fivethirthyeight--2020-08-19--Who Made The Most Of The NBA Restart?

Who Made The Most Of The NBA Restart?

The NBA playoffs finally started in earnest on Monday , though most of the league has been in a Disney World bubble since July for the season restart ( which included eight games for every team , plus a play-in contest for the Portland Trail Blazers and Memphis Grizzlies ) .
And what did we learn from that sample of games ?
For players on each team in the bubble , we crunched the numbers in RAPTOR — our new ( ish ) NBA metric — to see who played the best in the “ regular season ” portion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance the most … and who underwhelmed his pre-bubble expectations .
Overall , the best player of the restart was not unanimous seeding-games MVP Damian Lillard of Portland , though he was close .
According to RAPTOR , James Harden of the Houston Rockets generated slightly more WAR in the bubble — edging out Dame 2.8 to 2.4 — followed by Devin Booker of the Phoenix Suns ( who went a perfect 8-0 ) : Booker ’ s restart performance was a great story , even if his season technically ended without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest of the players who did actually move on to the playoffs ?
Let ’ s run down the highlights and lowlights of the restart for each team , beginning with those at the top of our predicted odds for the championship : Restart record : 5-3 Elo change : +13 ( 6th ) Best restart player ( by RAPTOR wins above replacement ) : SF Kawhi Leonard ( 1.65 WAR ) This was a close race between Leonard and Paul George , who put up 1.62 WAR in the restart .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on offense , where we estimate he ’ s adding 11.0 more points per 100 possessions than an average player .
Compared with his regular-season numbers from before the restart , Leonard improved his true shooting percentage and assist-to-turnover ratio in the seeding games , and the Clippers scored a ridiculous 127.0 points per 100 with him on the court — 24.7 points per 100 better than their offensive rating without him .
Most impressive player : SF Paul George ( +7.3 change in RAPTOR during restart ) George was already a top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , accumulating 5.5 WAR ( 21st-most in the league ) with a +6.0 RAPTOR during the pre-coronavirus section of the 2019-20 season .
But he has stepped his game up significantly during the restart , with a +13.3 rating since play resumed .
Of particular note has been George ’ s improved defensive RAPTOR , which rose from a +1.8 ( good but not great ) to a +6.5 ( seventh-best in the league ) , a number much more in keeping with George ’ s reputation as an elite stopper earlier in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ usually think too highly of Shamet , whom it has considered a subpar player in the past couple of regular seasons .
But Shamet ’ s rating usually consists of a decent offensive contribution — fueled by good 3-point shooting — and a below-average defensive grade .
In the restart , Shamet has kept the latter ( his defensive RAPTOR is -0.3 ) , but his offense has fallen to -4.9 points per 100 , a dip of 5.3 points from his pre-break average .
After making just 21 percent of his threes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rediscover his touch in order to help the Clippers reach their championship potential .
In terms of WAR , Giannis essentially tied with teammate Brook Lopez for the team lead during the restart .
Antetokounmpo did it while taking things relatively easy , logging just 25.7 minutes per game ( versus the 30.9 he averaged before the pause ) , and the Bucks themselves did not have an overly impressive seeding round , winning just three of eight contests .
But on a per-possession basis , Giannis continued to dominate ; his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher than his +9.2 rating from before , part of a very likely MVP season .
Even if Milwaukee was guilty of treating the seeding games like a tune-up , Giannis ’ s game was still firing on all cylinders .
Most impressive player : C Brook Lopez ( +6.3 change in RAPTOR ) Before the season was put on hold , RAPTOR thought Lopez ’ s primary value to the Bucks lay in his defense , where he rated 3.9 points per 100 better than an average player .
Offensively , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less valuable as a floor spacer , shooting under 30 percent from downtown .
Since the restart , though , Lopez remained a stellar defender ( +4.4 RAPTOR ) , and he was markedly better on offense ( +3.7 ) , making nearly 40 percent of his threes and averaging over 20 points per game .
Although Lopez struggled in Game 1 of the Bucks ’ playoff series against Orlando Tuesday , Milwaukee is hoping he can maintain his restart form — or even reprise his performance from last year ’ s postseason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was 6.2 points per 100 better than his regular-season rating .
Looking beyond better-known players such as Antetokounmpo and Khris Middleton , DiVincenzo had been one of the best-kept secrets behind Milwaukee ’ s dominating regular season .
With a RAPTOR of +4.5 , including a +3.0 on defense , the second-year guard out of Villanova was excelling at both ends of the court .
But he has struggled at both ends during the restart , as his RAPTOR has fallen to -4.0 with poor shooting and a sky-high turnover rate .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8.4 points per 100 ) was the third-worst of any qualified player during the seeding games .
The Lakers had an incredibly uninspired restart upon arriving in the bubble , and that even shows up with their best player from these games .
LeBron James , who had a strong case for MVP when play ceased in March , was just L.A. ’ s fourth-best player ( with 0.38 WAR ) during the seeding round , with a RAPTOR 7.1 points per 100 below his previous regular-season norm — and somehow he wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( see below ) .
For his part , Davis outplayed LeBron but also produced a RAPTOR 2.0 points below his rating from before the break , with a marked decline on offense .
Only one Laker who played at least 120 minutes in the bubble actually improved on his RAPTOR from before the pause — and that was Kuzma , who has gotten significantly better at both ends of the floor in Orlando , particularly on offense .
Kuzma shot much more efficiently ( improving his true shooting to 59.3 percent after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and was far more careful with the ball ( improving his assist-to-turnover ratio from 0.81 to 1.83 ) .
James and Davis will most likely be just fine in the playoffs , but it was encouraging for the Lakers to see Kuzma potentially take a long-awaited step forward when L.A. needs it most .
Somehow , Green undershot expectations even more than James did during this mostly listless return to play .
Green was having an incredibly effective season ( +3.4 RAPTOR ) as a 3-and-D wing before the break , knocking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep and contributing a +2.6 rating on defense per 100 possessions .
In the seeding games , however , Green was merely an average defender ( 0.0 RAPTOR ) and made only 25 percent of his threes , to go with a terrible assist-to-turnover ratio ( 0.56 ) and a dreadful -4.2 offensive RAPTOR overall .
L.A. needs better from Green in a crucial support role around James and Davis .
Teams in the next group all have at least a 1 percent chance to win the title — but all are also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top three .
So we ’ ll quickly break down their best and worst performers of the restart thus far : Boston ’ s best player in the restart was SF Jaylen Brown ( 0.95 WAR ) , who built on his strong pre-break numbers with a much-improved defensive RAPTOR — going from -0.5 to +2.5 — since play resumed .
But the most impressive Celtic has been PG Brad Wanamaker , owner of a +7.2 RAPTOR during the restart … 9.3 points per 100 better than his pre-restart number .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Semi Ojeleye was Boston ’ s most disappointing player in the bubble , with a RAPTOR 5.5 points per 100 lower than before the break — including a dip of 5.6 points per 100 on defense for a player whose calling card has been his defense .
As we mentioned earlier , SG James Harden was RAPTOR ’ s most valuable player of the restart ( 2.78 WAR ) .
He was also Houston ’ s most improved player in the bubble , elevating his rating by 9.9 points per 100 .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already had the highest RAPTOR of any qualified NBA player beforehand .
So the most dangerous player in the league went out and doubled his rating in the most recent sample of games — ones that saw Harden average over 34 points per game with a 73 percent true shooting percentage and an assist on nearly 47 percent of teammate baskets , to go with solid defensive tracking numbers .
As for Houston ’ s most disappointing player ?
That would be SG Austin Rivers , whose RAPTOR dropped by 4.4 points per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a -5.7 ( nearly equally bad on offense and defense ) .
The defending champs were one of the most impressive teams of the seeding round , and a lot of that had to do with SF OG Anunoby .
Anunoby was both Toronto ’ s best player ( 0.87 WAR ) and its most improved one , elevating his RAPTOR from a respectable +0.5 through March to a strong +7.1 during the restart ( including a +6.9 mark on defense ) .
Along with Marc Gasol , Pascal Siakam and Rondae Hollis-Jefferson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finished the regular season ranked second in efficiency .
One of the only concerns for Toronto might involve rookie SG Terence Davis , whose RAPTOR dropped by a team-worst 8.7 points per 100 during the restart , thanks to a variety of statistical indicators that were significantly worse across the board .
With everyone waiting to see how C Nikola Jokić would play after slimming down and fighting off the coronavirus , the multitalented 7-footer didn ’ t disappoint .
Jokić led the Nuggets during the seeding games with 1.11 WAR , improving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his output from a season ago ( when he finished fourth in MVP voting ) .
Denver ’ s most impressive breakout came from rookie PF Michael Porter Jr. , who was merely average ( +0.2 RAPTOR ) before the pause but improved to a +4.1 RAPTOR during the restart .
Meanwhile , PG Monte Morris continued to slide in his second year as a regular .
After already dipping from a +2.8 RAPTOR last season to a -0.8 rating through March , he registered a -5.4 RAPTOR in the bubble , fueled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With Ben Simmons suffering a season-ending knee injury , the bubble has already been unkind to the Sixers .
But his absence has meant an expanded role for SG Alec Burks , who led Philly with 0.80 WAR during the restart , edging out PF Tobias Harris ( 0.72 ) .
Burks was Philadelphia ’ s most impressive performer as well , erupting for a RAPTOR of +8.3 in the bubble after sitting at -0.4 at the break ( and doing little of note in 11 games after arriving via trade with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burks has a scorching +8.6 RAPTOR on offense alone , thanks to a 135.8 individual offensive rating during the seeding games .
In reality , the most disappointing Sixer is probably Simmons , since his injury all but ruins whatever chance Philly had at the title — but statistically , SG Shake Milton had the roughest restart , with a RAPTOR 6.4 points per 100 below his regular-season level heading into the bubble .
The rest of the playoff field all boasts less than a 1 percent chance of winning the championship , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most surprising and most underwhelming players of the restart thusly : Best player : PG Luka Dončić ( 1.22 WAR ) Most impressive : PF Dorian Finney-Smith ( +3.8 change in RAPTOR ) Most disappointing : SG Seth Curry ( -7.0 change in RAPTOR ) Best player : PG Goran Dragić ( 0.87 WAR ) Most impressive : Dragić ( +10.5 change in RAPTOR ) Most disappointing : PF Bam Adebayo ( +0.4 change in RAPTOR ) Best player : C Rudy Gobert ( 0.82 WAR ) Most impressive : PG Mike Conley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappointing : C Tony Bradley ( -6.1 change in RAPTOR ) Best player : SF T.J. Warren ( 1.06 WAR ) Most impressive : PG T.J. McConnell ( +11.6 change in RAPTOR ) Most disappointing : PF Doug McDermott ( -8.1 change in RAPTOR ) Best player : PG Chris Paul ( 1.16 WAR ) Most impressive : SF Hamidou Diallo ( +6.8 change in RAPTOR ) Most disappointing : SG Luguentz Dort ( -0.9 change in RAPTOR ) Best player : PG Damian Lillard ( 2.42 WAR ) Most impressive : SG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RAPTOR ) Most disappointing : SG CJ McCollum ( -6.1 change in RAPTOR ) Best player : C Nikola Vučević ( 1.33 WAR ) Most impressive : SG Evan Fournier ( +7.7 change in RAPTOR ) Most disappointing : SF Wes Iwundu ( -3.6 change in RAPTOR ) Best player : SG Timothe Luwawu-Cabarrot ( 0.73 WAR ) Most impressive : SG Tyler Johnson ( +6.5 change in RAPTOR ) Most disappointing : SF Joe Harris ( -3.8 change in RAPTOR )

The NBA playoffs finally started in earnest on Monday, though most of the league has been in a Disney World bubble since July for the season restart (which included eight games for every team, plus a play-in contest for the Portland Trail Blazers and Memphis Grizzlies). And what did we learn from that sample of games? For players on each team in the bubble, we crunched the numbers in RAPTOR — our new(ish) NBA metric — to see who played the best in the “regular season” portion of the restart, who exceeded his pre-break performance the most … and who underwhelmed his pre-bubble expectations.
Overall, the best player of the restart was not unanimous seeding-games MVP Damian Lillard of Portland, though he was close. According to RAPTOR, James Harden of the Houston Rockets generated slightly more WAR in the bubble — edging out Dame 2.8 to 2.4 — followed by Devin Booker of the Phoenix Suns (who went a perfect 8-0):
RAPTOR’s top players of the NBA restart Most RAPTOR wins above replacement (WAR) generated by NBA players during the 2019-20 regular-season restart RAPTOR ratings Player Team Offense Defense Total WAR James Harden HOU +15.0 +4.4 +19.4 2.78 Damian Lillard POR 13.8 -2.6 11.2 2.42 Devin Booker PHO 9.8 0.1 9.9 1.76 Kawhi Leonard LAC 11.0 2.4 13.4 1.65 Paul George LAC 6.9 6.5 13.3 1.62 Nikola Vučević ORL 4.2 4.1 8.3 1.33 Nemanja Bjelica SAC 2.8 7.5 10.3 1.28 Derrick White SAS 3.5 5.3 8.8 1.25 Luka Dončić DAL 6.7 0.1 6.8 1.22 Gary Trent Jr. POR 6.4 -0.6 5.8 1.19 Bogdan Bogdanović SAC 6.1 0.0 6.0 1.17 Chris Paul OKC 4.5 3.8 8.3 1.16 Thomas Bryant WAS 3.2 3.2 6.4 1.11 Nikola Jokić DEN 7.1 -0.6 6.5 1.11 Cameron Payne PHO 4.2 4.6 8.9 1.08 Stats from July 30 through Aug. 14. Source: NBA Advanced Stats
Booker’s restart performance was a great story, even if his season technically ended without a postseason appearance. But what about the rest of the players who did actually move on to the playoffs? Let’s run down the highlights and lowlights of the restart for each team, beginning with those at the top of our predicted odds for the championship:
Los Angeles Clippers
Restart record: 5-3
Elo change: +13 (6th)
Best restart player (by RAPTOR wins above replacement): SF Kawhi Leonard (1.65 WAR)
This was a close race between Leonard and Paul George, who put up 1.62 WAR in the restart. But Kawhi earned the edge with his performance on offense, where we estimate he’s adding 11.0 more points per 100 possessions than an average player. Compared with his regular-season numbers from before the restart, Leonard improved his true shooting percentage and assist-to-turnover ratio in the seeding games, and the Clippers scored a ridiculous 127.0 points per 100 with him on the court — 24.7 points per 100 better than their offensive rating without him.
Most impressive player: SF Paul George (+7.3 change in RAPTOR during restart)
George was already a top player before the NBA season shut down, accumulating 5.5 WAR (21st-most in the league) with a +6.0 RAPTOR during the pre-coronavirus section of the 2019-20 season. But he has stepped his game up significantly during the restart, with a +13.3 rating since play resumed. Of particular note has been George’s improved defensive RAPTOR, which rose from a +1.8 (good but not great) to a +6.5 (seventh-best in the league), a number much more in keeping with George’s reputation as an elite stopper earlier in his career.
Most disappointing player: SG Landry Shamet (-3.5 change in RAPTOR)
RAPTOR doesn’t usually think too highly of Shamet, whom it has considered a subpar player in the past couple of regular seasons. But Shamet’s rating usually consists of a decent offensive contribution — fueled by good 3-point shooting — and a below-average defensive grade. In the restart, Shamet has kept the latter (his defensive RAPTOR is -0.3), but his offense has fallen to -4.9 points per 100, a dip of 5.3 points from his pre-break average. After making just 21 percent of his threes during the seeding games, Shamet needs to rediscover his touch in order to help the Clippers reach their championship potential.
Milwaukee Bucks
Restart record: 3-5
Elo change: -44 (15th)
Best restart player: PF Giannis Antetokounmpo (1.08 WAR)
In terms of WAR, Giannis essentially tied with teammate Brook Lopez for the team lead during the restart. Antetokounmpo did it while taking things relatively easy, logging just 25.7 minutes per game (versus the 30.9 he averaged before the pause), and the Bucks themselves did not have an overly impressive seeding round, winning just three of eight contests. But on a per-possession basis, Giannis continued to dominate; his rating of +10.8 since the restart was higher than his +9.2 rating from before, part of a very likely MVP season. Even if Milwaukee was guilty of treating the seeding games like a tune-up, Giannis’s game was still firing on all cylinders.
Most impressive player: C Brook Lopez (+6.3 change in RAPTOR)
Before the season was put on hold, RAPTOR thought Lopez’s primary value to the Bucks lay in his defense, where he rated 3.9 points per 100 better than an average player. Offensively, his rating had slipped some because he was less valuable as a floor spacer, shooting under 30 percent from downtown. Since the restart, though, Lopez remained a stellar defender (+4.4 RAPTOR), and he was markedly better on offense (+3.7), making nearly 40 percent of his threes and averaging over 20 points per game. Although Lopez struggled in Game 1 of the Bucks’ playoff series against Orlando Tuesday, Milwaukee is hoping he can maintain his restart form — or even reprise his performance from last year’s postseason, when Lopez’s playoff RAPTOR was 6.2 points per 100 better than his regular-season rating.
Most disappointing player: SG Donte DiVincenzo (-8.4 change in RAPTOR)
Looking beyond better-known players such as Antetokounmpo and Khris Middleton, DiVincenzo had been one of the best-kept secrets behind Milwaukee’s dominating regular season. With a RAPTOR of +4.5, including a +3.0 on defense, the second-year guard out of Villanova was excelling at both ends of the court. But he has struggled at both ends during the restart, as his RAPTOR has fallen to -4.0 with poor shooting and a sky-high turnover rate. That dropoff in overall RAPTOR (a whopping 8.4 points per 100) was the third-worst of any qualified player during the seeding games.
Los Angeles Lakers
Restart record: 3-5
Elo change: -67 (16th)
Best restart player: PF Anthony Davis (0.85 WAR)
The Lakers had an incredibly uninspired restart upon arriving in the bubble, and that even shows up with their best player from these games. LeBron James, who had a strong case for MVP when play ceased in March, was just L.A.’s fourth-best player (with 0.38 WAR) during the seeding round, with a RAPTOR 7.1 points per 100 below his previous regular-season norm — and somehow he wasn’t even the most disappointing Laker (see below). For his part, Davis outplayed LeBron but also produced a RAPTOR 2.0 points below his rating from before the break, with a marked decline on offense.
Most impressive player: PF Kyle Kuzma (+7.9 change in RAPTOR)
Only one Laker who played at least 120 minutes in the bubble actually improved on his RAPTOR from before the pause — and that was Kuzma, who has gotten significantly better at both ends of the floor in Orlando, particularly on offense. Kuzma shot much more efficiently (improving his true shooting to 59.3 percent after knocking down 44 percent of his threes) and was far more careful with the ball (improving his assist-to-turnover ratio from 0.81 to 1.83). James and Davis will most likely be just fine in the playoffs, but it was encouraging for the Lakers to see Kuzma potentially take a long-awaited step forward when L.A. needs it most.
Most disappointing player: SG Danny Green (-7.7 change in RAPTOR)
Somehow, Green undershot expectations even more than James did during this mostly listless return to play. Green was having an incredibly effective season (+3.4 RAPTOR) as a 3-and-D wing before the break, knocking down 38 percent of his shots from deep and contributing a +2.6 rating on defense per 100 possessions. In the seeding games, however, Green was merely an average defender (0.0 RAPTOR) and made only 25 percent of his threes, to go with a terrible assist-to-turnover ratio (0.56) and a dreadful -4.2 offensive RAPTOR overall. L.A. needs better from Green in a crucial support role around James and Davis.
Teams in the next group all have at least a 1 percent chance to win the title — but all are also clearly in a lower tier than the top three. So we’ll quickly break down their best and worst performers of the restart thus far:
Boston Celtics
Restart record: 5-3
Elo change: +19 (4th)
Boston’s best player in the restart was SF Jaylen Brown (0.95 WAR), who built on his strong pre-break numbers with a much-improved defensive RAPTOR — going from -0.5 to +2.5 — since play resumed. But the most impressive Celtic has been PG Brad Wanamaker, owner of a +7.2 RAPTOR during the restart … 9.3 points per 100 better than his pre-restart number. At the other end of the spectrum, PF Semi Ojeleye was Boston’s most disappointing player in the bubble, with a RAPTOR 5.5 points per 100 lower than before the break — including a dip of 5.6 points per 100 on defense for a player whose calling card has been his defense.
Houston Rockets
Restart record: 4-4
Elo change: -21 (10th)
As we mentioned earlier, SG James Harden was RAPTOR’s most valuable player of the restart (2.78 WAR). He was also Houston’s most improved player in the bubble, elevating his rating by 9.9 points per 100. What makes that extra ridiculous is that Harden already had the highest RAPTOR of any qualified NBA player beforehand. So the most dangerous player in the league went out and doubled his rating in the most recent sample of games — ones that saw Harden average over 34 points per game with a 73 percent true shooting percentage and an assist on nearly 47 percent of teammate baskets, to go with solid defensive tracking numbers. As for Houston’s most disappointing player? That would be SG Austin Rivers, whose RAPTOR dropped by 4.4 points per 100, from a passable -1.3 to a -5.7 (nearly equally bad on offense and defense).
Toronto Raptors
Restart record: 7-1
Elo change: +24 (3rd)
The defending champs were one of the most impressive teams of the seeding round, and a lot of that had to do with SF OG Anunoby. Anunoby was both Toronto’s best player (0.87 WAR) and its most improved one, elevating his RAPTOR from a respectable +0.5 through March to a strong +7.1 during the restart (including a +6.9 mark on defense). Along with Marc Gasol, Pascal Siakam and Rondae Hollis-Jefferson, Anunoby spearheads a deep defense that finished the regular season ranked second in efficiency. One of the only concerns for Toronto might involve rookie SG Terence Davis, whose RAPTOR dropped by a team-worst 8.7 points per 100 during the restart, thanks to a variety of statistical indicators that were significantly worse across the board.
Denver Nuggets
Restart record: 3-5
Elo change: -28 (12th)
With everyone waiting to see how C Nikola Jokić would play after slimming down and fighting off the coronavirus, the multitalented 7-footer didn’t disappoint. Jokić led the Nuggets during the seeding games with 1.11 WAR, improving his seasonlong RAPTOR to more closely match his output from a season ago (when he finished fourth in MVP voting). Denver’s most impressive breakout came from rookie PF Michael Porter Jr., who was merely average (+0.2 RAPTOR) before the pause but improved to a +4.1 RAPTOR during the restart. Meanwhile, PG Monte Morris continued to slide in his second year as a regular. After already dipping from a +2.8 RAPTOR last season to a -0.8 rating through March, he registered a -5.4 RAPTOR in the bubble, fueled by a miserable -6.4 rating on defense.
Philadelphia 76ers
Restart record: 4-4
Elo change: +12 (7th)
With Ben Simmons suffering a season-ending knee injury, the bubble has already been unkind to the Sixers. But his absence has meant an expanded role for SG Alec Burks, who led Philly with 0.80 WAR during the restart, edging out PF Tobias Harris (0.72). Burks was Philadelphia’s most impressive performer as well, erupting for a RAPTOR of +8.3 in the bubble after sitting at -0.4 at the break (and doing little of note in 11 games after arriving via trade with the Warriors in early February). Burks has a scorching +8.6 RAPTOR on offense alone, thanks to a 135.8 individual offensive rating during the seeding games. In reality, the most disappointing Sixer is probably Simmons, since his injury all but ruins whatever chance Philly had at the title — but statistically, SG Shake Milton had the roughest restart, with a RAPTOR 6.4 points per 100 below his regular-season level heading into the bubble.
The rest of the playoff field all boasts less than a 1 percent chance of winning the championship, but we can summarize their best, most surprising and most underwhelming players of the restart thusly:
Dallas Mavericks
Best player: PG Luka Dončić (1.22 WAR)
Most impressive: PF Dorian Finney-Smith (+3.8 change in RAPTOR)
Most disappointing: SG Seth Curry (-7.0 change in RAPTOR)
Miami Heat
Best player: PG Goran Dragić (0.87 WAR)
Most impressive: Dragić (+10.5 change in RAPTOR)
Most disappointing: PF Bam Adebayo (+0.4 change in RAPTOR)
Utah Jazz
Best player: C Rudy Gobert (0.82 WAR)
Most impressive: PG Mike Conley (+3.6 change in RAPTOR)
Most disappointing: C Tony Bradley (-6.1 change in RAPTOR)
Indiana Pacers
Best player: SF T.J. Warren (1.06 WAR)
Most impressive: PG T.J. McConnell (+11.6 change in RAPTOR)
Most disappointing: PF Doug McDermott (-8.1 change in RAPTOR)
Oklahoma City Thunder
Best player: PG Chris Paul (1.16 WAR)
Most impressive: SF Hamidou Diallo (+6.8 change in RAPTOR)
Most disappointing: SG Luguentz Dort (-0.9 change in RAPTOR)
Portland Trail Blazers
Best player: PG Damian Lillard (2.42 WAR)
Most impressive: SG Gary Trent Jr. (+7.0 change in RAPTOR)
Most disappointing: SG CJ McCollum (-6.1 change in RAPTOR)
Orlando Magic
Best player: C Nikola Vučević (1.33 WAR)
Most impressive: SG Evan Fournier (+7.7 change in RAPTOR)
Most disappointing: SF Wes Iwundu (-3.6 change in RAPTOR)
Brooklyn Nets
Best player: SG Timothe Luwawu-Cabarrot (0.73 WAR)
Most impressive: SG Tyler Johnson (+6.5 change in RAPTOR)
Most disappointing: SF Joe Harris (-3.8 change in RAPTOR)
Check out our latest NBA predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-17--DNC, Day 3: Live Updates And Analysis

DNC, Day 3: Live Updates And Analysis

Search
No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-20--Biden Had To Fight For The Presidential Nomination. But Most VPs Have To.

Aside from the unusual end to the primaries this year — the pandemic , of course , interrupted voting in some of the last key contests — how unique was Joe Biden ’ s experience as a former vice president seeking the presidential nomination ?
Turns out , despite the historically crowded field , his experience wasn ’ t all that unusual .
Most sitting and former vice presidents face some competition for the party nod , but what was unusual about Biden ’ s bid is how much he embraced the idea of being Barack Obama ’ s heir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to translate that into success .
Many VPs have had to distance themselves from the presidents they ’ ve served under , but that wasn ’ t the case with Biden .
So let ’ s take a closer look at how Biden ’ s path to the nomination has resembled that of other VPs and how it has differed .
First of all , sitting and former vice presidents tend to win their party ’ s nomination when they seek it , so in that way , Biden ’ s experience was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Dan Quayle , George H.W .
Bush ’ s vice president , who floated a presidential bid in the 2000 election but dropped out before the voting started . )
Part of the reason why so many vice presidents run for president , especially in recent years — that ’ s 10 of the 13 VPs since the end of World War II ( excluding Vice President Mike Pence ) — is that they have some serious advantages starting out , including widespread name recognition and relevant experience .
They have also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , minimizing the possibility of hidden personal scandals or problematic stances emerging .
However , vice presidents also face a number of disadvantages in the modern nomination system .
For instance , the primary process highlights the ideas , charisma and biography of individual candidates , which is potentially tricky for presidential hopefuls who are closely tied to a previous administration .
Additionally , the process sometimes gives an advantage to those who can claim status as an “ outsider , ” something that ’ s difficult for a sitting or former vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even for a former vice president , it ’ s not necessarily easy to fend off competitors .
Before Biden , Al Gore was the most recent VP to win his party ’ s nomination , and he did manage to clear the field of any major challengers — former NBA player and New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley didn ’ t win a single primary — but the fact that Biden faced stiff competition is actually more common than it might seem .
Take Walter Mondale and George H.W .
Bush .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ front-runners — when they entered their respective races , but they still faced stiff competition .
In fact , studies of the 1984 process suggest that it was unpledged superdelegates who helped Mondale defeat Colorado Sen. Gary Hart , who had won 26 contests , including the influential New Hampshire primary .
And even though civil rights leader Jesse Jackson won only a few contests against Mondale , he still drew a significant amount of media attention away from the former vice president due to his charismatic presence and the historic nature of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sought the presidency at that time ) .
Likewise , in 1988 , Bush ultimately won the nomination , but not before coming in third in the Iowa caucuses and having some tense debates with Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole .
Therefore , it ’ s not uncommon that Biden ’ s entrance into the contest in April 2019 didn ’ t immediately clear the field .
The number of candidates was unprecedented , but even still , Biden remained a front-runner like Mondale and Bush , never really slipping in the polls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contests were still tough for Biden , and at points , Sen. Bernie Sanders looked as though he might win the nomination , or at least compete with Biden in a long , close contest .
Of course , the South Carolina primary was a major turning point , and then Biden swept Super Tuesday .
After that , he handily won the nomination despite having faced quite a bit of competition in the beginning .
Vice presidents often don ’ t buck the direction of a party , but they can expose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at politics within parties .
And nomination contests featuring vice presidents have not exactly resulted in ideological showdowns , as they tend not to stray too far from their administration ties .
That said , the primary process can still reveal different fault lines in the party .
Take Bradley ’ s brief run against Gore .
He tried to present himself as a progressive alternative to Bill Clinton ’ s vice president .
And while Mondale and Bush were not that different ideologically from their main competitors ( Sens .
Hart and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was large , which meant there was room for other candidates with more ideologically diverse viewpoints , or who represented a specific constituency within the party , to run .
In 1984 , Jackson pushed for racial equality and more left-leaning policies like single-payer health care , for instance .
And in 1988 , evangelical leader Pat Robertson , seeking the Republican nomination , embraced very conservative religious views and positioned himself as a critic of Ronald Reagan ’ s administration from the far right .
That said , Bradley , Jackson and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t see in 2020 .
( Remember Bradley didn ’ t win a single primary , Jackson won only a handful , and Robertson even fewer than that , so their ability to affect the direction of their parties was hobbled . )
The 2020 contest was different , however .
The historically crowded field meant that multiple candidates were able to make claims either to their progressive bona fides or to their more centrist credentials .
In fact , ideology ended up being the biggest distinction between the final two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more so than in previous contests , Sanders ( along with such candidates as Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro ) was able to mount a credible challenge to Biden ’ s claim as the party ’ s ideological standard-bearer .
Yes , Biden built the winning coalition in the end , but it ’ s hard to argue that a more progressive vision for the Democratic Party isn ’ t also part of the conversation now .
Vice presidents typically stick close to the administrations they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigning tricky Vice presidents must always strike an awkward balance — develop their own political brands while also getting at least some credit for the accomplishments of the administrations they were part of .
And in a nomination battle , it ’ s particularly easy for other candidates to criticize the VP ’ s former administration for not being true enough to its promises and ideological ideals .
For example , in 1988 , Bush was pressed on whether he would raise taxes and whether the Reagan administration was tough enough on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a difficult position because , while facing criticism on the right for the administration ’ s decisions , he had also been brought on the ticket in 1980 as a more moderate presence .
Ultimately , though , Bush pivoted and appealed to the party ’ s increasingly conservative voters and activists , especially on taxes .
In 2000 , Gore ’ s status as Clinton ’ s “ heir apparent ” was enough to win him the nomination , but during the general election , Gore tried to distance himself from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s scandals and because he needed to establish a distinct brand that could answer critics of the administration ’ s policies .
Gore tried to do this by using populist critiques of the economy in his campaign rhetoric , highlighting growing inequality in the U.S. despite the overall strength of the economy .
Ultimately , Gore and Bush both found themselves in difficult situations .
They had to try to build on their respective administrations ’ legacies while also appeasing critics from their parties ’ ideological bases and yet still remain close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the general election .
To say the least , it ’ s a lot to balance .
And arguably , by having to run in a more competitive primary with opponents who embraced ideological views very different from his own , Biden was free of that dilemma .
Throughout the primary , he was able to embrace the idea of carrying on Obama ’ s legacy while also allowing others to criticize Obama ’ s record from the left .
And , as the Democrats ’ platform and policy plans are formulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has continued to play this role .
That intersection of competition , ideology and connection with the previous administration illustrates one way that Biden differs from recent vice presidents who ’ ve sought the presidential nomination , making it clear that while Biden will be this year ’ s standard-bearer , his vision for the party is not — and does not have to be — the only one .
Instead , Biden is in a unique position to claim the legacy of a popular past president while allowing others to offer competing @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Aside from the unusual end to the primaries this year — the pandemic, of course, interrupted voting in some of the last key contests — how unique was Joe Biden’s experience as a former vice president seeking the presidential nomination?
Turns out, despite the historically crowded field, his experience wasn’t all that unusual. Most sitting and former vice presidents face some competition for the party nod, but what was unusual about Biden’s bid is how much he embraced the idea of being Barack Obama’s heir apparent, and how he was able to translate that into success. Many VPs have had to distance themselves from the presidents they’ve served under, but that wasn’t the case with Biden. So let’s take a closer look at how Biden’s path to the nomination has resembled that of other VPs and how it has differed.
First of all, sitting and former vice presidents tend to win their party’s nomination when they seek it, so in that way, Biden’s experience was perfectly normal. (The recent exception is Dan Quayle, George H.W. Bush’s vice president, who floated a presidential bid in the 2000 election but dropped out before the voting started.)
Most vice presidents run for president … but not all win Vice presidents since 1948 who have run for president, and whether they won their party’s nomination and the subsequent presidential election Vice President Party Won nomination Won pres. election Alben Barkley D Richard Nixon* R ✓ ✓ Lyndon Johnson† D ✓ ✓ Hubert Humphrey D ✓ Gerald Ford† R ✓ Walter Mondale D ✓ George H.W. Bush R ✓ ✓ Dan Quayle R Al Gore D ✓ Joe Biden D ✓ * Nixon lost the first time he ran for president, in 1960, after serving as vice president, but ran again in 1968 and won. † Johnson and Ford both became president upon the death or resignation of their predecessors, so they technically ran as incumbents. Spiro Agnew, Nelson Rockefeller and Dick Cheney didn’t run for president after serving as vice president. This list does not include Vice President Mike Pence, as he could still run for president in the future.
Part of the reason why so many vice presidents run for president, especially in recent years — that’s 10 of the 13 VPs since the end of World War II (excluding Vice President Mike Pence) — is that they have some serious advantages starting out, including widespread name recognition and relevant experience. They have also already been vetted on the national stage, minimizing the possibility of hidden personal scandals or problematic stances emerging.
However, vice presidents also face a number of disadvantages in the modern nomination system. For instance, the primary process highlights the ideas, charisma and biography of individual candidates, which is potentially tricky for presidential hopefuls who are closely tied to a previous administration. Additionally, the process sometimes gives an advantage to those who can claim status as an “outsider,” something that’s difficult for a sitting or former vice president to do.
In other words, even for a former vice president, it’s not necessarily easy to fend off competitors. Before Biden, Al Gore was the most recent VP to win his party’s nomination, and he did manage to clear the field of any major challengers — former NBA player and New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley didn’t win a single primary — but the fact that Biden faced stiff competition is actually more common than it might seem.
Take Walter Mondale and George H.W. Bush. Both were considered strong prospects — even front-runners — when they entered their respective races, but they still faced stiff competition. In fact, studies of the 1984 process suggest that it was unpledged superdelegates who helped Mondale defeat Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, who had won 26 contests, including the influential New Hampshire primary. And even though civil rights leader Jesse Jackson won only a few contests against Mondale, he still drew a significant amount of media attention away from the former vice president due to his charismatic presence and the historic nature of his candidacy (few Black Americans had sought the presidency at that time). Likewise, in 1988, Bush ultimately won the nomination, but not before coming in third in the Iowa caucuses and having some tense debates with Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole.
Therefore, it’s not uncommon that Biden’s entrance into the contest in April 2019 didn’t immediately clear the field. The number of candidates was unprecedented, but even still, Biden remained a front-runner like Mondale and Bush, never really slipping in the polls all that much. But the early contests were still tough for Biden, and at points, Sen. Bernie Sanders looked as though he might win the nomination, or at least compete with Biden in a long, close contest. Of course, the South Carolina primary was a major turning point, and then Biden swept Super Tuesday. After that, he handily won the nomination despite having faced quite a bit of competition in the beginning.
Vice presidents often don’t buck the direction of a party, but they can expose cracks
Ideology is tricky when we look at politics within parties. And nomination contests featuring vice presidents have not exactly resulted in ideological showdowns, as they tend not to stray too far from their administration ties. That said, the primary process can still reveal different fault lines in the party.
Take Bradley’s brief run against Gore. He tried to present himself as a progressive alternative to Bill Clinton’s vice president. And while Mondale and Bush were not that different ideologically from their main competitors (Sens. Hart and Dole, respectively), the field was large, which meant there was room for other candidates with more ideologically diverse viewpoints, or who represented a specific constituency within the party, to run. In 1984, Jackson pushed for racial equality and more left-leaning policies like single-payer health care, for instance. And in 1988, evangelical leader Pat Robertson, seeking the Republican nomination, embraced very conservative religious views and positioned himself as a critic of Ronald Reagan’s administration from the far right.
That said, Bradley, Jackson and Robertson were sidelined in a way we didn’t see in 2020. (Remember Bradley didn’t win a single primary, Jackson won only a handful, and Robertson even fewer than that, so their ability to affect the direction of their parties was hobbled.) The 2020 contest was different, however. The historically crowded field meant that multiple candidates were able to make claims either to their progressive bona fides or to their more centrist credentials. In fact, ideology ended up being the biggest distinction between the final two candidates, Biden and Sanders. And more so than in previous contests, Sanders (along with such candidates as Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro) was able to mount a credible challenge to Biden’s claim as the party’s ideological standard-bearer.
Yes, Biden built the winning coalition in the end, but it’s hard to argue that a more progressive vision for the Democratic Party isn’t also part of the conversation now.
Vice presidents typically stick close to the administrations they were part of, but that makes campaigning tricky
Vice presidents must always strike an awkward balance — develop their own political brands while also getting at least some credit for the accomplishments of the administrations they were part of.
And in a nomination battle, it’s particularly easy for other candidates to criticize the VP’s former administration for not being true enough to its promises and ideological ideals. For example, in 1988, Bush was pressed on whether he would raise taxes and whether the Reagan administration was tough enough on the Soviet Union. Bush found himself in a difficult position because, while facing criticism on the right for the administration’s decisions, he had also been brought on the ticket in 1980 as a more moderate presence. Ultimately, though, Bush pivoted and appealed to the party’s increasingly conservative voters and activists, especially on taxes.
In 2000, Gore’s status as Clinton’s “heir apparent” was enough to win him the nomination, but during the general election, Gore tried to distance himself from the Clinton administration – both because of Clinton’s scandals and because he needed to establish a distinct brand that could answer critics of the administration’s policies. Gore tried to do this by using populist critiques of the economy in his campaign rhetoric, highlighting growing inequality in the U.S. despite the overall strength of the economy.
Ultimately, Gore and Bush both found themselves in difficult situations. They had to try to build on their respective administrations’ legacies while also appeasing critics from their parties’ ideological bases and yet still remain close enough to the center to be competitive in the general election. To say the least, it’s a lot to balance. And arguably, by having to run in a more competitive primary with opponents who embraced ideological views very different from his own, Biden was free of that dilemma. Throughout the primary, he was able to embrace the idea of carrying on Obama’s legacy while also allowing others to criticize Obama’s record from the left. And, as the Democrats’ platform and policy plans are formulated, the Sanders wing of the party has continued to play this role.
That intersection of competition, ideology and connection with the previous administration illustrates one way that Biden differs from recent vice presidents who’ve sought the presidential nomination, making it clear that while Biden will be this year’s standard-bearer, his vision for the party is not — and does not have to be — the only one. Instead, Biden is in a unique position to claim the legacy of a popular past president while allowing others to offer competing visions of what that legacy means.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-20--How Clinton’s Loss Paved The Way For Biden

After a crowded and lengthy contest for the Democratic presidential nomination , the party fell in line on Super Tuesday , effectively choosing Joe Biden as the best nominee for the 2020 election .
But it would be a stretch to conclude that he was the best competitor in that contest .
His debate performances in 2019 and early 2020 were uneven and punctuated with awkward gaffes .
He changed stances on some high-profile issues .
And he ’ s never been a particularly distinguished public speaker or fundraiser .
Also , unlike other candidates , such as Bernie Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden lacked a passionate following .
So how did he end up defeating everyone else ?
If we want to understand how Biden won the nomination , we first need to understand the Democratic Party in the aftermath of the 2016 election .
Biden won the 2020 nomination , arguably , because of the way Democrats interpreted Hillary Clinton ’ s loss four years ago .
As detailed in my upcoming book , “ Learning from Loss : The Democrats 2016-2020 , ” one of the most consistent and consequential lessons from my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee members , officeholders , and other party insiders , was a post-election narrative that blamed Clinton ’ s loss on her use of “ identity politics.
” That ’ s obviously a loaded term , but I am using it to refer to Clinton ’ s outreach to women , people of color , the LGBTQIA community , and other marginalized groups during her 2016 campaign .
According to many think pieces published shortly after the election , this is why Clinton lost .
The argument went that by talking about race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white people from a party they ’ d previously embraced .
In turn , they responded by voting for a candidate who was very explicitly courting them : Donald Trump .
Of course , “ identity politics ” wasn ’ t the only explanation for the surprisingly close results of the 2016 election .
A number of other theories propagated too , including that Clinton campaigned poorly or in the wrong places , that the party ’ s messaging was deficient , and that Russia and other outside actors tipped the scales for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone to Wisconsin , ” “ Bernie would ’ ve won , ” etc.
, were all common post-election refrains .
These sorts of narratives are common when a party loses , and , in many ways , are ultimately healthy in helping a party decide how to move forward from loss .
An important caveat to these explanations , however , is that they often aren ’ t based on very much hard data .
That is , just because a candidate had a certain message and lost doesn ’ t mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message .
In fact , we know that most campaign decisions have pretty modest effects , if any , on actual voting outcomes .
Politicians and parties still crave these narratives , though , especially when they lose .
Winning , explains political scientist Marjorie Hershey , has a “ fairly blunt , conservatizing effect on campaigners.
” As long as they ’ re winning , they ’ re going to assume that whatever they ’ re doing is right , and they ’ ll continue to do it .
Conversely , Hershey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be very open to making changes the next time around , figuring that at least one of the actions they took last time was responsible for their loss .
To understand how these explanations of the 2016 election sat with Democratic Party insiders , I spoke with 65 Democratic activists — including party leaders and staff , campaign workers and donors — in Iowa , New Hampshire , Nevada , South Carolina and Washington , D.C. on a regular basis .
And over the course of these conversations , a pattern emerged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists I spoke with cited “ identity politics ” as one reason for Clinton ’ s loss .
Now , this doesn ’ t mean this was the only explanation they gave .
In fact , more activists said that the campaign messaging and strategy were defective , or that Clinton herself was to blame .
A separate study I conducted of newspaper coverage in the wake of the 2016 election found that about a third of news stories and op-eds argued that Clinton lost because of her focus on identity politics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one way a losing party can reassess its strategy .
If a party believes , for instance , that Clinton lost because she was a bad candidate or because her campaign was flawed , it can pick a different candidate or improve its campaign tactics without needing to dramatically rethink what the party stands for .
But believing Clinton lost because of identity politics is a much harder pill to swallow .
Namely , because accepting that means undermining something many Democrats believe in — the importance of promoting diversity and enhancing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a long history of this narrative being used to explain loss within the modern Democratic Party , too .
Pretty much any time it has lost at the presidential level , a substantial segment of the party is quick to blame its focus on diversity , and , in turn , urges the party to refocus on working-class white voters , who have been part of the Democratic coalition since the New Deal .
After Walter Mondale ’ s loss to Ronald Reagan in 1984 , for example , Tennessee ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perception is that we are the party that can ’ t say no , that caters to special interests and that does not have the interests of the middle class at heart.
” A national Democratic leader complained about the emphasis the party placed on Black voters , lamenting that “ White Protestant male Democrats are an endangered species.
” The post-2016 environment was no exception , with Democratic leaders warning the party not to abandon the white working class .
Even the Democratic activists and insiders I spoke with who strongly support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advancing underrepresented groups emerged from the 2016 election frightened and confused by its results .
As one New Hampshire activist — a lifelong feminist — told me in early 2017 , “ Based on what happened with Hillary , I think we now need to nominate a man.
” She added , “ [ Former President ] Barack Obama is an incredibly strong man .
He can ’ t do what he did and not be a strong man .
But he didn ’ t project raging masculinity , and I think you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go up against Trump ] .
I hate to say that … I ’ m gon na get kicked out of the women ’ s club.
” Biden , then , was in many ways a logical choice for a party in this condition .
Surveys among Democratic voters and activists repeatedly showed that , even when they didn ’ t see Biden as their top candidate , they saw him as the most electable , and overall , they prioritized electability to a far greater degree than they had in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some ways , a relatively easy choice for party insiders — he was broadly popular among the party ’ s voters , performed well in general election matchup polls , was closely tied to the Obama administration as its former VP , and was one of the only candidates who received widespread support from Black voters .
But , at the end of the day , Biden also represented a safe choice for a party that had tried something new in 2016 and , in the eyes of many , had been punished @ @ @

After a crowded and lengthy contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, the party fell in line on Super Tuesday, effectively choosing Joe Biden as the best nominee for the 2020 election. But it would be a stretch to conclude that he was the best competitor in that contest.
His debate performances in 2019 and early 2020 were uneven and punctuated with awkward gaffes. He changed stances on some high-profile issues. And he’s never been a particularly distinguished public speaker or fundraiser. Also, unlike other candidates, such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, Biden lacked a passionate following.
So how did he end up defeating everyone else?
If we want to understand how Biden won the nomination, we first need to understand the Democratic Party in the aftermath of the 2016 election. Biden won the 2020 nomination, arguably, because of the way Democrats interpreted Hillary Clinton’s loss four years ago.
As detailed in my upcoming book, “Learning from Loss: The Democrats 2016-2020,” one of the most consistent and consequential lessons from my conversations with Democratic activists, Democratic National Committee members, officeholders, and other party insiders, was a post-election narrative that blamed Clinton’s loss on her use of “identity politics.”
That’s obviously a loaded term, but I am using it to refer to Clinton’s outreach to women, people of color, the LGBTQIA community, and other marginalized groups during her 2016 campaign. According to many think pieces published shortly after the election, this is why Clinton lost. The argument went that by talking about race and identity bluntly, Clinton excluded working-class white people from a party they’d previously embraced. In turn, they responded by voting for a candidate who was very explicitly courting them: Donald Trump.
Of course, “identity politics” wasn’t the only explanation for the surprisingly close results of the 2016 election. A number of other theories propagated too, including that Clinton campaigned poorly or in the wrong places, that the party’s messaging was deficient, and that Russia and other outside actors tipped the scales for Trump. “She should’ve gone to Wisconsin,” “Bernie would’ve won,” etc., were all common post-election refrains. These sorts of narratives are common when a party loses, and, in many ways, are ultimately healthy in helping a party decide how to move forward from loss.
An important caveat to these explanations, however, is that they often aren’t based on very much hard data. That is, just because a candidate had a certain message and lost doesn’t mean that the candidate lost because of that message. In fact, we know that most campaign decisions have pretty modest effects, if any, on actual voting outcomes.
Politicians and parties still crave these narratives, though, especially when they lose. Winning, explains political scientist Marjorie Hershey, has a “fairly blunt, conservatizing effect on campaigners.” As long as they’re winning, they’re going to assume that whatever they’re doing is right, and they’ll continue to do it. Conversely, Hershey argues, those who lose an election will be very open to making changes the next time around, figuring that at least one of the actions they took last time was responsible for their loss.
To understand how these explanations of the 2016 election sat with Democratic Party insiders, I spoke with 65 Democratic activists — including party leaders and staff, campaign workers and donors — in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and Washington, D.C. on a regular basis. And over the course of these conversations, a pattern emerged: Nearly a third of the party activists I spoke with cited “identity politics” as one reason for Clinton’s loss.
Now, this doesn’t mean this was the only explanation they gave. In fact, more activists said that the campaign messaging and strategy were defective, or that Clinton herself was to blame. A separate study I conducted of newspaper coverage in the wake of the 2016 election found that about a third of news stories and op-eds argued that Clinton lost because of her focus on identity politics.
This is significant because post-election narratives are one way a losing party can reassess its strategy. If a party believes, for instance, that Clinton lost because she was a bad candidate or because her campaign was flawed, it can pick a different candidate or improve its campaign tactics without needing to dramatically rethink what the party stands for. But believing Clinton lost because of identity politics is a much harder pill to swallow. Namely, because accepting that means undermining something many Democrats believe in — the importance of promoting diversity and enhancing the power of underrepresented groups.
There’s a long history of this narrative being used to explain loss within the modern Democratic Party, too. Pretty much any time it has lost at the presidential level, a substantial segment of the party is quick to blame its focus on diversity, and, in turn, urges the party to refocus on working-class white voters, who have been part of the Democratic coalition since the New Deal. After Walter Mondale’s loss to Ronald Reagan in 1984, for example, Tennessee’s Democratic Party chair said, “The perception is that we are the party that can’t say no, that caters to special interests and that does not have the interests of the middle class at heart.” A national Democratic leader complained about the emphasis the party placed on Black voters, lamenting that “White Protestant male Democrats are an endangered species.” The post-2016 environment was no exception, with Democratic leaders warning the party not to abandon the white working class.
Even the Democratic activists and insiders I spoke with who strongly support the party’s historical role in advancing underrepresented groups emerged from the 2016 election frightened and confused by its results. As one New Hampshire activist — a lifelong feminist — told me in early 2017, “Based on what happened with Hillary, I think we now need to nominate a man.” She added, “[Former President] Barack Obama is an incredibly strong man. He can’t do what he did and not be a strong man. But he didn’t project raging masculinity, and I think you kind of have to do that [to go up against Trump]. I hate to say that … I’m gonna get kicked out of the women’s club.”
Biden, then, was in many ways a logical choice for a party in this condition.
Surveys among Democratic voters and activists repeatedly showed that, even when they didn’t see Biden as their top candidate, they saw him as the most electable, and overall, they prioritized electability to a far greater degree than they had in recent elections.
Biden was also, in some ways, a relatively easy choice for party insiders — he was broadly popular among the party’s voters, performed well in general election matchup polls, was closely tied to the Obama administration as its former VP, and was one of the only candidates who received widespread support from Black voters. But, at the end of the day, Biden also represented a safe choice for a party that had tried something new in 2016 and, in the eyes of many, had been punished for it.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-17--What Went Down On Night 3 Of The DNC

What Went Down On Night 3 Of The DNC

What Went Down On Night 3 Of The DNC


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-20--America’s Introduction To Kamala Harris

America’s Introduction To Kamala Harris

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast , the crew reacts to the third night of the 2020 Democratic @ @ @ @ @ speeches from former President Barack Obama and vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris .

In this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew reacts to the third night of the 2020 Democratic National Convention, which included speeches from former President Barack Obama and vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-20--Why Have NBA Offenses Been So Good In The Bubble?

In the days leading up to the resumption of the NBA season , there was one school of thought about the quality of basketball we would see .
“ It ’ s gon na take time for your offense to come , ” said TNT analyst Reggie Miller during the first quarter of the ragged Lakers-Clippers bubble opener on July 30 .
“ And that ’ s why I think defense will be ahead of your offense.
” But the exact opposite proved to be true in the seeding games .
The 22 teams in the bubble averaged 113.17 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Glass , up from the 111.95 they averaged before the league shut down in March .
Offense was already on pace for historic levels before the COVID-19 shutdown .
Instead of reversing that trend , as Miller and others predicted , the seeding games in the bubble dramatically accelerated it .
In fact , the average offensive efficiency in half-court possessions jumped from 95 before the shutdown to 98.7 in the bubble .
In situations where the offense and defense were on level playing fields , the offense gained more of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s understandable why Miller and other analysts got it so wrong .
They were just following recent NBA history .
While there ’ s no parallel to a four-and-a-half month in-season break caused by a global pandemic , the labor disputes of 1998 and 2011 at least shared some characteristics with 2020 ’ s stoppage .
In both ensuing seasons , the average offensive efficiency fell dramatically from the previous campaign before rebounding the following year .
Like those post-lockout seasons , this year ’ s COVID-19 interruption featured a monthslong layoff with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team workout facilities , a shortened preseason and a compressed schedule to fit as many games in as possible .
“ Most of these players don ’ t have their legs yet , ” Miller said during the same segment .
“ Remember , four-and-a-half month layoff !
And now you ’ re shocking , you ’ re jolting the body.
” The evidence seemed clear : Those shortcomings would affect offenses more than defenses .
So why did the opposite happen in 2020 ?
Two reasons : Defenses couldn ’ t stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop missing .
Indeed , referees blew the whistle a lot more often after the restart than before .
Every type of foul was called more often in the bubble .
There were more shooting fouls drawn , but there were also more freedom of movement infractions that occurred before the shot .
Even offensive fouls , such as illegal screens , were whistled more often .
Referees didn ’ t discriminate , and that meant teams spent nearly 30 percent of their bubble possessions in the penalty , compared with 26 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate – free throws made per 100 field goal attempts – jumped from 20 before the shutdown to 22.8 in the bubble seeding games , a mark unmatched over a full season since 2010-11 .
Free throws , which had been steadily dropping in the 3-point era , made a comeback .
The unique bubble environment produced many theories for the increase in foul calls .
Without fans , referees could more clearly hear the contact they would otherwise miss on bang-bang plays , not to mention the complaints from players and coaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditioning after the layoff , and tired players tend to commit more fouls .
The refs themselves were out of rhythm and needed time to readjust to the speed of the game .
There ’ s a degree of truth in each of those explanations .
As Seth Partnow of The Athletic noted , the league ’ s collective free-throw rate sunk back to normal levels in the second week of the bubble after skyrocketing early on .
Everyone just needed time to adjust to the new normal .
Yet offense continued to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frequent .
At the same time foul-drawing fell back to earth , shooting accuracy shot through the ozone layer .
The league-average effective field-goal percentage rose a full point in the bubble , and it was 1.7 percentage points higher than the pre-bubble regular season in the final week of games alone .
This again bucked the trend of the two post-lockout seasons , during which shooting accuracy fell dramatically before bumping back up again .
Those in the league were less surprised that the bubble environment proved to be a shooter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same court every night , ” said Rockets coach Mike D ’ Antoni .
“ You get your shooting , depth perception and all that.
” The absence of fans not only eliminated distractions but also improved players ’ sight lines .
As Dallas Mavericks guard Tim Hardaway Jr. told The Ringer : “ You can ’ t see through the backboard , shooting-wise , since it ’ s blacked out.
” And don ’ t underestimate the impact of the benches moving farther away from the sidelines , costing teams the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All of those factors certainly contributed to the rise in 3-point shooting .
Bombs from downtown accounted for a higher percentage of overall shot attempts in the bubble , and players made more of those shots than before .
In one sense , the defense didn ’ t matter as much as the unique environment itself .
Players shot and made a higher percentage of wide-open looks , but they also made a higher percentage of heavily contested looks .
In another sense , though , the defense really was behind the offense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific to the environment .
Better sight lines may explain why shooters made more corner threes , for example , but they don ’ t really explain why they took more corner threes .
Defenses may have overreacted to dribble penetration , violating the cardinal rule of never helping off the strongside corner .
Those are mistakes brought on by many of the same forces that caused the increase in foul calls .
Tired players make mental errors , especially when trying to process the many threats today ’ s spread offenses present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic that requires social isolation , it ’ s a lot easier to fine-tune a jump shot than a coordinated defensive scheme that requires precise movements and teamwork .
When put that way , the league ’ s post-COVID-19 offensive explosion shouldn ’ t be a surprise .
Jolting the body after a four-and-a-half month layoff may have adversely affected offenses in the past , but that was before the 3-point revolution transformed the sport and forced defenses to cover more ground with the same number of players .
Today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one that dominated most of NBA history .
Why should the same post-layoff historical standards apply ?

In the days leading up to the resumption of the NBA season, there was one school of thought about the quality of basketball we would see. “It’s gonna take time for your offense to come,” said TNT analyst Reggie Miller during the first quarter of the ragged Lakers-Clippers bubble opener on July 30. “And that’s why I think defense will be ahead of your offense.”
But the exact opposite proved to be true in the seeding games. The 22 teams in the bubble averaged 113.17 points per 100 possessions, according to Cleaning the Glass, up from the 111.95 they averaged before the league shut down in March.
Offense was already on pace for historic levels before the COVID-19 shutdown. Instead of reversing that trend, as Miller and others predicted, the seeding games in the bubble dramatically accelerated it. In fact, the average offensive efficiency in half-court possessions jumped from 95 before the shutdown to 98.7 in the bubble. In situations where the offense and defense were on level playing fields, the offense gained more of an edge, not less.
It’s understandable why Miller and other analysts got it so wrong. They were just following recent NBA history. While there’s no parallel to a four-and-a-half month in-season break caused by a global pandemic, the labor disputes of 1998 and 2011 at least shared some characteristics with 2020’s stoppage. In both ensuing seasons, the average offensive efficiency fell dramatically from the previous campaign before rebounding the following year.
Offense dipped after previous work stoppages Average league metrics for regular seasons following work stoppages in 1998 and 2011 vs. the seasons immediately before and after Season Offensive Rating Defensive Rating True Shooting% effective FG% 1997-98 105.05 105.01 52.38% 47.83% 1998-99 102.22 102.18 51.18 46.59 1999-00 104.05 104.04 52.29 47.83 2010-11 107.26 107.23 54.15 49.85 2011-12 104.59 104.60 52.70 48.73 2012-13 105.84 105.84 53.47 49.66 Source: Basketball-Reference.com
Like those post-lockout seasons, this year’s COVID-19 interruption featured a monthslong layoff with no clear end date, separation from team workout facilities, a shortened preseason and a compressed schedule to fit as many games in as possible. “Most of these players don’t have their legs yet,” Miller said during the same segment. “Remember, four-and-a-half month layoff! And now you’re shocking, you’re jolting the body.” The evidence seemed clear: Those shortcomings would affect offenses more than defenses.
So why did the opposite happen in 2020? Two reasons: Defenses couldn’t stop fouling, and shooters couldn’t stop missing.
Indeed, referees blew the whistle a lot more often after the restart than before. Every type of foul was called more often in the bubble. There were more shooting fouls drawn, but there were also more freedom of movement infractions that occurred before the shot. Even offensive fouls, such as illegal screens, were whistled more often. Referees didn’t discriminate, and that meant teams spent nearly 30 percent of their bubble possessions in the penalty, compared with 26 percent before the break.
Fouls are way up inside the bubble Fouls committed per game in the bubble vs. before the 2019-20 regular season was suspended foul category Before the break Since the restart Difference Shooting 19.47 20.92 +1.45 Other personal fouls 13.64 14.88 +1.23 Loose ball 2.34 2.89 +0.55 Charges 1.20 1.43 +0.23 Other offensive fouls 2.75 3.60 +0.85 Technicals 0.72 0.75 +0.03 All other fouls 1.05 1.33 +0.28 Total 41.17 45.80 +4.63 Regular-season stats only. Source: PBP Stats, NBA WOWY
The average free-throw rate – free throws made per 100 field goal attempts – jumped from 20 before the shutdown to 22.8 in the bubble seeding games, a mark unmatched over a full season since 2010-11. Free throws, which had been steadily dropping in the 3-point era, made a comeback.
The unique bubble environment produced many theories for the increase in foul calls. Without fans, referees could more clearly hear the contact they would otherwise miss on bang-bang plays, not to mention the complaints from players and coaches. Players needed time to regain their conditioning after the layoff, and tired players tend to commit more fouls. The refs themselves were out of rhythm and needed time to readjust to the speed of the game.
There’s a degree of truth in each of those explanations. As Seth Partnow of The Athletic noted, the league’s collective free-throw rate sunk back to normal levels in the second week of the bubble after skyrocketing early on. Everyone just needed time to adjust to the new normal.
Yet offense continued to rule even once the whistles became less frequent. At the same time foul-drawing fell back to earth, shooting accuracy shot through the ozone layer. The league-average effective field-goal percentage rose a full point in the bubble, and it was 1.7 percentage points higher than the pre-bubble regular season in the final week of games alone. This again bucked the trend of the two post-lockout seasons, during which shooting accuracy fell dramatically before bumping back up again.
Those in the league were less surprised that the bubble environment proved to be a shooter’s paradise. “It’s the same court every night,” said Rockets coach Mike D’Antoni. “You get your shooting, depth perception and all that.” The absence of fans not only eliminated distractions but also improved players’ sight lines. As Dallas Mavericks guard Tim Hardaway Jr. told The Ringer: “You can’t see through the backboard, shooting-wise, since it’s blacked out.” And don’t underestimate the impact of the benches moving farther away from the sidelines, costing teams the ability to scream at opposing shooters.
The clear baseline has been much-discussed as one of the benefits of bubble play, but I also like the fact that benches are farther away from the sideline. We don’t get opposing benches essentially hovering over corner shooters. Kyle Anderson has room here in front of Portland. pic.twitter.com/pMZBkNSvqN — Positive Residual (@presidual) August 15, 2020
All of those factors certainly contributed to the rise in 3-point shooting. Bombs from downtown accounted for a higher percentage of overall shot attempts in the bubble, and players made more of those shots than before. In one sense, the defense didn’t matter as much as the unique environment itself. Players shot and made a higher percentage of wide-open looks, but they also made a higher percentage of heavily contested looks.
Shooters have been better regardless of defense Frequency and field-goal percentage of shots taken by defender distance, in the bubble vs. before the 2019-20 regular season was suspended Closely defended Wide-open Frequency FG% Frequency FG% Since the restart 8.46% 48.67% 22.56% 42.72% Before the break 8.71 46.24 21.96 42.01 Difference -0.25 2.43 0.60 0.71 Closely defended shots come when a defender is within 2 feet. Wide-open shots come when the closest defender is at least 6 feet away. Regular-season stats only. Source: NBA.com
In another sense, though, the defense really was behind the offense in a way that wasn’t specific to the environment. Better sight lines may explain why shooters made more corner threes, for example, but they don’t really explain why they took more corner threes. Defenses may have overreacted to dribble penetration, violating the cardinal rule of never helping off the strongside corner.
Those are mistakes brought on by many of the same forces that caused the increase in foul calls. Tired players make mental errors, especially when trying to process the many threats today’s spread offenses present. After all, when faced with a pandemic that requires social isolation, it’s a lot easier to fine-tune a jump shot than a coordinated defensive scheme that requires precise movements and teamwork.
When put that way, the league’s post-COVID-19 offensive explosion shouldn’t be a surprise. Jolting the body after a four-and-a-half month layoff may have adversely affected offenses in the past, but that was before the 3-point revolution transformed the sport and forced defenses to cover more ground with the same number of players. Today’s style of play is nothing like the one that dominated most of NBA history. Why should the same post-layoff historical standards apply?
Check out our latest NBA predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-20--Mookie Betts Is Playing Like An MVP — And The Dodgers Have Needed It

In 2018 , then-Boston Red Sox right fielder Mookie Betts put on one of the greatest single-season performances in MLB history : En route to an American League MVP award , Betts led the majors in batting with a .346 average , hit 32 home runs , had a .438 on-base percentage , slugged an MLB-best .640 , scored 129 runs and won a Gold Glove award for his defense .
Overall , that season was worth 10.5 wins above replacement , which placed Betts among an elite pantheon of batters : Only 16 since 1901 ever broke 10.5 WAR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s contemporary , Mike Trout , is not one of the 16 . )
Capping it all off with a World Series victory , Betts had a year for the ages — the kind which most great players can really expect to have just once , if they have one at all .
A lot has changed in Betts ’ s life since the 2018 season .
He became a father , was traded from Boston to the Los Angeles Dodgers in a blockbuster deal and earned the second-largest contract in baseball history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Betts is having an MVP-level , all-time great season , and he has his team looking like World Series favorites .
As of Wednesday ’ s games , Betts ranks third in all of baseball — including both batters and pitchers — in total value this season with 1.83 WAR , neck and neck with emerging superstar Fernando Tatis Jr. of the San Diego Padres ( 2.01 ) and the surprising Mike Yastrzemski of the San Francisco Giants ( 1.84 ) : Putting numbers from this strange , shortened season into context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home runs in 25 games — including three in a game against the Padres last week — and his on-base plus slugging ( 1.023 ) is 75 percent better than league average , eighth-best in the NL .
Defensively , he ’ s already been worth an estimated 5.1 more runs than an average right fielder , thanks to plays like this cannon throw to nail a runner trying to take an extra base at third : According to Statcast , that ball traveled 305 feet , the fifth-longest outfield assist in baseball @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game , Betts hit the ball 375 feet for his first home run as a Dodger ; five innings after that , he sprinted hard to turn a line drive to left-center into a double .
It was all a perfect encapsulation of Betts ’ s multifaceted baseball gifts , on display at once .
The error bars around short-season WAR are huge , and “ on-pace ” stats during a season usually deteriorate quickly .
But on a per-162-game basis , Betts has played at an 11.4-WAR level so far this season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per contest in 2020 has been higher than it was even in 2018 , a season that could have fairly been regarded as a once-in-a-career spectacle .
That , too , is rare : Of the 16 players in our prestigious 10.5-WAR club from earlier , only seven — Babe Ruth , Barry Bonds , Mickey Mantle , Ted Williams , Rogers Hornsby , Ty Cobb and Willie Mays — ever reached the same level in a separate season .
With only 60 games in which to work , Betts won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how well he plays — but he could potentially finish the shortened schedule on a historic per-game pace .
Strange as it is to say about a team as loaded with talent as L.A. , the Dodgers have genuinely needed Betts to replicate his 2018 performance in the early going this year .
Almost all of the team ’ s other superstars have underachieved during the first month of the season — including reigning NL MVP Cody Bellinger , who is hitting just .178 with -0.2 WAR , and starting pitcher Walker Buehler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the preseason who now carries a 5.21 ERA .
Of the 17 members of the Dodgers with an established level of at least 1.0 WAR per 162 games going into 2020 , eight of them have underperformed those expectations , with Bellinger , Buehler , Ross Stripling and Joc Pederson serving as the worst offenders .
But with Betts playing so well , the Dodgers rank first in overall WAR this season .
His hitting has carried them to the fifth-most batting WAR of any MLB team , and his defense ranks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the versatile Enrique Hernandez ) for the best defensive team in baseball by WAR .
Without Betts ’ s many wins added , Los Angeles would be on an 88-win pace per 162 games according to WAR — still probably good enough to make the playoffs in this year ’ s expanded field , but far from a dominant season .
With Betts , however , they are playing like a 99-win team , much more in keeping with their preseason expectations .
It ’ s certainly likely that Bellinger and company will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And Betts may well regress to a level that more resembles last season ’ s good-but-not-historically-great performance , too .
But a month into 2020 , he has easily been the MVP of the World Series front-runner , playing at a level as high as anyone in the game right now .
Although none of that is exactly unfamiliar territory for Betts , it underscores just how great he is — and how fortunate even a team as stacked as Los Angeles is to have him in the lineup every day .

In 2018, then-Boston Red Sox right fielder Mookie Betts put on one of the greatest single-season performances in MLB history: En route to an American League MVP award, Betts led the majors in batting with a .346 average, hit 32 home runs, had a .438 on-base percentage, slugged an MLB-best .640, scored 129 runs and won a Gold Glove award for his defense. Overall, that season was worth 10.5 wins above replacement, which placed Betts among an elite pantheon of batters: Only 16 since 1901 ever broke 10.5 WAR in a season. (Betts’s contemporary, Mike Trout, is not one of the 16.) Capping it all off with a World Series victory, Betts had a year for the ages — the kind which most great players can really expect to have just once, if they have one at all.
A lot has changed in Betts’s life since the 2018 season. He became a father, was traded from Boston to the Los Angeles Dodgers in a blockbuster deal and earned the second-largest contract in baseball history. But one thing is the same: Betts is having an MVP-level, all-time great season, and he has his team looking like World Series favorites.
As of Wednesday’s games, Betts ranks third in all of baseball — including both batters and pitchers — in total value this season with 1.83 WAR, neck and neck with emerging superstar Fernando Tatis Jr. of the San Diego Padres (2.01) and the surprising Mike Yastrzemski of the San Francisco Giants (1.84):
Mookie is among baseball’s very best, once again 2020 MLB leaders in wins above replacement (WAR) Wins Above replacement Player Team Pos Batting Pitching Total WAR Fernando Tatis Jr. SDP SS 2.01 0.00 2.01 Mike Yastrzemski SFG CF 1.84 0.00 1.84 Mookie Betts LAD RF 1.83 0.00 1.83 Brandon Lowe TBR 2B 1.74 0.00 1.74 Lance Lynn TEX P 0.00 1.54 1.54 Shane Bieber CLE P 0.00 1.48 1.48 Max Fried ATL P 0.00 1.43 1.43 Anthony Rendon LAA 3B 1.39 0.00 1.39 Trevor Bauer CIN P 0.00 1.35 1.35 Yu Darvish CHC P 0.00 1.27 1.27 Zack Greinke HOU P 0.00 1.27 1.27 Nelson Cruz MIN DH 1.24 0.00 1.24 Aaron Nola PHI P 0.00 1.22 1.22 Robbie Grossman OAK LF 1.19 0.00 1.19 Bryce Harper PHI RF 1.19 0.00 1.19 WAR is measured using JEFFBAGWELL (Joint Estimate Featuring FanGraphs and B-R Aggregated to Generate WAR, Equally Leveling Lists), which averages the metrics found at Baseball-Reference and FanGraphs. Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, FanGraphs
Putting numbers from this strange, shortened season into context is difficult. But Betts has nine home runs in 25 games — including three in a game against the Padres last week — and his on-base plus slugging (1.023) is 75 percent better than league average, eighth-best in the NL. Defensively, he’s already been worth an estimated 5.1 more runs than an average right fielder, thanks to plays like this cannon throw to nail a runner trying to take an extra base at third:
According to Statcast, that ball traveled 305 feet, the fifth-longest outfield assist in baseball since 2015. Later in the same game, Betts hit the ball 375 feet for his first home run as a Dodger; five innings after that, he sprinted hard to turn a line drive to left-center into a double. It was all a perfect encapsulation of Betts’s multifaceted baseball gifts, on display at once.
The error bars around short-season WAR are huge, and “on-pace” stats during a season usually deteriorate quickly. But on a per-162-game basis, Betts has played at an 11.4-WAR level so far this season. In other words, his value per contest in 2020 has been higher than it was even in 2018, a season that could have fairly been regarded as a once-in-a-career spectacle. That, too, is rare: Of the 16 players in our prestigious 10.5-WAR club from earlier, only seven — Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Mickey Mantle, Ted Williams, Rogers Hornsby, Ty Cobb and Willie Mays — ever reached the same level in a separate season. With only 60 games in which to work, Betts won’t become the eighth this season no matter how well he plays — but he could potentially finish the shortened schedule on a historic per-game pace.
Strange as it is to say about a team as loaded with talent as L.A., the Dodgers have genuinely needed Betts to replicate his 2018 performance in the early going this year. Almost all of the team’s other superstars have underachieved during the first month of the season — including reigning NL MVP Cody Bellinger, who is hitting just .178 with -0.2 WAR, and starting pitcher Walker Buehler, a trendy dark-horse Cy Young pick in the preseason who now carries a 5.21 ERA. Of the 17 members of the Dodgers with an established level of at least 1.0 WAR per 162 games going into 2020, eight of them have underperformed those expectations, with Bellinger, Buehler, Ross Stripling and Joc Pederson serving as the worst offenders.
Unlike some teammates, Betts has lived up to expectations Performance vs. expectations for 2020 Los Angeles Dodgers players with an established wins above replacement level of at least 1.0 WAR WAR/162 in season… Player Pos 2017 2018 2019 Est. Lvl. 2020 WAR/162 Diff. Mookie Betts RF 5.8 10.5 6.8 7.9 11.4 +3.5 Cody Bellinger CF 4.0 3.9 8.5 6.4 -1.2 -7.5 Justin Turner 3B 5.5 4.5 3.7 4.3 3.7 -0.6 Max Muncy 1B 0.0 4.6 5.2 4.2 1.1 -3.1 Clayton Kershaw P 4.9 4.1 3.2 3.8 1.2 -2.6 Walker Buehler P -0.2 3.5 3.4 2.9 -1.2 -4.0 Chris Taylor SS 4.6 3.5 1.7 2.8 3.7 +0.9 Corey Seager SS 5.6 0.4 3.3 2.7 5.4 +2.7 Joc Pederson LF 0.1 2.4 3.1 2.4 -1.2 -3.5 Enrique Hernandez 2B 1.2 2.9 1.7 2.0 3.1 +1.1 AJ Pollock LF 2.6 2.5 0.6 1.5 3.2 +1.6 Ross Stripling P 0.5 2.3 1.3 1.5 -3.1 -4.5 Blake Treinen P 1.3 3.9 -0.3 1.4 0.5 -0.9 Will Smith C 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.3 1.4 +0.1 Julio Urias P -0.1 0.1 1.5 1.1 2.4 +1.3 Kenley Jansen P 3.3 0.5 0.6 1.0 2.7 +1.7 Austin Barnes C 3.0 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.6 +0.6 A player’s established level is calculated by a weighted average of his previous three seasons, with the provision that it cannot be lower than 75 percent of his value from the most recent season. Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, FanGraphs
But with Betts playing so well, the Dodgers rank first in overall WAR this season. His hitting has carried them to the fifth-most batting WAR of any MLB team, and his defense ranks second in total value (behind only the versatile Enrique Hernandez) for the best defensive team in baseball by WAR. Without Betts’s many wins added, Los Angeles would be on an 88-win pace per 162 games according to WAR — still probably good enough to make the playoffs in this year’s expanded field, but far from a dominant season. With Betts, however, they are playing like a 99-win team, much more in keeping with their preseason expectations.
It’s certainly likely that Bellinger and company will improve as the season goes on. And Betts may well regress to a level that more resembles last season’s good-but-not-historically-great performance, too. But a month into 2020, he has easily been the MVP of the World Series front-runner, playing at a level as high as anyone in the game right now. Although none of that is exactly unfamiliar territory for Betts, it underscores just how great he is — and how fortunate even a team as stacked as Los Angeles is to have him in the lineup every day.
Check out our latest MLB predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-20--Politics Podcast: Harris Makes History At Night 3 Of The DNC

If the guiding wisdom for a running mate is “ do no harm , ” Joe Biden ’ s VP @ @ @ @ @ has so far succeeded .
In this reaction to the third night of the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ Politics podcast crew discusses Harris ’ s speech and asks whether she can go beyond @ @ @ @ @ an asset for the Democrats this fall .

If the guiding wisdom for a running mate is “do no harm,” then Joe Biden’s vice presidential pick, Kamala Harris, has so far succeeded. In this reaction to the third night of the Democratic National Convention, the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew discusses Harris’s speech and asks whether she can go beyond this guiding wisdom and become an asset for the Democrats this fall.