fivethirthyeight--2020-07-28--Nomar Garciaparra’s Full Career Wasn’t Enough For Cooperstown — But It Was Still Damn Good

If you ’ d told a Red Sox fan in the summer of 1997 that Boston would win three World Series in the next 16 years — well , first , they ’ d be beyond ecstatic ; the team had infamously not won a title since 1918 .
And second , they ’ d have been sure that shortstop Nomar Garciaparra would be the main reason for that success .
Garciaparra was in the midst of a Rookie of the Year season that saw him lead the American League in hits and triples , finishing second in runs scored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t very good that year ( going 78-84 ) , the Red Sox were just a couple years removed from a division crown and had a pipeline of prospects on the way that included outfielder Trot Nixon , catcher Jason Varitek and starter Carl Pavano — who was traded after that season for Montreal Expos ace Pedro Martinez .
Curses aside , with Garciaparra leading the way , it wasn ’ t impossible to imagine a Red Sox dynasty spanning the 2000s and lasting into the 2010s .
A hotshot future Hall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for a long run of success ; Derek Jeter , Garciaparra ’ s rival at shortstop for the New York Yankees , is only a year younger and was his team ’ s starter through age 40 in 2014 .
But , of course , that ’ s not what happened in Boston .
Maybe the most improbable aspect of the Red Sox ’ s success — which included the first 0-3 comeback in MLB playoff history — was that Garciaparra wasn ’ t present for any of it .
Thanks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nomar was shipped out of town three months before Boston ended its World Series drought , and his career was never really the same afterward .
But in this week ’ s edition of our Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players , we remember the player who was once on track for all-time great numbers .
Garciaparra ’ s final career stats are of borderline Hall of Fame quality at best .
He ranks just 31st among MLB shortstops ( since 1901 ) in total wins above replacement and 21st in JAWS , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ career and peak WAR .
That latter figure is better than only 16 percent of the shortstops in Cooperstown , and while he fares slightly better by more traditional measurements , Garciaparra still would be worse than the typical Hall of Fame shortstop by most accounts .
Things didn ’ t always look that way , however .
In fact , early in Garciaparra ’ s career , he was on pace to be one of the best shortstops in baseball history .
After breaking out as a rookie for 6.5 WAR , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Red Sox won 92 games and made the playoffs in 1998 .
Though bolstered by the offseason arrival of Martinez , Boston ’ s most valuable player by WAR that season was still Garciaparra , who hit .323 with 35 home runs and played strong defense at short .
After follow-up seasons of 6.4 and 7.5 WAR in 1999 and 2000 — during which he won two batting titles and Boston reached an American League Championship Series — Garciaparra was in rarified territory for his position .
Though outpaced by his contemporary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Garciaparra had more WAR through age 26 ( 27.8 ) than Jeter ( 25.5 ) , Ernie Banks ( 23.1 ) , Barry Larkin ( 18.2 ) , Luis Aparicio ( 17.5 ) or Ozzie Smith ( 9.9 ) , all of whom are in Cooperstown .
Although the Red Sox slipped by nine wins in the 2000 season to miss the playoffs at 85-77 , it was an especially fruitful summer for both Garciaparra — who dallied with the unattainable .400 average before finishing at .372 — and Martinez , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that year .
In tandem , Pedro and Nomar produced 18.1 WAR in 2000 , the 11th-largest combined total by any team ’ s top position player and top pitcher in a single season since 1901 : Garciaparra missed 136 games in 2001 because of a wrist injury , and Boston tumbled to 82-79 .
But he bounced back by averaging 5.9 WAR per season over the next two years , with the Red Sox reloading to come within a game of making the World Series in 2003 .
At age 29 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remained one of the most productive shortstops in the game , second only to Rodriguez by WAR that season .
But he was second , and to Rodriguez .
And that — coupled with strong-willed negotiations over a contract extension before the final year of his existing deal — ultimately paved the way for Garciaparra ’ s exit from Boston .
When the Texas Rangers gave up on their A-Rod experiment , the Red Sox pounced on the chance to upgrade from baseball ’ s second-best shortstop to its best .
They worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manny Ramirez to Texas for Rodriguez , while simultaneously dispatching Garciaparra to the Chicago White Sox for outfielder Magglio Ordóñez .
But the trade eventually collapsed under its own weight , leading Rodriguez to join the Yankees instead … and Garciaparra to stew over management ’ s failed attempt to ship him out of town .
Unhappy and limited in playing time by an achilles injury , Garciaparra was increasingly irrelevant to the 2004 Red Sox ’ s chances as the summer progressed .
( The juxtaposition of Jeter hurling himself into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sulked on the bench was not lost on the Boston press . )
Garciaparra hit .321 with an .867 on-base plus slugging when in the lineup , but he also struggled defensively and had played only 38 games through late July , generating just 0.2 WAR .
On the day of the trade deadline , Boston finally pulled the trigger on a swap that sent Garciaparra to the Chicago Cubs , yielding shortstop Orlando Cabrera ( and first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz ) .
The rest was baseball history .
Although the trade wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sox fans , Cabrera was a defensive upgrade at short and had a .377 on-base percentage in the postseason , while Mientkiewicz recorded the final out as Boston won the World Series for the first time in 86 years .
With their curse lifted , the Red Sox just kept winning over the next decade and a half .
For his part , Garciaparra kept raking ( .819 OPS ) after arriving in Chicago — and his defense even improved some — though the Cubs failed to make the playoffs despite winning 89 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruptured a tendon in his groin , limiting him to 62 games and 0.2 WAR .
After signing with the Dodgers for 2006 , Garciaparra enjoyed one last good season — with an .872 OPS and 2.2 WAR in 122 games — but he struggled through an abysmal 2007 ( -1.3 WAR ) and a pair of injury-plagued campaigns in 2008 and ’ 09 before hanging up the spikes for good at the too-young age of 36 .
Nomar ’ s final WAR tally after leaving Boston : 2.8 , compared with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faithful .
Like other members of the Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players , Garciaparra peaked early , failing to put together a full career ’ s worth of Hall of Fame numbers .
After getting just 1.8 percent of the writers ’ vote in 2016 , he dropped off the Cooperstown ballot permanently , and it ’ s tough to make a case for him as anything other than a fringe candidate for the game ’ s highest honor .
But at his best , Garciaparra combined an elite batting average with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the game ’ s most challenging positions .
By WAR , he was the best young Red Sox position player since Ted Williams .
( There ’ s a reason why Boston fans loved “ Nomaaaaaaah !
” to the point of becoming a caricature . )
Although technically he got a ring for 2004 , it remains a shame that Garciaparra didn ’ t really get to participate in the Red Sox ’ s 21st century renaissance .
It ’ s an incomplete chapter in the story of an equally incomplete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garciaparra was nothing if not Damn Good — even if it was for too short a time .

If you’d told a Red Sox fan in the summer of 1997 that Boston would win three World Series in the next 16 years — well, first, they’d be beyond ecstatic; the team had infamously not won a title since 1918. And second, they’d have been sure that shortstop Nomar Garciaparra would be the main reason for that success. Garciaparra was in the midst of a Rookie of the Year season that saw him lead the American League in hits and triples, finishing second in runs scored and total bases. Though Boston wasn’t very good that year (going 78-84), the Red Sox were just a couple years removed from a division crown and had a pipeline of prospects on the way that included outfielder Trot Nixon, catcher Jason Varitek and starter Carl Pavano — who was traded after that season for Montreal Expos ace Pedro Martinez.
Curses aside, with Garciaparra leading the way, it wasn’t impossible to imagine a Red Sox dynasty spanning the 2000s and lasting into the 2010s. A hotshot future Hall of Fame shortstop can set your team up for a long run of success; Derek Jeter, Garciaparra’s rival at shortstop for the New York Yankees, is only a year younger and was his team’s starter through age 40 in 2014. But, of course, that’s not what happened in Boston. Maybe the most improbable aspect of the Red Sox’s success — which included the first 0-3 comeback in MLB playoff history — was that Garciaparra wasn’t present for any of it. Thanks to injuries and a rift with management, Nomar was shipped out of town three months before Boston ended its World Series drought, and his career was never really the same afterward. But in this week’s edition of our Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players, we remember the player who was once on track for all-time great numbers.
HOF resume: Nomar Garciaparra, SS Category Value Rank at Pos. Career WAR 42.9 31 Peak WAR 41.6 12 JAWS 42.3 21 HOF Monitor 113 16 HOF Standards 41 14 Black Ink Test 15 12 Gray Ink Test 78 19 Implied HOF%* 37% 17 Years on ballot 2 — Vote share 1.8% — HOF track** — — *Hall of Fame probability based on traditional stats. **Hall of Fame track based on most recent vote share and years on the ballot. Data as of April 14, 2020. Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, FanGraphs
Garciaparra’s final career stats are of borderline Hall of Fame quality at best. He ranks just 31st among MLB shortstops (since 1901) in total wins above replacement and 21st in JAWS, which averages together a player’s career and peak WAR. That latter figure is better than only 16 percent of the shortstops in Cooperstown, and while he fares slightly better by more traditional measurements, Garciaparra still would be worse than the typical Hall of Fame shortstop by most accounts.
Things didn’t always look that way, however. In fact, early in Garciaparra’s career, he was on pace to be one of the best shortstops in baseball history. After breaking out as a rookie for 6.5 WAR, he added 7.2 the next year as the Red Sox won 92 games and made the playoffs in 1998. Though bolstered by the offseason arrival of Martinez, Boston’s most valuable player by WAR that season was still Garciaparra, who hit .323 with 35 home runs and played strong defense at short. After follow-up seasons of 6.4 and 7.5 WAR in 1999 and 2000 — during which he won two batting titles and Boston reached an American League Championship Series — Garciaparra was in rarified territory for his position. Though outpaced by his contemporary Alex Rodriguez, another ridiculous early-career phenom, Garciaparra had more WAR through age 26 (27.8) than Jeter (25.5), Ernie Banks (23.1), Barry Larkin (18.2), Luis Aparicio (17.5) or Ozzie Smith (9.9), all of whom are in Cooperstown.
Although the Red Sox slipped by nine wins in the 2000 season to miss the playoffs at 85-77, it was an especially fruitful summer for both Garciaparra — who dallied with the unattainable .400 average before finishing at .372 — and Martinez, who reached the summit of all-time pitching brilliance that year. In tandem, Pedro and Nomar produced 18.1 WAR in 2000, the 11th-largest combined total by any team’s top position player and top pitcher in a single season since 1901:
MLB’s best batter-pitcher tandems Most combined wins above replacement for a team’s No. 1 position player and No. 1 pitcher in the same season, 1901-2019 Year Team Best Batter WAR Best Pitcher WAR Total 1948 STL Stan Musial (OF) 11.2 Harry Brecheen 8.3 19.5 1965 SFG Willie Mays (CF) 11.0 Juan Marichal 8.6 19.5 1923 NYY Babe Ruth (OF) 14.5 Herb Pennock 4.7 19.3 1912 BOS Tris Speaker (OF) 10.4 Smoky Joe Wood 8.8 19.2 1932 PHA Jimmie Foxx (1B) 10.9 Lefty Grove 8.3 19.2 1921 NYY Babe Ruth (OF) 13.4 Waite Hoyt 5.4 18.8 2001 ARI Luis Gonzalez (LF) 8.4 Randy Johnson 10.3 18.7 1920 NYY Babe Ruth (OF) 12.6 Bob Shawkey 6.0 18.6 1980 PHI Mike Schmidt (3B) 8.9 Steve Carlton 9.5 18.5 1924 NYY Babe Ruth (OF) 12.1 Herb Pennock 6.3 18.4 2000 BOS Nomar Garciaparra (SS) 7.5 Pedro Martinez 10.6 18.1 2004 SFG Barry Bonds (LF) 11.3 Jason Schmidt 6.6 17.9 1946 BOS Ted Williams (OF) 11.2 Tex Hughson 6.6 17.8 1927 NYY Babe Ruth (OF) 12.7 Waite Hoyt 5.0 17.7 1908 NYG Mike Donlin (OF) 6.3 Christy Mathewson 11.3 17.6 WAR is measured using JEFFBAGWELL (Joint Estimate Featuring FanGraphs and B-R Aggregated to Generate WAR, Equally Leveling Lists), which averages the metrics found at Baseball-Reference.com and FanGraphs. Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, FanGraphs
Garciaparra missed 136 games in 2001 because of a wrist injury, and Boston tumbled to 82-79. But he bounced back by averaging 5.9 WAR per season over the next two years, with the Red Sox reloading to come within a game of making the World Series in 2003. At age 29, Garciaparra was still in his prime and remained one of the most productive shortstops in the game, second only to Rodriguez by WAR that season.
But he was second, and to Rodriguez. And that — coupled with strong-willed negotiations over a contract extension before the final year of his existing deal — ultimately paved the way for Garciaparra’s exit from Boston. When the Texas Rangers gave up on their A-Rod experiment, the Red Sox pounced on the chance to upgrade from baseball’s second-best shortstop to its best. They worked out a deal that would send outfielder Manny Ramirez to Texas for Rodriguez, while simultaneously dispatching Garciaparra to the Chicago White Sox for outfielder Magglio Ordóñez. But the trade eventually collapsed under its own weight, leading Rodriguez to join the Yankees instead … and Garciaparra to stew over management’s failed attempt to ship him out of town.
[Related: Our Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players]
Unhappy and limited in playing time by an achilles injury, Garciaparra was increasingly irrelevant to the 2004 Red Sox’s chances as the summer progressed. (The juxtaposition of Jeter hurling himself into the stands during one July game while Nomar sulked on the bench was not lost on the Boston press.) Garciaparra hit .321 with an .867 on-base plus slugging when in the lineup, but he also struggled defensively and had played only 38 games through late July, generating just 0.2 WAR. On the day of the trade deadline, Boston finally pulled the trigger on a swap that sent Garciaparra to the Chicago Cubs, yielding shortstop Orlando Cabrera (and first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz).
The rest was baseball history. Although the trade wasn’t an immediate hit with Red Sox fans, Cabrera was a defensive upgrade at short and had a .377 on-base percentage in the postseason, while Mientkiewicz recorded the final out as Boston won the World Series for the first time in 86 years. With their curse lifted, the Red Sox just kept winning over the next decade and a half.
For his part, Garciaparra kept raking (.819 OPS) after arriving in Chicago — and his defense even improved some — though the Cubs failed to make the playoffs despite winning 89 games. The next year, he ruptured a tendon in his groin, limiting him to 62 games and 0.2 WAR. After signing with the Dodgers for 2006, Garciaparra enjoyed one last good season — with an .872 OPS and 2.2 WAR in 122 games — but he struggled through an abysmal 2007 (-1.3 WAR) and a pair of injury-plagued campaigns in 2008 and ’09 before hanging up the spikes for good at the too-young age of 36.
[Related: Our MLB Predictions]
Nomar’s final WAR tally after leaving Boston: 2.8, compared with the 40.1 he piled up for the Fenway faithful.
Like other members of the Hall of Pretty Damn Good Players, Garciaparra peaked early, failing to put together a full career’s worth of Hall of Fame numbers. After getting just 1.8 percent of the writers’ vote in 2016, he dropped off the Cooperstown ballot permanently, and it’s tough to make a case for him as anything other than a fringe candidate for the game’s highest honor. But at his best, Garciaparra combined an elite batting average with strong power and smooth fielding at one of the game’s most challenging positions. By WAR, he was the best young Red Sox position player since Ted Williams. (There’s a reason why Boston fans loved “Nomaaaaaaah!” to the point of becoming a caricature.)
Although technically he got a ring for 2004, it remains a shame that Garciaparra didn’t really get to participate in the Red Sox’s 21st century renaissance. It’s an incomplete chapter in the story of an equally incomplete Hall of Fame career. Still, Garciaparra was nothing if not Damn Good — even if it was for too short a time.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-29--The Senate Has Always Favored Smaller States. It Just Didn’t Help Republicans Until Now.

The fight for D.C. statehood is hardly new .
It ’ s been decades since Congress first introduced legislation to make Washington , D.C. , a state , and 27 years since such a bill got a full ( losing ) vote in the House of Representatives , but in late June , a historic step was taken : A majority in the House voted in favor of legislation that would make Washington , D.C. , a state for the very first time .
Of course , this bill won ’ t be signed into law this year given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a state would almost certainly give Democrats two additional senators thanks to the District ’ s deep blue hue .
But it ’ s important we understand why the Democrats are waging this fight now and why we might see more fights over admitting states in the years to come .
The answer boils down to unequal representation .
On the one hand , the Senate has always been unequal , long giving less populous states an outsized voice relative to their population .
But for more than a century , this hasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Until the 1960s , Republicans and Democrats competed for both densely and sparsely populated states at roughly the same rate But over the last several decades , that ’ s changed .
The parties have reorganized themselves along urban-rural lines , and there is now a clear and pronounced partisan small-state bias in the Senate thanks to mostly rural , less populated states voting increasingly Republican .
In fact , it ’ s reached the point that Republicans can win a majority of Senate seats while only representing a minority of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan bias in the Senate is to compare the party makeup of senators elected to represent the 15 most populous states ( which have collectively housed about two-thirds of population since the turn of the 20th century ) to the partisan makeup of senators elected to represent the 25 least populous states ( which have collectively housed roughly a sixth of the population consistently since the 1960s ) .
As the chart below shows , the partisan makeup of the Senate was fairly even until the 1960s , when Republicans started to amass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What happened ?
Much of this follows from the post-civil rights realignment of American partisan politics , in which the Democratic Party became more consistently liberal ( and thus more appealing in big , largely urban states ) , and the Republican Party became more consistently conservative ( and thus more appealing in small , largely rural states ) .
But that gap has also widened in recent years , especially starting in 2015 , when Republicans took back a Senate majority , flipping seats in small states like West Virginia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montana — all states that will be tough for Democrats to regain in 2020 .
And what this has meant practically is that Republicans now hold a majority of Senate seats while only representing a minority of Americans , as you can see in the chart below .
This imbalance is significant because it poses a real obstacle to Democrats taking back a Senate majority in 2020 .
Take Democrats ’ current odds of retaking the chamber .
The Cook Political Report recently said Democrats are favored to win the Senate , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Congress by over 8 percentage points and have a similar margin nationally in the presidential race , it ’ s remarkable that they still are only slight favorites to control the upper chamber .
Even if D.C. or Puerto Rico were states ( as some on the left advocate ) , Republicans would still have the advantage .
It ’ s true that the statehoods of D.C. and Puerto Rico would help Democrats close the small-state gap , but even if both were states and elected two Democratic senators , Republicans would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , while only representing 48 percent of the population .
The Senate has always held a contested place in America ’ s democratic system because of its non-proportional qualities .
For the first half of the 19th century , the Senate was a bulwark for the South , with an equal balance of slave and free states despite the growing Northern population advantage .
And in the second half of the 19th century , Republicans attempted to “ stack ” the Senate by admitting a large number of Republican states into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( population of just 6,857 ( ! )
in the 1860 census ) , Nebraska ( 1867 ) , Colorado ( 1876 ) , Montana , Washington , and North and South Dakota as separate states in an 1889 omnibus , and Idaho and Wyoming in 1890 .
But despite rising prairie populism spreading through the Great Plains to the Mountain West in the 1890s , Republicans ’ hopes for a stacked Senate didn ’ t work out quite as planned .
And thanks to the way the American two-party system developed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans both containing urban liberal and rural conservative wings , the small-state bias of the Senate never became a real partisan issue — until now .
It will likely remain an issue , too , as long as one party is able to win a majority in the chamber while only representing a minority of the population .

The fight for D.C. statehood is hardly new.
It’s been decades since Congress first introduced legislation to make Washington, D.C., a state, and 27 years since such a bill got a full (losing) vote in the House of Representatives, but in late June, a historic step was taken: A majority in the House voted in favor of legislation that would make Washington, D.C., a state for the very first time.
Of course, this bill won’t be signed into law this year given the clear partisan calculus involved — making D.C. a state would almost certainly give Democrats two additional senators thanks to the District’s deep blue hue. But it’s important we understand why the Democrats are waging this fight now and why we might see more fights over admitting states in the years to come.
The answer boils down to unequal representation.
[Related: Our 2020 National Polling Averages]
On the one hand, the Senate has always been unequal, long giving less populous states an outsized voice relative to their population. But for more than a century, this hasn’t posed much of an issue: Until the 1960s, Republicans and Democrats competed for both densely and sparsely populated states at roughly the same rate
But over the last several decades, that’s changed. The parties have reorganized themselves along urban-rural lines, and there is now a clear and pronounced partisan small-state bias in the Senate thanks to mostly rural, less populated states voting increasingly Republican. In fact, it’s reached the point that Republicans can win a majority of Senate seats while only representing a minority of Americans.
One way to observe this growing partisan bias in the Senate is to compare the party makeup of senators elected to represent the 15 most populous states (which have collectively housed about two-thirds of population since the turn of the 20th century) to the partisan makeup of senators elected to represent the 25 least populous states (which have collectively housed roughly a sixth of the population consistently since the 1960s). As the chart below shows, the partisan makeup of the Senate was fairly even until the 1960s, when Republicans started to amass a partisan advantage in less populated states.
What happened? Much of this follows from the post-civil rights realignment of American partisan politics, in which the Democratic Party became more consistently liberal (and thus more appealing in big, largely urban states), and the Republican Party became more consistently conservative (and thus more appealing in small, largely rural states). But that gap has also widened in recent years, especially starting in 2015, when Republicans took back a Senate majority, flipping seats in small states like West Virginia, South Dakota, Arkansas, Alaska and Montana — all states that will be tough for Democrats to regain in 2020.
And what this has meant practically is that Republicans now hold a majority of Senate seats while only representing a minority of Americans, as you can see in the chart below.
This imbalance is significant because it poses a real obstacle to Democrats taking back a Senate majority in 2020. Take Democrats’ current odds of retaking the chamber. The Cook Political Report recently said Democrats are favored to win the Senate, but considering Democrats currently lead the generic ballot for Congress by over 8 percentage points and have a similar margin nationally in the presidential race, it’s remarkable that they still are only slight favorites to control the upper chamber.
Even if D.C. or Puerto Rico were states (as some on the left advocate), Republicans would still have the advantage. It’s true that the statehoods of D.C. and Puerto Rico would help Democrats close the small-state gap, but even if both were states and elected two Democratic senators, Republicans would still have had a two-seat majority in 2019, while only representing 48 percent of the population.
[Related: The Latest Political Polls Collected By FiveThirtyEight]
The Senate has always held a contested place in America’s democratic system because of its non-proportional qualities. For the first half of the 19th century, the Senate was a bulwark for the South, with an equal balance of slave and free states despite the growing Northern population advantage. And in the second half of the 19th century, Republicans attempted to “stack” the Senate by admitting a large number of Republican states into the union, starting with Nevada in 1864 (population of just 6,857(!) in the 1860 census), Nebraska (1867), Colorado (1876), Montana, Washington, and North and South Dakota as separate states in an 1889 omnibus, and Idaho and Wyoming in 1890.
But despite rising prairie populism spreading through the Great Plains to the Mountain West in the 1890s, Republicans’ hopes for a stacked Senate didn’t work out quite as planned. And thanks to the way the American two-party system developed in the 20th century, with Democrats and Republicans both containing urban liberal and rural conservative wings, the small-state bias of the Senate never became a real partisan issue — until now. It will likely remain an issue, too, as long as one party is able to win a majority in the chamber while only representing a minority of the population.
Confidence Interval: Democrats could win 60 Senate seats | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-29--Which NBA Contracts Were Gems This Season, And Which Were Stinkers?

After 140 days without basketball , NBA action is set to resume inside the Orlando , Florida , bubble on Thursday .
There are eight “ regular-season ” games left to be played by 22 teams , but those games won ’ t count toward individual regular-season awards .
So with MVP , Rookie of the Year and the other honors already sewn up , we thought we ’ d take our own look at pre-Orlando player production through a slightly different lens : which contracts provided the most — and least — value before the season was cut short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this season from Basketball-Reference.com and compared the salaries of those 516 players to their on-court production , according to our RAPTOR player ratings .
Contract figures are given as player salaries starting the season , without taking into account any salary proration as a result of the shortened season , and RAPTOR numbers are through the last games played , on March 11 .
Players with dotted circles had not played in any games this season through March 11 and were placed at a default position of 0 WAR .
Some pretty clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — players who RAPTOR thinks are worth every penny of their multimillion-dollar deals .
Specifically , these players are getting paid at least $ 17 million1 and were on pace to have a RAPTOR WAR of at least 10 in a full season .
By this definition , there were nine superstars in the league this year , all of whom should be household names for NBA fans — including James Harden , LeBron James and Giannis Antetokounmpo .
Rudy Gobert will probably be remembered this year as the NBA ’ s first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was playing superstar-caliber basketball before the season shut down .
Players receiving similar salaries while not really producing on the court this season are the STINKERS — those who are also making at least $ 17 million but were only on pace for a RAPTOR WAR of 2 or less in a full season .
While no one really wants a stinker on their team , not all stinkers are equally stinky .
For example , Steph Curry contributed only 0.5 WAR during the first four games of the Golden State Warriors ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to sit out the next 58 contests .
But the two-time MVP ’ s track record of otherworldly production — and 23 points , seven assists and six rebounds in his brief return to action against the Toronto Raptors in early March — his $ 40.2 million contract still smells much less stinky than the $ 27.5 million paid to Andrew Wiggins , which bought the Minnesota Timberwolves and Warriors a combined WAR of just 1.1 in 54 total games .
Some teams have been able to find productive players — or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their salary sheets .
Fans of the Mavericks , Celtics and Hawks are lucky enough to root for YOUNG STARS — players earning at most $ 10 million2 while on a pace for a full-season RAPTOR WAR of at least 8 .
Luka Dončić , Jayson Tatum and Trae Young have all proved to be exciting , productive young All-Stars who will likely ink contracts with massive pay bumps once their rookie deals expire .
Even cheaper are the league ’ s ultimate bargains , the GEMS — players who were on pace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a WAR per million dollars spent of at least 3 .
Gems like the Charlotte Hornets ’ Devonte ’ Graham , the Detroit Pistons ’ Christian Wood and the Utah Jazz ’ s Royce O ’ Neale produced solid numbers while getting paid well under $ 2 million this season .
Their salaries are less than one-tenth of the money going to players like Kevin Love , DeMar DeRozan or Harrison Barnes , who all played worse basketball this year , according to RAPTOR .
Looking at the intersection of player salary and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offices approach roster building , to varying degrees of success .
The Miami Heat , who come into the bubble sitting in fourth place in the Eastern Conference , can attribute much of their unexpected run to getting great value from younger , cheaper players .
Their most productive players after Jimmy Butler — Duncan Robinson and Bam Adebayo — are early in their careers and thereby earning well under league average .
The Philadelphia 76ers are two spots behind the Heat in the East , and their top-heavy roster hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the year .
Joel Embiid , Al Horford and Tobias Harris are all making more than $ 27 million , but RAPTOR thinks none of those three has been more productive than either of the Heat ’ s young duo .
Ben Simmons makes only $ 8.1 million this season and his WAR is slightly higher than that of his teammates , but he has already signed a max deal that will pay him almost $ 30 million next year and a combined $ 170 million over five years .
We actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playoffs , but this now-healthy front-loaded squad will probably need someone to take a step or two toward the superstar cluster if it wants to make a real run at a title .
The 76ers ’ expensive core might not have produced overly impressive RAPTOR numbers this season , but at least they played in the majority of Philadelphia ’ s games.3 There are 51 players who haven ’ t laced up their sneakers once this season but are still earning salaries from NBA teams .
A few are key players sidelined with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ players who signed massive deals and were released before their contracts ended .
Under certain circumstances , teams can waive players using the stretch provision , allowing them to pay the remaining guaranteed portion of a player ’ s salary over a longer period of time .
This helps teams avoid a big cap hit in the year that player is released , but it also keeps bad contracts lingering on salary sheets for years .
The stretch provision is why Timofey Mozgov , who was lucky enough to hit free agency at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collecting NBA paychecks through the 2021-22 season — capping off a four-season stretch in which the Magic will pay him $ 32.7 million for a grand total of zero minutes of basketball .
For the players that made money by actually playing basketball this season , there seemed to be a pretty clear relationship : Better players get paid more , for the most part .
Still , there are some players who are getting paid for their past performance ( get it together , Mike Conley ) , some who signed lucrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking at you , Jamal Murray ) , some who are getting paid less than they probably should be ( when ’ s payday for Montrezl Harrell ? )
and some who signed massively overvalued deals ( go get yours , Russell Westbrook ) .
Which of these contracts are actually worth it is probably up to front offices — but that doesn ’ t make it any less fun to debate .

Which NBA Contracts Were Gems This Season, And Which Were Stinkers? RAPTOR on this shortened season's under- and overvalued salaries. More NBA:2019-20 RAPTOR player ratings2019-20 NBA predictions
After 140 days without basketball, NBA action is set to resume inside the Orlando, Florida, bubble on Thursday. There are eight “regular-season” games left to be played by 22 teams, but those games won’t count toward individual regular-season awards. So with MVP, Rookie of the Year and the other honors already sewn up, we thought we’d take our own look at pre-Orlando player production through a slightly different lens: which contracts provided the most — and least — value before the season was cut short.
We pulled every active NBA contract this season from Basketball-Reference.com and compared the salaries of those 516 players to their on-court production, according to our RAPTOR player ratings. Contract figures are given as player salaries starting the season, without taking into account any salary proration as a result of the shortened season, and RAPTOR numbers are through the last games played, on March 11.
Min. games played 15 Choose a team All teams Eastern Conference Western Conference 76ers Bucks Bulls Cavaliers Celtics Clippers Grizzlies Hawks Heat Hornets Jazz Kings Knicks Lakers Magic Mavericks Nets Nuggets Pacers Pelicans Pistons Raptors Rockets Spurs Suns Thunder Timberwolves Trail Blazers Warriors Wizards Choose a position All positions Point guard (PG) Shooting guard (SG) Small forward (SF) Power forward (PF) Center (C) Years of experience Any number Rookies (year 1) Early career (years 1-4) Established (years 5-9) Veterans (years 10+) Search for a player reset
< >
Players with dotted circles had not played in any games this season through March 11 and were placed at a default position of 0 WAR.
Some pretty clear clusters emerged. First are the SUPERSTARS — players who RAPTOR thinks are worth every penny of their multimillion-dollar deals. Specifically, these players are getting paid at least $17 million1 and were on pace to have a RAPTOR WAR of at least 10 in a full season. By this definition, there were nine superstars in the league this year, all of whom should be household names for NBA fans — including James Harden, LeBron James and Giannis Antetokounmpo. Rudy Gobert will probably be remembered this year as the NBA’s first publicly confirmed COVID-19 case, but he was playing superstar-caliber basketball before the season shut down.
Players receiving similar salaries while not really producing on the court this season are the STINKERS — those who are also making at least $17 million but were only on pace for a RAPTOR WAR of 2 or less in a full season. While no one really wants a stinker on their team, not all stinkers are equally stinky. For example, Steph Curry contributed only 0.5 WAR during the first four games of the Golden State Warriors’ season before a broken left hand forced him to sit out the next 58 contests. But the two-time MVP’s track record of otherworldly production — and 23 points, seven assists and six rebounds in his brief return to action against the Toronto Raptors in early March — his $40.2 million contract still smells much less stinky than the $27.5 million paid to Andrew Wiggins, which bought the Minnesota Timberwolves and Warriors a combined WAR of just 1.1 in 54 total games.
Some teams have been able to find productive players — or even stars — at the bottom of their salary sheets. Fans of the Mavericks, Celtics and Hawks are lucky enough to root for YOUNG STARS — players earning at most $10 million2 while on a pace for a full-season RAPTOR WAR of at least 8. Luka Dončić, Jayson Tatum and Trae Young have all proved to be exciting, productive young All-Stars who will likely ink contracts with massive pay bumps once their rookie deals expire. Even cheaper are the league’s ultimate bargains, the GEMS — players who were on pace for at least 4 RAPTOR WAR and a WAR per million dollars spent of at least 3. Gems like the Charlotte Hornets’ Devonte’ Graham, the Detroit Pistons’ Christian Wood and the Utah Jazz’s Royce O’Neale produced solid numbers while getting paid well under $2 million this season. Their salaries are less than one-tenth of the money going to players like Kevin Love, DeMar DeRozan or Harrison Barnes, who all played worse basketball this year, according to RAPTOR.
Looking at the intersection of player salary and performance can show us how different front offices approach roster building, to varying degrees of success. The Miami Heat, who come into the bubble sitting in fourth place in the Eastern Conference, can attribute much of their unexpected run to getting great value from younger, cheaper players. Their most productive players after Jimmy Butler — Duncan Robinson and Bam Adebayo — are early in their careers and thereby earning well under league average. The Philadelphia 76ers are two spots behind the Heat in the East, and their top-heavy roster hasn’t been quite the juggernaut many expected coming into the year. Joel Embiid, Al Horford and Tobias Harris are all making more than $27 million, but RAPTOR thinks none of those three has been more productive than either of the Heat’s young duo. Ben Simmons makes only $8.1 million this season and his WAR is slightly higher than that of his teammates, but he has already signed a max deal that will pay him almost $30 million next year and a combined $170 million over five years. We actually like the Sixers’ chances in the playoffs, but this now-healthy front-loaded squad will probably need someone to take a step or two toward the superstar cluster if it wants to make a real run at a title.
The 76ers’ expensive core might not have produced overly impressive RAPTOR numbers this season, but at least they played in the majority of Philadelphia’s games.3 There are 51 players who haven’t laced up their sneakers once this season but are still earning salaries from NBA teams. A few are key players sidelined with serious injuries, but many are retired players who signed massive deals and were released before their contracts ended. Under certain circumstances, teams can waive players using the stretch provision, allowing them to pay the remaining guaranteed portion of a player’s salary over a longer period of time. This helps teams avoid a big cap hit in the year that player is released, but it also keeps bad contracts lingering on salary sheets for years. The stretch provision is why Timofey Mozgov, who was lucky enough to hit free agency at exactly the right time, will be collecting NBA paychecks through the 2021-22 season — capping off a four-season stretch in which the Magic will pay him $32.7 million for a grand total of zero minutes of basketball.
Sometimes, it pays NOT to play Total earnings and date of last game played for NBA players receiving salaries in the 2019-20 season who have not played through March 11 Player Team Last Played Salary John Wall Wizards 12/26/18 $37,800,000 Kevin Durant Nets 6/10/19 37,199,000 Klay Thompson Warriors 6/13/19 32,742,000 Miles Plumlee Grizzlies 12/31/18 12,500,000 Jusuf Nurkić Trail Blazers 3/25/19 12,000,000 Andre Roberson Thunder 1/27/18 10,740,741 Pau Gasol Spurs / Trail Blazers 3/10/19 7,664,753 Darius Miller Pelicans 3/28/19 7,250,000 Joakim Noah Clippers / Knicks 3/23/19 6,576,567 Timofey Mozgov Magic 4/11/18 5,573,333 Deron Williams Nets 6/12/17 5,474,787 Josh Smith Pistons 11/3/17 5,331,729 Luol Deng Lakers 2/27/19 4,990,000 Mirza Teletović Bucks 11/7/17 3,500,000 DeMarcus Cousins Lakers 6/13/19 3,500,000 Jon Leuer Bucks 4/14/19 3,169,348 Guerschon Yabusele Celtics 5/8/19 3,117,240 Ömer Aşık Bulls 4/11/18 3,000,000 Andrew Nicholson Trail Blazers 4/12/17 2,844,429 Gerald Green Nuggets 5/10/19 2,564,753 Nenê Hawks 5/10/19 2,564,753 Monta Ellis Pacers 4/23/17 2,245,400 Matt Barnes Kings 6/12/17 2,133,541 Dylan Windler Cavaliers — 2,035,800 Spencer Hawes Bucks 4/20/17 2,007,058 Anderson Varejão Trail Blazers 2/2/17 1,913,345 Larry Sanders Bucks 4/10/17 1,865,547 J.R. Smith Cavaliers 11/19/18 1,456,667 Justin Hamilton Raptors 4/12/17 1,000,000 Jonathon Simmons Wizards 5/9/19 1,000,000 Kyle Singler Thunder 2/24/18 999,200 Cole Aldrich Timberwolves 4/9/18 685,340 Shaun Livingston Warriors 6/13/19 666,667 Dakari Johnson Grizzlies 4/23/18 459,414 Ivan Rabb Grizzlies 4/10/19 371,758 A.J. Hammons Heat 4/12/17 350,087 Festus Ezeli Trail Blazers 6/19/16 333,333 C.J. Watson Magic 4/8/17 333,333 Joe Johnson Pistons 5/28/18 220,000 Jemerrio Jones Wizards 4/9/19 199,000 Jontay Porter Grizzlies — 197,933 Cameron Payne Raptors 1/23/19 150,000 Troy Williams Rockets 4/10/19 122,741 Yante Maten Heat 4/10/19 100,000 Jaylen Adams Hawks 4/10/19 100,000 Sheldon Mac Cavaliers 5/15/17 81,678 Demetrius Jackson Celtics 1/2/19 92,857 Hollis Thompson Kings 3/11/17 50,000 Isaiah Taylor Raptors 4/10/18 50,000 Tyler Ulis Kings 10/18/18 50,000 Tyler Lydon Kings 4/7/19 50,000 Show more rows Listed teams reflect which organization pays the player. Players with multiple teams have, in the period in which they haven’t been playing, received money from both. Source: Basketball-Reference.com
For the players that made money by actually playing basketball this season, there seemed to be a pretty clear relationship: Better players get paid more, for the most part. Still, there are some players who are getting paid for their past performance (get it together, Mike Conley), some who signed lucrative extensions that bet on future performance (looking at you, Jamal Murray), some who are getting paid less than they probably should be (when’s payday for Montrezl Harrell?) and some who signed massively overvalued deals (go get yours, Russell Westbrook). Which of these contracts are actually worth it is probably up to front offices — but that doesn’t make it any less fun to debate.


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-29--How The NHL’s New Format Changed The Stanley Cup Race

On Saturday , the NHL joins the ranks of sports returning to action , with 24 teams plotting out one of the strangest paths to the Stanley Cup in hockey history .
Like the NBA , the NHL season will restart in a “ bubble , ” with early games split between two “ hub ” sites : Toronto ( for the Eastern Conference ) and Edmonton ( for the West ) .
Also like its basketball-playing cousins , hockey will have a bit of a convoluted format upon its return .
Each conference ’ s top four teams will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules ) for playoff seeding , while the other eight teams from each conference have a best-of-five series ( under playoff rules ) to determine who reaches the Round of 16 .
[ Related : A Home Playoff Game Is A Big Advantage — Unless You Play Hockey ] From there , though , the playoffs will look roughly the same as usual , aside from reseeding after every round and a lack of crowds or home-ice advantage — which isn ’ t worth much in hockey anyway — for anyone except the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the playoffs set to begin , I wanted to see how much the Stanley Cup picture has changed since the last time players took the ice , on March 11 .
Using Hockey-Reference.com ’ s Simple Rating System ( SRS ) for each team — and a set of logistic regressions relating SRS to win probabilities for games under rules for both the regular season and the postseason — I programmed 10,000 simulations for the rest of the season and playoffs under two scenarios : if the season had played out as planned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanded format .
Before the break , the Stanley Cup favorites ( according to SRS ) were the Boston Bruins ( 13 percent ) , Colorado Avalanche ( 12 percent ) , Tampa Bay Lightning ( 11 percent ) , St. Louis Blues ( 9 percent ) , Philadelphia Flyers ( 8 percent ) , Washington Capitals ( 7 percent ) and Vegas Golden Knights ( 6 percent ) .
Under the new system , those seven are still the front-runners , with essentially the same odds — except Boston dropped to 12 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 12 percent .
So in that sense , the big picture of the playoffs hasn ’ t changed much .
However , some teams have seen their title probabilities nudged up or down by a percentage point or two .
The Arizona Coyotes ( whose Cup chances rose by 1.3 percentage points ) and New York Rangers ( up 0.8 points ) saw their odds increase because both are reasonably good teams by SRS — each ranks in the league ’ s top half — that had relatively long playoff odds beforehand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the expanded bracket .
Others , such as the Montreal Canadiens and Chicago Blackhawks , watched their Cup odds go up mainly because they had next to no shot at making the playoffs under the standard system ; now , the qualifying series gives each a fighting chance .
And the Dallas Stars ’ probability went up because they are the fourth seed in the West — meaning they can avoid the qualifying round entirely and skip straight to the Round of 16 , despite ranking among the league ’ s bottom half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the top four seeds and the rest of the conference could prove consequential for several teams .
As an example , the Pittsburgh Penguins rank eighth in SRS and possess plenty of star power — when healthy — but also finished 3 points behind the rival Flyers for the fourth-best record in the East .
That means Pittsburgh must play an extra series — with just a 59 percent chance of winning it — to even make it into the Round of 16 , despite having a 98 percent chance to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though the Pens will play the Canadiens , who are tied with the Columbus Blue Jackets for the lowest SRS of any team in the restart field , Pittsburgh is a clear victim of the NHL ’ s modified playoff system .
The same goes for the Oilers , Hurricanes and a number of other teams that had high postseason odds under the old system , but now — by virtue of missing out on the top four seeds in the conference — will need to win a best-of-five series just to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The good news ?
All three of those teams — Edmonton , Carolina and Pittsburgh — would see their Cup odds double if they do survive the qualifying round . )
[ Related : Apparently The Regular Season Is Irrelevant In The NHL ] This effect could also hurt Canadian teams ’ chances of winning the Stanley Cup for the first time since 1993 .
Although Montreal was among the biggest beneficiaries of the amended format , Canada ’ s other postseason entries all saw their odds of mounting a deep playoff run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite Canada hosting the entire restart , with two of its teams — Toronto and Edmonton — having at least some extra familiarity by playing in their home facilities . )
Overall , the six Canadian teams in the restart — sorry , Ottawa — are , on average , 10 percentage points less likely to make the Round of 16 , 5 percentage points less likely to make the conference semifinals , 3 percentage points less likely to make the conference finals and 1 percentage point less likely to make the Cup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been allowed to play out normally .
If you ’ re not a fan of one of the teams hurt by the change in format , though , these playoffs should be as exciting and compelling as ever .
Can the defending-champion Blues keep beating the odds ?
Can the Bruins avenge last year ’ s Game 7 defeat ?
Can the Lightning find redemption after their historic 2019 collapse ?
Or will one of the nonfavorites crash the party , because it ’ s hockey ?
All of those storylines are why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ byzantine new playoff format ( as per the NHL ’ s typical style ) , the battle for the 2020 Cup still promises to be a good one .

On Saturday, the NHL joins the ranks of sports returning to action, with 24 teams plotting out one of the strangest paths to the Stanley Cup in hockey history.
Like the NBA, the NHL season will restart in a “bubble,” with early games split between two “hub” sites: Toronto (for the Eastern Conference) and Edmonton (for the West). Also like its basketball-playing cousins, hockey will have a bit of a convoluted format upon its return. Each conference’s top four teams will play a round-robin tournament (under regular-season rules) for playoff seeding, while the other eight teams from each conference have a best-of-five series (under playoff rules) to determine who reaches the Round of 16.
[Related: A Home Playoff Game Is A Big Advantage — Unless You Play Hockey]
From there, though, the playoffs will look roughly the same as usual, aside from reseeding after every round and a lack of crowds or home-ice advantage — which isn’t worth much in hockey anyway — for anyone except the Maple Leafs and Oilers. So with the playoffs set to begin, I wanted to see how much the Stanley Cup picture has changed since the last time players took the ice, on March 11. Using Hockey-Reference.com’s Simple Rating System (SRS) for each team — and a set of logistic regressions relating SRS to win probabilities for games under rules for both the regular season and the postseason — I programmed 10,000 simulations for the rest of the season and playoffs under two scenarios: if the season had played out as planned back in March and under the current expanded format.
Before the break, the Stanley Cup favorites (according to SRS) were the Boston Bruins (13 percent), Colorado Avalanche (12 percent), Tampa Bay Lightning (11 percent), St. Louis Blues (9 percent), Philadelphia Flyers (8 percent), Washington Capitals (7 percent) and Vegas Golden Knights (6 percent). Under the new system, those seven are still the front-runners, with essentially the same odds — except Boston dropped to 12 percent and Tampa Bay moved up to 12 percent. So in that sense, the big picture of the playoffs hasn’t changed much.
Cup favorites, then and now Most likely 2019-20 NHL champions under original* and new playoff systems Original System New System Rk Team Prob. Rk Team Prob. 1 Boston Bruins 12.6% 1 Boston Bruins 12.2% 2 Colorado Avalanche 12.0 2 Tampa Bay Lightning 12.1 3 Tampa Bay Lightning 11.2 3 Colorado Avalanche 12.0 4 St. Louis Blues 8.8 4 St. Louis Blues 8.7 5 Philadelphia Flyers 7.8 5 Philadelphia Flyers 8.2 6 Washington Capitals 6.8 6 Washington Capitals 6.9 7 Vegas Golden Knights 5.8 7 Vegas Golden Knights 5.5 8 Pittsburgh Penguins 5.7 8 Dallas Stars 4.3 9 Carolina Hurricanes 5.0 9 Pittsburgh Penguins 3.4 10 Vancouver Canucks 3.6 10 Carolina Hurricanes 3.3 11 Edmonton Oilers 3.6 11 Edmonton Oilers 3.2 12 Dallas Stars 3.4 12 Winnipeg Jets 2.4 *These playoff probabilities use simulations of the original schedule from March 12 onward, with a standard playoff system. (Essentially, these are what the odds would have been without the COVID-19 pandemic.) Based on 10,000 simulations of both normal and current playoff systems. Source: Hockey-Reference.com
However, some teams have seen their title probabilities nudged up or down by a percentage point or two. The Arizona Coyotes (whose Cup chances rose by 1.3 percentage points) and New York Rangers (up 0.8 points) saw their odds increase because both are reasonably good teams by SRS — each ranks in the league’s top half — that had relatively long playoff odds beforehand, but now can potentially do damage in the expanded bracket. Others, such as the Montreal Canadiens and Chicago Blackhawks, watched their Cup odds go up mainly because they had next to no shot at making the playoffs under the standard system; now, the qualifying series gives each a fighting chance. And the Dallas Stars’ probability went up because they are the fourth seed in the West — meaning they can avoid the qualifying round entirely and skip straight to the Round of 16, despite ranking among the league’s bottom half in SRS.
How did Cup odds shift under the new playoff format? For playoff-bound NHL teams, biggest change in 2019-20 championship odds since play ceased on March 11 Stanley Cup Odds Team Normal System Current System Change Arizona Coyotes 0.7% 2.0% +1.3 Chicago Blackhawks <0.1 1.3 1.3 Tampa Bay Lightning 11.2 12.1 0.9 Dallas Stars 3.4 4.3 0.9 New York Rangers 0.5 1.4 0.8 Montreal Canadiens <0.1 0.7 0.7 Columbus Blue Jackets 0.3 0.9 0.6 Philadelphia Flyers 7.8 8.2 0.4 Minnesota Wild 1.2 1.6 0.4 Nashville Predators 1.3 1.6 0.4 Florida Panthers 1.2 1.3 0.1 Washington Capitals 6.8 6.9 0.1 New York Islanders 1.3 1.4 0.1 Toronto Maple Leafs 2.3 2.3 0.0 Colorado Avalanche 12.0 12.0 0.0 St. Louis Blues 8.8 8.7 0.0 Vegas Golden Knights 5.8 5.5 -0.3 Edmonton Oilers 3.6 3.2 -0.4 Boston Bruins 12.6 12.2 -0.4 Winnipeg Jets 2.8 2.4 -0.5 Calgary Flames 1.8 1.2 -0.6 Vancouver Canucks 3.6 2.0 -1.6 Carolina Hurricanes 5.0 3.3 -1.7 Pittsburgh Penguins 5.7 3.4 -2.3 Based on 10,000 simulations of both normal and current playoff systems. Source: Hockey-Reference.com
That somewhat arbitrary cutoff between the top four seeds and the rest of the conference could prove consequential for several teams. As an example, the Pittsburgh Penguins rank eighth in SRS and possess plenty of star power — when healthy — but also finished 3 points behind the rival Flyers for the fourth-best record in the East. That means Pittsburgh must play an extra series — with just a 59 percent chance of winning it — to even make it into the Round of 16, despite having a 98 percent chance to get that far before the pause. Even though the Pens will play the Canadiens, who are tied with the Columbus Blue Jackets for the lowest SRS of any team in the restart field, Pittsburgh is a clear victim of the NHL’s modified playoff system.
Whose playoff odds improved under the new format? For restart-bound NHL teams, biggest change in odds of making the Round of 16 since play ceased on March 11 Odds to Make Round of 16 Team Normal System Current System Change Chicago Blackhawks 2.4% 44.8% +42.5 Montreal Canadiens <0.1 41.0 +40.9 Arizona Coyotes 19.4 52.1 +32.7 New York Rangers 17.9 44.4 +26.5 Columbus Blue Jackets 17.6 42.7 +25.1 Florida Panthers 41.5 50.8 +9.3 Minnesota Wild 42.8 48.0 +5.2 Dallas Stars 96.7 ✓ +3.3 Vegas Golden Knights 99.4 ✓ +0.6 Philadelphia Flyers >99.9 ✓ +0.0 Washington Capitals >99.9 ✓ +0.0 Boston Bruins >99.9 ✓ +0.0 Colorado Avalanche >99.9 ✓ +0.0 Tampa Bay Lightning >99.9 ✓ +0.0 St. Louis Blues >99.9 ✓ +0.0 Nashville Predators 48.1 47.9 -0.2 Winnipeg Jets 63.3 54.7 -8.6 New York Islanders 58.2 49.2 -9.1 Calgary Flames 58.9 45.3 -13.6 Toronto Maple Leafs 76.7 57.3 -19.4 Vancouver Canucks 75.1 52.0 -23.1 Carolina Hurricanes 90.0 55.6 -34.4 Edmonton Oilers 93.9 55.2 -38.7 Pittsburgh Penguins 98.1 59.0 -39.0 Based on 10,000 simulations of both normal and current playoff systems. Source: Hockey-Reference.com
The same goes for the Oilers, Hurricanes and a number of other teams that had high postseason odds under the old system, but now — by virtue of missing out on the top four seeds in the conference — will need to win a best-of-five series just to get into the usual playoff bracket. (The good news? All three of those teams — Edmonton, Carolina and Pittsburgh — would see their Cup odds double if they do survive the qualifying round.)
[Related: Apparently The Regular Season Is Irrelevant In The NHL]
This effect could also hurt Canadian teams’ chances of winning the Stanley Cup for the first time since 1993. Although Montreal was among the biggest beneficiaries of the amended format, Canada’s other postseason entries all saw their odds of mounting a deep playoff run drop, some significantly. (This despite Canada hosting the entire restart, with two of its teams — Toronto and Edmonton — having at least some extra familiarity by playing in their home facilities.) Overall, the six Canadian teams in the restart — sorry, Ottawa — are, on average, 10 percentage points less likely to make the Round of 16, 5 percentage points less likely to make the conference semifinals, 3 percentage points less likely to make the conference finals and 1 percentage point less likely to make the Cup Final now than if the season had been allowed to play out normally.
If you’re not a fan of one of the teams hurt by the change in format, though, these playoffs should be as exciting and compelling as ever. Can the defending-champion Blues keep beating the odds? Can the Bruins avenge last year’s Game 7 defeat? Can the Lightning find redemption after their historic 2019 collapse? Or will one of the nonfavorites crash the party, because it’s hockey? All of those storylines are why, despite months of waiting and a byzantine new playoff format (as per the NHL’s typical style), the battle for the 2020 Cup still promises to be a good one.
Subscribe to our sports podcast, Hot Takedown


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-30--A Republican Congressman Who Might Not Vote For Trump

For this week ’ s episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , we interviewed Rep. Will Hurd of Texas ’ s 23rd Congressional District .
And as you ’ ll hear in the podcast and read in selected excerpts below , we covered a lot of ground , including whether Hurd will vote for President Trump in November .
The transcript below has been lightly edited .
On whether Hurd will vote for Trump : Galen Druke : I want to talk about all that strategy and what the future of the party looks like .
But are you going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Will Hurd : Like a lot of Americans , I wish I had different options on the ballot .
And my plan is always to support a Republican and we ’ re going to be making those decisions over the next 98 days .
GD : So you ’ re going to decide whether or not to vote for him over the next 98 days ?
WH : That is how I always approach my election .
I ’ m just like everybody else .
GD : Well , you previously said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So I ’ m just wondering if you ’ re hesitant a little bit now ?
Your polling is showing that .
I ’ m like everybody else .
I don ’ t want to vote for a Joe Biden because in the end , some of the policies , I think that a unified Democratic Party is going to pass … would be tough for the country , and things that I don ’ t support , and haven ’ t supported during my time in Congress .
And as somebody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competitive district , I know something about competitive districts and what needs to be done in order to win .
GD : I understand that desire not to vote for Joe Biden , but I guess more specifically on whether or not you ’ ll vote for Trump , what could change your mind in the next 98 days that would make you view him and his presidency differently than what he ’ s shown us so far ?
WH : It ’ s a good question and who knows .
I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have been thinking about a global pandemic that would have impacted the entire world and brought the world economy to a standstill .
And so who knows what can happen over these next few weeks .
But in the end , what I think that I ’ ve been trying to preach to my colleagues is that we have to change as a Republican Party .
We have to start appealing to broader groups of people .
And if we don ’ t , and also if the Republican Party doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re not going to have a Republican Party in America .
GD : Everything you ’ re saying here makes it sound like you aren ’ t voting for Trump .
Is that the case ?
WH : As I said , I don ’ t like either one of my choices .
And in the end , we ’ re going to evaluate this over the next 90 days , or 96 days .
GD : President Trump suggested delaying the presidential election , which Congress has the power to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you support delaying the election ?
WH : We are not an authoritarian government where the head of state gets to decide on a whim when an election happens .
So no , this is Congress ’ s role , as you said .
It should go forward as has been established .
And ultimately , look , I ’ m of the opinion that we should be increasing the ways for people to vote , right , the more people that vote , the better off it is .
And this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prove , during my time in Congress , that if you take a message to more people , you can get it to resonate with more people and we shouldn ’ t be afraid .
On the U.S. response to COVID-19 : GD : Overall , do you think the country is doing a good job combating the pandemic ?
WH : No .
We have increasing death rates , right ?
We have the most number of people that are dealing with this right ?
I think the impact it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America versus other countries is still … we ’ re dealing with one of the worst cases .
We ’ re having debates on whether you should be wearing a mask or not .
Wear a mask !
Right ?
A mask is to protect yourself but also to protect the people around you .
So why are we debating that ?
This debate and fights around whether school should open or not — we should be talking about , ‘ how do we work together in order to exceed CDC guidelines on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not it should happen .
And so yeah , there are all kinds of problems .
But I ’ m always trying to work with these folks to deal with the problem as it is right now .
I know in Texas , a third of the deaths of coronavirus have been in nursing homes .
That ’ s outrageous .
And then also in prisons .
And so if we couldn ’ t handle this in nursing homes or in prisons , how are we going to be handling it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more chaotic than those other places ?
So yeah , we have a long way to go.
” On the future of the Republican party : GD : Let ’ s talk about where the Republican Party is headed .
You said that the Republican Party needs to look more like America .
And you know , right now , it doesn ’ t .
You ’ re the only Black lawmaker on the Republican side in the House .
Why do you think there are so few Black lawmakers in the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Everybody asked me when I first got elected , how does a Black Republican represent a 71 percent Latino district ?
And I say it ’ s because you know , I work hard and I show up to communities that had never seen a Republican show up , and you do that multiple times .
If you ’ re showing up 90 days before an election , that ’ s called pandering .
You have to be in those communities .
Showing up is half the battle .
And unfortunately , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about focusing on your likely “ x voter ” — whether that ’ s a Republican primary voter or Democratic primary voter — rather than trying to grow and appeal to a broader group of people .
It ’ s hard .
GD : Do you think that part of the reason has to do with Republicans actively appealing to a white identity ?
WH : Look , I think when you look at a person like a Steve King — and you know Steve King losing his primary is ultimately a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks that that have been elected as a Republican that say racist or misogynistic or homophobic things , that hurts all of us that identify with with being a Republican .
… But what I found is that ’ s not everybody .
But yeah , over time , have those things been said ?
Yes .
And Does that hurt ?
Yes .
And that ’ s why we have to speak out when those things do happen .

For this week’s episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, we interviewed Rep. Will Hurd of Texas’s 23rd Congressional District. And as you’ll hear in the podcast and read in selected excerpts below, we covered a lot of ground, including whether Hurd will vote for President Trump in November.
The transcript below has been lightly edited.
On whether Hurd will vote for Trump:
Galen Druke: I want to talk about all that strategy and what the future of the party looks like. But are you going to vote for Trump this fall?
Will Hurd: Like a lot of Americans, I wish I had different options on the ballot. And my plan is always to support a Republican and we’re going to be making those decisions over the next 98 days.
GD: So you’re going to decide whether or not to vote for him over the next 98 days?
WH: That is how I always approach my election. I’m just like everybody else.
GD: Well, you previously said that you will vote for Trump this fall. So I’m just wondering if you’re hesitant a little bit now?
WH: I think that’s accurate.
Your polling is showing that. I’m like everybody else. I don’t want to vote for a Joe Biden because in the end, some of the policies, I think that a unified Democratic Party is going to pass … would be tough for the country, and things that I don’t support, and haven’t supported during my time in Congress. And as somebody who’s represented a large, competitive district, I know something about competitive districts and what needs to be done in order to win.
GD: I understand that desire not to vote for Joe Biden, but I guess more specifically on whether or not you’ll vote for Trump, what could change your mind in the next 98 days that would make you view him and his presidency differently than what he’s shown us so far?
WH: It’s a good question and who knows. I don’t think a year ago we would have been thinking about a global pandemic that would have impacted the entire world and brought the world economy to a standstill. And so who knows what can happen over these next few weeks.
But in the end, what I think that I’ve been trying to preach to my colleagues is that we have to change as a Republican Party. We have to start appealing to broader groups of people. And if we don’t, and also if the Republican Party doesn’t start looking like America, we’re not going to have a Republican Party in America.
GD: Everything you’re saying here makes it sound like you aren’t voting for Trump. Is that the case?
WH: As I said, I don’t like either one of my choices. And in the end, we’re going to evaluate this over the next 90 days, or 96 days.
Rep. Will Hurd on whether he’ll vote for Trump l FiveThirtyEight
On delaying the election:
GD: President Trump suggested delaying the presidential election, which Congress has the power to do, your branch of government. Do you support delaying the election?
WH: We are not an authoritarian government where the head of state gets to decide on a whim when an election happens. So no, this is Congress’s role, as you said. It should go forward as has been established. And ultimately, look, I’m of the opinion that we should be increasing the ways for people to vote, right, the more people that vote, the better off it is. And this is something that I’ve been able to prove, during my time in Congress, that if you take a message to more people, you can get it to resonate with more people and we shouldn’t be afraid.
GOP Rep. Will Hurd On President Trump’s Suggestion To Delay The Election
On the U.S. response to COVID-19:
GD: Overall, do you think the country is doing a good job combating the pandemic?
WH: No. We have increasing death rates, right? We have the most number of people that are dealing with this right? I think the impact it’s had on the United States of America versus other countries is still … we’re dealing with one of the worst cases. We’re having debates on whether you should be wearing a mask or not. Wear a mask! Right? A mask is to protect yourself but also to protect the people around you. So why are we debating that? This debate and fights around whether school should open or not — we should be talking about, ‘how do we work together in order to exceed CDC guidelines on opening schools?’, not whether or not it should happen.
And so yeah, there are all kinds of problems. But I’m always trying to work with these folks to deal with the problem as it is right now. I know in Texas, a third of the deaths of coronavirus have been in nursing homes. That’s outrageous. And then also in prisons. And so if we couldn’t handle this in nursing homes or in prisons, how are we going to be handling it in an educational environment where it is even more chaotic than those other places? So yeah, we have a long way to go.”
GOP Rep. Will Hurd On How The U.S. Is Doing On COVID-19
On the future of the Republican party:
GD: Let’s talk about where the Republican Party is headed. You said that the Republican Party needs to look more like America. And you know, right now, it doesn’t. You’re the only Black lawmaker on the Republican side in the House. Why do you think there are so few Black lawmakers in the Republican caucus in the house?
WH: Everybody asked me when I first got elected, how does a Black Republican represent a 71 percent Latino district? And I say it’s because you know, I work hard and I show up to communities that had never seen a Republican show up, and you do that multiple times. If you’re showing up 90 days before an election, that’s called pandering.
You have to be in those communities. Showing up is half the battle. And unfortunately, I think over time, professional political consultants talk about focusing on your likely “x voter” — whether that’s a Republican primary voter or Democratic primary voter — rather than trying to grow and appeal to a broader group of people. It’s hard.
GD: Do you think that part of the reason has to do with Republicans actively appealing to a white identity?
WH: Look, I think when you look at a person like a Steve King — and you know Steve King losing his primary is ultimately a good thing — but when you know folks that that have been elected as a Republican that say racist or misogynistic or homophobic things, that hurts all of us that identify with with being a Republican.
… But what I found is that’s not everybody. But yeah, over time, have those things been said? Yes. And Does that hurt? Yes. And that’s why we have to speak out when those things do happen.
GOP Rep. Will Hurd On Steve King And Identity Politics l FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-07-30--The Baltimore Ravens Used Their Tight Ends Differently

The Baltimore Ravens have now ended two seasons in a row with hasty playoff exits .
The team , which opened its 2020 training camp on Tuesday , lost the 2018 AFC wild card game at home to the Los Angeles Chargers before suffering a stunning upset in the divisional round last season at the hands of the upstart Tennessee Titans .
But the way the team finished doesn ’ t diminish what it did between those two losses .
Head coach John Harbaugh said during a preseason interview last year that his team would have a revolutionary offense in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under center , and he was right .
Jackson was unanimously voted the league ’ s MVP , and the team finished the regular season with the best record in the NFL , the league ’ s top-scoring offense and the best rushing attack in NFL history .
While the second-year quarterback ’ s elevated play was key to the unit ’ s success , the usage of its trio of tight ends and the stable of backfield mates for Jackson allowed the offense to truly flourish – especially out of heavy formations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of personnel sets , their heavy formations garnered national attention because they contradicted the rest of the NFL .
While the rest of the league was building offenses out of spread formations , Baltimore designed a system that ran nearly half of its plays from heavy formations , according to ESPN ’ s Stats & Information Group .
Out of 1,060 total offensive snaps in the regular season , Baltimore lined up 453 times ( or 42.7 percent of its snaps ) in heavy formations that featured different pairs of the tight ends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the league lined up for only 27 percent of plays from heavy sets .
In 2019 , Baltimore relied extensively on fullback Patrick Ricard and tight ends Mark Andrews , Nick Boyle and Hayden Hurst .
The team traded Hurst to Atlanta in the offseason , but undrafted rookie Eli Wolf will compete for that third tight end spot with Charles Scarff , who spent last year on the practice squad .
So it seems likely that the Ravens will continue this scheme this year .
The members of Baltimore ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jackson and the running backs ( Mark Ingram , Gus Edwards and Justice Hill ) as well as viable receivers , which allowed the offense to use multiple variations of the group within the heavy sets to keep defenses guessing .
In some cases , the team even had all four on the field at once .
Despite having fewer total rushing yards and yards per carry with heavy personnel than with spread personnel ( the Ravens rushed for 1,089 yards in heavy sets while rushing 1,560 yards in spread sets ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavy sets was vital to its success because it used them to extend drives and control the clock .
But perhaps even more important was Baltimore ’ s third-down conversion rate on plays from heavy packages : The unit converted 69 percent of third downs during the regular season .
Converting on these downs at such a high rate led to the team averaging nearly 35 minutes of possession time .
Their production on the ground also regularly opened up the passing game by forcing defenses to use personnel packages designed for crowding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunities for the offense to capitalize on mismatches by forcing bigger and slower defenders to cover the tight ends .
Jackson was able to make the most of these moments , as each of the three tight ends recorded at least 20 receptions for over 200 yards .
Andrews , Boyle and Hurst averaged 12.3 yards per reception while accounting for over half of the team ’ s 1,569 total passing yards from heavy formations .
Although Ricard was mostly used as a blocker throughout the season , he also recorded a touchdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finished the regular season with eight total catches for 47 yards .
The depth and versatility of the group enabled them to account for nearly half of the team ’ s total receiving yards and 15 of Jackson ’ s 36 passing touchdowns .
Andrews finished the regular season as the team ’ s leading receiver , with 852 receiving yards and 10 touchdowns , and he led all tight ends in touchdowns .
Baltimore ’ s postseason loss to the Titans showed what can happen if teams are able to limit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After allowing the Titans to take a 14-point lead early in the second quarter , the Ravens started favoring the pass in an attempt to cut the lead .
Jackson recorded a career-high 22 pass attempts in the first half , while the team had only 16 first-half rushing attempts .
Jackson finished the game with 59 passing attempts , another career high .
Jackson and the offense went into halftime with season lows in total rushing yards and yards per carry .
The unit averaged 3.81 yards per rush and gained only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ averaging more than 37 rush attempts per game during the regular season , Baltimore finished the game with 29 carries – tying the second-lowest total of carries the team recorded in a game all season .
The Ravens ’ struggles were most apparent on a pair of fourth downs .
Coming into the postseason , Baltimore had converted on eight of eight fourth-and-1 attempts , but it failed to convert on fourth-and-1 in the second quarter and again in the third against the Titans .
The offense posted its third-lowest total of snaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the loss ( 17 plays for 77 yards ) and also completed a season-low 37.5 percent of passes from heavy sets .
While Baltimore ’ s last outing was another postseason disappointment , the team ’ s future is still bright as it heads into another season .
What remains to be seen is whether the rest of the league will have caught on to the Ravens ’ unconventional offensive approach and devised a way to stop it , or if Jackson and his plethora of diverse weapons will carry them to another @ @

The Baltimore Ravens have now ended two seasons in a row with hasty playoff exits. The team, which opened its 2020 training camp on Tuesday, lost the 2018 AFC wild card game at home to the Los Angeles Chargers before suffering a stunning upset in the divisional round last season at the hands of the upstart Tennessee Titans.
But the way the team finished doesn’t diminish what it did between those two losses. Head coach John Harbaugh said during a preseason interview last year that his team would have a revolutionary offense in its first full season with Lamar Jackson under center, and he was right.
Jackson was unanimously voted the league’s MVP, and the team finished the regular season with the best record in the NFL, the league’s top-scoring offense and the best rushing attack in NFL history. While the second-year quarterback’s elevated play was key to the unit’s success, the usage of its trio of tight ends and the stable of backfield mates for Jackson allowed the offense to truly flourish – especially out of heavy formations.
Although the Ravens used a variety of personnel sets, their heavy formations garnered national attention because they contradicted the rest of the NFL. While the rest of the league was building offenses out of spread formations, Baltimore designed a system that ran nearly half of its plays from heavy formations, according to ESPN’s Stats & Information Group. Out of 1,060 total offensive snaps in the regular season, Baltimore lined up 453 times (or 42.7 percent of its snaps) in heavy formations that featured different pairs of the tight ends plus Ricard. Meanwhile, the rest of the league lined up for only 27 percent of plays from heavy sets.
In 2019, Baltimore relied extensively on fullback Patrick Ricard and tight ends Mark Andrews, Nick Boyle and Hayden Hurst. The team traded Hurst to Atlanta in the offseason, but undrafted rookie Eli Wolf will compete for that third tight end spot with Charles Scarff, who spent last year on the practice squad. So it seems likely that the Ravens will continue this scheme this year.
The members of Baltimore’s tight end/fullback crew were reliable blockers for Jackson and the running backs (Mark Ingram, Gus Edwards and Justice Hill) as well as viable receivers, which allowed the offense to use multiple variations of the group within the heavy sets to keep defenses guessing. In some cases, the team even had all four on the field at once.
Despite having fewer total rushing yards and yards per carry with heavy personnel than with spread personnel (the Ravens rushed for 1,089 yards in heavy sets while rushing 1,560 yards in spread sets), the team’s production within the heavy sets was vital to its success because it used them to extend drives and control the clock. But perhaps even more important was Baltimore’s third-down conversion rate on plays from heavy packages: The unit converted 69 percent of third downs during the regular season. Converting on these downs at such a high rate led to the team averaging nearly 35 minutes of possession time.
Their production on the ground also regularly opened up the passing game by forcing defenses to use personnel packages designed for crowding the line of scrimmage. This created opportunities for the offense to capitalize on mismatches by forcing bigger and slower defenders to cover the tight ends. Jackson was able to make the most of these moments, as each of the three tight ends recorded at least 20 receptions for over 200 yards. Andrews, Boyle and Hurst averaged 12.3 yards per reception while accounting for over half of the team’s 1,569 total passing yards from heavy formations. Although Ricard was mostly used as a blocker throughout the season, he also recorded a touchdown catch out of a heavy set and finished the regular season with eight total catches for 47 yards.
The depth and versatility of the group enabled them to account for nearly half of the team’s total receiving yards and 15 of Jackson’s 36 passing touchdowns. Andrews finished the regular season as the team’s leading receiver, with 852 receiving yards and 10 touchdowns, and he led all tight ends in touchdowns.
Baltimore’s postseason loss to the Titans showed what can happen if teams are able to limit the team’s dynamic rushing attack. After allowing the Titans to take a 14-point lead early in the second quarter, the Ravens started favoring the pass in an attempt to cut the lead. Jackson recorded a career-high 22 pass attempts in the first half, while the team had only 16 first-half rushing attempts. Jackson finished the game with 59 passing attempts, another career high.
Jackson and the offense went into halftime with season lows in total rushing yards and yards per carry. The unit averaged 3.81 yards per rush and gained only 61 yards on the ground. After averaging more than 37 rush attempts per game during the regular season, Baltimore finished the game with 29 carries – tying the second-lowest total of carries the team recorded in a game all season.
The Ravens’ struggles were most apparent on a pair of fourth downs. Coming into the postseason, Baltimore had converted on eight of eight fourth-and-1 attempts, but it failed to convert on fourth-and-1 in the second quarter and again in the third against the Titans. The offense posted its third-lowest total of snaps and yards gained from heavy formations in the loss (17 plays for 77 yards) and also completed a season-low 37.5 percent of passes from heavy sets.
While Baltimore’s last outing was another postseason disappointment, the team’s future is still bright as it heads into another season. What remains to be seen is whether the rest of the league will have caught on to the Ravens’ unconventional offensive approach and devised a way to stop it, or if Jackson and his plethora of diverse weapons will carry them to another postseason.