fivethirthyeight--2020-10-09--A Contested 2020 Election Would Be Way Worse Than Bush v. Gore

It ’ s Wednesday , Nov. 4 , and the vote count is too close to call .
Neither President Trump nor former Vice President Joe Biden is conceding defeat , recounts are being conducted , disputes over recounts are being lodged , and a court case will soon be making its way to the Supreme Court of the United States .
Trump has voiced his belief that there is widespread ballot fraud and as a result there ’ s already some degree of civil unrest .
This is the nightmare scenario for 2020 , one in which a disputed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s also one that ’ s vaguely familiar .
In 2000 , there was no clear winner in the contest between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush .
That triggered a recount and a controversial Supreme Court decision that ultimately determined the presidency for Bush .
Yet even in the direct aftermath of Bush v. Gore , Americans still kept the faith in democratic institutions and the process .
I went looking for lessons from that period of disruption .
But all I found were the first cancer cells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the past 20 years .
It ’ s not that Americans didn ’ t think something had gone wrong in 2000 — in a CBS News poll conducted after the Supreme Court ’ s decision in mid-December , 60 percent of people said there had not been a fair and accurate count of votes .
Still , 59 percent of people in an ABC News/Washington Post poll from the same time said their opinion of the court remained unchanged .
The same poll asked what people would think if there were an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winner .
Would they consider Bush legitimately elected ?
Eighty-four percent answered , “ Yes.
” It ’ s difficult to imagine similar sentiments in December 2020 if the Supreme Court intervened .
Already , Americans say they are worried about something going wrong .
In a late September Monmouth University poll , 39 percent of people said they were “ not too confident ” or “ not at all confident ” that the 2020 election would be conducted “ fairly and accurately.
” A FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll from about the same time found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said the election would be fair , 39 percent said it wouldn ’ t be .
The open seat on the Supreme Court has only complicated matters .
Journalists ’ recitation of engrained partisanship is now somewhat rote , but the scale of our almost-religious alienation from one another is sort of breathtaking ; we were not this divided a nation in 2000 .
Pew Research tracked partisanship trends in America from 1994 to 2017 by measuring responses to the same questions about things like views on gay marriage and immigration .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between Democrats and Republicans on these questions .
In 2017 , the difference was 36 points .
But man , did we think we had it bad back in the 15-point difference world .
The history of the 2000 election recount generally tells about the partisan spin that polluted the airwaves during the counting of the ballots .
( If you are too young to know what a “ hanging chad ” is , please Google ; it was important in American life for a few weeks , but I just don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it here . )
Gore ’ s team wanted officials to recount ballots by hand in four heavily Democratic counties where the vote was quite close , while Bush ’ s team wanted to stop the recount entirely .
James Baker was Bush ’ s point-man in Florida , having served as George H.W .
Bush ’ s secretary of state , and was quick to realize that the campaign would need to wage a war for public opinion .
“ We ’ re getting killed on ‘ count all the votes.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” Jeffrey Toobin quoted Baker as saying in his book about the recount , “ Too Close to Call.
” Gore ’ s team thought it had the “ moral authority to make his case , ” according to a New York Times report from two days after Election Day .
It allowed “ Democrats to suggest that the Republicans are trying to subvert the will of the people.
” As the drama unfolded , many Americans thought more votes needed to be tallied , but they also thought Gore should concede @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from late November , the plurality of people , 47 percent , thought that not all the votes in Florida had been counted .
But the same survey also found that 56 percent of people thought Gore should concede .
This psychology is fascinating when seen through 2020 ’ s rearview mirror .
It speaks to a certain satisfaction some people had with the general political state of things : Either Bush or Gore would do just fine .
It ’ s the sort of laissez-faire attitude toward election outcomes that 15-point partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era , we ’ re discussing all-out civil war if things are too close to call on election night .
We have accelerated the formation of our separate partisan worlds over the past four years .
These worlds accept different realities .
Democrats generally accept fact-based conclusions ( alongside their partisan , subjective beliefs ) , and Republicans — or at least the Republican Party — generally eschew the conclusions of experts on things like climate change and COVID-19 ( alongside their partisan , subjective beliefs ) .
Given all this , doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would continue down this garden path of separate realities when it comes to an initially indeterminate election outcome ?
One version of reality accepts a President Biden while the other accepts a President Trump , each with baroque arguments — about the eligibility of certain ballots or the legitimacy of the Electoral College — nicely retrofitted to match a predetermined conclusion .
In a piece in the 2010 collection “ The Presidency of George W. Bush : A First Historical Assessment , ” David Greenberg , a professor of journalism and media studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accept a common reality to the 2000 election and the postmodern brilliance of Baker and company : “ The Bush team didn ’ t just contend that a recount would fail to identify the true winner more accurately ; more radically , they argued that any accurate tally was unattainable — that the truth was unknowable.
” Greenberg points to a famous quote given to the New York Times Magazine by a Bush aide for further proof of the roots of this kind of thinking : The aide said that guys like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reality-based community , ” which he defined as people who “ believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.
” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism .
He cut me off .
“ That ’ s not the way the world really works anymore , ” he continued .
“ We ’ re an empire now , and when we act , we create our own reality .
And while you ’ re studying that reality — judiciously , as you will — we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realities , which you can study too , and that ’ s how things will sort out .
We ’ re history ’ s actors … and you , all of you , will be left to just study what we do.
” Professionally , I ’ m a member of the reality-based community .
I try to think empirically about America , her culture , people and oh-so-screwy politics .
That ’ s been a challenge as Trump and the Republican Party have perfected the creation of one ’ s own reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During the first debate , the president waffled on whether he would concede defeat , falling back on his go-to line about the fraudulent — and unfounded — dangers of mail voting .
If he actually does this post-Election Day , media organizations will be forced to grapple with reporting on the news of the day — the president ’ s words — and battling misinformation and mistrust .
It ’ s more than the press had to contend with in 2000 , and it ’ s an unwinnable scenario .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 36-point world .

It’s Wednesday, Nov. 4, and the vote count is too close to call. Neither President Trump nor former Vice President Joe Biden is conceding defeat, recounts are being conducted, disputes over recounts are being lodged, and a court case will soon be making its way to the Supreme Court of the United States. Trump has voiced his belief that there is widespread ballot fraud and as a result there’s already some degree of civil unrest.
This is the nightmare scenario for 2020, one in which a disputed election drives the country further apart. It’s also one that’s vaguely familiar. In 2000, there was no clear winner in the contest between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush. That triggered a recount and a controversial Supreme Court decision that ultimately determined the presidency for Bush. Yet even in the direct aftermath of Bush v. Gore, Americans still kept the faith in democratic institutions and the process. I went looking for lessons from that period of disruption. But all I found were the first cancer cells that have metastasized in our political system over the past 20 years.
Model Talk: Trump’s position worsens | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
It’s not that Americans didn’t think something had gone wrong in 2000 — in a CBS News poll conducted after the Supreme Court’s decision in mid-December, 60 percent of people said there had not been a fair and accurate count of votes. Still, 59 percent of people in an ABC News/Washington Post poll from the same time said their opinion of the court remained unchanged. The same poll asked what people would think if there were an unofficial recount and Gore were declared the winner. Would they consider Bush legitimately elected? Eighty-four percent answered, “Yes.”
It’s difficult to imagine similar sentiments in December 2020 if the Supreme Court intervened. Already, Americans say they are worried about something going wrong. In a late September Monmouth University poll, 39 percent of people said they were “not too confident” or “not at all confident” that the 2020 election would be conducted “fairly and accurately.” A FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll from about the same time found that while 60 percent of people surveyed said the election would be fair, 39 percent said it wouldn’t be. The open seat on the Supreme Court has only complicated matters.
Journalists’ recitation of engrained partisanship is now somewhat rote, but the scale of our almost-religious alienation from one another is sort of breathtaking; we were not this divided a nation in 2000. Pew Research tracked partisanship trends in America from 1994 to 2017 by measuring responses to the same questions about things like views on gay marriage and immigration. In 1999, there was a 15-point difference between Democrats and Republicans on these questions. In 2017, the difference was 36 points.
But man, did we think we had it bad back in the 15-point difference world.
The history of the 2000 election recount generally tells about the partisan spin that polluted the airwaves during the counting of the ballots. (If you are too young to know what a “hanging chad” is, please Google; it was important in American life for a few weeks, but I just don’t have the strength to get into it here.) Gore’s team wanted officials to recount ballots by hand in four heavily Democratic counties where the vote was quite close, while Bush’s team wanted to stop the recount entirely.
James Baker was Bush’s point-man in Florida, having served as George H.W. Bush’s secretary of state, and was quick to realize that the campaign would need to wage a war for public opinion. “We’re getting killed on ‘count all the votes.’ Who the hell could be against that?” Jeffrey Toobin quoted Baker as saying in his book about the recount, “Too Close to Call.” Gore’s team thought it had the “moral authority to make his case,” according to a New York Times report from two days after Election Day. It allowed “Democrats to suggest that the Republicans are trying to subvert the will of the people.”
As the drama unfolded, many Americans thought more votes needed to be tallied, but they also thought Gore should concede defeat. In a Fox News survey from late November, the plurality of people, 47 percent, thought that not all the votes in Florida had been counted. But the same survey also found that 56 percent of people thought Gore should concede.
This psychology is fascinating when seen through 2020’s rearview mirror. It speaks to a certain satisfaction some people had with the general political state of things: Either Bush or Gore would do just fine. It’s the sort of laissez-faire attitude toward election outcomes that 15-point partisan differences buy you. In the 36-point era, we’re discussing all-out civil war if things are too close to call on election night.
We have accelerated the formation of our separate partisan worlds over the past four years. These worlds accept different realities. Democrats generally accept fact-based conclusions (alongside their partisan, subjective beliefs), and Republicans — or at least the Republican Party — generally eschew the conclusions of experts on things like climate change and COVID-19 (alongside their partisan, subjective beliefs). Given all this, doesn’t it necessarily follow that we would continue down this garden path of separate realities when it comes to an initially indeterminate election outcome? One version of reality accepts a President Biden while the other accepts a President Trump, each with baroque arguments — about the eligibility of certain ballots or the legitimacy of the Electoral College — nicely retrofitted to match a predetermined conclusion.
In a piece in the 2010 collection “The Presidency of George W. Bush: A First Historical Assessment,” David Greenberg, a professor of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University, traced this inability to accept a common reality to the 2000 election and the postmodern brilliance of Baker and company: “The Bush team didn’t just contend that a recount would fail to identify the true winner more accurately; more radically, they argued that any accurate tally was unattainable — that the truth was unknowable.”
Greenberg points to a famous quote given to the New York Times Magazine by a Bush aide for further proof of the roots of this kind of thinking:
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Professionally, I’m a member of the reality-based community. I try to think empirically about America, her culture, people and oh-so-screwy politics. That’s been a challenge as Trump and the Republican Party have perfected the creation of one’s own reality and the belittling of the reality-based community. During the first debate, the president waffled on whether he would concede defeat, falling back on his go-to line about the fraudulent — and unfounded — dangers of mail voting. If he actually does this post-Election Day, media organizations will be forced to grapple with reporting on the news of the day — the president’s words — and battling misinformation and mistrust. It’s more than the press had to contend with in 2000, and it’s an unwinnable scenario. But it’s the reality of our 36-point world.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-09--The Politics Podcast Answers Your Questions About The Forecast

In this episode of Model Talk , Nate Silver and Galen Druke discuss the latest movements in our 2020 election @ @ @ @ @ questions .

The Politics Podcast Answers Your Questions About The Forecast
In this episode of Model Talk, Nate Silver and Galen Druke discuss the latest movements in our 2020 election forecasts and answer some listener questions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-09--Politics Podcast: How The Model Is Responding To Biden’s Double-Digit Lead In The Polls

Joe Biden ’ s lead over President Trump in the presidential race grew to double digits in our national polling @ @ @ @ @ this episode of “ Model Talk ” on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , Nate Silver @ @ @ @ @ why Trump ’ s national position has worsened , how it compares with his polls @ @ @ @ @ what the forecasts of the House and Senate look like .
They also answer listener @ @ @ @ @ to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above @ @ @ @ @ iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new @ @ @ @ @ to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new @ @ @ @ @ leaving us a rating and review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or @ @ @ @ @ vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in @ @ @

Joe Biden’s lead over President Trump in the presidential race grew to double digits in our national polling average on Friday. In this episode of “Model Talk” on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Nate Silver talks to Galen Druke about why Trump’s national position has worsened, how it compares with his polls in key battleground states and what the forecasts of the House and Senate look like. They also answer listener questions.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-09--The Postseason Is A Two-Strike Game, And Other Observations From The MLB Playoffs

As we near the end of the second round of Major League Baseball ’ s expanded playoffs , we thought it would be a good time to delve into what we ’ ve observed in this year ’ s unusual postseason .
In some ways , bracket baseball is similar to past Octobers — but it ’ s also been filled with surprises .
So what have we learned ?
And what does it all mean for the league championship series and World Series ?
The Los Angeles Dodgers have established themselves as a powerhouse over the last decade .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and advanced to two of the last three World Series .
And yet they entered October with one of the longer World Series title droughts in the majors , not having won one since 1988 .
But this might be their year .
Entering play Friday , our model has the Dodgers with a 54 percent chance to win it all .
No other club had better than a 14 percent chance .
For comparison , since we reintroduced our Elo ratings in 2015 , no other team had greater than a 34 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a similar point in the postseason ( either entering , or early in , the division series round ) .
The Dodgers have few real weaknesses , particularly if starting pitcher Walker Buehler can get beyond his blister issues .
( He said he “ felt great ” following his Tuesday start , but he struggled with command . )
The club ranks third in position player wins above replacement , and fifth in pitching WAR .
They bolstered their star-laden roster last winter with the addition of MVP contender Mookie Betts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of homegrown talent — success stories like Tony Gonsolin , who started as a ninth-round pick out of St. Mary ’ s College and has been one of the game ’ s best starters this season .
The Dodgers have the stars and depth to win it all .
Bullpens keep gaining work , but more depth is required in these playoffs In recent years , starting pitchers have generally taken on less and less work .
Generally speaking , that ’ s true to an even greater degree in the postseason .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ accounting for fewer pitches , throwing just under half of all pitches ( 49 percent ) , the lowest postseason share during the pitch-tracking era .
Teams are less willing to allow starters to pitch deep into games and increasingly turning to unconventional strategies .
For instance , in the second game of their division series , the New York Yankees elected to use an opener ( it didn ’ t work ) .
Before the playoffs started , we wondered if fewer off days in this postseason might mean that teams would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their best pitchers , which would advantage teams with deeper staffs .
Four teams — the Dodgers , Houston Astros , Tampa Bay Rays and St. Louis Cardinals — entered the playoffs with nine or more relievers enjoying ERA+ marks of 110 or better , meaning these pitchers were performing at least 10 percent better than league average in terms of run prevention .
Two of those teams ( Dodgers and Astros ) have advanced to the league championship series , while a third ( Rays ) is one win away .
MLB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s in favor of making aspects of the expanded playoffs permanent .
He added : If the expanded playoffs are like the NCAA Tournament , the Miami Marlins were the Cinderella team , advancing into the second round .
While the Marlins finished above .500 ( 31-29 ) , our Elo ratings rank them as a below-average team : They were outscored by 41 runs in the regular season , ranked 27th in pitching WAR and 26th in position player WAR .
Two clubs with losing records , the Milwaukee Brewers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Expanded fields bring excitement and extra TV cash , but the trade-off is that the bar to reach the postseason would be lowered when it comes to team performance in a normal 162-game regular season .
( And it ’ s worth noting that , other than following the strike-shortened 1981 season , MLB playoffs have never shrunk in size — only grown . )
Two-strike counts have gradually increased in the pitch-tracking era : The percentage of pitches thrown with two strikes has exceeded 29 percent in each of the last four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase , batters have swung and missed more and more , and foul balls have increased .
The number of foul balls surpassed balls in play in 2017 , and more balls were hit out of play than in play for the fourth consecutive season this year .
And the percentage of two-strike pitches is typically greater in the postseason , as the quality of teams and pitchers is generally better .
This postseason , 30.3 percent of pitches have come with two strikes , the second greatest share of the pitch-tracking era @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of last postseason ) .
So that ought to make two-strike hitting more important than ever .
In the wild card round , four of the top five teams in two-strike weighted on-base average , and six of the top eight , advanced on to the division series round .
In the regular season , the Braves , Dodgers , Padres and Yankees had four of the top five overall weighted on-base marks , and four of the top five marks with two strikes .
While these teams may simply have more talented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the smallest gap between overall wOBA and two-strike wOBA made the postseason .
In the age of more strikeouts and two-strike counts , putting the ball in play is a market inefficiency .
The Rays have long enjoyed a reputation as an innovative underdog .
They ’ ve been living up to that reputation , extracting a ton of value from players they acquired in recent trades en route to the best record in the American League .
They have done it again with one of the breakout stars of the postseason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year old was hardly a household name when he was acquired by the Rays from St. Louis in a trade back in January .
But he emerged this season to post a 176 wRC+ over 76 plate appearances , which would have ranked sixth in the majors if he had enough plate appearances to qualify .
His underlying skills suggest he ’ s no fluke , as his quick bat currently ranks 29th in average exit velocity on line drives and fly balls ( 96.8 mph ) among hitters with at least 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been even better in the postseason in a number of areas , batting .500 with a 1.042 slugging mark in the playoffs entering Friday , and giving the Rays — who ranked in the top 10 in batting and pitching WAR — yet another potential star .

As we near the end of the second round of Major League Baseball’s expanded playoffs, we thought it would be a good time to delve into what we’ve observed in this year’s unusual postseason. In some ways, bracket baseball is similar to past Octobers — but it’s also been filled with surprises. So what have we learned? And what does it all mean for the league championship series and World Series?
The Dodgers are overwhelming favorites
The Los Angeles Dodgers have established themselves as a powerhouse over the last decade. They have won eight straight division titles and advanced to two of the last three World Series. And yet they entered October with one of the longer World Series title droughts in the majors, not having won one since 1988. But this might be their year.
Entering play Friday, our model has the Dodgers with a 54 percent chance to win it all. No other club had better than a 14 percent chance. For comparison, since we reintroduced our Elo ratings in 2015, no other team had greater than a 34 percent chance of winning the World Series at a similar point in the postseason (either entering, or early in, the division series round).
The Dodgers have few real weaknesses, particularly if starting pitcher Walker Buehler can get beyond his blister issues. (He said he “felt great” following his Tuesday start, but he struggled with command.) The club ranks third in position player wins above replacement, and fifth in pitching WAR. They bolstered their star-laden roster last winter with the addition of MVP contender Mookie Betts, but they also have developed plenty of homegrown talent — success stories like Tony Gonsolin, who started as a ninth-round pick out of St. Mary’s College and has been one of the game’s best starters this season. The Dodgers have the stars and depth to win it all.
Bullpens keep gaining work, but more depth is required in these playoffs
In recent years, starting pitchers have generally taken on less and less work. Generally speaking, that’s true to an even greater degree in the postseason. This postseason, starting pitchers are again accounting for fewer pitches, throwing just under half of all pitches (49 percent), the lowest postseason share during the pitch-tracking era. Teams are less willing to allow starters to pitch deep into games and increasingly turning to unconventional strategies. For instance, in the second game of their division series, the New York Yankees elected to use an opener (it didn’t work).
Before the playoffs started, we wondered if fewer off days in this postseason might mean that teams would find it more difficult to lean on their best pitchers, which would advantage teams with deeper staffs. Four teams — the Dodgers, Houston Astros, Tampa Bay Rays and St. Louis Cardinals — entered the playoffs with nine or more relievers enjoying ERA+ marks of 110 or better, meaning these pitchers were performing at least 10 percent better than league average in terms of run prevention. Two of those teams (Dodgers and Astros) have advanced to the league championship series, while a third (Rays) is one win away.
Expanded playoffs reward lesser teams
MLB commissioner Rob Manfred said last month that he’s in favor of making aspects of the expanded playoffs permanent. He added:
“… People love brackets and love picking who’s going to come through those brackets. I think there’s a lot to commend it. It is one of those changes that I hope becomes a permanent part of our landscape.”
If the expanded playoffs are like the NCAA Tournament, the Miami Marlins were the Cinderella team, advancing into the second round. While the Marlins finished above .500 (31-29), our Elo ratings rank them as a below-average team: They were outscored by 41 runs in the regular season, ranked 27th in pitching WAR and 26th in position player WAR. Two clubs with losing records, the Milwaukee Brewers and Astros, made the postseason. Expanded fields bring excitement and extra TV cash, but the trade-off is that the bar to reach the postseason would be lowered when it comes to team performance in a normal 162-game regular season. (And it’s worth noting that, other than following the strike-shortened 1981 season, MLB playoffs have never shrunk in size — only grown.)
The postseason is increasingly a two-strike game
Two-strike counts have gradually increased in the pitch-tracking era: The percentage of pitches thrown with two strikes has exceeded 29 percent in each of the last four regular seasons. As velocity continues to increase, batters have swung and missed more and more, and foul balls have increased. The number of foul balls surpassed balls in play in 2017, and more balls were hit out of play than in play for the fourth consecutive season this year. And the percentage of two-strike pitches is typically greater in the postseason, as the quality of teams and pitchers is generally better.
This postseason, 30.3 percent of pitches have come with two strikes, the second greatest share of the pitch-tracking era (trailing only the 31.6 percent mark of last postseason). So that ought to make two-strike hitting more important than ever. In the wild card round, four of the top five teams in two-strike weighted on-base average, and six of the top eight, advanced on to the division series round. In the regular season, the Braves, Dodgers, Padres and Yankees had four of the top five overall weighted on-base marks, and four of the top five marks with two strikes. While these teams may simply have more talented lineups, six of the nine teams with the smallest gap between overall wOBA and two-strike wOBA made the postseason. In the age of more strikeouts and two-strike counts, putting the ball in play is a market inefficiency.
The Tampa Bay Rays keep unearthing stars
The Rays have long enjoyed a reputation as an innovative underdog. They’ve been living up to that reputation, extracting a ton of value from players they acquired in recent trades en route to the best record in the American League. They have done it again with one of the breakout stars of the postseason: outfielder Randy Arozarena.
The 25 year old was hardly a household name when he was acquired by the Rays from St. Louis in a trade back in January. But he emerged this season to post a 176 wRC+ over 76 plate appearances, which would have ranked sixth in the majors if he had enough plate appearances to qualify. His underlying skills suggest he’s no fluke, as his quick bat currently ranks 29th in average exit velocity on line drives and fly balls (96.8 mph) among hitters with at least 25 batted ball events this season. He’s been even better in the postseason in a number of areas, batting .500 with a 1.042 slugging mark in the playoffs entering Friday, and giving the Rays — who ranked in the top 10 in batting and pitching WAR — yet another potential star.
Check out our latest MLB predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-09--Scoring Is Way Up In The NFL. Which Teams Does That Help?

If you ’ ve watched the NFL this season and thought that there ’ s an awful lot of touchdowns being scored , you ’ re not wrong .
Scoring is up across the NFL .
Way up .
Going into Week 5 , teams had reached the end zone 371 times , the most through four weeks in NFL history .
Teams are passing for 1.8 touchdowns per game — which would represent the highest rate in NFL history if it continues through the rest of the season .
And the average NFL team is scoring 25.7 points per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ total over 50 points per game .
So what ’ s going on ?
There ’ s a host of possible explanations for the offensive explosion .
Some have speculated that the league has decided to de-emphasize offensive holding penalties and that the decline in penalty yardage is helping to boost scoring .
It ’ s true that offensive holding is down so far through Week 4 : Just 107 such penalties had been accepted compared with 234 in 2019 , when holding was a point of emphasis for the league .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that fewer holding calls could increase scoring : Kevin Seifert of ESPN reported that gaining a first down is twice as difficult on the play after an offensive penalty than after any other play .
Some have noted that the pace of play is up this year , which could also lead to more scoring — under certain conditions .
It certainly makes sense that if teams run more plays with a positive expectation — like , say , passing plays on early downs — scoring could be positively affected .
And one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high positive expectation is way up so far this year : going for it on fourth down and short .
So far this season , teams aren ’ t just going for it more often , they ’ re also succeeding .
Through Week 4 , offenses have converted on fourth-and-1 a whopping 77 percent of the time , according to Michael Lopez , the NFL ’ s director of analytics .
The league ’ s growing embrace of motion before the ball is snapped may also be having an effect on team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the offense sends a player across the formation in order to gain information or a numbers advantage — is up 9.2 percentage points from just four years ago .
Seth Walder at ESPN has shown that pre-snap motion can give teams a substantial edge .
Walder and ESPN analyst Brian Burke found an advantage of 0.04 expected points added per play on pass plays and 0.08 EPA per play on rush plays in which motion at the snap was used .
Walder focused specifically on motion at the snap of the ball @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any kind before the play appears to be working this year , particularly on pass plays .
Teams are averaging 0.22 EPA per pass play when a player is motioned at any point before the play starts , 0.09 points better than on pass plays with no pre-snap motion .
Finally , play-action is up 5.6 percentage points since 2010 .
So far in 2020 , the league average play-action pass has been worth an incredible 0.25 expected points added per play , making it the most valuable play type in football .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to lead to higher scoring .
Given this explosive offensive environment , an interesting question to ask is : Which teams are most likely to profit ?
The benefit of a lack of holding calls may not be evenly distributed throughout the league , but so far we don ’ t have much evidence that there are teams that are getting any real edge over the competition .
The New York Jets lead the league in offensive holding calls with seven — and they sit winless at 0-4 — but two teams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and one of them is the New York Giants , who are also winless .
Similarly , a faster pace of play doesn ’ t necessarily benefit your team if the coaches are calling a run up the gut on first down and accepting the negative point expectation that goes along with it .
To try to tease out which franchises might be best positioned to thrive in the point-happy 2020 season , we created an aggressiveness index based on each team ’ s usage rates for pre-snap motion , play-action and how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and short .
We scaled the index from 0 to 100 , then ranked each team .
The team pushing more edges than any other in the league right now is the undefeated Green Bay Packers under head coach Matt LaFleur .
The Packers have gone for it on fourth and short 85.7 percent of the time , they utilize some form of pre-snap motion on 50.2 percent of offensive plays , and LaFleur dials up play-action at the sixth-highest rate of any team .
Right behind Green Bay are the Dallas Cowboys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far only been able to notch a single win , gamely keeping pace with Washington and Philadelphia in the hellscape that is the NFC East .
With a new coaching staff that seems willing to aggressively push edges , the Cowboys appear well-positioned to complete a turnaround and win the weakest division in football .
Finally , down at the very bottom of the index , we find the New York Jets .
Averaging a negative 0.14 expected points added per play , the Jets offense is the worst in football .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shoulder injury this week , they appear positioned to get even worse .
There ’ s nothing in head coach Adam Gase ’ s profile so far this season that indicates help is on the way in the form of smart and aggressive play-calling .
New York goes for it on fourth and short at one of the lowest rates in the league , they are 30th in play-action percentage , and they ’ re last in pre-snap motion .
There are few sure bets in the NFL , and we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ season , but it ’ s not unreasonable to predict — like we have — that the Jets season is all but over .

If you’ve watched the NFL this season and thought that there’s an awful lot of touchdowns being scored, you’re not wrong. Scoring is up across the NFL. Way up. Going into Week 5, teams had reached the end zone 371 times, the most through four weeks in NFL history. Teams are passing for 1.8 touchdowns per game — which would represent the highest rate in NFL history if it continues through the rest of the season. And the average NFL team is scoring 25.7 points per game, pushing the average combined point total over 50 points per game.
So what’s going on? There’s a host of possible explanations for the offensive explosion.
Some have speculated that the league has decided to de-emphasize offensive holding penalties and that the decline in penalty yardage is helping to boost scoring. It’s true that offensive holding is down so far through Week 4: Just 107 such penalties had been accepted compared with 234 in 2019, when holding was a point of emphasis for the league. And there is evidence to support the view that fewer holding calls could increase scoring: Kevin Seifert of ESPN reported that gaining a first down is twice as difficult on the play after an offensive penalty than after any other play.
Some have noted that the pace of play is up this year, which could also lead to more scoring — under certain conditions. It certainly makes sense that if teams run more plays with a positive expectation — like, say, passing plays on early downs — scoring could be positively affected. And one play type in particular that has a high positive expectation is way up so far this year: going for it on fourth down and short.
So far this season, teams aren’t just going for it more often, they’re also succeeding. Through Week 4, offenses have converted on fourth-and-1 a whopping 77 percent of the time, according to Michael Lopez, the NFL’s director of analytics.
The league’s growing embrace of motion before the ball is snapped may also be having an effect on team scoring. Pre-snap motion — plays on which the offense sends a player across the formation in order to gain information or a numbers advantage — is up 9.2 percentage points from just four years ago. Seth Walder at ESPN has shown that pre-snap motion can give teams a substantial edge. Walder and ESPN analyst Brian Burke found an advantage of 0.04 expected points added per play on pass plays and 0.08 EPA per play on rush plays in which motion at the snap was used.
Walder focused specifically on motion at the snap of the ball in his research, but motion of any kind before the play appears to be working this year, particularly on pass plays. Teams are averaging 0.22 EPA per pass play when a player is motioned at any point before the play starts, 0.09 points better than on pass plays with no pre-snap motion.
Finally, play-action is up 5.6 percentage points since 2010. So far in 2020, the league average play-action pass has been worth an incredible 0.25 expected points added per play, making it the most valuable play type in football. Any increase in play-action rate leaguewide is likely to lead to higher scoring.
Given this explosive offensive environment, an interesting question to ask is: Which teams are most likely to profit? The benefit of a lack of holding calls may not be evenly distributed throughout the league, but so far we don’t have much evidence that there are teams that are getting any real edge over the competition. The New York Jets lead the league in offensive holding calls with seven — and they sit winless at 0-4 — but two teams are tied with zero holding calls, and one of them is the New York Giants, who are also winless. Similarly, a faster pace of play doesn’t necessarily benefit your team if the coaches are calling a run up the gut on first down and accepting the negative point expectation that goes along with it.
To try to tease out which franchises might be best positioned to thrive in the point-happy 2020 season, we created an aggressiveness index based on each team’s usage rates for pre-snap motion, play-action and how often they go for it on fourth and short. We scaled the index from 0 to 100, then ranked each team.
Who might make the most of this environment? 2020 NFL teams by aggressiveness index rating, based on usage rates for pre-snap motion, play-action and going for it on fourth and short Team EPA/Play Motion rate Play-Action “Go for it” rate Index Green Bay Packers +0.32 50.2% 31.5% 85.7% 100.0 Dallas Cowboys +0.13 41.1 24.3 100.0 98.2 Los Angeles Rams +0.18 56.5 48.5 60.0 97.8 Baltimore Ravens +0.14 72.4 30.9 42.9 81.0 Kansas City Chiefs +0.21 54.7 23.2 66.7 79.5 Atlanta Falcons +0.09 41.1 23.0 80.0 79.1 Cleveland Browns +0.15 57.1 28.8 50.0 71.7 Washington Football Team -0.03 56.9 25.9 50.0 68.9 New England Patriots +0.07 46.5 40.4 42.9 66.2 Seattle Seahawks +0.23 60.4 23.3 40.0 60.8 Philadelphia Eagles -0.05 35.2 27.9 60.0 60.2 Las Vegas Raiders +0.16 52.3 20.4 50.0 59.9 Buffalo Bills +0.23 52.5 36.6 33.3 59.6 New York Giants -0.13 27.8 19.2 75.0 59.2 Tennessee Titans +0.14 48.6 36.6 33.3 56.1 San Francisco 49ers +0.11 71.5 32.5 14.3 55.9 Los Angeles Chargers +0.03 46.7 28.9 40.0 53.5 Pittsburgh Steelers +0.08 42.6 16.4 55.6 52.6 Carolina Panthers +0.10 44.0 24.8 45.5 52.3 Detroit Lions +0.10 42.3 22.6 42.9 46.5 Indianapolis Colts +0.06 40.4 21.5 45.5 46.1 Minnesota Vikings +0.17 39.5 27.0 40.0 45.3 Arizona Cardinals +0.09 27.5 26.1 50.0 42.7 Chicago Bears +0.05 37.2 25.3 40.0 41.7 Cincinnati Bengals +0.06 35.1 23.0 40.0 37.8 Jacksonville Jaguars +0.13 29.6 17.5 50.0 36.9 Miami Dolphins +0.11 40.0 14.9 33.3 28.9 Denver Broncos -0.06 31.6 18.2 37.5 28.1 New Orleans Saints +0.19 42.0 19.0 25.0 26.9 Houston Texans +0.05 31.2 15.9 33.3 21.9 Tampa Bay Buccaneers +0.10 38.8 16.7 16.7 14.5 New York Jets -0.14 20.1 16.0 28.6 7.8 All data through Week 4. The “go for it” rate is based on fourth-down plays with no more than 3 yards to go. Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group
The team pushing more edges than any other in the league right now is the undefeated Green Bay Packers under head coach Matt LaFleur. The Packers have gone for it on fourth and short 85.7 percent of the time, they utilize some form of pre-snap motion on 50.2 percent of offensive plays, and LaFleur dials up play-action at the sixth-highest rate of any team.
Right behind Green Bay are the Dallas Cowboys, an exciting offensive team that has so far only been able to notch a single win, gamely keeping pace with Washington and Philadelphia in the hellscape that is the NFC East. With a new coaching staff that seems willing to aggressively push edges, the Cowboys appear well-positioned to complete a turnaround and win the weakest division in football.
Finally, down at the very bottom of the index, we find the New York Jets. Averaging a negative 0.14 expected points added per play, the Jets offense is the worst in football. With the loss of Sam Darnold to a shoulder injury this week, they appear positioned to get even worse. There’s nothing in head coach Adam Gase’s profile so far this season that indicates help is on the way in the form of smart and aggressive play-calling. New York goes for it on fourth and short at one of the lowest rates in the league, they are 30th in play-action percentage, and they’re last in pre-snap motion. There are few sure bets in the NFL, and we’re still just four weeks into the season, but it’s not unreasonable to predict — like we have — that the Jets season is all but over.
Check out our latest NFL predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-09--What Are The Possible Side Effects Of Trump’s COVID-19 Treatment?

President Trump has boasted that the treatment he has received for COVID-19 has cured him of the disease and made him feel better than ever .
It ’ s very difficult to know whether that ’ s true , given how little we know about his condition , how unreliable his health reports have been and how experimental his course of treatment is .
But we do know that these drugs often come with considerable side effects — side effects that could change the behavior of the leader of the free world .
In particular , one of the drugs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can cause psychiatric side effects , which has raised concerns .
Of course , just because side effects could affect behavior doesn ’ t mean they are doing so .
“ We need to exercise caution in attributing any particular form of behavior to side effects of medication , ” said Edward Shorter , a medical historian at the University of Toronto .
“ Trump has such a long history of bizarre and erratic behavior that the latest manifestation of it need not be a medication side effect at all.
” Rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helpful to take a step back and consider what the science tells us about these therapeutics .
Let ’ s run through the three major drugs doctors have prescribed to Trump and what their side effects might be .
Regeneron : Little is known This antibody cocktail is the treatment we know the least about , because it ’ s a new , experimental therapeutic that has not yet been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration .
Regeneron has conducted a drug trial of its treatment — which uses lab-grown , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help fight off an infection — but the results have not been published , aside from a promising press release from the company last week .
The release didn ’ t mention any potential side effects .
We do know the cocktail is administered intravenously , and any IV treatment can potentially cause certain side effects like fever and chills .
But other than that , until more details are published , it ’ s hard to say whether the cocktail changed anything for the president , including his claims of it “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was originally developed in 2009 as a potential treatment for hepatitis-C .
While it didn ’ t prove effective for that disease , early trials in the COVID-19 pandemic found it could reduce the duration of infection and increase the likelihood of survival .
It was authorized for emergency use by the FDA in May .
While there is still work to be done to learn the full scope of the drug ’ s effects , so far the most common side effects reported , such as nausea and constipation , are mild @ @ @ @ @ @ @ severe symptoms while taking remdesivir , including worsening respiratory failure and high levels of certain enzymes in the liver , which can cause damage , but these are more rare .
In a phase 3 trial of remdesivir published in May , 8 percent of patients experienced worsening respiratory distress and 7 percent had elevated enzymes in their liver .
But because the research on this drug is still limited , we don ’ t fully understand the link between the drug and these adverse effects .
“ Even though any drug can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on balance it doesn ’ t have a lot , ” said Dr. Rajesh Gandhi , an infectious diseases physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School .
“ It can have effects on the liver occasionally , which is why we routinely do liver checks and I ’ m sure the president is having routine liver checks.
” Indeed , in a briefing on Sunday , Trump ’ s physicians said they ’ re monitoring the president ’ s liver functions , which are indicating “ normal findings.
” ( Though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ norm they ’ re comparing Trump ’ s levels .
Normal for a COVID-19 patient , or normal for a healthy person ? )
On Monday , his doctors said Trump was given a five-day course of remdesivir , with the final dose on Tuesday .
We know the most about this drug because it ’ s been around for half a century , and perhaps as a result it comes with the longest list of possible side effects , ranging from acne and hair growth to severe psychiatric effects .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re versatile and effective but also can wreak all kinds of havoc on the body and mind .
Corticosteroids are synthetic versions of hormones the body naturally produces and are effective in reducing inflammation .
For this reason , they ’ re typically used to treat conditions such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis .
But dexamethasone has also been found to be effective in treating COVID-19 in cases in which the patient required oxygen or ventilation .
How a 60-year-old drug became our best hope for saving people with COVID-19 Naturally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given Trump ’ s job .
Nobody wants the guy with the nuclear codes to be experiencing psychosis .
But we don ’ t have a great understanding of how common the psychiatric effects are .
“ This has not been widely studied because dexamethasone largely went out of style , ” Shorter said .
A meta-analysis published in 2006 ( the most recent I could find ) looked at psychiatric side effects of corticosteroids broadly .
The analysis found that studies have placed the rate of psychiatric side effects at everything from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range the authors chalk up to both the lack of understanding and the different definitions used .
If someone has a bit of trouble falling asleep while taking a steroid , one researcher might consider that an adverse psychiatric event , while another might not even clock it .
Another review , from 1983 , reported a similar range , with adverse effects occurring in from 1.6 percent to 62 percent of patients , depending on the study .
But those figures include the full range of psychiatric symptoms , and the majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the 1983 review found severe effects occurred only 5 percent of the time .
Even mania , which sounds concerning , can manifest in a mild way that basically just means the patient feels a little more energetic or “ revved up , ” according to Ghandi .
That ’ s not to say that the more severe side effects aren ’ t worth paying attention to .
Some patients experience serious psychiatric impacts from these drugs , including hallucinations and psychosis — a case study published last year described a patient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dexamethasone and then experienced such intense psychosis he tried to cut out his own testicle with a kitchen knife .
While it ’ s not totally clear how often these side effects occur , we do know they typically have a lot to do with dose and duration .
The higher the dose , and the longer a person is on it , the higher the risk of adverse effects .
The trials of dexamethasone for COVID-19 recommended no more than 10 days on the drug , at a dose of 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the lower end of the risk range .
Trump ’ s age and sex don ’ t put him at any higher risk for these adverse effects , either .
Studies have found no link between age and psychiatric side effects and when it comes to sex , women are at a slightly higher risk than men .
Even if Trump has not had any side effects yet , there is a risk that some could still develop .
What research we do have shows that these symptoms can arrive after several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even after completing the course of the drug .
“ The vast majority of these patients develop symptoms less than two weeks from [ the first dose ] and more typically three or four days after the initiation of corticosteroid therapy , ” the 2019 case study read .
“ In most cases , any associated delirium commonly resolves within days and psychosis within a week , though depression or manic symptoms may last up to six weeks after discontinuation of steroids.
” On Monday , Trump ’ s doctors said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s unclear how long he will be receiving the drug .
On Friday , he told reporters he was not currently taking any medication for COVID-19 .
“ He ’ s probably no longer on it , is my guess , ” said Dr. David Juurlink , the head of clinical pharmacology and toxicology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto .
“ The study that guided our decision-making on that was up to 10 days , and it was only patients who needed oxygen.
” Of course , all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual patient is different .
Understanding the risks associated with the drugs can provide useful context , but without more transparency from Trump and his doctors , it ’ s impossible to guess what , if any , side effects he may be experiencing .

President Trump has boasted that the treatment he has received for COVID-19 has cured him of the disease and made him feel better than ever. It’s very difficult to know whether that’s true, given how little we know about his condition, how unreliable his health reports have been and how experimental his course of treatment is. But we do know that these drugs often come with considerable side effects — side effects that could change the behavior of the leader of the free world.
In particular, one of the drugs he has been given, dexamethasone, can cause psychiatric side effects, which has raised concerns. Of course, just because side effects could affect behavior doesn’t mean they are doing so.
“We need to exercise caution in attributing any particular form of behavior to side effects of medication,” said Edward Shorter, a medical historian at the University of Toronto. “Trump has such a long history of bizarre and erratic behavior that the latest manifestation of it need not be a medication side effect at all.”
Rather than jumping to conclusions, it’s helpful to take a step back and consider what the science tells us about these therapeutics. Let’s run through the three major drugs doctors have prescribed to Trump and what their side effects might be.
Regeneron: Little is known
This antibody cocktail is the treatment we know the least about, because it’s a new, experimental therapeutic that has not yet been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Regeneron has conducted a drug trial of its treatment — which uses lab-grown, antibodies specific to the novel coronavirus to help fight off an infection — but the results have not been published, aside from a promising press release from the company last week. The release didn’t mention any potential side effects. We do know the cocktail is administered intravenously, and any IV treatment can potentially cause certain side effects like fever and chills. But other than that, until more details are published, it’s hard to say whether the cocktail changed anything for the president, including his claims of it “curing” him.
Remdesivir: Mostly mild side effects
This antiviral drug was originally developed in 2009 as a potential treatment for hepatitis-C. While it didn’t prove effective for that disease, early trials in the COVID-19 pandemic found it could reduce the duration of infection and increase the likelihood of survival. It was authorized for emergency use by the FDA in May.
While there is still work to be done to learn the full scope of the drug’s effects, so far the most common side effects reported, such as nausea and constipation, are mild. Some COVID-19 patients have experienced more severe symptoms while taking remdesivir, including worsening respiratory failure and high levels of certain enzymes in the liver, which can cause damage, but these are more rare. In a phase 3 trial of remdesivir published in May, 8 percent of patients experienced worsening respiratory distress and 7 percent had elevated enzymes in their liver. But because the research on this drug is still limited, we don’t fully understand the link between the drug and these adverse effects.
“Even though any drug can have side effects, including remdesivir, on balance it doesn’t have a lot,” said Dr. Rajesh Gandhi, an infectious diseases physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. “It can have effects on the liver occasionally, which is why we routinely do liver checks and I’m sure the president is having routine liver checks.”
Indeed, in a briefing on Sunday, Trump’s physicians said they’re monitoring the president’s liver functions, which are indicating “normal findings.” (Though we don’t know to what norm they’re comparing Trump’s levels. Normal for a COVID-19 patient, or normal for a healthy person?) On Monday, his doctors said Trump was given a five-day course of remdesivir, with the final dose on Tuesday.
Dexamethasone: A long list of side effects
We know the most about this drug because it’s been around for half a century, and perhaps as a result it comes with the longest list of possible side effects, ranging from acne and hair growth to severe psychiatric effects. This is typical for corticosteroids like dexamethasone — they’re versatile and effective but also can wreak all kinds of havoc on the body and mind. Corticosteroids are synthetic versions of hormones the body naturally produces and are effective in reducing inflammation. For this reason, they’re typically used to treat conditions such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. But dexamethasone has also been found to be effective in treating COVID-19 in cases in which the patient required oxygen or ventilation.
How a 60-year-old drug became our best hope for saving people with COVID-19
Naturally, the potential psychiatric side effects are concerning given Trump’s job. Nobody wants the guy with the nuclear codes to be experiencing psychosis. But we don’t have a great understanding of how common the psychiatric effects are.
“This has not been widely studied because dexamethasone largely went out of style,” Shorter said.
A meta-analysis published in 2006 (the most recent I could find) looked at psychiatric side effects of corticosteroids broadly. The analysis found that studies have placed the rate of psychiatric side effects at everything from 1.8 percent to 57 percent, a range the authors chalk up to both the lack of understanding and the different definitions used. If someone has a bit of trouble falling asleep while taking a steroid, one researcher might consider that an adverse psychiatric event, while another might not even clock it. Another review, from 1983, reported a similar range, with adverse effects occurring in from 1.6 percent to 62 percent of patients, depending on the study.
But those figures include the full range of psychiatric symptoms, and the majority of those reported are mild or moderate — the 1983 review found severe effects occurred only 5 percent of the time. Even mania, which sounds concerning, can manifest in a mild way that basically just means the patient feels a little more energetic or “revved up,” according to Ghandi. That’s not to say that the more severe side effects aren’t worth paying attention to. Some patients experience serious psychiatric impacts from these drugs, including hallucinations and psychosis — a case study published last year described a patient who received just one 5 mg shot of dexamethasone and then experienced such intense psychosis he tried to cut out his own testicle with a kitchen knife.
While it’s not totally clear how often these side effects occur, we do know they typically have a lot to do with dose and duration. The higher the dose, and the longer a person is on it, the higher the risk of adverse effects. The trials of dexamethasone for COVID-19 recommended no more than 10 days on the drug, at a dose of 6 mg per day, which would be on the lower end of the risk range.
Trump’s age and sex don’t put him at any higher risk for these adverse effects, either. Studies have found no link between age and psychiatric side effects and when it comes to sex, women are at a slightly higher risk than men.
Even if Trump has not had any side effects yet, there is a risk that some could still develop. What research we do have shows that these symptoms can arrive after several days, and sometimes last for weeks, even after completing the course of the drug.
“The vast majority of these patients develop symptoms less than two weeks from [the first dose] and more typically three or four days after the initiation of corticosteroid therapy,” the 2019 case study read. “In most cases, any associated delirium commonly resolves within days and psychosis within a week, though depression or manic symptoms may last up to six weeks after discontinuation of steroids.”
On Monday, Trump’s doctors said he was “continuing” dexamethasone, but it’s unclear how long he will be receiving the drug. On Friday, he told reporters he was not currently taking any medication for COVID-19.
“He’s probably no longer on it, is my guess,” said Dr. David Juurlink, the head of clinical pharmacology and toxicology at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto. “The study that guided our decision-making on that was up to 10 days, and it was only patients who needed oxygen.”
Of course, all of these statistics are averages, and each individual patient is different. Understanding the risks associated with the drugs can provide useful context, but without more transparency from Trump and his doctors, it’s impossible to guess what, if any, side effects he may be experiencing.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-12--Why The Supreme Court’s Reputation Is At Stake

Four planned days of Senate confirmation hearings for President Trump ’ s latest Supreme Court nominee , Judge Amy Coney Barrett , begin today .
And they are going to be a doozy .
Confirmation proceedings have generally gotten much more contentious over the years .
But the fight over Barrett could be among the most rancorous yet .
The presidential election is only three weeks away , yet Republicans are pushing ahead with the confirmation even though most Americans think they should wait ; Trump and two Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee have tested positive for COVID-19 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Barrett , if confirmed , would replace a justice who was in many respects her polar opposite , making the court the most conservative it ’ s been in 70 years .
Even in a moment of deep partisan hatred , this is a particularly explosive brew .
But the ideological fate of the Supreme Court isn ’ t the only thing on the line this week .
The Supreme Court ’ s reputation as an apolitical , independent branch of government is also at stake .
During their confirmation hearings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as neutral arbiters of law who make their decisions above the political fray .
And that ’ s for good reason , since they ’ re unelected officials who would serve lifetime appointments on the most powerful court in the country .
But faith in the Supreme Court is lower than it used to be , and confirmation hearings have been getting more and more partisan .
A bruising confirmation process will still likely result in Barrett ’ s ascension to the court , but that doesn ’ t mean its reputation as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If Americans become convinced that Barrett and the other justices are brazen political actors , public confidence in the court could erode further , opening the door to radical changes to the court , including the possibility that Democrats will try to add justices if they win the White House and Senate in November .
Faith in the Supreme Court has been waning The Supreme Court is the branch of government Americans trust most .
But at a moment when trust in most parts of government is at an all-time low , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to polling by Gallup , Americans ’ confidence in the Supreme Court has fallen significantly over the past two decades .
A 2020 poll conducted before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death found that only 40 percent of Americans said they had “ a great deal ” or “ quite a lot ” of confidence in the Supreme Court , down from a two-decade high of 50 percent in 2002 .
That relatively low level of confidence isn ’ t the worst the Supreme Court has seen in recent years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of Americans had “ a great deal ” or “ quite a lot ” of confidence in the high court , and nearly as many ( 24 percent ) said they had “ very little ” confidence .
The court ’ s current levels of support may be bolstered by the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts , who has held the crucial “ swing ” vote since Justice Anthony Kennedy ’ s retirement in 2018 , joined the liberals in several high-profile decisions this year , effectively keeping the court in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Pew Research Center has also seen Americans ’ views of the Supreme Court rebound a bit since hitting a low point around 2015 .
But that could easily change if Democrats ’ support for the court plummets .
And as I wrote last year , a wide partisan gap in how the court is viewed is especially bad news for the justices , because it could underscore the idea that the court itself is a partisan institution .
It ’ s hard to know , of course , how much Americans ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the confirmation process .
But it ’ s clear that partisan tensions around the court have ramped up a lot in the past decade .
As the table below shows , it was once common for justices to be confirmed with the support of most senators .
Even as recently as 2005 , the vast majority of senators voted to confirm Roberts , who had strenuously reassured them during his confirmation hearings that he would not be an ideologue .
Trump ’ s first Supreme Court nominee , Neil Gorsuch , received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2017 , and Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by a narrow two-vote margin the following year .
Barrett will probably be confirmed by a similarly tight vote .
And Democrats will likely go out of their way to portray her as a partisan conservative who will overturn precedents she disagrees with , rather than be a neutral jurist who respects the court ’ s prior decisions .
Her record advocating restrictions on abortion rights is likely to come under scrutiny , as is a 2017 law review article in which she criticized Roberts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Affordable Care Act .
The partisan hostility will be elevated , too , by the recent memory of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s decision to block the confirmation vote for Judge Merrick Garland , then-President Obama ’ s choice for the seat that was eventually filled by Gorsuch .
At the time , McConnell argued that the winner of the upcoming presidential election — which was happening more than eight months after Justice Antonin Scalia had died unexpectedly , leaving the seat vacant — should get to fill the seat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are rushing to confirm Barrett with only three weeks left before a presidential election .
It ’ s risky for the court to veer outside the mainstream There ’ s no obvious reason for Barrett or any other Supreme Court justice to care about public opinion once they ’ re safely ensconced on the court .
After all , one argument for giving judges a lifetime appointment is to insulate them from the vagaries of politics .
But if Barrett is confirmed , Democrats ’ efforts to paint her as a partisan figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority then takes a hard right turn on closely watched issues .
“ If Barrett is confirmed and pushes the court ’ s decisions to the right , I suspect many decisions will be much more conservative than the public prefers , these decisions will get a lot of media attention , and public confidence in the court will decrease , ” Peter K. Enns , a political science professor at Cornell University who studies the Supreme Court and public opinion , told me in an email .
It ’ s possible that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and takes a seat on the Supreme Court before Election Day , controversial rulings won ’ t be far behind either .
On the day after the election , the court is hearing a major case that could allow private organizations receiving public funding to deny services to LGBTQ people .
Broader religious liberty protections are a priority for several of the conservative justices , too .
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito already wrote this month that the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage was wrongly decided and has put significant burdens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marriage .
A week after the election , the justices will then hear another challenge to the Affordable Care Act .
Research by Enns and other scholars has found that the Supreme Court rarely gets too far outside mainstream public opinion .
But when that does happen , faith in the court drops and calls for court packing or term limits usually aren ’ t far behind .
In recent times , politicians haven ’ t acted on those threats — but that was because the court backed down .
Most famously , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced his plan to add as many as six new justices to the Supreme Court , a member of the court ’ s conservative majority suddenly started voting to uphold New Deal legislation that was very similar to laws he and the other conservative justices had gutted the year before .
If Barrett is confirmed by Election Day , and the Democrats win the White House and Senate , the Roberts court could be heading for a similar reckoning .
Packing the court or enacting term limits for Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — but if the court ’ s legitimacy is eroded in the eyes of the public , it could be easier for them to become reality .

Four planned days of Senate confirmation hearings for President Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, begin today. And they are going to be a doozy.
Confirmation proceedings have generally gotten much more contentious over the years. But the fight over Barrett could be among the most rancorous yet. The presidential election is only three weeks away, yet Republicans are pushing ahead with the confirmation even though most Americans think they should wait; Trump and two Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee have tested positive for COVID-19, throwing the whole timeline into jeopardy; and Barrett, if confirmed, would replace a justice who was in many respects her polar opposite, making the court the most conservative it’s been in 70 years.
What to watch for during Supreme Court confirmation hearings | FiveThirtyEight
Even in a moment of deep partisan hatred, this is a particularly explosive brew.
But the ideological fate of the Supreme Court isn’t the only thing on the line this week. The Supreme Court’s reputation as an apolitical, independent branch of government is also at stake.
During their confirmation hearings, would-be Supreme Court justices usually present themselves as neutral arbiters of law who make their decisions above the political fray. And that’s for good reason, since they’re unelected officials who would serve lifetime appointments on the most powerful court in the country. But faith in the Supreme Court is lower than it used to be, and confirmation hearings have been getting more and more partisan.
A bruising confirmation process will still likely result in Barrett’s ascension to the court, but that doesn’t mean its reputation as an institution isn’t at risk. If Americans become convinced that Barrett and the other justices are brazen political actors, public confidence in the court could erode further, opening the door to radical changes to the court, including the possibility that Democrats will try to add justices if they win the White House and Senate in November.
Faith in the Supreme Court has been waning
The Supreme Court is the branch of government Americans trust most. But at a moment when trust in most parts of government is at an all-time low, that isn’t saying much. According to polling by Gallup, Americans’ confidence in the Supreme Court has fallen significantly over the past two decades. A 2020 poll conducted before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death found that only 40 percent of Americans said they had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the Supreme Court, down from a two-decade high of 50 percent in 2002.
That relatively low level of confidence isn’t the worst the Supreme Court has seen in recent years, though. In 2014, only 30 percent of Americans had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the high court, and nearly as many (24 percent) said they had “very little” confidence. The court’s current levels of support may be bolstered by the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts, who has held the crucial “swing” vote since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement in 2018, joined the liberals in several high-profile decisions this year, effectively keeping the court in line with public opinion.
Polling by the Pew Research Center has also seen Americans’ views of the Supreme Court rebound a bit since hitting a low point around 2015. But that could easily change if Democrats’ support for the court plummets. And as I wrote last year, a wide partisan gap in how the court is viewed is especially bad news for the justices, because it could underscore the idea that the court itself is a partisan institution.
Confirmation votes are increasingly partisan
It’s hard to know, of course, how much Americans’ views of the Supreme Court are influenced by the confirmation process. But it’s clear that partisan tensions around the court have ramped up a lot in the past decade. As the table below shows, it was once common for justices to be confirmed with the support of most senators. Even as recently as 2005, the vast majority of senators voted to confirm Roberts, who had strenuously reassured them during his confirmation hearings that he would not be an ideologue.
Supreme Court confirmations are growing more contentious Supreme Court confirmation votes in the U.S. Senate, since 1975 Votes Year Nominee Yes No 2018 Brett M. Kavanaugh 50 48 2017 Neil M. Gorsuch 54 45 2010 Elena Kagan 63 37 2009 Sonia Sotomayor 68 31 2006 Samuel A. Alito Jr. 58 42 2005 John G. Roberts Jr.* 78 22 1994 Stephen G. Breyer 87 9 1993 Ruth Bader Ginsburg 96 3 1991 Clarence Thomas 52 48 1990 David H. Souter 90 9 1987 Anthony M. Kennedy 97 0 1987 Robert H. Bork 42 58 1986 Antonin Scalia 98 0 1986 William H. Rehnquist* 65 33 1981 Sandra Day O’Connor 99 0 1975 John Paul Stevens 98 0 *Confirmed as chief justice Source: United States Senate
Confirmation votes are rarely so harmonious today.
Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, received only 54 votes when he was confirmed in 2017, and Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by a narrow two-vote margin the following year. Barrett will probably be confirmed by a similarly tight vote. And Democrats will likely go out of their way to portray her as a partisan conservative who will overturn precedents she disagrees with, rather than be a neutral jurist who respects the court’s prior decisions. Her record advocating restrictions on abortion rights is likely to come under scrutiny, as is a 2017 law review article in which she criticized Roberts’s 2012 vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act.
The partisan hostility will be elevated, too, by the recent memory of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to block the confirmation vote for Judge Merrick Garland, then-President Obama’s choice for the seat that was eventually filled by Gorsuch. At the time, McConnell argued that the winner of the upcoming presidential election — which was happening more than eight months after Justice Antonin Scalia had died unexpectedly, leaving the seat vacant — should get to fill the seat. But now, McConnell and Senate Republicans are rushing to confirm Barrett with only three weeks left before a presidential election.
It’s risky for the court to veer outside the mainstream
There’s no obvious reason for Barrett or any other Supreme Court justice to care about public opinion once they’re safely ensconced on the court. After all, one argument for giving judges a lifetime appointment is to insulate them from the vagaries of politics. But if Barrett is confirmed, Democrats’ efforts to paint her as a partisan figure could be especially damaging if the conservative majority then takes a hard right turn on closely watched issues.
“If Barrett is confirmed and pushes the court’s decisions to the right, I suspect many decisions will be much more conservative than the public prefers, these decisions will get a lot of media attention, and public confidence in the court will decrease,” Peter K. Enns, a political science professor at Cornell University who studies the Supreme Court and public opinion, told me in an email.
It’s possible that if Barrett is confirmed on schedule, and takes a seat on the Supreme Court before Election Day, controversial rulings won’t be far behind either. On the day after the election, the court is hearing a major case that could allow private organizations receiving public funding to deny services to LGBTQ people. Broader religious liberty protections are a priority for several of the conservative justices, too. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito already wrote this month that the 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage was wrongly decided and has put significant burdens on religious Americans who object to gay marriage. A week after the election, the justices will then hear another challenge to the Affordable Care Act.
Research by Enns and other scholars has found that the Supreme Court rarely gets too far outside mainstream public opinion. But when that does happen, faith in the court drops and calls for court packing or term limits usually aren’t far behind. In recent times, politicians haven’t acted on those threats — but that was because the court backed down. Most famously, in the late 1930s, after then-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced his plan to add as many as six new justices to the Supreme Court, a member of the court’s conservative majority suddenly started voting to uphold New Deal legislation that was very similar to laws he and the other conservative justices had gutted the year before.
What comes next in the fight to fill Ginsburgâs seat: FiveThirtyEight
If Barrett is confirmed by Election Day, and the Democrats win the White House and Senate, the Roberts court could be heading for a similar reckoning. Packing the court or enacting term limits for Supreme Court justices would be radical, historic moves — but if the court’s legitimacy is eroded in the eyes of the public, it could be easier for them to become reality.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-12--What To Watch For During This Week’s Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

This week , Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will face her confirmation hearings in the Senate .
Senior writer @ @ @ @ @ ’ questioning could set the stage for a fight over the court ’ s legitimacy @

What To Watch For During This Week’s Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings
This week, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will face her confirmation hearings in the Senate. Senior writer Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux explains why senators’ questioning could set the stage for a fight over the court’s legitimacy.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-12--LeBron And AD Are The Heroes. But The Sum Of This Laker Club Was More Than Its Superstar Parts.

As the Los Angeles Lakers romped their way Sunday night to a record-tying 17th league title with a 106-93 blowout victory over the Miami Heat , the majority of conversations around their win figured to focus on the superstar combination of LeBron James and Anthony Davis that ultimately returned them to glory .
But while those two will understandably share the brightest spotlight , the totality of this particular Lakers club — and what helped it prevail — was always more than met the eye .
Make no mistake : James and Davis were incredible all season .
And there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made that James — who previously played with Dwyane Wade , Chris Bosh , Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love — has never had a partner this perfect .
The Big Three in Miami was a terror , but it ’ s easy to forget how out of sync James and Wade were offensively early on , as Bosh took time to settle into a tertiary role after being a No .
1 option in Toronto .
And even in Cleveland , where James got the biggest lift of his career off a clutch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cavs sidekicks weren ’ t all that skilled on defense , making it more of a challenge for them to hold the line whenever James had to go to the bench for breathers .
This year , when Davis was asked to hold down the fort without James on the floor in the regular season , the Lakers weren ’ t anything special , getting outscored by 3 points per 100 possessions , per NBA Advanced Stats .
But the big man found a new level in the playoffs , when Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 possessions when Davis played as James was sidelined .
The importance of Davis was on display repeatedly , whether on a series-altering game-winner or over a quarter of using his condor-like wingspan to stifle the guy who had just gone off for a 40-point triple-double the game before .
His presence was an enormous factor in Sunday ’ s Game 6 clincher , as Miami often looked reluctant to shoot anywhere near the rim , fearing that Davis might be nearby , ready to swat any close-range tries .
But it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was solely about James and Davis .
Frank Vogel , who hoisted a championship trophy in Orlando just two years after being fired by the Magic , did an outstanding job with this group .
Long known for his defensive acumen , Vogel often got fantastic buy-in on that end from James , who , after years of less-than-consistent effort , generally locked down his opponents when it mattered most .
( Davis , of course was the runner-up for Defensive Player of the Year . )
But even on the offensive end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game plan designed to blow up Miami ’ s zone — placing either James or Davis in the middle of it , then taking the other man and putting him along the baseline , which forced the Heat to scrap the plan altogether .
After the Lakers ’ disappointing flame-out last season , general manager Rob Pelinka was under pressure to assemble a roster after holding out for , then missing on , Kawhi Leonard .
He didn ’ t bring in a third star , but it ’ s worth noting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Morris and Dwight Howard ( ! )
made up just 7 percent of the team ’ s salary cap , while ultimately contributing far more than that to the Lakers ’ championship run .
Howard , acquired after free-agent signee DeMarcus Cousins tore his ACL , was deemed a small risk — if only because of his wishy-washy reputation and the agitation in Laker Land over his first stint .
But his ability on the glass was enormous throughout the NBA Finals against Miami , and he was usually a steadier backup presence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And to Vogel ’ s credit , he adjusted in Game 6 by playing small and leaving Howard on the bench as a way to space the floor offensively .
This change allowed the Lakers to turn the game into a track meet early , and the Heat were never able to locate their sprinter ’ s spikes . )
Talented as the Lakers are , the offense outside of their supremely talented Top Two was a fair question coming in .
Yes , they could score with the best of them because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t crazy to wonder where any other high-level ball-handling would come from , or if a lack thereof would place too much of a burden on an aging James .
As they illustrated Sunday , the team feasted and brought opponents to their knees when they couldn ’ t appropriately set their defense , with James throwing transition touchdown after transition touchdown to Davis .
Yet the Lakers ’ half-court offense was mediocre throughout the regular season , having posted slightly below-average efficiency numbers .
They weren ’ t all that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team endured a notable cold spell to end the regular season , ranking 20th of the 22 bubble teams in offense .
But we had no idea that Kentavious Caldwell-Pope would morph into an elite role player for the second half of the Finals .
Nor did we know that Rondo , who has a well-worn reputation as one of the league ’ s most errant-shooting guards , would suddenly become a relative flamethrower during the postseason .
Perhaps aided by improved depth perception in the smaller arenas , Rondo — a 29 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year — shot closer to 40 percent on three tries a game this postseason .
In Second Spectrum ’ s quantified Shot Quality stat , which measures how an average player would be expected to perform on the same attempts , Rondo went from being 5 points worse than expected on jumpers during the regular season to now shooting 6 points better than expected in the playoffs .
( For context : That 11-point swing in effective field-goal rate would be the equivalent of going from the wayward-shooting Michael Carter-Williams to marksman Khris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shooter was a massive development for Los Angeles , as it gave defenses a bit more to consider before abandoning him beyond the arc .
It meant that Davis and James were likely to see less aggressive double-teams than they otherwise would have , allowing them to have an advantage in most of their matchups .
Like always , there will be some who seek to poke holes in this title .
Aside from the one-off weirdness of the bubble itself , there ’ s also the fact that the Lakers didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team with the league ’ s best record .
Or the team with the second-best record .
Or the team with the second-best record in the West .
( Though Los Angeles did take down the Bucks and the Clippers in consecutive games just before the league shut down , and then they beat the Clippers again the night the league resumed . )
Even the Miami club that earned its way to the Finals was hobbled shortly after getting there , with Goran Dragić sitting out four games and Bam Adebayo missing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these NBA Finals are merely another example of nearly every series having its set of oddities or unfortunate circumstances .
Just like last year ’ s .
Or like 2016 ’ s .
Or like 2014 ’ s .
In a way , to focus more on those circumstances would be a lot like crediting James and Davis alone for the title .
Yes , that tandem was a massive part of it , and they did much of the heavy lifting .
But overlooking everything else would be ignoring the nuances of @ @ @ @ @ @

LeBron And AD Are The Heroes. But The Sum Of This Lakers Club Was More Than Its Superstar Parts.
As the Los Angeles Lakers romped their way Sunday night to a record-tying 17th league title with a 106-93 blowout victory over the Miami Heat, the majority of conversations around their win figured to focus on the superstar combination of LeBron James and Anthony Davis that ultimately returned them to glory.
But while those two will understandably share the brightest spotlight, the totality of this particular Lakers club — and what helped it prevail — was always more than met the eye.
Make no mistake: James and Davis were incredible all season. And there’s a solid case to be made that James — who previously played with Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love — has never had a partner this perfect.
The Big Three in Miami was a terror, but it’s easy to forget how out of sync James and Wade were offensively early on, as Bosh took time to settle into a tertiary role after being a No. 1 option in Toronto. And even in Cleveland, where James got the biggest lift of his career off a clutch Game 7 triple from Irving, his Cavs sidekicks weren’t all that skilled on defense, making it more of a challenge for them to hold the line whenever James had to go to the bench for breathers.
This year, when Davis was asked to hold down the fort without James on the floor in the regular season, the Lakers weren’t anything special, getting outscored by 3 points per 100 possessions, per NBA Advanced Stats. But the big man found a new level in the playoffs, when Los Angeles beat up opponents by 8 points per 100 possessions when Davis played as James was sidelined.
The importance of Davis was on display repeatedly, whether on a series-altering game-winner or over a quarter of using his condor-like wingspan to stifle the guy who had just gone off for a 40-point triple-double the game before. His presence was an enormous factor in Sunday’s Game 6 clincher, as Miami often looked reluctant to shoot anywhere near the rim, fearing that Davis might be nearby, ready to swat any close-range tries.
But it would be wrong to think that this title was solely about James and Davis.
Frank Vogel, who hoisted a championship trophy in Orlando just two years after being fired by the Magic, did an outstanding job with this group. Long known for his defensive acumen, Vogel often got fantastic buy-in on that end from James, who, after years of less-than-consistent effort, generally locked down his opponents when it mattered most. (Davis, of course, was the runner-up for Defensive Player of the Year.) But even on the offensive end, Vogel and his staff developed a game plan designed to blow up Miami’s zone — placing either James or Davis in the middle of it, then taking the other man and putting him along the baseline, which forced the Heat to scrap the plan altogether.
After the Lakers’ disappointing flame-out last season, general manager Rob Pelinka was under pressure to assemble a roster after holding out for, then missing on, Kawhi Leonard. He didn’t bring in a third star, but it’s worth noting that Alex Caruso, Rajon Rondo, Markieff Morris and Dwight Howard (!) made up just 7 percent of the team’s salary cap, while ultimately contributing far more than that to the Lakers’ championship run.
Howard, acquired after free-agent signee DeMarcus Cousins tore his ACL, was deemed a small risk — if only because of his wishy-washy reputation and the agitation in Laker Land over his first stint. But his ability on the glass was enormous throughout the NBA Finals against Miami, and he was usually a steadier backup presence than the undisciplined JaVale McGee. (And to Vogel’s credit, he adjusted in Game 6 by playing small and leaving Howard on the bench as a way to space the floor offensively. This change allowed the Lakers to turn the game into a track meet early, and the Heat were never able to locate their sprinter’s spikes.)
Talented as the Lakers are, the offense outside of their supremely talented Top Two was a fair question coming in. Yes, they could score with the best of them because of Davis and James. But it wasn’t crazy to wonder where any other high-level ball-handling would come from, or if a lack thereof would place too much of a burden on an aging James.
As they illustrated Sunday, the team feasted and brought opponents to their knees when they couldn’t appropriately set their defense, with James throwing transition touchdown after transition touchdown to Davis. Yet the Lakers’ half-court offense was mediocre throughout the regular season, having posted slightly below-average efficiency numbers. They weren’t all that good from deep either, and the team endured a notable cold spell to end the regular season, ranking 20th of the 22 bubble teams in offense.
But we had no idea that Kentavious Caldwell-Pope would morph into an elite role player for the second half of the Finals. Nor did we know that Rondo, who has a well-worn reputation as one of the league’s most errant-shooting guards, would suddenly become a relative flamethrower during the postseason. Perhaps aided by improved depth perception in the smaller arenas, Rondo — a 29 percent postseason shooter from three before this year — shot closer to 40 percent on three tries a game this postseason.
In Second Spectrum’s quantified Shot Quality stat, which measures how an average player would be expected to perform on the same attempts, Rondo went from being 5 points worse than expected on jumpers during the regular season to now shooting 6 points better than expected in the playoffs. (For context: That 11-point swing in effective field-goal rate would be the equivalent of going from the wayward-shooting Michael Carter-Williams to marksman Khris Middleton.)
Rondo becoming a reliable shooter was a massive development for Los Angeles, as it gave defenses a bit more to consider before abandoning him beyond the arc. It meant that Davis and James were likely to see less aggressive double-teams than they otherwise would have, allowing them to have an advantage in most of their matchups.
As always, there will be some who seek to poke holes in this title. Aside from the one-off weirdness of the bubble itself, there’s also the fact that the Lakers didn’t end up having to face the team with the league’s best record. Or the team with the second-best record. Or the team with the second-best record in the West. (Though Los Angeles did take down the Bucks and the Clippers in consecutive games just before the league shut down, and then they beat the Clippers again the night the league resumed.)
Even the Miami club that earned its way to the Finals was hobbled shortly after getting there, with Goran Dragić sitting out four games and Bam Adebayo missing two.
But in the end, these NBA Finals are merely another example of nearly every series having its set of oddities or unfortunate circumstances. Just like last year’s. Or like 2016’s. Or like 2014’s.
In a way, to focus more on those circumstances would be a lot like crediting James and Davis alone for the title. Yes, that tandem was a massive part of it, and they did much of the heavy lifting. But overlooking everything else would be ignoring the nuances of what made this team special.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-12--How President Trump Could Still Win Re-Election

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew considers how President Trump might pull off a reelection @ @ @ @ @ is going in the Sun Belt states .

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew considers how President Trump might pull off getting reelected and how the 2020 race is going in the Sun Belt states.


fivethirthyeight--2020-10-12--Politics Podcast: The Road To A Senate Majority Runs Through The Sun Belt

After Hillary Clinton ’ s loss in 2016 , it was an open question whether Democrats ’ path back to the White House would rely on flipping increasingly purple Sun Belt states or winning back old “ blue wall ” states in the Rust Belt .
Based on current polling , it appears that Biden is performing better in the Upper Midwest than in the South , but if Democrats are to win control of the Senate , they ’ ll have to perform well in places like Arizona , Georgia and North Carolina .
In this installment of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state of the Senate and presidential races in the Sun Belt .
They also consider scenarios in which President Trump could beat his declining odds and win a second term .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ play ” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform .
If you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays .
Help new listeners discover the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review on iTunes .
Have a comment , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in touch by email , on Twitter or in the comments .

After Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, it was an open question whether Democrats’ path back to the White House would rely on flipping increasingly purple Sun Belt states or winning back old “blue wall” states in the Rust Belt. Based on current polling, it appears that Biden is performing better in the Upper Midwest than in the South, but if Democrats are to win control of the Senate, they’ll have to perform well in places like Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina.
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew discusses the state of the Senate and presidential races in the Sun Belt. They also consider scenarios in which President Trump could beat his declining odds and win a second term.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.