fivethirthyeight--2020-08-27--Why Trump’s Racist Appeals Might Be Less Effective In 2020 Than They Were In 2016

In the closing days of the 2018 midterms campaign , with the economy on a historic run , President Trump tried to focus Americans ’ attention on a caravan of Central American migrants heading toward the United States .
He seemed to believe that by highlighting the migrants , he might rally voters back to the GOP in advance of the vote .
In recent weeks , Trump has telegraphed that racialized wedge issues are again a central element of his political strategy and seems to see a consistent political advantage in overt or dog-whistle racist appeals and the condemnation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has promised to protect “ the suburban housewife ” from lower-income neighbors ; threatened to veto a bill that contained a provision to rename military bases named for Confederate leaders ; waved off the problem of Black Americans being disproportionately killed by police by saying “ so are white people ; ” focused his campaign advertising on crime and protests ; and repeated baseless , racist allegations about Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris .
In using racial appeals , the president is the latest in a generations-long line of politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics .
But is there sometimes a political logic to such appeals ?
They didn ’ t work in 2018 .
Democrats would go on to take control of the U.S. House and a bunch of governorships .
That was a midterm election , though , and this is a contest for the presidency .
So , are racialized wedge issues likely to work to the GOP ’ s advantage in November ?
To answer that question , it ’ s valuable to turn back to a case in which the effects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on voting have already been extensively analyzed : the 2016 general election .
Then , too , Trump was widely seen as using racial wedge issues to build political support .
One good starting point in assessing the impact of white voters ’ racial attitudes in 2016 is the influential book “ Identity Crisis ” by John Sides , FiveThirtyEight contributor Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck .
The authors build from a long-standing framework in political science which holds that lots of voters have political attitudes that point in opposite directions in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Consider , for example , someone who opposes abortion but believes we need to take immediate action on climate change . )
Campaigns matter , in this view , because they can make specific issues more or less relevant in voters ’ evaluation of their choice , a concept sometimes called priming or activation .
The telltale sign of activation is that an attitude — in our example , the voter ’ s opposition to abortion — becomes a more powerful factor in their vote choice after the campaign highlights abortion-related rhetoric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who believes in climate change might vote for a climate-change denier because that issue has become less of a factor in the voter ’ s choice .
How did this play out in the real world ?
In 2012 , Barack Obama , the nation ’ s first Black president , was reelected by a coalition that included a meaningful number of voters with “ conservative ” views on race-related issues and immigration , particularly in pivotal states .
Then , in 2016 , many of those voters ’ views on racial issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice after exposure to racialized campaign rhetoric , according to a panel survey Sides , Tesler and Vavreck collected tracking the same group of individuals over time .
They concluded that Trump won a small but influential sliver of the electorate with conservative views on race and immigration after his campaign foregrounded those identity-infused issues .
Those are striking findings given that the nation ’ s first Black president had been running for reelection in 2012 , and given that racial attitudes were already very predictive of whether a white voter is likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Still , it ’ s broadly consistent with other research on the activation of whites ’ racial attitudes in 2016 , including Diana Mutz ’ s research on “ status threat ” and Matt Baretto and Christopher Parker ’ s research on racial attitudes and support for the pre-Trump tea party .
On its own , that body of research seems to suggest that Trump could win votes by using racial appeals , especially if activating racialized issues plays to the GOP ’ s advantage in swing states .
Still , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that activation can cut both ways , since those with liberal racial attitudes can shift away from the GOP just as those with conservative racial attitudes shift toward it .
Indeed , we ’ ve seen exactly that , with college-educated white voters — who tend to have more liberal attitudes on race — moving towards the Democratic Party since Obama ’ s election in 2008 .
Also , activation isn ’ t the only way to measure a concept as broad and important as “ racialized voting.
” In a recent paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that , relative to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney , Trump actually gained more support from voters with moderate views on race than from voters with more conservative racial views .
One key difference between Grimmer and Marble ’ s approach and those detailed above is that they measure whites ’ racial attitudes separately in 2012 and 2016 .
Since white Americans ’ racial attitudes overall became more liberal and less prejudiced between those two elections , it stands to reason that fewer Trump supporters would take conservative positions on race-related issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 general election , I found results generally consistent with Sides and co-authors ’ evidence of activation : Respondents at the 20th percentile of anti-Black prejudice ( low levels of prejudice ) supported Trump 4 percentage points less than did respondents at the 80th percentile ( high levels of prejudice ) , holding constant partisanship and various demographics .
( That doesn ’ t mean Trump got a 4-point advantage , since that number partly reflects low-prejudice white voters shifting away from the GOP . )
In the 2016 GOP primary , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much more clear-cut .
There , if we compare white voters who identify with the GOP with prejudice scores ( measured years earlier ) at the 20th percentile to those at the 80th percentile , Trump was doing a striking 10 percentage points better with the latter group in the GOP primary as of January 2016 .
That association is far stronger than any comparable association observed in the 2008 primaries .
In the Democratic primary that year , Obama did a more modest 3 percentage points worse among the group that scored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , knowing white Republicans ’ prejudice scores doesn ’ t really explain vote choice at all in the 2008 GOP primary .
So where did using racial wedge issues arguably work to Trump ’ s advantage most ?
In the 2016 GOP primaries .
Fast forward four years , past Trump ’ s reaction to the violence in Charlottesville , Virginia , cursing NFL players who kneel for the national anthem , referring to Haiti and African nations as “ shithole countries , ” and much else .
Looking at that panel survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we can see how the relationship between white respondents ’ prejudice and their presidential intentions has changed .
In the January 2020 survey wave , the poll included a question about a potential Trump-Biden general election match-up .
And respondents who reported especially high levels of prejudice back in 2012 were roughly as firmly with Trump as of this January as they had been in fall 2016 .
But notice the histogram at the bottom , which show how many respondents registered each level of prejudice : The high-prejudice portion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Romney accounts for roughly a quarter of all white respondents ( to say nothing of nonwhite voters or voters too young to appear in a 12-year-old panel ) .
Further activating this group is likely to have diminishing returns for Trump because there aren ’ t many of them and they are already strongly behind the president .
By contrast , white voters with lower levels of prejudice are far more numerous , and also less likely to be with Trump than in 2016 .
In other words , Trump has far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ larger number of white Americans with lower levels of prejudice .
Remember , this wave of the panel was conducted in January — before COVID-19 and , crucially , before the protests following the killing of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and the shooting of Jacob Blake .
The protests may have changed the relationship between racial attitudes and voting in ways not detected in this survey .
But the evidence to date suggests that , if anything , the protests may have continued to push white Americans ’ racial attitudes in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Democrats are now arguably more unified on race-related issues than Republicans , meaning that relative to 2016 , there are fewer voters with the mix of attitudes that might make them responsive to racial appeals .
Other issues , like the coronavirus and the government ’ s response , have also crowded the political agenda , limiting Trump ’ s ability to change the subject .
True , Grimmer and Marble disagree with Sides , Tesler and Vavreck on the role racial attitudes played in 2016 .
But when looking ahead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement .
In an email , Grimmer offered a conclusion similar to Tesler ’ s , noting that “ in 2016 , Trump was already winning almost all of the declining fraction of voters who are highest in racial resentment .
So he has a lot more room for growth among those in the middle of the racial resentment scale , both in terms of turning out and choosing him over Biden.
” It ’ s surely too soon to count Trump out .
But if Trump does win reelection in November , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to gains with white voters lower in prejudice or with nonwhite voters .
Using racist appeals and racialized wedge issues won him support most clearly in the 2016 GOP primary .
But there are key differences between that contest and the 2020 general election — differences that may make racial appeals less impactful this year .
And judging from the RNC ’ s periodic efforts to counter the charge that Trump is racially divisive , some of its planners seem to agree .

In the closing days of the 2018 midterms campaign, with the economy on a historic run, President Trump tried to focus Americans’ attention on a caravan of Central American migrants heading toward the United States. He seemed to believe that by highlighting the migrants, he might rally voters back to the GOP in advance of the vote.
In recent weeks, Trump has telegraphed that racialized wedge issues are again a central element of his political strategy and seems to see a consistent political advantage in overt or dog-whistle racist appeals and the condemnation they invariably draw. For example, Trump has promised to protect “the suburban housewife” from lower-income neighbors; threatened to veto a bill that contained a provision to rename military bases named for Confederate leaders; waved off the problem of Black Americans being disproportionately killed by police by saying “so are white people;” focused his campaign advertising on crime and protests; and repeated baseless, racist allegations about Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Kamala Harris.
In using racial appeals, the president is the latest in a generations-long line of politicians tapping into a dangerous vein in American politics. But is there sometimes a political logic to such appeals? They didn’t work in 2018. Democrats would go on to take control of the U.S. House and a bunch of governorships. That was a midterm election, though, and this is a contest for the presidency. So, are racialized wedge issues likely to work to the GOP’s advantage in November?
To answer that question, it’s valuable to turn back to a case in which the effects of white voters’ racial attitudes and prejudices on voting have already been extensively analyzed: the 2016 general election. Then, too, Trump was widely seen as using racial wedge issues to build political support.
White voters’ racial attitudes in 2016
One good starting point in assessing the impact of white voters’ racial attitudes in 2016 is the influential book “Identity Crisis” by John Sides, FiveThirtyEight contributor Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck. The authors build from a long-standing framework in political science which holds that lots of voters have political attitudes that point in opposite directions in terms of which party they might support. (Consider, for example, someone who opposes abortion but believes we need to take immediate action on climate change.)
Campaigns matter, in this view, because they can make specific issues more or less relevant in voters’ evaluation of their choice, a concept sometimes called priming or activation. The telltale sign of activation is that an attitude — in our example, the voter’s opposition to abortion — becomes a more powerful factor in their vote choice after the campaign highlights abortion-related rhetoric. In this way, a voter who believes in climate change might vote for a climate-change denier because that issue has become less of a factor in the voter’s choice.
How did this play out in the real world? In 2012, Barack Obama, the nation’s first Black president, was reelected by a coalition that included a meaningful number of voters with “conservative” views on race-related issues and immigration, particularly in pivotal states. Then, in 2016, many of those voters’ views on racial issues became more closely integrated with their vote choice after exposure to racialized campaign rhetoric, according to a panel survey Sides, Tesler and Vavreck collected tracking the same group of individuals over time. They concluded that Trump won a small but influential sliver of the electorate with conservative views on race and immigration after his campaign foregrounded those identity-infused issues.
Those are striking findings given that the nation’s first Black president had been running for reelection in 2012, and given that racial attitudes were already very predictive of whether a white voter is likely to be a Republican or a Democrat. Still, it’s broadly consistent with other research on the activation of whites’ racial attitudes in 2016, including Diana Mutz’s research on “status threat” and Matt Baretto and Christopher Parker’s research on racial attitudes and support for the pre-Trump tea party.
On its own, that body of research seems to suggest that Trump could win votes by using racial appeals, especially if activating racialized issues plays to the GOP’s advantage in swing states. Still, it’s critical to keep in mind that activation can cut both ways, since those with liberal racial attitudes can shift away from the GOP just as those with conservative racial attitudes shift toward it. Indeed, we’ve seen exactly that, with college-educated white voters — who tend to have more liberal attitudes on race — moving towards the Democratic Party since Obama’s election in 2008.
Also, activation isn’t the only way to measure a concept as broad and important as “racialized voting.” In a recent paper, Justin Grimmer and Will Marble pointed out that, relative to 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney, Trump actually gained more support from voters with moderate views on race than from voters with more conservative racial views. One key difference between Grimmer and Marble’s approach and those detailed above is that they measure whites’ racial attitudes separately in 2012 and 2016. Since white Americans’ racial attitudes overall became more liberal and less prejudiced between those two elections, it stands to reason that fewer Trump supporters would take conservative positions on race-related issues than Romney supporters did. In the 2016 general election, I found results generally consistent with Sides and co-authors’ evidence of activation: Respondents at the 20th percentile of anti-Black prejudice (low levels of prejudice) supported Trump 4 percentage points less than did respondents at the 80th percentile (high levels of prejudice), holding constant partisanship and various demographics. (That doesn’t mean Trump got a 4-point advantage, since that number partly reflects low-prejudice white voters shifting away from the GOP.)
In the 2016 GOP primary, though, the role of anti-Black prejudice was much more clear-cut. There, if we compare white voters who identify with the GOP with prejudice scores (measured years earlier) at the 20th percentile to those at the 80th percentile, Trump was doing a striking 10 percentage points better with the latter group in the GOP primary as of January 2016. That association is far stronger than any comparable association observed in the 2008 primaries. In the Democratic primary that year, Obama did a more modest 3 percentage points worse among the group that scored higher on the prejudice scale. Meanwhile, knowing white Republicans’ prejudice scores doesn’t really explain vote choice at all in the 2008 GOP primary. So where did using racial wedge issues arguably work to Trump’s advantage most? In the 2016 GOP primaries.
Where Things Stand Now
Fast forward four years, past Trump’s reaction to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, cursing NFL players who kneel for the national anthem, referring to Haiti and African nations as “shithole countries,” and much else.
Looking at that panel survey I used in the Political Behavior study, we can see how the relationship between white respondents’ prejudice and their presidential intentions has changed. In the January 2020 survey wave, the poll included a question about a potential Trump-Biden general election match-up. And respondents who reported especially high levels of prejudice back in 2012 were roughly as firmly with Trump as of this January as they had been in fall 2016.
But notice the histogram at the bottom, which show how many respondents registered each level of prejudice: The high-prejudice portion of the white electorate where Trump was clearly outperforming Romney accounts for roughly a quarter of all white respondents (to say nothing of nonwhite voters or voters too young to appear in a 12-year-old panel). Further activating this group is likely to have diminishing returns for Trump because there aren’t many of them and they are already strongly behind the president. By contrast, white voters with lower levels of prejudice are far more numerous, and also less likely to be with Trump than in 2016. In other words, Trump has far more room to increase his support among the larger number of white Americans with lower levels of prejudice.
Remember, this wave of the panel was conducted in January — before COVID-19 and, crucially, before the protests following the killing of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and the shooting of Jacob Blake. The protests may have changed the relationship between racial attitudes and voting in ways not detected in this survey. But the evidence to date suggests that, if anything, the protests may have continued to push white Americans’ racial attitudes in a liberal direction. And as Tesler contends, Democrats are now arguably more unified on race-related issues than Republicans, meaning that relative to 2016, there are fewer voters with the mix of attitudes that might make them responsive to racial appeals. Other issues, like the coronavirus and the government’s response, have also crowded the political agenda, limiting Trump’s ability to change the subject.
True, Grimmer and Marble disagree with Sides, Tesler and Vavreck on the role racial attitudes played in 2016. But when looking ahead to 2020, the researchers are more in agreement. In an email, Grimmer offered a conclusion similar to Tesler’s, noting that “in 2016, Trump was already winning almost all of the declining fraction of voters who are highest in racial resentment. So he has a lot more room for growth among those in the middle of the racial resentment scale, both in terms of turning out and choosing him over Biden.”
It’s surely too soon to count Trump out. But if Trump does win reelection in November, it’s very likely to be due to gains with white voters lower in prejudice or with nonwhite voters. Using racist appeals and racialized wedge issues won him support most clearly in the 2016 GOP primary. But there are key differences between that contest and the 2020 general election — differences that may make racial appeals less impactful this year. And judging from the RNC’s periodic efforts to counter the charge that Trump is racially divisive, some of its planners seem to agree.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-27--How Did Night 3 Of The RNC Address (Or Not Address) Kenosha And Hurricane Laura?

How Did Night 3 Of The RNC Address ( Or Not Address ) Kenosha And Hurricane Laura ?


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-27--Not All Americans Can Get A COVID-19 Test When They Want One

In many cities in America , your access to COVID-19 testing depends on the color of your skin .
FiveThirtyEight @ @ @ @ @ reporting on the state of testing access in America .
Watch the video and explore @ @ @ @ @ racial disparities in testing .

Not All Americans Can Get A COVID-19 Test When They Want One
In many cities in America, your access to COVID-19 testing depends on the color of your skin.
FiveThirtyEight and ABC News spent months reporting on the state of testing access in America. Watch the video and explore which cities have the biggest racial disparities in testing.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-27--Why A Strike For Racial Justice Started With The Milwaukee Bucks And The NBA

The Milwaukee Bucks ’ decision not to take the court for their playoff game Wednesday reverberated quickly across the sports world .
Their protest against the police shooting of a Black man , Jacob Blake , in Kenosha , Wisconsin , was joined by other teams in the NBA as well as three other leagues : WNBA players called off their Wednesday night games ; three MLB games were postponed , with the Milwaukee Brewers the first to decide against playing their home game ; and five MLS matches were shelved .
NBA players in the bubble , the league @ @ @ @ @ @ @ playoffs ( largely sealed off from the rest of society to prevent coronavirus infections ) , held a meeting late Wednesday to talk about what exactly comes next for the playoffs , if anything .
The remaining teams were polled on their initial preference , and the Lakers and Clippers voted to end the season .
The players will meet again Thursday at 11 a.m. Eastern , according to ESPN ’ s Malika Andrews and Adrian Wojnarowski , at the same time as a meeting of the NBA ’ s Board of Governors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be played Thursday .
Amid efforts across sports to return to play during the coronavirus pandemic , the Milwaukee-led strike represents the most significant act of demonstration during a summer full of athletes blurring the line between sports and politics .
The NBA gave Black Lives Matter signs prominent placement on courts in Orlando , and players were able to put messages on the backs of their jerseys ( selecting from a pre-approved list ) .
But some players had begun to wonder whether the presence of slogans around the broadcasts had really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ games merely served to distract from the larger message .
“ We shouldn ’ t have came to this damn place , to be honest , ” Bucks guard George Hill told reporters on Monday .
“ Coming here just took all the focal points off what the issues are .
… We ’ re down here playing in the bubble to do these things for social justice and all that .
To see it all still going on and we ’ re just playing the games like it ’ s nothing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up situation right now.
” That such frustrations have come to a head this week , in the wake of Blake ’ s shooting , isn ’ t surprising .
But that they would lead to a mass strike is historic .
A few members of the Boston Celtics sat out an exhibition game in 1961 over the racist treatment of Black players at the team ’ s hotel .
NBA All-Stars also staged a strike before tipoff in 1964 , fighting for better working conditions for all players — a momentous event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement .
But we ’ ve never quite seen so many players refuse to take the court in solidarity with a social movement that extends far beyond sports .
The closest analog might be when Roberto Clemente and the Pittsburgh Pirates voted not to play on opening day in 1968 — the day of Martin Luther King Jr. ’ s funeral — and other clubs eventually followed suit .
The Dodgers , who had broken the league ’ s color barrier by signing Jackie Robinson in 1947 , were the last holdouts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figured King ’ s funeral would be over by the time its game began .
But the club had no choice but to eventually cave when the team they were slated to host , the Philadelphia Phillies , said they would rather forfeit than take the field .
It was another case of a league ’ s Black players having to band together and threaten a boycott in order to protest injustice .
But back to 2020 .
The Milwaukee Bucks , of all the teams in all the leagues , might seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spark for such a historic strike , but they ’ re not — particularly for a protest about racial justice .
According to The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport ( TIDES ) , 83.1 percent of NBA players in the 2019-20 season are people of color , including 74.2 percent who are Black or African American .
Simply put , no other league has such a large share of players who can identify so strongly with the horror of police violence against Black Americans .
“ It could be me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lillard ( among others ) in a video released after Minneapolis police killed George Floyd in May .
And the Bucks have been as vocal as any NBA team on the subject of police brutality — Milwaukee police apologized to Bucks guard Sterling Brown in 2018 after officers took the player to the ground and tased him over a parking dispute .
Plus , Kenosha is just 39 miles south of Milwaukee , essentially putting the incident in the club ’ s backyard .
The Bucks ’ players used their time off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding a conference call from their locker room with the Wisconsin attorney general and lieutenant governor , asking what could be done on the issue of police reform in the state .
The strike , four years after Colin Kaepernick kneeled during the national anthem for the first time to draw attention to racial injustice , comes as white Americans ’ support for Black Lives Matter protests has waned .
The poll numbers on the question , which surged after Floyd ’ s death , have fallen in recent months — closer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But don ’ t expect a widespread backlash to the strike among NBA fans .
The players ’ commitment to racial justice is helped by their sport ’ s very liberal fan base .
According to a poll we conducted in partnership with the market research firm Ipsos in early May , basketball is one of the sports with the highest share of “ major ” or “ casual ” fans identifying as Democrats .
We found that only soccer fans ( with nearly 64 percent identifying as Democrats ) leaned more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of whom nearly 60 percent were Democrats ) .
Our previous research has also shown the NBA to have the most left-leaning fandom of any major men ’ s pro league .
So NBA fans will probably continue to be sympathetic to the players ’ cause , by and large — which may have served to insulate the league from the kind of political backlash the NFL faced after players took a knee during the national anthem to protest police violence , for instance .
Over the past decade , the NBA has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consciousness among sports leagues .
According to ESPN ’ s Ramona Shelburne , the Los Angeles Clippers seriously considered boycotting Game 5 of their 2014 first-round playoff series after recordings emerged of team owner Donald Sterling making racist comments .
But they ultimately decided to play — in the words of Blake Griffin , “ we haven ’ t been playing for [ Sterling ] in the first place.
” That near-boycott played a role in Adam Silver ’ s decision to ban Sterling from the league , a pivotal moment not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but also in the league ’ s evolution as a force for progressive social change .
After unarmed Black teenager Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida a few years earlier , members of the Miami Heat had worn hoodies in solidarity .
Many stars also wore “ I Can ’ t Breathe ” shirts after New York police killed Eric Garner in 2014 .
More recently , NBA players were fixtures at the protests after Floyd ’ s death over the summer .
The ability to continue those protests was top of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enter the bubble , a closed environment , for several months of playoff games .
Kyrie Irving of the Brooklyn Nets led a June call with fellow players , asking whether a return to play would distract from the message of the Black Lives Matter protests going on outside the bubble .
The refusal to play on Wednesday could be seen as an extension of the same philosophical debate : Is more good being done by playing — seen by some as a distraction from the societal issues at hand — but being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesting and staying focused on the larger message but having less of a traditional media platform ?
The NBA will have to face that question again on Thursday .

The Milwaukee Bucks’ decision not to take the court for their playoff game Wednesday reverberated quickly across the sports world. Their protest against the police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was joined by other teams in the NBA as well as three other leagues: WNBA players called off their Wednesday night games; three MLB games were postponed, with the Milwaukee Brewers the first to decide against playing their home game; and five MLS matches were shelved.
NBA players in the bubble, the league’s Orlando-based hub for the 2020 playoffs (largely sealed off from the rest of society to prevent coronavirus infections), held a meeting late Wednesday to talk about what exactly comes next for the playoffs, if anything. The remaining teams were polled on their initial preference, and the Lakers and Clippers voted to end the season. The players will meet again Thursday at 11 a.m. Eastern, according to ESPN’s Malika Andrews and Adrian Wojnarowski, at the same time as a meeting of the NBA’s Board of Governors. No NBA games are expected to be played Thursday.
Amid efforts across sports to return to play during the coronavirus pandemic, the Milwaukee-led strike represents the most significant act of demonstration during a summer full of athletes blurring the line between sports and politics. The NBA gave Black Lives Matter signs prominent placement on courts in Orlando, and players were able to put messages on the backs of their jerseys (selecting from a pre-approved list). But some players had begun to wonder whether the presence of slogans around the broadcasts had really helped the movement, or if the games merely served to distract from the larger message.
“We shouldn’t have came to this damn place, to be honest,” Bucks guard George Hill told reporters on Monday. “Coming here just took all the focal points off what the issues are. … We’re down here playing in the bubble to do these things for social justice and all that. To see it all still going on and we’re just playing the games like it’s nothing, it’s just a really messed up situation right now.”
That such frustrations have come to a head this week, in the wake of Blake’s shooting, isn’t surprising. But that they would lead to a mass strike is historic. A few members of the Boston Celtics sat out an exhibition game in 1961 over the racist treatment of Black players at the team’s hotel. NBA All-Stars also staged a strike before tipoff in 1964, fighting for better working conditions for all players — a momentous event in the history of the sports labor movement. But we’ve never quite seen so many players refuse to take the court in solidarity with a social movement that extends far beyond sports.
The closest analog might be when Roberto Clemente and the Pittsburgh Pirates voted not to play on opening day in 1968 — the day of Martin Luther King Jr.’s funeral — and other clubs eventually followed suit. The Dodgers, who had broken the league’s color barrier by signing Jackie Robinson in 1947, were the last holdouts, and the team’s front office figured King’s funeral would be over by the time its game began. But the club had no choice but to eventually cave when the team they were slated to host, the Philadelphia Phillies, said they would rather forfeit than take the field. It was another case of a league’s Black players having to band together and threaten a boycott in order to protest injustice.
But back to 2020. The Milwaukee Bucks, of all the teams in all the leagues, might seem like an odd place to find the spark for such a historic strike, but they’re not — particularly for a protest about racial justice. According to The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport (TIDES), 83.1 percent of NBA players in the 2019-20 season are people of color, including 74.2 percent who are Black or African American. Simply put, no other league has such a large share of players who can identify so strongly with the horror of police violence against Black Americans.
“It could be me,” said Portland Trail Blazers star Damian Lillard (among others) in a video released after Minneapolis police killed George Floyd in May.
And the Bucks have been as vocal as any NBA team on the subject of police brutality — Milwaukee police apologized to Bucks guard Sterling Brown in 2018 after officers took the player to the ground and tased him over a parking dispute. Plus, Kenosha is just 39 miles south of Milwaukee, essentially putting the incident in the club’s backyard. The Bucks’ players used their time off the court Wednesday to work for change, holding a conference call from their locker room with the Wisconsin attorney general and lieutenant governor, asking what could be done on the issue of police reform in the state.
The strike, four years after Colin Kaepernick kneeled during the national anthem for the first time to draw attention to racial injustice, comes as white Americans’ support for Black Lives Matter protests has waned. The poll numbers on the question, which surged after Floyd’s death, have fallen in recent months — closer to where they were before the Floyd protests.
But don’t expect a widespread backlash to the strike among NBA fans. The players’ commitment to racial justice is helped by their sport’s very liberal fan base. According to a poll we conducted in partnership with the market research firm Ipsos in early May, basketball is one of the sports with the highest share of “major” or “casual” fans identifying as Democrats. We found that only soccer fans (with nearly 64 percent identifying as Democrats) leaned more to the left than basketball fans (of whom nearly 60 percent were Democrats).
Basketball has a left-leaning fan base Two-party share of self-described major or casual fans who identified as either Democrats or Republicans in a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll Share of two-Party Fan Support Sport Democrats Republicans Soccer 63.9% 36.1% Basketball 59.7 40.3 Football 49.5 50.5 Baseball 44.2 55.8 Hockey 38.4 61.6 Golf 37.4 62.6 NASCAR 32.6 67.4 Poll was conducted among 1,109 American respondents from May 5-11, 2020.
Our previous research has also shown the NBA to have the most left-leaning fandom of any major men’s pro league. So NBA fans will probably continue to be sympathetic to the players’ cause, by and large — which may have served to insulate the league from the kind of political backlash the NFL faced after players took a knee during the national anthem to protest police violence, for instance.
Over the past decade, the NBA has increasingly been at the forefront of social consciousness among sports leagues. According to ESPN’s Ramona Shelburne, the Los Angeles Clippers seriously considered boycotting Game 5 of their 2014 first-round playoff series after recordings emerged of team owner Donald Sterling making racist comments. But they ultimately decided to play — in the words of Blake Griffin, “we haven’t been playing for [Sterling] in the first place.”
That near-boycott played a role in Adam Silver’s decision to ban Sterling from the league, a pivotal moment not just in Silver’s stewardship as commissioner, but also in the league’s evolution as a force for progressive social change. After unarmed Black teenager Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida a few years earlier, members of the Miami Heat had worn hoodies in solidarity. Many stars also wore “I Can’t Breathe” shirts after New York police killed Eric Garner in 2014.
More recently, NBA players were fixtures at the protests after Floyd’s death over the summer. The ability to continue those protests was top of mind as players were debating whether to enter the bubble, a closed environment, for several months of playoff games. Kyrie Irving of the Brooklyn Nets led a June call with fellow players, asking whether a return to play would distract from the message of the Black Lives Matter protests going on outside the bubble.
The refusal to play on Wednesday could be seen as an extension of the same philosophical debate: Is more good being done by playing — seen by some as a distraction from the societal issues at hand — but being visible on TV every night, or protesting and staying focused on the larger message but having less of a traditional media platform? The NBA will have to face that question again on Thursday.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-27--Politics Podcast: Pence Makes A ‘Law And Order’ Appeal On Night 3 Of The RNC

After the third night of the 2020 Republican National Convention , the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew discusses the keynote address @ @ @ @ @ , who used Nixonian law-and-order rhetoric to appeal to voters .

Politics Podcast: Pence Makes A ‘Law And Order’ Appeal On Night 3 Of The RNC
After the third night of the 2020 Republican National Convention, the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew discusses the keynote address by Vice President Mike Pence, who used Nixonian law-and-order rhetoric to appeal to voters.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-27--What Went Down On Night 3 Of The RNC

What Went Down On Night 3 Of The RNC

What Went Down On Night 3 Of The RNC

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


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-26--What To Watch For On Night 3 Of The RNC

What To Watch For On Night 3 Of The RNC

The FiveThirtyEight Politics crew discusses what to expect on the third night of the 2020 Republican National Convention .
Will @ @ @ @ @ in Kenosha , Wisconsin ?
Will President Trump or Vice President Mike Pence mention Hurricane @ @ @ @ @ Gulf Coast ?

What To Watch For On Night 3 Of The RNC
The FiveThirtyEight Politics crew discusses what to expect on the third night of the 2020 Republican National Convention. Will the speakers address the protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin? Will President Trump or Vice President Mike Pence mention Hurricane Laura as it threatens the Gulf Coast?


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-26--Monster Games In The NBA Playoffs Aren’t Automatically Translating To Wins

In Game 1 of Utah ’ s first-round series against the Denver Nuggets , Donovan Mitchell could not be stopped .
The third-year Jazz star rained down 57 points , the third-most in NBA playoff history behind only Michael Jordan and Elgin Baylor .
Mitchell made 19 of his 33 shots from the field and six of 15 from behind the 3-point arc , and he paraded himself to the free-throw line 13 times , connecting on all 13 tries .
Jerami Grant , Torrey Craig , Jamal Murray , Monte Morris … whomever the Nuggets put in front of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They were sitting ducks , and Mitchell roasted them all .
When he wasn ’ t busy cooking , Mitchell found time to grab nine rebounds and dish out seven assists .
It was a truly spectacular performance — and yet , the Jazz lost the game in overtime , unable to withstand Murray ’ s own crunch-time explosion .
Later that night , in Game 1 of the Dallas Mavericks ’ series against the Los Angeles Clippers , Luka Dončić could not be stopped .
Dončić poured in 42 points , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the field and 14 of 15 from the charity stripe .
When he wasn ’ t putting the ball in the bucket himself , Dončić found time to snag seven rebounds , dish out nine dimes and snag three steals .
Even his 11 turnovers couldn ’ t overshadow what was , again , a truly spectacular performance .
And yet , the Mavericks lost the game by 8 .
A few days later , Indiana Pacers guard Malcolm Brogdon went for 34 points , seven rebounds , 14 assists and two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the field and four of seven from deep , only to see his team lose by 9 to the Miami Heat .
Over the weekend , Murray and Mitchell switched roles .
This time , it was Murray dropping a 50-spot , grabbing 11 rebounds and setting his teammates up for seven baskets , only to see his team lose the game by 2 .
That very same night , the Clippers ’ Lou Williams came off the bench to sear the nets for 36 points on 13 of 20 from the field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight of nine from the line , to go along with four rebounds and five assists , only to see his work foiled by Dončić , who capped his own stunning performance with a preposterous buzzer-beating three in overtime .
Five spectacular games from five players , all with the same result for their team : L. To say that those losses defied long odds would be a dramatic understatement .
Each of those performances registered as at least a 30 in Basketball-Reference.com ’ s Game Score .
( Game Score is exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to capture single-game performance in one number . )
From 1980 through 2019 , NBA teams with a player tallying a Game Score of at least 30 in a playoff game went 468-159 , a 0.746 winning percentage .
This year , such teams are just 9-5 , for a 0.643 winning percentage .
Only thrice in the previous 40 years did teams register a worse winning percentage in these games : 1988 , when they went 16-9 ; 2009 , when they went 16-10 ; and 2013 , when they went just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like merely the result of a small sample or a small difference between the rate at which teams have won , consider this : NBA teams with a 30-Game Score player would need to win all of the next six games to match or exceed the historical winning percentage in those types of playoff games .
These games are also happening more often .
There have already been 14 instances this postseason of a player recording a Game Score of 30 or better , against an average over the previous 40 seasons of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era , the average was 16.8 per postseason , and that has been consistent even since the league lengthened first-round series from five games to seven .
So far , we ’ re seeing a 30-plus Game Score performance more than twice as frequently in 2020 as we did from 2004 through 2019 .
Not once in the previous 40 years did these games happen more frequently .
The only year that came close was 2017 , when there were 32 in a 79-game postseason , or one every 2.47 contests .
Before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way back to 1990 to find a year in which you saw a 30-plus Game Score performance more than once every third game .
Some of the increase in frequency can be pinned on pace .
This is the fastest postseason for which there is pace data available on NBA.com , with games checking in at an average of 99.7 possessions per team , and Game Score leans heavily on stat accumulation .
More possessions equals more chances for stats .
But last year ’ s postseason averaged 98.1 possessions per game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a 30-plus Game Score during the 82-game postseason , or one every 3.28 games .
The year before that , the average was one every 4.32 games .
So , it ’ s not just pace .
Some of it has to be attributed to the ridiculous offensive environment we have seen in the bubble .
This season ’ s Mavericks had the most efficient offense in NBA history , and five of the 16 playoff teams are scoring more efficiently in the postseason than the Mavs did during the year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ commonality in the five games in which a player had a Game Score of 30 or better and his team still lost : In each of those games , the player ’ s team had a defensive rating of 114 or worse .
In four out of five , it was 120 or worse .
Their teams getting lit up on defense meant Mitchell , Dončić , Brogdon , Murray and Williams had to try to take over the game on the other end of the floor , which in turn raised their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also each helped by one of the other trends that has revealed itself in the bubble : extraordinary shooting on contested jumpers .
During the five games in question , each of the players exceeded their expected effective field-goal percentage on contested jump shots by at least 6.43 percentage points , according to Second Spectrum , and three of them exceeded it by 30 percentage points or more .
( The same trend held for Mitchell , Dončić and Williams on their teammates ’ contested jumpers taken after passes thrown by those players @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 10 of the 14 instances of these games have come against defenses ranked outside the top 10 in efficiency , and that it ’ s likely that at least two and as many as three or four of those teams ( depending on the result of the Clippers-Mavericks and Thunder-Rockets series ) will be eliminated by the end of this week .
With better defenses advancing to the later rounds and the poorer defenses leaving the bubble , perhaps we ’ ll see a reduction in the frequency of these monster games @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has gone is any indication , though , we ’ re likely to see at least a few more — whether in wins or losses .

In Game 1 of Utah’s first-round series against the Denver Nuggets, Donovan Mitchell could not be stopped. The third-year Jazz star rained down 57 points, the third-most in NBA playoff history behind only Michael Jordan and Elgin Baylor. Mitchell made 19 of his 33 shots from the field and six of 15 from behind the 3-point arc, and he paraded himself to the free-throw line 13 times, connecting on all 13 tries.
Jerami Grant, Torrey Craig, Jamal Murray, Monte Morris … whomever the Nuggets put in front of him, it didn’t matter. They were sitting ducks, and Mitchell roasted them all. When he wasn’t busy cooking, Mitchell found time to grab nine rebounds and dish out seven assists. It was a truly spectacular performance — and yet, the Jazz lost the game in overtime, unable to withstand Murray’s own crunch-time explosion.
Later that night, in Game 1 of the Dallas Mavericks’ series against the Los Angeles Clippers, Luka Dončić could not be stopped. Dončić poured in 42 points, connecting on 13 of his 21 shots from the field and 14 of 15 from the charity stripe. When he wasn’t putting the ball in the bucket himself, Dončić found time to snag seven rebounds, dish out nine dimes and snag three steals. Even his 11 turnovers couldn’t overshadow what was, again, a truly spectacular performance. And yet, the Mavericks lost the game by 8.
A few days later, Indiana Pacers guard Malcolm Brogdon went for 34 points, seven rebounds, 14 assists and two steals while shooting 11 of 17 from the field and four of seven from deep, only to see his team lose by 9 to the Miami Heat. Over the weekend, Murray and Mitchell switched roles. This time, it was Murray dropping a 50-spot, grabbing 11 rebounds and setting his teammates up for seven baskets, only to see his team lose the game by 2. That very same night, the Clippers’ Lou Williams came off the bench to sear the nets for 36 points on 13 of 20 from the field, two of four from three and eight of nine from the line, to go along with four rebounds and five assists, only to see his work foiled by Dončić, who capped his own stunning performance with a preposterous buzzer-beating three in overtime.
Five spectacular games from five players, all with the same result for their team: L. To say that those losses defied long odds would be a dramatic understatement. Each of those performances registered as at least a 30 in Basketball-Reference.com’s Game Score. (Game Score is exactly what it sounds like: an attempt to capture single-game performance in one number.)
From 1980 through 2019, NBA teams with a player tallying a Game Score of at least 30 in a playoff game went 468-159, a 0.746 winning percentage. This year, such teams are just 9-5, for a 0.643 winning percentage. Only thrice in the previous 40 years did teams register a worse winning percentage in these games: 1988, when they went 16-9; 2009, when they went 16-10; and 2013, when they went just 4-3.
If any of that sounds like merely the result of a small sample or a small difference between the rate at which teams have won, consider this: NBA teams with a 30-Game Score player would need to win all of the next six games to match or exceed the historical winning percentage in those types of playoff games.
These games are also happening more often. There have already been 14 instances this postseason of a player recording a Game Score of 30 or better, against an average over the previous 40 seasons of just 15.7. In the 16-team playoff era, the average was 16.8 per postseason, and that has been consistent even since the league lengthened first-round series from five games to seven. So far, we’re seeing a 30-plus Game Score performance more than twice as frequently in 2020 as we did from 2004 through 2019.
Monster games are up Games in the NBA playoffs featuring a player with a 30-plus Game Score (a “monster game”) by how often they have occurred, since 2004 Year Total Games Monster Games Frequency 2020* 34 14 2.43 2017 79 32 2.47 2009 85 26 3.27 2019 82 25 3.28 2006 89 22 4.05 2018 82 19 4.32 2005 84 19 4.42 2011 81 17 4.76 2016 86 18 4.78 2008 86 18 4.78 2010 80 14 5.71 2014 89 13 6.85 2007 79 10 7.90 2015 81 10 8.10 2004 82 9 9.11 2012 84 9 9.33 2013 85 7 12.14 Through games on Tuesday, Aug. 25. Source: Basketball-Reference.com
Not once in the previous 40 years did these games happen more frequently. The only year that came close was 2017, when there were 32 in a 79-game postseason, or one every 2.47 contests. Before that, you have to go all the way back to 1990 to find a year in which you saw a 30-plus Game Score performance more than once every third game.
Some of the increase in frequency can be pinned on pace. This is the fastest postseason for which there is pace data available on NBA.com, with games checking in at an average of 99.7 possessions per team, and Game Score leans heavily on stat accumulation. More possessions equals more chances for stats. But last year’s postseason averaged 98.1 possessions per game, and there were only 25 instances of a 30-plus Game Score during the 82-game postseason, or one every 3.28 games. The year before that, the average was one every 4.32 games. So, it’s not just pace.
Some of it has to be attributed to the ridiculous offensive environment we have seen in the bubble. This season’s Mavericks had the most efficient offense in NBA history, and five of the 16 playoff teams are scoring more efficiently in the postseason than the Mavs did during the year.
That environment also gets at an unsurprising commonality in the five games in which a player had a Game Score of 30 or better and his team still lost: In each of those games, the player’s team had a defensive rating of 114 or worse. In four out of five, it was 120 or worse. Their teams getting lit up on defense meant Mitchell, Dončić, Brogdon, Murray and Williams had to try to take over the game on the other end of the floor, which in turn raised their Game Score even higher.
They were also each helped by one of the other trends that has revealed itself in the bubble: extraordinary shooting on contested jumpers. During the five games in question, each of the players exceeded their expected effective field-goal percentage on contested jump shots by at least 6.43 percentage points, according to Second Spectrum, and three of them exceeded it by 30 percentage points or more. (The same trend held for Mitchell, Dončić and Williams on their teammates’ contested jumpers taken after passes thrown by those players.)
They made shots they probably shouldn’t have Players with Game Scores of at least 30 in losses this postseason by the difference in their effective field-goal percentage (eFG%) on contested jumpers vs. the quantified Shot Quality (qSQ)* of those shots Player Contested Jumpers eFG% qSQ Diff. Jamal Murray 14 85.71% 46.16% 39.55 Lou Williams 8 75.00 41.41 33.59 Malcolm Brogdon 10 80.00 48.46 31.54 Luka Dončić 7 57.14 41.67 15.47 Donovan Mitchell 18 52.78 46.35 6.43 *Quantified Shot Quality (qSQ) measures the likelihood of a shot going in if taken by an average player. Source: Second Spectrum
It’s further notable that 10 of the 14 instances of these games have come against defenses ranked outside the top 10 in efficiency, and that it’s likely that at least two and as many as three or four of those teams (depending on the result of the Clippers-Mavericks and Thunder-Rockets series) will be eliminated by the end of this week. With better defenses advancing to the later rounds and the poorer defenses leaving the bubble, perhaps we’ll see a reduction in the frequency of these monster games. If the way this first round has gone is any indication, though, we’re likely to see at least a few more — whether in wins or losses.
Check out our latest NBA predictions.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-26--There’s No WNBA All-Star Game This Year, But We Picked The Rosters Anyway

There will be no WNBA All-Star Game this season , one of the few things that ’ s gone according to plan this year .
Originally , the game had been scrapped because of the Summer Olympics , historically a time when the league does not play the midseason classic .
But , of course , there are no Olympics … and still no All-Star Game .
There are , however , players who deserve to be named All-Stars , so we ’ re here to give you our 2020 All-Star teams .
The rules : 11 players in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conference .
The starting five need to adhere to the format of two guards , two forwards and a center .
Reserves can be the next six most deserving players .
Whew , that was hard !
OK , let ’ s get to the arguments for each player , starting in the West .
Breanna Stewart has been , by a pretty clear measure , the most valuable player in the league as a whole so far .
She ’ s registered 2.9 win shares entering Tuesday night ’ s games , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essentially put up the exact statline she did back in 2018 , when she won MVP honors and led the Seattle Storm to a championship .
That her torn Achilles tendon cost her a season , but didn ’ t affect her game in any other way , is a marvel .
A ’ ja Wilson , after a dip in production in 2019 playing next to Liz Cambage , has picked up right where she left off in 2018 , the signature star for a Las Vegas team that is absolutely a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the WNBA title .
She ’ s improved her defensive rebounding numbers in 2020 , from 21.6 percent in 2018 to 27.2 percent this season , but in general , Wilson continues to be the elite player she ’ s been since the moment she entered the league .
Candace Parker isn ’ t quite putting up the flashy numbers of Wilson and Stewart , but she is every bit as important to her team and is a critical reason the Los Angeles Sparks are 10-3 and in contention for the top seed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose stat profile expands and contracts around what her team needs — she ’ s managed to lead the WNBA in defensive rebounding percentage , block percentage ( twice ) and assist percentage in different Los Angeles campaigns .
This year , her defense is front and center , with a top-three mark in both defensive rating and defensive win shares .
Speaking of defense , Alysha Clark has long enjoyed a justified reputation for her talent at that end of the floor .
But let ’ s not miss the true two-way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2.2 win shares entering Tuesday night ’ s games ranks third in the league , and she ’ s top-10 in the league in both offensive and defensive win shares , hitting 44.2 percent of her 3-point shots and 60 percent of her two-pointers .
Somehow , Clark ’ s never earned an All-Star nod , even as a reserve , but we ’ re changing that ( virtually , of course ) .
And at the risk of overloading the starting five with Storm folks , Jewell Loyd , has to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that 2018 title-winning team , Loyd is somehow even better now , continuing to trade midrange shots for more threes and making 42 percent of them .
Loyd ’ s on track for the best defensive rating of her career so far , and her assist percentage has even ticked up , despite playing next to a pair of primary ballhandlers in Sue Bird and Jordin Canada .
The West ’ s reserves are chock full of worthy candidates .
Angel McCoughtry has been nearly as effective as Wilson for the Aces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shares .
That ranks slightly ahead of Napheesa Collier , who has helped Minnesota remain in contention despite Sylvia Fowles missing half of the Lynx ’ s games so far .
Diana Taurasi is producing at similar rates to her 2018 All-Star campaign , while Arike Ogunbowale is attacking as much as she did in her All-Rookie campaign last season even as she ’ s become dramatically more efficient from two-point range ( 47.7 percent this season , 40.4 percent last season ) .
Nneka Ogwumike is having her most efficient season from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and ranks 10th overall in win shares , just ahead of Dearica Hamby , the runaway leader for Sixth Woman of the Year honors at this point .
Just off the team : Sami Whitcomb has become a complete player .
Brittney Sykes is a defensive catalyst for the Sparks and dramatically improved her efficiency from two .
Crystal Dangerfield is a legitimate Rookie of the Year candidate , and Sylvia Fowles has played like an MVP ( but for only seven games , due to her calf injury ) .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Courtney Vandersloot , currently a close second behind Stewart in win shares .
She leads the league in assist percentage for the second year in a row , while shooting 50-40-90 going into Tuesday night ’ s games .
She must be in the MVP conversation .
Joining her in the starting lineup is her Chicago Sky teammate Cheyenne Parker , who is every bit the elite rebounder and finisher around the rim she ’ s always been , but has become a great perimeter shooter as well — 38.9 percent from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her assist percentage up near double digits .
She ’ s the best big in the Eastern Conference .
A pair of Connecticut Sun teammates with very different stat profiles are also worthy of starts .
Alyssa Thomas , after a slow start , is ahead of her 2019 pace in a number of vital areas : She currently has a 25.5 assist percentage , is hitting more than half her shots ( usually in circus-performer fashion , flung purposefully around the rim ) and rebounding at a rate that ranks top-four in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defensive ends .
And DeWanna Bonner , asked to carry the largest part of the offensive load by Sun coach Curt Miller , is posting a career-best defensive rebounding percentage ( 24.7 ) and steal percentage ( 3.2 ) — the latter of which leads the league — en route to 1.8 total win shares , eighth-best in the league .
The final starter , Betnijah Laney , has only improved since we featured her as a breakout star .
Her 35-point outburst against the reigning champion Washington Mystics punctuates her ongoing six-game @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scored an average of 18.2 points per game on 50 percent shooting .
The scouting reports have adjusted .
It hasn ’ t mattered .
The reserves are impressive as well .
Brionna Jones quietly stepped in for Jonquel Jones as a starting center for the Sun and is shooting 57.3 percent from the field while tied for ninth in the league in steals per game .
Kelsey Mitchell and Julie Allemand , the Indiana Fever backcourt , have done it all — Allemand is fourth in the league in assist percentage and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took a massive leap forward in efficiency despite taking more shots per game , on average , than in previous seasons .
Together , they are as effective as almost any regular pairing for the Fever , a surprise ( though not to coach Marianne Stanley ) playoff contender .
Myisha Hines-Allen continues to provide one of the most complete seasons in the league this season for Washington , while teammate Ariel Atkins is hitting 46.8 percent of her threes and taking on the toughest perimeter defensive assignments for the Mystics .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and scorer , New York ’ s Layshia Clarendon has been a relentless rim-attacker , hitting 34.4 percent of her threes and finding ways to get her young teammates involved as she ’ s racked up a 34.5 assist percentage .
Just off the bench : Allie Quigley is having a typical Allie Quigley season .
( We figure she ’ d win the virtual 3-point contest . )
Her Chicago teammate Kahleah Copper has assumed the Diamond DeShields shooting guard role and handled it well .
Elizabeth Williams is Atlanta ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true shooting percentage of her career , while Monique Billings , who has scored in double figures in four of her past five games , is the league ’ s leader in rebounding percentage .

There will be no WNBA All-Star Game this season, one of the few things that’s gone according to plan this year. Originally, the game had been scrapped because of the Summer Olympics, historically a time when the league does not play the midseason classic. But, of course, there are no Olympics … and still no All-Star Game.
There are, however, players who deserve to be named All-Stars, so we’re here to give you our 2020 All-Star teams.
The rules: 11 players in the Eastern Conference, 11 in the Western Conference. The starting five need to adhere to the format of two guards, two forwards and a center. Reserves can be the next six most deserving players.
Western Conference
C A’ja Wilson
F Breanna Stewart
F Candace Parker
G Alysha Clark
G Jewell Loyd
Reserves
Angel McCoughtry, Napheesa Collier, Diana Taurasi, Arike Ogunbowale, Nneka Ogwumike, Dearica Hamby
Near-misses
Sami Whitcomb, Brittney Sykes, Crystal Dangerfield, Sylvia Fowles
Eastern Conference
C Cheyenne Parker
F Alyssa Thomas
F DeWanna Bonner
G Betnijah Laney
G Courtney Vandersloot
Reserves
Brionna Jones, Kelsey Mitchell, Myisha Hines-Allen, Julie Allemand, Ariel Atkins, Layshia Clarendon
Near-misses
Allie Quigley, Kahleah Copper, Elizabeth Williams, Monique Billings
Whew, that was hard! OK, let’s get to the arguments for each player, starting in the West.
Breanna Stewart has been, by a pretty clear measure, the most valuable player in the league as a whole so far. She’s registered 2.9 win shares entering Tuesday night’s games, best in the WNBA, and has essentially put up the exact statline she did back in 2018, when she won MVP honors and led the Seattle Storm to a championship. That her torn Achilles tendon cost her a season, but didn’t affect her game in any other way, is a marvel.
A’ja Wilson, after a dip in production in 2019 playing next to Liz Cambage, has picked up right where she left off in 2018, the signature star for a Las Vegas team that is absolutely a threat to Seattle’s march to the WNBA title. She’s improved her defensive rebounding numbers in 2020, from 21.6 percent in 2018 to 27.2 percent this season, but in general, Wilson continues to be the elite player she’s been since the moment she entered the league.
Candace Parker isn’t quite putting up the flashy numbers of Wilson and Stewart, but she is every bit as important to her team and is a critical reason the Los Angeles Sparks are 10-3 and in contention for the top seed. This is usual for Parker, whose stat profile expands and contracts around what her team needs — she’s managed to lead the WNBA in defensive rebounding percentage, block percentage (twice) and assist percentage in different Los Angeles campaigns. This year, her defense is front and center, with a top-three mark in both defensive rating and defensive win shares.
Speaking of defense, Alysha Clark has long enjoyed a justified reputation for her talent at that end of the floor. But let’s not miss the true two-way star she’s become. Her 2.2 win shares entering Tuesday night’s games ranks third in the league, and she’s top-10 in the league in both offensive and defensive win shares, hitting 44.2 percent of her 3-point shots and 60 percent of her two-pointers. Somehow, Clark’s never earned an All-Star nod, even as a reserve, but we’re changing that (virtually, of course).
And at the risk of overloading the starting five with Storm folks, Jewell Loyd, has to be here as well. A critical part of that 2018 title-winning team, Loyd is somehow even better now, continuing to trade midrange shots for more threes and making 42 percent of them. Loyd’s on track for the best defensive rating of her career so far, and her assist percentage has even ticked up, despite playing next to a pair of primary ballhandlers in Sue Bird and Jordin Canada.
The West’s reserves are chock full of worthy candidates. Angel McCoughtry has been nearly as effective as Wilson for the Aces, fifth in the WNBA in win shares. That ranks slightly ahead of Napheesa Collier, who has helped Minnesota remain in contention despite Sylvia Fowles missing half of the Lynx’s games so far. Diana Taurasi is producing at similar rates to her 2018 All-Star campaign, while Arike Ogunbowale is attacking as much as she did in her All-Rookie campaign last season even as she’s become dramatically more efficient from two-point range (47.7 percent this season, 40.4 percent last season). Nneka Ogwumike is having her most efficient season from the field since her 2016 MVP campaign, and ranks 10th overall in win shares, just ahead of Dearica Hamby, the runaway leader for Sixth Woman of the Year honors at this point.
Just off the team: Sami Whitcomb has become a complete player. Brittney Sykes is a defensive catalyst for the Sparks and dramatically improved her efficiency from two. Crystal Dangerfield is a legitimate Rookie of the Year candidate, and Sylvia Fowles has played like an MVP (but for only seven games, due to her calf injury).
In the East, the starting honors begin with Courtney Vandersloot, currently a close second behind Stewart in win shares. She leads the league in assist percentage for the second year in a row, while shooting 50-40-90 going into Tuesday night’s games. She must be in the MVP conversation.
Joining her in the starting lineup is her Chicago Sky teammate Cheyenne Parker, who is every bit the elite rebounder and finisher around the rim she’s always been, but has become a great perimeter shooter as well — 38.9 percent from beyond the arc — and even edged her assist percentage up near double digits. She’s the best big in the Eastern Conference.
A pair of Connecticut Sun teammates with very different stat profiles are also worthy of starts. Alyssa Thomas, after a slow start, is ahead of her 2019 pace in a number of vital areas: She currently has a 25.5 assist percentage, is hitting more than half her shots (usually in circus-performer fashion, flung purposefully around the rim) and rebounding at a rate that ranks top-four in the league on both the offensive and defensive ends. And DeWanna Bonner, asked to carry the largest part of the offensive load by Sun coach Curt Miller, is posting a career-best defensive rebounding percentage (24.7) and steal percentage (3.2) — the latter of which leads the league — en route to 1.8 total win shares, eighth-best in the league.
The final starter, Betnijah Laney, has only improved since we featured her as a breakout star. Her 35-point outburst against the reigning champion Washington Mystics punctuates her ongoing six-game hot streak in which she’s scored an average of 18.2 points per game on 50 percent shooting. The scouting reports have adjusted. It hasn’t mattered.
The reserves are impressive as well. Brionna Jones quietly stepped in for Jonquel Jones as a starting center for the Sun and is shooting 57.3 percent from the field while tied for ninth in the league in steals per game. Kelsey Mitchell and Julie Allemand, the Indiana Fever backcourt, have done it all — Allemand is fourth in the league in assist percentage and third in true shooting percentage and Mitchell took a massive leap forward in efficiency despite taking more shots per game, on average, than in previous seasons. Together, they are as effective as almost any regular pairing for the Fever, a surprise (though not to coach Marianne Stanley) playoff contender. Myisha Hines-Allen continues to provide one of the most complete seasons in the league this season for Washington, while teammate Ariel Atkins is hitting 46.8 percent of her threes and taking on the toughest perimeter defensive assignments for the Mystics. And pressed into duty as the primary ballhandler and scorer, New York’s Layshia Clarendon has been a relentless rim-attacker, hitting 34.4 percent of her threes and finding ways to get her young teammates involved as she’s racked up a 34.5 assist percentage.
Just off the bench: Allie Quigley is having a typical Allie Quigley season. (We figure she’d win the virtual 3-point contest.) Her Chicago teammate Kahleah Copper has assumed the Diamond DeShields shooting guard role and handled it well. Elizabeth Williams is Atlanta’s defensive rock and is posting the best true shooting percentage of her career, while Monique Billings, who has scored in double figures in four of her past five games, is the league’s leader in rebounding percentage.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-26--Almost Everyone Trump Endorses Wins Their Primary … But Is He Padding His Record?

When businesswoman Lynda Bennett lost the GOP runoff for North Carolina ’ s 11th Congressional District on June 23 , it ended the political equivalent of Joe DiMaggio ’ s hitting streak : It was the first time this year that a candidate endorsed by President Trump did not win his or her primary .
As long as Trump has been in office , he has been the central issue in Republican primaries : Candidates talk up their own support for the president and commonly attack their opponents by saying they were once a “ never Trumper ” or won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unsurprisingly , Trump ’ s endorsement has quickly become the most coveted prize in Republican primaries .
In 2018 , we found that Trump-supported candidates went 15-for-17 in GOP primaries for the U.S. Senate , U.S. House and governorships in which no incumbent ran — a higher win rate than the other 11 endorsers we tracked .
In 2020 , FiveThirtyEight has once again been tracking endorsements in every Senate , House and governor primary so far ( i.e.
, those decided by Aug. 25 ) .
Trump has endorsed 111 candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them won the Republican nomination or advanced to the general election .
That 98 percent win rate is nothing short of extraordinary — and Trump has not been shy about bragging about it on Twitter .
But a closer look at the circumstances of those endorsements reveals that Trump ’ s win-loss record isn ’ t solely due to his influence on Republican voters .
It ’ s also the product of a strategy of endorsing candidates who are already in a good position to win — perhaps with the explicit goal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ therefore his reputation .
Most obviously , Trump endorsed 21 candidates who were unopposed in their primaries , including 20 incumbents and Army veteran Sean Parnell , a Trump favorite who is running in a swing district in Pennsylvania .
Among his 90 endorsements in contested races were also 67 incumbents , who almost always win renomination .
Rep. Scott Tipton was the only incumbent Trump endorsed this year who lost his primary .
That leaves only 23 non-incumbent candidates whom Trump has endorsed in contested primaries .
And , to Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excellent record in these races : 22 of his endorsees advanced to November .
( The aforementioned Bennett was the only exception . )
And some of these were truly competitive races where Trump ’ s involvement probably did make the difference .
For example , former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville led former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions by less than 2 percentage points in the first round of Alabama ’ s Senate primary — but then Trump endorsed Tuberville , and Tuberville beat Sessions in the runoff by 21 points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jackson and Tony Gonzales once looked like at least mild underdogs , with their opponents securing valuable local endorsements — but then Trump endorsed them and they eked out wins .
On the other hand , some of these primaries were contested in name only , such as the one for Senate in Minnesota ( Trump endorsee and former Rep. Jason Lewis defeated his closest challenger 78 percent to 7 percent ) and Georgia ’ s 6th Congressional District ( former Rep. Karen Handel beat her closest competition 74 percent to 15 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump endorsed extremely late in the race — sometimes even the day before the primary — which could be more about trying to run up his win rate than making a major impact on the race .
It ’ s easy for Trump to make last-minute endorsements given his preferred method for bestowing his support : tweeting .
Twitter allows Trump to make many more endorsements , including last-minute endorsements that don ’ t require much ( if any ) planning .
In some cases , the planning is so minimal that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates or the party .
So it seems like Trump is endorsing at least some of these candidates on a whim .
In other cases , the rollout of endorsements was much more organized .
Take Pennsylvania .
On May 22 , a little more than a week before the Pennsylvania primary , Trump sent a slew of tweets endorsing candidates and linking to each candidate ’ s page on WinRed , the Republican fundraising platform hoping to counter the Democrats ’ ActBlue .
All told , Trump endorsed candidates in 10 out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those candidates were running unopposed .
That said , the same level of organization was not evident in every primary : Trump let the early-August primaries in Wisconsin , Kansas and Michigan pass unmentioned on Twitter .
Indeed , there have been dozens of Republican primaries in which Trump has not endorsed — primaries of all ilks , from uncontested Senate races in Michigan and Georgia to bitter intraparty battles like those in Tennessee ’ s 1st Congressional District or New Mexico ’ s 2nd .
There was also at least one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where Trump was urged to weigh in but didn ’ t , possibly because he didn ’ t want to come down on the wrong side .
Even though Trump ’ s endorsements come in fits and starts , it seems to work for him : His high win rate provides evidence both that he is picking his battles smartly and that he has at least some pull with GOP primary voters .
Even if you look only at contested , incumbent-less primaries in which Trump endorsed well before Election Day , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record — since only two Trump-endorsed candidates have lost primaries so far this year , his record is heavily weighted to the win column no matter how you cut the data .
But Trump ’ s endorsement may not hold the same power over the electorate as a whole .
In a recent academic paper looking at 2018 congressional races , political scientists Andrew Ballard , Hans Hassell and Michael Heseltine found that , while Trump ’ s public endorsement provided a financial windfall for Republican Senate candidates , it also boosted fundraising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was ultimately detrimental to the endorsees ’ chances .
Given this finding , Trump should be cautious about assuming his golden win rate can extend to the general election .

When businesswoman Lynda Bennett lost the GOP runoff for North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District on June 23, it ended the political equivalent of Joe DiMaggio’s hitting streak: It was the first time this year that a candidate endorsed by President Trump did not win his or her primary.
As long as Trump has been in office, he has been the central issue in Republican primaries: Candidates talk up their own support for the president and commonly attack their opponents by saying they were once a “never Trumper” or won’t support Trump’s agenda. Unsurprisingly, Trump’s endorsement has quickly become the most coveted prize in Republican primaries. In 2018, we found that Trump-supported candidates went 15-for-17 in GOP primaries for the U.S. Senate, U.S. House and governorships in which no incumbent ran — a higher win rate than the other 11 endorsers we tracked.
In 2020, FiveThirtyEight has once again been tracking endorsements in every Senate, House and governor primary so far (i.e., those decided by Aug. 25). Trump has endorsed 111 candidates in these primaries, and 109 of them won the Republican nomination or advanced to the general election.
That 98 percent win rate is nothing short of extraordinary — and Trump has not been shy about bragging about it on Twitter. But a closer look at the circumstances of those endorsements reveals that Trump’s win-loss record isn’t solely due to his influence on Republican voters. It’s also the product of a strategy of endorsing candidates who are already in a good position to win — perhaps with the explicit goal of inflating his top-line win rate, and therefore his reputation.
Most obviously, Trump endorsed 21 candidates who were unopposed in their primaries, including 20 incumbents and Army veteran Sean Parnell, a Trump favorite who is running in a swing district in Pennsylvania. Among his 90 endorsements in contested races were also 67 incumbents, who almost always win renomination. Rep. Scott Tipton was the only incumbent Trump endorsed this year who lost his primary.
Almost everyone Trump endorses wins How candidates endorsed by President Trump have fared in Republican primaries for Senate, House and governor, through Aug. 25, 2020 Type of Endorsee Endorsements Wins Win rate Challengers to incumbents 0 0 — Opposed Incumbents 67 66 99% Non-incumbents 23 22 96 Unopposed Incumbents 20 20 100 Non-incumbents 1 1 100 Total 111 109 98 Sources: Twitter, Associated Press
That leaves only 23 non-incumbent candidates whom Trump has endorsed in contested primaries. And, to Trump’s credit, he still has an excellent record in these races: 22 of his endorsees advanced to November. (The aforementioned Bennett was the only exception.) And some of these were truly competitive races where Trump’s involvement probably did make the difference. For example, former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville led former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions by less than 2 percentage points in the first round of Alabama’s Senate primary — but then Trump endorsed Tuberville, and Tuberville beat Sessions in the runoff by 21 points. Likewise, Texas congressional candidates Ronny Jackson and Tony Gonzales once looked like at least mild underdogs, with their opponents securing valuable local endorsements — but then Trump endorsed them and they eked out wins.
Trump endorsed in a lot of blowout races How Senate, House and governor candidates who were endorsed by President Trump have fared in contested Republican primaries where no incumbent was running, through Aug. 25, 2020 Candidate Race Result Margin Tommy Tuberville AL Sen. Won +21 Jay Obernolte CA-08 Advanced +24 Carlos Gimenez FL-26 Won +20 Karen Handel GA-06 Won +60 Ashley Hinson IA-01 Won +56 David Young IA-03 Won +39 Jason Lewis MN Sen. Won +71 Lacy Johnson MN-05 Won +58 Michelle Fischbach MN-07 Won +37 Matt Rosendale MT-AL Won +15 Lynda Bennett NC-11 Lost -32 Nicole Malliotakis NY-11 Won +38 Claudia Tenney NY-22 Won +20 Chris Jacobs NY-27 Won +38 Lisa Scheller PA-07 Won +4 Bill Hagerty TN Sen. Won +11 Wesley Hunt TX-07 Won +34 August Pfluger TX-11 Won +37 Ronny Jackson TX-13 Won +11 Tony Gonzales TX-23 Won 0 Beth Van Duyne TX-24 Won +44 Scott Taylor VA-02 Won +19 Cynthia Lummis WY Sen. Won +47 Margin is between the Trump-endorsed candidate and the leading non-Trump-endorsed Republican. In primaries with both a first round and a runoff, the margin is from the runoff. In California and Washington primaries, the top two finishers, regardless of party, advance to the general election. In those states, margin is calculated among votes cast for Republicans only. Sources: Twitter, Associated Press, state election offices
On the other hand, some of these primaries were contested in name only, such as the one for Senate in Minnesota (Trump endorsee and former Rep. Jason Lewis defeated his closest challenger 78 percent to 7 percent) and Georgia’s 6th Congressional District (former Rep. Karen Handel beat her closest competition 74 percent to 15 percent). And in some races, Trump endorsed extremely late in the race — sometimes even the day before the primary — which could be more about trying to run up his win rate than making a major impact on the race.
It’s easy for Trump to make last-minute endorsements given his preferred method for bestowing his support: tweeting. Twitter allows Trump to make many more endorsements, including last-minute endorsements that don’t require much (if any) planning. In some cases, the planning is so minimal that the endorsement comes as a surprise to the candidates or the party. So it seems like Trump is endorsing at least some of these candidates on a whim.
In other cases, the rollout of endorsements was much more organized. Take Pennsylvania. On May 22, a little more than a week before the Pennsylvania primary, Trump sent a slew of tweets endorsing candidates and linking to each candidate’s page on WinRed, the Republican fundraising platform hoping to counter the Democrats’ ActBlue. All told, Trump endorsed candidates in 10 out of 18 races in Pennsylvania; nine of those candidates were running unopposed.
That said, the same level of organization was not evident in every primary: Trump let the early-August primaries in Wisconsin, Kansas and Michigan pass unmentioned on Twitter. Indeed, there have been dozens of Republican primaries in which Trump has not endorsed — primaries of all ilks, from uncontested Senate races in Michigan and Georgia to bitter intraparty battles like those in Tennessee’s 1st Congressional District or New Mexico’s 2nd. There was also at least one race, for Senate in Kansas, where Trump was urged to weigh in but didn’t, possibly because he didn’t want to come down on the wrong side.
Even though Trump’s endorsements come in fits and starts, it seems to work for him: His high win rate provides evidence both that he is picking his battles smartly and that he has at least some pull with GOP primary voters. Even if you look only at contested, incumbent-less primaries in which Trump endorsed well before Election Day, he’d still have a nearly perfect record — since only two Trump-endorsed candidates have lost primaries so far this year, his record is heavily weighted to the win column no matter how you cut the data.
But Trump’s endorsement may not hold the same power over the electorate as a whole. In a recent academic paper looking at 2018 congressional races, political scientists Andrew Ballard, Hans Hassell and Michael Heseltine found that, while Trump’s public endorsement provided a financial windfall for Republican Senate candidates, it also boosted fundraising for their Democratic opponent, so it was ultimately detrimental to the endorsees’ chances. Given this finding, Trump should be cautious about assuming his golden win rate can extend to the general election.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-26--Did Night 2 Of The RNC Violate The Hatch Act? And … Does It Matter?

Did Night 2 Of The RNC Violate The Hatch Act ?
And … Does It Matter ?


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-26--Politics Podcast: Cognitive Dissonance On Night 2 Of The RNC

On the second night of the 2020 Republican National Convention , the party ’ s speakers were softer on issues @ @ @ @ @ ’ s record would suggest .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew discusses why the GOP @ @ @ @ @ both ways .

On the second night of the 2020 Republican National Convention, the party’s speakers were softer on issues like immigration than President Trump’s record would suggest. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast crew discusses why the GOP might want to play it both ways.


fivethirthyeight--2020-08-26--Fighting Didn’t Stop In The NHL Bubble

Fighting Didn’t Stop In The NHL Bubble

It was conspicuously quiet when Mikhail Sergachev and Brian Boyle dropped their gloves and took aim at each other ’ s faces .
Perhaps it was because there were no fans at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto .
Or perhaps it was because the game was an exhibition , little more than an opportunity to work off the pandemic-induced rust accumulated over four months of down time .
So it was that hockey ’ s return — staged in an antiseptic bubble — involved a scrap .
In the NHL ’ s official restart a few days later , Justin Williams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three minutes .
“ That ’ s what a week in a hotel room will do for you , ” a member of NBCSN ’ s broadcast team quipped as a two-person crew cleaned blood off the ice .
Tuning in for the NHL postseason has felt a lot like stumbling upon Dana White ’ s fight island .
Like buying a ticket to the pugilism gallery .
HockeyFights.com , the sport ’ s invaluable video depository , has catalogued 11 bouts during the 2019-20 postseason .
Even if pacifism prevails the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have featured as much documented aggression as the past two playoffs combined , with the fourth-most fights per game in the past nine years .
To be sure , fracases are rare in the playoffs , where the loss of a player for extended time can swing a series .
FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver noted in 2014 that fights were about one-third as common in the postseason .
But in the bubble , they have not only been remarkably commonplace but also incredibly drawn-out .
FiveThirtyEight timed each of the 44 postseason fights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ started timing at the moment when a player ’ s gloves fell to the ice and ended when an official stepped in to break up the skirmish .
There have been three minutes and 10 seconds of fighting in the bubble , with the average bout lasting roughly 17.3 seconds , the longest since 2017 and nearly twice the length of last season ’ s tussles .
Not only are the run-ins taking longer to play out , but they ’ re also materializing earlier .
Of the 11 postseason scraps , eight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2011 to 2019 , less than one-third of postseason scraps occurred in the first 15 minutes , while 56 percent happened in the final period .
Thus far , there hasn ’ t been a fight waged in the final 15 minutes .
This comes as fight frequency leaguewide has tapered off over the years and nosedived over the past decade .
Total regular-season fights plummeted from 803 over the 2001-02 campaign to 195 this season .
The league ’ s low-water mark has been set in three consecutive seasons .
Where a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance of attending a fracas , the modern-day one has less than a 17 percent chance of watching athletes drop the mitts .
There ’ s a certain ritual to curated violence in the NHL , much of which is traced back to an amorphous code .
Officials seldom step in to stop a fight unless one participant is being pounded into a vegetable or until the fighters bring the action literally down to the ice .
Some say fighting has no place in the sport , while others would counter that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But an influx of skill at every position in an offensive-minded league has largely rendered the prototypical enforcer a dying breed .
And while there are still plenty of missing teeth in the NHL , and all-league bodyguards like Ryan Reaves of the Vegas Golden Knights and Milan Lucic of the Calgary Flames are very much willing to grant someone a one-way ticket into the boards , fisticuffs are no longer a player ’ s primary occupation .
With the second round underway , four of the top 11 fighters this season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sparring continue ?
Like their NBA peers , NHL athletes are leaving the two bubble arenas and mostly returning to the same hotels .
If players have gotten sick of one another , expect it to only get worse in the coming weeks .
Any simmering testosterone from the league ’ s hiatus is long gone , but players will continue to search for ways to energize the team .
The lack of a crowd has created an energy void for players , but it also means that barbs are no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chirping during games .
And the emotions of postseason hockey certainly don ’ t diminish as teams advance into the later rounds .
Fighting has recently gone quiet , with the latest official fight coming on Aug. 14 .
But considering this postseason ’ s uptick , that ’ s a trend that may not continue for too much longer .
As Sergachev put it after his exhibition altercation with Boyle , “ That ’ s playoff hockey .
”

It was conspicuously quiet when Mikhail Sergachev and Brian Boyle dropped their gloves and took aim at each other’s faces. Perhaps it was because there were no fans at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto. Or perhaps it was because the game was an exhibition, little more than an opportunity to work off the pandemic-induced rust accumulated over four months of down time.
So it was that hockey’s return — staged in an antiseptic bubble — involved a scrap.
In the NHL’s official restart a few days later, Justin Williams and Ryan Strome came to blows within three minutes. “That’s what a week in a hotel room will do for you,” a member of NBCSN’s broadcast team quipped as a two-person crew cleaned blood off the ice.
Tuning in for the NHL postseason has felt a lot like stumbling upon Dana White’s fight island. Like buying a ticket to the pugilism gallery.
Hockey fights are back Fights per game in the NHL postseasons since 2011-12 Year Games played Total fights Fights per games played 2012 172 19 0.110 2013 172 15 0.087 2017 174 13 0.075 2020 184 11 0.060 2016 182 9 0.049 2014 186 9 0.048 2018 168 8 0.048 2015 178 8 0.045 2019 174 3 0.017 The 2020 postseason includes qualifying and round-robin games but excludes exhibitions. Sources: Hockey Fights, Hockey-Reference.com
HockeyFights.com, the sport’s invaluable video depository, has catalogued 11 bouts during the 2019-20 postseason. Even if pacifism prevails the rest of the way, this postseason will have featured as much documented aggression as the past two playoffs combined, with the fourth-most fights per game in the past nine years.
To be sure, fracases are rare in the playoffs, where the loss of a player for extended time can swing a series. FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver noted in 2014 that fights were about one-third as common in the postseason.
But in the bubble, they have not only been remarkably commonplace but also incredibly drawn-out.
FiveThirtyEight timed each of the 44 postseason fights since 2016 listed on HockeyFights.com. We started timing at the moment when a player’s gloves fell to the ice and ended when an official stepped in to break up the skirmish.
There have been three minutes and 10 seconds of fighting in the bubble, with the average bout lasting roughly 17.3 seconds, the longest since 2017 and nearly twice the length of last season’s tussles.
Fights are lasting longer and are happening earlier Postseason NHL fights since 2016 by duration of fight and average period they occurred DURATION IN SECONDS Year No. of fights Average Period Total Average 2020 11 1.3 190.1 17.3 2019 3 1.7 31.4 10.5 2018 8 2.4 98.7 12.3 2017 13 2.2 226.0 17.4 2016 9 2.6 96.9 10.8 Fights were timed from the moment a player’s gloves fell to the ice until an official stepped in. Source: Hockey Fights
Not only are the run-ins taking longer to play out, but they’re also materializing earlier. Of the 11 postseason scraps, eight occurred in the opening period. From 2011 to 2019, less than one-third of postseason scraps occurred in the first 15 minutes, while 56 percent happened in the final period. Thus far, there hasn’t been a fight waged in the final 15 minutes.
This comes as fight frequency leaguewide has tapered off over the years and nosedived over the past decade. Total regular-season fights plummeted from 803 over the 2001-02 campaign to 195 this season. The league’s low-water mark has been set in three consecutive seasons. Where a fan 10 years ago had a coin-flip chance of attending a fracas, the modern-day one has less than a 17 percent chance of watching athletes drop the mitts.
Fights are down overall in hockey Regular-season fights in the NHL by season and number of players involved Season No. of fights No. of players involved Fights Per Game 2019-20 195 224 0.18 2018-19 238 140 0.19 2017-18 280 265 0.22 2016-17 372 285 0.30 2015-16 344 269 0.28 2014-15 391 276 0.32 2013-14 469 288 0.38 2012-13 347 245 0.48 2011-12 546 321 0.44 2010-11 645 348 0.52 2009-10 714 341 0.58 2008-09 734 355 0.60 2007-08 664 324 0.54 2006-07 497 292 0.40 2005-06 466 276 0.38 2003-04 789 340 0.64 2002-03 668 321 0.54 2001-02 803 348 0.65 2000-01 684 329 0.56 Source: Hockey Fights
There’s a certain ritual to curated violence in the NHL, much of which is traced back to an amorphous code. Officials seldom step in to stop a fight unless one participant is being pounded into a vegetable or until the fighters bring the action literally down to the ice.
Some say fighting has no place in the sport, while others would counter that a certain degree of on-ice policing is required. But an influx of skill at every position in an offensive-minded league has largely rendered the prototypical enforcer a dying breed. And while there are still plenty of missing teeth in the NHL, and all-league bodyguards like Ryan Reaves of the Vegas Golden Knights and Milan Lucic of the Calgary Flames are very much willing to grant someone a one-way ticket into the boards, fisticuffs are no longer a player’s primary occupation.
With the second round underway, four of the top 11 fighters this season remain in the bubble. But will the sparring continue?
Like their NBA peers, NHL athletes are leaving the two bubble arenas and mostly returning to the same hotels. If players have gotten sick of one another, expect it to only get worse in the coming weeks. Any simmering testosterone from the league’s hiatus is long gone, but players will continue to search for ways to energize the team.
The lack of a crowd has created an energy void for players, but it also means that barbs are no longer muted; players can literally hear opponents chirping during games. And the emotions of postseason hockey certainly don’t diminish as teams advance into the later rounds.
Fighting has recently gone quiet, with the latest official fight coming on Aug. 14. But considering this postseason’s uptick, that’s a trend that may not continue for too much longer.
As Sergachev put it after his exhibition altercation with Boyle, “That’s playoff hockey.”