fivethirthyeight--2020-10-20--Why A Gamer Started A Web Of Disinformation Sites Aimed At Latino Americans

This article was written in collaboration with First Draft , a nonprofit organization that provides investigative research to newsrooms tracking and reporting on mis- and disinformation .
When we picture the entity behind a network of disinformation websites , a few archetypes spring to mind : shadowy figures intent on interfering with democracy , Russian agents , Macedonian teens .
Not usually included : a gamer from a suburb of New York City who sells coffee beans with his wife at the local farmers market on weekends .
But that ’ s precisely who was behind three sites that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misleading , hyperpartisan Spanish-language content on both the left and right .
They were just a few sites in a broader ecosystem of misinformation — and disinformation — that spreads such narratives to millions of Americans .
But their story has something to tell us about the misinformation industrial complex overall .
Sean Reynolds , a YouTuber , gamer and entrepreneur , was the owner and operator of three websites and affiliated Facebook pages that peddled in misinformation , predominantly in Spanish .
The existence of the network was first reported by Politico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Reynolds revealed why he started the sites .
Namely , he said , he saw an opportunity .
“ These websites and the content on them do not reflect my personal political leanings , ” Reynolds wrote in a direct message on Twitter .
“ I am non-discriminating towards opportunities where there is demand and no supply , which in this case , there was no political opinion pieces written in Spanish on Facebook , so I found writers ( ghostwriters ) interested to fill that demand.
” Reynolds did not respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but did say he does not personally write the content on the sites .
In a video he posted on his gaming channel , he identified as half Jamaican and half German .
Since 2017 , Reynolds has operated the three websites and their affiliated Facebook pages : PoliticaVeraz.com , which published right-leaning content , AlertaPolitica.org , which published left-leaning content , and LeftOverRights.com , a left-leaning site which initially ran English-language stories but switched to publishing in Spanish this August .
When all three sites were active , they would each regularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread those stories through Facebook , where they would typically attract thousands of shares .
After FiveThirtyEight contacted him , Reynolds took all three sites and their Facebook pages offline .
A FiveThirtyEight investigation found multiple links that tied Reynolds to the sites , including a common server and IP address among his personal website and his other confirmed businesses , the same Google AdSense and Analytics code for his personal sites and these pages and corporate records listing Reynolds as a process agent for both Left Over Rights LLC and Alerta Politica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an LLC for Politica Veraz ) .
Reynolds also confirmed to FiveThirtyEight that he ran the sites .
Much of the content these sites published was misleading and hyperpartisan .
A recent story on Politica Veraz , for example , claimed that Joe Biden had “ forgotten the words to the Pledge of Allegiance , ” when in actuality he quoted part of the pledge for emphasis in a speech .
Meanwhile , recent stories published on Left Over Rights deployed spin from a left-leaning perspective , such as a story about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had “ destroyed ” Vice President Mike Pence by asking him not to interrupt her .
The disinformation on Politica Veraz , in particular , often echoed messaging that was already circulating in far-right communities online and among followers of the QAnon conspiracy theory , pushing it towards a more mainstream audience .
One article claimed that President Trump ’ s life was in mortal danger after he gave a speech at a Whirlpool Corporation Manufacturing Plant in Clyde , Ohio , where he said he had many enemies and that “ this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me for a while ” when discussing lower prices for pharmaceuticals .
And while Reynolds said the sites ’ content had minimal reach , that story was shared more than 6,000 times on Facebook , according to social media data tool BuzzSumo , and received nearly 40,000 interactions ( reactions , shares , and comments combined ) .
Similar messaging had been amplified by right-leaning users on Twitter before the Politica Veraz piece was published , including a tweet from an account that regularly shares theories associated with QAnon that was retweeted or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reynolds ’ s sites are far from the only source of misinformation targeting the Latino community .
There are sites , Facebook pages and YouTube channels that operate on the margins , attracting little mainstream notice while garnering audiences in the hundreds of thousands .
Their stories — rife with misleading spins on the news and outright falsehoods — are shared across social media and privately in messaging apps .
They target communities that have fewer trusted sources that cater directly to them , according to media experts we spoke to , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And experts say this kind of misinformation can lead to voters not only being misinformed , but also feeling disillusioned by the political process .
Nevertheless , Reynolds said his goals weren ’ t necessarily to inform , misinform or disinform , but to make a little bit of money .
So little money that he didn ’ t think twice about taking the sites down as soon as he was contacted by a reporter .
“ I will say , though , that these websites ( all three ) were scheduled to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not posting and not generating any income to keep them running , ” Reynolds wrote .
( Two of the sites stopped uploading new posts in August and September , respectively . )
“ But now I ’ m getting contacted about them , and I just don ’ t have time for anything else , so I will have their closings sped up.
” Reynolds ’ s sites represent a brand of misinformation fueled by the ease and profitability of building an audience on social media , according to Joan Donovan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Social media companies have incentivized disinformation by rewarding it with financial dollars , ” Donovan explained .
“ The fact that he was targeting Latinos with Spanish-language disinformation or misinformation from either side of the aisle shows a kind of willingness to create chaos so long as it makes money.
” It ’ s not as if the content was simply a translated version of English-language misinformation , either .
It clearly targeted the Latino community , playing into existing fears such as worries about socialism , given its history in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Some of the key narratives are around the perceived threat of socialism coming into the United States , and connecting that to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris , ” said Jacobo Licona , a disinformation researcher for Equis Labs , a Latinx voter research group .
“ Another one we often see is trying to discredit Black Lives Matter and paint them as violent .
Since the murder of George Floyd , we ’ ve seen an increased effort by these bad actors in Latinx spaces to fuel racial tension in Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted stories that played into these threads , like one that called the Obamas “ Marxists ” or another that inaccurately reported two Los Angeles County Sheriff ’ s Department deputies shot in Compton were “ ambushed by Black Lives Matter.
” This misinformation is being seeded in the midst of an election where Latino voters represent a powerful voting bloc .
While Trump is trailing Biden among Latino voters in national polls , the margin is narrower in the key battleground state Florida .
In a Univision poll released on Sept. 28 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they planned to cast a ballot for Biden , compared to 19 percent who were committed to Trump .
But in Florida , 36 percent of Latino voters said they favored Trump .
Reynolds said his content was not effective and that the sites were not profitable or popular , and that he had been planning to shut them down before he was contacted by FiveThirtyEight .
But data tells a different story .
Combined , the three site ’ s Facebook pages had nearly 1 million likes and followers , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interactions on its Facebook posts since July , according to data from Crowdtangle .
The allure of sensational , emotionally provocative misinformation is well documented .
But this content was also able to appeal to an audience facing a dearth of targeted media , according to Randy Pestana , the assistant director of research at Florida International University ’ s Institute for Public Policy .
“ The media outlets that appeal to Hispanics are limited .
There are not a lot of them out there , and the ones that are out there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Pestana said .
“ There ’ s this movement where everything is ‘ fake news ’ if it doesn ’ t align with your opinion.
” He also noted that many Latino Americans consume news through social media , including Facebook and WhatsApp , making it easier for this kind of content to spread .
The share of Latino Americans who get their news from the internet is higher than that of the U.S. population overall , according to surveys from the Pew Research Center .
In a 2016 survey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respondents got their news online on a typical weekday , whereas a 2017 Pew survey found that 43 percent of the total population “ often ” got their news online .
And while social media platforms have been cracking down on English-language misinformation to a certain degree , Spanish-language disinformation doesn ’ t always receive the same treatment , Pestana said .
Reynolds ’ s sites are now shut down , but there are plenty of other misinformation sources targeting Latino Americans .
As we head into the final weeks of an election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most influential voting blocs continue to be bombarded with false information .
“ The worst examples of the potential consequences of this is what we saw in 2016 : People felt so disenfranchised by the political process that they opted not to participate in it , ” said Steven Renderos , the executive director of MediaJustice , a nonprofit that focuses on racial inequality in communications .
“ That ’ s the risk we ’ re facing here today , that people will just opt out of engaging .
”

This article was written in collaboration with First Draft, a nonprofit organization that provides investigative research to newsrooms tracking and reporting on mis- and disinformation.
When we picture the entity behind a network of disinformation websites, a few archetypes spring to mind: shadowy figures intent on interfering with democracy, Russian agents, Macedonian teens. Not usually included: a gamer from a suburb of New York City who sells coffee beans with his wife at the local farmers market on weekends. But that’s precisely who was behind three sites that, until last week, were pumping out misleading, hyperpartisan Spanish-language content on both the left and right. They were just a few sites in a broader ecosystem of misinformation — and disinformation — that spreads such narratives to millions of Americans. But their story has something to tell us about the misinformation industrial complex overall.
Sean Reynolds, a YouTuber, gamer and entrepreneur, was the owner and operator of three websites and affiliated Facebook pages that peddled in misinformation, predominantly in Spanish. The existence of the network was first reported by Politico last week, but an exclusive interview with Reynolds revealed why he started the sites.
Namely, he said, he saw an opportunity.
“These websites and the content on them do not reflect my personal political leanings,” Reynolds wrote in a direct message on Twitter. “I am non-discriminating towards opportunities where there is demand and no supply, which in this case, there was no political opinion pieces written in Spanish on Facebook, so I found writers (ghostwriters) interested to fill that demand.” Reynolds did not respond when FiveThirtyEight asked whether he speaks Spanish but did say he does not personally write the content on the sites. In a video he posted on his gaming channel, he identified as half Jamaican and half German.
Since 2017, Reynolds has operated the three websites and their affiliated Facebook pages: PoliticaVeraz.com, which published right-leaning content, AlertaPolitica.org, which published left-leaning content, and LeftOverRights.com, a left-leaning site which initially ran English-language stories but switched to publishing in Spanish this August. When all three sites were active, they would each regularly publish 5-10 stories per day and then spread those stories through Facebook, where they would typically attract thousands of shares. After FiveThirtyEight contacted him, Reynolds took all three sites and their Facebook pages offline.
A FiveThirtyEight investigation found multiple links that tied Reynolds to the sites, including a common server and IP address among his personal website and his other confirmed businesses, the same Google AdSense and Analytics code for his personal sites and these pages and corporate records listing Reynolds as a process agent for both Left Over Rights LLC and Alerta Politica LLC (there was no record of an LLC for Politica Veraz). Reynolds also confirmed to FiveThirtyEight that he ran the sites.
Much of the content these sites published was misleading and hyperpartisan. A recent story on Politica Veraz, for example, claimed that Joe Biden had “forgotten the words to the Pledge of Allegiance,” when in actuality he quoted part of the pledge for emphasis in a speech. Meanwhile, recent stories published on Left Over Rights deployed spin from a left-leaning perspective, such as a story about the vice presidential debate declaring Sen. Kamala Harris had “destroyed” Vice President Mike Pence by asking him not to interrupt her.
The disinformation on Politica Veraz, in particular, often echoed messaging that was already circulating in far-right communities online and among followers of the QAnon conspiracy theory, pushing it towards a more mainstream audience. One article claimed that President Trump’s life was in mortal danger after he gave a speech at a Whirlpool Corporation Manufacturing Plant in Clyde, Ohio, where he said he had many enemies and that “this may be the last time you see me for a while” when discussing lower prices for pharmaceuticals. And while Reynolds said the sites’ content had minimal reach, that story was shared more than 6,000 times on Facebook, according to social media data tool BuzzSumo, and received nearly 40,000 interactions (reactions, shares, and comments combined). Similar messaging had been amplified by right-leaning users on Twitter before the Politica Veraz piece was published, including a tweet from an account that regularly shares theories associated with QAnon that was retweeted or quote tweeted more than 12,000 times.
Reynolds’s sites are far from the only source of misinformation targeting the Latino community. There are sites, Facebook pages and YouTube channels that operate on the margins, attracting little mainstream notice while garnering audiences in the hundreds of thousands. Their stories — rife with misleading spins on the news and outright falsehoods — are shared across social media and privately in messaging apps. They target communities that have fewer trusted sources that cater directly to them, according to media experts we spoke to, and amplify misinformation originating from extremist communities. And experts say this kind of misinformation can lead to voters not only being misinformed, but also feeling disillusioned by the political process.
Nevertheless, Reynolds said his goals weren’t necessarily to inform, misinform or disinform, but to make a little bit of money. So little money that he didn’t think twice about taking the sites down as soon as he was contacted by a reporter.
“I will say, though, that these websites (all three) were scheduled to be fully closed after the months of not posting and not generating any income to keep them running,” Reynolds wrote. (Two of the sites stopped uploading new posts in August and September, respectively.) “But now I’m getting contacted about them, and I just don’t have time for anything else, so I will have their closings sped up.”
Reynolds’s sites represent a brand of misinformation fueled by the ease and profitability of building an audience on social media, according to Joan Donovan, a researcher of disinformation at Harvard University.
“Social media companies have incentivized disinformation by rewarding it with financial dollars,” Donovan explained. “The fact that he was targeting Latinos with Spanish-language disinformation or misinformation from either side of the aisle shows a kind of willingness to create chaos so long as it makes money.”
It’s not as if the content was simply a translated version of English-language misinformation, either. It clearly targeted the Latino community, playing into existing fears such as worries about socialism, given its history in authoritarian Central and South American governments.
“Some of the key narratives are around the perceived threat of socialism coming into the United States, and connecting that to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris,” said Jacobo Licona, a disinformation researcher for Equis Labs, a Latinx voter research group. “Another one we often see is trying to discredit Black Lives Matter and paint them as violent. Since the murder of George Floyd, we’ve seen an increased effort by these bad actors in Latinx spaces to fuel racial tension in Black and brown communities.”
Politica Veraz regularly posted stories that played into these threads, like one that called the Obamas “Marxists” or another that inaccurately reported two Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department deputies shot in Compton were “ambushed by Black Lives Matter.”
This misinformation is being seeded in the midst of an election where Latino voters represent a powerful voting bloc. While Trump is trailing Biden among Latino voters in national polls, the margin is narrower in the key battleground state Florida. In a Univision poll released on Sept. 28, 52 percent of Latino voters nationally said they planned to cast a ballot for Biden, compared to 19 percent who were committed to Trump. But in Florida, 36 percent of Latino voters said they favored Trump.
Reynolds said his content was not effective and that the sites were not profitable or popular, and that he had been planning to shut them down before he was contacted by FiveThirtyEight. But data tells a different story. Combined, the three site’s Facebook pages had nearly 1 million likes and followers, and Politica Veraz alone attracted more than 500,000 interactions on its Facebook posts since July, according to data from Crowdtangle.
The allure of sensational, emotionally provocative misinformation is well documented. But this content was also able to appeal to an audience facing a dearth of targeted media, according to Randy Pestana, the assistant director of research at Florida International University’s Institute for Public Policy.
“The media outlets that appeal to Hispanics are limited. There are not a lot of them out there, and the ones that are out there more recently have been called fake news,” Pestana said. “There’s this movement where everything is ‘fake news’ if it doesn’t align with your opinion.”
He also noted that many Latino Americans consume news through social media, including Facebook and WhatsApp, making it easier for this kind of content to spread. The share of Latino Americans who get their news from the internet is higher than that of the U.S. population overall, according to surveys from the Pew Research Center. In a 2016 survey, Pew found that 74 percent of Latino respondents got their news online on a typical weekday, whereas a 2017 Pew survey found that 43 percent of the total population “often” got their news online. And while social media platforms have been cracking down on English-language misinformation to a certain degree, Spanish-language disinformation doesn’t always receive the same treatment, Pestana said.
Reynolds’s sites are now shut down, but there are plenty of other misinformation sources targeting Latino Americans. As we head into the final weeks of an election, many members of one of the most influential voting blocs continue to be bombarded with false information.
“The worst examples of the potential consequences of this is what we saw in 2016: People felt so disenfranchised by the political process that they opted not to participate in it,” said Steven Renderos, the executive director of MediaJustice, a nonprofit that focuses on racial inequality in communications. “That’s the risk we’re facing here today, that people will just opt out of engaging.”


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-20--What To Watch For In One Of The Most Intriguing World Series Ever

After a big comeback in one league ’ s championship series — and an even bigger comeback that wasn ’ t in the other — the World Series is finally set , with the Tampa Bay Rays and Los Angeles Dodgers meeting up for Game 1 tonight in Arlington , Texas .
Here are some of the biggest factors that jump out as we look ahead to the Fall Classic : These are legitimately the two best teams in baseball … Sorry to burst anyone ’ s bubble , but the World Series doesn ’ t always feature MLB ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I know . )
In this case , though , it ’ s hard to argue that we aren ’ t seeing the true cream of baseball ’ s crop on the game ’ s biggest stage .
During the regular season , Tampa Bay and Los Angeles each had the best records in their respective leagues , which is only the fourth time that has happened in a World Series matchup since the wild-card era began in 1994 .
( The other series that fit the description came in 2013 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to occur every year , of course — by definition — but it ’ s only happened a little over 25 percent of the time since the League Championship Series was introduced in 1969 .
According to our team rankings , the Dodgers and Rays also rank first and second in Elo rating , respectively .
That makes this only the ninth time that baseball has seen a college-football-esque No .
1-vs.-2 championship matchup in the past 35 years : … but the Dodgers are pretty sizable favorites .
In the list above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost just as often as it won — sometimes in an unexpected sweep , even .
Weird things can happen in baseball ’ s postseason … but don ’ t necessarily count on that this time around .
With a gap of 45 Elo points separating them from the Rays , the Dodgers are the 15th-biggest favorite in World Series history and are tied for the fifth-biggest since 1969 : Again , this being baseball , some of the biggest underdogs ended up winning .
( Cincinnati ’ s sweep of the 103-win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go down as one of history ’ s most stunning routs , and the Reds were the underdog by just a bit wider Elo margin than the Rays are currently to the Dodgers . )
Accordingly , our prediction model gives Los Angeles a 69 percent chance of winning its first title since 1988 — big by baseball standards , but far from a sure thing .
The matchup is a fitting commentary on team-building in 2020 .
The Dodgers had baseball ’ s third-largest payroll this season , according to Baseball-Reference.com @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Houston Astros and New York Yankees .
The Rays , meanwhile , had baseball ’ s third-smallest payroll , ahead of only the Miami Marlins and Pittsburgh Pirates .
Going back to 1998 — when MLB expanded to its current 30-team structure — that 25-spot difference in salary ranking between L.A. and Tampa Bay is the biggest for any World Series : Traditionally , these big salary mismatches haven ’ t gone well for the poorer team .
Of the 10 most lopsided battles on the list above , nine were won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talent — the only exception being the 2003 World Series , in which the then-Florida Marlins outdueled the favored Yankees in six games .
But in a larger sense , the Dodgers and Rays both tell us about where the sport has headed over the past few decades .
When Tampa Bay made its big leap into contention in 2008 , “ Moneyball ” ( the book ) was only 5 years old , and the use of analytics for team-building was still more the province of small-market teams like the Rays than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s general manager back then ?
A 31-year-old former financial analyst named Andrew Friedman — who happens to now be the Dodgers ’ president of baseball operations .
Not coincidentally , the Dodgers typify the way big-market clubs have subsumed the lessons learned by smaller teams scraping for every edge .
Where the late-2000s Rays had Ben Zobrist , Los Angeles now has an army of multi-positional fielders ; where ex-Rays manager Joe Maddon was hailed for helping reintroduce the defensive shift to baseball , no team in the regular season shifted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To the credit of Tampa Bay ’ s current brain trust , it still managed to build an exceptional all-around team on a shoestring budget .
But the Dodgers built one of those , too — while paying Clayton Kershaw , Mookie Betts , Justin Turner and Kenley Jansen more than the Rays ’ entire roster combined .
The Rays are relying on slick defense , timely pitching — and the Randy Arozarena Show .
The Rays were not an elite pure hitting team in the regular season , and they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the playoffs — among the eight teams that made the division series , Tampa Bay ranks seventh in postseason batting average , on-base percentage , slugging and OPS .
Only three regular Rays hitters have an OPS over .780 in the playoffs : Ji-Man Choi ( .952 ) , Manny Margot ( .967 ) and — of course — ALCS MVP Randy Arozarena ( 1.288 ) .
Arozarena ’ s seven home runs set a new rookie record and are tied ( behind Nelson Cruz in 2011 , Carlos Beltran in 2004 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second-most ever in a single postseason .
But the Rays have arguably relied too much on Arozarena and the long ball ; 72 percent of their runs in the playoffs have come via the home run , the largest share ever for a pennant-winner going into a World Series , according to the Elias Sports Bureau .
Tampa Bay could stand to get more from some of its flagging hitters — most notably second baseman Brandon Lowe , who carries a dismal .366 postseason OPS after posting a .916 mark during the regular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t be easy to overcome .
Among division-series contestants , L.A. pitchers easily have the best fielding independent pitching ( FIP ) this postseason , with the second-best rates of strikeouts and home runs allowed .
Though Arozarena also had great numbers ( 1.023 OPS ) in limited playing time during the regular season , he ’ ll probably regress to the mean some in the World Series .
Will his teammates pick up the slack ?
On the other side of the ball , the Rays have relied on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key out at the right moment .
Tampa ’ s pitchers have stranded a playoff-high 85.5 percent of runners on base , and only the Astros had a larger gap than the Rays have had between their ERA ( 3.36 ) and FIP ( 4.65 ) in the postseason .
Both of those stats tend to regress to the mean as well — though we ’ d also expect the quartet of Blake Snell , Tyler Glasnow , Nick Anderson and Ryan Yarbrough , who combined for a 3.69 regular-season FIP , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mark .
The real question is how much they can limit the damage from an L.A. lineup that led the majors in regular-season scoring and produced an .850 OPS against the Atlanta Braves in the NLCS , with four regular hitters ( Corey Seager , Kiké Hernández , Max Muncy and Joc Pederson ) above .970 in the series .
This is another major chapter in Clayton Kershaw ’ s complicated story .
After losing his lone start of the NLCS , it looked like 2020 might be the latest in a long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But L.A. ’ s comeback gives him another shot at redemption .
And one start shouldn ’ t define his playoffs as a whole , anyway .
Over the entire postseason , Kershaw is 2-1 with a 3.32 ERA and 3.14 FIP in 19 innings … pretty solid numbers , all told .
( For comparison , he had a 3.31 FIP during the regular season . )
That ’ s kind of par for the course , though : Kershaw has not been as bad in the playoffs as we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has the same career postseason FIP ( 3.74 ) as legendary money pitcher Jack Morris , for instance — yet he has also faltered in some pretty high-profile games .
His legacy is complicated , without a doubt , and that fact is certain to come into play sooner or later in this World Series .
Perhaps the bigger postseason question for Kershaw is just how many prime chances he ’ ll have left to win a ring after 2020 .
Though he had his best season in three years according to WAR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 33 next season , an area of the aging curve in which pitchers typically see their strikeouts drop and their FIPs rise .
And while the Dodgers should still be plenty good next year , more than a few familiar faces from this current quasi-dynasty are set to be free agents after this season , including Pederson , Hernández and Turner .
( Kershaw himself has a contract that expires the offseason after next . )
It ’ s hard not to think that this is one of the last , best championship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It should be a very good World Series .
According to ESPN Stats & Info , the Dodgers and Rays ’ combined .692 winning percentage is the highest for any World Series in history .
That ’ s in part due to the fact that league-leading records will be more extreme in a smaller sample — and the 2020 season was baseball ’ s shortest since 1878 .
But these teams also look good if we look at metrics that are theoretically regressed to account for such a short schedule .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Elo ratings in each World Series , this matchup shows up as the 13th-best in history and the third-best since 1953 : That also squares with the thrills both teams have already provided so far in the postseason .
If the twin seven-game league championship series were any indication , we should be in for a treat as the Rays and Dodgers take the field over the next week or so .

What To Watch For In One Of The Most Intriguing World Series Ever The Rays and Dodgers are a study in contrasts — and similarities.
After a big comeback in one league’s championship series — and an even bigger comeback that wasn’t in the other — the World Series is finally set, with the Tampa Bay Rays and Los Angeles Dodgers meeting up for Game 1 tonight in Arlington, Texas. Here are some of the biggest factors that jump out as we look ahead to the Fall Classic:
These are legitimately the two best teams in baseball …
Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but the World Series doesn’t always feature MLB’s two best teams. (Scandalous, I know.) In this case, though, it’s hard to argue that we aren’t seeing the true cream of baseball’s crop on the game’s biggest stage. During the regular season, Tampa Bay and Los Angeles each had the best records in their respective leagues, which is only the fourth time that has happened in a World Series matchup since the wild-card era began in 1994. (The other series that fit the description came in 2013, 1999 and 1995.) That used to occur every year, of course — by definition — but it’s only happened a little over 25 percent of the time since the League Championship Series was introduced in 1969.
According to our team rankings, the Dodgers and Rays also rank first and second in Elo rating, respectively. That makes this only the ninth time that baseball has seen a college-football-esque No. 1-vs.-2 championship matchup in the past 35 years:
No. 1-vs.-2 World Series matchups like this are rare World Series matchups since 1985 featuring MLB’s Nos. 1 and 2 teams in our pre-series Elo ratings Year No. 1 Team No. 2 Team Winner (Series Record) 2020 Dodgers Rays ??? 2016 Cubs Indians No. 1 (4-3) 2013 Red Sox Cardinals No. 1 (4-2) 2007 Red Sox Rockies No. 1 (4-0) 2004 Cardinals Red Sox No. 2 (4-0) 1999 Braves Yankees No. 2 (4-0) 1995 Indians Braves No. 2 (4-2) 1991 Braves Twins No. 2 (4-3) 1989 Athletics Giants No. 1 (4-0) Source: Retrosheet
… but the Dodgers are pretty sizable favorites.
In the list above, the No. 1 team actually lost just as often as it won — sometimes in an unexpected sweep, even. Weird things can happen in baseball’s postseason … but don’t necessarily count on that this time around. With a gap of 45 Elo points separating them from the Rays, the Dodgers are the 15th-biggest favorite in World Series history and are tied for the fifth-biggest since 1969:
The biggest World Series mismatches (on paper) Biggest gap in pre-series Elo ratings for World Series teams, 1969-2020 Favorite Underdog Year Team Elo Rating Team Elo Rating Elo Gap Outcome? 1970 Orioles 1606 Reds 1538 +68 Win (4-1) 1998 Yankees 1602 Padres 1546 +56 Win (4-0) 1975 Reds 1602 Red Sox 1547 +54 Win (4-3) 1990 Athletics 1583 Reds 1529 +54 Loss (0-4) 2020 Dodgers 1609 Rays 1564 +45 ??? 1984 Tigers 1573 Padres 1527 +45 Win (4-1) 2011 Rangers 1586 Cardinals 1546 +39 Loss (3-4) 1986 Mets 1581 Red Sox 1543 +38 Win (4-3) 1985 Cardinals 1570 Royals 1532 +38 Loss (3-4) 1988 Athletics 1575 Dodgers 1538 +37 Loss (1-4) 2006 Tigers 1555 Cardinals 1518 +37 Loss (1-4) 1971 Orioles 1599 Pirates 1562 +37 Loss (3-4) 1995 Indians 1604 Braves 1570 +34 Loss (2-4) 2016 Cubs 1589 Indians 1556 +33 Win (4-3) 2009 Yankees 1589 Phillies 1557 +33 Win (4-2) Source: Retrosheet
Again, this being baseball, some of the biggest underdogs ended up winning. (Cincinnati’s sweep of the 103-win Oakland A’s in 1990 has to go down as one of history’s most stunning routs, and the Reds were the underdog by just a bit wider Elo margin than the Rays are currently to the Dodgers.) Accordingly, our prediction model gives Los Angeles a 69 percent chance of winning its first title since 1988 — big by baseball standards, but far from a sure thing.
The matchup is a fitting commentary on team-building in 2020.
The Dodgers had baseball’s third-largest payroll this season, according to Baseball-Reference.com’s salary data, trailing only the Houston Astros and New York Yankees. The Rays, meanwhile, had baseball’s third-smallest payroll, ahead of only the Miami Marlins and Pittsburgh Pirates. Going back to 1998 — when MLB expanded to its current 30-team structure — that 25-spot difference in salary ranking between L.A. and Tampa Bay is the biggest for any World Series:
Rich team, poor team Biggest gap in MLB payroll ranking between two World Series opponents since 1998 Higher-Paid Club Lower-Paid Club Year Team Payroll Rk Team Payroll Rk Diff. Rich Club Win? 2020 Dodgers 3 Rays 28 25 ??? 2003 Yankees 1 Marlins 25 24 2007 Red Sox 2 Rockies 25 23 ✓ 2010 Giants 9 Rangers 26 17 ✓ 2008 Phillies 12 Rays 29 17 ✓ 2014 Giants 5 Royals 21 16 ✓ 2013 Red Sox 3 Cardinals 15 12 ✓ 1998 Yankees 2 Padres 14 12 ✓ 2016 Cubs 8 Indians 18 10 ✓ 2015 Royals 12 Mets 22 10 ✓ 2018 Red Sox 1 Dodgers 9 8 ✓ 2017 Dodgers 4 Astros 12 8 2004 Red Sox 2 Cardinals 10 8 ✓ 2001 Yankees 1 D-backs 8 7 2009 Yankees 1 Phillies 7 6 ✓ 1999 Yankees 1 Braves 7 6 ✓ 2002 Giants 10 Angels 15 5 2019 Nationals 4 Astros 8 4 ✓ 2006 Cardinals 11 Tigers 14 3 ✓ 2000 Yankees 1 Mets 4 3 ✓ 2012 Tigers 7 Giants 9 2 2011 Cardinals 12 Rangers 14 2 ✓ 2005 Astros 11 White Sox 13 2 Source: Baseball-Reference.com
Traditionally, these big salary mismatches haven’t gone well for the poorer team. Of the 10 most lopsided battles on the list above, nine were won by the club with the more expensive talent — the only exception being the 2003 World Series, in which the then-Florida Marlins outdueled the favored Yankees in six games.
But in a larger sense, the Dodgers and Rays both tell us about where the sport has headed over the past few decades. When Tampa Bay made its big leap into contention in 2008, “Moneyball” (the book) was only 5 years old, and the use of analytics for team-building was still more the province of small-market teams like the Rays than big-market ones like the Dodgers. Tampa’s general manager back then? A 31-year-old former financial analyst named Andrew Friedman — who happens to now be the Dodgers’ president of baseball operations.
Not coincidentally, the Dodgers typify the way big-market clubs have subsumed the lessons learned by smaller teams scraping for every edge. Where the late-2000s Rays had Ben Zobrist, Los Angeles now has an army of multi-positional fielders; where ex-Rays manager Joe Maddon was hailed for helping reintroduce the defensive shift to baseball, no team in the regular season shifted more in 2020 than the Dodgers. To the credit of Tampa Bay’s current brain trust, it still managed to build an exceptional all-around team on a shoestring budget. But the Dodgers built one of those, too — while paying Clayton Kershaw, Mookie Betts, Justin Turner and Kenley Jansen more than the Rays’ entire roster combined.
The Rays are relying on slick defense, timely pitching — and the Randy Arozarena Show.
The Rays were not an elite pure hitting team in the regular season, and they’ve struggled to consistently get on base in the playoffs — among the eight teams that made the division series, Tampa Bay ranks seventh in postseason batting average, on-base percentage, slugging and OPS. Only three regular Rays hitters have an OPS over .780 in the playoffs: Ji-Man Choi (.952), Manny Margot (.967) and — of course — ALCS MVP Randy Arozarena (1.288). Arozarena’s seven home runs set a new rookie record and are tied (behind Nelson Cruz in 2011, Carlos Beltran in 2004 and Barry Bonds in 2002) for the second-most ever in a single postseason. But the Rays have arguably relied too much on Arozarena and the long ball; 72 percent of their runs in the playoffs have come via the home run, the largest share ever for a pennant-winner going into a World Series, according to the Elias Sports Bureau.
Tampa Bay could stand to get more from some of its flagging hitters — most notably second baseman Brandon Lowe, who carries a dismal .366 postseason OPS after posting a .916 mark during the regular season. But the Dodgers’ pitching won’t be easy to overcome. Among division-series contestants, L.A. pitchers easily have the best fielding independent pitching (FIP) this postseason, with the second-best rates of strikeouts and home runs allowed. Though Arozarena also had great numbers (1.023 OPS) in limited playing time during the regular season, he’ll probably regress to the mean some in the World Series. Will his teammates pick up the slack?
On the other side of the ball, the Rays have relied on their defense to make plays and get the key out at the right moment. Tampa’s pitchers have stranded a playoff-high 85.5 percent of runners on base, and only the Astros had a larger gap than the Rays have had between their ERA (3.36) and FIP (4.65) in the postseason. Both of those stats tend to regress to the mean as well — though we’d also expect the quartet of Blake Snell, Tyler Glasnow, Nick Anderson and Ryan Yarbrough, who combined for a 3.69 regular-season FIP, to do better than their collective 5.75 postseason mark. The real question is how much they can limit the damage from an L.A. lineup that led the majors in regular-season scoring and produced an .850 OPS against the Atlanta Braves in the NLCS, with four regular hitters (Corey Seager, Kiké Hernández, Max Muncy and Joc Pederson) above .970 in the series.
This is another major chapter in Clayton Kershaw’s complicated story.
After losing his lone start of the NLCS, it looked like 2020 might be the latest in a long line of postseason disappointments for Clayton Kershaw. But L.A.’s comeback gives him another shot at redemption. And one start shouldn’t define his playoffs as a whole, anyway. Over the entire postseason, Kershaw is 2-1 with a 3.32 ERA and 3.14 FIP in 19 innings … pretty solid numbers, all told. (For comparison, he had a 3.31 FIP during the regular season.) That’s kind of par for the course, though: Kershaw has not been as bad in the playoffs as we’re often led to believe — he has the same career postseason FIP (3.74) as legendary money pitcher Jack Morris, for instance — yet he has also faltered in some pretty high-profile games. His legacy is complicated, without a doubt, and that fact is certain to come into play sooner or later in this World Series.
Perhaps the bigger postseason question for Kershaw is just how many prime chances he’ll have left to win a ring after 2020. Though he had his best season in three years according to WAR per 162 games, Kershaw will be 33 next season, an area of the aging curve in which pitchers typically see their strikeouts drop and their FIPs rise. And while the Dodgers should still be plenty good next year, more than a few familiar faces from this current quasi-dynasty are set to be free agents after this season, including Pederson, Hernández and Turner. (Kershaw himself has a contract that expires the offseason after next.) It’s hard not to think that this is one of the last, best championship opportunities remaining for the Kershaw-era Dodgers.
It should be a very good World Series.
According to ESPN Stats & Info, the Dodgers and Rays’ combined .692 winning percentage is the highest for any World Series in history. That’s in part due to the fact that league-leading records will be more extreme in a smaller sample — and the 2020 season was baseball’s shortest since 1878. But these teams also look good if we look at metrics that are theoretically regressed to account for such a short schedule. If you take the harmonic mean of both teams’ Elo ratings in each World Series, this matchup shows up as the 13th-best in history and the third-best since 1953:
This World Series matchup looks good on paper Best World Series matchups based on the harmonic mean of pre-series Elo ratings, 1903-2020 Favorite Underdog Year Team Elo Rating Team Elo Rating Harmonic Mean Winner 1942 Cardinals 1613 Yankees 1605 1608.8 Cardinals 1911 Athletics 1605 Giants 1591 1597.8 Athletics 1906 Cubs 1635 White Sox 1562 1597.5 White Sox 1910 Cubs 1595 Athletics 1589 1591.8 Athletics 1909 Pirates 1611 Tigers 1572 1591.3 Pirates 2018 Red Sox 1600 Dodgers 1582 1591.2 Red Sox 1943 Cardinals 1610 Yankees 1573 1591.1 Yankees 1953 Dodgers 1597 Yankees 1585 1590.9 Yankees 1935 Cubs 1597 Tigers 1578 1587.5 Tigers 1939 Yankees 1622 Reds 1553 1586.9 Yankees 1931 Athletics 1589 Cardinals 1584 1586.6 Cardinals 1995 Indians 1604 Braves 1570 1586.5 Braves 2020 Dodgers 1609 Rays 1564 1586.4 ??? 1912 Red Sox 1592 Giants 1580 1585.8 Red Sox 2019 Astros 1593 Nationals 1579 1585.6 Nationals Source: Retrosheet
That also squares with the thrills both teams have already provided so far in the postseason. If the twin seven-game league championship series were any indication, we should be in for a treat as the Rays and Dodgers take the field over the next week or so.
Check out our latest MLB predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-20--Do The WNBA’s Most Improved Players Keep Up Their Success?

The 2020 WNBA season was unlike any other , in its bubble on the campus of IMG Academy in Bradenton , Florida .
In just 74 days of games , we saw A ’ ja Wilson outduel Breanna Stewart for Most Valuable Player , Courtney Vandersloot and Sue Bird set single-game assist records , and many other players surprise us with their improved performance from a season ago .
One of the biggest of those surprises was the performance of Atlanta Dream guard/forward Betnijah Laney .
In 2019 , Laney had averaged a then-career-high 5.6 points and 4.2 rebounds per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few weeks before teams reported to Bradenton this year , the team cut her .
A week later , the Atlanta Dream signed Laney , hoping she could bring defensive energy and versatility .
Laney did that and much more , defying the preseason scouting reports that labeled her an offensive afterthought .
She started all 22 games for the Dream and averaged 17.2 points , 4.9 rebounds and 4.0 assists per game en route to winning the 2020 WNBA Most Improved Player award .
The MIP award has been given out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward/center Tari Phillips won the inaugural award .
Since then , there have been co-MIPs once ( Connecticut ’ s Wendy Palmer and Indiana ’ s Kelly Miller in 2004 ) , and only one player has won the award multiple times ( Leilani Mitchell in 2010 with New York and in 2019 with Phoenix ) .
But what , exactly , does a player have to do to be Most Improved ?
And do winners usually use the award as a springboard to even better performances in the next season , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of performance ?
To answer those questions , we compiled data from Her Hoop Stats on all 22 award winners in their MIP season and the seasons directly before and after .
What is the profile of a Most Improved Player ?
Most Improved Players tend to win the award relatively early in their careers .
On average , MIPs are in their fourth WNBA season , but eight of the 22 winners ( 36 percent ) have been second-year players .
During their winning season , Most Improved Players played an average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12.8 points , 5.4 rebounds and 2.2 assists per game .
In 2001 , Houston Comets guard Janeth Arcain was the iron woman of this group , averaging 36.0 minutes per game , while Erin Buescher in 2006 ( 19.6 minutes per game ) remains the only player to win the award while averaging less than 20 minutes per game .
On average , winners played 13.4 more minutes per game than in the previous season and recorded 7.5 more points , 2.7 more rebounds and 1.0 more assists .
Every MIP increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Indiana guard Shavonte Zellous in 2013 , whose 1.7 assists per game equaled her 2012 average .
Increased playing time can account for some of the increased production , but MIPs were also generally more efficient on offense .
Winners ’ effective field-goal percentage increased by an average of 4.2 percentage points , while their player efficiency ratings rose from 13.0 in the previous season — slightly below the league average of 15.0 — to well above average at 18.8 .
Some winners , such as Arcain and Laney , took on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average , winners ’ usage rates increased by less than 3 percentage points , and five winners actually had lower usage rates than in the previous season .
Finally , offensive and defensive ratings — which indicate the number of points a player scores and allows , respectively , per 100 possessions — have risen steadily since the WNBA ’ s inception in 1997 , making them less informative measures of player effectiveness for this analysis .
However , the winners ’ net ratings — the difference between their offensive and defensive ratings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an average of 12 points per 100 possessions better in their MIP-winning season than in the season prior .
Laney ’ s minutes increased only modestly from 2019 to 2020 ( +7.5 ) compared to previous award winners , but her leap from 5.6 points per game in 2019 to 17.2 in 2020 was tied with Skylar Diggins-Smith ’ s 2014 surge as a member of the Tulsa Shock for the largest increase ever among Most Improved Player award winners .
She also recorded the largest increase in assists ( 2.3 ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Miller ( 2.2 ) in 2002 , and the second-largest increase in usage rate ( 9.4 percentage points ) behind Arcain ( 13.0 points ) in 2001 .
Yet Laney did not run away with the award , winning just 25 of a possible 47 votes ( 53 percent ) .
Washington ’ s Myisha Hines-Allen , who got 21 votes , was also doing unprecedented things in the WNBA bubble .
One season removed from playing fewer than eight minutes per game , Hines-Allen was named to the All-WNBA Second Team and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2.6 assists in 29.9 minutes per game .
Had Hines-Allen won the award instead of Laney , she would have had the largest increase in points per game ( 14.7 ) of any winner and the second-largest increases in minutes , rebounds , assists and effective field-goal percentage .
How do MIPs fare the following season ?
For the most part , players who won the Most Improved Player award performed at the same level the following season .
Their average minutes ( -0.9 ) , points ( -1.1 ) and rebounds ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while their assists per game held steady .
However , those averages could obscure dramatic changes in individual performance , if about half of winners continued to improve their performance while the other half returned to their previous level of performance .
Instead , most winners saw their performance plateau in the season after winning Most Improved Player .
Fifteen of 21 winners averaged within five minutes per game of their average the season before , and 17 averaged within 4 points of their average in the previous year .
Fourteen increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one per game , and 15 did the same in assists .
One recent exception to this rule is Seattle Storm forward Natasha Howard .
Howard won Most Improved Player along with a WNBA title in 2018 , averaging 13.2 points and 6.4 rebounds with a player efficiency rating ( PER ) of 22.2 , 12th-best in the league .
The following season , with Seattle stars Breanna Stewart and Sue Bird sidelined by injuries , Howard took her game to an MVP level , ranking in the top seven in the WNBA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 24.0 PER .
Who might win MIP in 2021 ?
Several players had stat lines in 2020 close to the average for a pre-MIP season and could be poised for a breakout in 2021 .
Here are a few of those candidates : Kennedy Burke , Indiana Fever : In her first season playing in new head coach Marianne Stanley ’ s system , the second-year guard averaged 7.2 points and 1.1 assists in 18.3 minutes per game .
Burke had 23 points and 17 points in two games against the WNBA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be a scoring threat against even the toughest defenses .
Te ’ a Cooper , Los Angeles Sparks : The rookie guard averaged 7.0 points and 2.0 assists in 17.2 minutes per game this season and could see much more playing time if the Sparks don ’ t retain one or more of Chelsea Gray , Seimone Augustus and Riquna Williams , who are all unrestricted free agents this offseason .
( Cooper must also re-sign with the Sparks , but the team has exclusive negotiating rights . )
Lauren Cox , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall pick in the 2020 draft had an underwhelming rookie season , playing in only 14 games and averaging 3.6 points and 3.3 rebounds .
If she ’ s fully healthy next year after missing time this season because of COVID-19 and a knee injury , she and young center Teaira McCowan could be the nightmare for opponents that many have been anticipating since Cox was drafted .
Sophie Cunningham , Phoenix Mercury : Like Cooper , Cunningham could be poised to play more minutes next season depending on what Phoenix general manager @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Diana Taurasi , Shatori Walker-Kimbrough , Shey Peddy and Yvonne Turner .
Cunningham averaged 5.0 points and 0.8 assists this season , but she scored nearly 2,200 points in her college career at Missouri and is a much better 3-point shooter than her 23.5 percent accuracy this season suggests .

The 2020 WNBA season was unlike any other, in its bubble on the campus of IMG Academy in Bradenton, Florida. In just 74 days of games, we saw A’ja Wilson outduel Breanna Stewart for Most Valuable Player, Courtney Vandersloot and Sue Bird set single-game assist records, and many other players surprise us with their improved performance from a season ago. One of the biggest of those surprises was the performance of Atlanta Dream guard/forward Betnijah Laney.
In 2019, Laney had averaged a then-career-high 5.6 points and 4.2 rebounds per game for the Indiana Fever, but a few weeks before teams reported to Bradenton this year, the team cut her. A week later, the Atlanta Dream signed Laney, hoping she could bring defensive energy and versatility.
Laney did that and much more, defying the preseason scouting reports that labeled her an offensive afterthought. She started all 22 games for the Dream and averaged 17.2 points, 4.9 rebounds and 4.0 assists per game en route to winning the 2020 WNBA Most Improved Player award.
The MIP award has been given out since 2000, when New York Liberty forward/center Tari Phillips won the inaugural award. Since then, there have been co-MIPs once (Connecticut’s Wendy Palmer and Indiana’s Kelly Miller in 2004), and only one player has won the award multiple times (Leilani Mitchell in 2010 with New York and in 2019 with Phoenix).
But what, exactly, does a player have to do to be Most Improved? And do winners usually use the award as a springboard to even better performances in the next season, or do they regress to their previous level of performance? To answer those questions, we compiled data from Her Hoop Stats on all 22 award winners in their MIP season and the seasons directly before and after.
What is the profile of a Most Improved Player?
Most Improved Players tend to win the award relatively early in their careers. On average, MIPs are in their fourth WNBA season, but eight of the 22 winners (36 percent) have been second-year players.
During their winning season, Most Improved Players played an average of 29.5 minutes per game and averaged 12.8 points, 5.4 rebounds and 2.2 assists per game. In 2001, Houston Comets guard Janeth Arcain was the iron woman of this group, averaging 36.0 minutes per game, while Erin Buescher in 2006 (19.6 minutes per game) remains the only player to win the award while averaging less than 20 minutes per game.
On average, winners played 13.4 more minutes per game than in the previous season and recorded 7.5 more points, 2.7 more rebounds and 1.0 more assists. Every MIP increased her statistics in all four categories except for Indiana guard Shavonte Zellous in 2013, whose 1.7 assists per game equaled her 2012 average.
Almost all MIPs got better in every major category Change in per-game stats for the WNBA’s Most Improved Player from the year before winning the award to the winning season Season Player Minutes Points Rebs. Assts. 2020 Betnijah Laney +7.5 +11.6 +0.7 +2.3 2019 Leilani Mitchell +15.5 +8.4 +1.6 +1.7 2018 Natasha Howard +13.9 +8.9 +4.0 +0.3 2017 Jonquel Jones +14.4 +8.6 +8.2 +0.9 2016 Elizabeth Williams +23.0 +8.6 +4.9 +0.8 2015 Kelsey Bone +5.8 +6.1 +1.0 +0.6 2014 Skylar Diggins-Smith +8.8 +11.6 +0.6 +1.2 2013 Shavonte Zellous +9.0 +7.2 +0.7 +0.0 2012 Kristi Toliver +7.9 +6.3 +1.3 +2.0 2011 Kia Vaughn +20.0 +8.0 +5.3 +0.8 2010 Leilani Mitchell +16.0 +6.9 +1.4 +1.6 2009 Crystal Langhorne +14.2 +7.2 +3.9 +0.5 2008 Ebony Hoffman +13.6 +6.2 +3.8 +1.0 2007 Janel McCarville +7.0 +5.9 +1.3 +0.3 2006 Erin Buescher Perperoglou +10.6 +6.4 +2.6 +0.4 2005 Nicole Powell +16.7 +6.4 +1.3 +1.3 2004 Wendy Palmer +10.5 +4.3 +2.2 +0.4 2004 Kelly Miller +16.8 +4.6 +1.6 +1.7 2003 Michelle Snow +15.3 +5.3 +4.0 +0.8 2002 Coco Miller +21.4 +7.6 +3.1 +2.2 2001 Janeth Arcain +5.5 +10.1 +0.5 +1.0 2000 Tari Phillips +21.1 +9.7 +5.9 +0.6 Average +13.4 +7.5 +2.7 +1.0 Source: Her Hoop Stats
Increased playing time can account for some of the increased production, but MIPs were also generally more efficient on offense. Winners’ effective field-goal percentage increased by an average of 4.2 percentage points, while their player efficiency ratings rose from 13.0 in the previous season — slightly below the league average of 15.0 — to well above average at 18.8. Some winners, such as Arcain and Laney, took on much larger offensive roles, but on average, winners’ usage rates increased by less than 3 percentage points, and five winners actually had lower usage rates than in the previous season.
Finally, offensive and defensive ratings — which indicate the number of points a player scores and allows, respectively, per 100 possessions — have risen steadily since the WNBA’s inception in 1997, making them less informative measures of player effectiveness for this analysis. However, the winners’ net ratings — the difference between their offensive and defensive ratings — show that these players have been an average of 12 points per 100 possessions better in their MIP-winning season than in the season prior.
This year’s candidates
Laney’s minutes increased only modestly from 2019 to 2020 (+7.5) compared to previous award winners, but her leap from 5.6 points per game in 2019 to 17.2 in 2020 was tied with Skylar Diggins-Smith’s 2014 surge as a member of the Tulsa Shock for the largest increase ever among Most Improved Player award winners. She also recorded the largest increase in assists (2.3), narrowly beating out Washington’s Coco Miller (2.2) in 2002, and the second-largest increase in usage rate (9.4 percentage points) behind Arcain (13.0 points) in 2001.
Yet Laney did not run away with the award, winning just 25 of a possible 47 votes (53 percent). Washington’s Myisha Hines-Allen, who got 21 votes, was also doing unprecedented things in the WNBA bubble. One season removed from playing fewer than eight minutes per game, Hines-Allen was named to the All-WNBA Second Team and averaged 17.0 points, 8.9 rebounds and 2.6 assists in 29.9 minutes per game.
Had Hines-Allen won the award instead of Laney, she would have had the largest increase in points per game (14.7) of any winner and the second-largest increases in minutes, rebounds, assists and effective field-goal percentage.
How do MIPs fare the following season?
For the most part, players who won the Most Improved Player award performed at the same level the following season. Their average minutes (-0.9), points (-1.1) and rebounds (-0.4) per game all barely decreased, while their assists per game held steady.
However, those averages could obscure dramatic changes in individual performance, if about half of winners continued to improve their performance while the other half returned to their previous level of performance. Instead, most winners saw their performance plateau in the season after winning Most Improved Player. Fifteen of 21 winners averaged within five minutes per game of their average the season before, and 17 averaged within 4 points of their average in the previous year. Fourteen increased or decreased their rebounding by less than one per game, and 15 did the same in assists.
Some surges were easier to maintain than others Change in per-game stats for the WNBA’s Most Improved Player from the year of winning the award to the subsequent season Season Player Minutes Points Rebs. Assts. 2019 Leilani Mitchell +0.2 -3.3 -0.2 +1.4 2018 Natasha Howard +5.7 +4.9 +1.8 +1.1 2017 Jonquel Jones -8.0 -3.6 -6.4 +0.2 2016 Elizabeth Williams -3.1 -1.5 -0.9 +0.2 2015 Kelsey Bone -13.6 -9.3 -2.6 -1.1 2014 Skylar Diggins-Smith -3.0 -2.3 +0.2 +0.0 2013 Shavonte Zellous -3.9 -3.7 -0.6 +0.4 2012 Kristi Toliver -1.5 -3.4 -0.6 -1.5 2011 Kia Vaughn -5.2 -3.7 -1.7 -0.2 2010 Leilani Mitchell -3.4 -3.7 -0.5 -0.9 2009 Crystal Langhorne +4.3 +4.3 +1.8 +0.2 2008 Ebony Hoffman -1.1 -0.5 -1.9 -0.3 2007 Janel McCarville +5.2 +3.3 +0.6 +1.0 2006 Erin Buescher Perperoglou +8.1 +1.6 +2.2 +1.2 2005 Nicole Powell -2.8 -1.1 +0.3 +0.0 2004 Wendy Palmer +2.1 +0.6 +0.2 +0.1 2004 Kelly Miller -1.2 +0.0 -0.7 -0.7 2003 Michelle Snow -1.4 -0.3 +0.0 -0.2 2002 Coco Miller +4.2 +3.2 +0.2 +0.0 2001 Janeth Arcain -1.1 -7.1 -0.3 -0.2 2000 Tari Phillips +1.2 +1.5 +0.0 +0.2 Average -0.9 -1.1 -0.4 +0.0 Source: Her Hoop Stats
One recent exception to this rule is Seattle Storm forward Natasha Howard. Howard won Most Improved Player along with a WNBA title in 2018, averaging 13.2 points and 6.4 rebounds with a player efficiency rating (PER) of 22.2, 12th-best in the league. The following season, with Seattle stars Breanna Stewart and Sue Bird sidelined by injuries, Howard took her game to an MVP level, ranking in the top seven in the WNBA with 18.1 points, 8.2 rebounds and a 24.0 PER.
Who might win MIP in 2021?
Several players had stat lines in 2020 close to the average for a pre-MIP season and could be poised for a breakout in 2021. Here are a few of those candidates:
Kennedy Burke, Indiana Fever: In her first season playing in new head coach Marianne Stanley’s system, the second-year guard averaged 7.2 points and 1.1 assists in 18.3 minutes per game. Burke had 23 points and 17 points in two games against the WNBA champion Seattle Storm, showing that she can be a scoring threat against even the toughest defenses.
Te’a Cooper, Los Angeles Sparks: The rookie guard averaged 7.0 points and 2.0 assists in 17.2 minutes per game this season and could see much more playing time if the Sparks don’t retain one or more of Chelsea Gray, Seimone Augustus and Riquna Williams, who are all unrestricted free agents this offseason. (Cooper must also re-sign with the Sparks, but the team has exclusive negotiating rights.)
Lauren Cox, Indiana Fever: The No. 3 overall pick in the 2020 draft had an underwhelming rookie season, playing in only 14 games and averaging 3.6 points and 3.3 rebounds. If she’s fully healthy next year after missing time this season because of COVID-19 and a knee injury, she and young center Teaira McCowan could be the nightmare for opponents that many have been anticipating since Cox was drafted.
Sophie Cunningham, Phoenix Mercury: Like Cooper, Cunningham could be poised to play more minutes next season depending on what Phoenix general manager Jim Pitman decides about free agent guards Diana Taurasi, Shatori Walker-Kimbrough, Shey Peddy and Yvonne Turner. Cunningham averaged 5.0 points and 0.8 assists this season, but she scored nearly 2,200 points in her college career at Missouri and is a much better 3-point shooter than her 23.5 percent accuracy this season suggests.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-21--Why A Surge In Republican Voter Registration Might Not Mean A Surge In Trump Support

In the past couple of weeks , key battleground states like Florida , North Carolina and Pennsylvania have received a lot of attention because Republicans have seen a spike in voter registration numbers .
This is often cited as a counterpoint to Joe Biden ’ s sizable lead over President Trump in the polls , as all these Republican registrations must be a sign of support for Trump that the polls are missing , right ?
Well , it ’ s hard to say what ’ s happening exactly .
Dave Wasserman , the House editor for The Cook Political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found in early October that Republicans had made much larger gains in voter registration than Democrats in key states since the presidential primaries earlier this year , perhaps in part due to Republicans ’ efforts to knock on doors and Democrats ’ reluctance to do the same .
But the problem is party registration numbers can be a hard way to get a read on what ’ s happening in the election .
Like early voting numbers , there are all kinds of pitfalls in how you should think about this data .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : A voter ’ s party registration is a strong indicator of who they ’ ll support , but it ’ s not a guarantee .
In fact , many voters registered with one party have actually been voting for the other party in recent elections but haven ’ t necessarily switched their registration to reflect the party they actually support .
Take Pennsylvania , for example .
The once-Democratic southwestern part has shifted sharply toward the GOP over the past couple of decades .
However , party registration figures haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you might expect .
For instance , Greene County along the West Virginia border voted for Trump by 40 percentage points in 2016 , yet preelection registration figures show that party identification is split almost evenly , with registered Republicans and Democrats each making up 45 percent of the county ’ s voters .
Part of what ’ s going on is that many older voters in that region are still registered as Democrats , even if they back Republicans for most federal offices .
Conversely , the suburban counties around Philadelphia in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to form the base of the state Republican Party , but even though that area has moved toward the Democrats in recent elections , some Democratic-leaning voters haven ’ t changed their party registration .
In other words , big shifts in party registration sometimes tell us something we already know , and aren ’ t a signal of a new shift in attitudes .
The election calendar also influences party registration trends , as key dates and campaign events drive interest in participation .
For instance , a presidential primary or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can spark a flood of registrations .
But sometimes this can create a disproportionate number of registrations from one party .
Consider the 2020 presidential primary .
Democrats had a competitive race , which drove interest in voting in 2019 and early in 2020 among Democrats and voters who wanted to have a say in the party ’ s nomination contest .
Meanwhile , Trump was practically unopposed in the GOP nomination contest , so there wasn ’ t the same motivation among Republican-leaning voters to register ahead of the primaries in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general election .
Florida provides a clear example of this .
Much has been made of the GOP registering about 147,000 more voters than the Democrats in the roughly eight months since the February registration deadline for the state ’ s March 17 presidential primary .
Yet in the eight months before the primary deadline ( so , going back to the end of June 2019 ) , Democrats registered about 42,000 more voters than the GOP due to the high interest in the Democratic presidential race .
Now , that might still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — because if we subtract the two , Republicans registered 105,000 more voters — but it ’ s not as simple as that .
Not only is party registration sometimes a lagging indicator as we mentioned above , but there are also a lot more people registering as independent now , and more of those voters may lean Democratic .
In recent years , a growing number of voters don ’ t want to be associated with either of the two major parties , and instead register as independent .
After hovering in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1980s to the late 2000s , the share of Americans who identify as politically independent has now reached or even topped 40 percent in recent years , according to Gallup .
And in the states where there is party registration data available , the share of registered independents has grown to more than a quarter of the electorate while the percentage of registered Democrats and Republicans has decreased .
That , in turn , makes it harder to know which party has an advantage in a given state because there ’ s this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t tell us which party they prefer .
The reality , of course , is that most independents lean toward one party , but their preferences are still masked at the voter registration level .
This is especially tricky in battleground states such as Florida , North Carolina and Pennsylvania that have seen major upticks in the share of voters who have registered with no party affiliation .
But we ’ re not completely in the dark when it comes to who registers as an independent voter .
For instance , younger voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than older voters .
And importantly , younger voters of color are also more likely to register as independents , as Florida ’ s registration figures have shown .
Both of these groups tend to lean Democratic which means that even if many of these voters don ’ t openly identify as Democrats , they ’ re more likely to vote for Democrats than not .
More broadly , polls show Biden ahead of Trump among voters who identify as independent .
That means even if Republicans are winning the registration battle in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be enough to offset the number of registered Democrats and independents who may back Biden in the end .
In other words , despite the surge in GOP registrations in a few swing states , it ’ s hard to read that as a clear sign of success for the GOP in November .
It could be a good sign , but it could also be a lot of noise , and you ’ re better off looking at the polls instead .

In the past couple of weeks, key battleground states like Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania have received a lot of attention because Republicans have seen a spike in voter registration numbers. This is often cited as a counterpoint to Joe Biden’s sizable lead over President Trump in the polls, as all these Republican registrations must be a sign of support for Trump that the polls are missing, right?
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Well, it’s hard to say what’s happening exactly. Dave Wasserman, the House editor for The Cook Political Report and an NBC News contributor, found in early October that Republicans had made much larger gains in voter registration than Democrats in key states since the presidential primaries earlier this year, perhaps in part due to Republicans’ efforts to knock on doors and Democrats’ reluctance to do the same.
Over 25 million have already voted, but this is what pollsters expected: Nate Silver
But the problem is party registration numbers can be a hard way to get a read on what’s happening in the election. Like early voting numbers, there are all kinds of pitfalls in how you should think about this data. Here are three of the biggest problems:
Party registration is often a lagging indicator
A voter’s party registration is a strong indicator of who they’ll support, but it’s not a guarantee. In fact, many voters registered with one party have actually been voting for the other party in recent elections but haven’t necessarily switched their registration to reflect the party they actually support.
Take Pennsylvania, for example. The once-Democratic southwestern part has shifted sharply toward the GOP over the past couple of decades. However, party registration figures haven’t necessarily reflected that movement as much as you might expect. For instance, Greene County along the West Virginia border voted for Trump by 40 percentage points in 2016, yet preelection registration figures show that party identification is split almost evenly, with registered Republicans and Democrats each making up 45 percent of the county’s voters.
Part of what’s going on is that many older voters in that region are still registered as Democrats, even if they back Republicans for most federal offices. Conversely, the suburban counties around Philadelphia in the eastern part of the state used to form the base of the state Republican Party, but even though that area has moved toward the Democrats in recent elections, some Democratic-leaning voters haven’t changed their party registration. In other words, big shifts in party registration sometimes tell us something we already know, and aren’t a signal of a new shift in attitudes.
Registration surges follow the campaign calendar
The election calendar also influences party registration trends, as key dates and campaign events drive interest in participation. For instance, a presidential primary or the registration deadline ahead of the general election can spark a flood of registrations. But sometimes this can create a disproportionate number of registrations from one party.
Consider the 2020 presidential primary. Democrats had a competitive race, which drove interest in voting in 2019 and early in 2020 among Democrats and voters who wanted to have a say in the party’s nomination contest. Meanwhile, Trump was practically unopposed in the GOP nomination contest, so there wasn’t the same motivation among Republican-leaning voters to register ahead of the primaries in the spring until we got closer to the general election.
Florida provides a clear example of this. Much has been made of the GOP registering about 147,000 more voters than the Democrats in the roughly eight months since the February registration deadline for the state’s March 17 presidential primary. Yet in the eight months before the primary deadline (so, going back to the end of June 2019), Democrats registered about 42,000 more voters than the GOP due to the high interest in the Democratic presidential race. Now, that might still be a net win for the GOP — because if we subtract the two, Republicans registered 105,000 more voters — but it’s not as simple as that. Not only is party registration sometimes a lagging indicator as we mentioned above, but there are also a lot more people registering as independent now, and more of those voters may lean Democratic.
How voting is going so far in 2020 | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
Independent voters complicate things
In recent years, a growing number of voters don’t want to be associated with either of the two major parties, and instead register as independent. After hovering in the low- to high-30s from the late 1980s to the late 2000s, the share of Americans who identify as politically independent has now reached or even topped 40 percent in recent years, according to Gallup. And in the states where there is party registration data available, the share of registered independents has grown to more than a quarter of the electorate while the percentage of registered Democrats and Republicans has decreased.
That, in turn, makes it harder to know which party has an advantage in a given state because there’s this big block of voters who won’t tell us which party they prefer. The reality, of course, is that most independents lean toward one party, but their preferences are still masked at the voter registration level. This is especially tricky in battleground states such as Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania that have seen major upticks in the share of voters who have registered with no party affiliation.
But we’re not completely in the dark when it comes to who registers as an independent voter. For instance, younger voters are more likely to identify as independent than older voters. And importantly, younger voters of color are also more likely to register as independents, as Florida’s registration figures have shown. Both of these groups tend to lean Democratic which means that even if many of these voters don’t openly identify as Democrats, they’re more likely to vote for Democrats than not. More broadly, polls show Biden ahead of Trump among voters who identify as independent. That means even if Republicans are winning the registration battle in some key states, it might not be enough to offset the number of registered Democrats and independents who may back Biden in the end.
In other words, despite the surge in GOP registrations in a few swing states, it’s hard to read that as a clear sign of success for the GOP in November. It could be a good sign, but it could also be a lot of noise, and you’re better off looking at the polls instead.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-21--We’re Letting You Mess With Our Presidential Forecast, But Try Not To Make The Map Too Weird

The 2020 election might feel like either a dream or a nightmare , depending on who you ’ re rooting for .
But with our new interactive , you ’ ll at least be able to choose your own election adventure and explore how winning a state or a combination of states will affect President Trump ’ s and Joe Biden ’ s chances of winning the Electoral College .
When you first open the interactive , it ’ ll show you a map that ’ s shaded based on our presidential forecast and the 40,000 simulations we run each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California , for example , is almost certain to go to Biden , while Trump is favored but not a lock in light-red Texas given their current odds .
But what happens if , say , Trump gets some swing states called for him on Nov. 3 ?
How might the probabilities change ?
That ’ s what this interactive is all about .
Unlike other tools that explore paths to 270 electoral votes — many of which are very cool and we like a lot !
— ours focuses specifically on how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Click on Kentucky to turn it red , for instance , and the forecast barely budges , since Trump is almost certain to win Kentucky anyway , and that assumption is already built into the forecast .
Upset wins or decisions in states that our model considers toss-ups could matter a lot more , though .
If Biden wins Florida , for instance , his chances of winning the Electoral College shoot up to greater than 99 percent , which could be important on Nov. 3 because Florida generally counts its votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to determine who won the state on election night .
But if Trump wins Florida , his Electoral College chances rise to 39 percent , making the race practically a toss-up .
Why such big swings based on just one state ?
It ’ s not simply that Florida ’ s 29 electoral votes are valuable , although they are .
It ’ s also that Florida provides an indication of how other states might vote .
Polling errors are correlated , so if Trump wins Florida — where he ’ s slightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his polls in other states too .
You can also look at how states behave in combination with one another , according to our forecast .
Say that Trump wins Florida but that Biden wins North Carolina , another state that usually tallies its votes quickly .
This is a good trade for Biden , on balance .
His projected number of electoral votes declines from our initial forecast — he ’ s averaging 345 electoral votes in our forecast as of Tuesday afternoon , and he ’ d drop to around 309 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he won ’ t have any sort of runaway , landslide victory .
But Biden ’ s probability of winning some combination of 270 electoral votes and therefore the Electoral College increases to 92 percent if he loses Florida but wins North Carolina , because it ’ s hard for Trump to win the Electoral College unless he wins both states .
In general , Biden has more paths to 270 than Trump , which reflects the fact that he has the polling lead in most swing states .
But problems in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , as it did for Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
Trump has a 75 percent chance of winning the election if he wins Wisconsin , for instance .
Another “ fun ” challenge is to seek out scenarios that could produce a 269-269 Electoral College tie .
For instance , if Trump wins Florida , Pennsylvania and North Carolina but Biden wins Michigan , Wisconsin , Minnesota and Arizona , then we wind up with a tie about 12 percent of the time .
And before you ask , yes : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of each congressional district in Nebraska and Maine , states that give one of their electoral votes to the winner of each district — those single votes are sometimes important in breaking ties .
Our simulations also reflect that states that are more geographically and demographically similar are more likely to swing in the same direction .
If Trump wins both North Carolina and Florida , for instance , then Biden ’ s chances of winning neighboring Georgia fall to just 4 percent .
If Biden wins North Carolina and Florida , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 74 percent .
By contrast , the candidates ’ chances of winning Montana don ’ t go up or down much based on what you tell the interactive to do in Florida and North Carolina because Montana is so dissimilar to them .
But we ’ d encourage you to stick to relatively realistic scenarios .
The interactive will allow you to do weird things , but only up to a point .
Namely , it won ’ t let you call a state for a candidate if he has less than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our initial forecast .
But say you want to see what happens if Biden wins Ohio but loses Michigan .
You can test that , but be warned : Although both Ohio and Michigan are competitive , that combination of outcomes is rare , since Ohio and Michigan are similar states but Michigan is usually much bluer .
The model will still spit out an answer , but it ’ s hard to know how reliable it will be — very few of the 40,000 simulations we run in our forecast will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In cases like this where there are few simulations that match the map you ’ ve chosen , the interactive instead uses a regression-based technique and essentially runs some new simulations on the fly .
Still , that could lead to a “ garbage in , garbage out ” problem .
The goal of our forecast is to figure out which scenarios are most plausible in the real world , and if you deliberately choose some implausible ones , it may be hard to know what to make of the output .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll find the interactive both fun and informative — and if you ’ ve got any questions , please don ’ t hesitate to drop us a line .

The 2020 election might feel like either a dream or a nightmare, depending on who you’re rooting for. But with our new interactive, you’ll at least be able to choose your own election adventure and explore how winning a state or a combination of states will affect President Trump’s and Joe Biden’s chances of winning the Electoral College.
FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast: What full Democratic control would look like
When you first open the interactive, it’ll show you a map that’s shaded based on our presidential forecast and the 40,000 simulations we run each time we update the model. Deep-blue California, for example, is almost certain to go to Biden, while Trump is favored but not a lock in light-red Texas given their current odds. But what happens if, say, Trump gets some swing states called for him on Nov. 3? How might the probabilities change? That’s what this interactive is all about.
[Live Updates: We’re Tracking The Vote And Voting Problems]
Unlike other tools that explore paths to 270 electoral votes — many of which are very cool and we like a lot! — ours focuses specifically on how the states are related to one another. Click on Kentucky to turn it red, for instance, and the forecast barely budges, since Trump is almost certain to win Kentucky anyway, and that assumption is already built into the forecast.
Upset wins or decisions in states that our model considers toss-ups could matter a lot more, though. If Biden wins Florida, for instance, his chances of winning the Electoral College shoot up to greater than 99 percent, which could be important on Nov. 3 because Florida generally counts its votes quickly and the networks might be able to determine who won the state on election night. But if Trump wins Florida, his Electoral College chances rise to 39 percent, making the race practically a toss-up.
Why such big swings based on just one state? It’s not simply that Florida’s 29 electoral votes are valuable, although they are. It’s also that Florida provides an indication of how other states might vote. Polling errors are correlated, so if Trump wins Florida — where he’s slightly behind right now — he could beat his polls in other states too.
You can also look at how states behave in combination with one another, according to our forecast. Say that Trump wins Florida but that Biden wins North Carolina, another state that usually tallies its votes quickly. This is a good trade for Biden, on balance. His projected number of electoral votes declines from our initial forecast — he’s averaging 345 electoral votes in our forecast as of Tuesday afternoon, and he’d drop to around 309 in this scenario — because without Florida, he won’t have any sort of runaway, landslide victory. But Biden’s probability of winning some combination of 270 electoral votes and therefore the Electoral College increases to 92 percent if he loses Florida but wins North Carolina, because it’s hard for Trump to win the Electoral College unless he wins both states.
In general, Biden has more paths to 270 than Trump, which reflects the fact that he has the polling lead in most swing states. But problems in the Upper Midwest could spell trouble for Biden, as it did for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Trump has a 75 percent chance of winning the election if he wins Wisconsin, for instance.
Another “fun” challenge is to seek out scenarios that could produce a 269-269 Electoral College tie. For instance, if Trump wins Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina but Biden wins Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Arizona, then we wind up with a tie about 12 percent of the time. And before you ask, yes: The interactive does let you choose the winners of each congressional district in Nebraska and Maine, states that give one of their electoral votes to the winner of each district — those single votes are sometimes important in breaking ties.
Our simulations also reflect that states that are more geographically and demographically similar are more likely to swing in the same direction. If Trump wins both North Carolina and Florida, for instance, then Biden’s chances of winning neighboring Georgia fall to just 4 percent. If Biden wins North Carolina and Florida, though, his chances in Georgia soar to 74 percent. By contrast, the candidates’ chances of winning Montana don’t go up or down much based on what you tell the interactive to do in Florida and North Carolina because Montana is so dissimilar to them.
But we’d encourage you to stick to relatively realistic scenarios. The interactive will allow you to do weird things, but only up to a point. Namely, it won’t let you call a state for a candidate if he has less than a 1.5 percent chance of winning it in our initial forecast. But say you want to see what happens if Biden wins Ohio but loses Michigan. You can test that, but be warned: Although both Ohio and Michigan are competitive, that combination of outcomes is rare, since Ohio and Michigan are similar states but Michigan is usually much bluer.
Confidence Interval: Will Democrats win the trifecta? l FiveThirtyEight
The model will still spit out an answer, but it’s hard to know how reliable it will be — very few of the 40,000 simulations we run in our forecast will have Biden winning Ohio but Trump winning Michigan. In cases like this where there are few simulations that match the map you’ve chosen, the interactive instead uses a regression-based technique and essentially runs some new simulations on the fly. Still, that could lead to a “garbage in, garbage out” problem.
The goal of our forecast is to figure out which scenarios are most plausible in the real world, and if you deliberately choose some implausible ones, it may be hard to know what to make of the output. Overall, though, we hope you’ll find the interactive both fun and informative — and if you’ve got any questions, please don’t hesitate to drop us a line.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-21--Explore The Ways Trump Or Biden Could Win The Election

When you choose the winner in one place , our model updates its projections everywhere else .

Explore The Ways Trump Or Biden Could Win The Election Pick the winner of each state to see how FiveThirtyEight’s presidential forecast would change. 2020 election forecastHow our forecast works
Our 2020 presidential forecast is final and no longer updating. You can keep making selections here to see how the results you pick would change our pre-election forecast.
Key States All States AZ CO FL GA MI MN NE 2nd NH NV NC OH PA TX WI AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME ME 1st ME 2nd MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NE 1st NE 2nd NE 3rd NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME ME 1st ME 2nd MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NE 1st NE 2nd NE 3rd NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY Reset Winner picked more likely trump toss-up more likely biden When you choose the winner in one place, our model updates its projections everywhere else.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-21--States Changed Laws To Make It Easier To Vote In 2020. It’s Resulted In Hundreds Of Lawsuits.

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew discusses how voting laws and procedures have changed ahead @ @ @ @ @ how they ’ re being litigated right now .

States Changed Laws To Make It Easier To Vote In 2020. It’s Resulted In Hundreds Of Lawsuits.
In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses how voting laws and procedures have changed ahead of the 2020 election and how they’re being litigated right now.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-21--Politics Podcast: How Voting Is Going So Far In 2020

Voting laws and procedures around the country have changed to accommodate mail voting and safe in-person voting during the coronavirus pandemic .
As a result , Americans are voting early and by mail more than ever before .
The changes have also been accompanied by hundreds of lawsuits at the state and federal levels .
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux and Nathaniel Rakich break down how the rules have changed , how it ’ s affecting Americans ’ ability to vote and what kinds of arguments are still being hashed out in court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @

Voting laws and procedures around the country have changed to accommodate mail voting and safe in-person voting during the coronavirus pandemic. As a result, Americans are voting early and by mail more than ever before. The changes have also been accompanied by hundreds of lawsuits at the state and federal levels. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux and Nathaniel Rakich break down how the rules have changed, how it’s affecting Americans’ ability to vote and what kinds of arguments are still being hashed out in court.
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--2020-10-21--Who Will Win The Last Presidential Debate?

How likely do you think each is to win ?
How likely are you to vote for each ?
With less than two weeks until Election Day , Thursday marks the final time President Trump and Joe Biden will face off in a presidential debate .
As in previous debates , we ’ re partnering with Ipsos to see how voters react to the candidates .
The poll uses Ipsos ’ s KnowledgePanel to check in with the same group of people twice — before and after the debate — to see whether the debate affects their views of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were also given the option of third-party candidates or ‘ someone else.
’ Additionally , they could indicate that they will not vote .
Respondents are very sure of who they plan to vote for : 45 percent of respondents said they are “ absolutely certain ” to vote for Biden and 32 percent said the same of Trump .
Very few are torn — just 2 percent said they were split 50-50 between Biden and Trump .
However , despite Biden ’ s commanding lead in the polls and among the respondents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he can win the presidency .
Overall , 37 percent of respondents said either Trump or Biden was “ absolutely certain ” to win , while 16 percent thought it was a total toss-up ( 50-50 ) .
Supporters are more certain of their vote than they are excited to vote How likely and how excited respondents are to vote in the 2020 presidential election , by preferred candidate We grouped respondents by which candidate they gave the higher score to ( out of 10 ) .
Respondents who gave both candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Respondents who already voted are included in the “ absolutely certain ” bucket and respondents who gave themselves a 50-50 shot of voting are included in the “ not too likely ” bucket .
A large share of Biden and Trump ’ s supporters said they were “ absolutely certain ” to vote , and that includes a huge chunk that has already voted : 44 percent of Biden ’ s backers and 24 percent of Trump ’ s .
Enthusiasm wasn ’ t quite as high , with just under half of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were “ very excited ” to vote .

Thursday’s debate marked the last time President Trump and Joe Biden will face off before Election Day, and it offered quite a contrast in tone compared to the last debate. (If you missed it, you can relive it in all its glory over at our live blog.) But did it affect the race at all? Or are views so baked in that they haven’t budged? We partnered with Ipsos to once again check in with the same group of people before and after the debate using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel.
Support for Biden and Trump didn’t really change, but many still think the race is close
How likely respondents are to vote for each candidate and how likely they think each candidate is to win, on a scale from 0 (no chance) to 10 (absolutely certain)
Respondents were also given the option of third-party candidates or ‘someone else.’ Additionally, they could indicate that they will not vote.
Most respondents went into the debate with a clear candidate preference, and that didn’t really change. The debate also didn’t have much of an effect on who respondents thought would win the presidency, although fewer people said the race was a toss-up (14 percent, compared to 16 percent before the debate). The share who thought Biden had a better chance of winning increased from 43 percent to 46 percent, though both those changes are well within the poll’s margin of error.
Biden got higher marks for his performance — and his policies
How respondents rated each candidate’s debate performance and their answers on policies
Performance Policies Candidate good poor good poor Trump 51.8% 46.1% 43.8% 53.5% Biden 68.7 29.6 60.2 37.9
Only among respondents who said that they had watched some or all of the debate.
On the whole, debate watchers were more impressed with both Biden and Trump’s performance than they were in the first debate: 76 percent thought the debate was “somewhat good” or “very good.” The share who thought Trump’s performance was “somewhat good” or “very good” jumped from one-third in the last debate to a little over half in this debate. Biden got higher marks, too, up from 60 percent to 69 percent.
There was less change in viewers’ assessments of their policies, though. Forty-four percent thought Trump’s policy answers were good, compared to 60 percent for Biden — although both of those ratings are a few percentage points higher than in the first debate.