fivethirthyeight--2020-07-31--Can You Cheat At Rock, Paper, Scissors?

Can You Cheat At Rock, Paper, Scissors?

Welcome to The Riddler .
Every week , I offer up problems related to the things we hold dear around here : math , logic and probability .
Two puzzles are presented each week : the Riddler Express for those of you who want something bite-size and the Riddler Classic for those of you in the slow-puzzle movement .
Submit a correct answer for either , and you may get a shoutout in next week ’ s column .
Please wait until Monday to publicly share your answers !
If you need a hint or have a favorite puzzle collecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter .
Congratulations , you ’ ve made it to the final round of the Riddler Rock , Paper , Scissors .
The rules are simple : Rock beats scissors , scissors beat paper , and paper beats rock .
Moreover , the game is “ sudden death , ” so the first person to win a single round is immediately declared the grand champion .
If there ’ s a tie , meaning both players choose the same object , then you simply play another round .
Fortunately , your opponent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Based on the motion of their arm , you can tell whether they will ( 1 ) play rock or paper with equal probability , ( 2 ) play paper or scissors with equal probability or ( 3 ) play rock or scissors with equal probability .
( Every round falls into one of these three categories . )
If you strategize correctly , what are your chances of winning the tournament ?
From Dave Moran comes a perplexing puzzle of pomp and circumstance : The inaugural graduating class of Riddler High @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is lined up along the circumference of the giant circular mosaic on the plaza in front of the school .
The principal , Dr. Olivia Rhodes , stands atop a tall stepladder in the center of the circle , preparing to take the panoramic class photo .
Suddenly , she shouts , “ Hey , class , every single one of you N graduates — except Val , our valedictorian — is standing in the wrong place !
Remember , you ’ re supposed to stand in order of your class rank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of me , and going counterclockwise all the way to Zach , who should then be next to Val.
” ( Poor Zach was ranked last in the graduating class at Riddler High . )
Dr. Rhodes continues , “ Not only are almost all of you in the wrong positions , but no two of you are even in the correct position relative to each other.
” Two graduates would be in the correct position relative to each other if , for example , graduate A was supposed to be 17 positions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17 positions counterclockwise of graduate B — even though both graduates were in the wrong positions .
But Val speaks up : “ Dr .
Rhodes , that can ’ t be right .
There must be at least two of us who are in the correct position relative to each other.
” Dr. Rhodes looks carefully around the circle of graduates below her and admits , “ Of course , our brilliant Val is quite right .
I do now see that there are two of you who are correctly positioned relative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more than 100 graduates , what is the minimum number of graduates who are posing for the class photo ?
Congratulations to 👏 Joe Maloney 👏 of Atlanta , Georgia , winner of last week ’ s Riddler Express .
Last week , Riddler Township was having its quadrennial presidential election .
Each of the town ’ s 10 “ shires ” was allotted a certain number of electoral votes : two , plus one additional vote for every 10 citizens ( rounded to the nearest 10 ) .
The names and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the table below .
Under this sort of electoral system , it was quite possible for a presidential candidate to lose the popular vote and still win the election .
With two candidates running for president of Riddler Township , and every citizen voting for one or the other , what is the lowest percentage of the popular vote that a candidate could get while still winning the election ?
To win with as few votes as possible , a candidate needed a majority of the 75 electoral votes , meaning they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also needed just over half the popular vote in any shire they won , while losing the entire popular vote in the shires they lost .
Meanwhile , the less populous shires also offered greater leverage .
For example , Oneshire , with its three electoral votes and a population of 11 people ( i.e.
, a majority consisting of six people ) , offered 0.5 — three divided by six — electoral votes per supporter .
Twoshire , with four electoral votes and a voting majority of 11 people , offered about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at the other end of the spectrum , Tenshire offered less than 0.24 electoral votes per supporter .
That meant our unpopular winner wanted to win the less populous shires , accruing electoral votes without winning too many popular votes .
The fewest votes a candidate needed to win turned out to be 136 out of Riddler Township ’ s 560 total citizens , and so the smallest possible winning percentage of the popular vote was approximately 24.3 percent .
There were several different ways to generate this electoral nightmare .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes in Oneshire , 16 votes in Threeshire , 21 votes in Fourshire , 26 votes in Fiveshire , 31 votes in Sixshire and 36 votes in Sevenshire .
In all , that is indeed 38 electoral votes against just 136 popular votes .
This particular scenario was illustrated by Andrew Heairet : That map of Riddler Township looks vaguely familiar , but I can ’ t quite place it .
But that wasn ’ t the only solution .
Many solvers , like Nora Corrigan from Columbus , Mississippi and Caspian from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generate exactly 38 electoral votes and 136 popular votes .
Here is the complete list of such scenarios : As it turned out , there were many ways for the electoral and popular votes to wildly disagree .
I guess that ’ s the electoral college for you .
Oh , and if you ’ d like your vote to really count in Riddler Township , it ’ s a good idea to live in Oneshire .
Congratulations to 👏 Steven Trautmann 👏 of Aurora , Colorado , winner of last week ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you played a game of Riddler Pinball , which had an infinitely long wall and a circle whose radius was 1 inch and whose center was 2 inches from the wall .
The wall and the circle were both fixed and never moved .
A single pinball started 2 inches from the wall and 2 inches from the center of the circle .
To play , you flicked the pinball toward a spot of your choosing along the wall , specified by its distance x from the point on the wall that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown in the diagram below .
The goal of the game was simple : Get the ball to bounce as many times as possible .
If you aimed too far to the right ( i.e.
, your value of x was too small ) , the pinball quickly bounced its way through the gap between the circle and the wall .
But if you aimed too far to the left ( i.e.
, your value of x is too big ) , the pinball quickly came back out the same side it went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game — the slightest error tanked your chances of victory .
But if you strategized just right , it was possible to do quite well .
What was the greatest number of bounces you could achieve ?
And , more importantly , what value of x got you the most bounces ?
There was certainly a sweet spot that resulted in many , many bounces .
For example , when x was 0.82248632494339 , there were 43 bounces : But before we go any further , let ’ s return to the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the greatest possible number of bounces ?
As solver Phillip Bradbury observed , all the angles and points of impact changed monotonically with x .
As noted above , smaller values of x made the pinball pass through , but larger values of x made the pinball bounce back out .
So then what happened between these two cases ?
Zooming in revealed a single point on the number line where the pinball neither passed through nor bounced back .
But if it did neither of these things , what else could the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuck bouncing back and forth infinitely many times .
And as x approached this point — whatever it was — the number of bounces went up , up , up .
This was nicely illustrated by solvers Mark Girard and Dinesh Vatvani .
There were a few other ways to see how this was true .
Jason Bellenger reasoned backwards , thinking about a ball that was bouncing straight up and down between the tip of the circle and the wall .
If you perturbed it infinitesimally , but just right , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct starting point .
Playing these bounces in reverse would then give you an infinitely high-scoring pinball shot .
Laurent Lessard , meanwhile , was able to better visualize the multitude of bounces by plotting the logarithm of the x-coordinate , as shown below .
Graphically , this had the effect of spreading out the bounces , leading him to correctly suspect the answer was infinity .
As it turned out , this reasoning was the easier part of the problem .
Finding this precise value of x that got you infinitely many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this point , most solvers took a computational approach .
Simulating the pinball as it bounced off the wall wasn ’ t too tricky — the ball simply reflected off the wall so that the angle it made with respect to the wall didn ’ t change .
But simulating bounces off the circle was a little tougher .
Again , the angles of incidence and reflection were equal , but now they were measured from the radius of the circle .
A slight mess of trigonometry ensued .
Once you had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then it was just a matter of trying different values of x , adding one digit at a time , and seeing which values gave you more bounces .
Indeed , the answer was very close to 0.82248632494339 — the true value actually goes on for infinitely many decimal places .
Some solvers , like Dean Ballard and Joseph Wetherell , went to great lengths to crank out more of the solution ’ s decimal places .
In fact , the answer is very , very close to : According to Joseph , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 200 bounces !
Meanwhile , solver Emma Knight boldly attempted a more analytic approach .
However , ballooning floating point errors ultimately got in the way .
Finally , a few very clever readers noticed something glaring about this problem : There was a second solution !
While the original statement of the riddle asked where along the wall the pinball should be aimed , it was also possible to hit the circle first and still achieve infinitely many bounces .
Josh Silverman went as far as animating this alternate strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I asked what interesting mathematical questions could be posed about it .
There were multiple calls to alter the geometry , such as with a noncircular bumper , or to scale it up to three dimensions .
With all these great suggestions , I don ’ t think it will be long before we all play another round of Riddler Pinball .
Well , aren ’ t you lucky ?
There ’ s a whole book full of the best puzzles from this column and some never-before-seen head-scratchers .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s in stores now !

Welcome to The Riddler. Every week, I offer up problems related to the things we hold dear around here: math, logic and probability. Two puzzles are presented each week: the Riddler Express for those of you who want something bite-size and the Riddler Classic for those of you in the slow-puzzle movement. Submit a correct answer for either, and you may get a shoutout in next week’s column. Please wait until Monday to publicly share your answers! If you need a hint or have a favorite puzzle collecting dust in your attic, find me on Twitter.
Riddler Express
Congratulations, you’ve made it to the final round of the Riddler Rock, Paper, Scissors.
The rules are simple: Rock beats scissors, scissors beat paper, and paper beats rock. Moreover, the game is “sudden death,” so the first person to win a single round is immediately declared the grand champion. If there’s a tie, meaning both players choose the same object, then you simply play another round.
Fortunately, your opponent is someone you’ve studied well. Based on the motion of their arm, you can tell whether they will (1) play rock or paper with equal probability, (2) play paper or scissors with equal probability or (3) play rock or scissors with equal probability. (Every round falls into one of these three categories.)
If you strategize correctly, what are your chances of winning the tournament?
The solution to this Riddler Express can be found in the following week’s column.
Riddler Classic
From Dave Moran comes a perplexing puzzle of pomp and circumstance:
The inaugural graduating class of Riddler High School, more than 100 students strong, is lined up along the circumference of the giant circular mosaic on the plaza in front of the school. The principal, Dr. Olivia Rhodes, stands atop a tall stepladder in the center of the circle, preparing to take the panoramic class photo.
Suddenly, she shouts, “Hey, class, every single one of you N graduates — except Val, our valedictorian — is standing in the wrong place! Remember, you’re supposed to stand in order of your class rank, starting with Val directly in front of me, and going counterclockwise all the way to Zach, who should then be next to Val.” (Poor Zach was ranked last in the graduating class at Riddler High.)
Dr. Rhodes continues, “Not only are almost all of you in the wrong positions, but no two of you are even in the correct position relative to each other.” Two graduates would be in the correct position relative to each other if, for example, graduate A was supposed to be 17 positions counterclockwise of graduate B and was indeed 17 positions counterclockwise of graduate B — even though both graduates were in the wrong positions.
But Val speaks up: “Dr. Rhodes, that can’t be right. There must be at least two of us who are in the correct position relative to each other.”
Dr. Rhodes looks carefully around the circle of graduates below her and admits, “Of course, our brilliant Val is quite right. I do now see that there are two of you who are correctly positioned relative to each other.”
Given that there are more than 100 graduates, what is the minimum number of graduates who are posing for the class photo?
The solution to this Riddler Classic can be found in the following week’s column.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Express
Congratulations to 👏 Joe Maloney 👏 of Atlanta, Georgia, winner of last week’s Riddler Express.
Last week, Riddler Township was having its quadrennial presidential election. Each of the town’s 10 “shires” was allotted a certain number of electoral votes: two, plus one additional vote for every 10 citizens (rounded to the nearest 10).
The names and populations of the 10 shires are summarized in the table below.
Which way will Riddler Township swing? Shire Population Electoral votes Oneshire 11 3 Twoshire 21 4 Threeshire 31 5 Fourshire 41 6 Fiveshire 51 7 Sixshire 61 8 Sevenshire 71 9 Eightshire 81 10 Nineshire 91 11 Tenshire 101 12
Under this sort of electoral system, it was quite possible for a presidential candidate to lose the popular vote and still win the election.
With two candidates running for president of Riddler Township, and every citizen voting for one or the other, what is the lowest percentage of the popular vote that a candidate could get while still winning the election?
To win with as few votes as possible, a candidate needed a majority of the 75 electoral votes, meaning they needed at least 38 votes. They also needed just over half the popular vote in any shire they won, while losing the entire popular vote in the shires they lost.
Meanwhile, the less populous shires also offered greater leverage. For example, Oneshire, with its three electoral votes and a population of 11 people (i.e., a majority consisting of six people), offered 0.5 — three divided by six — electoral votes per supporter. Twoshire, with four electoral votes and a voting majority of 11 people, offered about 0.36 electoral votes per supporter. Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, Tenshire offered less than 0.24 electoral votes per supporter.
That meant our unpopular winner wanted to win the less populous shires, accruing electoral votes without winning too many popular votes.
The fewest votes a candidate needed to win turned out to be 136 out of Riddler Township’s 560 total citizens, and so the smallest possible winning percentage of the popular vote was approximately 24.3 percent.
There were several different ways to generate this electoral nightmare. For example, the winner might get six votes in Oneshire, 16 votes in Threeshire, 21 votes in Fourshire, 26 votes in Fiveshire, 31 votes in Sixshire and 36 votes in Sevenshire. In all, that is indeed 38 electoral votes against just 136 popular votes. This particular scenario was illustrated by Andrew Heairet:
That map of Riddler Township looks vaguely familiar, but I can’t quite place it.
But that wasn’t the only solution. Many solvers, like Nora Corrigan from Columbus, Mississippi and Caspian from Stockholm, Sweden found multiple ways to generate exactly 38 electoral votes and 136 popular votes. Here is the complete list of such scenarios:
Slim victories in Oneshire, Threeshire, Fourshire, Fiveshire, Sixshire and Sevenshire
Slim victories in Oneshire, Twoshire, Fourshire, Fiveshire, Sixshire and Eightshire
Slim victories in Oneshire, Twoshire, Threeshire, Fiveshire, Sixshire and Nineshire
Slim victories in Oneshire, Twoshire, Threeshire, Fiveshire, Sevenshire and Eightshire
Slim victories in Oneshire, Twoshire, Threeshire, Fourshire, Sixshire and Tenshire
Slim victories in Oneshire, Twoshire, Threeshire, Fourshire, Sevenshire and Nineshire
As it turned out, there were many ways for the electoral and popular votes to wildly disagree. I guess that’s the electoral college for you. Oh, and if you’d like your vote to really count in Riddler Township, it’s a good idea to live in Oneshire.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Classic
Congratulations to 👏 Steven Trautmann 👏 of Aurora, Colorado, winner of last week’s Riddler Classic.
Last week, you played a game of Riddler Pinball, which had an infinitely long wall and a circle whose radius was 1 inch and whose center was 2 inches from the wall. The wall and the circle were both fixed and never moved. A single pinball started 2 inches from the wall and 2 inches from the center of the circle.
To play, you flicked the pinball toward a spot of your choosing along the wall, specified by its distance x from the point on the wall that’s closest to the circle, as shown in the diagram below.
The goal of the game was simple: Get the ball to bounce as many times as possible.
If you aimed too far to the right (i.e., your value of x was too small), the pinball quickly bounced its way through the gap between the circle and the wall. But if you aimed too far to the left (i.e., your value of x is too big), the pinball quickly came back out the same side it went in.
Riddler Pinball was an unforgiving game — the slightest error tanked your chances of victory. But if you strategized just right, it was possible to do quite well.
What was the greatest number of bounces you could achieve? And, more importantly, what value of x got you the most bounces?
There was certainly a sweet spot that resulted in many, many bounces. For example, when x was 0.82248632494339, there were 43 bounces:
But before we go any further, let’s return to the first question that was posed: What was the greatest possible number of bounces?
As solver Phillip Bradbury observed, all the angles and points of impact changed monotonically with x. As noted above, smaller values of x made the pinball pass through, but larger values of x made the pinball bounce back out.
So then what happened between these two cases? Zooming in revealed a single point on the number line where the pinball neither passed through nor bounced back. But if it did neither of these things, what else could the ball possibly do? It would be stuck bouncing back and forth infinitely many times. And as x approached this point — whatever it was — the number of bounces went up, up, up. This was nicely illustrated by solvers Mark Girard and Dinesh Vatvani.
My solution to this week's #538Riddler The optimal solution to the Pinball Wizard riddle is very elusive. It requires an +1 order of magnitude precision for every ~ +3 bounces.
I managed to get to 43 bounces before running into floating point precision problems. :/@xaqwg pic.twitter.com/y5MpqtB6g8 — Dinesh Vatvani (@d_vatvani) July 27, 2020
There were a few other ways to see how this was true. Jason Bellenger reasoned backwards, thinking about a ball that was bouncing straight up and down between the tip of the circle and the wall. If you perturbed it infinitesimally, but just right, it would ultimately bounce its way to the correct starting point. Playing these bounces in reverse would then give you an infinitely high-scoring pinball shot.
Laurent Lessard, meanwhile, was able to better visualize the multitude of bounces by plotting the logarithm of the x-coordinate, as shown below. Graphically, this had the effect of spreading out the bounces, leading him to correctly suspect the answer was infinity.
As it turned out, this reasoning was the easier part of the problem. Finding this precise value of x that got you infinitely many bounces was another matter entirely.
At this point, most solvers took a computational approach. Simulating the pinball as it bounced off the wall wasn’t too tricky — the ball simply reflected off the wall so that the angle it made with respect to the wall didn’t change. But simulating bounces off the circle was a little tougher. Again, the angles of incidence and reflection were equal, but now they were measured from the radius of the circle. A slight mess of trigonometry ensued.
Once you had a functioning pinball simulator up and running, then it was just a matter of trying different values of x, adding one digit at a time, and seeing which values gave you more bounces. Indeed, the answer was very close to 0.82248632494339 — the true value actually goes on for infinitely many decimal places.
Some solvers, like Dean Ballard and Joseph Wetherell, went to great lengths to crank out more of the solution’s decimal places. In fact, the answer is very, very close to:
0.82248632494339006569162637706984990078
134582582348831326968696909788932771367
According to Joseph, this precise value of x resulted in more than 200 bounces!
Meanwhile, solver Emma Knight boldly attempted a more analytic approach. However, ballooning floating point errors ultimately got in the way.
Finally, a few very clever readers noticed something glaring about this problem: There was a second solution! While the original statement of the riddle asked where along the wall the pinball should be aimed, it was also possible to hit the circle first and still achieve infinitely many bounces. Josh Silverman went as far as animating this alternate strategy:
then shoot at the ball pic.twitter.com/0loO36YtJs — joshsilverman (@_joshsilverman) July 27, 2020
When I previously teased Riddler Pinball, I asked what interesting mathematical questions could be posed about it. There were multiple calls to alter the geometry, such as with a noncircular bumper, or to scale it up to three dimensions. With all these great suggestions, I don’t think it will be long before we all play another round of Riddler Pinball.
Want more riddles?
Well, aren’t you lucky? There’s a whole book full of the best puzzles from this column and some never-before-seen head-scratchers. It’s called “The Riddler,” and it’s in stores now!
Want to submit a riddle?
Email Zach Wissner-Gross at riddlercolumn@gmail.com.


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-31--Some Republicans Have Gotten More Concerned About COVID-19

This month , for the first time since April , our tracker of public opinion around the coronavirus shows that the share of Americans who say they are “ very ” concerned that they or someone they know will become infected with COVID-19 is higher than the share who say they are “ somewhat ” concerned .
That rise in concern is understandable , too , when you consider the spike in new coronavirus cases that began in mid-June , especially in the South and West .
Just this past week , California , Florida and Texas , along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record spikes in fatalities .
And the fact that the geography of the virus is changing — it ’ s no longer just a blue-state virus — may mean behaviors and political attitudes are shifting once again .
To be clear , there are still deep political divides in how concerned people are about the virus , but there are also some signs that Republicans may be growing more concerned .
For example , as many states started lifting restrictions in April , the share of Republicans who said they were staying at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats saying they were staying put remained roughly the same .
As you can see in the chart below , the share of Republicans who reported staying home as much as possible has ticked up by at least 10 points since the start of July .
The latest poll from YouGov/Huffpost to ask this question did , however , also show a decline of 4 percentage points from the previous week , so it ’ s possible that the changes in Republican behavior could be plateauing — or declining again .
The YouGov/Huffpost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too .
In early June , only 23 percent of Americans said there were not enough restrictions where they lived , but in the latest poll , that number had grown by 14 percentage points to 37 percent .
That includes an increase of more than 10 points in every region except the Northeast , where the coronavirus ’ s spread has slowed down .
And the share of Republicans who believe there are not enough restrictions , while still relatively small , has doubled from 10 percent in early June to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These shifts are small , as Republicans still lag behind Democrats on both of these metrics .
But it ’ s significant because it comes at a time when public approval of the government ’ s handling of the pandemic has fallen to new lows .
According to our tracker , Trump ’ s approval rating on his response to the crisis has steadily declined since April .
That even includes Republicans , whose approval of how he is handling the crisis , while still high at 78 percent , has declined roughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases began spiking .
Recent polls have also shown that Republican governors are getting lower marks on how they ’ ve handled the pandemic , especially in hard-hit states like Texas , Florida and Arizona .
To be sure , Democrats are still more concerned about the coronavirus than Republicans , but that uptick in our tracker isn ’ t being driven by just Democrats .
Republicans are also showing signs of increased concern around the virus .
Some of that may be because as the virus spreads to different parts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact with it , which may change their perceptions of it .
Take what an Ipsos/Axios poll recently found .
While only 35 percent of Republicans who had no personal experience with the virus said they are either “ very ” or “ somewhat ” concerned about COVID-19 , concern over the coronavirus rose to 51 percent among Republicans who knew someone who died from it .
Additionally , more than half of Republicans who knew someone who died from the virus said they always wore a mask , while only 38 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the virus said they always wore a mask .
And perhaps that nuance underscores something Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux wrote about for FiveThirtyEight earlier this month .
Republicans and Democrats are divided on how they see the virus .
But they ’ re less divided on the actual steps they can take to stay safe — whether that ’ s social distancing , trying to stay home more or wearing masks in public places .
It ’ s possible that partisan opinion on the coronavirus isn ’ t entirely baked in — yet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they supported the protests that have taken place around the country following the police killing of George Floyd , according to a Gallup poll conducted between June and July .
Fifty-four percent said that the protests have changed their views on racial justice either “ a little ” or “ a lot , ” and 11 percent reported personally participating in a protest about racial justice and equality in the previous month .
• On Wednesday , the CEOs of Amazon , Apple , Google and Facebook testified in an antitrust hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to a recent IBD/TIPP poll , many Americans seem supportive of breaking up these big tech companies .
When asked about each company on its own , 60 percent of Americans said they either “ somewhat ” or “ strongly ” supported breaking up Google , 58 percent said the same of Amazon , 57 percent said the same of Facebook , and 55 percent said the same of Apple .
This is an increase from a year ago , when a previous IBD/TIPP poll found 48 percent of Americans supported breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up Amazon , 43 percent supported breaking up Google , and only 36 percent said they supported breaking up Apple .
• According to a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center , 80 percent of American parents who have a child 11 or younger said their child watches videos on YouTube .
• Another poll from Pew found that lesser-educated Americans were much more likely to believe the conspiracy theory that the coronavirus outbreak was intentionally planned by powerful people .
Forty-eight percent of those with a high school education or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some college education said this theory was either “ probably ” or “ definitely ” true , while about a quarter of college graduates and only 15 percent of those with postgraduate education said the same .
• According to a new Ipsos/Newsy poll , Americans have a variety of concerns about the upcoming elections .
Seventy-nine percent were concerned about the impact of COVID-19 , 71 percent were concerned about the impact of fake news , 63 percent were concerned about foreign interference , 63 percent were worried about vote suppression , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and 54 percent expressed concern about mail-in-ballot fraud .
• A new Gallup survey found that 34 percent of Americans identified as politically “ conservative ” in May and June , down from 40 percent in January and February .
And among those with incomes of over $ 100,000 or between 35 and 54 years old , the share who identified as conservative fell by 11 and 10 percentage points , respectively .
Meanwhile , the share of people who said they were “ liberal ” rose four points , from 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 26 percent in May and June .
Gallup has tracked these numbers since at least 1992 .
According to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval tracker , 40.6 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 55.1 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -14.5 points ) .
At this time last week , 40.3 percent approved and 55.6 percent disapproved ( a net approval rating of -15.3 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 40.3 percent and a disapproval @ @ @ @ @ @ @ net approval rating of -16.1 points .
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot , Democrats currently lead by 8.3 percentage points ( 49.1 percent to 40.8 percent ) .
A week ago , Democrats led Republicans by 8.2 points ( 49.4 percent to 41.2 percent ) .
At this time last month , voters preferred Democrats by 9 points ( 49 percent to 40 percent ) .
Check out all the polls we ’ ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections .

This month, for the first time since April, our tracker of public opinion around the coronavirus shows that the share of Americans who say they are “very” concerned that they or someone they know will become infected with COVID-19 is higher than the share who say they are “somewhat” concerned.
That rise in concern is understandable, too, when you consider the spike in new coronavirus cases that began in mid-June, especially in the South and West. Just this past week, California, Florida and Texas, along with a handful of other states, saw record spikes in fatalities.
And the fact that the geography of the virus is changing — it’s no longer just a blue-state virus — may mean behaviors and political attitudes are shifting once again. To be clear, there are still deep political divides in how concerned people are about the virus, but there are also some signs that Republicans may be growing more concerned.
For example, as many states started lifting restrictions in April, the share of Republicans who said they were staying at home declined, while the share of Democrats saying they were staying put remained roughly the same. As you can see in the chart below, the share of Republicans who reported staying home as much as possible has ticked up by at least 10 points since the start of July. The latest poll from YouGov/Huffpost to ask this question did, however, also show a decline of 4 percentage points from the previous week, so it’s possible that the changes in Republican behavior could be plateauing — or declining again.
The YouGov/Huffpost polls show increased support for coronavirus-related restrictions, too. In early June, only 23 percent of Americans said there were not enough restrictions where they lived, but in the latest poll, that number had grown by 14 percentage points to 37 percent. That includes an increase of more than 10 points in every region except the Northeast, where the coronavirus’s spread has slowed down. And the share of Republicans who believe there are not enough restrictions, while still relatively small, has doubled from 10 percent in early June to over 20 percent in late July.
These shifts are small, as Republicans still lag behind Democrats on both of these metrics. But it’s significant because it comes at a time when public approval of the government’s handling of the pandemic has fallen to new lows.
According to our tracker, Trump’s approval rating on his response to the crisis has steadily declined since April. That even includes Republicans, whose approval of how he is handling the crisis, while still high at 78 percent, has declined roughly 5 percentage points since mid-June, when cases began spiking.
Recent polls have also shown that Republican governors are getting lower marks on how they’ve handled the pandemic, especially in hard-hit states like Texas, Florida and Arizona.
To be sure, Democrats are still more concerned about the coronavirus than Republicans, but that uptick in our tracker isn’t being driven by just Democrats. Republicans are also showing signs of increased concern around the virus. Some of that may be because as the virus spreads to different parts of the country, more Republicans are coming into contact with it, which may change their perceptions of it. Take what an Ipsos/Axios poll recently found. While only 35 percent of Republicans who had no personal experience with the virus said they are either “very” or “somewhat” concerned about COVID-19, concern over the coronavirus rose to 51 percent among Republicans who knew someone who died from it. Additionally, more than half of Republicans who knew someone who died from the virus said they always wore a mask, while only 38 percent of those who had no personal experience with the virus said they always wore a mask.
And perhaps that nuance underscores something Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux wrote about for FiveThirtyEight earlier this month. Republicans and Democrats are divided on how they see the virus. But they’re less divided on the actual steps they can take to stay safe — whether that’s social distancing, trying to stay home more or wearing masks in public places. It’s possible that partisan opinion on the coronavirus isn’t entirely baked in — yet.
Other Polling Bites
65 percent of American adults said that they supported the protests that have taken place around the country following the police killing of George Floyd, according to a Gallup poll conducted between June and July. Fifty-four percent said that the protests have changed their views on racial justice either “a little” or “a lot,” and 11 percent reported personally participating in a protest about racial justice and equality in the previous month.
On Wednesday, the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook testified in an antitrust hearing in the House of Representatives. And according to a recent IBD/TIPP poll, many Americans seem supportive of breaking up these big tech companies. When asked about each company on its own, 60 percent of Americans said they either “somewhat” or “strongly” supported breaking up Google, 58 percent said the same of Amazon, 57 percent said the same of Facebook, and 55 percent said the same of Apple. This is an increase from a year ago, when a previous IBD/TIPP poll found 48 percent of Americans supported breaking up Facebook, 45 percent supported breaking up Amazon, 43 percent supported breaking up Google, and only 36 percent said they supported breaking up Apple.
According to a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 80 percent of American parents who have a child 11 or younger said their child watches videos on YouTube.
Another poll from Pew found that lesser-educated Americans were much more likely to believe the conspiracy theory that the coronavirus outbreak was intentionally planned by powerful people. Forty-eight percent of those with a high school education or less and 38 percent of those with some college education said this theory was either “probably” or “definitely” true, while about a quarter of college graduates and only 15 percent of those with postgraduate education said the same.
According to a new Ipsos/Newsy poll, Americans have a variety of concerns about the upcoming elections. Seventy-nine percent were concerned about the impact of COVID-19, 71 percent were concerned about the impact of fake news, 63 percent were concerned about foreign interference, 63 percent were worried about vote suppression, 58 percent were troubled by voter fraud, and 54 percent expressed concern about mail-in-ballot fraud.
A new Gallup survey found that 34 percent of Americans identified as politically “conservative” in May and June, down from 40 percent in January and February. And among those with incomes of over $100,000 or between 35 and 54 years old, the share who identified as conservative fell by 11 and 10 percentage points, respectively. Meanwhile, the share of people who said they were “liberal” rose four points, from 22 percent at the start of the year to 26 percent in May and June. Gallup has tracked these numbers since at least 1992.
Trump Approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 40.6 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 55.1 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -14.5 points). At this time last week, 40.3 percent approved and 55.6 percent disapproved (a net approval rating of -15.3 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 40.3 percent and a disapproval rating of 56.4 percent, for a net approval rating of -16.1 points.
Generic Ballot
In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 8.3 percentage points (49.1 percent to 40.8 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 8.2 points (49.4 percent to 41.2 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 9 points (49 percent to 40 percent).
Check out all the polls we’ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections.


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-31--Lab-Grown Antibodies Might Protect Essential Workers

This week on Podcast-19 , we talk about lab-grown antibodies , called monoclonal antibodies , that could temporarily protect people @ @ @ @ @ might they be available for the public ?
We also explore the long history of @ @ @ @ @ a lifesaver , and learn about an inhalable treatment that might keep coronavirus patients off @ @ @ @ @ want to miss an episode of PODCAST-19 , FiveThirtyEight ’ s weekly look at what @ @ @ @ @ we know we don ’ t know — about COVID-19 ?
Subscribe on your favorite @ @ @ @ @ , here ’ s where to do it on Apple Podcasts and Spotify .

This week on Podcast-19, we talk about lab-grown antibodies, called monoclonal antibodies, that could temporarily protect people from COVID-19. How soon might they be available for the public?
We also explore the long history of a COVID drug touted as a lifesaver, and learn about an inhalable treatment that might keep coronavirus patients off ventilators.
Don’t want to miss an episode of PODCAST-19, FiveThirtyEight’s weekly look at what we know — and what we know we don’t know — about COVID-19? Subscribe on your favorite podcasting app! For example, here’s where to do it on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-31--We’re Hiring A Politics Reporter

We’re Hiring A Politics Reporter

FiveThirtyEight is seeking a reporter to write about politics and elections with a particular focus on race .
This person will work both independently and in collaboration with colleagues across the newsroom to produce one to two stories each week about U.S. politics , elections and how race and identity intersect with each .
Experience reporting on and writing about race and identity in America is a must .
As is some experience with data — how to find it , how to ask questions of it , how to know its limits .
This can take many forms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other statistics in your reporting , for example .
Statistical skills , such as using Excel or R to analyze data , would be a plus , but are by no means required .
We welcome applications from candidates with a history of producing high-quality journalism for digital or print audiences , as well as a desire to work closely with colleagues with different skill sets ( visual journalists , for example ) and a range of experience levels and journalistic backgrounds .
We want someone who can help us tackle important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : What would modern U.S. elections look like with fewer barriers to voting ?
How are different groups of voters reacting and processing the lead-up to November ?
Really , we ’ re open to a wide range of ideas and backgrounds and want the reporter to help define this role ; candidates shouldn ’ t feel that they need to check every box in order to apply .
This position is full-time with benefits and can be based anywhere .
• Write a mix of short and longer features each month that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intersect .
• Work with the editing and interactive staff to develop and execute major projects .
• Collaborate with graphics editors , as well as audio and video producers .
• Work with the politics editor and other colleagues to help guide FiveThirtyEight ’ s political coverage in general .
• Minimum of three years ’ experience as a reporter , data journalist , visual journalist or similar position at an online or print news outlet .
• Experience writing and reporting on issues of race and ethnicity .
• Experience working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Experience writing and reporting on federal and state elections in an empirical or data-driven way for a wide audience .
• Experience working with academic and scientific research on politics , race and ethnicity .
And if you don ’ t check every box , that ’ s OK .
Please apply !
Send a cover letter and resume to sarah.frostenson @ fivethirtyeight.com .

FiveThirtyEight is seeking a reporter to write about politics and elections with a particular focus on race. This person will work both independently and in collaboration with colleagues across the newsroom to produce one to two stories each week about U.S. politics, elections and how race and identity intersect with each.
Experience reporting on and writing about race and identity in America is a must. As is some experience with data — how to find it, how to ask questions of it, how to know its limits. This can take many forms, though: using Census information, polls or other statistics in your reporting, for example. Statistical skills, such as using Excel or R to analyze data, would be a plus, but are by no means required.
We welcome applications from candidates with a history of producing high-quality journalism for digital or print audiences, as well as a desire to work closely with colleagues with different skill sets (visual journalists, for example) and a range of experience levels and journalistic backgrounds. We want someone who can help us tackle important and pressing stories, including features like: What would modern U.S. elections look like with fewer barriers to voting? How are different groups of voters reacting and processing the lead-up to November? Really, we’re open to a wide range of ideas and backgrounds and want the reporter to help define this role; candidates shouldn’t feel that they need to check every box in order to apply.
This position is full-time with benefits and can be based anywhere.
Responsibilities
Write a mix of short and longer features each month that explore how race, identity and politics intersect.
Work with the editing and interactive staff to develop and execute major projects.
Collaborate with graphics editors, as well as audio and video producers.
Work with the politics editor and other colleagues to help guide FiveThirtyEight’s political coverage in general.
Must-haves
Minimum of three years’ experience as a reporter, data journalist, visual journalist or similar position at an online or print news outlet.
Experience writing and reporting on issues of race and ethnicity.
Experience covering U.S. politics.
Experience working with data in some form.
Nice-to-haves
Experience writing and reporting on federal and state elections in an empirical or data-driven way for a wide audience.
Experience working with academic and scientific research on politics, race and ethnicity.
Statistical analysis skills.
Required Education
n/a
And if you don’t check every box, that’s OK. Please apply!


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-31--What A Year Off Might Do To Baseball Players’ Skills

Hundreds of professional baseball players may go months without participating in any games or practices organized by Major League Baseball clubs .
The minor league season was canceled in June .
Some major league players have decided to sit out the season because of COVID-19 concerns .
And if there are more outbreaks , like the one involving the Miami Marlins , the major league season is at risk of being canceled all together .
For players not among the 60-man MLB rosters eligible to play and be coached on the field this season — and the vast majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on those rosters — it may be a “ lost season of development.
” Mitch Horacek , a minor league pitcher for the Minnesota Twins who is not in the club ’ s 60-man pool , is concerned about what the cancellation of so many professional games means for baseball .
“ Unfortunately , any way you cut it , baseball will be less talented next year in aggregate , ” Horacek told FiveThirtyEight .
Could there be detrimental effects not only for players ’ careers but for the overall quality of future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many respects , but there was another time when a number of professional baseball players did not play games for non-injury reasons : World War II .
With help from our friends at Baseball-Reference.com , we compared how major league players who missed at least one full season to WWII service performed before departing to European and Pacific theaters and after returning .
We don ’ t have a huge sample to look at .
There were 98 players who lost at least one full season to military service between 1939 and 1946 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 hitters to reach 150 plate appearances in their first year before service and also in their first season back .
There were 15 pitchers to total at least 70 innings in their last year before WWII participation and in their first year playing after the war .
All of those players returned in either the 1945 , 1946 or 1947 MLB seasons .
( There were 343 total MLB players who played in 1944 and 1945 , so many returnees were facing players who did not miss time in previous seasons ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , relative to the league average .
As a group , their OPS+ — which adjusts for the run-scoring environment and ballpark factors — declined by 5.2 percent , from an average of 118.1 pre-service to 111.9 in their first season back .
But there were also cases like that of Ted Williams , who missed his age-24 , 25 and 26 seasons and returned in 1946 to win the AL MVP award .
Perhaps there was some aging effect in the group , but the average age of players in their return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near their prime performance years .
We get mostly the same results if we change our criteria slightly to get a bigger sample .
Looking at the 37 players with at least 100 plate appearances , rather than 150 , hitters ’ performance slightly declined from a 111.4 OPS+ before WWII to a 107.2 mark in their return .
And if we look at all instances of one-plus seasons lost in service — adding one WWI case and eight Korean War veterans to our sample — there was only a slight performance dip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an even smaller effect .
Using ERA+ , which also adjusts for stadium effects , the WWII veterans were 4.5 percent better upon their return .
Take Bob Feller , who led the AL in wins in his last year before entering the war , but was better on a per-inning basis when he returned late in 1945 .
Looking at all pitchers in the group , they improved from a 108.2 ERA+ to a 114.3 mark .
When including all conflict-related cases — adding in one player who served in World War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the performance levels upon return were nearly flat .
New York Yankees pitcher Whitey Ford returned after two years serving in the Korean War to go 18-6 with a 3.00 ERA .
So for those players that hope to return to affiliated games next year , perhaps they can take solace in the lack of dramatic decline in performance after military service .
While World War II occurred more than 70 years ago , changes to technology and training practices have perhaps allowed game play to be less important to development today .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have occurred far from organized baseball fields .
Yankees pitcher Adam Ottavino turned around his career thanks to a new pitch and better command honed in the confines of a Manhattan storefront .
Los Angeles Dodgers third baseman Justin Turner and Boston Red Sox slugger J.D .
Martinez rebuilt their swings and careers in various Los Angeles-area batting cages , morphing from bench players into stars .
Indeed , some players are getting creative in the face of the pandemic .
Teams are , too .
The Baltimore Orioles ’ new leadership team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pause as best they can .
Player development director Matt Blood has spent scores of hours with players on Zoom video calls this year .
The video chats have focused on areas like mindfulness and nutrition .
“ Zoom dinners , ” as Blood calls them , have pushed players to avoid relying on fast food .
“ We all cook the same meal , at the same time , so that we learn , and part of it is also so we can be together and see each other ’ s faces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ strength and conditioning staff helped players construct improvised weight-training equipment for those with limited means or without access to gyms , he added .
Of course , a major issue with players trying to develop away from their organizations is the lack of uniform access to facilities , tools and coaches .
Horacek said the Twins are in regular contact with their players but that there is no “ set protocol ” to follow .
“ I think they realize that they can ’ t ask too much of us because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Horacek told FiveThirtyEight .
“ Many guys I know are just doing whatever they can , which certainly isn ’ t enough to develop.
” Even if clubs keep paying minor leaguers their paltry salaries , Horacek says players are looking for backup plans with so little future assurance of work — baseball has proposed reducing the affiliated minor leagues by 42 clubs next season .
Horacek has started a web-development business that designs tools for teams and companies in the baseball business .
“ I have a buddy who replied to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking what he ’ s planning to do to ‘ stay ready ’ [ by ] saying ‘ I ’ m not doing a goddamn thing for you guys anymore , ’ ” Horacek wrote .
“ I think most players will shut it down until next year .
Many will retire … .
Some players might take this time to develop in the gym , but only those with the means to do that will be able.
” So perhaps the key question is not how players will develop without games , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Hundreds of professional baseball players may go months without participating in any games or practices organized by Major League Baseball clubs. The minor league season was canceled in June. Some major league players have decided to sit out the season because of COVID-19 concerns. And if there are more outbreaks, like the one involving the Miami Marlins, the major league season is at risk of being canceled all together.
For players not among the 60-man MLB rosters eligible to play and be coached on the field this season — and the vast majority of players in affiliated professional baseball are not on those rosters — it may be a “lost season of development.”
Mitch Horacek, a minor league pitcher for the Minnesota Twins who is not in the club’s 60-man pool, is concerned about what the cancellation of so many professional games means for baseball.
“Unfortunately, any way you cut it, baseball will be less talented next year in aggregate,” Horacek told FiveThirtyEight.
Could there be detrimental effects not only for players’ careers but for the overall quality of future play? The pandemic is unprecedented in many respects, but there was another time when a number of professional baseball players did not play games for non-injury reasons: World War II. With help from our friends at Baseball-Reference.com, we compared how major league players who missed at least one full season to WWII service performed before departing to European and Pacific theaters and after returning.
We don’t have a huge sample to look at. There were 98 players who lost at least one full season to military service between 1939 and 1946. Of that group, there were 30 hitters to reach 150 plate appearances in their first year before service and also in their first season back. There were 15 pitchers to total at least 70 innings in their last year before WWII participation and in their first year playing after the war. All of those players returned in either the 1945, 1946 or 1947 MLB seasons. (There were 343 total MLB players who played in 1944 and 1945, so many returnees were facing players who did not miss time in previous seasons).
The hitters suffered some performance decline, relative to the league average. As a group, their OPS+ — which adjusts for the run-scoring environment and ballpark factors — declined by 5.2 percent, from an average of 118.1 pre-service to 111.9 in their first season back. But there were also cases like that of Ted Williams, who missed his age-24, 25 and 26 seasons and returned in 1946 to win the AL MVP award. Perhaps there was some aging effect in the group, but the average age of players in their return was 30.1 years, which likely placed near their prime performance years.
We get mostly the same results if we change our criteria slightly to get a bigger sample. Looking at the 37 players with at least 100 plate appearances, rather than 150, hitters’ performance slightly declined from a 111.4 OPS+ before WWII to a 107.2 mark in their return.
And if we look at all instances of one-plus seasons lost in service — adding one WWI case and eight Korean War veterans to our sample — there was only a slight performance dip (-0.9 percent).
Pitchers saw an even smaller effect.
Using ERA+, which also adjusts for stadium effects, the WWII veterans were 4.5 percent better upon their return. Take Bob Feller, who led the AL in wins in his last year before entering the war, but was better on a per-inning basis when he returned late in 1945. Looking at all pitchers in the group, they improved from a 108.2 ERA+ to a 114.3 mark.
When including all conflict-related cases — adding in one player who served in World War I and 10 Korean War veterans — the performance levels upon return were nearly flat. New York Yankees pitcher Whitey Ford returned after two years serving in the Korean War to go 18-6 with a 3.00 ERA.
So for those players that hope to return to affiliated games next year, perhaps they can take solace in the lack of dramatic decline in performance after military service. While World War II occurred more than 70 years ago, changes to technology and training practices have perhaps allowed game play to be less important to development today. After all, many modern career breakthroughs have occurred far from organized baseball fields. Yankees pitcher Adam Ottavino turned around his career thanks to a new pitch and better command honed in the confines of a Manhattan storefront. Los Angeles Dodgers third baseman Justin Turner and Boston Red Sox slugger J.D. Martinez rebuilt their swings and careers in various Los Angeles-area batting cages, morphing from bench players into stars. Indeed, some players are getting creative in the face of the pandemic.
Teams are, too. The Baltimore Orioles’ new leadership team is attempting to take advantage of the pause as best they can. Player development director Matt Blood has spent scores of hours with players on Zoom video calls this year. The video chats have focused on areas like mindfulness and nutrition. “Zoom dinners,” as Blood calls them, have pushed players to avoid relying on fast food. “We all cook the same meal, at the same time, so that we learn, and part of it is also so we can be together and see each other’s faces,” he said. The Orioles’ strength and conditioning staff helped players construct improvised weight-training equipment for those with limited means or without access to gyms, he added.
Of course, a major issue with players trying to develop away from their organizations is the lack of uniform access to facilities, tools and coaches.
Horacek said the Twins are in regular contact with their players but that there is no “set protocol” to follow. “I think they realize that they can’t ask too much of us because of the obstacles we face in training,” Horacek told FiveThirtyEight. “Many guys I know are just doing whatever they can, which certainly isn’t enough to develop.”
Even if clubs keep paying minor leaguers their paltry salaries, Horacek says players are looking for backup plans with so little future assurance of work — baseball has proposed reducing the affiliated minor leagues by 42 clubs next season. Horacek has started a web-development business that designs tools for teams and companies in the baseball business.
“I have a buddy who replied to his [organization’s] texts asking what he’s planning to do to ‘stay ready’ [by] saying ‘I’m not doing a goddamn thing for you guys anymore,’” Horacek wrote. “I think most players will shut it down until next year. Many will retire …. Some players might take this time to develop in the gym, but only those with the means to do that will be able.”
So perhaps the key question is not how players will develop without games, but how many will return at all.


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-31--Happy Birthday To Roy Williams, The Coach Who Never Changes

When the NCAA men ’ s basketball tournament was officially canceled on March 12 because of the coronavirus pandemic , it marked the end of one of the most unpredictable — and wide-open — seasons in recent memory .
We saw a record number of teams grab the top spot in the Associated Press rankings in the first few weeks of the season , and by season ’ s end , three of the top 10 teams in Ken Pomeroy ’ s final efficiency rankings — Baylor , San Diego State and Dayton — were relative newcomers ; two of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ season since 2002 , and Dayton hadn ’ t had any .
The season was aberrant in another sense , too .
It was the first losing season in the Hall of Fame career of North Carolina coach Roy Williams , and it would have been only the third time a Williams-coached team had missed the Big Dance .
Williams , who turns 70 on Saturday , is fourth all-time in NCAA Division I wins ( 885 ) , trailing only Bob Knight ( 899 ) and fellow ACC septuagenarians Jim Boeheim ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
He ’ s already passed his mentor and idol , the legendary Dean Smith , in wins and NCAA championships ( three to two ) , and he ’ s the only coach to have won 400 games at two different schools .
In 2019-20 , however , those records seemed a distant memory .
Though they were ranked No .
9 in the preseason , the Tar Heels quickly fell from national relevance after dropping four straight in December , including a home loss to lowly Wofford , and continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeats to start the new year .
It was a far cry from “ the best daggum bath [ he ’ d ] ever had with his clothes on , ” as “ Ol ’ Roy ” quipped after he was doused with ice water after the Tar Heels reached the 2017 Final Four .
The typically folksy Williams didn ’ t mince words .
This crew is “ the least gifted team I ’ ve ever coached in the time that I ’ ve been back here , ” Williams said after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dean E. Smith Center .
“ He should probably fire me , it probably wouldn ’ t be a bad idea , ” Williams said of UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham after the Tar Heels blew a late 10-point lead to Clemson , again at home .
Needless to say , last year ’ s Carolina team was hardly the vintage edition that observers have come to expect in Chapel Hill , where Williams built one of Division I ’ s most consistent programs , not only in terms of year-in , year-out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach amid countless changes to the sport .
Under Williams , the Tar Heels have always looked to score early in the shot clock — his UNC teams have played one of the fastest tempos in the country , with all but two of his 17 squads ranking in the top 50 of KenPom ’ s adjusted tempo .
If they don ’ t get a quick score in transition , they still typically look to score inside first , relying on skilled big men and crisp passing to execute the vaunted secondary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And they ’ ve crashed the offensive glass — all but one of his Carolina teams have ranked in the top 25 in offensive rebounding percentage .
Perhaps as a consequence of their inside-first approach , the Tar Heels have relied less on long-distance shooting than most teams .
Under Williams , UNC teams have only once ranked in the top 200 in 3-point shooting frequency ( No .
199 in 2006 ) , and they ’ ve ranked 349th ( 2014 ) and 350th ( 2015 ) out of 351 in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best outside shooting teams by 3-point percentage , the 2005 and 2009 teams , didn ’ t take many shots from downtown ; they ranked 230th and 300th , respectively , in 3-point attempt rate , even though they drilled threes at clips of 40.3 and 38.5 percent .
If that sounds like coaching malpractice by today ’ s standards , consider that both of those teams were kings of the Big Dance .
But perhaps more remarkable than Williams ’ s consistent strategy — and the fruits it has borne — is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relates to pace .
Since the 2003-04 season , just six teams have finished in the top 10 of both overall efficiency margin and tempo ; every single one of those teams was a Williams-led Carolina squad .
During Williams ’ s tenure , Carolina has finished in the top 10 in overall adjusted efficiency margin 11 times , and it has played at the fastest tempo among the top 10 nine of those times .
You don ’ t have to run at every opportunity to win in college basketball — 12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s national champions have sported adjusted tempos that ranked 100 or below — but Williams insists on doing it anyway .
Carolina ’ s consistent predilection for offensive rebounding and 2-pointers also belie a sport-wide trend away from both those strategies .
From 2004 to 2020 , the median offensive-rebounding rate across men ’ s college basketball crept down from 32.1 to 27.9 percent , and the share of field goal attempts shot from 2-point range fell from 67.3 to 62.5 percent .
Though those shifts explain each other to some extent — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offense , they ’ re less likely to be in a position to crash the glass — they haven ’ t led to a revolution in the Tar Heel offense .
Sure , in 2018-19 , Carolina ’ s last season of national relevance , the Heels grabbed 35.3 percent of available misses and 64.2 percent of their field goal attempts were 2-pointers , lower figures than they ’ ve typically produced under Williams .
But they still ranked near the top in offensive rebounding percentage ( 16th ) and near the bottom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate .
And of course , in a sport where recruiting is arguably the most important aspect of building a team , Williams has consistently done more with less talent than his competitors .
His recruiting classes at UNC have an average ranking of 17.6th in Division I , according to 247sports.com ’ s team rankings .
Compare that with three other traditional “ blue bloods , ” Duke , Kentucky and Kansas , whose average rankings in that time have been 12.1 , 4.8 and 14.1 .
Since Williams returned to Chapel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more NCAA titles , Final Fours and tournament wins than any of those programs , all while not radically changing its ethos of building its most successful teams around players who had stayed multiple years .
After the “ one-and-done ” era kicked off in 2006 , some coaches , like Kentucky ’ s John Calipari , became known for building their teams around highly touted recruits that otherwise would have gone straight from college to the pros , while others , like Duke ’ s Krzyzewski , gradually changed course to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teams .
Williams didn ’ t .
Williams had just four one-and-done players from 2006 through 2019 , compared to the 17 of his rival just up Highway 15-501 .
And those players on Williams ’ s teams haven ’ t played the same kind of starring roles as recent top freshmen on Coach K ’ s teams ; none led the team in scoring , and only two ( Brandan Wright and Coby White ) started for UNC .
Though North Carolina ’ s recruiting malaise from 2014 to 2017 , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 28.3 , could be attributed to the academic scandal that cast a pall over the men ’ s basketball team , Williams arguably benefited from largely landing the players who would stay multiple years and anchor championship-caliber teams .
Only one of Carolina ’ s five Final Four appearances under Williams has involved a top-10 freshman recruiting class ( 2005 , with the No .
10 class in the country ) .
For every Zion Williamson or Andrew Wiggins who chose another school , he got a Marcus Paige or Joel Berry who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years and helped guide their teams deep into the NCAA tournament .
And in March , there ’ s no better coach than Ol ’ Roy : According to Bart Torvik ’ s coach ratings , his performance against KenPom expectations is the best in college basketball since he arrived in Chapel Hill .
Williams has bucked the trends over the years , whether it ’ s in stubbornly sticking to his offensive game plan , refusing to call timeouts or succeeding with lower-ranked recruiting classes and more experienced players than his blue-blood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t always turn out in his favor : He might not have won the adulation of his contemporaries , nor will he ( in his mind ) ever eclipse the greatness of his mentor Smith .
And it ’ s possible that his intransigence caught up with him in a disastrous 2019-20 season that the baby-blue fan base hopes to soon forget .
But , daggum it , why would Roy change now ?

Happy Birthday To Roy Williams, The Coach Who Never Changes As the UNC men’s basketball coach turns 70, we look back on the remarkably consistent career he’s had so far.
When the NCAA men’s basketball tournament was officially canceled on March 12 because of the coronavirus pandemic, it marked the end of one of the most unpredictable — and wide-open — seasons in recent memory. We saw a record number of teams grab the top spot in the Associated Press rankings in the first few weeks of the season, and by season’s end, three of the top 10 teams in Ken Pomeroy’s final efficiency rankings — Baylor, San Diego State and Dayton — were relative newcomers; two of them had only had one previous top-10 season since 2002, and Dayton hadn’t had any.
The season was aberrant in another sense, too. It was the first losing season in the Hall of Fame career of North Carolina coach Roy Williams, and it would have been only the third time a Williams-coached team had missed the Big Dance. Williams, who turns 70 on Saturday, is fourth all-time in NCAA Division I wins (885), trailing only Bob Knight (899) and fellow ACC septuagenarians Jim Boeheim (1,065) and Mike Krzyzewski (1,157). He’s already passed his mentor and idol, the legendary Dean Smith, in wins and NCAA championships (three to two), and he’s the only coach to have won 400 games at two different schools.
In 2019-20, however, those records seemed a distant memory. Though they were ranked No. 9 in the preseason, the Tar Heels quickly fell from national relevance after dropping four straight in December, including a home loss to lowly Wofford, and continued their slide into January with five straight defeats to start the new year. It was a far cry from “the best daggum bath [he’d] ever had with his clothes on,” as “Ol’ Roy” quipped after he was doused with ice water after the Tar Heels reached the 2017 Final Four. The typically folksy Williams didn’t mince words.
This crew is “the least gifted team I’ve ever coached in the time that I’ve been back here,” Williams said after Georgia Tech thumped Carolina 96-83 at the Dean E. Smith Center.
“He should probably fire me, it probably wouldn’t be a bad idea,” Williams said of UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham after the Tar Heels blew a late 10-point lead to Clemson, again at home.
Needless to say, last year’s Carolina team was hardly the vintage edition that observers have come to expect in Chapel Hill, where Williams built one of Division I’s most consistent programs, not only in terms of year-in, year-out performance, but also in its steady approach amid countless changes to the sport.
Under Williams, the Tar Heels have always looked to score early in the shot clock — his UNC teams have played one of the fastest tempos in the country, with all but two of his 17 squads ranking in the top 50 of KenPom’s adjusted tempo. If they don’t get a quick score in transition, they still typically look to score inside first, relying on skilled big men and crisp passing to execute the vaunted secondary break that Williams inherited from Smith. And they’ve crashed the offensive glass — all but one of his Carolina teams have ranked in the top 25 in offensive rebounding percentage.
Perhaps as a consequence of their inside-first approach, the Tar Heels have relied less on long-distance shooting than most teams. Under Williams, UNC teams have only once ranked in the top 200 in 3-point shooting frequency (No. 199 in 2006), and they’ve ranked 349th (2014) and 350th (2015) out of 351 in that metric. Even Williams’s two best outside shooting teams by 3-point percentage, the 2005 and 2009 teams, didn’t take many shots from downtown; they ranked 230th and 300th, respectively, in 3-point attempt rate, even though they drilled threes at clips of 40.3 and 38.5 percent. If that sounds like coaching malpractice by today’s standards, consider that both of those teams were kings of the Big Dance.
But perhaps more remarkable than Williams’s consistent strategy — and the fruits it has borne — is its relative novelty, especially as it relates to pace. Since the 2003-04 season, just six teams have finished in the top 10 of both overall efficiency margin and tempo; every single one of those teams was a Williams-led Carolina squad. During Williams’s tenure, Carolina has finished in the top 10 in overall adjusted efficiency margin 11 times, and it has played at the fastest tempo among the top 10 nine of those times. You don’t have to run at every opportunity to win in college basketball — 12 of the last 13 non-UNC men’s national champions have sported adjusted tempos that ranked 100 or below — but Williams insists on doing it anyway.
Carolina’s consistent predilection for offensive rebounding and 2-pointers also belie a sport-wide trend away from both those strategies. From 2004 to 2020, the median offensive-rebounding rate across men’s college basketball crept down from 32.1 to 27.9 percent, and the share of field goal attempts shot from 2-point range fell from 67.3 to 62.5 percent. Though those shifts explain each other to some extent — as teams are more spread out on offense, they’re less likely to be in a position to crash the glass — they haven’t led to a revolution in the Tar Heel offense. Sure, in 2018-19, Carolina’s last season of national relevance, the Heels grabbed 35.3 percent of available misses and 64.2 percent of their field goal attempts were 2-pointers, lower figures than they’ve typically produced under Williams. But they still ranked near the top in offensive rebounding percentage (16th) and near the bottom (253rd) in 3-point field goal rate.
And of course, in a sport where recruiting is arguably the most important aspect of building a team, Williams has consistently done more with less talent than his competitors. His recruiting classes at UNC have an average ranking of 17.6th in Division I, according to 247sports.com’s team rankings. Compare that with three other traditional “blue bloods,” Duke, Kentucky and Kansas, whose average rankings in that time have been 12.1, 4.8 and 14.1. Since Williams returned to Chapel Hill in 2003, UNC has amassed more NCAA titles, Final Fours and tournament wins than any of those programs, all while not radically changing its ethos of building its most successful teams around players who had stayed multiple years.
After the “one-and-done” era kicked off in 2006, some coaches, like Kentucky’s John Calipari, became known for building their teams around highly touted recruits that otherwise would have gone straight from college to the pros, while others, like Duke’s Krzyzewski, gradually changed course to make those players the focal point of their teams. Williams didn’t. Williams had just four one-and-done players from 2006 through 2019, compared to the 17 of his rival just up Highway 15-501. And those players on Williams’s teams haven’t played the same kind of starring roles as recent top freshmen on Coach K’s teams; none led the team in scoring, and only two (Brandan Wright and Coby White) started for UNC.
Though North Carolina’s recruiting malaise from 2014 to 2017, when the average UNC recruiting class ranking was 28.3, could be attributed to the academic scandal that cast a pall over the men’s basketball team, Williams arguably benefited from largely landing the players who would stay multiple years and anchor championship-caliber teams. Only one of Carolina’s five Final Four appearances under Williams has involved a top-10 freshman recruiting class (2005, with the No. 10 class in the country). For every Zion Williamson or Andrew Wiggins who chose another school, he got a Marcus Paige or Joel Berry who learned the North Carolina system over four years and helped guide their teams deep into the NCAA tournament. And in March, there’s no better coach than Ol’ Roy: According to Bart Torvik’s coach ratings, his performance against KenPom expectations is the best in college basketball since he arrived in Chapel Hill.
Williams has bucked the trends over the years, whether it’s in stubbornly sticking to his offensive game plan, refusing to call timeouts or succeeding with lower-ranked recruiting classes and more experienced players than his blue-blood counterparts. Sticking to his guns doesn’t always turn out in his favor: He might not have won the adulation of his contemporaries, nor will he (in his mind) ever eclipse the greatness of his mentor Smith. And it’s possible that his intransigence caught up with him in a disastrous 2019-20 season that the baby-blue fan base hopes to soon forget.
But, daggum it, why would Roy change now?


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-30--Confidence Interval: Biden Will Choose Kamala Harris As His VP?

Welcome to another episode of Confidence Interval , where we make a persuasive case for a hot take … and @ @ @ @ @ really feel about the idea .
This time , elections analyst Nathaniel Rakich argues that @ @ @ @ @ Kamala Harris as his running mate .

Welcome to another episode of Confidence Interval, where we make a persuasive case for a hot take … and then reveal how confident we really feel about the idea. This time, elections analyst Nathaniel Rakich argues that Joe Biden will pick Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate.