fivethirthyeight--2020-12-03--Florida’s Kyle Pitts Is An NFL Tight End In A College Uniform

College football teams are using tight ends more often , more prominently and in more ways , but few teams have ever had a tight end like Florida ’ s Kyle Pitts .
When SEC football returned on Sept. 26 , Pitts dominated from the outset , catching eight passes for 170 yards and four touchdowns in the season opener .
He scored eight touchdowns in his first five games before suffering a serious head injury against Georgia on Nov. 7 , forcing him to miss two games .
But he returned in top form Saturday with five catches for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His 11 touchdowns rank fourth among all receivers , and he ’ s rewriting the rules for college tight ends while piquing the interest of NFL teams as a prospect .
About a decade ago , the role of the tight end in college football bottomed out .
In 2009 , tight ends accounted for just 8.9 percent of receptions , 8.6 percent of yards and 9.0 percent of targets in conference games , reaching new lows after years of declines .
But those figures started to tick up again in 2010 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own 14.1 percent of receptions , 13.8 percent of yards and 14.1 percent of targets in conference play , the highest levels since at least 2004 .
In the old-school , pro-style days of football offenses , tight ends were used as blocking machines in the I-formation , often accompanied by two pass-catching receivers , a fullback and a tailback .
The usage rates indicate that the spread offenses of the late 2000s struggled to find a home for tight ends in their approaches .
But tight ends have now found consistent roles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situations and in scoring .
And as tight ends have begun catching a greater share of the passes , they ’ ve even gotten a bit more explosive — this season , they ’ re averaging 11.8 yards per reception ( up from 11.0 in 2011 ) and 8.11 air yards per target ( up from 7.54 in 2011 ) .
In six games , Pitts has smashed to pieces the old stereotype of a lumbering , blocking , red-zone target .
He has 29 catches on 43 targets for 513 yards ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 of his catches have been explosive plays , or receptions gaining at least 16 yards .
No tight end in at least the past 16 seasons has made such plays out of more than half of his catches in a single season .
But Florida isn ’ t using Pitts as a typical tight end .
He ’ s averaging 11.74 air yards per target , which is first among tight ends this season and the 13th-best mark in the past 10 seasons among all tight ends with at least three receptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The striking part about Pitts ’ s breakout opener was that he played more like a conventional tight end as recently as last season .
As a sophomore , he caught 54 passes in 13 games for 649 yards and five touchdowns — the fourth-most receptions for a TE but tied for the seventh-most yards .
He didn ’ t provide much of a deep threat , averaging an ordinary 9.35 air yards per target .
It was only this year , when his team unleashed his ability in the downfield passing game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its potential .
The Gators rank eighth in the country in yards per play this season ( among teams with more than two games in the books ) , improving from 16th last season , 27th in 2018 and 100th in 2017 .
Coach Dan Mullen has focused on utilizing athletes like Pitts more on offense .
“ We know he ’ s a mismatch out there on the field , ” Mullen told reporters .
“ … That ’ s something we certainly spent a lot of time with in the offseason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s going to get the ball in his hands during the course of the game trying to create matchup problems for the defense.
” With that high-flying offense in tow , Florida is 7-1 on the season and in the driver ’ s seat in the SEC East race .
[ Alabama Is Winning With Its Offense , Thanks To Mac Jones ] The NFL remains bullish on tight ends , but when college football de-emphasized them , they started falling down draft boards .
At least one tight end went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 11 drafts this century , but only two went in the first round over the next six drafts , from 2011 to 2016 .
But as NFL offenses become more diverse , they define themselves with “ mismatches , ” as Mullen described them .
The top pro offenses , as in last year ’ s two Super Bowl contenders , have traditional wide receivers but also playmaking athletes like Tyreek Hill and Deebo Samuel .
At 6-foot-6 and 246 pounds with the speed to finish a 71-yard touchdown catch , Pitts could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level , which is why ESPN ’ s Todd McShay ranks him 11th among 2021 draft prospects and Dane Brugler of The Athletic lists him 15th .
Until then , a record-breaking college season is still in Pitts ’ s sights , remarkable given that Florida is playing only 10 regular-season games and facing only SEC opponents , and that Pitts missed two games .
The FBS record for touchdown catches by a tight end in a single season is 18 , set by Utah ’ s Dennis Smith in 12 games in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his first six games , and he could go on to play nine , 10 or even 11 .
But even if he doesn ’ t set a new record , Pitts ’ s season puts him in rare company , and the advanced metrics show that he ’ s unlike any other tight end in college football .
“ He ’ s kind of a unicorn , right ?
” Mullen said .
That may be — unless another college team comes along and decides to find itself another Kyle Pitts @

College football teams are using tight ends more often, more prominently and in more ways, but few teams have ever had a tight end like Florida’s Kyle Pitts.
When SEC football returned on Sept. 26, Pitts dominated from the outset, catching eight passes for 170 yards and four touchdowns in the season opener. He scored eight touchdowns in his first five games before suffering a serious head injury against Georgia on Nov. 7, forcing him to miss two games. But he returned in top form Saturday with five catches for 99 yards and three touchdowns against Kentucky. His 11 touchdowns rank fourth among all receivers, and he’s rewriting the rules for college tight ends while piquing the interest of NFL teams as a prospect.
[How Do College Football Dynasties Fall?]
About a decade ago, the role of the tight end in college football bottomed out. In 2009, tight ends accounted for just 8.9 percent of receptions, 8.6 percent of yards and 9.0 percent of targets in conference games, reaching new lows after years of declines. But those figures started to tick up again in 2010, and this year, tight ends own 14.1 percent of receptions, 13.8 percent of yards and 14.1 percent of targets in conference play, the highest levels since at least 2004.
In the old-school, pro-style days of football offenses, tight ends were used as blocking machines in the I-formation, often accompanied by two pass-catching receivers, a fullback and a tailback. The usage rates indicate that the spread offenses of the late 2000s struggled to find a home for tight ends in their approaches. But tight ends have now found consistent roles as reliable pass-catchers, excelling in short-yardage situations and in scoring. And as tight ends have begun catching a greater share of the passes, they’ve even gotten a bit more explosive — this season, they’re averaging 11.8 yards per reception (up from 11.0 in 2011) and 8.11 air yards per target (up from 7.54 in 2011).
In six games, Pitts has smashed to pieces the old stereotype of a lumbering, blocking, red-zone target. He has 29 catches on 43 targets for 513 yards (17.7 yards per reception), and 15 of his catches have been explosive plays, or receptions gaining at least 16 yards. No tight end in at least the past 16 seasons has made such plays out of more than half of his catches in a single season. But Florida isn’t using Pitts as a typical tight end. He’s averaging 11.74 air yards per target, which is first among tight ends this season and the 13th-best mark in the past 10 seasons among all tight ends with at least three receptions per game and five games played.
Kyle Pitts is climbing the tight end ranks Top 15 FBS tight ends* by air yards per target per season since 2011, with games, receptions and yards per receptions player season team G Rec. Yds/Rec. Air Yds/ Target Bucky Hodges 2015 Va. Tech 13 40 13.25 14.71 Bucky Hodges 2016 Va. Tech 14 48 14.40 13.77 Deon-Tay McManus 2016 Marshall 10 40 11.33 13.57 Wes Saxton 2013 S. Alabama 11 50 12.70 13.14 Gator Hoskins 2013 Marshall 14 50 16.42 12.87 Carlos Strickland II 2019 UTSA 12 38 12.95 12.87 Ryan Otten 2012 SJSU 13 47 15.79 12.75 Mark Andrews 2017 Oklahoma 14 62 15.45 12.60 Joseph Fauria 2012 UCLA 14 46 13.85 12.48 Kylen Granson 2019 SMU 13 43 16.77 12.08 Mason Schreck 2016 Buffalo 12 59 11.03 11.90 Zach Sudfeld 2012 Nevada 13 45 13.29 11.89 Kyle Pitts 2020 Florida 6 29 17.69 11.74 Hayden Plinke 2015 UTEP 11 37 10.95 11.67 Austin Stogner 2020 Oklahoma 7 25 16.40 11.59 *Among those who played at least five games in a season and averaged at least three receptions per game. Source: ESPN STATS & INFORMATION GROUP
The striking part about Pitts’s breakout opener was that he played more like a conventional tight end as recently as last season. As a sophomore, he caught 54 passes in 13 games for 649 yards and five touchdowns — the fourth-most receptions for a TE but tied for the seventh-most yards. He didn’t provide much of a deep threat, averaging an ordinary 9.35 air yards per target.
It was only this year, when his team unleashed his ability in the downfield passing game, that Florida’s offense reached its potential. The Gators rank eighth in the country in yards per play this season (among teams with more than two games in the books), improving from 16th last season, 27th in 2018 and 100th in 2017. Coach Dan Mullen has focused on utilizing athletes like Pitts more on offense. “We know he’s a mismatch out there on the field,” Mullen told reporters. “… That’s something we certainly spent a lot of time with in the offseason, that we have enough ways that he’s going to get the ball in his hands during the course of the game trying to create matchup problems for the defense.” With that high-flying offense in tow, Florida is 7-1 on the season and in the driver’s seat in the SEC East race.
[Alabama Is Winning With Its Offense, Thanks To Mac Jones]
The NFL remains bullish on tight ends, but when college football de-emphasized them, they started falling down draft boards. At least one tight end went in the first round of the first 11 drafts this century, but only two went in the first round over the next six drafts, from 2011 to 2016. But as NFL offenses become more diverse, they define themselves with “mismatches,” as Mullen described them. The top pro offenses, as in last year’s two Super Bowl contenders, have traditional wide receivers but also playmaking athletes like Tyreek Hill and Deebo Samuel. At 6-foot-6 and 246 pounds with the speed to finish a 71-yard touchdown catch, Pitts could be a versatile target at the next level, which is why ESPN’s Todd McShay ranks him 11th among 2021 draft prospects and Dane Brugler of The Athletic lists him 15th.
Until then, a record-breaking college season is still in Pitts’s sights, remarkable given that Florida is playing only 10 regular-season games and facing only SEC opponents, and that Pitts missed two games. The FBS record for touchdown catches by a tight end in a single season is 18, set by Utah’s Dennis Smith in 12 games in the 1989 season. Pitts caught 11 in his first six games, and he could go on to play nine, 10 or even 11. But even if he doesn’t set a new record, Pitts’s season puts him in rare company, and the advanced metrics show that he’s unlike any other tight end in college football. “He’s kind of a unicorn, right?” Mullen said. That may be — unless another college team comes along and decides to find itself another Kyle Pitts.


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-04--Can You Cut The Cookies?

Can You Cut The Cookies?

Welcome to The Riddler .
Every week , I offer up problems related to the things we hold dear around here : math , logic and probability .
Two puzzles are presented each week : the Riddler Express for those of you who want something bite-size and the Riddler Classic for those of you in the slow-puzzle movement .
Submit a correct answer for either , and you may get a shoutout in next week ’ s column .
Please wait until Monday to publicly share your answers !
If you need a hint or have a favorite puzzle collecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter .
From Christopher “ CJ ” Halverson comes a bibliophilic game of Secret Santa : Every year , CJ ’ s family does a book exchange for Christmas .
First , each person puts their name in a hat .
The hat is shaken , and then each person draws a random name from the hat and gifts that person a book .
However , if anyone draws their own name , they all put their names back into the hat and start over .
What is the probability that no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From Dean Ballard come trials and tribulations of troublesome triangles : Three friends are baking holiday cookies together .
They have a flat layer of cookie dough in the shape of an isosceles right triangle ( shown below ) .
They want to design a cookie cutter that will cut out three identical ( i.e.
, congruent ) cookies .
The cookies should be as large as possible while staying within the triangle and without overlapping each other .
Had there been two friends or four friends , they would have been able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But with three friends , there will unfortunately be some cookie dough that goes to waste .
What is the greatest percentage of cookie dough that can be made up by the three identical cookies ?
When explaining your work , please be as detailed as you can about the arrangement of your cookies so I can verify your work !
Extra credit : Instead of a right isosceles triangle , the three friends now want to make identical cookies from a sphinx of cookie dough .
Again , what is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go into the three identical cookies ?
Congratulations to 👏 Piotr L. 👏 of Newbridge , Ireland , winner of the most recent Riddler Express .
Depending on the year , there can be one , two or three Friday the 13ths .
Several weeks ago happened to be the second Friday the 13th of 2020 .
What was the greatest number of Friday the 13ths that could occur over the course of four consecutive calendar years ?
The “ four ” years in this problem was intentional — it guaranteed that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mix .
It was also possible for there to be no leap years , since some years that are multiples of four — like 1900 and 2100 — are not leap years .
Most solvers turned to spreadsheets so they could efficiently track all the possibilities .
And to simplify matters a bit , rather than look for months whose 13th days were Fridays , you could have equivalently found months whose first days were Sundays .
From here , many solvers , like Amy Leblang , used modular arithmetic .
Amy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , B-day , C-day , D-day , E-day , F-day and G-day .
We haven ’ t decided yet which of these days is Sunday — but if A-day were Sunday , then B-day would be Monday , C-day would be Tuesday , etc .
Suppose the first year of our four-year interval was a leap year .
Then if Jan. 1 was an A-day , that would mean Feb. 1 was a D-day , since January has 31 days ( three more than a multiple of seven ) .
And then March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has 29 days in a leap year ( one more than a multiple of seven ) .
Continuing month by month over the four years , there were nine months that started with an A-day , six months that started with a B-day , seven months that started with a C-day , seven months that started with a D-day , six months that started with an E-day , six months that started with an F-day and seven months that started with an G-day .
So when the first year was a leap year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day of the month , occurring nine times .
And when A-day happened to be a Sunday , you ’ d have nine Friday the 13ths over four years .
Had the leap year been the second , third or fourth year in the interval — or if there had been no leap years — then none of the seven lettered days started a month more than eight times .
That meant you could have at most nine Friday the 13ths over four years .
Indeed , the last time this occurred was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2015 .
Sure enough , 2012 was a leap year that started on a Sunday .
For extra credit , you were asked about four-year intervals that could start on any day of the year .
As it so happened , this maximum was again nine .
To be honest , riddles about leap years always make my head spin a little .
We ’ ll have no more of these for at least another four years .
Congratulations to 👏 Daniel Silva-Inclan 👏 of Chicago , Illinois , winner of the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you and 19 of your family members were seated at a circular table ( socially distanced , of course ) .
Everyone at the table wanted a helping of cranberry sauce , which happened to be in front of you at the moment .
Instead of passing the sauce around in a circle , you passed it randomly to the person seated directly to your left or to your right .
They then did the same , passing it randomly either to the person to their left or right .
This continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , received the cranberry sauce .
Of the 20 people in the circle , who had the greatest chance of being the last to receive the cranberry sauce ?
First off , this was essentially a repeat of a Riddler Express from several years ago .
That puzzle was submitted by Chris Thornett of Brooklyn , New York , who — surprise , surprise — got the right answer once again !
Chris explained his solution by looking at a specific family member ( other than you ) , whom we might as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris to be the last person to receive the cranberry sauce , exactly one of two things had to happen : • At some point , the person directly to Chris ’ s left received the sauce .
However , the sauce was not passed to Chris , instead making its way around the entire table until Chris received it from the person on his right .
• At some point , the person directly to Chris ’ s right received the sauce .
However , the sauce was not passed to Chris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire table until Chris received it from the person on his left .
None of this depended on where the sauce had already been , which meant everyone at the table had the same chances of being last : 1/19 .
This was a rather surprising result !
One might have expected that those sitting far away from you were more likely to have received the cranberry sauce last .
A few solvers , like David Robinson and Quoc Tran , reached for their nearest computer and verified Chris ’ s results with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The animation below shows one simulation at first , with the cranberry sauce randomly bouncing its way around the table .
It then speeds up , showing a grand total of 100,000 simulations .
The pie chart ( how appropriate for Thanksgiving ! )
in the middle reveals the relative frequencies with which each person is last to receive the sauce .
Sure enough , the distribution appears to be uniform — exactly what Chris ’ s solution had predicted !
As you ’ d expect , this result was generalizable to any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For any value of N , each person ( other than you ) had a 1/ ( N−1 ) chance of being the last to receive the cranberry sauce .
Solver Rajeev Pakalapati took the problem a step further and solved the general case when your family was right-leaning or left-leaning — that is , in which way the cranberry sauce was passed around the table .
( Apologies for the attempt at political humor . )
If each member of your family passed the sauce to the right with probability p > @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left was most likely to receive it last .
According to Rajeev ’ s calculations , that maximum probability was x18· ( x−1 ) / ( x19−1 ) , where x was defined as p/ ( 1−p ) .
This nonlinear result was very sensitive to changes in p. Even when p was only slightly greater than 0.5 ( as in the second animation above , where p was 0.51 ) , there were tremendous shifts in the probability distribution of who was the last to receive the sauce .
Finally , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us , the value of N for our Thanksgiving dinners last week was much smaller than 20 .
Here ’ s hoping this puzzle will be more realistic for Thanksgiving in 2021 .
Well , aren ’ t you lucky ?
There ’ s a whole book full of the best puzzles from this column and some never-before-seen head-scratchers .
It ’ s called “ The Riddler , ” and it ’ s in stores now !

Welcome to The Riddler. Every week, I offer up problems related to the things we hold dear around here: math, logic and probability. Two puzzles are presented each week: the Riddler Express for those of you who want something bite-size and the Riddler Classic for those of you in the slow-puzzle movement. Submit a correct answer for either, and you may get a shoutout in next week’s column. Please wait until Monday to publicly share your answers! If you need a hint or have a favorite puzzle collecting dust in your attic, find me on Twitter.
Riddler Express
From Christopher “CJ” Halverson comes a bibliophilic game of Secret Santa:
Every year, CJ’s family of five (including CJ) does a book exchange for Christmas. First, each person puts their name in a hat. The hat is shaken, and then each person draws a random name from the hat and gifts that person a book. However, if anyone draws their own name, they all put their names back into the hat and start over.
What is the probability that no one will draw their own name?
Submit your answer
Riddler Classic
From Dean Ballard come trials and tribulations of troublesome triangles:
Three friends are baking holiday cookies together. They have a flat layer of cookie dough in the shape of an isosceles right triangle (shown below). They want to design a cookie cutter that will cut out three identical (i.e., congruent) cookies. The cookies should be as large as possible while staying within the triangle and without overlapping each other.
Had there been two friends or four friends, they would have been able to use all of the cookie dough. But with three friends, there will unfortunately be some cookie dough that goes to waste.
What is the greatest percentage of cookie dough that can be made up by the three identical cookies? When explaining your work, please be as detailed as you can about the arrangement of your cookies so I can verify your work!
Extra credit: Instead of a right isosceles triangle, the three friends now want to make identical cookies from a sphinx of cookie dough. Again, what is the greatest percentage of cookie dough that can go into the three identical cookies?
Submit your answer
Solution to last week’s Riddler Express
Congratulations to 👏 Piotr L. 👏 of Newbridge, Ireland, winner of the most recent Riddler Express.
Depending on the year, there can be one, two or three Friday the 13ths. Several weeks ago happened to be the second Friday the 13th of 2020.
What was the greatest number of Friday the 13ths that could occur over the course of four consecutive calendar years?
The “four” years in this problem was intentional — it guaranteed that there was at most one leap year in the mix. It was also possible for there to be no leap years, since some years that are multiples of four — like 1900 and 2100 — are not leap years.
Most solvers turned to spreadsheets so they could efficiently track all the possibilities. And to simplify matters a bit, rather than look for months whose 13th days were Fridays, you could have equivalently found months whose first days were Sundays.
From here, many solvers, like Amy Leblang, used modular arithmetic. Amy renamed the days of the week A-day, B-day, C-day, D-day, E-day, F-day and G-day. We haven’t decided yet which of these days is Sunday — but if A-day were Sunday, then B-day would be Monday, C-day would be Tuesday, etc. Suppose the first year of our four-year interval was a leap year. Then if Jan. 1 was an A-day, that would mean Feb. 1 was a D-day, since January has 31 days (three more than a multiple of seven). And then March would be an E-day, because February has 29 days in a leap year (one more than a multiple of seven).
Continuing month by month over the four years, there were nine months that started with an A-day, six months that started with a B-day, seven months that started with a C-day, seven months that started with a D-day, six months that started with an E-day, six months that started with an F-day and seven months that started with an G-day. So when the first year was a leap year, A-day was the most frequent first day of the month, occurring nine times. And when A-day happened to be a Sunday, you’d have nine Friday the 13ths over four years.
Had the leap year been the second, third or fourth year in the interval — or if there had been no leap years — then none of the seven lettered days started a month more than eight times. That meant you could have at most nine Friday the 13ths over four years. Indeed, the last time this occurred was (checks notes) from 2012 to 2015. Sure enough, 2012 was a leap year that started on a Sunday.
For extra credit, you were asked about four-year intervals that could start on any day of the year. As it so happened, this maximum was again nine.
To be honest, riddles about leap years always make my head spin a little. We’ll have no more of these for at least another four years.
Solution to last week’s Riddler Classic
Congratulations to 👏 Daniel Silva-Inclan 👏 of Chicago, Illinois, winner of the most recent Riddler Classic.
To celebrate Thanksgiving, you and 19 of your family members were seated at a circular table (socially distanced, of course). Everyone at the table wanted a helping of cranberry sauce, which happened to be in front of you at the moment.
Instead of passing the sauce around in a circle, you passed it randomly to the person seated directly to your left or to your right. They then did the same, passing it randomly either to the person to their left or right. This continued until everyone had, at some point, received the cranberry sauce.
Of the 20 people in the circle, who had the greatest chance of being the last to receive the cranberry sauce?
First off, this was essentially a repeat of a Riddler Express from several years ago. That puzzle was submitted by Chris Thornett of Brooklyn, New York, who — surprise, surprise — got the right answer once again!
Chris explained his solution by looking at a specific family member (other than you), whom we might as well call … Chris. Now for Chris to be the last person to receive the cranberry sauce, exactly one of two things had to happen:
At some point, the person directly to Chris’s left received the sauce. However, the sauce was not passed to Chris, instead making its way around the entire table until Chris received it from the person on his right .
received the sauce. However, the sauce was passed to Chris, instead making its way around the entire table until Chris received it from the person on his . At some point, the person directly to Chris’s right received the sauce. However, the sauce was not passed to Chris, instead making its way around the entire table until Chris received it from the person on his left.
None of this depended on where the sauce had already been, which meant everyone at the table had the same chances of being last: 1/19.
This was a rather surprising result! One might have expected that those sitting far away from you were more likely to have received the cranberry sauce last. A few solvers, like David Robinson and Quoc Tran, reached for their nearest computer and verified Chris’s results with thousands or even millions of simulations.
The animation below shows one simulation at first, with the cranberry sauce randomly bouncing its way around the table. It then speeds up, showing a grand total of 100,000 simulations. The pie chart (how appropriate for Thanksgiving!) in the middle reveals the relative frequencies with which each person is last to receive the sauce. Sure enough, the distribution appears to be uniform — exactly what Chris’s solution had predicted!
But even the slightest bias (e.g., 51%) that favored passing the sauce in one direction vs. the other resulted in huge probability swings. pic.twitter.com/nB7kaxytco — Zach Wissner-Gross (@xaqwg) November 25, 2020
As you’d expect, this result was generalizable to any number of people in the circle. For any value of N, each person (other than you) had a 1/(N−1) chance of being the last to receive the cranberry sauce.
Solver Rajeev Pakalapati took the problem a step further and solved the general case when your family was right-leaning or left-leaning — that is, in which way the cranberry sauce was passed around the table. (Apologies for the attempt at political humor.) If each member of your family passed the sauce to the right with probability p > 0.5, then the person to your left was most likely to receive it last. According to Rajeev’s calculations, that maximum probability was x18·(x−1)/(x19−1), where x was defined as p/(1−p).
This nonlinear result was very sensitive to changes in p. Even when p was only slightly greater than 0.5 (as in the second animation above, where p was 0.51), there were tremendous shifts in the probability distribution of who was the last to receive the sauce.
Finally, I wanted to acknowledge that for most of us, the value of N for our Thanksgiving dinners last week was much smaller than 20. Here’s hoping this puzzle will be more realistic for Thanksgiving in 2021.
Want more riddles?
Well, aren’t you lucky? There’s a whole book full of the best puzzles from this column and some never-before-seen head-scratchers. It’s called “The Riddler,” and it’s in stores now!
Want to submit a riddle?
Email Zach Wissner-Gross at riddlercolumn@gmail.com


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-04--Trump Was Never Very Popular, But How Will Americans View Him (And Biden) Now?

Welcome to Pollapalooza , our ( mostly ) weekly polling roundup .
On a very basic level , one big reason why President Trump lost reelection is that he wasn ’ t very popular .
As of Nov. 3 , his job approval rating was just 44.6 percent , and his disapproval rating was 52.6 percent , according to FiveThirtyEight ’ s presidential approval average .
That -8.1-point net approval rating was the third-lowest of any recent president on the day they stood for election to a second term .
( Jimmy Carter and George H.W .
Bush were the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day with a lower net approval rating , or higher disapproval rating , than Trump ’ s . )
Notably , all three lost .
Part of this boils down to the well-documented relationship between a president ’ s approval rating and his ability to win another election .
Hugely popular presidents like Lyndon B. Johnson , Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan cruised to a second term , while divisive but still net-popular ones like George W. Bush and Barack Obama won in squeakers .
In fact , the only recent president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term with a positive net approval rating was Gerald Ford in 1976 .
( That said , he had a fairly weak approval rating — just 43.6 percent , lower than Trump ’ s on Election Day in 2020 .
A relatively high share of Americans had no opinion of him , which may have made it easier for his opponent , Carter , to win them over . )
That means the only president with a negative net approval rating to win a second term was Harry S. Truman in 1948 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most shocking upsets of all time .
That said , a president ’ s approval rating is hardly the last word .
Elections , after all , are a choice between ( at least ) two candidates .
But in the case of 2020 , it looks like President-elect Biden was indeed more popular than Trump , at least according to Biden ’ s favorability ratings .
( Favorability ratings and approval ratings aren ’ t quite the same thing , but they are pretty close . )
And according to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week before Election Day , Biden had a 51.0 percent favorability rating and a 43.9 percent unfavorability rating , for a net favorability rating of +7.0 points .
Meanwhile , Trump ’ s average net favorability rating in those same polls ( -10.8 points , or 43.1 percent favorable vs. 53.9 percent unfavorable ) was slightly worse than his net approval rating .
Since elections essentially boil down to a popularity contest , the fact that Biden was better-liked than Trump on Election Day probably helped him win where Hillary Clinton ( who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) lost .
Biden may have had an easier time winning over voters with a low opinion of Trump simply because fewer of them had a low opinion of him — a problem that doomed Clinton .
What might happen to Trump ’ s and Biden ’ s popularity from here ?
Historically , new presidents have enjoyed a honeymoon phase where they become better-liked shortly after winning the election and taking office .
And according to a couple new polls , Biden ’ s may already have begun .
According to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , Biden ’ s favorable rating is now 55 percent — 6 points higher than it was in late October and the highest it has been in that survey since before he announced he was running for president .
And last week ’ s Morning Consult/Politico poll gave Biden a 57 percent favorable rating and a 41 percent unfavorable rating among registered voters — a vast improvement over his +6-point net favorability in their last pre-election survey together , in late October .
That said , not all pollsters are picking up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorability rating is just +2 points among registered voters in last week ’ s YouGov/The Economist poll , barely changed from their final pre-election survey .
And Harris/Harvard put his net favorability rating among registered voters at +6 points the week before Thanksgiving , basically the same as they found right before the election .
So we need more data before we can safely proclaim that Biden ’ s honeymoon is underway — especially since honeymoon periods may be increasingly elusive in this era of high partisanship .
As for Trump , presidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office and people start viewing their tenures through rose-colored glasses .
It ’ s too soon to say whether that ’ s going to happen with Trump ; his approval rating has hovered steadily in the 44-45 percent range since Nov. 3 .
That said , 44-45 percent is among the highest approval rating he has achieved over the last four years — so a handful of people who didn ’ t approve of his job performance for most of his presidency do approve of it now .
It will be interesting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he runs again for president in 2024 .
• With the promise of a coronavirus vaccine finally on the horizon , a new SurveyMonkey/Fortune poll finds that 40 percent of U.S. adults want to get the vaccine as soon as it becomes available .
However , another 39 percent said they want to wait a while before getting it , and 19 percent said they never want to get the vaccine .
Republicans ( 30 percent ) and Black Americans ( 25 percent ) were especially likely say they would turn down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s latest coronavirus survey , conducted the two days before Thanksgiving , 62 percent of Americans said they were canceling their typical holiday travel plans , and 66 percent said they were doing more holiday shopping digitally this year .
• We at FiveThirtyEight were glued to the election results as they came in about a month ago , and it turns out we weren ’ t alone .
According to a recent Pew Research Center poll , 36 percent of Americans say they followed the results of the election “ almost constantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checked in fairly often.
” Twenty-two percent said they “ checked in occasionally , ” while only 7 percent “ tuned out entirely.
” • A Nov. 17-19 survey by Harris X/The Hill found that 60 percent of registered voters support Biden canceling up to $ 50,000 of student debt per person — something that prominent Senate Democrats are reportedly pressuring him to do via executive order .
• A new poll from Research Co. has found that Americans disagree , 58 percent to 33 percent , with a proposal to lower the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they agree , 64 percent to 27 percent , with letting legal permanent residents ( i.e.
, green-card holders ) vote .
• While 2020 is a year that few people will remember fondly , Americans are at least optimistic that 2021 will be better .
According to a recent YouGov survey , 48 percent of adults think 2021 will be a better year for them personally than 2020 has been ; 28 percent think it will be about the same , and only 9 percent think it will be worse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracker , 43.6 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president , while 52.8 percent disapprove ( a net approval rating of -9.2 points ) .
At this time last week , 44.1 percent approved and 52.6 percent disapproved ( a net approval rating of -8.5 points ) .
One month ago , Trump had an approval rating of 44.6 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.6 percent , for a net approval rating of -8.1 points .

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our (mostly ) weekly polling roundup.
Poll(s) of the week
On a very basic level, one big reason why President Trump lost reelection is that he wasn’t very popular. As of Nov. 3, his job approval rating was just 44.6 percent, and his disapproval rating was 52.6 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval average. That -8.1-point net approval rating was the third-lowest of any recent president on the day they stood for election to a second term. (Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush were the only two other presidents to go into Election Day with a lower net approval rating, or higher disapproval rating, than Trump’s.) Notably, all three lost.
Unpopular presidents usually lose elections Recent presidents’ average approval and disapproval ratings on Election Day of the year they ran for another term President Year Won Election? Approval Disapproval Net Lyndon B. Johnson* 1964 ✓ 74.0% 15.0% +59.0 Dwight D. Eisenhower 1956 ✓ 67.9 19.1 +48.8 Richard Nixon 1972 ✓ 61.3 28.6 +32.7 Ronald Reagan 1984 ✓ 57.9 33.0 +24.9 Bill Clinton 1996 ✓ 54.6 38.6 +16.0 Barack Obama 2012 ✓ 49.5 47.1 +2.4 Gerald Ford* 1976 43.6 41.3 +2.3 George W. Bush 2004 ✓ 48.4 47.5 +0.9 Harry S. Truman* 1948 ✓ 39.6 45.5 -5.9 Donald Trump 2020 44.6 52.6 -8.1 Jimmy Carter 1980 37.9 54.8 -16.9 George H.W. Bush 1992 32.6 55.5 -22.9 *Acceded to the presidency mid-term. Source: Polls
Part of this boils down to the well-documented relationship between a president’s approval rating and his ability to win another election. Hugely popular presidents like Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan cruised to a second term, while divisive but still net-popular ones like George W. Bush and Barack Obama won in squeakers. In fact, the only recent president to lose his bid for a second term with a positive net approval rating was Gerald Ford in 1976. (That said, he had a fairly weak approval rating — just 43.6 percent, lower than Trump’s on Election Day in 2020. A relatively high share of Americans had no opinion of him, which may have made it easier for his opponent, Carter, to win them over.) That means the only president with a negative net approval rating to win a second term was Harry S. Truman in 1948 — an election still upheld as one of the most shocking upsets of all time.
Trump is setting a dangerous precedent for American democracy
That said, a president’s approval rating is hardly the last word. Elections, after all, are a choice between (at least) two candidates. But in the case of 2020, it looks like President-elect Biden was indeed more popular than Trump, at least according to Biden’s favorability ratings. (Favorability ratings and approval ratings aren’t quite the same thing, but they are pretty close.) And according to an average of favorability polls conducted during the week before Election Day, Biden had a 51.0 percent favorability rating and a 43.9 percent unfavorability rating, for a net favorability rating of +7.0 points. Meanwhile, Trump’s average net favorability rating in those same polls (-10.8 points, or 43.1 percent favorable vs. 53.9 percent unfavorable) was slightly worse than his net approval rating.
Americans viewed Biden pretty favorably Polls of Joe Biden’s favorability and unfavorability ratings conducted up to a week before Election Day Dates Pollster Fav. Unfav. Net Nov. 2-3 McLaughlin & Associates 52% 45% +7 Oct. 31-Nov. 2 YouGov/The Economist 51 48 +3 Oct. 29-Nov. 1 Léger 47 45 +2 Oct. 29-Nov. 1 Change Research/CNBC 50 44 +5 Oct. 28-Nov. 1 Quinnipiac University 49 42 +7 Oct. 29-31 Morning Consult 52 46 +6 Oct. 29-31 NBC News/The Wall Street Journal 45 42 +3 Oct. 27-29 Fox News 55 44 +11 Oct. 27-29 Gravis Marketing 59 38 +21 Oct. 27-28 Harris/Harvard 50 45 +5 Average 51.0 43.9 +7.0 When one poll released favorability numbers among multiple populations, we used the group most likely to vote — for example, we preferred samples of likely voters over samples of registered voters. Only the last iteration of the Morning Consult tracking poll is used. Source: Polls
Since elections essentially boil down to a popularity contest, the fact that Biden was better-liked than Trump on Election Day probably helped him win where Hillary Clinton (who was as unpopular as Trump in 2016) lost. Biden may have had an easier time winning over voters with a low opinion of Trump simply because fewer of them had a low opinion of him — a problem that doomed Clinton.
What might happen to Trump’s and Biden’s popularity from here? Historically, new presidents have enjoyed a honeymoon phase where they become better-liked shortly after winning the election and taking office. And according to a couple new polls, Biden’s may already have begun. According to a Gallup poll of American adults out this week, Biden’s favorable rating is now 55 percent — 6 points higher than it was in late October and the highest it has been in that survey since before he announced he was running for president. And last week’s Morning Consult/Politico poll gave Biden a 57 percent favorable rating and a 41 percent unfavorable rating among registered voters — a vast improvement over his +6-point net favorability in their last pre-election survey together, in late October.
[Related: Why Polling Has Gotten So Hard]
That said, not all pollsters are picking up on this. Biden’s net favorability rating is just +2 points among registered voters in last week’s YouGov/The Economist poll, barely changed from their final pre-election survey. And Harris/Harvard put his net favorability rating among registered voters at +6 points the week before Thanksgiving, basically the same as they found right before the election. So we need more data before we can safely proclaim that Biden’s honeymoon is underway — especially since honeymoon periods may be increasingly elusive in this era of high partisanship.
As for Trump, presidents often become more popular once they leave office and people start viewing their tenures through rose-colored glasses. It’s too soon to say whether that’s going to happen with Trump; his approval rating has hovered steadily in the 44-45 percent range since Nov. 3. That said, 44-45 percent is among the highest approval rating he has achieved over the last four years — so a handful of people who didn’t approve of his job performance for most of his presidency do approve of it now. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues, especially if he runs again for president in 2024.
Other polling bites
With the promise of a coronavirus vaccine finally on the horizon, a new SurveyMonkey/Fortune poll finds that 40 percent of U.S. adults want to get the vaccine as soon as it becomes available. However, another 39 percent said they want to wait a while before getting it, and 19 percent said they never want to get the vaccine. Republicans (30 percent) and Black Americans (25 percent) were especially likely say they would turn down the vaccine.
In Ipsos’s latest coronavirus survey, conducted the two days before Thanksgiving, 62 percent of Americans said they were canceling their typical holiday travel plans, and 66 percent said they were doing more holiday shopping digitally this year.
We at FiveThirtyEight were glued to the election results as they came in about a month ago, and it turns out we weren’t alone. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 36 percent of Americans say they followed the results of the election “almost constantly,” while another 34 percent “checked in fairly often.” Twenty-two percent said they “checked in occasionally,” while only 7 percent “tuned out entirely.”
A Nov. 17-19 survey by Harris X/The Hill found that 60 percent of registered voters support Biden canceling up to $50,000 of student debt per person — something that prominent Senate Democrats are reportedly pressuring him to do via executive order.
A new poll from Research Co. has found that Americans disagree, 58 percent to 33 percent, with a proposal to lower the federal voting age to 16. However, they agree, 64 percent to 27 percent, with letting legal permanent residents (i.e., green-card holders) vote.
While 2020 is a year that few people will remember fondly, Americans are at least optimistic that 2021 will be better. According to a recent YouGov survey, 48 percent of adults think 2021 will be a better year for them personally than 2020 has been; 28 percent think it will be about the same, and only 9 percent think it will be worse.
Trump approval
According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 43.6 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 52.8 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -9.2 points). At this time last week, 44.1 percent approved and 52.6 percent disapproved (a net approval rating of -8.5 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 44.6 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.6 percent, for a net approval rating of -8.1 points.
How to make polls better | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-04--Who’s The Most Chaotic Movie Football Coach?

There are few truly great football movies .
The things that draw fans to the sport — a strange mix of athleticism , schematic complexity , courage and violence — seem to defy easy capture on the big screen .
Perhaps it ’ s because our rooting interests change when we watch movies .
We cheer for dramatic character arcs rather than rainbow Hail Marys caught as time runs out .
Good football movies aren ’ t about big moments on the field but the big characters who shape them .
And there ’ s no bigger personality than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screen , a head coach is typically part father figure , part disciplinarian extracting the utmost from his team .
Some serve as a foil — a common enemy players can rally around to come together and ultimately overcome insurmountable odds .
Others are inspirational lords of the locker room , dispensing life advice .
But which movie coach is the best ?
We watched nine football movies — from “ Air Bud ” to “ Varsity Blues ” — and tried to capture what makes each film ’ s head football coach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the expected points added of each coach ’ s play calls , and we evaluated coaches ’ decision making — both on the field and in the locker room .
Finally , we ranked the leadership qualities of each coach along an alignment chart , defining each of the nine as lawful good , lawful evil , chaotic good and chaotic evil .
“ Lawful ” means adhering to the law generally .
In cases where a coach deviates from established norms , they will at least remain consistent with respect to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” coach would be an individual willing to buck norms and traditions — including those he ’ s established — in pursuit of his goals .
A “ good ” coach is selfless as a leader and puts the needs of others ahead of his own interests , while an “ evil ” coach is willing to actively harm others to get what he wants .
And yes , we will spoil the movies here … but the most recent one came out in 2006 , so if you haven ’ t seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on you .
In a cartoonish family drama about a dog suiting up and helping protagonist Josh Framm ’ s junior high school football team turn its program around , it ’ s perhaps unsurprising that Fanelli ’ s only flaw appears to be an unhealthy love of junk food .
Fanelli ’ s job is in danger because of the Timberwolves ’ persistent losing , but his perspective on coaching never wavers : It ’ s about the kids .
“ If winning ’ s all they ’ re interested in , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway , ” Fanelli says .
And while Fanelli is open to the unorthodox — he allows Josh to bring Buddy onto the team — he does so in service to his ethos that “ football is about having fun.
” Most of “ Air Bud : Golden Receiver ” is undeniably corny , but Robert Costanzo as Fanelli is able to transcend the kitsch in one touching moment when he convinces runaway Josh that opening his heart to his mother ’ s new boyfriend doesn ’ t mean he has to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coupled with his ability to adapt to the strengths of his personnel , is enough to place the coach firmly in the upper right corner of our alignment chart .
Denzel Washington ’ s Herman Boone is firm but fair .
He ’ s a mean cuss to everyone , Black or white .
He ’ s authoritarian and perhaps not quite the coach the players deserved , but maybe the one they needed .
In the situation the movie ’ s writers put him in — lose one game and you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dusty racism and heightened tensions — Boone ’ s sometimes excessive drive to win is at least somewhat understandable .
“ We will be perfect ” is a laughable statement from any football coach , but it somehow manages to be stoic and endearing from Washington .
It also helps , of course , that the Titans do end up going undefeated .
If winning is the best measure of a coach ’ s ability , the title of best movie coach surely goes to Boone .
In fact , his Titans were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1971 T.C .
Williams High School team outscored its opponents 357-45 with nine shutouts — that screenwriter Gregory Allen Howard had to manufacture drama to make the movie more compelling .
T.C .
Williams plays in a number of close games over the course of the film , but the actual Titans played in only one nail-biter : their fifth game of the season , against Marshall .
The Titans trailed for most of the game and were held scoreless until midway through the second quarter .
It wasn ’ t until Frankie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first half — broke loose for a 75-yard touchdown run with 5:20 left in the game that the Titans took the lead .
Conversely , the real Herman Boone was a much more complicated character than the one made famous by Washington ’ s portrayal .
The real Boone narrowly survived a player mutiny in 1977 when the football team threatened to quit unless he apologized for a particularly vitriolic tirade after a loss .
Boone was removed from his job two years later after he was accused of abusing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Remember the Titans ” doesn ’ t completely gloss over the troubling parts of Boone ’ s character .
Some of his hard edge is revealed when he tells tired and dehydrated player Darryl “ Blue ” Stanton that “ Water is for cowards .
Water makes you weak ” and then proceeds to have the team do up-and-downs “ until Blue is no longer tired , and thirsty.
” The evidence is clear that this type of coaching is harmful for players and counterproductive to team-building .
In fact , it can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of North Carolina show that 106 football players across all levels of play died from heatstroke from 1971 to 2019 .
And eight young men died in 1970 — the most fatalities due to heatstroke ever recorded in a single year — just one year prior to the season depicted in the movie .
Despite this — mainly because of the strength of Washington ’ s acting — Boone manages to rate highly on our good and lawful scales .
Matthew McConaughey ’ s Jack Lengyel is a joyful and big-hearted but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goal in taking over the Marshall University football team a year after nearly the entire coaching staff and all but three players were killed in an airplane crash isn ’ t to win .
It ’ s merely to suit up and take the field .
Lengyel ’ s expectations fit the moment : The Thundering Herd won two games in 1971 .
Over his career at Marshall , Lengyel went just 9-33 .
Lengyel rates highly on the “ good ” scale of the alignment chart .
He took a job no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could help a town with deep wounds heal .
McConaughey ’ s Lengyel doesn ’ t pretend to have the answers to the movie ’ s bigger questions about grief , but he does know when to shut up and listen .
Perhaps because of this , his leadership style drifts toward the chaotic .
His accomplishments in the movie are largely due to him pushing back against institutions and bucking convention .
He convinces Marshall ’ s president to petition the NCAA to allow true freshmen to play for the team , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brazenly asks coach Bobby Bowden at rival West Virginia University to allow him and his staff to plunder their archives to learn the Veer , an offensive system better suited to their players than a more standard offense .
In the movie ’ s best scene , Lengyel and his assistant coach discover that WVU ’ s team is wearing Marshall stickers on their helmets to honor the team and the dead .
As it turns out , the portrayal is accurate — and part of the reason for Bowden ’ s generosity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job at Marshall , and very well might have been on that plane .
In the movie based on the book , Gary Gaines coaches the Permian High School Panthers in a small Texas town obsessed with high school football .
The town ’ s skewed view of the importance of Friday nights seems to rub off on a character that the movie tries to cast as its hero .
Gaines — played by Billy Bob Thornton — says he doesn ’ t do the Oklahoma drill “ just to make heads rattle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop him from lining his kids up and doing just that .
Perhaps more than any other moment , this knocks Gaines down our “ good ” and “ lawful ” scales .
The drill ’ s benefits are not worth the risks involved .
The NFL banned the controversial drill last year out of concern that it causes preventable head injury , and college programs have begun to follow suit .
And while it ’ s perhaps unfair to judge a coach too harshly for the practice in 1988 , it remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young men in high school slam their heads into one another during practice is either smart or acceptable .
On the field , Gaines is wildly successful despite losing his best player , running back James “ Boobie ” Miles , to a career-ending knee injury in a blowout Week 1 win .
Gaines eventually leads the Panthers to the state championship against Dallas Carter High School at the Astrodome in front of 55,000 fans , losing the game on the last play after a courageous come-from-behind effort .
The real-life Gaines ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 46-7-1 record , good for a 86.1 win percentage , and a national championship .
Strothers is the most interesting and complex of the movie coaches we viewed .
Perhaps that ’ s because his character was modeled after the Dallas Cowboys ’ Hall of Fame head coach Tom Landry , an undeniably great tactician and one of the first people in the NFL to use an analytical process to manage a team .
In one scene in a meeting at team headquarters , Strothers — played by G.D. Spradlin — upbraids his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Pass completions were 49 percent .
That ’ s 6.3 percent less than reasonable , and 19 percent less than our outstanding.
” The dehumanization of players by the business of football is a major theme of “ North Dallas Forty , ” and Strothers neatly embodies the cold , calculating executive who stares into a computer screen for insights into his players rather than looking them in the eye .
Set in 1979 , the film isn ’ t clear on who actually calls the plays in the final sequence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was known for changing Landry ’ s plays in the 60s , but if Strothers did have a hand in things , he did a good job .
To save the season , the Bulls dial up a clever draw on third-and-long that ’ s worth 1.25 expected points added , and then North Dallas overcomes a costly holding call with 24 seconds left by calling back-to-back passes so that the team won ’ t have to huddle and lose time off the clock .
Nick Nolte ’ s character — wide receiver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blaze-out route ” ( one that looks only slightly slower than Julio Jones ’ s more recent incarnations ) with no time left on the clock for an improbable last-second touchdown .
Strothers is also cast as a hypocrite on drug use .
In a league still struggling with how to properly deal with recreational cannabis , Strothers ’ s attitude is understandable .
The movie ends with Elliott forced out of the league ostensibly for smoking grass ( but in reality , it was mostly to save payroll costs ) , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep his players on the field .
Perhaps unsurprisingly , the NFL was not a fan of the film .
There were real-life repercussions for the experts who served as advisers on the movie .
Hall of Famer and scout Tom Fears reportedly had contracts with three NFL teams prior to the film ’ s release , and each of them severed ties with him after “ North Dallas Forty ” opened in theaters .
Raiders receiver Fred Biletnikoff , who coached Nolte and after whom Nolte modeled his character ’ s playing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to camp .
And Tommy Reamon — who played needle-shy receiver Delma Huddle — was cut by the San Francisco 49ers and claimed he had been blackballed by the league .
Oliver Stone ’ s “ Any Given Sunday ” is a mess of a movie , with camera movements so violent that it ’ s difficult to sit through the first third without having a seizure .
When things reach their nadir and a player loses an eye on the field in an absolutely ridiculous scene , the only thing keeping a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tony D ’ Amato .
D ’ Amato is an old-school coach caught in a league that ’ s changing in ways he seems unprepared for .
Front office meddling and a young offensive coordinator who “ knows the probabilities ” are conspiring to force him out of the game he loves .
But while D ’ Amato starts out as a selfish , manipulative , run-first control freak ( “ You talk about a running game .
… People want to see passes , touchdowns , high scores .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimately morphs into a selfish and manipulative but relatable player ’ s coach .
Even with his characteristic late-career overacting , Pacino ’ s “ Inches ” speech is still one of the best of the genre .
On the field , D ’ Amato evolves as well , ultimately embracing the passing game and a new style of mobile quarterbacks .
After his defense gets a stop on fourth-and-1 , he calls a long pass play that connects for 80 yards but is called back for holding .
D ’ Amato ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passing the rest of the way down the field ( save for the final two plays of the drive ) against the Dallas Knights to win ( though they eventually lose the Pantheon Cup to San Francisco ) .
It would be nice to be able to say more about D ’ Amato ’ s tactics , but Stone ’ s claustrophobic camerawork is so tight on each actor ’ s face that it ’ s nearly impossible to determine what ’ s actually happening on the field .
Burt Reynolds ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NFL QB Paul Crewe is probably more beloved than it deserves to be .
The characters in “ The Longest Yard ” are largely unlikable ( “ I never gave a shit about football , or anything else.
” ) , and the comedy — which may once have been shocking — is tired and flat by today ’ s standards .
As a coach of a semi-pro football team in prison , Crewe integrates the squad and at one point opts to go for a 2-point conversion , both of which are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Another memorable moment is when a decision to punt by the warden ’ s team is described by announcers as “ kind of a timid or a chicken kind of football.
” Still , Crewe ’ s failures outweigh his successes .
In one scene , he wastes two straight downs hitting a guard below the belt with a football , which about sums up the viewing experience for this 1974 “ classic.
” Bud Kilmer and Wayne Hisler are lumped together because they ’ re mostly uninteresting caricatures .
Kilmer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst parts of Strothers , Gaines and Boone all rolled into one seething package .
He ’ s a racist who sends a lineman suffering from a concussion back into the game despite suspecting head trauma , then later cuts him when the injury hampers his performance .
An authoritarian who is also , unsurprisingly , a run-first play-caller , Kilmer is ultimately thrown off the team by the players and is not on the sideline for West Canaan High School ’ s climactic win .
In “ Johnny Be Good , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a craven narcissist trying to parlay his relationship with his star high school QB ( played by “ The Breakfast Club ” nerd-turned-jock Anthony Michael Hall ) into a higher-paying job at a university .
An abomination of a character , Hisler is unlikable and unwatchable , much like the movie itself .

There are few truly great football movies. The things that draw fans to the sport — a strange mix of athleticism, schematic complexity, courage and violence — seem to defy easy capture on the big screen.
Perhaps it’s because our rooting interests change when we watch movies. We cheer for dramatic character arcs rather than rainbow Hail Marys caught as time runs out. Good football movies aren’t about big moments on the field but the big characters who shape them. And there’s no bigger personality than a movie football coach.
On the big screen, a head coach is typically part father figure, part disciplinarian extracting the utmost from his team. Some serve as a foil — a common enemy players can rally around to come together and ultimately overcome insurmountable odds. Others are inspirational lords of the locker room, dispensing life advice. But which movie coach is the best? We watched nine football movies — from “Air Bud” to “Varsity Blues” — and tried to capture what makes each film’s head football coach tick.
Watching for the best movie football coaches Football movies watched by rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with year released and competition level portrayed in the film Movie Year Competition Level Tomato Rating “North Dallas Forty” 1979 Pro 84% “Friday Night Lights” 2004 High school 82 “The Longest Yard” 1974 Semi-pro 79 “Remember the Titans” 2000 High school 73 “Any Given Sunday” 1999 Pro 52 “We Are Marshall” 2006 College 48 “Varsity Blues” 1999 High school 43 “Air Bud: Golden Receiver” 1998 Junior high 21 “Johnny Be Good” 1988 College 0 Sources: IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes
Where possible, we calculated the expected points added of each coach’s play calls, and we evaluated coaches’ decision making — both on the field and in the locker room. Finally, we ranked the leadership qualities of each coach along an alignment chart, defining each of the nine as lawful good, lawful evil, chaotic good and chaotic evil.
“Lawful” means adhering to the law generally. In cases where a coach deviates from established norms, they will at least remain consistent with respect to their worldviews. Conversely, a “chaotic” coach would be an individual willing to buck norms and traditions — including those he’s established — in pursuit of his goals. A “good” coach is selfless as a leader and puts the needs of others ahead of his own interests, while an “evil” coach is willing to actively harm others to get what he wants.
And yes, we will spoil the movies here … but the most recent one came out in 2006, so if you haven’t seen them by now, that’s on you.
Lawful good
Coach Fanelli
In a cartoonish family drama about a dog suiting up and helping protagonist Josh Framm’s junior high school football team turn its program around, it’s perhaps unsurprising that Fanelli’s only flaw appears to be an unhealthy love of junk food. Fanelli’s job is in danger because of the Timberwolves’ persistent losing, but his perspective on coaching never wavers: It’s about the kids. “If winning’s all they’re interested in, I’m not the right guy anyway,” Fanelli says.
And while Fanelli is open to the unorthodox — he allows Josh to bring Buddy onto the team — he does so in service to his ethos that “football is about having fun.” Most of “Air Bud: Golden Receiver” is undeniably corny, but Robert Costanzo as Fanelli is able to transcend the kitsch in one touching moment when he convinces runaway Josh that opening his heart to his mother’s new boyfriend doesn’t mean he has to stop loving his deceased father. That, coupled with his ability to adapt to the strengths of his personnel, is enough to place the coach firmly in the upper right corner of our alignment chart.
Herman Boone
Denzel Washington’s Herman Boone is firm but fair. He’s a mean cuss to everyone, Black or white. He’s authoritarian and perhaps not quite the coach the players deserved, but maybe the one they needed. In the situation the movie’s writers put him in — lose one game and you’re fired, in an environment of dusty racism and heightened tensions — Boone’s sometimes excessive drive to win is at least somewhat understandable. “We will be perfect” is a laughable statement from any football coach, but it somehow manages to be stoic and endearing from Washington. It also helps, of course, that the Titans do end up going undefeated.
If winning is the best measure of a coach’s ability, the title of best movie coach surely goes to Boone. In fact, his Titans were so dominant in real life — the 1971 T.C. Williams High School team outscored its opponents 357-45 with nine shutouts — that screenwriter Gregory Allen Howard had to manufacture drama to make the movie more compelling.
The Titans could forget about most of these teams 1971 schedule for T.C. Williams High School, the basis of the film “Remember the Titans” Opponent Result Score Herndon W 19-0 Yorktown W 25-0 Hayfield W 26-7 Jefferson W 25-0 Marshall W 21-16 Groveton W 29-0 Madison W 34-0 W & L W 34-0 Wakefield W 27-0 Bishop Ireton W 26-8 Annandale W 28-0 Woodrow Wilson W 36-14 Andrew Lewis W 27-0 Source: Original Titans Foundation
T.C. Williams plays in a number of close games over the course of the film, but the actual Titans played in only one nail-biter: their fifth game of the season, against Marshall. The Titans trailed for most of the game and were held scoreless until midway through the second quarter. It wasn’t until Frankie Glascoe — who rushed for negative yardage in the first half — broke loose for a 75-yard touchdown run with 5:20 left in the game that the Titans took the lead.
Conversely, the real Herman Boone was a much more complicated character than the one made famous by Washington’s portrayal. The real Boone narrowly survived a player mutiny in 1977 when the football team threatened to quit unless he apologized for a particularly vitriolic tirade after a loss. Boone was removed from his job two years later after he was accused of abusing his players “orally and physically.”
“Remember the Titans” doesn’t completely gloss over the troubling parts of Boone’s character. Some of his hard edge is revealed when he tells tired and dehydrated player Darryl “Blue” Stanton that “Water is for cowards. Water makes you weak” and then proceeds to have the team do up-and-downs “until Blue is no longer tired, and thirsty.” The evidence is clear that this type of coaching is harmful for players and counterproductive to team-building. In fact, it can be deadly. Reports compiled by the University of North Carolina show that 106 football players across all levels of play died from heatstroke from 1971 to 2019. And eight young men died in 1970 — the most fatalities due to heatstroke ever recorded in a single year — just one year prior to the season depicted in the movie. Despite this — mainly because of the strength of Washington’s acting — Boone manages to rate highly on our good and lawful scales.
Jack Lengyel
Matthew McConaughey’s Jack Lengyel is a joyful and big-hearted but ultimately one-dimensional character. Lengyel’s goal in taking over the Marshall University football team a year after nearly the entire coaching staff and all but three players were killed in an airplane crash isn’t to win. It’s merely to suit up and take the field. Lengyel’s expectations fit the moment: The Thundering Herd won two games in 1971. Over his career at Marshall, Lengyel went just 9-33.
Lengyel rates highly on the “good” scale of the alignment chart. He took a job no one else wanted because he thought he could help a town with deep wounds heal. McConaughey’s Lengyel doesn’t pretend to have the answers to the movie’s bigger questions about grief, but he does know when to shut up and listen.
Perhaps because of this, his leadership style drifts toward the chaotic. His accomplishments in the movie are largely due to him pushing back against institutions and bucking convention. He convinces Marshall’s president to petition the NCAA to allow true freshmen to play for the team, overturning a long tradition. And he brazenly asks coach Bobby Bowden at rival West Virginia University to allow him and his staff to plunder their archives to learn the Veer, an offensive system better suited to their players than a more standard offense. In the movie’s best scene, Lengyel and his assistant coach discover that WVU’s team is wearing Marshall stickers on their helmets to honor the team and the dead. As it turns out, the portrayal is accurate — and part of the reason for Bowden’s generosity was that he nearly took the coaching job at Marshall, and very well might have been on that plane.
Gary Gaines
In the movie based on the book, Gary Gaines coaches the Permian High School Panthers in a small Texas town obsessed with high school football. The town’s skewed view of the importance of Friday nights seems to rub off on a character that the movie tries to cast as its hero. Gaines — played by Billy Bob Thornton — says he doesn’t do the Oklahoma drill “just to make heads rattle,” but it doesn’t stop him from lining his kids up and doing just that. Perhaps more than any other moment, this knocks Gaines down our “good” and “lawful” scales. The drill’s benefits are not worth the risks involved. The NFL banned the controversial drill last year out of concern that it causes preventable head injury, and college programs have begun to follow suit. And while it’s perhaps unfair to judge a coach too harshly for the practice in 1988, it remains bewildering that sober adults ever thought having young men in high school slam their heads into one another during practice is either smart or acceptable.
On the field, Gaines is wildly successful despite losing his best player, running back James “Boobie” Miles, to a career-ending knee injury in a blowout Week 1 win. Gaines eventually leads the Panthers to the state championship against Dallas Carter High School at the Astrodome in front of 55,000 fans, losing the game on the last play after a courageous come-from-behind effort.
The real-life Gaines ended his first tenure at Permian with a 46-7-1 record, good for a 86.1 win percentage, and a national championship.
Lawful evil
B.A. Strothers
Strothers is the most interesting and complex of the movie coaches we viewed. Perhaps that’s because his character was modeled after the Dallas Cowboys’ Hall of Fame head coach Tom Landry, an undeniably great tactician and one of the first people in the NFL to use an analytical process to manage a team. In one scene in a meeting at team headquarters, Strothers — played by G.D. Spradlin — upbraids his star quarterback for a low completion percentage: “Pass completions were 49 percent. That’s 6.3 percent less than reasonable, and 19 percent less than our outstanding.” The dehumanization of players by the business of football is a major theme of “North Dallas Forty,” and Strothers neatly embodies the cold, calculating executive who stares into a computer screen for insights into his players rather than looking them in the eye.
Set in 1979, the film isn’t clear on who actually calls the plays in the final sequence against Chicago. Cowboys quarterback Don Meredith was known for changing Landry’s plays in the 60s, but if Strothers did have a hand in things, he did a good job. To save the season, the Bulls dial up a clever draw on third-and-long that’s worth 1.25 expected points added, and then North Dallas overcomes a costly holding call with 24 seconds left by calling back-to-back passes so that the team won’t have to huddle and lose time off the clock. Nick Nolte’s character — wide receiver Phil Elliott — runs a devastating “blaze-out route” (one that looks only slightly slower than Julio Jones’s more recent incarnations) with no time left on the clock for an improbable last-second touchdown.
The North Dallas final drive was improbable Plays run on the last drive by the Bulls in the movie “North Dallas Forty,” with expected points added (EPA) and touchdown probability* for each Play type down To go Field position Time left (secs.) epa TD odds Run 1 10 25 120 -0.84 38% Pass 2 13 28 80 -0.49 23 Draw 3 13 28 65 +1.25 17 Holding, no play 1 10 18 24 -1.55 35 Pass 1 20 28 16 +0.18 8 Pass, touchdown 2 7 15 1 +4.09 4 *Touchdown probability is calculated before the play is run. Source: Expected points model by nflfastR
Strothers is also cast as a hypocrite on drug use. In a league still struggling with how to properly deal with recreational cannabis, Strothers’s attitude is understandable. The movie ends with Elliott forced out of the league ostensibly for smoking grass (but in reality, it was mostly to save payroll costs), while Strothers encourages the use of painkillers to keep his players on the field.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the NFL was not a fan of the film. There were real-life repercussions for the experts who served as advisers on the movie. Hall of Famer and scout Tom Fears reportedly had contracts with three NFL teams prior to the film’s release, and each of them severed ties with him after “North Dallas Forty” opened in theaters. Raiders receiver Fred Biletnikoff, who coached Nolte and after whom Nolte modeled his character’s playing style, wasn’t asked back to camp. And Tommy Reamon — who played needle-shy receiver Delma Huddle — was cut by the San Francisco 49ers and claimed he had been blackballed by the league.
Chaotic good
Tony D’Amato
Oliver Stone’s “Any Given Sunday” is a mess of a movie, with camera movements so violent that it’s difficult to sit through the first third without having a seizure. When things reach their nadir and a player loses an eye on the field in an absolutely ridiculous scene, the only thing keeping a viewer interested is Al Pacino’s Tony D’Amato. D’Amato is an old-school coach caught in a league that’s changing in ways he seems unprepared for. Front office meddling and a young offensive coordinator who “knows the probabilities” are conspiring to force him out of the game he loves. But while D’Amato starts out as a selfish, manipulative, run-first control freak (“You talk about a running game. … People want to see passes, touchdowns, high scores. That’s the game today.”), he ultimately morphs into a selfish and manipulative but relatable player’s coach. Even with his characteristic late-career overacting, Pacino’s “Inches” speech is still one of the best of the genre.
On the field, D’Amato evolves as well, ultimately embracing the passing game and a new style of mobile quarterbacks. After his defense gets a stop on fourth-and-1, he calls a long pass play that connects for 80 yards but is called back for holding. D’Amato’s Miami Sharks overcome the setback by passing the rest of the way down the field (save for the final two plays of the drive) against the Dallas Knights to win (though they eventually lose the Pantheon Cup to San Francisco). It would be nice to be able to say more about D’Amato’s tactics, but Stone’s claustrophobic camerawork is so tight on each actor’s face that it’s nearly impossible to determine what’s actually happening on the field.
Chaotic evil
Paul Crewe
Burt Reynolds’s portrayal of the woman-beating, drunk-driving former NFL QB Paul Crewe is probably more beloved than it deserves to be. The characters in “The Longest Yard” are largely unlikable (“I never gave a shit about football, or anything else.”), and the comedy — which may once have been shocking — is tired and flat by today’s standards.
As a coach of a semi-pro football team in prison, Crewe integrates the squad and at one point opts to go for a 2-point conversion, both of which are laudable (though to different degrees). Another memorable moment is when a decision to punt by the warden’s team is described by announcers as “kind of a timid or a chicken kind of football.” Still, Crewe’s failures outweigh his successes. In one scene, he wastes two straight downs hitting a guard below the belt with a football, which about sums up the viewing experience for this 1974 “classic.”
Bud Kilmer “Varsity Blues” Wayne Hisler “Johnny Be Good”
Bud Kilmer and Wayne Hisler are lumped together because they’re mostly uninteresting caricatures. Kilmer, played by Jon Voight, represents the worst parts of Strothers, Gaines and Boone all rolled into one seething package. He’s a racist who sends a lineman suffering from a concussion back into the game despite suspecting head trauma, then later cuts him when the injury hampers his performance. An authoritarian who is also, unsurprisingly, a run-first play-caller, Kilmer is ultimately thrown off the team by the players and is not on the sideline for West Canaan High School’s climactic win.
In “Johnny Be Good,” Hisler — portrayed by Paul Gleason — is a craven narcissist trying to parlay his relationship with his star high school QB (played by “The Breakfast Club” nerd-turned-jock Anthony Michael Hall) into a higher-paying job at a university. An abomination of a character, Hisler is unlikable and unwatchable, much like the movie itself.
Illustration by Madison Ketcham.


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-04--Why Polling Has Gotten So Hard

Why Polling Has Gotten So Hard

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Galen Druke talks with two A+ rated pollsters — J. Ann @ @ @ @ @ about the challenges of polling and how to fix them .

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke talks with two A+ rated pollsters — J. Ann Selzer and Patrick Murray — about the challenges of polling and how to fix them.
[Related: Polling 101: What Happened To The Polls In 2016 — And What You Should Know About Them In 2020]


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-04--José Mourinho Has Tottenham At The Top Of The Table. But Are Spurs For Real?

Leading a team to an English Football League Cup title , a Europa League title , a second-place finish in the Premier League ( and therefore Champions League qualification ) and an FA Cup final in a matter of 15 months would be the greatest stretch of their careers for most managers in the history of English soccer .
But José Mourinho isn ’ t most managers , and this run of success from February 2017 to May 2018 wasn ’ t enough to keep him in a job at Manchester United .
A poor start to the 2018-19 season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Manchester , but it was an overall perception of failure — and a perception that United wasn ’ t playing the way United should play under the Portuguese maestro — that was the Special One ’ s ultimate undoing .
United doesn ’ t react to the tactics of other teams , and United doesn ’ t do second place ; United imposes its will on matches , and United wins Premier League titles .
Or at least that ’ s how the story goes .
[ Related : Liverpool And Manchester @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] It ’ s been nearly two years since Mourinho ’ s sacking .
In that time , United has done precious little to convince anyone it ’ s on the precipice of domestic greatness , finishing more than 30 points behind the Premier League champions in each of the last two seasons .
On the other hand , Mourinho ’ s Tottenham Hotspur currently sits atop the Premier League table , level on points with defending champion Liverpool but ahead on goal differential .
When Mourinho took over for Mauricio Pochettino in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position on the table , having won just three of their first 12 matches of the season .
Through Matchweek 19 , Spurs had climbed to sixth position and appeared to be legitimate contenders for Champions League qualification .
There ’ s a moment in Amazon ’ s recent fly-on-the-wall documentary series about Tottenham ’ s 2019-20 season when Mourinho tells his players to stop being “ nice ” on the pitch and start being something we absolutely can not print here .
The Lilywhites ’ excellent form over the first six weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , um , direct approach was effective , but that early success was short-lived .
Spurs sputtered around the holidays , going winless in four matches between Dec. 28 and Jan. 18 and dropping to eighth position on the table , 8 points adrift of the last Champion League .
Another four-match winless streak from Feb. 22 to June 19 — spread across four months because of the pandemic — all but torpedoed Tottenham ’ s Champions League dreams .
Spurs went 13-6-7 under Mourinho ’ s stewardship during the 2019-20 season .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Enough for Europa League qualification , but not enough for a spot in club soccer ’ s elite competition .
Inconsistency , injuries to key players — both Harry Kane and Son Heung-min , Tottenham ’ s two best players , missed time after Mourinho took the helm — and a nearly four-month break in play dictated that no one quite knew what to make of Mourinho ’ s Spurs .
They were winning with more regularity than Pochettino ’ s iteration had before he was canned — Spurs picked up 1.73 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ versus just 1.17 before he arrived — but they didn ’ t have anything to show for it .
When a club hires Mourinho , it does so with the expectation that he will fill its trophy case with shiny metal objects , just as he had done at Porto , Chelsea ( during two separate stints with the club ) , Internazionale , Real Madrid and , yes , even Manchester United .
But early exits in the Champions League and the FA Cup meant Spurs would have to wait at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the present , and Mourinho ’ s Tottenham is pacing the league heading into the same busy holiday period it stumbled through a season ago .
Spurs are on a nine-game unbeaten streak in the Premier League that includes wins over Manchester United and Manchester City and a hard-fought ( if terribly boring ) away draw with cross-city rivals Chelsea .
Kane has been dropping deeper and functioning more as a playmaker than an out-and-out striker , and he and Son look like the most dangerous duo in England , if not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top 12 in the Premier League in non-penalty expected goals per 90 minutes and the top 30 in shot-creating actions per 90 minutes , and each has scored at least seven goals already , placing them both firmly in the race for the Golden Boot .
Moussa Sissoko and Pierre-Emile Højbjerg , who is one of the best ball winners in England , have formed a potent partnership at the heart of the midfield , providing cover to a back four that at times still feels makeshift .
Meanwhile , Tanguy Ndombele @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he does best : negate the opposition ’ s press with his elite dribbling ability and progressive passing .
Ndombele rarely wastes the ball , but when he does , his tackling ability means he ’ s as big an asset pressing to win the ball back as he is with the ball at his feet going forward .
Tidiness at the back , a good balance of solidity and creativity in the midfield — critically , a midfield unit that works together — and a pair of virtuosos at the front @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( not unlike the Porto team he made his name with after winning the 2004 Champions League crown , though the shape is a bit different now ) .
But is Tottenham for real , or is its early lead an aberration , illustrative of this deeply weird season ?
In terms of expected goals ( xG ) , according to StatsBomb ’ s model on FBref.com , Tottenham looks pretty good , if not exactly like the best team in the division .
Through Matchweek 10 , Spurs are tied for fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goals scored ( 15.8 ) and rank fourth in expected goals allowed ( 11.1 ) and third in expected goal differential ( +4.7 ) .
But Tottenham is also outperforming both its expected goals and expected goals allowed : It has scored 21 goals and allowed just nine .
Because xG is the best predictor of future performance , Tottenham ’ s occupation of the top spot may not be long-lasting .
Some other underlying stats aren ’ t much kinder to Spurs , especially in their ability to move the ball forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They rank eighth in shot-creating actions , 14th in touches in the attacking penalty area , 12th in touches in the attacking third , eighth in progressive passes completed and ninth in shots attempted .
That said , they still rank first in goal-creating actions per 90 minutes , which helps to explain why they are where they are on the table at the moment .
[ A Canadian Teenager Is One Of The Fastest Soccer Players In The World ] Tottenham has been clinical to this point , but it has also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a result , FiveThirtyEight ’ s club soccer prediction model thinks that Spurs are a good team , but certainly not the best team in England .
As it stands , it gives Tottenham just a 8 percent chance of winning the Premier League .
( It still really loves Man City ’ s chances , despite its unimpressive start to the season . )
It ’ s a puncher ’ s chance , and that might be all Mourinho needs this time around .

Leading a team to an English Football League Cup title, a Europa League title, a second-place finish in the Premier League (and therefore Champions League qualification) and an FA Cup final in a matter of 15 months would be the greatest stretch of their careers for most managers in the history of English soccer. But José Mourinho isn’t most managers, and this run of success from February 2017 to May 2018 wasn’t enough to keep him in a job at Manchester United.
A poor start to the 2018-19 season precipitated the end of the Mourinho era in Manchester, but it was an overall perception of failure — and a perception that United wasn’t playing the way United should play under the Portuguese maestro — that was the Special One’s ultimate undoing. United doesn’t react to the tactics of other teams, and United doesn’t do second place; United imposes its will on matches, and United wins Premier League titles. Or at least that’s how the story goes.
[Related: Liverpool And Manchester City Look Ordinary. Are They?]
It’s been nearly two years since Mourinho’s sacking. In that time, United has done precious little to convince anyone it’s on the precipice of domestic greatness, finishing more than 30 points behind the Premier League champions in each of the last two seasons. On the other hand, Mourinho’s Tottenham Hotspur currently sits atop the Premier League table, level on points with defending champion Liverpool but ahead on goal differential.
Who’s the most chaotic fictional football coach? | FiveThirtyEight
When Mourinho took over for Mauricio Pochettino in November 2019, Spurs sat in 14th position on the table, having won just three of their first 12 matches of the season. Through Matchweek 19, Spurs had climbed to sixth position and appeared to be legitimate contenders for Champions League qualification.
There’s a moment in Amazon’s recent fly-on-the-wall documentary series about Tottenham’s 2019-20 season when Mourinho tells his players to stop being “nice” on the pitch and start being something we absolutely cannot print here. The Lilywhites’ excellent form over the first six weeks of his tenure suggested Mourinho’s, um, direct approach was effective, but that early success was short-lived. Spurs sputtered around the holidays, going winless in four matches between Dec. 28 and Jan. 18 and dropping to eighth position on the table, 8 points adrift of the last Champion League. Another four-match winless streak from Feb. 22 to June 19 — spread across four months because of the pandemic — all but torpedoed Tottenham’s Champions League dreams.
Spurs went 13-6-7 under Mourinho’s stewardship during the 2019-20 season. Not great, but not terrible. Enough for Europa League qualification, but not enough for a spot in club soccer’s elite competition. Inconsistency, injuries to key players — both Harry Kane and Son Heung-min, Tottenham’s two best players, missed time after Mourinho took the helm — and a nearly four-month break in play dictated that no one quite knew what to make of Mourinho’s Spurs.
They were winning with more regularity than Pochettino’s iteration had before he was canned — Spurs picked up 1.73 points per game after Mourinho took over, versus just 1.17 before he arrived — but they didn’t have anything to show for it. When a club hires Mourinho, it does so with the expectation that he will fill its trophy case with shiny metal objects, just as he had done at Porto, Chelsea (during two separate stints with the club), Internazionale, Real Madrid and, yes, even Manchester United. But early exits in the Champions League and the FA Cup meant Spurs would have to wait at least another season for silverware.
Flash forward to the present, and Mourinho’s Tottenham is pacing the league heading into the same busy holiday period it stumbled through a season ago. Spurs are on a nine-game unbeaten streak in the Premier League that includes wins over Manchester United and Manchester City and a hard-fought (if terribly boring) away draw with cross-city rivals Chelsea. Kane has been dropping deeper and functioning more as a playmaker than an out-and-out striker, and he and Son look like the most dangerous duo in England, if not all of Europe. Each ranks in the top 12 in the Premier League in non-penalty expected goals per 90 minutes and the top 30 in shot-creating actions per 90 minutes, and each has scored at least seven goals already, placing them both firmly in the race for the Golden Boot.
Tottenham’s strikers are having huge seasons Premier League players with at least seven goals scored, with ranks in non-penalty expected goals (npxG) and shot-creating actions (SCA) Rank per 90 min. Player Team Goals Asst npxG SCA Dominic Calvert-Lewin Everton 10 0 3 120 Son Heung-min Tottenham 9 2 12 28 Mohamed Salah Liverpool 8 1 22 5 Jamie Vardy Leicester City 8 2 15 106 Patrick Bamford Leeds Utd 7 1 1 168 Bruno Fernandes Manchester Utd 7 3 47 9 Harry Kane Tottenham 7 9 11 21 Callum Wilson Newcastle Utd 7 2 14 98 Source: FBRef.com
Moussa Sissoko and Pierre-Emile Højbjerg, who is one of the best ball winners in England, have formed a potent partnership at the heart of the midfield, providing cover to a back four that at times still feels makeshift. Meanwhile, Tanguy Ndombele has finally been given license to do what he does best: negate the opposition’s press with his elite dribbling ability and progressive passing. Ndombele rarely wastes the ball, but when he does, his tackling ability means he’s as big an asset pressing to win the ball back as he is with the ball at his feet going forward.
Tidiness at the back, a good balance of solidity and creativity in the midfield — critically, a midfield unit that works together — and a pair of virtuosos at the front make for a classic Mourinho-style counter-attacking team (not unlike the Porto team he made his name with after winning the 2004 Champions League crown, though the shape is a bit different now). But is Tottenham for real, or is its early lead an aberration, illustrative of this deeply weird season?
[Related: Why Has Premier League Scoring Skyrocketed?]
In terms of expected goals (xG), according to StatsBomb’s model on FBref.com, Tottenham looks pretty good, if not exactly like the best team in the division. Through Matchweek 10, Spurs are tied for fourth with Chelsea and Leicester City in expected goals scored (15.8) and rank fourth in expected goals allowed (11.1) and third in expected goal differential (+4.7). But Tottenham is also outperforming both its expected goals and expected goals allowed: It has scored 21 goals and allowed just nine. Because xG is the best predictor of future performance, Tottenham’s occupation of the top spot may not be long-lasting.
Tottenham might be overachieving so far this season Premier League teams by difference between expected goals (xG) and goals scored, plus differential in goals and xG for and against Goals Expected goals Squad For against Diff. For Against Diff. G vs. xG Southampton 19 16 +3 10.6 12.7 -2.1 +8.4 Chelsea 22 10 +12 15.8 9.8 +6.0 +6.2 Tottenham 21 9 +12 15.8 11.1 +4.7 +5.2 Aston Villa 20 13 +7 15.9 11.5 +4.4 +4.1 West Ham 17 11 +6 13.2 12.8 +0.4 +3.8 Everton 19 17 +2 15.3 14.1 +1.2 +3.7 Leicester City 19 14 +5 15.8 13.6 +2.2 +3.2 Manchester Utd 16 16 0 13.3 11.2 +2.1 +2.7 Crystal Palace 12 15 -3 10.2 14.2 -4.0 +1.8 Manchester City 15 11 +4 14.1 9.6 +4.5 +0.9 Newcastle Utd 12 15 -3 11.1 13.9 -2.8 +0.9 Wolves 11 11 0 10.3 11.9 -1.6 +0.7 Brighton 14 16 -2 13.5 9.9 +3.6 +0.5 West Brom 7 18 -11 6.7 19.1 -12.4 +0.3 Liverpool 22 17 +5 22.7 14.9 +7.8 -0.7 Arsenal 10 12 -2 11.3 13.9 -2.6 -1.3 Fulham 11 19 -8 12.4 14.7 -2.3 -1.4 Leeds United 15 17 -2 17.8 16.8 +1.0 -2.8 Burnley 4 17 -13 7.4 12.6 -5.2 -3.4 Sheffield Utd 4 16 -12 10.7 16.0 -5.3 -6.7 Source: FBRef.com
Some other underlying stats aren’t much kinder to Spurs, especially in their ability to move the ball forward, create chances and score goals. They rank eighth in shot-creating actions, 14th in touches in the attacking penalty area, 12th in touches in the attacking third, eighth in progressive passes completed and ninth in shots attempted. That said, they still rank first in goal-creating actions per 90 minutes, which helps to explain why they are where they are on the table at the moment.
[A Canadian Teenager Is One Of The Fastest Soccer Players In The World]
Tottenham has been clinical to this point, but it has also outperformed expectations, if only slightly. As a result, FiveThirtyEight’s club soccer prediction model thinks that Spurs are a good team, but certainly not the best team in England. As it stands, it gives Tottenham just a 8 percent chance of winning the Premier League. (It still really loves Man City’s chances, despite its unimpressive start to the season.) It’s a puncher’s chance, and that might be all Mourinho needs this time around.
Check out our latest soccer predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-07--Latest Polls Of The Georgia Senate Runoff Elections

No candidate in either of Georgia ’ s Senate races won a majority of the vote on Nov. 3 , @ @ @ @ @ seats , with the top two candidates in each race facing off .
Control of @ @ @ @ @ the outcome of these two races .
The Senate currently stands at 50 Republicans and @ @ @ @ @ win both runoffs , the party will have control of the chamber because Vice President-elect @ @ @ @ @ ties .
But if Republicans win one of the two races , they will maintain @ @ @ @ @ averages use all runoff polls conducted since the Nov. 3 general election .
We adjust @ @ @ @ @ on how much each poll differs from the polling consensus .

Our polling averages for these races are final and no longer updating.
Latest Polls Of The Georgia Senate Runoffs Two runoff elections on Jan. 5 will determine which party controls the Senate
No candidate in either of Georgia’s Senate races won a majority of the vote on Nov. 3, triggering a runoff for both seats, with the top two candidates in each race facing off. Control of the Senate now hinges on the outcome of these two races.
Georgia’s regular Senate election Republican Sen. David Perdue is running for reelection against Democrat Jon Ossoff in a regularly scheduled election. Georgia’s special Senate election Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler faces Democrat Raphael Warnock in a special election. Loeffler was appointed to fill former Sen. Johnny Isakson’s seat after he resigned.
The Senate currently stands at 50 Republicans and 48 Democrats. If Democrats win both runoffs, the party will have control of the chamber because Vice President-elect Kamala Harris would break any ties. But if Republicans win one of the two races, they will maintain control.
All runoff polls FiveThirtyEight’s averages use all runoff polls conducted since the Nov. 3 general election. We adjust polls for house effects based on how much each poll differs from the polling consensus.