fivethirthyeight--2020-12-29--Everything About Sports In 2020 Was Weird … Except Who Won

This year disrupted the sports world like no other in modern history .
First , the COVID-19 pandemic shut sports down almost completely in the spring and early summer ; then , it dramatically altered the schedules and formats of most leagues when they did return .
The NBA and WNBA played their postseasons in neutral-site bubbles , for instance , while Major League Baseball teams played only a third as many games as usual .
Much of the year was spent playing in empty arenas before cardboard or virtual fans as fake crowd noise was piped in .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injury report .
This was hardly sports as we knew them before .
Because of the massive upheaval , it was fair to assume the sports themselves might also be chaotic .
At times , it wasn ’ t clear that leagues would be able to crown a champion at all — and for those that managed to pull it off , there were serious concerns about legitimacy .
With small sample sizes , no clear home advantage and the constant specter of the pandemic hanging over every game , how could the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Would we need to discount 2020 ’ s winners as mere flukes ?
As it turned out , that wasn ’ t necessary .
Not only did the favorites survive , they actually thrived ; if anything , this was probably the most dominant season for top teams in recent memory .
Somehow , after the dust settles on the chaos of 2020 , we should remember it as the year of no asterisks — at least as far as its champions were concerned .
To judge this season against history , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indispensable Sports Odds History for the NBA , NFL , MLB , NHL and college football going back to 2000 , and used the Internet Archive to gather the same data for the WNBA from VegasInsider when possible .
According to the odds , here ’ s how ( not ) unexpected this year ’ s champions have been : • In the NHL , the preseason favorite Tampa Bay Lightning ( +675 ) won the Stanley Cup .
• In the WNBA , the co-favorite Seattle Storm ( +450 ) won the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the champion Los Angeles Lakers ( +450 ) ranked No .
2 in preseason , only slightly behind the favored L.A. Clippers ( +425 ) .
• In MLB , the World Series champion Los Angeles Dodgers ( +385 ) were also No .
2 before the season , narrowly trailing the New York Yankees ( +375 ) .
• In the NFL , the preseason favorite Kansas City Chiefs ( +450 ) have the best record in the league and are currently by far the most likely Super Bowl winner .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three teams in preseason — Clemson ( +275 ) , Ohio State ( +275 ) and Alabama ( +500 ) — have a combined 94.4 percent chance of winning the national championship , according to ESPN ’ s simulations .
That is an incredible season for top teams .
If we look at the percentile rank for each league ’ s eventual champion in the betting market , the average 2020 champion was in the 93.5th percentile of preseason odds .
According to the betting data , that is easily the most well-regarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any season since at least 2000 .
The next-closest season in that regard came all the way back in 2000 , when the Yankees ( No .
1 in MLB ) , Lakers ( No .
2 in the NBA ) and Devils ( No .
3 in the NHL ) all prevailed in their respective leagues .
But even then , the Super Bowl-winning Ravens ranked just 11th in preseason NFL odds , lower than most of the teams likely to win in 2020 .
Some of what we saw this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trend of increasing chalkiness for favorites since the mid-2000s , accelerating even more in recent years .
And it ’ s not exactly a coincidence that the weirdness of the pandemic led the College Football Playoff committee to default back to its familiar friends when picking this year ’ s field .
But the other champions on the list had to fully prove their worth on the battlefields of competition .
Although their regular seasons were cut short , the Storm , Lakers and Lightning prevailed in normal , full-length playoff brackets .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the bubbles of the postseason , which is usually an especially massive advantage for basketball favorites .
And the Dodgers simultaneously faced the shortest regular season since 1877 and the longest World Series path of any champion in baseball history , winning a record four series en route to the title .
Despite all the factors that would seem to work against favorites — and in favor of extreme parity — 2020 ’ s champions were the teams we might have expected all along , pandemic or not .
We don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or even if it ’ s a good thing .
( Certainly one could make the case that this should have been the year for some fresh playoff faces in college football , at the very least . )
But the one thing you can ’ t say about these seasons played out against the backdrop of a pandemic is that they required any asterisks .
There were no flukes to be had , and no one should bother questioning their legitimacy .
It was business as usual — even if nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year we ’ re sure never to forget .

This year disrupted the sports world like no other in modern history. First, the COVID-19 pandemic shut sports down almost completely in the spring and early summer; then, it dramatically altered the schedules and formats of most leagues when they did return. The NBA and WNBA played their postseasons in neutral-site bubbles, for instance, while Major League Baseball teams played only a third as many games as usual. Much of the year was spent playing in empty arenas before cardboard or virtual fans as fake crowd noise was piped in. The COVID report was more important than the injury report. This was hardly sports as we knew them before.
Because of the massive upheaval, it was fair to assume the sports themselves might also be chaotic. At times, it wasn’t clear that leagues would be able to crown a champion at all — and for those that managed to pull it off, there were serious concerns about legitimacy. With small sample sizes, no clear home advantage and the constant specter of the pandemic hanging over every game, how could the best teams be given a fair test? Would we need to discount 2020’s winners as mere flukes?
As it turned out, that wasn’t necessary. Not only did the favorites survive, they actually thrived; if anything, this was probably the most dominant season for top teams in recent memory. Somehow, after the dust settles on the chaos of 2020, we should remember it as the year of no asterisks — at least as far as its champions were concerned.
To judge this season against history, I pulled preseason betting-odds data from the indispensable Sports Odds History for the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL and college football going back to 2000, and used the Internet Archive to gather the same data for the WNBA from VegasInsider when possible. According to the odds, here’s how (not) unexpected this year’s champions have been:
In the NHL , the preseason favorite Tampa Bay Lightning (+675) won the Stanley Cup.
, the preseason favorite Tampa Bay Lightning (+675) won the Stanley Cup. In the WNBA , the co-favorite Seattle Storm (+450) won the championship.
, the co-favorite Seattle Storm (+450) won the championship. In the NBA , the champion Los Angeles Lakers (+450) ranked No. 2 in preseason, only slightly behind the favored L.A. Clippers (+425).
, the champion Los Angeles Lakers (+450) ranked No. 2 in preseason, only slightly behind the favored L.A. Clippers (+425). In MLB , the World Series champion Los Angeles Dodgers (+385) were also No. 2 before the season, narrowly trailing the New York Yankees (+375).
, the World Series champion Los Angeles Dodgers (+385) were also No. 2 before the season, narrowly trailing the New York Yankees (+375). In the NFL , the preseason favorite Kansas City Chiefs (+450) have the best record in the league and are currently by far the most likely Super Bowl winner.
, the preseason favorite Kansas City Chiefs (+450) have the best record in the league and are currently by far the most likely Super Bowl winner. And in college football, the top three teams in preseason — Clemson (+275), Ohio State (+275) and Alabama (+500) — have a combined 94.4 percent chance of winning the national championship, according to ESPN’s simulations.
That is an incredible season for top teams. If we look at the percentile rank for each league’s eventual champion in the betting market, the average 2020 champion was in the 93.5th percentile of preseason odds. According to the betting data, that is easily the most well-regarded group of champions (on average) in any season since at least 2000.
The next-closest season in that regard came all the way back in 2000, when the Yankees (No. 1 in MLB), Lakers (No. 2 in the NBA) and Devils (No. 3 in the NHL) all prevailed in their respective leagues. But even then, the Super Bowl-winning Ravens ranked just 11th in preseason NFL odds, lower than most of the teams likely to win in 2020.
Some of what we saw this year seems to be part of a trend of increasing chalkiness for favorites since the mid-2000s, accelerating even more in recent years. And it’s not exactly a coincidence that the weirdness of the pandemic led the College Football Playoff committee to default back to its familiar friends when picking this year’s field.
But the other champions on the list had to fully prove their worth on the battlefields of competition. Although their regular seasons were cut short, the Storm, Lakers and Lightning prevailed in normal, full-length playoff brackets. None had the benefit of home advantage in the bubbles of the postseason, which is usually an especially massive advantage for basketball favorites. And the Dodgers simultaneously faced the shortest regular season since 1877 and the longest World Series path of any champion in baseball history, winning a record four series en route to the title.
Despite all the factors that would seem to work against favorites — and in favor of extreme parity — 2020’s champions were the teams we might have expected all along, pandemic or not. We don’t know what that means, necessarily, or even if it’s a good thing. (Certainly one could make the case that this should have been the year for some fresh playoff faces in college football, at the very least.) But the one thing you can’t say about these seasons played out against the backdrop of a pandemic is that they required any asterisks. There were no flukes to be had, and no one should bother questioning their legitimacy. It was business as usual — even if nothing else in sports looked remotely normal in a year we’re sure never to forget.


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-29--The Whole Show’s A Rabbit Hole 2.0

The Whole Show’s A Rabbit Hole 2.0

Hot Takedown is ending the year with three different Rabbit Holes .
We start with Geoff , who is in the bargaining stage of grief over the New York Jets ’ sudden winning streak .
He takes a look back at NFL draft grades for the past four quarterback classes and finds that both the grades and the level of excitement over draft prospects are more situational than we might expect .
If , through some “ Freaky Friday ” -style swap , Patrick Mahomes ended up directly on the firing line for the Jets and Sam Darnold got to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chiefs ’ offense from Andy Reid , our understanding of those two quarterbacks might be quite different .
Trevor Lawrence is still probably the generational talent the scouts claim that he is , but Jets fans can take solace — at least for now — in the fact that people who try to predict the success of football players often get it very , very wrong .
Next , Neil looks back at how , even though the pandemic upended every aspect of life this year , 2020 has been one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ championships in all the major sports leagues — at least so far ; the NFL still has the chance to give us an upset .
While the paths that the Los Angeles Dodgers , Los Angeles Lakers , Seattle Storm and Tampa Bay Lightning all took to winning titles were not by any means assured from the start , the fact that all these Nos .
1 came out on top does a lot to undo any idea about 2020 having an asterisk attached to it because of disruption to the seasons or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an asterisk is a little silly to begin with , of course , and it might have been nice to have a bit more chaos in our sports .
But Neil , at least , is grateful for this small sign of chalky stability in an otherwise uncertain year .
Finally , Sara closes us out by talking about football games played on odd days of the week .
A series of happenstances and a surprising federal law have contributed to the paucity of NFL games played on Friday , for instance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ history — and of course the Minnesota Vikings have played in three of them .
The Dallas Cowboys have already completed their “ day of the week Bingo card ” because of COVID-19-related rescheduling , and the Vikings and the Tennessee Titans only need a Wednesday game to tick off games played on all seven days .
The NFL would play on as many days as it could , obviously , if it was allowed .
But the rarity of these odd-day games has helped make them special — especially when they also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fantasy football .
What we ’ re looking at this week : • The first article in our Greatness Files series , on LeBron James .
• The 40 weirdest charts FiveThirtyEight Made in this long , strange year .
• How to build an NFL placekicker .

Hot Takedown is ending the year with three different Rabbit Holes.
We start with Geoff, who is in the bargaining stage of grief over the New York Jets’ sudden winning streak. He takes a look back at NFL draft grades for the past four quarterback classes and finds that both the grades and the level of excitement over draft prospects are more situational than we might expect. If, through some “Freaky Friday”-style swap, Patrick Mahomes ended up directly on the firing line for the Jets and Sam Darnold got to sit on the bench and learn the Chiefs’ offense from Andy Reid, our understanding of those two quarterbacks might be quite different. Trevor Lawrence is still probably the generational talent the scouts claim that he is, but Jets fans can take solace — at least for now — in the fact that people who try to predict the success of football players often get it very, very wrong.
Next, Neil looks back at how, even though the pandemic upended every aspect of life this year, 2020 has been one of the chalkiest in recent memory. Favorites won championships in all the major sports leagues — at least so far; the NFL still has the chance to give us an upset. While the paths that the Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Lakers, Seattle Storm and Tampa Bay Lightning all took to winning titles were not by any means assured from the start, the fact that all these Nos. 1 came out on top does a lot to undo any idea about 2020 having an asterisk attached to it because of disruption to the seasons or changes in format. That idea of an asterisk is a little silly to begin with, of course, and it might have been nice to have a bit more chaos in our sports. But Neil, at least, is grateful for this small sign of chalky stability in an otherwise uncertain year.
Finally, Sara closes us out by talking about football games played on odd days of the week. A series of happenstances and a surprising federal law have contributed to the paucity of NFL games played on Friday, for instance. There have only been 11 in NFL history — and of course the Minnesota Vikings have played in three of them. The Dallas Cowboys have already completed their “day of the week Bingo card” because of COVID-19-related rescheduling, and the Vikings and the Tennessee Titans only need a Wednesday game to tick off games played on all seven days. The NFL would play on as many days as it could, obviously, if it was allowed. But the rarity of these odd-day games has helped make them special — especially when they also coincide with Sara beating her husband at fantasy football.
What we’re looking at this week:


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-29--What The Early Vote In Georgia Can — And Can’t — Tell Us

Through Monday , more people — 2,337,477 — have officially voted in Georgia ’ s upcoming Senate runoff than in any other runoff in Georgia history .
That ’ s a meaningful milestone considering that the eight previous runoff elections have all been low-turnout affairs .
But it doesn ’ t necessarily tell us anything about who is going to win this year ’ s races .
For instance , we don ’ t know how those 2.3 million voters voted ( while turnout numbers are released on a daily basis , no actual election results are reported until polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 ) .
And because Georgia does not register voters by party , we don ’ t know whether those voters are disproportionately Democrats or Republicans either .
We do have some clues about who has voted thanks to demographic information in the voter file : namely , voters ’ race .
Voters so far in Georgia are 55 percent non-Hispanic white , 32 percent non-Hispanic Black and 13 percent of other races ( or of unknown race ) .
That ’ s a more diverse electorate than at this point in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The New York Times/Upshot ’ s Nate Cohn , fewer than 30 percent of early voters were Black .
At first glance , that might seem like a good omen for Democrats given their strength with Black voters .
And there are other rosy signs for Democrats in the early-voting data too , like turnout being lowest in two heavily Republican congressional districts in north Georgia .
But none of that will matter if hordes of white voters and north Georgia Republicans turn out to vote on election day , which is very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet to vote , and because the type of person who votes early is different from the type of person who votes on election day , those voters could completely change the face of the electorate .
( Indeed , more than 975,000 Georgians voted on Election Day in November , and President Trump won them 60 percent to 38 percent .
The Black share of the electorate wound up lower than the Black share of the early vote in November as well . )
As the saying goes , don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and don ’ t form any opinions about who is going to win Georgia based on the early vote .
The one thing the early-voting data tells us for sure is that a lot of people are voting ( including almost 80,000 who didn ’ t vote in the November election ! )
.
As mentioned , the 2.3 million Georgians who have voted so far surpasses the 2,137,956 who voted in total in the state ’ s 2008 Senate runoff , which held the previous record for highest turnout in a runoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runoffs between a Democrat and a Republican since the state enacted runoffs in 1968 . )
As a result , turnout in the runoffs will be at least 32 percent of eligible voters ( as estimated by Michael McDonald of the University of Florida ) and 47 percent of the number of people who voted in the regular Senate race in the general election .
And , of course , turnout will eventually be far higher than that , considering there is still a week left until election day .
Consider that at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3,028,676 people had voted , which was about three-fifths of the final turnout , according to www.georgiavotes.com , an unofficial vote-tracking website that uses publicly available data from the secretary of state .
If that pattern holds for the runoff ( a big if , considering that the early-voting period was disrupted by Christmas ) , turnout in the runoff could be around 3.8 million .
That ’ s more than half of eligible voters and more than three-quarters of general-election turnout — both of which would be record-shattering .
Once again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ridiculously high turnout could favor Democrats .
As my colleague Geoffrey Skelley and I wrote last month , turnout always drops sharply from general elections to runoffs in Georgia , and Black voters are disproportionately likely to stay home when that happens .
As a result , Republicans have improved on their general-election margins in seven of Georgia ’ s eight previous runoffs .
But this runoff , with its unprecedentedly high stakes , looks like it will have far less turnout dropoff than in the past — so maybe the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ runoffs won ’ t hold true .
On the other hand , a small dropoff is still a dropoff , so maybe Republicans will still increase their vote share — just by less than they would have in a low-turnout scenario .
And because Republican candidates did 1-2 percentage points better than Democratic candidates in both the regular and special Senate elections in November , the GOP would still win the runoffs even if the margins stay exactly the same .
( In other words , Democrats are the ones who need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only happened in one runoff in Georgia history : an obscure 1998 special election for public service commissioner . )
And while conventional wisdom holds that high turnout helps Democrats , that ’ s not necessarily true — as we just saw in the 2020 election , where Republicans often improved upon their past margins and won many key races in the highest-turnout election in more than a century .
So once again , the safest conclusion to draw from these early-voting numbers is that either party could benefit .
We ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @

Through Monday, more people — 2,337,477 — have officially voted in Georgia’s upcoming Senate runoff than in any other runoff in Georgia history. That’s a meaningful milestone considering that the eight previous runoff elections have all been low-turnout affairs. But it doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about who is going to win this year’s races.
For instance, we don’t know how those 2.3 million voters voted (while turnout numbers are released on a daily basis, no actual election results are reported until polls close at 7 p.m. Eastern on Jan. 5). And because Georgia does not register voters by party, we don’t know whether those voters are disproportionately Democrats or Republicans either.
Why many pollsters are sitting out the Georgia runoffs
We do have some clues about who has voted thanks to demographic information in the voter file: namely, voters’ race. Voters so far in Georgia are 55 percent non-Hispanic white, 32 percent non-Hispanic Black and 13 percent of other races (or of unknown race). That’s a more diverse electorate than at this point in the general election, when, according to The New York Times/Upshot’s Nate Cohn, fewer than 30 percent of early voters were Black. At first glance, that might seem like a good omen for Democrats given their strength with Black voters. And there are other rosy signs for Democrats in the early-voting data too, like turnout being lowest in two heavily Republican congressional districts in north Georgia.
[Will The Debate Over $2,000 Stimulus Checks Help Democrats In Georgia?]
But none of that will matter if hordes of white voters and north Georgia Republicans turn out to vote on election day, which is very possible. Potentially millions of people have yet to vote, and because the type of person who votes early is different from the type of person who votes on election day, those voters could completely change the face of the electorate. (Indeed, more than 975,000 Georgians voted on Election Day in November, and President Trump won them 60 percent to 38 percent. The Black share of the electorate wound up lower than the Black share of the early vote in November as well.) As the saying goes, don’t count your chickens before they hatch, and don’t form any opinions about who is going to win Georgia based on the early vote.
The one thing the early-voting data tells us for sure is that a lot of people are voting (including almost 80,000 who didn’t vote in the November election!). As mentioned, the 2.3 million Georgians who have voted so far surpasses the 2,137,956 who voted in total in the state’s 2008 Senate runoff, which held the previous record for highest turnout in a runoff. (Georgia’s held eight runoffs between a Democrat and a Republican since the state enacted runoffs in 1968.) As a result, turnout in the runoffs will be at least 32 percent of eligible voters (as estimated by Michael McDonald of the University of Florida) and 47 percent of the number of people who voted in the regular Senate race in the general election.
Turnout in the Georgia runoffs has hit a record high Three ways to measure turnout in every runoff election in Georgia Cycle Office Runoff Turnout Share of Nov. Turnout Share of Eligible Voters 2020 U.S. Senate* 2,337,477 47% 32% 2008 U.S. Senate 2,137,956 57 34 2008 Public Service Commission 2,010,329 56 32 2018 Secretary of State 1,473,904 38 20 2018 Public Service Commission 1,465,820 38 20 1992 U.S. Senate 1,253,991 56 26 1992 Public Service Commission 1,159,605 57 24 2006 Public Service Commission 215,092 11 4 1998 Public Service Commission 114,343 9 2 *Through Dec. 28. Includes all ballots cast, not necessarily counted. The share of November turnout is based on the number of general-election voters in the regular Senate election. Sources: Georgia secretary of state, United States Elections Project
And, of course, turnout will eventually be far higher than that, considering there is still a week left until election day. Consider that at this point in the general election, 3,028,676 people had voted, which was about three-fifths of the final turnout, according to www.georgiavotes.com, an unofficial vote-tracking website that uses publicly available data from the secretary of state. If that pattern holds for the runoff (a big if, considering that the early-voting period was disrupted by Christmas), turnout in the runoff could be around 3.8 million. That’s more than half of eligible voters and more than three-quarters of general-election turnout — both of which would be record-shattering.
Once again, it’s tempting to conclude that that ridiculously high turnout could favor Democrats. As my colleague Geoffrey Skelley and I wrote last month, turnout always drops sharply from general elections to runoffs in Georgia, and Black voters are disproportionately likely to stay home when that happens. As a result, Republicans have improved on their general-election margins in seven of Georgia’s eight previous runoffs. But this runoff, with its unprecedentedly high stakes, looks like it will have far less turnout dropoff than in the past — so maybe the political axiom that Republicans always do better in runoffs won’t hold true.
[Why Georgia Isn’t Like The Other Battleground States]
On the other hand, a small dropoff is still a dropoff, so maybe Republicans will still increase their vote share — just by less than they would have in a low-turnout scenario. And because Republican candidates did 1-2 percentage points better than Democratic candidates in both the regular and special Senate elections in November, the GOP would still win the runoffs even if the margins stay exactly the same. (In other words, Democrats are the ones who need to improve their performance, something that has only happened in one runoff in Georgia history: an obscure 1998 special election for public service commissioner.)
And while conventional wisdom holds that high turnout helps Democrats, that’s not necessarily true — as we just saw in the 2020 election, where Republicans often improved upon their past margins and won many key races in the highest-turnout election in more than a century. So once again, the safest conclusion to draw from these early-voting numbers is that either party could benefit. We’ll know which one next week.
Geoffrey Skelley contributed research.
Trump’s refusal to concede hasnât made life easier for GOP in Georgia runoffs: Silver


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-29--Why Many Pollsters Are Sitting Out The Georgia Runoffs

In 2020 ’ s final installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew looks back at the year that @ @ @ @ @ surprising political stories of the year .
They also assess why many pollsters are sitting @ @ @ @ @ and take some time to answer listener questions .

In 2020’s final installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew looks back at the year that was and discusses the most surprising political stories of the year. They also assess why many pollsters are sitting out the Georgia Senate runoffs and take some time to answer listener questions.
Why Georgia isn’t like the other battleground states


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-30--The Most Important NFL Games Of Week 17

The Most Important NFL Games Of Week 17

Throughout the season , we ’ ve usually had a little blurb highlighting the most significant and/or interesting game of each week .
But for the upcoming week in the NFL , there are far too many meaningful contests to restrict ourselves to talking about just one .
So here ’ s a rundown of the Week 17 games that will have the most impact — in terms of how much they change everybody ’ s playoff odds , according to our forecast model , depending on which team wins — as the 2020 regular season comes to a close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greatest total playoff implications features the Philadelphia Eagles hosting the Washington Football Team on Sunday night .
This game is linked to three teams ’ destinies , with one playoff berth on the line : the spot given to the winner of the dreadful NFC East .
The Washington Football Team can claim that honor with a win , though it will be knocked out of contention with a loss .
And for one of the only times in history , Cowboys and Giants fans are both currently rooting for a Philadelphia win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one of those fan bases will already know whether its team was eliminated , thanks to Dallas and New York ’ s head-to-head matchup at 1 p.m .
ET .
Our model ever so slightly favors Football Team here , since they have the better Elo rating ( particularly if Washington QB Alex Smith is able to return from injury ) .
Philly ’ s passing attack has been markedly better since Jalen Hurts took over , but no defense has limited opposing QB Elo performance as well as Football Team ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s spread : Washington -½ Sunday afternoon ’ s Cardinals-Rams matchup materially affects two playoff spots and the fates of three teams : not just Arizona and Los Angeles , but also the Chicago Bears , since it will help determine which of the trio takes the last unclaimed NFC wild-card slots .
For Arizona , the stakes here are quite simple : If it wins , it makes the playoffs ; if it loses , it doesn ’ t .
Meanwhile , if the Rams win , both Chicago and Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can also get in even if that doesn ’ t happen .
L.A. ’ s backdoor playoff option involves Chicago losing to the Green Bay Packers ( who still have to play for the NFC ’ s No .
1 seed ) in a game that kicks off at the same time .
In other words , get ready for a fun Sunday afternoon of scoreboard-watching .
As for the matchup itself , Elo favors the Cardinals on the road ( 55 percent ) .
Although Kyler Murray is banged up and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be forced to start backup QB John Wolford in place of the injured Jared Goff with the playoffs on the line .
Elo ’ s spread : Arizona -1½ This contest primarily affects the Browns and the Dolphins , though it also has important ripple effects for the Ravens and Colts .
If Cleveland wins , it will make the postseason for just the second time since the franchise was relaunched in 1999 .
If not , Miami and Baltimore would instantly be guaranteed playoff spots .
In that case , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ door , but it would involve the Colts losing to the Jaguars … or the Ravens and Dolphins both winning and the Titans losing to the Texans .
( In which case Tennessee and Cleveland would each finish 10-6 , and the Browns would earn the wild card on tiebreakers . )
Obviously , victory is the more straightforward path for Cleveland , and its odds of that will be higher as the weary Steelers likely rest their starters with only seeding to play for in the finale .
Then again , Baker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beat the lowly Jets last week , so victory against Pittsburgh ’ s backups is far from certain .
Our model slightly leans in Cleveland ’ s direction , giving the Browns a 54 percent shot at the W. Elo ’ s spread : Cleveland -1 This game is the other half of the NFC playoff equation we mentioned above when discussing the Rams and Cardinals .
The two games are totally intertwined in terms of playoff implications , with the result of each potentially determining the fate of the other game ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bears and Rams to have a unique relationship on Sunday : If L.A. wins , it clinches a playoff spot for Chicago … but if Chicago wins , it only hurts the Rams , dropping their playoff odds by 33 percentage points , all else being equal .
L.A. , meanwhile , would clinch a spot if the Bears lose — and the good news for the Rams is that Green Bay still has plenty to play for here , as the Pack would clinch an all-important first-round playoff bye with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens , the Bears would be desperate for a Rams win as their only viable playoff path . )
Since Aaron Rodgers is likely to start and keep his foot on the gas in pursuit of the No .
1 seed , our model gives the Packers a 66 percent chance of winning and forcing the Bears to root for the Rams over their old crosstown Chicago rivals , the Cardinals .
Elo ’ s spread : Green Bay -4½ As we mentioned earlier , this game will determine who outside of Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Eagles-Football Team tilt Sunday night .
The winner here is not guaranteed a playoff spot , but the loser is guaranteed to not make the playoffs .
( The Giants can ’ t make it in the unlikely event they tie , either . )
Dallas ’ s surge seemed unlikely a month ago , but three straight wins — with QB Andy Dalton playing surprisingly well — have vaulted the Cowboys back into the playoff hunt .
New York is trending in the opposite direction , with three straight losses and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hamstring injury .
Because of this , we give Dallas the edge ( 54 percent ) on the road .
However , fans of ridiculous history should note that if New York and Philly both win , the Giants would be the first 6-10 division champion ever — and in 2020 , that might be a fitting outcome to root for .
Elo ’ s spread : Dallas -1

Throughout the season, we’ve usually had a little blurb highlighting the most significant and/or interesting game of each week. But for the upcoming week in the NFL, there are far too many meaningful contests to restrict ourselves to talking about just one.
So here’s a rundown of the Week 17 games that will have the most impact — in terms of how much they change everybody’s playoff odds, according to our forecast model, depending on which team wins — as the 2020 regular season comes to a close.
Who’s the most chaotic fictional football coach? | FiveThirtyEight
Washington at Philadelphia (8:20 p.m. ET Sunday)
Total weighted change in playoff odds: 101.2 percentage points
How Washington vs. Philadelphia changes the NFL playoff picture Chance of making playoffs Team Current if W.F.T. wins if Eagles win Avg. Chg (+/-) Washington 52.3% 100.0% 0.0% 49.8 pts Cowboys 25.8 0.0 54.0 26.9 Giants 21.9 0.0 46.0 22.9 Using FiveThirtyEight model simulations as of Dec. 29. Average change is weighted by the probability of each outcome. Includes teams with an average swing of at least 0.5 percentage points.
The Week 17 game with the greatest total playoff implications features the Philadelphia Eagles hosting the Washington Football Team on Sunday night. This game is linked to three teams’ destinies, with one playoff berth on the line: the spot given to the winner of the dreadful NFC East. The Washington Football Team can claim that honor with a win, though it will be knocked out of contention with a loss. And for one of the only times in history, Cowboys and Giants fans are both currently rooting for a Philadelphia win — although by kickoff time Sunday night, one of those fan bases will already know whether its team was eliminated, thanks to Dallas and New York’s head-to-head matchup at 1 p.m. ET. Our model ever so slightly favors Football Team here, since they have the better Elo rating (particularly if Washington QB Alex Smith is able to return from injury). Philly’s passing attack has been markedly better since Jalen Hurts took over, but no defense has limited opposing QB Elo performance as well as Football Team’s has this season. Elo’s spread: Washington -½
Arizona at L.A. Rams (4:25 p.m. ET Sunday)
Total weighted change in playoff odds: 100.2 percentage points
How Arizona vs. Los Angeles changes the NFL playoff picture Chance of making playoffs Team Current if Rams win if Cardinals win Avg. Chg (+/-) Cardinals 55.2% 0.0% 100.0% 49.4 pts Bears 63.4 100.0 33.7 32.8 Rams 81.5 100.0 66.3 16.6 Using FiveThirtyEight model simulations as of Dec. 29. Average change is weighted by the probability of each outcome. Includes teams with an average swing of at least 0.5 percentage points.
Sunday afternoon’s Cardinals-Rams matchup materially affects two playoff spots and the fates of three teams: not just Arizona and Los Angeles, but also the Chicago Bears, since it will help determine which of the trio takes the last unclaimed NFC wild-card slots. For Arizona, the stakes here are quite simple: If it wins, it makes the playoffs; if it loses, it doesn’t. Meanwhile, if the Rams win, both Chicago and Los Angeles make the playoffs — though both teams can also get in even if that doesn’t happen. L.A.’s backdoor playoff option involves Chicago losing to the Green Bay Packers (who still have to play for the NFC’s No. 1 seed) in a game that kicks off at the same time. In other words, get ready for a fun Sunday afternoon of scoreboard-watching. As for the matchup itself, Elo favors the Cardinals on the road (55 percent). Although Kyler Murray is banged up and the Rams have a dominant defense, L.A. will be forced to start backup QB John Wolford in place of the injured Jared Goff with the playoffs on the line. Elo’s spread: Arizona -1½
[Everything About Sports In 2020 Was Weird … Except Who Won]
Pittsburgh at Cleveland (1 p.m. ET Sunday)
Total weighted change in playoff odds: 84.9 percentage points
How Pittsburgh vs. Cleveland changes the NFL playoff picture Chance of making playoffs Team Current if Steelers win if Browns win Avg. Chg (+/-) Browns 61.0% 15.7% 100.0% 41.8 pts Dolphins 69.1 100.0 42.6 28.5 Ravens 92.0 100.0 85.1 7.4 Colts 83.1 89.4 77.7 5.8 Using FiveThirtyEight model simulations as of Dec. 29. Average change is weighted by the probability of each outcome. Includes teams with an average swing of at least 0.5 percentage points.
This contest primarily affects the Browns and the Dolphins, though it also has important ripple effects for the Ravens and Colts. If Cleveland wins, it will make the postseason for just the second time since the franchise was relaunched in 1999. If not, Miami and Baltimore would instantly be guaranteed playoff spots. In that case, the Browns could still get in the back door, but it would involve the Colts losing to the Jaguars … or the Ravens and Dolphins both winning and the Titans losing to the Texans. (In which case Tennessee and Cleveland would each finish 10-6, and the Browns would earn the wild card on tiebreakers.) Obviously, victory is the more straightforward path for Cleveland, and its odds of that will be higher as the weary Steelers likely rest their starters with only seeding to play for in the finale. Then again, Baker Mayfield and Co. couldn’t even beat the lowly Jets last week, so victory against Pittsburgh’s backups is far from certain. Our model slightly leans in Cleveland’s direction, giving the Browns a 54 percent shot at the W. Elo’s spread: Cleveland -1
Green Bay at Chicago (4:25 p.m. ET Sunday)
Total weighted change in playoff odds: 50.4 percentage points
How Green Bay vs. Chicago changes the NFL playoff picture Chance of making playoffs Team Current if Bears win if Packers win Avg. Chg (+/-) Bears 63.4% 100.0% 44.5% 24.9 pts Rams 81.5 45.5 100.0 24.4 Using FiveThirtyEight model simulations as of Dec. 29. Average change is weighted by the probability of each outcome. Includes teams with an average swing of at least 0.5 percentage points.
This game is the other half of the NFC playoff equation we mentioned above when discussing the Rams and Cardinals. The two games are totally intertwined in terms of playoff implications, with the result of each potentially determining the fate of the other game’s loser. And that sets up the Bears and Rams to have a unique relationship on Sunday: If L.A. wins, it clinches a playoff spot for Chicago … but if Chicago wins, it only hurts the Rams, dropping their playoff odds by 33 percentage points, all else being equal. L.A., meanwhile, would clinch a spot if the Bears lose — and the good news for the Rams is that Green Bay still has plenty to play for here, as the Pack would clinch an all-important first-round playoff bye with a win over Chicago. (If that happens, the Bears would be desperate for a Rams win as their only viable playoff path.) Since Aaron Rodgers is likely to start and keep his foot on the gas in pursuit of the No. 1 seed, our model gives the Packers a 66 percent chance of winning and forcing the Bears to root for the Rams over their old crosstown Chicago rivals, the Cardinals. Elo’s spread: Green Bay -4½
[Are Defensive Play-Callers Consistent Enough To Be Exploitable?]
Dallas at N.Y. Giants (1 p.m. ET Sunday)
Total weighted change in playoff odds: 48.8 percentage points
How New York vs. Dallas changes the NFL playoff picture Chance of making playoffs Team Current if Giants win if Cowboys win Avg. Chg (+/-) Cowboys 25.8% 0.0% 47.8% 23.7 pts Giants 21.9 47.6 0.0 23.6 Using FiveThirtyEight model simulations as of Dec. 29. Average change is weighted by the probability of each outcome. Includes teams with an average swing of at least 0.5 percentage points.
As we mentioned earlier, this game will determine who outside of Washington and Philadelphia keeps a keen eye on the Eagles-Football Team tilt Sunday night. The winner here is not guaranteed a playoff spot, but the loser is guaranteed to not make the playoffs. (The Giants can’t make it in the unlikely event they tie, either.) Dallas’s surge seemed unlikely a month ago, but three straight wins — with QB Andy Dalton playing surprisingly well — have vaulted the Cowboys back into the playoff hunt. New York is trending in the opposite direction, with three straight losses and starter Daniel Jones struggling while battling a hamstring injury. Because of this, we give Dallas the edge (54 percent) on the road. However, fans of ridiculous history should note that if New York and Philly both win, the Giants would be the first 6-10 division champion ever — and in 2020, that might be a fitting outcome to root for. Elo’s spread: Dallas -1
FiveThirtyEight’s NFL Elo ratings How each team ranks through Week 16 of the 2020 season, according to our quarterback-adjusted predictions Chance To … Rk Team Starting QB QB Rk* Elo Rating Proj. Wins Make Playoffs Win Div. Win SB 1 Saints Brees 7 1719 11.8 100% 100% 18% 2 Bills Allen 1 1717 12.8 100 100 14 3 Packers Rodgers 3 1681 12.7 100 100 15 4 Ravens Jackson 6 1654 10.8 92 0 4 5 Bucs Brady† 8 1622 10.8 100 0 4 6 Seahawks Wilson 11 1606 11.6 100 100 4 7 Colts Rivers 15 1600 10.9 83 27 1 8 Chiefs Mahomes† 2 1598 14.8 100 100 33 9 Titans Tannehill 9 1577 10.7 95 73 1 10 Steelers R’lisberger† 10 1571 12.5 100 100 2 11 Browns Mayfield 18 1542 10.5 61 0 <1 12 Dolphins Tagovailoa 23 1540 10.2 69 0 <1 13 Bears Trubisky 19 1532 8.3 63 0 <1 14 49ers Beathard 28 1493 6.4 0 0 0 15 Vikings Cousins 13 1490 6.7 0 0 0 16 Cardinals Murray✚ 4 1488 8.6 55 0 <1 17 Raiders Carr 12 1460 7.5 0 0 0 18 Falcons Ryan 17 1455 4.2 0 0 0 19 Wash. Smith✚ 25 1453 6.5 52 52 <1 20 Cowboys Dalton 21 1449 6.5 26 26 <1 21 Broncos Lock 27 1447 5.5 0 0 0 22 Panthers Bridgewater 16 1446 5.2 0 0 0 23 Chargers Herbert 14 1442 6.2 0 0 0 24 Patriots Newton† 24 1440 6.7 0 0 0 25 Rams Wolford 32 1421 9.4 81 0 1 26 Eagles Hurts 22 1406 5.0 0 0 0 27 Texans Watson✚ 5 1392 4.3 0 0 0 28 Giants Jones 29 1383 5.5 22 22 <1 29 Bengals Allen 31 1339 4.7 0 0 0 30 Jets Darnold 30 1332 2.3 0 0 0 31 Lions Stafford✚ 20 1281 5.3 0 0 0 32 Jaguars Glennon† 26 1260 1.1 0 0 0 *Ranking among Week 16 starters, according to our QB Elo ratings. ✚ Starter is currently injured and may not play. †Starter could be resting or replaced for performance reasons. Simulations as of Dec. 29, 2020. Source: ESPN
Check out our latest NFL predictions.
What makes LeBron James so great | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-30--What Democrats Can Learn From Nebraska’s Shift To The Right

Eight years ago , fresh off passing the Affordable Care Act , Democrats controlled the Senate .
And it was Ben Nelson , the two-term Democratic senator from Nebraska , who provided the final vote for President Obama ’ s signature health care bill .
But Nelson , who was hardly a reliable Democratic vote , decided not to run for office again , making him one of 18 Democratic senators who did not seek another term between 2010 and 2014 .
This proved a significant turning point in the Senate for Democrats , however , because half of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Nebraska , for instance , Democrats nominated Bob Kerrey , a former U.S. senator and Nebraska governor , who consistently had an approval rating upward of 70 percent when he governed the Cornhusker State .
But even though he was a high profile Democrat in the state , he lost by 16 percentage points to his opponent , a relatively unknown Republican state senator , Deb Fischer .
Kerrey did win the state ’ s two most populous counties , but not much else , which has now become an all too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ When that happened in 2012 , I said , ‘ Something ’ s changed , ’ ” said Chris Rodgers , a Douglas County commissioner .
Rodgers told me that Kerrey ’ s large margin of defeat made it clear that “ it ’ s just a whole lot harder ” for moderate and liberal candidates to win in Nebraska than it used to be .
In the three Senate races in Nebraska since 2012 , Democrats have lost by 30 points , on average ( or roughly double the margin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And in my new book “ Rural Rebellion : How Nebraska Became a Republican Stronghold , ” I unpack how this happened in Nebraska and why the state ’ s rightward shift underscores the difficulties Democrats face in gaining and maintaining a Senate majority — regardless of what happens in Georgia ’ s Senate runoff elections next Tuesday .
When I was born in David City , Nebraska , in 1989 , I entered a world where Nebraska straddled the middle of the political spectrum .
But since then , the state has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hard to remember it was ever there .
Using DW-NOMINATE data from the congressional vote tallying website Voteview , we can see just how far Nebraska ’ s political representatives have drifted rightward in the last thirty years .
As you can see in the chart below , the average ideology score of Nebraska ’ s U.S. representatives and senators , as measured by DW-NOMINATE ’ s first dimension , shifted more than half a point between 1990 and 2020 .
Put in today ’ s terms , in 1990 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in ideology to outgoing Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama , a moderate ; whereas today she would more closely resemble Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn , who isn ’ t the most conservative Republican in Congress ( that ’ s Sen. Mike Lee ) , but still drifts pretty far to the right on the ideological spectrum .
As FiveThirtyEight contributor Lee Drutman wrote earlier this year , the Electoral College has always favored smaller states like Nebraska .
But it is only somewhat recently that these states have heavily favored Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it ’ s reflective of a broader , national trend in lower population states that has created an imbalance in the Senate .
We can see this in FiveThirtyEight ’ s urbanization index , which captures how urban or rural an area is by calculating the natural logarithm of the average number of people living within a five-mile radius of another resident .
Nebraska is less densely populated than the average state and is one of the 25 states ( all on the right side of the table ) that only accounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population , yet will provide 40 Republican senators and just eight Democratic senators ( and two independent senators who caucus with Democrats ) in the upcoming congressional session .
Simply put , this increasingly firm grip Republicans have over less populated states doesn ’ t bode well for Democrats trying to win back the Senate .
That ’ s because in many statewide elections , running up the margins in the cities isn ’ t enough to win .
For instance , even though Nebraska ’ s two most populous cities , Omaha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lean left compared to the rest of the state , Republican power remains entrenched in the state .
Take the 2018 reelection bids of Gov .
Pete Ricketts and Fischer , who both lost Douglas County and Lancaster County but still won their races by double-digit margins .
Similarly , Trump lost Nebraska ’ s two most populous counties in November , but he still won the state ’ s other 91 counties , putting him well on his way to winning about 60 percent of the state ’ s total vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Nebraska because voter turnout is highest in rural areas , which also have a higher median age and strongly lean Republican .
So what ’ s driving Nebraska ’ s ( and other states ’ ) rightward shift ?
In part , it has to do with the nationalization of American politics .
Since the 1990s , Democratic voters have moved to the left on issues such as health care and immigration , while Republicans have become more likely to identify as conservative as their moderate candidates have dwindled .
And in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made it more difficult for local candidates to successfully create their own platforms .
For example , as governor and senator , Nelson often broke from his own party in an attempt to attract conservative voters , taking stances like advocating for a “ hard barrier ” to prevent illegal immigration or supporting various anti-abortion measures .
But the days of candidates creating their own platforms are largely over , and the share of registered Democratic voters in Nebraska has also dropped .
The effect of nationalization in Nebraska is evident in how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like immigration and education to better align with the national Republican Party ’ s agenda .
Take how far to the right Nebraskan politicians have moved on immigration .
In the late 1990s , former Republican Gov .
Mike Johanns opposed a raid on meatpacking plants in Nebraska by Immigration and Naturalization Services , and in 2003 , former Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel cosponsored the DREAM Act , which sought to provide a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who entered the U.S. as minors .
But Nebraska ’ s current governor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent “ Dreamers ” from obtaining driver ’ s licenses , and the state attorney general has gone as far as to sue the federal government to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program .
This trend extends to lower levels of government , too , like the state legislature and city councils .
Republican state lawmakers have also tried to eliminate prenatal care and repeal in-state tuition for immigrants , while giving local police the power to question the immigration status of anyone they suspect of living in the country illegally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordinances that formally ban undocumented immigrants from renting property .
All this is happening in a state that , until recently , settled a high number of refugees .
Meanwhile , on the education front , Republican lawmakers have leaned into national Republicans ’ growing aversion toward public education , trying to eliminate Nebraska ’ s democratically elected board of education , while perpetual tax cuts and exemptions have led to two-thirds of Nebraska ’ s school districts receiving no general financial assistance from the state , which has contributed to public schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inequitable [ state aid ] distribution in the nation , ” according to a nationwide study by the think tank , The Rural School and Community Trust .
This is all in a state where Republicans once implemented income and sales taxes to increase K-12 schools ’ funding , among a host of other progressive legislation .
But lest one think the effects of nationalization have completely remade states like Nebraska , many Nebraskans disagree with the GOP ’ s positions .
Through ballot initiatives , for instance , Nebraska voters have approved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and casino gambling , even though Republicans officials , who continue to cruise to statewide victories , have opposed these measures .
It might seem paradoxical that Nebraskans , especially those in rural areas , identify with and vote for Republicans despite the opposition of GOP officials on some popular issues .
But because local politics have become so nationalized , the Nebraska Republican Party ( and the state Democratic Party for that matter ) is apt to follow the national party ’ s lead , even if it puts them at odds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask people to vote for things that might be in their own interest , and you explain the issue to them in one paragraph on the ballot , they will vote for the thing that is good for them , ” said Ari Kohen , a professor of political science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln .
“ But you can ’ t ask them to give up their party affiliation.
” People are reluctant to switch parties , but they can be swayed to change their mind about a specific cause , particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a partisan context .
State Sen. Tony Vargas , a Democrat in Omaha , told me that he thought Medicaid expansion passed — even though Nelson encountered a brouhaha over a similar issue just eight years prior— because it wasn ’ t tied to a particular politician or party .
“ If our ballot said ‘ expanding Obamacare , ’ I feel like people would have voted against it , ” Vargas said .
“ Instead , we said ‘ expanding Medicaid and addressing the gap.
’ … It ’ s a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s much easier to attack the person.
” Nebraka ’ s ballot measure successes provide some hope for Democrats who feel handcuffed in passing legislation in conservative states .
But ballot measures aren ’ t a replacement for putting your preferred party in office .
And if Democrats are to ever regain a filibuster-proof coalition in the Senate , they ’ ll probably need to pick up more candidates like Nelson in low-density states .

Eight years ago, fresh off passing the Affordable Care Act, Democrats controlled the Senate. And it was Ben Nelson, the two-term Democratic senator from Nebraska, who provided the final vote for President Obama’s signature health care bill. But Nelson, who was hardly a reliable Democratic vote, decided not to run for office again, making him one of 18 Democratic senators who did not seek another term between 2010 and 2014. This proved a significant turning point in the Senate for Democrats, however, because half of these seats would be filled by Republicans.
What do 1,200 books about Trump really tell us? | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
In Nebraska, for instance, Democrats nominated Bob Kerrey, a former U.S. senator and Nebraska governor, who consistently had an approval rating upward of 70 percent when he governed the Cornhusker State. But even though he was a high profile Democrat in the state, he lost by 16 percentage points to his opponent, a relatively unknown Republican state senator, Deb Fischer. Kerrey did win the state’s two most populous counties, but not much else, which has now become an all too familiar pattern for Democrats running in Nebraska.
“When that happened in 2012, I said, ‘Something’s changed,’” said Chris Rodgers, a Douglas County commissioner. Rodgers told me that Kerrey’s large margin of defeat made it clear that “it’s just a whole lot harder” for moderate and liberal candidates to win in Nebraska than it used to be.
[Why A Split Verdict In Georgia Isn’t That Crazy]
In the three Senate races in Nebraska since 2012, Democrats have lost by 30 points, on average (or roughly double the margin of Kerrey’s defeat). And in my new book “Rural Rebellion: How Nebraska Became a Republican Stronghold,” I unpack how this happened in Nebraska and why the state’s rightward shift underscores the difficulties Democrats face in gaining and maintaining a Senate majority — regardless of what happens in Georgia’s Senate runoff elections next Tuesday.
When I was born in David City, Nebraska, in 1989, I entered a world where Nebraska straddled the middle of the political spectrum. But since then, the state has drifted so far from the center it’s hard to remember it was ever there. Using DW-NOMINATE data from the congressional vote tallying website Voteview, we can see just how far Nebraska’s political representatives have drifted rightward in the last thirty years. As you can see in the chart below, the average ideology score of Nebraska’s U.S. representatives and senators, as measured by DW-NOMINATE’s first dimension, shifted more than half a point between 1990 and 2020. Put in today’s terms, in 1990, the average Nebraskan in Congress was similar in ideology to outgoing Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama, a moderate; whereas today she would more closely resemble Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who isn’t the most conservative Republican in Congress (that’s Sen. Mike Lee), but still drifts pretty far to the right on the ideological spectrum.
As FiveThirtyEight contributor Lee Drutman wrote earlier this year, the Electoral College has always favored smaller states like Nebraska. But it is only somewhat recently that these states have heavily favored Republicans.
Nebraska’s rightward shift matters because it’s reflective of a broader, national trend in lower population states that has created an imbalance in the Senate. We can see this in FiveThirtyEight’s urbanization index, which captures how urban or rural an area is by calculating the natural logarithm of the average number of people living within a five-mile radius of another resident. Nebraska is less densely populated than the average state and is one of the 25 states (all on the right side of the table) that only accounts for about a quarter of the U.S. population, yet will provide 40 Republican senators and just eight Democratic senators (and two independent senators who caucus with Democrats) in the upcoming congressional session.
How urban or rural is your state? FiveThirtyEight’s partisan lean and urbanization index for each state State Partisan Lean Urbanization Index State Partisan Lean Urbanization Index New York D+22 12.56 North Carolina R+5 10.32 New Jersey D+13 12.24 Missouri R+19 10.20 California D+24 12.19 Nebraska R+24 10.20 Massachusetts D+29 11.84 Tennessee R+28 10.20 Nevada R+1 11.77 Wisconsin R+1 10.19 Rhode Island D+26 11.72 Louisiana R+17 10.18 Maryland D+23 11.71 Kansas R+23 10.12 Illinois D+13 11.62 South Carolina R+17 10.11 Florida R+5 11.46 Oklahoma R+34 9.94 Connecticut D+11 11.41 New Hampshire R+2 9.92 Arizona R+9 11.30 New Mexico D+7 9.90 Texas R+17 11.17 Kentucky R+23 9.79 Colorado D+1 11.15 Alabama R+27 9.61 Pennsylvania R+1 11.15 Idaho R+35 9.59 Washington D+12 11.12 Iowa R+6 9.59 Hawaii D+36 11.09 Arkansas R+24 9.26 Delaware D+14 11.01 West Virginia R+30 9.11 Utah R+31 10.96 North Dakota R+33 9.05 Virginia EVEN 10.91 Maine D+5 9.04 Ohio R+7 10.88 Mississippi R+15 8.91 Michigan D+1 10.81 Vermont D+24 8.84 Oregon D+9 10.71 Alaska R+15 8.74 Georgia R+12 10.55 South Dakota R+31 8.73 Minnesota D+2 10.46 Montana R+18 8.47 Indiana R+18 10.41 Wyoming R+47 8.26 Partisan lean is the average difference between how a state votes and how the country votes overall, with 2016 presidential election results weighted at 50 percent, 2012 presidential election results weighted at 25 percent and results from elections for the state legislature weighted at 25 percent. Note that FiveThirtyEight’s current partisan leans do not yet incorporate the results of the 2018 election. FiveThirtyEight’s urbanization index is calculated as the natural logarithm of the average number of people living within a five-mile radius of a given resident. Source: American Community Survey
Simply put, this increasingly firm grip Republicans have over less populated states doesn’t bode well for Democrats trying to win back the Senate. That’s because in many statewide elections, running up the margins in the cities isn’t enough to win. For instance, even though Nebraska’s two most populous cities, Omaha and Lincoln, are gaining in population and lean left compared to the rest of the state, Republican power remains entrenched in the state. Take the 2018 reelection bids of Gov. Pete Ricketts and Fischer, who both lost Douglas County and Lancaster County but still won their races by double-digit margins. Similarly, Trump lost Nebraska’s two most populous counties in November, but he still won the state’s other 91 counties, putting him well on his way to winning about 60 percent of the state’s total vote. In fact, Republicans routinely win in Nebraska because voter turnout is highest in rural areas, which also have a higher median age and strongly lean Republican.
So what’s driving Nebraska’s (and other states’) rightward shift? In part, it has to do with the nationalization of American politics. Since the 1990s, Democratic voters have moved to the left on issues such as health care and immigration, while Republicans have become more likely to identify as conservative as their moderate candidates have dwindled. And in turn, this nationalization and polarization has made it more difficult for local candidates to successfully create their own platforms. For example, as governor and senator, Nelson often broke from his own party in an attempt to attract conservative voters, taking stances like advocating for a “hard barrier” to prevent illegal immigration or supporting various anti-abortion measures. But the days of candidates creating their own platforms are largely over, and the share of registered Democratic voters in Nebraska has also dropped.
[Why Many Pollsters Are Sitting Out The Georgia Runoffs]
The effect of nationalization in Nebraska is evident in how politicians have changed their approaches on issues like immigration and education to better align with the national Republican Party’s agenda. Take how far to the right Nebraskan politicians have moved on immigration. In the late 1990s, former Republican Gov. Mike Johanns opposed a raid on meatpacking plants in Nebraska by Immigration and Naturalization Services, and in 2003, former Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel cosponsored the DREAM Act, which sought to provide a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who entered the U.S. as minors. But Nebraska’s current governor, Pete Ricketts, has bitterly fought to prevent “Dreamers” from obtaining driver’s licenses, and the state attorney general has gone as far as to sue the federal government to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
This trend extends to lower levels of government, too, like the state legislature and city councils. Republican state lawmakers have also tried to eliminate prenatal care and repeal in-state tuition for immigrants, while giving local police the power to question the immigration status of anyone they suspect of living in the country illegally. A few towns have even passed ordinances that formally ban undocumented immigrants from renting property. All this is happening in a state that, until recently, settled a high number of refugees.
Meanwhile, on the education front, Republican lawmakers have leaned into national Republicans’ growing aversion toward public education, trying to eliminate Nebraska’s democratically elected board of education, while perpetual tax cuts and exemptions have led to two-thirds of Nebraska’s school districts receiving no general financial assistance from the state, which has contributed to public schools in rural Nebraska having “the most inequitable [state aid] distribution in the nation,” according to a nationwide study by the think tank, The Rural School and Community Trust. This is all in a state where Republicans once implemented income and sales taxes to increase K-12 schools’ funding, among a host of other progressive legislation.
But lest one think the effects of nationalization have completely remade states like Nebraska, many Nebraskans disagree with the GOP’s positions. Through ballot initiatives, for instance, Nebraska voters have approved a higher minimum wage, Medicaid expansion and casino gambling, even though Republicans officials, who continue to cruise to statewide victories, have opposed these measures.
It might seem paradoxical that Nebraskans, especially those in rural areas, identify with and vote for Republicans despite the opposition of GOP officials on some popular issues. But because local politics have become so nationalized, the Nebraska Republican Party (and the state Democratic Party for that matter) is apt to follow the national party’s lead, even if it puts them at odds with local voters.
“If you ask people to vote for things that might be in their own interest, and you explain the issue to them in one paragraph on the ballot, they will vote for the thing that is good for them,” said Ari Kohen, a professor of political science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “But you can’t ask them to give up their party affiliation.”
People are reluctant to switch parties, but they can be swayed to change their mind about a specific cause, particularly when an issue is presented outside of a partisan context. State Sen. Tony Vargas, a Democrat in Omaha, told me that he thought Medicaid expansion passed — even though Nelson encountered a brouhaha over a similar issue just eight years prior— because it wasn’t tied to a particular politician or party. “If our ballot said ‘expanding Obamacare,’ I feel like people would have voted against it,” Vargas said. “Instead, we said ‘expanding Medicaid and addressing the gap.’ … It’s a lot harder to attack the issue. It’s much easier to attack the person.”
Nebraka’s ballot measure successes provide some hope for Democrats who feel handcuffed in passing legislation in conservative states. But ballot measures aren’t a replacement for putting your preferred party in office. And if Democrats are to ever regain a filibuster-proof coalition in the Senate, they’ll probably need to pick up more candidates like Nelson in low-density states.
Dr. Fauci on life post-vaccine and Biden’s approach to the pandemic | FiveThirtyEight


fivethirthyeight--2020-12-30--Baseball Lost A Team Of Legends This Year

2020 has been a difficult year of loss in every corner of the world .
It ’ s also been keenly cruel to the collective memory of Major League Baseball — and its best players .
To be sure , we lose icons in the sport every year .
But the sheer number and depth of the talent among those who died in 2020 is overwhelming .
In the span of just a few weeks , not just one but two iconic St. Louis Cardinals died : Bob Gibson and Lou Brock .
These were defining members of many Cardinals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the St. Louis family for decades after their careers ended .
They were routinely included in opening day festivities at Busch Stadium , wearing their red jackets .
We lost Tom Seaver , the defining Met .
Joe Morgan , perhaps the best second baseman to ever play the game , with the Cincinnati Reds and numerous other teams .
Whitey Ford , big game pitcher par excellence for the New York Yankees .
Al Kaline : Mr. Tiger .
And just Saturday , we lost Phil Neikro , the master of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Fame players .
To put it in perspective , we lost seven Hall of Famers combined from 2016 to 2019 : Frank Robinson in 2019 ; Willie McCovey and Red Schoendienst in 2018 ; Roy Halladay , Jim Bunning and Bobby Doerr in 2017 ; and Monte Irvin in 2016 .
The last time as many as four Hall of Famers died was 2010 , when Ron Santo , Robin Roberts , Bob Feller and Sparky Anderson all passed — though Anderson had earned induction as a manager , not a player @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the century , it ’ s one or two Hall of Famers ; in 2004 and 2008 , it was none .
What also separates 2020 , though , is the sheer depth of talent we lost .
And that ’ s been what continues to hit home for me : the list includes longtime stars , All-Stars and postseason heroes beyond those who were inducted into Cooperstown .
To make sense of it all , I wanted to think of it in baseball terms , to appreciate just how much player production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 .
This year has seen the deaths of 15 hitters and nine pitchers with at least 10 career wins above replacement , including 10 above 40 WAR .
Compare that to 2019 : eight hitters , six pitchers above 10 WAR , just three players above 40 .
Or 2018 : eight hitters , seven pitchers at or above 10 WAR , with McCovey , Schoendienst and Rusty Staub the only three above 40 .
This is no mere calculation .
Every hit , every strikeout , every diving catch is remembered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watched or listened to it , those who witnessed it in person .
So to truly comprehend the number and ability of the baseball players we lost in 2020 , I ’ ve compiled a 26-man roster of those who died this year .
Say what you will about the Dodgers : This is a team that I think could beat anyone .
C Hal Smith , 4.2 career WAR , 1955-64 : Smith enjoyed a distinguished decade-long career catching for the Orioles , Kansas City Athletics , Pirates , Houston Colt .45s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role for the 1960 World Champion Pirates , slashing .295/.351/.508 for the eventual winners , and served as Houston ’ s catcher in the team ’ s very first game in 1962 .
He homered , too , as the Colt .45s won 11-2 .
Smith finished his career with three double-digit home run seasons , a slash line of .267/.317/.394 , and yet somehow , on this team , he ’ s probably the No .
8 hitter .
1B Bob Watson , 28.3 WAR , 1966-84 : Among the many distinguished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worthy , players on this team , Watson made a pair of All-Star teams and earned MVP votes in three different seasons .
The longtime Astro — who also saw time with the Red Sox , Yankees and Braves — drove in 100 runs twice .
1975 is an example of his typical consistency : a .324/.375/.495 slash line , with 18 home runs and an OPS+ of 149 .
2B Joe Morgan , 100.5 WAR , 1963-84 : The most valuable everyday player and owner of the second-best WAR on the roster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base for more than two decades .
He made 10 All-Star teams , captured two MLB MVPs as the best player on the Cincinnati Reds dynasty of the mid-1970s , and did essentially everything well on a baseball field .
His career slash line of .271/.392/.427 understates his offensive greatness , with much of that raw production coming during the offensively challenged 1960s .
His OPS+ of 132 is impressive for any position , but it ’ s fourth all-time among the 177 primary second basemen with at least 1,000 games played in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 58.8 WAR , 1963-77 : From a legacy perspective , this hurts most of all .
Allen is , by all rights , a Hall of Famer , but his reputation of being difficult — something our 2020 eyes must see through the lens of being an outspoken Black man in Philadelphia in the 1960s — kept him from enshrinement .
He looked set to get enough votes from this year ’ s Golden Era Veterans ’ Committee , but COVID-19 pushed back by a year that meeting , which is held in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the call is made to honor a career featuring a remarkable 156 career OPS+ , the NL Rookie of the Year award , seven All-Star seasons and an AL MVP award , it will be up to the rest of us to stress how long overdue it was .
SS Tony Fernández , 45.3 WAR , 1983-2001 : Fernández falls just shy of Hall of Fame enshrinement , according to Jay Jaffe , the dean of such evaluations , but had a tremendous career all the same .
He made five All-Star teams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most important defensive position , with a .288/.347/.399 career slash line .
He stole 20 bases or more in seven seasons and played on five different postseason teams — with .327/.367/.420 career production in the playoffs .
LF Lou Brock , 45.4 WAR , 1961-79 : The prototype for the speedy leadoff hitter , Brock stole 938 bases , made six All-Star teams and served as a fixture for three NL pennant-winning teams in St. Louis , including the World Series winners in 1964 and 1967 .
Brock ’ s raw slash line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the era — he led the NL in doubles and triples in 1968 , and his ability to collect hits never disappeared .
He finished with a .298 average over the final decade of his career , and in his final season at age 40 , he hit .304 .
CF Jim Wynn , 55.8 WAR , 1963-77 : To get a sense of how great Jimmy Wynn was , consider that there are three Hall of Fame hitters on this roster , and yet Wynn ’ s WAR ranks third among them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Wynn would have been adored by the sabermetric crowd — he produced a park-adjusted OPS+ of 129 — but a low batting average compounded by the era in which he played for much of his time made for a career slash line of just .250/.366/.436 .
( For context : Carlos Beltran , playing in a much more hitting-friendly period , finished with a raw slash line of .279/.350/.486 , but his OPS+ was just 119 . )
Even so , Wynn cleared 30 home runs in three seasons , made three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this stacked lineup .
RF Al Kaline , 92.8 WAR , 1953-74 : Mr. Tiger , one of the greatest to ever play the game , was an 18-time All-Star with 10 Gold Gloves .
By WAR , he ’ s the fourth-best right fielder in the history of the game , trailing only Hank Aaron , Mel Ott and Roberto Clemente .
His greatness started early — a batting title at age 20 — and didn ’ t wane for decades , with Kaline hitting .379/.400/.655 in the 1968 World Series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Cardinals .
Kaline would be the three hitter in this lineup and a formidable figure on any team .
3B Tony Taylor , 23.2 WAR , 1958-76 : Taylor made both All-Star teams in 1960 ( they played twice back then ! )
, served as a key member of some good and many not-so-good Phillies teams and eventually enjoyed three — yes , three — Tony Taylor Days in Philadelphia .
Don ’ t let them fool you about Philly fans .
OF Claudell Washington , 19.6 WAR , 1974-90 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who played all three positions .
2B Frank Bolling , 16.9 WAR , 1954-66 : Bolling was an elite fielder at second base with some power and was an All-Star in 1961 and 1962 .
OF/1B Jay Johnstone , 16.5 WAR , 1966-85 : A lefty bat off the bench who could play all three outfield positions along with first base .
IF Horace Clarke , 15.7 WAR , 1965-74 : Clarke was a defining Yankee , to fans of a certain age , who could play second , third and short .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1965-75 : A four-time All-Star and a Gold Glove winner at second base who could fill in around the infield or outfield .
Honorable mention : 1965 World Series hero OF Sweet Lou Johnson , 2B Damaso Garcia and 3B/SS Kim Batiste , who did this in the first playoff game I ever attended .
SP Tom Seaver , 106 WAR , 1967-86 : The Franchise was easily the best player in New York Mets history , and there ’ s an argument for him as the best pitcher in MLB history , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and won three Cy Young Awards , along with five other top-five finishes in the Cy Young voting .
His WAR ranks seventh all-time for pitchers , and five of the six ahead of him pitched decades before , during a pre-integrated MLB period , while Roger Clemens is the other — with his own complicated legacy .
This is a deep , talented staff , but Tom Seaver gets the ball in Game 1 of any series it would play .
SP Bob Gibson , 81.7 WAR , 1959-75 : A No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , really , Gibson is 25th in WAR among all pitchers , meaning two of the top 25 in the history of the game died this year .
Gibson might be ahead of Seaver if we ’ re purely talking 1968 , when Gibson set the record in the live-ball era for single-season ERA at just 1.12 .
He was a nine-time All-Star and two-time Cy Young Award winner , and he won nine Gold Gloves .
He also may have pitched the single most dominant World Series game ever .
SP Phil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is easy to get lost in the sheer magnitude of Niekro ’ s productivity — fourth all-time in innings pitched , with only Cy Young , Pud Galvin and Walter Johnson ahead of him — or the novelty of his pitch , the knuckleball , and miss just how great Niekro was at his best .
He had five top-six Cy Young Award vote finishes , spreading them out over three different decades .
He fielded his position extraordinarily well over his entire career — he won five Gold Gloves , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was 44 years old .
He led the league in ERA and in winning percentage , but not in the same year — those two things happened 15 years apart !
Niekro ’ s pitch , and his mastery of it , helped propel his singular career .
And sadly , not only is he gone , but the knuckleball is , for now , extinct from MLB as well .
SP Whitey Ford , 53.6 WAR , 1950-67 : The best big-game starting pitcher in New York Yankees history ( a 2.71 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and author of a 25-4 , 3.21 ERA season in the 1961 Maris-Mantle campaign , Ford was a critical part of 11 American League pennant winners and six World Series champions .
He made 10 All-Star teams ( two years he made two of them ) and won a pair of ERA titles , rolling out stellar year after year playing in front of one of the greatest teams ever .
SP Johnny Antonelli , 31.2 WAR , 1948-61 : Just a few minutes away from Ford , another big-game pitcher plied his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Antonelli ’ s 21-7 , 2.30 ERA season in 1954 won him the ERA title and a third-place MVP finish , before his 0.84 ERA in the World Series , including a complete game , helped New York upset the favored Cleveland Indians .
Antonelli went west with the Giants and made both All-Star teams in 1959 , among his six overall appearances as an All-Star .
A stellar career .
RP Don Larsen , 12.5 WAR , 1953-67 : Larsen belongs on this team not just because he did something in 1956 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a perfect game in the World Series .
People like to boil his career down to that one game , but consider how well Larsen pitched for New York from 1955 to 1958 : a 39-17 record , a 3.31 ERA .
Larsen was a quality pitcher , and he certainly rose to the moment .
RP Ron Perranoski , 18.9 WAR , 1961-73 : A shutdown closer , in the fireman variety as opposed to the typical one-inning guy , who dominated for the mid-1960s Dodgers and late-1960s Twins .
He won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
RP Lindy McDaniel , 29.0 WAR , 1955-75 : McDaniel was reliable in any role .
His 1960 campaign for the Cardinals was exemplary but far from atypical : 12 wins , 27 saves , a 2.09 ERA and third in the Cy Young Award voting .
RP Dick Hyde , 6.1 WAR , 1955-61 : A terribly underrated reliever who in 1958 posted a 1.75 ERA and led the American League in saves with the Washington Senators .
RP Mike McCormick , 17.4 WAR , 1956-71 : An absolute stud of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starter ( 1967 NL Cy Young with the San Francisco Giants with league-leading 22 wins ) and a reliever , so we ’ re using him here as the primary lefty out of the pen who could go multiple innings .
RP Bob Lee , 8.7 WAR , 1964-68 : Posted consecutive seasons with a sub-2.00 ERA to begin his career with the Angels in 1964-65 .

2020 has been a difficult year of loss in every corner of the world. It’s also been keenly cruel to the collective memory of Major League Baseball — and its best players. To be sure, we lose icons in the sport every year. But the sheer number and depth of the talent among those who died in 2020 is overwhelming.
In the span of just a few weeks, not just one but two iconic St. Louis Cardinals died: Bob Gibson and Lou Brock. These were defining members of many Cardinals championship teams as players who stayed within the St. Louis family for decades after their careers ended. They were routinely included in opening day festivities at Busch Stadium, wearing their red jackets.
We lost Tom Seaver, the defining Met. Joe Morgan, perhaps the best second baseman to ever play the game, with the Cincinnati Reds and numerous other teams. Whitey Ford, big game pitcher par excellence for the New York Yankees. Al Kaline: Mr. Tiger. And just Saturday, we lost Phil Neikro, the master of the knuckleball.
That’s seven Hall of Fame players. To put it in perspective, we lost seven Hall of Famers combined from 2016 to 2019: Frank Robinson in 2019; Willie McCovey and Red Schoendienst in 2018; Roy Halladay, Jim Bunning and Bobby Doerr in 2017; and Monte Irvin in 2016.
The last time as many as four Hall of Famers died was 2010, when Ron Santo, Robin Roberts, Bob Feller and Sparky Anderson all passed — though Anderson had earned induction as a manager, not a player. Most years since the turn of the century, it’s one or two Hall of Famers; in 2004 and 2008, it was none.
What also separates 2020, though, is the sheer depth of talent we lost. And that’s been what continues to hit home for me: the list includes longtime stars, All-Stars and postseason heroes beyond those who were inducted into Cooperstown. To make sense of it all, I wanted to think of it in baseball terms, to appreciate just how much player production came from players who have died in 2020.
This year has seen the deaths of 15 hitters and nine pitchers with at least 10 career wins above replacement, including 10 above 40 WAR. Compare that to 2019: eight hitters, six pitchers above 10 WAR, just three players above 40. Or 2018: eight hitters, seven pitchers at or above 10 WAR, with McCovey, Schoendienst and Rusty Staub the only three above 40.
This is no mere calculation. Every hit, every strikeout, every diving catch is remembered by thousands of people, those who watched or listened to it, those who witnessed it in person. So to truly comprehend the number and ability of the baseball players we lost in 2020, I’ve compiled a 26-man roster of those who died this year. Say what you will about the Dodgers: This is a team that I think could beat anyone.
Hitters
Starting lineup
C Hal Smith, 4.2 career WAR, 1955-64: Smith enjoyed a distinguished decade-long career catching for the Orioles, Kansas City Athletics, Pirates, Houston Colt .45s and Reds. He played a key role for the 1960 World Champion Pirates, slashing .295/.351/.508 for the eventual winners, and served as Houston’s catcher in the team’s very first game in 1962. He homered, too, as the Colt .45s won 11-2. Smith finished his career with three double-digit home run seasons, a slash line of .267/.317/.394, and yet somehow, on this team, he’s probably the No. 8 hitter.
1B Bob Watson, 28.3 WAR, 1966-84: Among the many distinguished, if not quite Hall of Fame worthy, players on this team, Watson made a pair of All-Star teams and earned MVP votes in three different seasons. The longtime Astro — who also saw time with the Red Sox, Yankees and Braves — drove in 100 runs twice. 1975 is an example of his typical consistency: a .324/.375/.495 slash line, with 18 home runs and an OPS+ of 149.
2B Joe Morgan, 100.5 WAR, 1963-84: The most valuable everyday player and owner of the second-best WAR on the roster, Morgan defined the position of second base for more than two decades. He made 10 All-Star teams, captured two MLB MVPs as the best player on the Cincinnati Reds dynasty of the mid-1970s, and did essentially everything well on a baseball field. His career slash line of .271/.392/.427 understates his offensive greatness, with much of that raw production coming during the offensively challenged 1960s. His OPS+ of 132 is impressive for any position, but it’s fourth all-time among the 177 primary second basemen with at least 1,000 games played in MLB history.
3B Dick Allen, 58.8 WAR, 1963-77: From a legacy perspective, this hurts most of all. Allen is, by all rights, a Hall of Famer, but his reputation of being difficult — something our 2020 eyes must see through the lens of being an outspoken Black man in Philadelphia in the 1960s — kept him from enshrinement. He looked set to get enough votes from this year’s Golden Era Veterans’ Committee, but COVID-19 pushed back by a year that meeting, which is held in person. Now, if and when the call is made to honor a career featuring a remarkable 156 career OPS+, the NL Rookie of the Year award, seven All-Star seasons and an AL MVP award, it will be up to the rest of us to stress how long overdue it was.
SS Tony Fernández, 45.3 WAR, 1983-2001: Fernández falls just shy of Hall of Fame enshrinement, according to Jay Jaffe, the dean of such evaluations, but had a tremendous career all the same. He made five All-Star teams and won four Gold Gloves at the most important defensive position, with a .288/.347/.399 career slash line. He stole 20 bases or more in seven seasons and played on five different postseason teams — with .327/.367/.420 career production in the playoffs.
LF Lou Brock, 45.4 WAR, 1961-79: The prototype for the speedy leadoff hitter, Brock stole 938 bases, made six All-Star teams and served as a fixture for three NL pennant-winning teams in St. Louis, including the World Series winners in 1964 and 1967. Brock’s raw slash line of .293/.343/.410 is also underrated because of the era — he led the NL in doubles and triples in 1968, and his ability to collect hits never disappeared. He finished with a .298 average over the final decade of his career, and in his final season at age 40, he hit .304.
CF Jim Wynn, 55.8 WAR, 1963-77: To get a sense of how great Jimmy Wynn was, consider that there are three Hall of Fame hitters on this roster, and yet Wynn’s WAR ranks third among them in the group, ahead of Brock. Wynn would have been adored by the sabermetric crowd — he produced a park-adjusted OPS+ of 129 — but a low batting average compounded by the era in which he played for much of his time made for a career slash line of just .250/.366/.436. (For context: Carlos Beltran, playing in a much more hitting-friendly period, finished with a raw slash line of .279/.350/.486, but his OPS+ was just 119.) Even so, Wynn cleared 30 home runs in three seasons, made three All-Star teams and would probably hit cleanup in this stacked lineup.
RF Al Kaline, 92.8 WAR, 1953-74: Mr. Tiger, one of the greatest to ever play the game, was an 18-time All-Star with 10 Gold Gloves. By WAR, he’s the fourth-best right fielder in the history of the game, trailing only Hank Aaron, Mel Ott and Roberto Clemente. His greatness started early — a batting title at age 20 — and didn’t wane for decades, with Kaline hitting .379/.400/.655 in the 1968 World Series for the Tigers in a win over the Cardinals. Kaline would be the three hitter in this lineup and a formidable figure on any team.
Bench
3B Tony Taylor, 23.2 WAR, 1958-76: Taylor made both All-Star teams in 1960 (they played twice back then!), served as a key member of some good and many not-so-good Phillies teams and eventually enjoyed three — yes, three — Tony Taylor Days in Philadelphia. Don’t let them fool you about Philly fans.
OF Claudell Washington, 19.6 WAR, 1974-90: A two-time All-Star and perfect fourth outfielder who played all three positions.
2B Frank Bolling, 16.9 WAR, 1954-66: Bolling was an elite fielder at second base with some power and was an All-Star in 1961 and 1962.
OF/1B Jay Johnstone, 16.5 WAR, 1966-85: A lefty bat off the bench who could play all three outfield positions along with first base.
IF Horace Clarke, 15.7 WAR, 1965-74: Clarke was a defining Yankee, to fans of a certain age, who could play second, third and short.
C Ed FitzGerald, 1.4 WAR, 1948-59: FitzGerald was a defense-first backup catcher.
2B Glenn Beckert, 15.6 WAR, 1965-75: A four-time All-Star and a Gold Glove winner at second base who could fill in around the infield or outfield.
Honorable mention: 1965 World Series hero OF Sweet Lou Johnson, 2B Damaso Garcia and 3B/SS Kim Batiste, who did this in the first playoff game I ever attended.
Pitchers
Rotation
SP Tom Seaver, 106 WAR, 1967-86: The Franchise was easily the best player in New York Mets history, and there’s an argument for him as the best pitcher in MLB history, too. Seaver made 12 All-Star teams and won three Cy Young Awards, along with five other top-five finishes in the Cy Young voting. His WAR ranks seventh all-time for pitchers, and five of the six ahead of him pitched decades before, during a pre-integrated MLB period, while Roger Clemens is the other — with his own complicated legacy. This is a deep, talented staff, but Tom Seaver gets the ball in Game 1 of any series it would play.
SP Bob Gibson, 81.7 WAR, 1959-75: A No. 2 starter only on this team, really, Gibson is 25th in WAR among all pitchers, meaning two of the top 25 in the history of the game died this year. Gibson might be ahead of Seaver if we’re purely talking 1968, when Gibson set the record in the live-ball era for single-season ERA at just 1.12. He was a nine-time All-Star and two-time Cy Young Award winner, and he won nine Gold Gloves. He also may have pitched the single most dominant World Series game ever.
SP Phil Niekro, 97 WAR, 1964-87: It is easy to get lost in the sheer magnitude of Niekro’s productivity — fourth all-time in innings pitched, with only Cy Young, Pud Galvin and Walter Johnson ahead of him — or the novelty of his pitch, the knuckleball, and miss just how great Niekro was at his best. He had five top-six Cy Young Award vote finishes, spreading them out over three different decades. He fielded his position extraordinarily well over his entire career — he won five Gold Gloves, the last coming in 1983, when he was 44 years old. He led the league in ERA and in winning percentage, but not in the same year — those two things happened 15 years apart! Niekro’s pitch, and his mastery of it, helped propel his singular career. And sadly, not only is he gone, but the knuckleball is, for now, extinct from MLB as well.
SP Whitey Ford, 53.6 WAR, 1950-67: The best big-game starting pitcher in New York Yankees history (a 2.71 ERA over 22 World Series starts) and author of a 25-4, 3.21 ERA season in the 1961 Maris-Mantle campaign, Ford was a critical part of 11 American League pennant winners and six World Series champions. He made 10 All-Star teams (two years he made two of them) and won a pair of ERA titles, rolling out stellar year after year playing in front of one of the greatest teams ever.
SP Johnny Antonelli, 31.2 WAR, 1948-61: Just a few minutes away from Ford, another big-game pitcher plied his trade for the New York Giants. Antonelli’s 21-7, 2.30 ERA season in 1954 won him the ERA title and a third-place MVP finish, before his 0.84 ERA in the World Series, including a complete game, helped New York upset the favored Cleveland Indians. Antonelli went west with the Giants and made both All-Star teams in 1959, among his six overall appearances as an All-Star. A stellar career.
Bullpen
RP Don Larsen, 12.5 WAR, 1953-67: Larsen belongs on this team not just because he did something in 1956 that nobody else has done: pitch a perfect game in the World Series. People like to boil his career down to that one game, but consider how well Larsen pitched for New York from 1955 to 1958: a 39-17 record, a 3.31 ERA. Larsen was a quality pitcher, and he certainly rose to the moment.
RP Ron Perranoski, 18.9 WAR, 1961-73: A shutdown closer, in the fireman variety as opposed to the typical one-inning guy, who dominated for the mid-1960s Dodgers and late-1960s Twins. He won MVP votes three times as a reliever.
RP Lindy McDaniel, 29.0 WAR, 1955-75: McDaniel was reliable in any role. His 1960 campaign for the Cardinals was exemplary but far from atypical: 12 wins, 27 saves, a 2.09 ERA and third in the Cy Young Award voting.
RP Dick Hyde, 6.1 WAR, 1955-61: A terribly underrated reliever who in 1958 posted a 1.75 ERA and led the American League in saves with the Washington Senators.
RP Mike McCormick, 17.4 WAR, 1956-71: An absolute stud of a pitcher who succeeded as both a starter (1967 NL Cy Young with the San Francisco Giants with league-leading 22 wins) and a reliever, so we’re using him here as the primary lefty out of the pen who could go multiple innings.
RP Bob Lee, 8.7 WAR, 1964-68: Posted consecutive seasons with a sub-2.00 ERA to begin his career with the Angels in 1964-65.