take a look at what ’ s changed in our forecast as NBA teams gear up for the Orlando bubble .
It turns out ?
Not too much .
The biggest beneficiary of the three-month layoff , we think , is the Philadelphia 76ers , who not only will have a healthy Ben Simmons but may have had the time to work out how to play at their highest potential .
The biggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even though Zion has been working out and now seems , impossibly , more fit , the Pels do not have nearly as much time , nor as easy a schedule , to catch the Memphis Grizzlies for that final playoff spot in the West .
While we don ’ t know how the time away will affect players ’ fitness , which could make a huge difference to everyone from the Bucks to the Raptors , our RAPTOR hasn ’ t really changed who it thinks will walk away with the title @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still clear favorites over the rest of the field , so it seems more than likely the championship trophy is headed to Los Angeles .
Finally , Neil breaks down the most imitated batting stances of all time , based on the likes and responses to this tweet from MLB Vault .
We learn a lot : that fans can ’ t get enough of Gary Sheffield and Ken Griffey Jr. , and that Neil couldn ’ t get enough of Derek Jeter — at least as far as his stance was concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week : • A survey of how Native Americans feel about Washington ’ s team name .
• The history of high school and college teams using indigenous names and iconography .
• The winners and losers of our updated NBA Predictions .
• And — enjoy the Battle Stance Guy ’ s uncanny impressions of famous players .

We start with the announcement, made on Friday, that Washington is going to explore changing its team name to something that hopefully isn’t a racial slur against Native Americans. We all agree that now there’s enough social and economic pressure on majority owner Dan Snyder that a name change will happen, likely before the 2020 NFL season gets started. But with the most egregious example of appropriating indigenous names and symbols out of the way, it remains to be seen what will become of teams like the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Chicago Blackhawks and even the Super Bowl champion Kansas City Chiefs. We unpack a little bit of how we came to have so many Native American team names — the majority sprang up in the early 20th century after the U.S. government had begun a draconian assimilation program against native peoples, effectively making them, in the minds of white Americans, mythic and abstract characters — and some of the nuance into how Native Americans themselves view the problem. The name change will be a good thing, and long overdue, when it happens. But there are many other, more pressing, tangible problems that deserve our attention far more than this issue.
Next, we take a look at what’s changed in our forecast as NBA teams gear up for the Orlando bubble. It turns out? Not too much. The biggest beneficiary of the three-month layoff, we think, is the Philadelphia 76ers, who not only will have a healthy Ben Simmons but may have had the time to work out how to play at their highest potential. The biggest losers are the New Orleans Pelicans: Even though Zion has been working out and now seems, impossibly, more fit, the Pels do not have nearly as much time, nor as easy a schedule, to catch the Memphis Grizzlies for that final playoff spot in the West. While we don’t know how the time away will affect players’ fitness, which could make a huge difference to everyone from the Bucks to the Raptors, our RAPTOR hasn’t really changed who it thinks will walk away with the title. The Lakers and the Clippers are still clear favorites over the rest of the field, so it seems more than likely the championship trophy is headed to Los Angeles.
Finally, Neil breaks down the most imitated batting stances of all time, based on the likes and responses to this tweet from MLB Vault. We learn a lot: that fans can’t get enough of Gary Sheffield and Ken Griffey Jr., and that Neil couldn’t get enough of Derek Jeter — at least as far as his stance was concerned.
What we’re looking at this week:


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-07--How Trump Could Improve His Electoral Odds

In this week ’ s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the team considers various strategies that President Trump and Republicans could @ @ @ @ @ prospects this fall — ranging from a new running mate to a vacancy on the @ @ @ @

In this week’s FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the team considers various strategies that President Trump and Republicans could use to improve their electoral prospects this fall — ranging from a new running mate to a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-07--Economists Think Congress Could Create An Economic Disaster This Summer

Congress has less than a month to hammer out a deal on the next round of stimulus before expanded unemployment benefits expire .
State and local governments are starting to feel the pinch of budget shortfalls .
And while the U.S. got a piece of ( relatively ) good news in last week ’ s jobs report , which featured an unemployment rate 2.2 percentage points lower in June than it had been in May , the economy has been thrown back into chaos in the meantime , with a number of states pulling back on their reopenings amid spiking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey of economists highlights just how consequential governmental decisions over the next month may be : On average , these economists think that a refusal by Congress to extend unemployment benefits or bail out state and local governments is just as likely to hurt the economy as local economies staying open in spite of COVID-19 spikes — or even closing because of the virus .
In partnership with the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business , FiveThirtyEight asked 31 quantitative macroeconomic economists what they thought about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recession and recovery efforts .
The most recent survey was conducted from July 2 through 6 , which means the June jobs report was fresh on respondents ’ minds — but so was the state of the pandemic , along with challenges ahead for lawmakers .
“ There ’ s a distinct risk that between now and November , Congress ’ s ability to continue fiscal support will be very limited by election-year politics , ” said Jonathan Wright , an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University who has been consulting with us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ That could be more of a drag on the economy than the local and state shutdowns just because the effect would be so huge.
” With a congressional showdown looming , we asked the experts to estimate the probability that several policy decisions would have the biggest negative impact on U.S. gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2020 .
Among the five options we presented , the single most important to the economists was a decision by state and local governments to reclose their economies because of COVID-19 outbreaks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide funding to state and local governments was close behind .
And the weight given to choices made by the federal government — bailing out local governments , extending unemployment insurance and providing ongoing aid for small businesses — added up to be even more important when taken as a whole : “ [ State and local governments ] are facing severe budget crises and will be laying off workers to balance their budgets , ” said Julie Smith , a professor of economics at Lafayette College .
That , she said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment and financial pain for many households .
Meanwhile , she added , cutting back or ending the federal unemployment extension would cause many people ’ s incomes to decline dramatically , leaving them with much less money to spend — which could make a big dent in GDP .
Perhaps for this reason , there ’ s a lot of uncertainty in the economists ’ fourth-quarter real GDP predictions .
When we last asked the panel for its forecast , it thought that GDP would be growing by 4.1 percent at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improvement from the -28.2 percent quarter-over-quarter annualized growth it foresaw for the second quarter of 2020 .
This time around , the panel is calling for less negative growth ( -25.5 percent ) in the second quarter and a very similar fourth-quarter growth rate to last time ( 3.8 percent ) .
But the range around that end-of-year forecast has gotten a lot wider — a sign of just how much things could go wrong .
The gap between our consensus forecast ’ s 10th and 90th percentile predictions for fourth-quarter GDP growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey ; now that gap is 12.8 percentage points , with almost all of the extra uncertainty coming in the form of downside risk .
( The panel ’ s consensus 10th percentile GDP growth forecast has dropped from -2.0 percent to -3.5 percent . )
The economists weren ’ t especially optimistic about the trajectory of the unemployment rate over the course of 2020 , either .
The consensus prediction was that the unemployment rate in December would be 10.1 percent , which is only 1 percentage point lower than the rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the unemployment rate at the height of the Great Recession .
Stephen Cecchetti , a professor of international finance at the Brandeis International Business School , pointed out that workers are increasingly likely to be losing their jobs permanently , rather than temporarily , which will make it harder for them to get back into the labor force .
And he added that it will take time for the economy to adjust to a new reality where working from home is the norm , which could also keep the unemployment rate from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economists who thought that in a worst-case scenario , the unemployment rate could skyrocket again by the end of the year .
“ There are a lot of people who haven ’ t been exposed to the virus , ” he said .
“ It ’ s not hard to imagine new outbreaks in places like New Jersey or Massachusetts that force us to shut down all over again.
” About half of the economists in the survey also thought the country ’ s top earners would end the year with an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s personal income .
In order to get a sense of how much the panel thought the COVID-19 recession would increase income inequality , we asked about a new metric created by the Bureau of Economic Analysis , which found that in 2016 , households in the top 10 percent of incomes ( adjusted for household size ) accounted for 37.6 percent of the country ’ s personal income .
Fifty percent of the respondents thought this number would be significantly higher by the end of 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be about the same .
Only one respondent thought it would be lower .
“ My best guess is that this pandemic is going to worsen income inequalities , ” said Sarah Zubairy , a professor of economics at Texas A & M University .
She hypothesized that this was because job loss has been concentrated among lower-wage workers who can ’ t do their jobs remotely , and who may find themselves ricocheting in and out of the labor force if states have to abruptly pull back their reopening plans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been knocked off course by the virus — and the subsequent leadership response — our survey panel overwhelmingly believes ( with 90 percent agreement ) that China will beat both America and the European Union on the road back to pre-crisis real GDP levels .
In retrospect , according to Wright , this was kind of a “ no-brainer ” because China ’ s economic growth so far has been quite swift , and it has tools to enact sweeping fiscal stimulus that aren ’ t available to less centrally controlled economies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But some of this might also be based on the Chinese government ’ s reputation for — how should we put this ?
— releasing overly favorable public data .
“ When all is said and done , if they don ’ t like the actual data they can fudge the numbers , ” Wright said .
“ Put those three things together , and there ’ s almost no way they can ’ t be the first back.
” Wright also pointed to another ominous result in the survey : 19 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real U.S. GDP growth rate would be reduced by 1 to 2 percent per year .
To be sure , the vast majority ( 77 percent ) of economists thought the 10-year average growth rate would be reduced by less , although only one person thought it would go up .
But the responses were still alarming , Wright said , because they indicated a serious degree of pessimism about the speed with which the economy will not just return to where it was at the end of 2019 , but also catch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the COVID-19 pandemic hadn ’ t happened .
However , Allan Timmermann , professor of finance and economics at the University of California , San Diego — who has also been consulting with us on the survey — was encouraged that the majority of respondents didn ’ t expect more long-term damage to growth .
“ This is still a large impact in terms of its cumulative effect on the economy , ” he wrote in an email .
“ But it does suggest that most respondents think the economy will bounce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to leading us to a ‘ lost decade ’ scenario ( as we have seen in Japan ) with growth slowing down by an even larger amount.
” Overall , though , the latest survey responses paint a picture of America ’ s still-precarious road back to economic health .
So much depends on the course of COVID-19 itself and how much the virus forces local economies to shut down again to slow its spread .
But a lot is also riding on important policy decisions around the virus , which are still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been surprised so far by the pace of the rebound , ” Wright said .
“ But that hasn ’ t made them less worried about the weeks or months ahead .
”

Congress has less than a month to hammer out a deal on the next round of stimulus before expanded unemployment benefits expire. State and local governments are starting to feel the pinch of budget shortfalls. And while the U.S. got a piece of (relatively) good news in last week’s jobs report, which featured an unemployment rate 2.2 percentage points lower in June than it had been in May, the economy has been thrown back into chaos in the meantime, with a number of states pulling back on their reopenings amid spiking COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations.
Our newest survey of economists highlights just how consequential governmental decisions over the next month may be: On average, these economists think that a refusal by Congress to extend unemployment benefits or bail out state and local governments is just as likely to hurt the economy as local economies staying open in spite of COVID-19 spikes — or even closing because of the virus.
In partnership with the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, FiveThirtyEight asked 31 quantitative macroeconomic economists what they thought about a variety of subjects around the coronavirus recession and recovery efforts. The most recent survey was conducted from July 2 through 6, which means the June jobs report was fresh on respondents’ minds — but so was the state of the pandemic, along with challenges ahead for lawmakers.
[Related: How Americans View The Coronavirus Crisis And Trump’s Response]
“There’s a distinct risk that between now and November, Congress’s ability to continue fiscal support will be very limited by election-year politics,” said Jonathan Wright, an economics professor at Johns Hopkins University who has been consulting with us on the design of the survey. “That could be more of a drag on the economy than the local and state shutdowns just because the effect would be so huge.”
With a congressional showdown looming, we asked the experts to estimate the probability that several policy decisions would have the biggest negative impact on U.S. gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2020. Among the five options we presented, the single most important to the economists was a decision by state and local governments to reclose their economies because of COVID-19 outbreaks. But a decision by Congress not to provide funding to state and local governments was close behind. And the weight given to choices made by the federal government — bailing out local governments, extending unemployment insurance and providing ongoing aid for small businesses — added up to be even more important when taken as a whole:
What are the biggest economic risk factors by year’s end? Average probabilities that each scenario would have the largest negative impact on U.S. GDP in the fourth quarter, according to economists Local or state response options Avg. Probability Decision to reverse local economic openings due to COVID-19 spikes 26% Decision to keep local economies open despite COVID-19 spikes 17 Total 43 Federal response options Not providing funding for state and local governments* 23% Ending/reducing expansion of unemployment benefits 20 Ending/cutting back on aid to small businesses 14 Total 57 * Funding to address budget shortfalls associated with COVID-19. The survey of 31 economists was conducted July 2-6. Source: FIVETHIRTYEIGHT/IGM COVID-19 ECONOMIC SURVEY
“[State and local governments] are facing severe budget crises and will be laying off workers to balance their budgets,” said Julie Smith, a professor of economics at Lafayette College. That, she said, could lead to longer periods of high unemployment and financial pain for many households. Meanwhile, she added, cutting back or ending the federal unemployment extension would cause many people’s incomes to decline dramatically, leaving them with much less money to spend — which could make a big dent in GDP.
Perhaps for this reason, there’s a lot of uncertainty in the economists’ fourth-quarter real GDP predictions. When we last asked the panel for its forecast, it thought that GDP would be growing by 4.1 percent at the end of the year, a big improvement from the -28.2 percent quarter-over-quarter annualized growth it foresaw for the second quarter of 2020. This time around, the panel is calling for less negative growth (-25.5 percent) in the second quarter and a very similar fourth-quarter growth rate to last time (3.8 percent). But the range around that end-of-year forecast has gotten a lot wider — a sign of just how much things could go wrong. The gap between our consensus forecast’s 10th and 90th percentile predictions for fourth-quarter GDP growth was 10.9 percentage points in the last survey; now that gap is 12.8 percentage points, with almost all of the extra uncertainty coming in the form of downside risk. (The panel’s consensus 10th percentile GDP growth forecast has dropped from -2.0 percent to -3.5 percent.)
[Related: Voters Who Think The Economy Is The Country’s Biggest Problem Are Pretty Trumpy. That Might Not Help Him Much.]
The economists weren’t especially optimistic about the trajectory of the unemployment rate over the course of 2020, either. The consensus prediction was that the unemployment rate in December would be 10.1 percent, which is only 1 percentage point lower than the rate in June — and is still comparable to the unemployment rate at the height of the Great Recession. Stephen Cecchetti, a professor of international finance at the Brandeis International Business School, pointed out that workers are increasingly likely to be losing their jobs permanently, rather than temporarily, which will make it harder for them to get back into the labor force. And he added that it will take time for the economy to adjust to a new reality where working from home is the norm, which could also keep the unemployment rate from falling quickly. Cecchetti was also among the economists who thought that in a worst-case scenario, the unemployment rate could skyrocket again by the end of the year.
“There are a lot of people who haven’t been exposed to the virus,” he said. “It’s not hard to imagine new outbreaks in places like New Jersey or Massachusetts that force us to shut down all over again.”
About half of the economists in the survey also thought the country’s top earners would end the year with an even greater share of the nation’s personal income. In order to get a sense of how much the panel thought the COVID-19 recession would increase income inequality, we asked about a new metric created by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which found that in 2016, households in the top 10 percent of incomes (adjusted for household size) accounted for 37.6 percent of the country’s personal income. Fifty percent of the respondents thought this number would be significantly higher by the end of 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, while 47 percent thought it would be about the same. Only one respondent thought it would be lower.
“My best guess is that this pandemic is going to worsen income inequalities,” said Sarah Zubairy, a professor of economics at Texas A&M University. She hypothesized that this was because job loss has been concentrated among lower-wage workers who can’t do their jobs remotely, and who may find themselves ricocheting in and out of the labor force if states have to abruptly pull back their reopening plans.
[Related: The Economy Is A Mess. So Why Isn’t The Stock Market?]
And in another sign that the U.S. has been knocked off course by the virus — and the subsequent leadership response — our survey panel overwhelmingly believes (with 90 percent agreement) that China will beat both America and the European Union on the road back to pre-crisis real GDP levels. In retrospect, according to Wright, this was kind of a “no-brainer” because China’s economic growth so far has been quite swift, and it has tools to enact sweeping fiscal stimulus that aren’t available to less centrally controlled economies like the U.S. or the E.U. But some of this might also be based on the Chinese government’s reputation for — how should we put this? — releasing overly favorable public data. “When all is said and done, if they don’t like the actual data they can fudge the numbers,” Wright said. “Put those three things together, and there’s almost no way they can’t be the first back.”
Wright also pointed to another ominous result in the survey: 19 percent of respondents thought that the 10-year average real U.S. GDP growth rate would be reduced by 1 to 2 percent per year. To be sure, the vast majority (77 percent) of economists thought the 10-year average growth rate would be reduced by less, although only one person thought it would go up. But the responses were still alarming, Wright said, because they indicated a serious degree of pessimism about the speed with which the economy will not just return to where it was at the end of 2019, but also catch up with where it would have been if the COVID-19 pandemic hadn’t happened.
[Related: In 2008, Everyone Thought The Recession Was Bad. But in 2020, Many Americans’ Views Depend On Their Party.]
However, Allan Timmermann, professor of finance and economics at the University of California, San Diego — who has also been consulting with us on the survey — was encouraged that the majority of respondents didn’t expect more long-term damage to growth. “This is still a large impact in terms of its cumulative effect on the economy,” he wrote in an email. “But it does suggest that most respondents think the economy will bounce back in due course — as opposed to leading us to a ‘lost decade’ scenario (as we have seen in Japan) with growth slowing down by an even larger amount.”
Overall, though, the latest survey responses paint a picture of America’s still-precarious road back to economic health. So much depends on the course of COVID-19 itself and how much the virus forces local economies to shut down again to slow its spread. But a lot is also riding on important policy decisions around the virus, which are still being debated. “I think economists have been surprised so far by the pace of the rebound,” Wright said. “But that hasn’t made them less worried about the weeks or months ahead.”
Subscribe to our coronavirus podcast, PODCAST-19


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-07--Politics Podcast: How Republicans Could Boost Their Chances In November

FiveThirtyEight ’ s polling averages currently show President Trump trailing former Vice President Joe Biden by nearly 10 percentage points @ @ @ @ @ swing state .
In the current environment , Democrats would have a number of paths @ @ @ @ @ the Senate .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew considers @ @ @ @ @ Republicans could use to try to turn their fall electoral prospects around .
FiveThirtyEight Politics @ @ @ @ @ Improve His Electoral Odds You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play @ @ @ @ @ player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite @ @ @ @ @ are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes @ @ @ @ @ new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
@ @ @ @ @ or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by @ @ @ @ @ in the comments .

FiveThirtyEight’s polling averages currently show President Trump trailing former Vice President Joe Biden by nearly 10 percentage points nationally and behind in every swing state. In the current environment, Democrats would have a number of paths to winning a majority in the Senate. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew considers strategies that the president and Republicans could use to try to turn their fall electoral prospects around.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How Trump Could Improve His Electoral Odds
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-08--Confederate Statues Were Never Really About Preserving History

This data , hand-collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center , excludes any monuments found on or within battlefields , museums , cemeteries or other places that are largely historical in nature .
Monuments with differing dedication dates or sponsors are listed as separate entries in the data — including those that are located in close proximity to , or on the same plot as , another monument .
In recent weeks President Trump has railed against tearing down statues across the country — and has been particularly dogged in his defense of Confederate monuments .
But his argument that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s past is misleading .
An overwhelming majority of Confederate memorials weren ’ t erected in the years directly following the Civil War .
Instead , most were put up decades later .
Nor were they built just to commemorate fallen generals and soldiers ; they were installed as symbols of white supremacy during periods of U.S. history when Black Americans ’ civil rights were aggressively under attack .
In total , at least 830 such monuments were constructed across the U.S , according to the Southern Poverty Law Center , which maintains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symbols .
The biggest spike in Confederate memorials came during the early 1900s , soon after Southern states enacted a number of sweeping laws to disenfranchise Black Americans and segregate society .
During this period , more than 400 monuments were built as part of an organized strategy to reshape Civil War history .
And this effort was largely spearheaded by the United Daughters of the Confederacy , who sponsored hundreds of statues , predominantly in the South in the early 20th century — and as recently as 2011 .
“ The UDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Karen Cox , a historian , University of North Carolina at Charlotte professor and author of numerous articles and books on Southern history and culture , including “ Dixie ’ s Daughters : The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture.
” “ Their goal , in all the work that they did , was to prepare future generations of white Southerners to respect and defend the principles of the Confederacy.
” It wasn ’ t just Confederate monuments , either .
They also rejected any school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause of the Civil War ; they praised the Ku Klux Klan and gave speeches that distorted the cruelty of American slavery and defended slave owners .
From around 1920 to the early 1940s , there was a second wave of statue building .
Jane Dailey , professor of American history at the University of Chicago , said this period of construction coincided with more Black Americans ’ fighting for civil rights and pushing back against widespread lynchings in the South .
“ You have Black soldiers who have just fought for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and fought to make the world safe for democracy , coming back to an America that 's determined to lynch them , ” said Dailey .
“ [ T ] hose were very clearly white supremacist monuments and are designed to intimidate , not just memorialize.
” And a significant portion of those monuments were erected on courthouse grounds .
According to Lecia Brooks of the Southern Poverty Law Center , placing these memorials on courthouse property , especially in the 1950s and ’ 60s , was meant to remind Black Americans of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their fight for civil rights and equal protection under the law .
Black Americans have long understood the symbolism of those monuments .
“ I know what this statue means , ” said Brooks .
“ It 's a reminder to stay in my place.
” Not just statues were erected during this period , either .
Following the landmark Brown versus Board of Education decision in 1954 , which said maintaining racially segregated schools was unconstitutional , there was an uptick in the number of colleges and schools named after Confederate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1970 , at least 45 were named after Confederates .
“ As soon as you get the federal government supporting Black students in schools , ” said Brooks — including talk of busing and integrating segregated schools — then you had the reassertion of white supremacy , this time in the form of school names .
“ ‘ OK , we 're going to name this school so , again , you can be reminded , ’ ” she said .
But now the movement to memorialize the Confederacy has finally faced a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statues have been either removed or relocated since 2015 .
That year , nine Black churchgoers were killed in Charleston , South Carolina , by an avowed white supremacist obsessed with Confederate symbology , sparking a public outcry to remove statues that celebrate the Confederacy .
In total , at least eight statues were removed in 2015 and 2016 , and 36 more were removed in 2017 , the year a rally to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville , Virginia , turned violent .
Already , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 in response to the police killing of George Floyd , which led to protests worldwide .
However , this is still only a fraction of the more than 700 Confederate statues still standing in the U.S .
Taking down these monuments is difficult , and their removal is often met with arguments that by doing so we are hiding from — or even changing — history , with some insisting that these statues simply celebrate Southern heritage .
But a deeper understanding of their historical context paints a very different picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white supremacy and intimidate Black people , not just to pay homage to Southern pride .
And , slowly but surely , as more monuments come down , this understanding seems to be gaining traction .
“ Now , the narrative has changed to telling history , ” said Brooks .
“ Who have we left out of history ?
What history aren ’ t we telling through the veneration of Confederate leaders ?
”

Confederate Statues Were Never Really About Preserving History
Confederate monuments by year dedicated
CITY, STATE NAME OF THING
This data, hand-collected by the Southern Poverty Law Center, excludes any monuments found on or within battlefields, museums, cemeteries or other places that are largely historical in nature. Monuments with differing dedication dates or sponsors are listed as separate entries in the data — including those that are located in close proximity to, or on the same plot as, another monument. In recent weeks President Trump has railed against tearing down statues across the country — and has been particularly dogged in his defense of Confederate monuments. But his argument that they are benign symbols of America’s past is misleading. An overwhelming majority of Confederate memorials weren’t erected in the years directly following the Civil War. Instead, most were put up decades later. Nor were they built just to commemorate fallen generals and soldiers; they were installed as symbols of white supremacy during periods of U.S. history when Black Americans’ civil rights were aggressively under attack. In total, at least 830 such monuments were constructed across the U.S, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which maintains a comprehensive database of Confederate monuments and symbols. The biggest spike in Confederate memorials came during the early 1900s, soon after Southern states enacted a number of sweeping laws to disenfranchise Black Americans and segregate society. During this period, more than 400 monuments were built as part of an organized strategy to reshape Civil War history. And this effort was largely spearheaded by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, who sponsored hundreds of statues, predominantly in the South in the early 20th century — and as recently as 2011.
Monuments sponsored by the United Daughters of the Confederacy
CITY, STATE NAME OF THING
“The UDC was very focused on the future,” said Karen Cox, a historian, University of North Carolina at Charlotte professor and author of numerous articles and books on Southern history and culture, including “Dixie’s Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture.” “Their goal, in all the work that they did, was to prepare future generations of white Southerners to respect and defend the principles of the Confederacy.” It wasn’t just Confederate monuments, either. They also rejected any school textbook that said slavery was the central cause of the Civil War; they praised the Ku Klux Klan and gave speeches that distorted the cruelty of American slavery and defended slave owners. From around 1920 to the early 1940s, there was a second wave of statue building. Jane Dailey, professor of American history at the University of Chicago, said this period of construction coincided with more Black Americans’ fighting for civil rights and pushing back against widespread lynchings in the South. “You have Black soldiers who have just fought for their country [in World War I] and fought to make the world safe for democracy, coming back to an America that's determined to lynch them,” said Dailey. “[T]hose were very clearly white supremacist monuments and are designed to intimidate, not just memorialize.” And a significant portion of those monuments were erected on courthouse grounds. According to Lecia Brooks of the Southern Poverty Law Center, placing these memorials on courthouse property, especially in the 1950s and ’60s, was meant to remind Black Americans of the struggle and subjugation they would face in their fight for civil rights and equal protection under the law.
Monuments built on courthouse grounds
CITY, STATE NAME OF THING
Black Americans have long understood the symbolism of those monuments. “I know what this statue means,” said Brooks. “It's a reminder to stay in my place.” Not just statues were erected during this period, either. Following the landmark Brown versus Board of Education decision in 1954, which said maintaining racially segregated schools was unconstitutional, there was an uptick in the number of colleges and schools named after Confederate soldiers and generals: From 1954 to 1970, at least 45 were named after Confederates.
Schools and colleges named after Confederates
CITY, STATE NAME OF THING
“As soon as you get the federal government supporting Black students in schools,” said Brooks — including talk of busing and integrating segregated schools — then you had the reassertion of white supremacy, this time in the form of school names. “‘OK, we're going to name this school so, again, you can be reminded,’” she said. But now the movement to memorialize the Confederacy has finally faced a period of reckoning — more than 80 statues have been either removed or relocated since 2015. That year, nine Black churchgoers were killed in Charleston, South Carolina, by an avowed white supremacist obsessed with Confederate symbology, sparking a public outcry to remove statues that celebrate the Confederacy. In total, at least eight statues were removed in 2015 and 2016, and 36 more were removed in 2017, the year a rally to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent. Already, at least another 26 have been taken down in 2020 in response to the police killing of George Floyd, which led to protests worldwide.
Monuments still standing versus those removed or relocated
Monuments removed or relocated
CITY, STATE NAME OF THING
However, this is still only a fraction of the more than 700 Confederate statues still standing in the U.S. Taking down these monuments is difficult, and their removal is often met with arguments that by doing so we are hiding from — or even changing — history, with some insisting that these statues simply celebrate Southern heritage. But a deeper understanding of their historical context paints a very different picture — these statues were meant to promote white supremacy and intimidate Black people, not just to pay homage to Southern pride. And, slowly but surely, as more monuments come down, this understanding seems to be gaining traction. “Now, the narrative has changed to telling history,” said Brooks. “Who have we left out of history? What history aren’t we telling through the veneration of Confederate leaders?”


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-08--2020 Could Be The New Year Of The Woman … For The GOP

More women ran for office in 2018 than ever before , which led to a record number of women in Congress .
Overall , the share of House and Senate seats held by women increased by 4 percentage points , from 20 to 24 percent — adding more women to the ranks than in any other election cycle since 1992 .
However , these gains were primarily driven by Democratic women , who ran in large numbers : Almost three-quarters of the women who ran for Congress in 2018 were Democrats .
But 2020 looks different .
More Democratic women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women — and more Democratic women are running than in 2018 — but as the chart below shows , the share of all female candidates who are Republican has grown substantially , up from about a quarter in 2018 to 39 percent .
So what explains this sudden uptick in Republican women running ?
And are GOP women following Democrats ’ 2018 playbook or writing their own ?
More importantly , will this lead to more female representation in Congress ?
( Remember , despite the strides made in 2018 , the numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far from equal . )
The number of Republican women ’ s candidacies has lagged behind Democrats for many years now .
But as you can see in the chart above , Republican women have had a breakout year before .
In 2010 , as the tea party movement reached peak popularity , the number of Republican women running for Congress was double what it had been in the previous midterm year — 151 women ran in 2010 compared to just 77 in 2006 .
According to Washington College political science professor Melissa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Women , ” so many Republican women gained power in the party in 2010 — both electorally and as internal leaders — that some called it the “ Year of the GOP Woman.
” And in her research , Deckman found that many women who ran for office that year were active in the tea party , capitalizing on the movement ’ s momentum .
But as the tea party movement began losing steam in 2012 and 2014 ( or at least started morphing into something different ) , the number of Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a political moment , in other words , isn ’ t necessarily enough to change the overall picture .
It ’ s true that Democratic women had their own political moment in 2018 , fueled at least in part by anger at President Trump ’ s election in 2016 .
But Democratic women also tend to be better positioned to run for office than Republican women , who are often more absent from traditional political pipelines , like state legislatures .
Plus , historically speaking , there have simply been more organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ networks willing to finance Democratic women ’ s campaigns than there are groups that do the same for Republican women .
Finally , it doesn ’ t hurt that the vast majority of Democratic voters agree that there are too few women in political office , whereas just 33 percent of Republicans think so .
Having one party fostering a more encouraging environment for women who want to run can help explain why so many more Democratic women are seeking office .
What we ’ re seeing in 2020 , though , might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women .
Like Democrats , they ’ re motivated by anger — except it ’ s not toward Trump , said Deckman , but toward the women ’ s movement his election sparked .
Deckman told me that in her earlier interviews with tea party women , she found that many resented the progressive women ’ s movement , and she thinks that resentment might be motivating GOP women now .
“ [ M ] any GOP women felt that those women in those movements do not speak for them , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s March and the # MeToo movement as events that may have sparked more GOP women to run , telling me that some Republicans may be running to “ put out a counternarrative of what women ’ s interests actually entail.
” Republican women are also being encouraged to run this election cycle by members of their party .
The GOP hasn ’ t historically invested in organizations that recruit and train women to run for office , but there has been a marked shift in the level of this investment since 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Elevate-PAC are attempting to mimic the success of women ’ s groups on the left , like Emily ’ s List .
They are still well behind these groups financially , but Danielle Thomsen , a University of California , Irvine political science professor , told me the importance of these organizations goes beyond just financial support ; they also offer symbolic support , which can go a long way in a party where support for women candidates has long been lacking .
Additionally , with Democrats taking back the House in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Republicans to run in open primaries ; plus , a wave of retirements in safe Republican districts may have enticed more women to throw their hat into the ring , as a primary victory in those areas nearly guarantees a win in November .
Of course , the wave of Republican women running still have to win their primary and general election contests before they can take office .
And according to research by Thomsen , this might be difficult .
She found that Republican women are less likely to win their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women because they frequently face a much more difficult electoral environment than Democratic women , including , for instance , more competitive primaries .
And so far in 2020 , a greater share of Democratic women have won their primaries than Republican women .
But compared to 2018 , because more Republican women are running , more Republican women are winning House primary races , so they are making some progress this year .
In fact , GOP women make up 21 percent of their party ’ s nominees now compared to just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Center for American Women in Politics .
But it might still be difficult for Republican women to translate their primary wins into November victories , as some research finds that Republican women are still less likely to win in the general election compared to Republican men .
One possible factor is that historically , Republican women have tended to be more politically moderate than Republican men , according to research by Thomsen , which has hurt them as voters have become increasingly ideological .
That said , Thomsen told me that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now are just as conservative as the Republican men , ” and she thinks this may be a permanent shift .
Given this development , Thomsen told me she thinks the Republican women running in 2020 may fare just as well as their male counterparts .
Losing an election is not necessarily the end of the road for a candidate , though .
Many women who lose their races rebound and run again .
For instance , according to a working paper by Thomsen , women who lost a race for a House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less likely to rebound than men who lost .
And this year , a number of women who lost in 2018 are running again .
According to data from the Center for American Women in Politics , 93 women ( 64 Democrats and 29 Republicans ) are likely to run for office again after losing a bid for Congress or a statewide office two years ago .
It ’ s not clear what this all means for 2020 , but at this point , more Republican women are running , and they stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Congress .
Even for those who lose their races , this could be a turning point .
As Thomsen told me , running is half the battle .
“ People who already ran have donors and volunteers , ” said Thomsen .
“ Plus , [ if the race was close ] they almost won — which is no small feat !
A lot of campaign groundwork is already laid.
” That could pay huge dividends for Republican women in 2020 , helping them turn a newfound political moment into longer-term progress @ @ @ @

More women ran for office in 2018 than ever before, which led to a record number of women in Congress. Overall, the share of House and Senate seats held by women increased by 4 percentage points, from 20 to 24 percent — adding more women to the ranks than in any other election cycle since 1992.
However, these gains were primarily driven by Democratic women, who ran in large numbers: Almost three-quarters of the women who ran for Congress in 2018 were Democrats. But 2020 looks different. More Democratic women are still running for office than Republican women — and more Democratic women are running than in 2018 — but as the chart below shows, the share of all female candidates who are Republican has grown substantially, up from about a quarter in 2018 to 39 percent.
So what explains this sudden uptick in Republican women running? And are GOP women following Democrats’ 2018 playbook or writing their own? More importantly, will this lead to more female representation in Congress? (Remember, despite the strides made in 2018, the numbers of men and women in Congress are far from equal.)
The number of Republican women’s candidacies has lagged behind Democrats for many years now. But as you can see in the chart above, Republican women have had a breakout year before. In 2010, as the tea party movement reached peak popularity, the number of Republican women running for Congress was double what it had been in the previous midterm year — 151 women ran in 2010 compared to just 77 in 2006.
[Related: More Women Are Holding Political Office — But Not Everywhere]
According to Washington College political science professor Melissa Deckman, author of “Tea Party Women,” so many Republican women gained power in the party in 2010 — both electorally and as internal leaders — that some called it the “Year of the GOP Woman.” And in her research, Deckman found that many women who ran for office that year were active in the tea party, capitalizing on the movement’s momentum. But as the tea party movement began losing steam in 2012 and 2014 (or at least started morphing into something different), the number of Republican women running also dropped off. Capitalizing on a political moment, in other words, isn’t necessarily enough to change the overall picture.
It’s true that Democratic women had their own political moment in 2018, fueled at least in part by anger at President Trump’s election in 2016. But Democratic women also tend to be better positioned to run for office than Republican women, who are often more absent from traditional political pipelines, like state legislatures. Plus, historically speaking, there have simply been more organizations geared toward recruiting Democratic women and elite networks willing to finance Democratic women’s campaigns than there are groups that do the same for Republican women. Finally, it doesn’t hurt that the vast majority of Democratic voters agree that there are too few women in political office, whereas just 33 percent of Republicans think so. Having one party fostering a more encouraging environment for women who want to run can help explain why so many more Democratic women are seeking office.
[Related: When Women Run]
What we’re seeing in 2020, though, might mark a new political moment for Republican women. Like Democrats, they’re motivated by anger — except it’s not toward Trump, said Deckman, but toward the women’s movement his election sparked. Deckman told me that in her earlier interviews with tea party women, she found that many resented the progressive women’s movement, and she thinks that resentment might be motivating GOP women now. “[M]any GOP women felt that those women in those movements do not speak for them,” said Deckman, citing both the Women’s March and the #MeToo movement as events that may have sparked more GOP women to run, telling me that some Republicans may be running to “put out a counternarrative of what women’s interests actually entail.”
Republican women are also being encouraged to run this election cycle by members of their party. The GOP hasn’t historically invested in organizations that recruit and train women to run for office, but there has been a marked shift in the level of this investment since 2018. New organizations like Winning for Women and Elevate-PAC are attempting to mimic the success of women’s groups on the left, like Emily’s List. They are still well behind these groups financially, but Danielle Thomsen, a University of California, Irvine political science professor, told me the importance of these organizations goes beyond just financial support; they also offer symbolic support, which can go a long way in a party where support for women candidates has long been lacking.
Additionally, with Democrats taking back the House in 2018, there are just more opportunities for Republicans to run in open primaries; plus, a wave of retirements in safe Republican districts may have enticed more women to throw their hat into the ring, as a primary victory in those areas nearly guarantees a win in November.
Of course, the wave of Republican women running still have to win their primary and general election contests before they can take office. And according to research by Thomsen, this might be difficult. She found that Republican women are less likely to win their party’s primary compared to Democratic women because they frequently face a much more difficult electoral environment than Democratic women, including, for instance, more competitive primaries. And so far in 2020, a greater share of Democratic women have won their primaries than Republican women. But compared to 2018, because more Republican women are running, more Republican women are winning House primary races, so they are making some progress this year. In fact, GOP women make up 21 percent of their party’s nominees now compared to just 13 percent in 2018, according to the Center for American Women in Politics.
[Related: An Updating Estimate Of The Congressional Generic Ballot]
But it might still be difficult for Republican women to translate their primary wins into November victories, as some research finds that Republican women are still less likely to win in the general election compared to Republican men. One possible factor is that historically, Republican women have tended to be more politically moderate than Republican men, according to research by Thomsen, which has hurt them as voters have become increasingly ideological. That said, Thomsen told me that “the Republican women running for Congress right now are just as conservative as the Republican men,” and she thinks this may be a permanent shift. Given this development, Thomsen told me she thinks the Republican women running in 2020 may fare just as well as their male counterparts.
Losing an election is not necessarily the end of the road for a candidate, though. Many women who lose their races rebound and run again. For instance, according to a working paper by Thomsen, women who lost a race for a House seat from 1980 to 2014 were no less likely to rebound than men who lost. And this year, a number of women who lost in 2018 are running again. According to data from the Center for American Women in Politics, 93 women (64 Democrats and 29 Republicans) are likely to run for office again after losing a bid for Congress or a statewide office two years ago.
It’s not clear what this all means for 2020, but at this point, more Republican women are running, and they stand a real chance of increasing their numbers in Congress. Even for those who lose their races, this could be a turning point. As Thomsen told me, running is half the battle. “People who already ran have donors and volunteers,” said Thomsen. “Plus, [if the race was close] they almost won — which is no small feat! A lot of campaign groundwork is already laid.” That could pay huge dividends for Republican women in 2020, helping them turn a newfound political moment into longer-term progress for the GOP.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: How Trump Could Improve His Electoral Odds