fivethirthyeight--2020-09-30--The Keys To Winning The NBA Finals For The Lakers And Heat

chris.herring ( Chris Herring , senior sportswriter ) : Well , this NBA season that went inside a bubble and is on the cusp of lasting an entire calendar year officially begins its Finals round tonight .
Lakers-Heat is almost certainly not the matchup any of us thought we would get .
But it ’ s one full of storylines for any number of reasons — and one that feels like it could honestly go either way , given how well Miami has played against higher-seeded competition throughout the postseason .
What are you all most interested in seeing as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strikes you as the biggest key in all of this ?
dubin ( Jared Dubin , FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : I ’ m a pretty big nerd , so I ’ m most interested in seeing how the teams align themselves defensively .
Does Bam Adebayo start on Anthony Davis , or do they try to hide him for a bit ?
Does Jae Crowder guard Davis or LeBron James ?
And how do the Lakers deploy LeBron , Danny Green and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope against Goran Dragić , Jimmy Butler and Duncan Robinson/Tyler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ L.A. wants LeBron chasing Robinson all night or dealing with as many ball-screens as Dragić uses , so I imagine he ’ ll actually spend quite a bit of time on Jimmy .
chris.herring : The matchups and Xs and Os are fascinating in this series , aren ’ t they ?
And even the stuff we ’ ll see at the beginning will likely just be to start .
dre.waters ( Andres Waters , FiveThirtyEight contributor ) : In terms of matchups , I ’ m interested to see how the Heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They brought in guys like Crowder and Andre Iguodala specifically for a series like this … so how will they use them defensively ?
I imagine both of them will spend most of their time on defense guarding LeBron .
dubin : A big swing in this series will be whether the Heat decide to use Crowder on LeBron or AD .
Davis tends to do better against big guys , so it could make some sense to have Crowder on him , but the Heat also probably don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealing with LeBron .
chris.herring : Not that it has an immediate tie-in , but remember that clip of LeBron at the free-throw line showing frustration when he saw that Kawhi Leonard was coming back into the game to guard him ?
To your point , though , it ’ s a really exhausting sort of assignment to guard someone of the caliber of LeBron or even Butler for a whole game .
Expect to see different folks with those responsibilities over the course of the night .
One thing I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the offensive rebounding — something that ’ s been deemphasized in recent years — may matter in this series .
The Lakers often play two traditional bigs at a time , and the Heat just hustle their butts off frequently .
The zone defense Miami plays becomes a little more risky for that reason , too .
dubin : The Celtics grabbed the offensive board on almost 30 percent of their misses last series , far higher than either of the Heat ’ s two previous playoff opponents .
The fact that Miami @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , and if they go heavy zone against the Lakers , they could be inviting some trouble there .
That said , the whole point of the zone is to cut off access to the paint , and that might be the Heat ’ s best chance of winning the series .
If they can turn it into a 3-point shooting contest , I feel like that ’ s really good for them .
dre.waters : On the other hand , though , if Miami beats the Lakers rebounding on the offensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from deep to make them pay .
Butler , Crowder , Iguodala , Dragić , Robinson and Herro are all shooting over 34 percent from 3-point range .
chris.herring : The Lakers ’ outside shooting has never really been their strong point , although that late hot streak from Bron was how they ultimately put away the Nuggets .
dubin : KCP shooting in the mid-40s from deep during the playoffs as opposed to his usual mid-30s has been pretty big .
Same with Rajon Rondo shooting over 40 percent on almost three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be such a horrible time for either of them to regress to the mean .
dubin : On the other hand , it would be a nice time for Danny Green to progress to the mean .
chris.herring : A complicating factor in trying to make sense of this matchup : They last played each other in December , almost 10 months ago .
dubin : Kendrick Nunn and Meyers Leonard were still in the starting lineup !
James Johnson guarded LeBron in the first matchup !
Quinn Cook guarded Dragić !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
dre.waters : That feels like so long ago .
A lot has changed for Miami since then .
chris.herring : In those two meetings , the Heat were neck and neck or ahead through halftime .
But each time , the Lakers had big third quarters , winning one by 10 and the other by 11 .
Erik Spoelstra is a fantastic coach , and if anything , this run has proved just how great he is .
But the Heat were a pretty poor second-half team over the course of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solid in that regard .
Miami dropped an NBA-high 18 games in which it held a lead of at least 10 points .
Not sure whether it ’ s a focus thing , or simply that the Heat change defenses a lot midgame , which might turn the faucet on or off for the opponent .
But it will be interesting to see if they can finish the job if and when they take leads against L.A. dubin : I wonder how many of those came pre-hiatus and how many came in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it does feel like they ’ ve been the team making the comebacks in the playoffs , not the team allowing opponents back in it .
chris.herring : Definitely feels like there ’ s some truth to that , including in the Eastern Conference clincher .
I ’ ve picked Miami in this series — partly because of how well they ’ ve played against what I perceive to be better competition and partly off of feel .
dre.waters : I actually picked Miami as well .
In terms of play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they ’ ve been far more consistent to me .
And , like Chris said , it was against better competition – the top-seeded Milwaukee Bucks and Boston Celtics .
dubin : I feel like we could have said “ the Lakers have the two best players in the series but the [ opponent ] has the next five or six ” about every series L.A. has been in so far .
How much do we think that matters in a series where LeBron and AD are probably going to play around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I am at least slightly worried about the Heat ’ s ability to produce steady offense against this Laker defense .
So much of it will depend on what sorts of looks Adebayo gets as a shooter and passer .
And much of that will depend on the Lakers ’ defensive approach , which , as Jared mentioned , will likely involve Davis for long stretches .
Jared , you didn ’ t pick Miami , too , did you ?
dubin : Nobody has asked me to make a definitive pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think I would lean slightly toward the Lakers , but largely because I think picking against LeBron is kind of stupid and not because I think the Lakers are actually better .
dubin : ( I ’ m not calling you guys stupid , in case it sounded that way .
I just feel silly picking Not LeBron . )
It ’ s always hard picking against LeBron , but somebody had to do it , right ?
chris.herring : Yeah .
If anything , I think the burden of proof here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the team with the two best players .
Which is part of why I ’ m still completely shocked and confused that our projection model thinks so little of the Lakers , as it has for a while now .
I listened to our podcast from the other day , on which Neil Paine gave the best explanation of it that he could .
But I still couldn ’ t make complete sense of it .
I do think that ’ s where we are , though : If Miami wins , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared to the depth of the Lakers .
dubin : Yeah , I would say if the Heat win , it will be due to their 3-point shooting — but that shooting is coming from the depth guys .
chris.herring : It is much easier to imagine LeBron and AD going for 60 or 70 combined each night , though , and that potentially being enough .
I was so close to putting Duncan Robinson as my MVP choice .
dre.waters : Miami has six guys who could average double-digit points in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough .
chris.herring : I picked Miami in six .
I might as well have picked Robinson , smh .
dubin : I ’ m interested to see if Robinson has yet another bad Game 1 and then hits multiple threes inside the first minute of Game 2 .
Again .
dre.waters : Chris and I are on the exact same page today … except for the Robinson for MVP pick .
LOL .
I have the Heat in six as well .
But that ’ s mostly because I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an all-or-nothing Game 7. dubin : It feels weird to say , but I think the most important players in the series might be Crowder-Herro-Robinson and Green-KCP-Markieff Morris-Alex Caruso-Rondo .
Just , who gets better shooting from those groups .
chris.herring : We ’ ve largely avoided the narrative talk of the Pat Riley/LeBron stuff .
I think people will hear enough of that elsewhere .
But I do want to at least ask this one : How much more would this Finals win bolster LeBron ’ s legacy ?
He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his career , citing the passing of Kobe Bryant and the bubble , which I think we can all understand .
I could also imagine that a lot of critics will look at the slate they ’ ve had and say that the Lakers , through no fault of their own , didn ’ t end up having to play any of the most dominant teams from this past season in order to win the title .
dubin : I don ’ t know that it ’ s their fault that the Clippers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of business .
If anything , doing so in the bubble is almost more impressive than doing it at home .
chris.herring : I said through no fault of their own !
dre.waters : I think the better question , considering the point Chris just made , is how would another Finals loss hurt his legacy ?
dubin : Everybody knows it ’ s better for your legacy to lose before the Finals than lose in the Finals .
dubin : In all seriousness , the idea that a win or loss should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t make that much sense to me .
No matter what happens , he is not going to wake up a better or worse player the day after the final game of this series .
Really , it ’ s just going to confirm people ’ s priors .
Then again , I said the same thing after the Cavs won their title , and that was a minority opinion on that day .
chris.herring : There ’ s almost certainly a lot of truth to that .
Though I do think people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finals as a favorite .
dubin : It reminds me of what happened after the most recent Super Bowl , when people were finally willing to admit that Andy Reid is one of the best coaches ever , as if the one game changed everything .
chris.herring : The weird thing here , as we ’ ve all said , is that the Lakers are favored , but we can all step back and tell that something special has taken place with Miami .
You don ’ t roll through the postseason the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five-seed , unless you ’ re on a mission .
I just find it really tough to pick against them and all the stuff they throw at you , Xs and Os-wise , physicality-wise , etc .
dubin : I can admit that as long as the credit is not given to Pat Riley .
No , I will never get over it .

The Keys To Winning The NBA Finals For The Lakers And Heat
chris.herring (Chris Herring, senior sportswriter): Well, this NBA season that went inside a bubble and is on the cusp of lasting an entire calendar year officially begins its Finals round tonight. Lakers-Heat is almost certainly not the matchup any of us thought we would get. But it’s one full of storylines for any number of reasons — and one that feels like it could honestly go either way, given how well Miami has played against higher-seeded competition throughout the postseason.
What are you all most interested in seeing as the Finals kick off tonight? What strikes you as the biggest key in all of this?
dubin (Jared Dubin, FiveThirtyEight contributor): I’m a pretty big nerd, so I’m most interested in seeing how the teams align themselves defensively. Does Bam Adebayo start on Anthony Davis, or do they try to hide him for a bit? Does Jae Crowder guard Davis or LeBron James? And how do the Lakers deploy LeBron, Danny Green and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope against Goran Dragić, Jimmy Butler and Duncan Robinson/Tyler Herro. I can’t imagine L.A. wants LeBron chasing Robinson all night or dealing with as many ball-screens as Dragić uses, so I imagine he’ll actually spend quite a bit of time on Jimmy.
chris.herring: The matchups and Xs and Os are fascinating in this series, aren’t they? And even the stuff we’ll see at the beginning will likely just be to start.
dre.waters (Andres Waters, FiveThirtyEight contributor): In terms of matchups, I’m interested to see how the Heat try to slow down LeBron as well. They brought in guys like Crowder and Andre Iguodala specifically for a series like this … so how will they use them defensively?
I imagine both of them will spend most of their time on defense guarding LeBron.
dubin: A big swing in this series will be whether the Heat decide to use Crowder on LeBron or AD. Davis tends to do better against big guys, so it could make some sense to have Crowder on him, but the Heat also probably don’t want to have Jimmy spend his entire night dealing with LeBron.
chris.herring: Not that it has an immediate tie-in, but remember that clip of LeBron at the free-throw line showing frustration when he saw that Kawhi Leonard was coming back into the game to guard him? To your point, though, it’s a really exhausting sort of assignment to guard someone of the caliber of LeBron or even Butler for a whole game. Expect to see different folks with those responsibilities over the course of the night.
One thing I’m oddly intrigued by here is how much the offensive rebounding — something that’s been deemphasized in recent years — may matter in this series. The Lakers often play two traditional bigs at a time, and the Heat just hustle their butts off frequently. The zone defense Miami plays becomes a little more risky for that reason, too.
dubin: The Celtics grabbed the offensive board on almost 30 percent of their misses last series, far higher than either of the Heat’s two previous playoff opponents. The fact that Miami played so much zone definitely contributed to that, and if they go heavy zone against the Lakers, they could be inviting some trouble there.
That said, the whole point of the zone is to cut off access to the paint, and that might be the Heat’s best chance of winning the series. If they can turn it into a 3-point shooting contest, I feel like that’s really good for them.
chris.herring: Very good point.
dre.waters: On the other hand, though, if Miami beats the Lakers rebounding on the offensive end, they definitely have the shooting from deep to make them pay. Butler, Crowder, Iguodala, Dragić, Robinson and Herro are all shooting over 34 percent from 3-point range.
chris.herring: The Lakers’ outside shooting has never really been their strong point, although that late hot streak from Bron was how they ultimately put away the Nuggets.
dubin: KCP shooting in the mid-40s from deep during the playoffs as opposed to his usual mid-30s has been pretty big. Same with Rajon Rondo shooting over 40 percent on almost three attempts per game.
chris.herring: This would be such a horrible time for either of them to regress to the mean.
dubin: On the other hand, it would be a nice time for Danny Green to progress to the mean.
chris.herring: A complicating factor in trying to make sense of this matchup: They last played each other in December, almost 10 months ago.
dubin: Kendrick Nunn and Meyers Leonard were still in the starting lineup! James Johnson guarded LeBron in the first matchup! Quinn Cook guarded Dragić!
chris.herring: Hahaha
Those were the good ol’ days.
dre.waters: That feels like so long ago. A lot has changed for Miami since then.
chris.herring: In those two meetings, the Heat were neck and neck or ahead through halftime. But each time, the Lakers had big third quarters, winning one by 10 and the other by 11.
Erik Spoelstra is a fantastic coach, and if anything, this run has proved just how great he is. But the Heat were a pretty poor second-half team over the course of the season, while the Lakers were relatively solid in that regard. Miami dropped an NBA-high 18 games in which it held a lead of at least 10 points.
Not sure whether it’s a focus thing, or simply that the Heat change defenses a lot midgame, which might turn the faucet on or off for the opponent. But it will be interesting to see if they can finish the job if and when they take leads against L.A.
dubin: I wonder how many of those came pre-hiatus and how many came in the bubble. Feelings aren’t numbers, but it does feel like they’ve been the team making the comebacks in the playoffs, not the team allowing opponents back in it.
chris.herring: Definitely feels like there’s some truth to that, including in the Eastern Conference clincher. I’ve picked Miami in this series — partly because of how well they’ve played against what I perceive to be better competition and partly off of feel.
dre.waters: I actually picked Miami as well. In terms of play outside their best player(s), they’ve been far more consistent to me. And, like Chris said, it was against better competition – the top-seeded Milwaukee Bucks and Boston Celtics.
dubin: I feel like we could have said “the Lakers have the two best players in the series but the [opponent] has the next five or six” about every series L.A. has been in so far. How much do we think that matters in a series where LeBron and AD are probably going to play around 40 minutes a night anyway?
chris.herring: I am at least slightly worried about the Heat’s ability to produce steady offense against this Laker defense. So much of it will depend on what sorts of looks Adebayo gets as a shooter and passer. And much of that will depend on the Lakers’ defensive approach, which, as Jared mentioned, will likely involve Davis for long stretches.
Jared, you didn’t pick Miami, too, did you?
dubin: Nobody has asked me to make a definitive pick, unless this right here counts. I think I would lean slightly toward the Lakers, but largely because I think picking against LeBron is kind of stupid and not because I think the Lakers are actually better.
chris.herring: Hahahaha
dubin: (I’m not calling you guys stupid, in case it sounded that way. I just feel silly picking Not LeBron.)
dre.waters: 😂
It’s always hard picking against LeBron, but somebody had to do it, right?
chris.herring: Yeah. If anything, I think the burden of proof here has to be on folks picking against the team with the two best players.
Which is part of why I’m still completely shocked and confused that our projection model thinks so little of the Lakers, as it has for a while now. I listened to our podcast from the other day, on which Neil Paine gave the best explanation of it that he could. But I still couldn’t make complete sense of it.
I do think that’s where we are, though: If Miami wins, it will largely be because of its depth compared to the depth of the Lakers.
dubin: Yeah, I would say if the Heat win, it will be due to their 3-point shooting — but that shooting is coming from the depth guys.
chris.herring: It is much easier to imagine LeBron and AD going for 60 or 70 combined each night, though, and that potentially being enough.
I was so close to putting Duncan Robinson as my MVP choice.
dre.waters: Miami has six guys who could average double-digit points in this series. And that really could be enough.
chris.herring: I picked Miami in six. I might as well have picked Robinson, smh.
dubin: I’m interested to see if Robinson has yet another bad Game 1 and then hits multiple threes inside the first minute of Game 2. Again.
dre.waters: Chris and I are on the exact same page today … except for the Robinson for MVP pick. LOL.
I have the Heat in six as well. But that’s mostly because I don’t know if they could top LeBron in an all-or-nothing Game 7.
dubin: It feels weird to say, but I think the most important players in the series might be Crowder-Herro-Robinson and Green-KCP-Markieff Morris-Alex Caruso-Rondo. Just, who gets better shooting from those groups.
chris.herring: We’ve largely avoided the narrative talk of the Pat Riley/LeBron stuff. I think people will hear enough of that elsewhere. But I do want to at least ask this one: How much more would this Finals win bolster LeBron’s legacy?
He’s called it the most challenging season of his career, citing the passing of Kobe Bryant and the bubble, which I think we can all understand. I could also imagine that a lot of critics will look at the slate they’ve had and say that the Lakers, through no fault of their own, didn’t end up having to play any of the most dominant teams from this past season in order to win the title.
dubin: I don’t know that it’s their fault that the Clippers and Bucks didn’t take care of business. If anything, doing so in the bubble is almost more impressive than doing it at home.
chris.herring: I said through no fault of their own!
dre.waters: I think the better question, considering the point Chris just made, is how would another Finals loss hurt his legacy?
dubin: Everybody knows it’s better for your legacy to lose before the Finals than lose in the Finals.
chris.herring: 😂
dre.waters: 😭
Jared’s right though…
dubin: In all seriousness, the idea that a win or loss should change LeBron’s legacy doesn’t make that much sense to me. No matter what happens, he is not going to wake up a better or worse player the day after the final game of this series. Really, it’s just going to confirm people’s priors.
Then again, I said the same thing after the Cavs won their title, and that was a minority opinion on that day.
chris.herring: There’s almost certainly a lot of truth to that. Though I do think people raise more questions when you lose the Finals as a favorite.
dubin: It reminds me of what happened after the most recent Super Bowl, when people were finally willing to admit that Andy Reid is one of the best coaches ever, as if the one game changed everything.
chris.herring: The weird thing here, as we’ve all said, is that the Lakers are favored, but we can all step back and tell that something special has taken place with Miami. You don’t roll through the postseason the way the Heat have, as a five-seed, unless you’re on a mission.
I just find it really tough to pick against them and all the stuff they throw at you, Xs and Os-wise, physicality-wise, etc.
dubin: I can admit that as long as the credit is not given to Pat Riley. No, I will never get over it.
Check out our latest NBA predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-30--Is The SEC Ready For The Air Raid? Mike Leach Sure Thinks So.

The earliest introduction to the pass-first ways of the future for college football ’ s premier conference came in 1997 .
Downtrodden Kentucky , fresh off seven seasons without a winning record , hired head coach Hal Mumme and offensive coordinator Mike Leach to install the high-flying pass attack they developed at Iowa Wesleyan and Valdosta State .
In each of Mumme ’ s four seasons , Kentucky led the SEC in passing yards per game .
The 1998 team still holds the single-season conference record with an average of 412.2 passing yards , and that year , Kentucky led @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time since 1950 .
But Mumme also finished 20-26 and resigned in 2001 .
Over the past two decades , the air raid offense has gained momentum in most college leagues and across the NFL .
But since that first experiment , the collective SEC has largely shunned the Mumme/Leach air raid style — at least until last winter , when Mississippi State hired Leach away from Washington State .
Leach went 84-43 in 10 seasons as head coach at Texas Tech and 55-47 in eight seasons at Washington State , both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his and Mumme ’ s former players and assistants also became air raid acolytes .
But as he succeeded on college football ’ s periphery , the offensive revolution he and Mumme spawned largely bypassed the South .
The country ’ s best football conference became known for stifling defense , elite NFL prospects and national championships .
When the SEC came up , Leach took aim at the league ’ s superiority .
“ I ’ ve got bad news for all these ‘ levels ’ people , ” he told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Your level isn ’ t special , your conference isn ’ t special .
… How ’ s it better ?
Somebody coaches better athletes , somehow they morph into something smarter ?
That ’ s crazy .
I mean , you still have problems , you still have 11 parts you can wiggle around to counter the other 11 parts.
” And so 2020 brought a great college football experiment , the collision of college football ’ s traditionalist league with one of the sport ’ s most radical outsiders .
Leach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not supposed to be good , either — media members picked the Bulldogs to tie for fifth in the SEC West .
But in his SEC debut , Leach shocked the college football world again .
Led by graduate transfer quarterback K.J .
Costello , Mississippi State passed for 623 yards and upset national champion Louisiana State , 44-34 .
Leach ’ s air raid scheme is a shock to an SEC system often reliant on the ball-control offense .
Every year since at least 2004 , Leach has called pass plays on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Each of the nine most pass-friendly teams in that span were Leach teams at either Texas Tech or Washington State .
Meanwhile , in the same timeframe , the SEC ’ s most pass-happy offense was Hugh Freeze ’ s 2016 Mississippi team ( 61.8 percent pass plays ) .
Every other Power Five conference has had multiple teams in the past 15 years call pass plays more often than 61.8 percent .
There have been deviations — Kevin Sumlin , a pass-first coach , ushered Texas A & M into the SEC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ darling of the 2019 season with its high-octane attack led by quarterback Joe Burrow — but none of them even came close to Leach ’ s most conservative offense in that span , in 2008 at Texas Tech ( 69.5 percent pass plays ) .
Last season , Leach set a personal record : 82.6 percent of play calls were passes .
The SEC is slowly coming around to the passing game ’ s intrigue .
Pass rates spiked in 2019 at both Alabama and LSU , and Georgia hired new offensive coordinator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the offense and create more explosive plays .
Leach still has the league ’ s most diverse passing attack , and skeptics have often wondered if it would work at the highest level of college football .
Nobody heard the skepticism louder than Leach , who , in his unfiltered style , mocked SEC offenses for positioning players so close together that “ one hand grenade can kill everybody.
” “ This is a great time to be in the SEC , ” Leach said in that 2017 interview with the Clarion Ledger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same offense : run right , run left , play-action .
And they tease themselves and say we threw it four more times a game this year than we did last year.
” All along , Leach admitted back in March , he “ wanted to see what was on the other side of the hill.
” He almost had the chance after the 2017 season .
One report said Leach ’ s interview for the Tennessee job “ went very well , ” and another indicated that then-athletic director John Currie was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the administration .
Tennessee fired Currie the day after he met with Leach .
At that point , it seemed Leach was too much of an outsider , between his extreme game strategy and his colorful press conferences .
That perception lasted until Mississippi State suffered a 6-7 season and went looking for an offensive-minded coach to reinvigorate the program .
Leach ’ s philosophy had always helped Texas Tech and Washington State win a few more games a year than they had before he arrived .
What could he do in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if only for an afternoon .
It took Leach one game to break the league ’ s single-game passing record ( Costello ’ s 623 yards ) .
The Stanford transfer completed 36 of 60 passes and threw five touchdowns , surviving two interceptions .
And while Leach faced one of the best opposing defenses of his career ( even without star cornerback Derek Stingley Jr. ) , he also had some of the best weapons he has ever used .
Three receivers eclipsed 100 yards , including Kylin Hill , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight balls for 158 yards .
“ I ’ ve always thought stuff translates pretty well , ” Leach told Sports Illustrated in March .
“ Everybody says you can ’ t do this in this league or that in that league .
But how !
?
Everybody starts with , ‘ Well you can ’ t do this in the NFL or SEC because our corners are all Deion Sanders.
’ Well , no , they ’ re not.
” Leach has a long way to go to make Saturday ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passing efficiency high at an unprecedented volume ; he has to do it against defenses stocked with pro prospects ; and he has to recruit at least well enough to keep Mississippi State within striking distance of the rest of the league .
It ’ s not clear whether he can do all of that , but he ’ s in the perfect place to try .
He wanted to see what was on the other side of the hill , and by the time he ’ s done in Starkville , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The earliest introduction to the pass-first ways of the future for college football’s premier conference came in 1997. Downtrodden Kentucky, fresh off seven seasons without a winning record, hired head coach Hal Mumme and offensive coordinator Mike Leach to install the high-flying pass attack they developed at Iowa Wesleyan and Valdosta State. In each of Mumme’s four seasons, Kentucky led the SEC in passing yards per game. The 1998 team still holds the single-season conference record with an average of 412.2 passing yards, and that year, Kentucky led the SEC in scoring offense for the first time since 1950. But Mumme also finished 20-26 and resigned in 2001.
Over the past two decades, the air raid offense has gained momentum in most college leagues and across the NFL. But since that first experiment, the collective SEC has largely shunned the Mumme/Leach air raid style — at least until last winter, when Mississippi State hired Leach away from Washington State. Leach went 84-43 in 10 seasons as head coach at Texas Tech and 55-47 in eight seasons at Washington State, both relatively less heralded programs, and many of his and Mumme’s former players and assistants also became air raid acolytes. But as he succeeded on college football’s periphery, the offensive revolution he and Mumme spawned largely bypassed the South. The country’s best football conference became known for stifling defense, elite NFL prospects and national championships. When the SEC came up, Leach took aim at the league’s superiority.
“I’ve got bad news for all these ‘levels’ people,” he told the Jackson Clarion-Ledger in 2017. “Your level isn’t special, your conference isn’t special. … How’s it better? Somebody coaches better athletes, somehow they morph into something smarter? That’s crazy. I mean, you still have problems, you still have 11 parts you can wiggle around to counter the other 11 parts.”
And so 2020 brought a great college football experiment, the collision of college football’s traditionalist league with one of the sport’s most radical outsiders. Leach’s first Mississippi State team was not supposed to be good, either — media members picked the Bulldogs to tie for fifth in the SEC West. But in his SEC debut, Leach shocked the college football world again. Led by graduate transfer quarterback K.J. Costello, Mississippi State passed for 623 yards and upset national champion Louisiana State, 44-34.
Leach’s air raid scheme is a shock to an SEC system often reliant on the ball-control offense. Every year since at least 2004, Leach has called pass plays on at least 69.5 percent of snaps. Each of the nine most pass-friendly teams in that span were Leach teams at either Texas Tech or Washington State. Meanwhile, in the same timeframe, the SEC’s most pass-happy offense was Hugh Freeze’s 2016 Mississippi team (61.8 percent pass plays). Every other Power Five conference has had multiple teams in the past 15 years call pass plays more often than 61.8 percent. There have been deviations — Kevin Sumlin, a pass-first coach, ushered Texas A&M into the SEC in 2012, and LSU was the darling of the 2019 season with its high-octane attack led by quarterback Joe Burrow — but none of them even came close to Leach’s most conservative offense in that span, in 2008 at Texas Tech (69.5 percent pass plays). Last season, Leach set a personal record: 82.6 percent of play calls were passes.
The SEC is slowly coming around to the passing game’s intrigue. Pass rates spiked in 2019 at both Alabama and LSU, and Georgia hired new offensive coordinator Todd Monken this season to open up the offense and create more explosive plays. Leach still has the league’s most diverse passing attack, and skeptics have often wondered if it would work at the highest level of college football. Nobody heard the skepticism louder than Leach, who, in his unfiltered style, mocked SEC offenses for positioning players so close together that “one hand grenade can kill everybody.”
“This is a great time to be in the SEC,” Leach said in that 2017 interview with the Clarion Ledger. “Everybody’s got the same offense: run right, run left, play-action. And they tease themselves and say we threw it four more times a game this year than we did last year.”
All along, Leach admitted back in March, he “wanted to see what was on the other side of the hill.” He almost had the chance after the 2017 season. One report said Leach’s interview for the Tennessee job “went very well,” and another indicated that then-athletic director John Currie was prepared to hire Leach but was overruled by the administration. Tennessee fired Currie the day after he met with Leach. At that point, it seemed Leach was too much of an outsider, between his extreme game strategy and his colorful press conferences.
That perception lasted until Mississippi State suffered a 6-7 season and went looking for an offensive-minded coach to reinvigorate the program. Leach’s philosophy had always helped Texas Tech and Washington State win a few more games a year than they had before he arrived. What could he do in the SEC? Saturday provided an answer, if only for an afternoon. It took Leach one game to break the league’s single-game passing record (Costello’s 623 yards). The Stanford transfer completed 36 of 60 passes and threw five touchdowns, surviving two interceptions. And while Leach faced one of the best opposing defenses of his career (even without star cornerback Derek Stingley Jr.), he also had some of the best weapons he has ever used. Three receivers eclipsed 100 yards, including Kylin Hill, an NFL prospect at running back who caught eight balls for 158 yards.
“I’ve always thought stuff translates pretty well,” Leach told Sports Illustrated in March. “Everybody says you can’t do this in this league or that in that league. But how!? Everybody starts with, ‘Well you can’t do this in the NFL or SEC because our corners are all Deion Sanders.’ Well, no, they’re not.”
Leach has a long way to go to make Saturday’s success last: He has to keep passing efficiency high at an unprecedented volume; he has to do it against defenses stocked with pro prospects; and he has to recruit at least well enough to keep Mississippi State within striking distance of the rest of the league. It’s not clear whether he can do all of that, but he’s in the perfect place to try. He wanted to see what was on the other side of the hill, and by the time he’s done in Starkville, we should all have a better idea.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-01--What It Means When Democrats Talk About Packing The Court

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , law professor Daniel Epps talks to Galen Druke about some Democrats @ @ @ @ @ Court be expanded .

What It Means When Democrats Talk About Packing The Court
In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, law professor Daniel Epps talks to Galen Druke about some Democrats’ suggestion that the Supreme Court be expanded.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-01--Politics Podcast: Is The Supreme Court Losing Legitimacy?

In response to Republicans ’ move to fill a Supreme Court vacancy so close to the election , some Democrats @ @ @ @ @ expanding or restructuring the court .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , @ @ @ @ @ with Galen Druke about whether the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is in jeopardy and @ @ @ @ @ and scholars are considering .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ @ @ @ @ @ audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your @ @ @ @ @ you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast @ @ @ @ @ .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on @ @ @ @ @ , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in @ @ @ @ @ Twitter or in the comments .

In response to Republicans’ move to fill a Supreme Court vacancy so close to the election, some Democrats have floated the idea of expanding or restructuring the court. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, law professor Daniel Epps speaks with Galen Druke about whether the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is in jeopardy and what kinds of reforms activists and scholars are considering.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-01--The Lakers And Heat Missed The Playoffs. Then They Started Cooking Their Finals Rosters.

For the first time in NBA history , the league ’ s championship series is being contested between two teams that did not make the playoffs the previous season .
The 2018-19 Lakers sputtered to a 37-45 finish amid various ailments , including the first long-term injury of LeBron James ’ s career and Brandon Ingram ’ s bout with deep vein thrombosis .
The 2018-19 Heat didn ’ t fare much better , finishing 39-43 in large part because of their near-complete inability to generate efficient offense .
Given those poor performances , it wasn ’ t surprising when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2019 offseason .
With James heading into the second season of his four-year contract and the Lakers having already burned one chance at contention , it made sense that they would try to “ microwave ” a title contender , going from out of the picture to inner-circle contender in just one offseason .
It made even more sense that the Lakers ’ plan to do so involved remaking their team in the image of previous LeBron-led Finals squads , trading for Anthony Davis and surrounding their superstar duo with a cavalcade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , basket-protecting centers .
The Heat , meanwhile , made even more drastic changes to their roster .
They agreed to ship former starting center Hassan Whiteside to Portland in exchange for Meyers Leonard and Mo Harkless , but that was just the first domino to fall in a series of transactions that were eventually cobbled together into a four-team trade that landed Jimmy Butler in Miami .
Despite carrying a 34-16 record in early February , Miami wasn ’ t content .
Sensing an opening in the Eastern Conference and looking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Heat shook up the roster yet again — this time with a major trade with Memphis for Andre Iguodala and , crucially , Jae Crowder .
Clearly , each team ’ s moves worked exactly as intended .
The Lakers steamrolled through most of the regular season and , despite a drop-off in the seeding games , comfortably landed the No .
1 seed in the Western Conference before coolly dispatching each of their Western Conference playoff opponents in five games .
The Heat went just 7-8 in the 15 pre-hiatus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the seeding games , but coach Erik Spoelstra ’ s decision to rework the starting lineup by swapping out rookie point guard Kendrick Nunn and forward Kelly Olynyk for Dragić and Crowder transformed Miami into a championship-caliber team .
The Heat outscored their three Eastern Conference playoff opponents by 4.5 points per 100 possessions , a figure nearly 2 full points better than their mark from the regular season .
After all that moving and shaking , the Lakers and Heat are duking it out in the Finals , where L.A. holds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s quite easy to make the argument that it ’ s precisely because of said moving and shaking that they ’ re here in the first place .
The Lakers almost certainly would not be in the NBA Finals were it not for Davis , but he ’ s not the only 2019-20 acquisition playing a significant role .
During their run through the West , the Lakers gave 1,564 of their 3,600 total minutes to players who were not on the team last season .
That ’ s 43.4 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 NBA Finals teams in the past decade ( i.e.
, during the so-called Player Empowerment Era ) , the 2020 Lakers gave the fifth-highest share of their minutes to these “ microwave ” players .
Of course , they ’ re not alone .
The 2020 Heat actually gave an even greater share of playoff minutes to microwave players in their run through the East , with Butler , Crowder , Iguodala , Nunn , Leonard , Solomon Hill and rookie Tyler Herro combining to play 1,939 of Miami ’ s 3,650 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate is second-highest among the aforementioned 20 NBA finalists since 2010-11 , checking in behind only James ’ s 2014-15 Cleveland Cavaliers ( 64.4 percent ) .
Combined , the two teams handed out 48.3 percent of all pre-Finals playoff minutes to microwave players , easily the highest share for the two Finals teams at any point during the player empowerment decade .
The only two previous times the two Finals teams exceeded a 30 percent combined share were in 2015 , when LeBron ’ s Cavaliers ( in his first year back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ squad that gave just 15.9 percent of its minutes to microwave players ; and in 2011 , when a LeBron-fronted Heat side gave 51.1 percent of its pre-Finals minutes to players who , like LeBron , were not on the team the prior season .
Before this season , the 2015 Cavs and 2011 Heat were two of only four teams this decade to hand out at least 40 percent of their playoff minutes to microwave players and make it to the NBA Finals .
The only such team to actually win the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Toronto Raptors , who did so while giving players like Kawhi Leonard , Danny Green and Marc Gasol 44.4 percent of their pre-Finals playoff minutes .
Prior to the Raptors , the decade ’ s previous champions gave an average of only 17.2 percent of pre-Finals playoff minutes to microwave players , with the high-water mark coming from the 2016-17 Warriors team that famously signed Kevin Durant after losing to the Cavaliers in the prior year ’ s Finals .
Before that , no other 2010 ’ s champion exceeded the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Should the Heat win this series , they ’ ll officially be the microwave-iest champions of the player empowerment decade .
If the Lakers are victorious , they will rank second in the same category .
Either way , the most recent two title winners will sit atop the list .
That ’ s an interesting development , but as the previous eight seasons show , it ’ s extremely difficult to turn over that much of the roster and still come away with the season ’ s ultimate prize .

For the first time in NBA history, the league’s championship series is being contested between two teams that did not make the playoffs the previous season. The 2018-19 Lakers sputtered to a 37-45 finish amid various ailments, including the first long-term injury of LeBron James’s career and Brandon Ingram’s bout with deep vein thrombosis. The 2018-19 Heat didn’t fare much better, finishing 39-43 in large part because of their near-complete inability to generate efficient offense.
Given those poor performances, it wasn’t surprising when each team dramatically reshaped its roster during the 2019 offseason.
With James heading into the second season of his four-year contract and the Lakers having already burned one chance at contention, it made sense that they would try to “microwave” a title contender, going from out of the picture to inner-circle contender in just one offseason. It made even more sense that the Lakers’ plan to do so involved remaking their team in the image of previous LeBron-led Finals squads, trading for Anthony Davis and surrounding their superstar duo with a cavalcade of three-and-D guys and veteran, rim-rolling, basket-protecting centers.
The Heat, meanwhile, made even more drastic changes to their roster. They agreed to ship former starting center Hassan Whiteside to Portland in exchange for Meyers Leonard and Mo Harkless, but that was just the first domino to fall in a series of transactions that were eventually cobbled together into a four-team trade that landed Jimmy Butler in Miami.
Despite carrying a 34-16 record in early February, Miami wasn’t content. Sensing an opening in the Eastern Conference and looking to microwave a true contender of their own, the Heat shook up the roster yet again — this time with a major trade with Memphis for Andre Iguodala and, crucially, Jae Crowder.
Clearly, each team’s moves worked exactly as intended. The Lakers steamrolled through most of the regular season and, despite a drop-off in the seeding games, comfortably landed the No. 1 seed in the Western Conference before coolly dispatching each of their Western Conference playoff opponents in five games. The Heat went just 7-8 in the 15 pre-hiatus contests after the Iguodala-Crowder trade and 3-5 in the seeding games, but coach Erik Spoelstra’s decision to rework the starting lineup by swapping out rookie point guard Kendrick Nunn and forward Kelly Olynyk for Dragić and Crowder transformed Miami into a championship-caliber team. The Heat outscored their three Eastern Conference playoff opponents by 4.5 points per 100 possessions, a figure nearly 2 full points better than their mark from the regular season.
After all that moving and shaking, the Lakers and Heat are duking it out in the Finals, where L.A. holds a 1-0 lead. Indeed, it’s quite easy to make the argument that it’s precisely because of said moving and shaking that they’re here in the first place.
The Lakers almost certainly would not be in the NBA Finals were it not for Davis, but he’s not the only 2019-20 acquisition playing a significant role. During their run through the West, the Lakers gave 1,564 of their 3,600 total minutes to players who were not on the team last season. That’s 43.4 percent of all possible pre-Finals minutes. Among the 20 NBA Finals teams in the past decade (i.e., during the so-called Player Empowerment Era), the 2020 Lakers gave the fifth-highest share of their minutes to these “microwave” players.
Of course, they’re not alone. The 2020 Heat actually gave an even greater share of playoff minutes to microwave players in their run through the East, with Butler, Crowder, Iguodala, Nunn, Leonard, Solomon Hill and rookie Tyler Herro combining to play 1,939 of Miami’s 3,650 total playoff minutes. That 53.1 percent rate is second-highest among the aforementioned 20 NBA finalists since 2010-11, checking in behind only James’s 2014-15 Cleveland Cavaliers (64.4 percent).
Combined, the two teams handed out 48.3 percent of all pre-Finals playoff minutes to microwave players, easily the highest share for the two Finals teams at any point during the player empowerment decade.
These NBA Finals are straight from the microwave Share of “microwave” minutes, or minutes from players not on the team the previous season, through the conference finals by Finals teams since 2011 Minutes through Conf. finals Year Finalists Total Microwave Microwave % 2020 Heat-Lakers 7,250 3,503 48.3 2015 Cavaliers-Warriors 7,011 2,757 39.3 2011 Heat-Mavericks 7,275 2,680 36.8 2019 Raptors-Warriors 8,260 2,386 28.9 2018 Cavaliers-Warriors 8,425 2,195 26.1 2017 Cavaliers-Warriors 6,004 1,456 24.3 2012 Heat-Thunder 7,971 1,163 14.6 2013 Heat-Spurs 7,351 696 9.5 2016 Cavaliers-Warriors 7,463 676 9.1 2014 Heat-Spurs 7,944 390 4.9 Teams in bold won the title. Minute totals are rounded individual minutes played and so may not equal the exact team minutes played. Source: Basketball-Reference.com
The only two previous times the two Finals teams exceeded a 30 percent combined share were in 2015, when LeBron’s Cavaliers (in his first year back in Cleveland) took on a Warriors squad that gave just 15.9 percent of its minutes to microwave players; and in 2011, when a LeBron-fronted Heat side gave 51.1 percent of its pre-Finals minutes to players who, like LeBron, were not on the team the prior season.
Before this season, the 2015 Cavs and 2011 Heat were two of only four teams this decade to hand out at least 40 percent of their playoff minutes to microwave players and make it to the NBA Finals. The only such team to actually win the title, though, was last season’s Toronto Raptors, who did so while giving players like Kawhi Leonard, Danny Green and Marc Gasol 44.4 percent of their pre-Finals playoff minutes.
LeBron has played on many microwave teams NBA Finals teams since 2011 with at least 40 percent of postseason minutes through the conference finals played by “microwave” players, or those not on the team the previous season Minutes through Conf. finals Year Finalist Total Microwave Microwave % 2015 Cavaliers 3,385 2,179 64.4% 2020 Heat 3,650 1,939 53.1 2011 Heat 3,651 1,864 51.1 2019 Raptors 4,368 1,938 44.4 2020 Lakers 3,600 1,564 43.4 2018 Cavaliers 4,346 1,738 40.0 Minute totals are rounded individual minutes played and so may not equal the exact team minutes played. Source: Basketball-Reference.com
Prior to the Raptors, the decade’s previous champions gave an average of only 17.2 percent of pre-Finals playoff minutes to microwave players, with the high-water mark coming from the 2016-17 Warriors team that famously signed Kevin Durant after losing to the Cavaliers in the prior year’s Finals. Before that, no other 2010’s champion exceeded the 2011 Mavericks’ 22.5 percent mark.
This year’s winner will be near the top of the microwave list NBA champions since 2011 by share of “microwave” minutes, from players not on the team in the previous season, through the conference finals Minutes through Conf. finals Year Finalist Total Microwave Microwave % 2019 Raptors 4,368 1,938 44.4% 2017 Warriors 2,882 998 34.6 2011 Mavericks 3,624 816 22.5 2012 Heat 4,372 832 19.0 2013 Heat 3,864 647 16.7 2015 Warriors 3,626 578 15.9 2016 Cavaliers 3,360 489 14.6 2018 Warriors 4,079 457 11.2 2014 Spurs 4,344 361 8.3 Minute totals are rounded individual minutes played and so may not equal the exact team minutes played. Source: Basketball-Reference.com
Should the Heat win this series, they’ll officially be the microwave-iest champions of the player empowerment decade. If the Lakers are victorious, they will rank second in the same category. Either way, the most recent two title winners will sit atop the list. That’s an interesting development, but as the previous eight seasons show, it’s extremely difficult to turn over that much of the roster and still come away with the season’s ultimate prize.
Neil Paine contributed research.
Check out our latest NBA predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-01--How Trump Could Spark A Full-Blown Election Crisis

President Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose reelection .
So what happens @ @ @ @ @ election in November ?
Elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley explains just how complex our electoral system @ @ @ @ @ possible scenarios .

President Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power should he lose reelection. So what happens if we have a contested election in November? Elections analyst Geoffrey Skelley explains just how complex our electoral system is and runs through some possible scenarios.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-01--The New-Look Patriots Are Still Finding Ways To Win

Editor ’ s note : The Steelers-Titans game , which we originally highlighted for Week 4 , has been postponed because of positive COVID-19 cases .
Three weeks of play are in the books for the post-Tom Brady New England Patriots , and the early results have been … well , still relatively Patriots-like .
New England is 2-1 , winning against the Miami Dolphins and Oakland Raiders and losing a nail-biter against the Seattle Seahawks ; the Pats are also tied for the eighth-best point differential in the league and tied for second in turnover margin .
No , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not fallen apart yet after the GQBOAT took up residence in Florida .
But with a huge matchup against the Kansas City Chiefs looming for the Pats on Sunday afternoon , we ’ re about to truly learn how much of the usual championship business will be conducted in Foxborough this season .
Peeking under the hood , we can see both encouraging signs and potential trouble spots for the Patriots looking forward .
On defense , I wondered before the season how much the Pats might slide in 2020 , given that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New England ranked first in schedule-adjusted expected points added per game last year ) and the Patriots sustained unusually heavy personnel losses over the offseason .
But so far , if we adjust for schedule with a mix of 2019 and 2020 EPA stats for opponents , New England ’ s defense ranks ninth overall this season in EPA per game and fifth against the pass — down slightly from its dual first-place finishes in 2019 , though far from a collapse .
Individually , the Pats have struggled to replace some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last season , 12 of the team ’ s 14 qualified defenders carried a ProFootballFocus grade of 67.0 or higher ; this year , only four of 14 are above that threshold .
And teamwide , that shows up with New England allowing a higher completion percentage , more yards per pass and a higher Total Quarterback Rating ( QBR ) .
But although opponents are moving the ball more effectively , you could argue the Pats have not suffered a drop-off in defensive execution so far this season .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win rate metrics , which use tracking data to judge how often players “ won ” their individual matchups , New England defenders are succeeding more often on pass rushes ( up from 40 percent to 43 percent ) and run plays ( up from 32 percent to 35 percent ) than in 2019 .
Stylistically , the Patriots have compensated for their upheaval by playing more zone coverage and blitzing less — yet they ’ ve managed to generate pressure on a greater share of opposing pass plays .
And despite the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing on passes , the Patriots have forced opposing quarterbacks into throws that have a lower expected completion percentage this season ( 62.9 percent ) than last ( 64.0 percent ) , according to the NFL ’ s Next Gen Stats .
Of course , Patrick Mahomes ’ s Chiefs currently rank No .
1 in schedule-adjusted passing EPA per game , just like they did in 2018 and 2019 .
Surely K.C .
will challenge the Pats ’ defense more than the Dolphins , Raiders or even the Seahawks did — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stress test for the changes Belichick and his defensive coaches put in since last season .
Offensively , the Patriots have changed even more radically since 2019 .
They ’ ve called for designed runs on 49 percent of snaps , up from 40 percent last season ; since 2001 , only one Pats team — the 2004 version that saw RB Corey Dillon run for over 1,600 yards — rushed on a greater share of its offensive plays .
Quarterback Cam Newton alone has accounted for 33 percent of New England ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rushing yards , which is by far the most for any Patriots QB since at least 2001 .
Although the Patriots are using pass-friendly sets like shotgun ( roughly 51 percent of snaps ) and 11 personnel ( 61 percent ) at the same or higher rates than last year , they are clearly a run-based team now .
Rushing accounts for 44 percent of all Patriots yardage , compared with just 30 percent last season .
For now at least , it seems to be working .
In terms of schedule-adjusted EPA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on offense , up from 18th with Brady a year ago .
The Pats have the most effective rushing attack in the league , adding 6.97 more points on the ground per game than we would expect from an average team facing their schedule .
( The Arizona Cardinals are No .
2 at +6.57 EPA per game . )
Newton has contributed greatly to that ranking ; only Kyler Murray and Lamar Jackson have more rushing yards among QBs this year .
But Newton ’ s passing numbers have quietly been average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in adjusted net YPA , 23rd in completion percentage versus expected and 24th in passer rating .
And as a team , the Pats are 27th in schedule-adjusted passing EPA per game , down from 19th in 2019 .
Perhaps those numbers will improve as the season goes on .
But if not , this is the big question for New England : In today ’ s pass-oriented NFL , is it possible to sustain an effective offense based primarily around rushing efficiency ?
Since 2006 , only one team finished a season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EPA offenses despite a passing ranking as low as New England has now : the Michael Vick-led 2006 Atlanta Falcons .
Newton certainly can put up impressive rushing numbers in the Vick mold , but it would make the Patriots ’ task much easier if his passing numbers were to get better from here .
Still , this season has been vintage Patriots so far , if simply in the sense of Belichick and staff doing an impressive job of adjusting around the team they have , not the one they would prefer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve reworked the offense to fit the strengths of rushers like Newton and RB Sony Michel and schemed around the many defensive departures .
They ’ re still sticking to long-standing Patriots fundamentals , like a good turnover differential and making the opponent work harder for points than they do .
Although our model considers New England an underdog ( ! )
to win the AFC East — trailing the Buffalo Bills in division probability , 57 percent to 38 percent — it has done about as good a job of weathering Brady @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) as could be expected .
Now we ’ ll see if it can hold up against its toughest test yet , in the form of Mahomes and the Chiefs .

Editor’s note: The Steelers-Titans game, which we originally highlighted for Week 4, has been postponed because of positive COVID-19 cases.
Three weeks of play are in the books for the post-Tom Brady New England Patriots, and the early results have been … well, still relatively Patriots-like. New England is 2-1, winning against the Miami Dolphins and Oakland Raiders and losing a nail-biter against the Seattle Seahawks; the Pats are also tied for the eighth-best point differential in the league and tied for second in turnover margin. No, coach Bill Belichick’s team has not fallen apart yet after the GQBOAT took up residence in Florida. But with a huge matchup against the Kansas City Chiefs looming for the Pats on Sunday afternoon, we’re about to truly learn how much of the usual championship business will be conducted in Foxborough this season.
Peeking under the hood, we can see both encouraging signs and potential trouble spots for the Patriots looking forward. On defense, I wondered before the season how much the Pats might slide in 2020, given that regression is natural for great defenses (New England ranked first in schedule-adjusted expected points added per game last year) and the Patriots sustained unusually heavy personnel losses over the offseason. But so far, if we adjust for schedule with a mix of 2019 and 2020 EPA stats for opponents, New England’s defense ranks ninth overall this season in EPA per game and fifth against the pass — down slightly from its dual first-place finishes in 2019, though far from a collapse.
Individually, the Pats have struggled to replace some of their best performers from a year ago. Last season, 12 of the team’s 14 qualified defenders carried a ProFootballFocus grade of 67.0 or higher; this year, only four of 14 are above that threshold. And teamwide, that shows up with New England allowing a higher completion percentage, more yards per pass and a higher Total Quarterback Rating (QBR). But although opponents are moving the ball more effectively, you could argue the Pats have not suffered a drop-off in defensive execution so far this season.
According to ESPN Stats & Information Group’s win rate metrics, which use tracking data to judge how often players “won” their individual matchups, New England defenders are succeeding more often on pass rushes (up from 40 percent to 43 percent) and run plays (up from 32 percent to 35 percent) than in 2019. Stylistically, the Patriots have compensated for their upheaval by playing more zone coverage and blitzing less — yet they’ve managed to generate pressure on a greater share of opposing pass plays. And despite the 72 percent accuracy rate they’re allowing on passes, the Patriots have forced opposing quarterbacks into throws that have a lower expected completion percentage this season (62.9 percent) than last (64.0 percent), according to the NFL’s Next Gen Stats.
The Patriots are executing better this season Win rates and opponent expected completion percentages for the 2019 and 2020 New England Patriots Win Rates* Season Pass Rushing Run Stops Pass Blocking Run Blocking Exp. Comp% Allowed 2020 42.5% 34.7% 60.6% 72.8% 62.9% 2019 40.0 32.0 57.7 68.3 64.0 *ESPN’s win rate metrics use NFL Next Gen Stats to track how often players “win” their matchups with opposing players. Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group, NFL Next Gen Stats
Of course, Patrick Mahomes’s Chiefs currently rank No. 1 in schedule-adjusted passing EPA per game, just like they did in 2018 and 2019. Surely K.C. will challenge the Pats’ defense more than the Dolphins, Raiders or even the Seahawks did — and in the process will provide a real stress test for the changes Belichick and his defensive coaches put in since last season.
Offensively, the Patriots have changed even more radically since 2019. They’ve called for designed runs on 49 percent of snaps, up from 40 percent last season; since 2001, only one Pats team — the 2004 version that saw RB Corey Dillon run for over 1,600 yards — rushed on a greater share of its offensive plays. Quarterback Cam Newton alone has accounted for 33 percent of New England’s runs and 28 percent of its rushing yards, which is by far the most for any Patriots QB since at least 2001. Although the Patriots are using pass-friendly sets like shotgun (roughly 51 percent of snaps) and 11 personnel (61 percent) at the same or higher rates than last year, they are clearly a run-based team now. Rushing accounts for 44 percent of all Patriots yardage, compared with just 30 percent last season.
For now at least, it seems to be working. In terms of schedule-adjusted EPA per game, New England ranks 13th on offense, up from 18th with Brady a year ago. The Pats have the most effective rushing attack in the league, adding 6.97 more points on the ground per game than we would expect from an average team facing their schedule. (The Arizona Cardinals are No. 2 at +6.57 EPA per game.) Newton has contributed greatly to that ranking; only Kyler Murray and Lamar Jackson have more rushing yards among QBs this year. But Newton’s passing numbers have quietly been average at best — he ranks just 17th in adjusted net YPA, 23rd in completion percentage versus expected and 24th in passer rating. And as a team, the Pats are 27th in schedule-adjusted passing EPA per game, down from 19th in 2019.
Perhaps those numbers will improve as the season goes on. But if not, this is the big question for New England: In today’s pass-oriented NFL, is it possible to sustain an effective offense based primarily around rushing efficiency? Since 2006, only one team finished a season ranked in the top half of schedule-adjusted EPA offenses despite a passing ranking as low as New England has now: the Michael Vick-led 2006 Atlanta Falcons. Newton certainly can put up impressive rushing numbers in the Vick mold, but it would make the Patriots’ task much easier if his passing numbers were to get better from here.
Still, this season has been vintage Patriots so far, if simply in the sense of Belichick and staff doing an impressive job of adjusting around the team they have, not the one they would prefer in a perfect world. They’ve reworked the offense to fit the strengths of rushers like Newton and RB Sony Michel and schemed around the many defensive departures. They’re still sticking to long-standing Patriots fundamentals, like a good turnover differential and making the opponent work harder for points than they do. Although our model considers New England an underdog (!) to win the AFC East — trailing the Buffalo Bills in division probability, 57 percent to 38 percent — it has done about as good a job of weathering Brady’s departure (and many others) as could be expected. Now we’ll see if it can hold up against its toughest test yet, in the form of Mahomes and the Chiefs.
FiveThirtyEight’s NFL Elo ratings How each team ranks through Week 3 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 1 1729 13-3 98% 91% 25% 2 Ravens Jackson 5 1638 11-5 85 45 7 3 Packers Rodgers 6 1636 12-4 90 63 10 4 Seahawks Wilson 4 1629 12-4 87 50 9 5 Steelers Roethlisberger 8 1603 11-5 83 43 6 6 Bills Allen 7 1599 10-6 78 57 5 7 49ers Garoppolo ✚ 24 1592 10-6 64 21 6 8 Patriots Newton 17 1581 10-6 68 38 3 9 Rams Goff 10 1580 10-6 64 21 4 10 Titans Tannehill 11 1580 11-5 80 63 4 11 Saints Brees 3 1577 9-7 58 41 3 12 Bears Foles 21 1571 10-6 76 34 4 13 Buccaneers Brady 20 1558 9-7 62 45 3 14 Cowboys Prescott 2 1554 9-7 73 70 3 15 Colts Rivers 18 1549 9-7 54 29 2 16 Browns Mayfield 26 1507 9-7 46 11 <1 17 Raiders Carr 9 1506 8-8 42 7 <1 18 Cardinals Murray 14 1500 8-8 36 8 1 19 Vikings Cousins 27 1473 6-10 12 2 <1 20 Eagles Wentz 22 1468 5-10-1 18 15 <1 21 Falcons Ryan 12 1460 5-11 11 7 <1 22 Texans Watson 15 1456 6-10 12 6 <1 23 Dolphins Fitzpatrick 13 1451 6-10 16 4 <1 24 Chargers Taylor ✚ 30 1450 6-10 14 <1 <1 25 Lions Stafford 16 1437 6-10 17 2 <1 26 Panthers Bridgewater 19 1423 6-10 13 7 <1 27 Jets Darnold 29 1391 4-12 4 1 <1 28 Bengals Burrow 28 1379 4-11-1 5 <1 <1 29 Jaguars Minshew 25 1379 5-11 7 2 <1 30 Washington Haskins 31 1369 5-11 12 10 <1 31 Giants Jones 23 1366 4-12 6 5 <1 32 Broncos Rypien 32 1343 5-11 6 <1 <1 *Ranking among Week 4 starters, according to our QB Elo ratings. ✚ Starter is currently injured, and may not play. Simulations as of Sept. 30, 2020. Source: ESPN
Check out our latest NFL predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-01--We’ve Had 56 Statewide Elections During The Pandemic. Here’s What We Learned From Them.

The 2020 primary season finally ended last month , meaning there have now been 56 statewide elections ( presidential primaries , state-level primaries and even the occasional runoff ) since the coronavirus outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in mid-March — dress rehearsals of sorts for opening night on Nov. 3 .
And while , through mid-July , these “ pandemic primaries ” had an inconsistent record of success , more recent elections have settled into more of a groove .
Here are three takeaways from a primary season like no other , and what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 .
Mail voting is still way up , but more people are voting in person The most obvious change that states have made to the way elections are held during the pandemic is to encourage mail voting .
Going into the year , 16 states did not allow anyone who wanted to to vote absentee , but only two ( Louisiana and Texas ) kept that restriction in place for their primary after the pandemic hit .
And voters largely embraced the new method of voting : In every election except Colorado @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted elections by mail before the pandemic ) , a greater share of people — and usually many more people — cast absentee ballots in 2020 than in the equivalent election in 2016 .
Overall , in 44 of the 55 elections for which we have data , at least 40 percent of the ballots cast were absentees .
And 15 of the elections were almost entirely ( 95+ percent ) conducted via absentee ballot .
But in recent months , there have been noticeably fewer of these universal mail-voting elections .
Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still choosing to vote absentee , there have been more numbers like Connecticut ’ s 59 percent absentee-voting rate than Maryland ’ s 97 percent absentee-voting rate from earlier in the summer .
Overall , 74 percent of voters cast absentee ballots in an average pandemic primary through the end of June — but only 50 percent have done so in the average statewide election since then .
And that latter number would be even lower if it weren ’ t for the presence of states like Arizona and Washington that vote heavily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstances .
The absentee-voting rate has increased by an average of 32 percentage points in primaries since July 1 , whereas it increased by an average of 55 points in primaries between March 17 and June 30 .
This may partly be because people have adjusted to our new reality and have grown more comfortable reengaging in in-person activities — from eating out to seeing friends to , yes , voting .
But of course , it ’ s also because states are more open now than they were in the spring .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the shaded rows in the table , several states eliminated in-person voting altogether in their April , May and June primaries ( although some still offered the option for voters who physically could not vote by mail , such as people with disabilities or without mailing addresses ) .
And even those that did not , such as Kentucky , Montana , Nevada , New Mexico , and Washington , D.C. , still decreased access to in-person voting by closing many polling places .
By contrast , every election since the beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and some states were even able to open their full suite of polling places .
A great example of this is in Rhode Island and Delaware , which opened 47 and 80 polling places , respectively , for their early-summer presidential primaries but , given more time to prepare sites and recruit poll workers , were able to open 280 and 286 polling places , respectively , for their state-level primaries in September .
This also bodes well for in-person voting access for the general election ; most polling places are expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Overall , the downward trend of mail voting suggests that the popular perception that the pandemic would prompt a national , predominantly mail election — an idea crystallized during the spring and early summer — is outdated .
According to virtually every recent poll , only about 30 to 40 percent of voters are planning to vote by mail in the general election .
Simply put , fewer people are voting by mail these days than in the first few months of the pandemic ( though still a lot more than before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months of the pandemic , the effect on turnout was uncertain .
The first four states to hold statewide elections during the pandemic saw their voting eligible population turnout rates decrease significantly compared with the equivalent election in 2016 — perhaps unsurprisingly , given that these states had so little time to prepare for holding an election amid a public-health crisis .
( Of course , the fact that the Democratic presidential primary race ceased to be competitive around this time also probably contributed . )
And although some spring primaries ( e.g.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnout records , almost as many ( e.g.
, in Indiana and Ohio ) saw turnout plunge from 2016 levels .
But then , as the uncontested presidential primary drew to a close and state-level primaries began to dominate the calendar , turnout decreases were less common .
In fact , every election after the Louisiana presidential primary on July 11 saw higher turnout than its 2016 equivalent — at least among those for which it is possible to make an apples-to-apples comparison .
Overall , through the end of June , turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of just 2 percentage points higher than 2016 levels .
But in elections after July 1 , turnout was an average of 9 percentage points higher .
To be sure , some of these turnout increases can be attributed to some of these primaries being much more competitive than they were in 2016 .
Massachusetts , home of the biggest turnout increase of all ( +26 points ) , is exhibit A : The Democratic primary for Senate there was as bitterly contested as any election this year , primary or general .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ had pretty boring primaries this year and still saw turnout rise .
And it may not have escaped your notice that the states with the highest turnout rates included those that held their primaries predominantly by mail : Washington , Montana , Oregon , Hawaii , Colorado .
Given that some studies have shown that mail voting boosts political participation , the increased popularity of vote-by-mail in 2020 is a plausible explanation for why turnout is up this year despite a deadly pandemic .
That said , we ’ ll probably never be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since there are also plenty of other potential factors .
For example , Colorado opened its primaries up to unaffiliated voters , and Kentucky and Nebraska went from holding only one party ’ s presidential primary in 2016 to two in 2020 , doubling the potential electorate .
But even if we can ’ t credit mail voting ( and therefore , indirectly , the pandemic ) for increasing turnout , we can at least be confident that the pandemic hasn ’ t lowered it ( at least not since the spring ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look ahead to the general election , which before the pandemic was inspiring historic levels of voter enthusiasm .
This led some analysts to predict extraordinarily high turnout in 2020 , a forecast that now seems like it is on firmer footing given what we saw in the primaries .
Finally , elections in the first few months of the pandemic were plagued by problems that threatened to disenfranchise voters — or else put them at risk of being exposed to the coronavirus .
Of the 29 pandemic primaries from March 17 through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems of some sort .
The most common issues were long lines outside polling places ( which happened in at least 14 elections during this time frame ) and voters not receiving absentee ballots they had requested ( at least 11 elections ) .
But since June 30 , more elections appear to have gone off without a hitch .
According to my research , there have been reports of electoral problems in only 10 of the 27 statewide elections during this period ( and while it ’ s possible I missed one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretty closely ! )
.
However , truant absentee ballots still remained a problem in Connecticut , Michigan , Minnesota , Missouri , Tennessee and Texas .
And some polling places opened late in Delaware ( for the state-level primary ) , Michigan and Tennessee thanks to machine errors or poll worker no-shows .
But other problems tended to be less severe than those reported in the spring .
For example , while there were scattered social-media reports of lines at polling places in Delaware ( both for the presidential primary and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jersey , they did not appear to be as widespread or interminable as those in , say , Nevada or Washington , D.C. , in early June .
And in Massachusetts , the biggest problem was that some voters were mailed the wrong ballot — a mistake that election officials quickly rectified by sending replacements .
In summary , it seems like states are getting better at avoiding election snafus — and hopefully this means they will be minimal in November .
The three evolutions that primaries have made since July — with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems with voting — are , of course , interconnected .
The consistently higher turnout rates are probably related to the increased access to mail voting .
However , the fact that fewer people are taking advantage of that option may explain why there have been fewer problems reported with recent elections .
And the relatively smooth sailing in those elections may even have contributed to the higher turnout .
Altogether , the pandemic primaries suggest that the climactic election of 2020 will be heavily ( but not predominantly ) vote-by-mail , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be sporadic ( but not crippling ) problems with lines and absentee-ballot delivery .
Based on other evidence , that ’ s a very plausible scenario for November .
But of course , the general election is not a primary — and Trump is waging a campaign to undermine the election results — so any precedent for it is imperfect .
Anything can still happen .

The 2020 primary season finally ended last month, meaning there have now been 56 statewide elections (presidential primaries, state-level primaries and even the occasional runoff) since the coronavirus outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in mid-March — dress rehearsals of sorts for opening night on Nov. 3. And while, through mid-July, these “pandemic primaries” had an inconsistent record of success, more recent elections have settled into more of a groove.
Here are three takeaways from a primary season like no other, and what they could mean for the general election:
1. Mail voting is still way up, but more people are voting in person
The most obvious change that states have made to the way elections are held during the pandemic is to encourage mail voting. Going into the year, 16 states did not allow anyone who wanted to to vote absentee, but only two (Louisiana and Texas) kept that restriction in place for their primary after the pandemic hit. And voters largely embraced the new method of voting: In every election except Colorado, Oregon and Washington (which already conducted elections by mail before the pandemic), a greater share of people — and usually many more people — cast absentee ballots in 2020 than in the equivalent election in 2016. Overall, in 44 of the 55 elections for which we have data, at least 40 percent of the ballots cast were absentees. And 15 of the elections were almost entirely (95+ percent) conducted via absentee ballot.
Mail voting spiked in 2020 primaries, especially early on Share of ballots cast absentee in statewide elections held during the pandemic, and how much that share increased from 2016 Date State Absentee Access share Absentee Change from 2016 March 17 AZ Anyone could vote absentee 89% +8 FL Anyone could vote absentee 46 +16 IL Anyone could vote absentee 9 +6 April 7 WI Anyone could vote absentee 75 +65 April 10 AK Mailed ballots 100 +100 April 17 WY Mailed ballots 100 +100 April 28 OH Mailed instructions 99 +85 May 2 KS Mailed ballots 100 +100 May 12 NE Mailed ballot applications 84 +63 May 19 OR Mailed ballots 100 0 May 22 HI Mailed ballots 100 +100 June 2 ID Mailed ballot applications 100 +86 IN Anyone could vote absentee 51 +35 IA Mailed ballot applications 78 +59 MD Mailed ballots 97 +93 MT Mailed ballots 100 +30 NM Mailed ballot applications 63 +56 PA Mailed instructions 51 +48 RI Mailed ballot applications 83 +79 SD Mailed ballot applications 58 +44 DC Mailed ballot applications 71 +64 June 9 GA Mailed ballot applications 48 — NV Mailed ballots 100 +89 ND Mailed ballot applications 100 +73 SC Anyone could vote absentee 22 +10 WV* Mailed ballot applications 50 +48 June 23 KY Mailed instructions 72 +69 VA Anyone could vote absentee 21 — June 30 CO Mailed ballots 99 0 OK Anyone could vote absentee 14 +10 UT Mailed ballots 100 — July 7 DE Mailed ballot applications 45 +42 NJ Mailed ballots or applications 88 +83 July 11 LA Excuse required 19 +16 July 14 AL Anyone could vote absentee 5 — ME Anyone could vote absentee 60 +50 TX Excuse required 16 — Aug. 4 AZ Mailed ballot applications 88 +4 KS Anyone could vote absentee 41 +28 MI Mailed ballot applications 65 +30 MO Anyone could vote absentee 15 +9 WA Mailed ballots 100 0 Aug. 6 TN* Anyone could vote absentee 10 +8 Aug. 8 HI Mailed ballots 99 +37 Aug. 11 CT Mailed ballot applications 59 — MN Anyone could vote absentee 59 +45 VT Mailed ballot applications 73 +54 WI* Anyone could vote absentee 64 +52 Aug. 18 AK Anyone could vote absentee 36 +25 FL Anyone could vote absentee 60 +17 WY Mailed ballot applications 47 +25 Sept. 1 MA Mailed ballot applications 48 +40 Sept. 8 NH Anyone could vote absentee 30 +25 RI Anyone could vote absentee 41 +36 Sept. 15 DE Mailed ballot applications 43 +38 *2020 data is preliminary. Elections highlighted in gray did not offer any in-person voting or offered it only to those who could not vote by mail (e.g., people with disabilities or without mailing addresses). No 2020 data was available in New York, so it has been omitted from the table. No 2016 data was available in Utah. Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Texas and Virginia did not have a 2016 election to make an apples-to-apples comparison to. Figures do not necessarily reflect the percentage of ballots cast by mail. Most states do not distinguish between absentee ballots cast by mail and those cast in person at a local election office. In addition, Arizona and Nebraska do not distinguish between in-person early voting and absentee voting. Source: State election offices
But in recent months, there have been noticeably fewer of these universal mail-voting elections. Although a significant chunk of the electorate is still choosing to vote absentee, there have been more numbers like Connecticut’s 59 percent absentee-voting rate than Maryland’s 97 percent absentee-voting rate from earlier in the summer. Overall, 74 percent of voters cast absentee ballots in an average pandemic primary through the end of June — but only 50 percent have done so in the average statewide election since then. And that latter number would be even lower if it weren’t for the presence of states like Arizona and Washington that vote heavily absentee or by mail even under normal circumstances. The absentee-voting rate has increased by an average of 32 percentage points in primaries since July 1, whereas it increased by an average of 55 points in primaries between March 17 and June 30.
This may partly be because people have adjusted to our new reality and have grown more comfortable reengaging in in-person activities — from eating out to seeing friends to, yes, voting. But of course, it’s also because states are more open now than they were in the spring. For instance, as you can see from the shaded rows in the table, several states eliminated in-person voting altogether in their April, May and June primaries (although some still offered the option for voters who physically could not vote by mail, such as people with disabilities or without mailing addresses). And even those that did not, such as Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, and Washington, D.C., still decreased access to in-person voting by closing many polling places.
By contrast, every election since the beginning of July has offered in-person voting options, and some states were even able to open their full suite of polling places. A great example of this is in Rhode Island and Delaware, which opened 47 and 80 polling places, respectively, for their early-summer presidential primaries but, given more time to prepare sites and recruit poll workers, were able to open 280 and 286 polling places, respectively, for their state-level primaries in September. This also bodes well for in-person voting access for the general election; most polling places are expected to be open in most states.
Overall, the downward trend of mail voting suggests that the popular perception that the pandemic would prompt a national, predominantly mail election — an idea crystallized during the spring and early summer — is outdated. According to virtually every recent poll, only about 30 to 40 percent of voters are planning to vote by mail in the general election. Simply put, fewer people are voting by mail these days than in the first few months of the pandemic (though still a lot more than before the pandemic).
2. The pandemic isn’t depressing turnout
In the first few months of the pandemic, the effect on turnout was uncertain. The first four states to hold statewide elections during the pandemic saw their voting eligible population turnout rates decrease significantly compared with the equivalent election in 2016 — perhaps unsurprisingly, given that these states had so little time to prepare for holding an election amid a public-health crisis. (Of course, the fact that the Democratic presidential primary race ceased to be competitive around this time also probably contributed.) And although some spring primaries (e.g., in Iowa and Nebraska) broke turnout records, almost as many (e.g., in Indiana and Ohio) saw turnout plunge from 2016 levels.
But then, as the uncontested presidential primary drew to a close and state-level primaries began to dominate the calendar, turnout decreases were less common. In fact, every election after the Louisiana presidential primary on July 11 saw higher turnout than its 2016 equivalent — at least among those for which it is possible to make an apples-to-apples comparison.
Overall, through the end of June, turnout in the pandemic primaries was an average of just 2 percentage points higher than 2016 levels. But in elections after July 1, turnout was an average of 9 percentage points higher.
Primary turnout was generally higher in 2020 than in 2016 Turnout as a share of the voting eligible population in statewide elections held during the pandemic, and how much it changed from 2016 Date State Turnout Change from 2016 March 17 Arizona 12% -12 Florida 20 -9 Illinois 25 -14 April 7 Wisconsin 35 -14 April 10 Alaska 4 +2 April 17 Wyoming 4 +2 April 28 Ohio 21 -17 May 2 Kansas 7 +5 May 12 Nebraska 36 +13 May 19 Oregon 42 +1 May 22 Hawaii 3 0 June 2 Idaho 26 +11 Indiana 22 -15 Iowa 23 +14 Maryland 32 -1 Montana 46 +9 New Mexico 28 +5 Pennsylvania 30 -4 Rhode Island 16 -8 South Dakota 24 +4 Washington, D.C. 22 +2 June 9 Georgia 30 — Nevada 22 +10 North Dakota 28 +4 South Carolina 20 +8 West Virginia 32 -2 June 23 Kentucky 31 +11 Virginia 9 — June 30 Colorado 38 +21 Oklahoma 24 +12 Utah 27 +10 July 7 Delaware 17 -6 New Jersey 24 +1 July 11 Louisiana 16 -3 July 14 Alabama 17 — Maine 25 +16 Texas 10 — Aug. 4 Arizona 28 +7 Kansas 31 +11 Michigan 33 +15 Missouri 29 +5 Washington 47 +19 Aug. 6 Tennessee* 19 +8 Aug. 8 Hawaii 40 +16 Aug. 11 Connecticut 13 — Minnesota 22 +15 Vermont 34 +10 Wisconsin* 22 +7 Aug. 18 Alaska 26 +9 Florida 25 +5 Wyoming 33 +6 Sept. 1 Massachusetts 34 +26 Sept. 8 New Hampshire 28 +10 Rhode Island 12 +3 Sept. 15 Delaware 25 +11 *2020 data is preliminary. No 2020 data was available in New York, so it has been omitted from the table. Alabama, Connecticut, Georgia, Texas and Virginia did not have a 2016 election to make an apples-to-apples comparison to. Sources: State election offices, United States Elections Project
To be sure, some of these turnout increases can be attributed to some of these primaries being much more competitive than they were in 2016. Massachusetts, home of the biggest turnout increase of all (+26 points), is exhibit A: The Democratic primary for Senate there was as bitterly contested as any election this year, primary or general. But plenty of states, frankly, had pretty boring primaries this year and still saw turnout rise.
And it may not have escaped your notice that the states with the highest turnout rates included those that held their primaries predominantly by mail: Washington, Montana, Oregon, Hawaii, Colorado. Given that some studies have shown that mail voting boosts political participation, the increased popularity of vote-by-mail in 2020 is a plausible explanation for why turnout is up this year despite a deadly pandemic. That said, we’ll probably never be able to say so for sure, since there are also plenty of other potential factors. For example, Colorado opened its primaries up to unaffiliated voters, and Kentucky and Nebraska went from holding only one party’s presidential primary in 2016 to two in 2020, doubling the potential electorate.
But even if we can’t credit mail voting (and therefore, indirectly, the pandemic) for increasing turnout, we can at least be confident that the pandemic hasn’t lowered it (at least not since the spring). That’s reassuring as we look ahead to the general election, which before the pandemic was inspiring historic levels of voter enthusiasm. This led some analysts to predict extraordinarily high turnout in 2020, a forecast that now seems like it is on firmer footing given what we saw in the primaries.
3. Fewer problems are being reported
Finally, elections in the first few months of the pandemic were plagued by problems that threatened to disenfranchise voters — or else put them at risk of being exposed to the coronavirus. Of the 29 pandemic primaries from March 17 through June 23, at least 21 experienced problems of some sort. The most common issues were long lines outside polling places (which happened in at least 14 elections during this time frame) and voters not receiving absentee ballots they had requested (at least 11 elections).
But since June 30, more elections appear to have gone off without a hitch. According to my research, there have been reports of electoral problems in only 10 of the 27 statewide elections during this period (and while it’s possible I missed one or two, I follow this stuff pretty closely!). However, truant absentee ballots still remained a problem in Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas. And some polling places opened late in Delaware (for the state-level primary), Michigan and Tennessee thanks to machine errors or poll worker no-shows.
But other problems tended to be less severe than those reported in the spring. For example, while there were scattered social-media reports of lines at polling places in Delaware (both for the presidential primary and the state-level one), Missouri and New Jersey, they did not appear to be as widespread or interminable as those in, say, Nevada or Washington, D.C., in early June. And in Massachusetts, the biggest problem was that some voters were mailed the wrong ballot — a mistake that election officials quickly rectified by sending replacements.
In summary, it seems like states are getting better at avoiding election snafus — and hopefully this means they will be minimal in November.
The three evolutions that primaries have made since July — with regard to mail voting, turnout and problems with voting — are, of course, interconnected. The consistently higher turnout rates are probably related to the increased access to mail voting. However, the fact that fewer people are taking advantage of that option may explain why there have been fewer problems reported with recent elections. And the relatively smooth sailing in those elections may even have contributed to the higher turnout.
Altogether, the pandemic primaries suggest that the climactic election of 2020 will be heavily (but not predominantly) vote-by-mail, that turnout will outstrip 2016 and that there will be sporadic (but not crippling) problems with lines and absentee-ballot delivery. Based on other evidence, that’s a very plausible scenario for November. But of course, the general election is not a primary — and Trump is waging a campaign to undermine the election results — so any precedent for it is imperfect. Anything can still happen.
How Trump could spark a full-blown election crisis | FiveThirtyEight