Nate Silver's Blog, page 100

Emergency Politics Podcast: Donald Trump Jr.’s Emails

 












Subscribe: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
Download |
RSS |
Embed |
New to podcasts?


Embed Code

On this emergency podcast, the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team looks at recent revelations about the Trump campaign’s relationship to Russia. Donald Trump Jr.’s emails showed that he, along with President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, took a meeting with a Russian lawyer who claimed to be offering incriminating information about Hillary Clinton. The emails said the information was part of the Russian government’s support of then-candidate Trump.

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen .

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes . Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

Kenley Jansen Is Too Busy Helping The Dodgers Win To Get Saves

Dodger closer Kenley Jansen has had a lights-out first half with a 4-0 record, a 0.96 ERA, 57 strikeouts and just two walks allowed in 37.2 innings pitched.

He also has only 21 saves, which ranks seventh in the league through the All-Star break. But Jansen has been considerably more valuable to the Dodgers than those save numbers imply. That’s because Dodgers manager Dave Roberts has been deploying Jansen in high-leverage situations that other managers often shield their closers from. Jansen has made 10 multi-inning appearances so far this year. He’s been brought into the game with runners on base nine times. And he’s entered in tied games in eight appearances. l call all of these “firemen appearances” because they resemble how teams used their top relievers in the era a few decades ago when the best relievers were referred to as “firemen” instead of closers.

These firemen appearances have not necessarily helped Jansen earn saves; a pitcher can’t earn a save when he enters in a tied game, for instance. But they do provide opportunities for him to earn goose eggs, the new relief-pitcher statistic that we developed this spring. (The short version: A pitcher gets a goose egg for a clutch, scoreless relief inning, including in a tied game.) Jansen has 25 goose eggs, which ties him for third this season. He and his fellow goose-egg leaders — including the Pirates’ Felipe Rivero, who leads MLB with 27 — are routinely making firemen appearances:

Goose-egg leaders pitch in clutch situations, but that doesn’t help earn saves

Top goose-egg pitchers through 2017 All-Star break

FIREMAN APPEARANCES


PITCHER
GOOSE EGGS
SAVES
MULTI-INNING
RUNNERS ON
TIE GAMES




Felipe Rivero
27
6
11
13
12


Corey Knebel
26
14
6
9
8


Kenley Jansen
25
21
10
8
9


Andrew Miller
25
2
14
12
8


Brad Hand
23
2
13
15
10


Alex Colome
23
25
9
10
5


Raisel Iglesias
21
16
10
6
5


Brad Brach
21
15
2
3
6


Edwin Diaz
21
13
6
6
8


Addison Reed
21
15
5
6
8

Source: Baseball-REFERENCE.COM

We shouldn’t get too carried away here. With the possible exception of the Astros’ Chris Devenski — who leads the majors with 52.2 relief innings but whose effectiveness has diminished as the season has worn on — none of these pitchers are being used in the Goose Gossage mold of the 1970s, when star relievers often threw 100 or more innings in a season. This is particularly true for Jansen, whose workload has always been managed carefully. (He’s on pace for only 68 innings this year.) But if teams are still using pitchers such as Jansen, Rivero and the Indians’ Andrew Miller for only 60 to 80 innings a season, they’re increasingly picking the right innings for them to pitch. By contrast, closers such as the Rockies’ Greg Holland and the Twins’ Brandon Kintzler have rarely made fireman appearances but have often been used to close out big, relatively safe leads. Although they have more saves than pitchers like Jansen and Rivero, Holland and Kintzler have fewer goose eggs and have provided less overall value to their clubs.

Save leaders avoid many clutch pitching opportunities

Top save pitchers through 2017 All-Star break

FIREMAN APPEARANCES


PITCHER
GOOSE EGGS
SAVES
MULTI-INNING
RUNNERS ON
TIE GAMES




Greg Hollland
18
28
1
4
1


Alex Colome
23
25
9
10
5


Brandon Kintzler
19
24
2
2
2


Craig Kimbrel
19
23
5
6
6


Roberto Osuna
16
22
0
3
3


Fernando Rodney
19
22
0
3
5


Kenley Jansen
25
21
10
8
9


Ken Giles
9
19
1
5
1


Jim Johnson
17
19
2
0
6


Kelvin Herrera
16
19
0
2
5


Brandon Maurer
15
19
2
4
6

Source: Baseball-REFERENCE.COM

The Dodgers have managed Jansen’s opportunities smartly, but he also deserves credit for making the most of every one of them — literally. Jansen has 25 goose eggs on the season, but no broken eggs, our term for when a pitcher enters the game with an opportunity to earn a goose egg but is charged with at least one earned run instead.1 The record for most goose eggs in a season without a broken egg is held by Brad Lidge, who had 34 goose eggs and no broken eggs in 2008.

As a result of this perfect conversion rate, Jansen leads baseball with 3.6 goose wins above replacement (GWAR) and is on pace for 6.5 GWAR, which would make for one of the top half-dozen relief pitching seasons of all time. Rivero and Miller are second and third in GWAR this season. You can find goose-egg statistics for these and all other relief pitchers in the sortable table below.

2017 goose stats through All-Star break

PITCHER▲▼


TEAM▲▼


GOOSE EGGS▲▼


BROKEN EGGS▲▼


MEHS▲▼


GWAR▲▼






Felipe Rivero
PIT
27
2
2
+3.2


Corey Knebel
MIL
26
5
2
+2.0


Kenley Jansen
LAD
25
0
1
+3.6


Andrew Miller
CLE
25
3
1
+3.0


Brad Hand
SD
23
4
5
+1.8


Alex Colome
TB
23
5
2
+1.7


Raisel Iglesias
CIN
21
1
0
+2.7


Brad Brach
BAL
21
3
0
+2.2


Edwin Diaz
SEA
21
4
1
+1.7


Addison Reed
NYM
21
4
3
+1.5


Archie Bradley
ARI
20
2
3
+2.3


Craig Kimbrel
BOS
19
2
0
+2.3


Brandon Kintzler
MIN
19
3
2
+1.8


Michael Lorenzen
CIN
19
3
1
+1.7


Joakim Soria
KC
19
4
2
+1.5


Justin Wilson
DET
19
4
0
+1.5


Fernando Rodney
ARI
19
4
3
+1.4


Seung-hwan Oh
STL
19
4
4
+1.3


Greg Holland
COL
18
2
0
+2.2


Jacob Barnes
MIL
18
4
3
+1.2


Jim Johnson
ATL
17
6
1
+0.3


Pat Neshek
PHI
16
1
3
+2.0


Mike Minor
KC
16
2
1
+1.8


David Robertson
CHW
16
3
1
+1.3


Will Harris
HOU
16
3
0
+1.3


Kelvin Herrera
KC
16
4
2
+1.1


Roberto Osuna
TOR
16
4
1
+1.1


Arodys Vizcaino
ATL
16
5
2
+0.5


Chris Devenski
HOU
16
6
3
+0.2


Tony Watson
PIT
16
6
4
+0.1


Trevor Rosenthal
STL
16
6
1
+0.1


Wade Davis
CHC
15
0
1
+2.2


Hector Neris
PHI
15
4
2
+0.7


Matthew Bowman
STL
15
4
4
+0.7


Matt Bush
TEX
15
6
1
+0.2


Brandon Maurer
SD
15
7
0
-0.5


Joe Smith
TOR
14
1
1
+1.8


Ryan Tepera
TOR
14
2
0
+1.5


Koji Uehara
CHC
14
4
3
+0.5


Santiago Casilla
OAK
14
5
2
+0.3


Taylor Rogers
MIN
13
2
3
+1.3


Brett Cecil
STL
13
2
2
+1.1


Matt Belisle
MIN
13
3
3
+0.9


Enny Romero
WSH
13
3
6
+0.8


Dellin Betances
NYY
13
4
1
+0.6


Adam Ottavino
COL
13
7
2
-0.4


Joaquin Benoit
PHI
13
7
0
-0.7


Nick Vincent
SEA
12
1
4
+1.5


Mike Montgomery
CHC
12
1
1
+1.4


Mychal Givens
BAL
12
2
3
+1.2


Ryan Madson
OAK
12
3
1
+0.7


Carl Edwards
CHC
12
3
3
+0.6


Cody Allen
CLE
12
4
2
+0.5


Jose Ramirez
ATL
12
4
1
+0.3


Jerry Blevins
NYM
12
4
6
+0.2


Ryan Buchter
SD
12
5
2
-0.1


Sam Dyson
TEX/SF
12
7
1
-0.8


Pedro Strop
CHC
11
1
3
+1.2


Bryan Shaw
CLE
11
2
2
+1.1


Derek Law
SF
11
3
1
+0.5


Hunter Strickland
SF
11
3
0
+0.5


AJ Ramos
MIA
11
3
2
+0.4


Bud Norris
LAA
11
6
0
-0.5


Tommy Kahnle
CHW
11
7
1
-0.9


David Phelps
MIA
11
7
1
-1.1


Anthony Swarzak
CHW
10
0
0
+1.5


Yusmeiro Petit
LAA
10
1
2
+1.2


Wandy Peralta
CIN
10
2
0
+0.7


Shane Greene
DET
10
3
3
+0.4


Blake Parker
LAA
10
3
1
+0.4


Kyle Barraclough
MIA
10
3
1
+0.3


Jorge De La Rosa
ARI
10
4
1
+0.1


Matt Barnes
BOS
10
5
3
-0.2


Alex Wilson
DET
10
6
4
-0.7


James Pazos
SEA
9
2
4
+0.6


Matt Albers
WSH
9
2
4
+0.6


Ken Giles
HOU
9
3
3
+0.2


Mark Melancon
SF
9
4
0
-0.2


Tyler Duffey
MIN
8
1
1
+0.9


David Hernandez
LAA
8
1
1
+0.9


Jared Hughes
MIL
8
1
1
+0.8


Kevin Siegrist
STL
8
1
1
+0.8


Chris Rusin
COL
8
2
3
+0.6


Sean Doolittle
OAK
8
2
3
+0.5


Koda Glover
WSH
8
2
2
+0.4


Jake McGee
COL
8
3
2
+0.2


Keone Kela
TEX
8
3
1
+0.2


Darren O’Day
BAL
8
3
2
+0.2


Danny Farquhar
TB
8
3
2
+0.1


Juan Nicasio
PIT
8
4
6
-0.3


Neftali Feliz
MIL
8
5
0
-0.7


Erasmo Ramirez
TB
7
1
2
+0.7


Heath Hembree
BOS
7
2
4
+0.4


Joe Kelly
BOS
7
2
4
+0.4


Deolis Guerra
LAA
7
2
0
+0.3


Jeanmar Gomez
PHI
7
2
1
+0.3


Josh Smoker
NYM
7
2
2
+0.3


Cory Gearrin
SF
7
2
1
+0.3


Hector Rondon
CHC
7
2
1
+0.3


Liam Hendriks
OAK
7
3
1
+0.0


Pedro Baez
LAD
7
3
4
-0.1


Jose Alvarado
TB
7
4
3
-0.4


George Kontos
SF
7
4
3
-0.5


Mike Dunn
COL
6
0
2
+1.0


Aroldis Chapman
NYY
6
0
2
+1.0


Zach Britton
BAL
6
0
0
+0.9


Scott Oberg
COL
6
1
3
+0.6


Cam Bedrosian
LAA
6
1
3
+0.5


Luis Garcia
PHI
6
1
1
+0.5


Nick Wittgren
MIA
6
1
1
+0.5


Alex Claudio
TEX
6
2
5
+0.2


Chasen Shreve
NYY
6
2
2
+0.2


Danny Barnes
TOR
6
2
1
+0.2


Tommy Hunter
TB
6
2
1
+0.2


J. J. Hoover
ARI
6
2
2
+0.2


Ian Krol
ATL
6
2
3
+0.1


Shawn Kelley
WSH
6
2
0
+0.1


Tony Barnette
TEX
6
3
0
-0.1


Luke Gregerson
HOU
6
3
2
-0.2


Steven Okert
SF
6
3
7
-0.3


Chase Whitley
TB
6
4
1
-0.6


Jumbo Diaz
TB
6
4
3
-0.6


Carlos Torres
MIL
6
4
2
-0.6


Ross Stripling
LAD
6
4
1
-0.6


Fernando Abad
BOS
5
0
0
+0.8


Randall Delgado
ARI
5
0
0
+0.8


T. J. McFarland
ARI
5
0
1
+0.8


Sam Freeman
ATL
5
0
2
+0.7


Oliver Perez
WSH
5
1
4
+0.4


Jose Leclerc
TEX
5
2
2
+0.1


Adam Warren
NYY
5
2
1
+0.1


Joely Rodriguez
PHI
5
2
4
+0.0


Jacob Turner
WSH
5
2
0
+0.0


Josh Edgin
NYM
5
2
5
+0.0


Jose Alvarez
LAA
5
5
3
-1.1


Fernando Salas
NYM
5
5
4
-1.2


Peter Moylan
KC
4
0
3
+0.6


Logan Verrett
BAL
4
0
0
+0.6


Marc Rzepczynski
SEA
4
0
4
+0.6


Nate Jones
CHW
4
1
0
+0.2


Jeurys Familia
NYM
4
1
2
+0.2


Brad Ziegler
MIA
4
1
2
+0.2


Ryan Pressly
MIN
4
2
0
-0.1


Ryan Dull
OAK
4
2
2
-0.1


Oliver Drake
MIL
4
2
1
-0.2


Tony Cingrani
CIN
4
2
3
-0.2


Hansel Robles
NYM
4
2
2
-0.2


Joe Biagini
TOR
4
3
2
-0.5


Tony Zych
SEA
4
3
2
-0.5


Daniel Hudson
PIT
4
4
4
-0.9


Blake Treinen
WSH
4
4
1
-0.9


Tyler Clippard
NYY
4
8
6
-2.3


Austin Pruitt
TB
3
0
0
+0.5


Austin Brice
CIN
3
0
0
+0.4


Bryan Morris
SF
3
0
0
+0.4


Brian Duensing
CHC
3
0
0
+0.4


Alex Wood
LAD
3
0
1
+0.4


Blaine Boyer
BOS
3
1
0
+0.1


Jonathan Holder
NYY
3
1
1
+0.1


Richard Bleier
BAL
3
1
1
+0.1


Donnie Hart
BAL
3
1
3
+0.1


Alec Asher
BAL
3
1
1
+0.1


Scott Alexander
KC
3
2
0
-0.3


Aaron Loup
TOR
3
2
6
-0.3


Dominic Leone
TOR
3
2
3
-0.3


Drew Storen
CIN
3
2
2
-0.3


Casey Fien
SEA/PHI
3
2
0
-0.3


Jhan Marinez
MIL/PIT
3
2
0
-0.3


Kirby Yates
LAA/SD
3
2
1
-0.3


Joe Blanton
WSH
3
2
0
-0.3


Sam Tuivailala
STL
3
2
0
-0.3


Josh Fields
LAD
3
2
1
-0.3


Travis Wood
KC
3
3
1
-0.6


Jason Grilli
TOR
3
3
2
-0.6


Dan Altavilla
SEA
3
3
1
-0.6


Francisco Rodriguez
DET
3
8
2
-2.5


Dario Alvarez
TEX
2
0
1
+0.3


Zach Putnam
CHW
2
0
0
+0.3


Justin Grimm
CHC
2
0
1
+0.3


Brock Stewart
LAD
2
0
0
+0.3


Dustin McGowan
MIA
2
0
1
+0.3


Jordan Lyles
COL
2
1
0
+0.0


Chad Qualls
COL
2
1
0
+0.0


Daniel Stumpf
DET
2
1
2
-0.1


Bruce Rondon
DET
2
1
0
-0.1


Kyle Ryan
DET
2
1
0
-0.1


Steve Cishek
SEA
2
1
1
-0.1


Kenyan Middleton
LAA
2
1
0
-0.1


Eric O’Flaherty
ATL
2
1
1
-0.1


Jason Motte
ATL
2
1
2
-0.1


Phil Maton
SD
2
1
1
-0.1


Robert Gsellman
NYM
2
1
0
-0.1


Robby Scott
BOS
2
2
8
-0.4


Robert Stephenson
CIN
2
2
0
-0.4


Josh Osich
SF
2
2
4
-0.5


Junichi Tazawa
MIA
2
2
0
-0.5


Luis Avilan
LAD
2
2
2
-0.5


Matt Strahm
KC
2
3
1
-0.8


Blake Wood
CIN
2
3
1
-0.8


Jose Torres
SD
2
3
1
-0.8


Sergio Romo
LAD
2
3
0
-0.8


Edubray Ramos
PHI
2
11
0
-3.8


Ben Taylor
BOS
1
0
1
+0.2


Robbie Ross
BOS
1
0
0
+0.2


Carlos Estevez
COL
1
0
0
+0.2


Tanner Scheppers
TEX
1
0
1
+0.2


Chris Young
KC
1
0
0
+0.2


Jake Junis
KC
1
0
0
+0.2


Miguel Castro
BAL
1
0
1
+0.2


Jeff Beliveau
TOR
1
0
0
+0.2


Brad Boxberger
TB
1
0
0
+0.2


Jean Machi
SEA
1
0
1
+0.2


Brooks Pounders
LAA
1
0
0
+0.2


Mike Morin
LAA
1
0
1
+0.2


Tony Sipp
HOU
1
0
0
+0.2


Brad Peacock
HOU
1
0
1
+0.2


Asher Wojciechowski
CIN
1
0
0
+0.1


Josh Hader
MIL
1
0
0
+0.1


Luke Jackson
ATL
1
0
0
+0.1


Miguel Socolovich
STL
1
0
1
+0.1


Ty Blach
SF
1
0
1
+0.1


Tyler Wilson
BAL
1
1
1
-0.2


Justin Haley
MIN
1
1
0
-0.2


Emilio Pagan
SEA
1
1
0
-0.2


Tom Wilhelmsen
ARI
1
1
2
-0.2


Frankie Montas
OAK
1
1
0
-0.2


James Hoyt
HOU
1
1
0
-0.2


Michael Feliz
HOU
1
1
0
-0.2


Rob Scahill
MIL
1
1
0
-0.2


Matt Grace
WSH
1
1
2
-0.2


Kevin Quackenbush
SD
1
1
0
-0.2


Grant Dayton
LAD
1
1
2
-0.2


Blaine Hardy
DET
1
2
1
-0.6


Daniel Coulombe
OAK
1
2
3
-0.6


John Axford
OAK
1
2
0
-0.6


Wily Peralta
MIL
1
2
0
-0.6


Sammy Solis
WSH
1
2
0
-0.6


Jonathan Broxton
STL
1
2
0
-0.6


Paul Sewald
NYM
1
2
2
-0.6


Chris Hatcher
LAD
1
2
1
-0.6


Jeremy Jeffress
TEX
1
3
1
-0.9


Wade LeBlanc
PIT
1
3
2
-1.0


Rafael Montero
NYM
1
3
1
-1.0


Andrew Chafin
ARI
1
4
6
-1.3


John Brebbia
STL
0
0
1
+0.0


Brent Suter
MIL
0
0
1
+0.0


Boone Logan
CLE
0
0
3
+0.0


Ben Heller
NYY
0
0
1
+0.0


Chris Beck
CHW
0
0
2
+0.0


Jarlin Garcia
MIA
0
0
2
+0.0


Gabriel Ynoa
BAL
0
0
1
+0.0


Jake Petricka
CHW
0
0
1
+0.0


Parker Bridwell
LAA
0
0
1
+0.0


Chad Bell
DET
0
0
1
+0.0


Ernesto Frieri
TEX
0
1
0
-0.4


Giovanny Gallegos
NYY
0
1
0
-0.4


Ronald Herrera
NYY
0
1
0
-0.4


Domingo German
NYY
0
1
0
-0.4


Bryan Mitchell
NYY
0
1
0
-0.4


Al Alburquerque
KC
0
1
0
-0.4


Stefan Crichton
BAL
0
1
0
-0.4


Casey Lawrence
TOR
0
1
0
-0.4


J. P. Howell
TOR
0
1
0
-0.4


Vidal Nuno
BAL
0
1
0
-0.4


Jayson Aquino
BAL
0
1
0
-0.4


Craig Breslow
MIN
0
1
0
-0.4


Hector Santiago
MIN
0
1
0
-0.4


Warwick Saupold
DET
0
1
2
-0.4


Chase De Jong
SEA
0
1
0
-0.4


Ryne Stanek
TB
0
1
3
-0.4


Diego Moreno
TB
0
1
0
-0.4


Xavier Cedeno
TB
0
1
3
-0.4


Jesse Chavez
LAA
0
1
0
-0.4


Adam Kolarek
TB
0
1
0
-0.4


Rubby De La Rosa
ARI
0
1
1
-0.4


Jandel Gustave
HOU
0
1
0
-0.4


Johnny Barbato
PIT
0
1
0
-0.4


Antonio Bastardo
PIT
0
1
0
-0.4


Tyler Pill
NYM
0
1
0
-0.4


Miguel Diaz
SD
0
1
0
-0.4


Neil Ramirez
NYM
0
1
2
-0.4


Tyler Lyons
STL
0
1
1
-0.4


Adam Conley
MIA
0
1
0
-0.4


Brandon Morrow
LAD
0
1
0
-0.4


Drew Steckenrider
MIA
0
1
0
-0.4


Chad Green
NYY
0
2
2
-0.7


J. C. Ramirez
LAA
0
2
0
-0.7


Evan Scribner
SEA
0
2
0
-0.7


Dan Jennings
CHW
0
2
4
-0.7


Josh Collmenter
ATL
0
2
0
-0.7


Ryan Garton
TB
0
3
0
-1.1

Source: Seamheads.com

Check out our latest MLB predictions.

Is Bernie Sanders Really The Democratic Front-Runner?

It’s never too early to talk about the 2020 general election — right? So in this week’s politics chat, we’re discussing whether Bernie Sanders is already the Democratic front-runner (it’s been on our minds thanks partly to Vox). The transcript below has been lightly edited.

natesilver: (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Hello, chatters. As Harry pointed out on Twitter the other day, we’re roughly as close to the first debates of the 2020 presidential cycle — which will presumably be in late spring or early summer of 2019 — as we are to the first debates of the 2016 cycle. So let’s take a break from health care and “the Russia stuff” to discuss our favorite topic … Bernie Sanders!

clare.malone: (Clare Malone, senior political writer): Who dat?

harry (Harry Enten, senior political writer): I’m sure this will end well for all of us.

natesilver: Last week, Vox’s Matt Yglesias wrote a column claiming that Bernie Sanders — Clare, he’s the independent senator from Vermont who ran in the Democratic primary in 2016 and finished second to Hillary Clinton — was the Democrats’ “front-runner” for 2020. I’m sure you’ve all read that column?

harry: I have read that column. It was an enjoyable experience.

natesilver: I’m glad it made you feel warm inside. But here’s a question — and I want people’s SHORT, topline views before we go into the details of Yglesias’s argument. Is Bernie Sanders the Democrats’ front-runner for 2020?

clare.malone: No, not necessarily. There are other people who are garnering similar enthusiasm from a similar base. (Ahem, Elizabeth Warren.)

harry: I think he can win the nomination, but “front-runner” suggests to me an appreciably better chance than any other candidate, as well as having greater than, say, a 15 percent chance at the nomination.

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): No. He’s kind of a co-front-runner with Warren and Joe Biden.

clare.malone: Everyone is SO OLD.

natesilver: I say YES.

clare.malone: hah-cha-cha

Why? I.e., why more so than the other two we’ve offered?

natesilver: Well, let me clarify that “front-runner” and “favorite” are not synonyms to me. A “front-runner” is the horse that jumps out to the front of the pack and dictates the action behind him.

harry: Thank you, Noah Webster.

perry: That’s interesting and might actually change my answer in some ways. I think I considered the question as “who is the favorite,” not “front-runner.”

clare.malone: Yeah, I don’t even necessarily agree given Nate’s definition.

natesilver: Like, Elizabeth Warren’s decision to run is probably more influenced by Sanders than the other way around. Which would suggest that Sanders is the front-runner.

clare.malone: So, Sanders has his own political org, Our Revolution. But I’m not sure how influential they’ve actually proved themselves to be so far. And it’s not necessarily like any one candidate has cornered the “resistance” market or harnessed its energy or voice in any particular way.

I say it’s still open season. I also disagree on the Warren point — she’ll still run if she wants to run.

harry: I’d say Nathaniel’s definition only really works for Warren, if that. I tend to think Sanders has little sway over, say, an Eric Garcetti or a Mitch Landrieu or a Biden.

natesilver: Resistance, schmazistance. Bernie got 13 million votes in 2016. Isn’t he next in line for the Democratic nomination? Like, let’s not be too cute by putting Eric Garcetti in the same boat as BERNIE SANDERS?

harry: Hold on a second there. That’s not what I’m saying at all. You were saying Sanders dictated other people in and out of the race — your definition of a “front-runner.” I’m saying he won’t be dictating most people, including folks like Garcetti or Kamala Harris.

clare.malone: Seconded. I think Sanders is still considered enough of an obstinate outsider by a lot of the party, so certain money people and thought-leader people are likely to back another horse. (Ugh, “thought leader.”)

perry: Clinton got close to like 17 million votes. All of those people had a chance to vote for Sanders. I might suggest that many of them are more likely to vote for Biden (a more center-left Dem) than Sanders (a more left-left Dem).

natesilver: He’d hugely influence the strategy of someone like Harris, wouldn’t he? He’s the elephant in the room.

Harris would have to run around Sanders.

clare.malone: She’s not necessarily Bernie category, though. She’d play more into Clinton supporters while picking up a number of Bernie people, but certainly not all.

harry: The elephant in the room who is polling at less than half of what he got in 2016.

perry: I’m going to concede Nate’s basic point: Sanders starts out with a lot of supporters, donors, popularity, etc. He won 13 million more votes than any of these other people we are talking about.

natesilver: Harry, I see Sanders consistently polling at 20 percent and everyone else in the single digits. Doesn’t that data prove my point?

harry: I see Joe Biden consistently in double digits. Michelle Obama in double digits.

clare.malone: I think the Joe Biden thing is a little odd. I kind of can’t believe it will ultimately last. That’s my gut.

harry: Heck, Elizabeth Warren is double digits too.

clare.malone: Yeah. This is balkanized support.

natesilver: But she has barely more than half of Sanders’s support. And Sanders has run before and won a lot of votes before.

harry: If you’re going to use Sanders’s prior support, then why is he polling at less than half of what he got in 2016? Doesn’t that suggest that a lot of that support was merely anti-Clinton and not pro-Bernie?

natesilver: Because they’re polling a ballot with 14 candidates, whereas it was a two-horse race in 2016. I dare you to look up Sanders’s favorability ratings with Democrats, Harry!

harry: I dare you to look up Trump’s favorability ratings with Republicans even after he entered.

clare.malone: Cool impasse.

natesilver: I’m not sure why you’re being such a hipster about this, Harry. Sanders is really well liked among Democrats. He was second last time. He’s leading in the polls now. Isn’t it obvious that he’s the front-runner?

clare.malone: Can I point out the obvious?

Most people aren’t paying attention to this shit. So can we really call someone a front-runner in July 2017?

perry: I think Clinton was fine to call the front-runner in July 2013. I think I don’t see Sanders in anywhere near as strong of a position as Clinton was in July 2013.

harry: Are we talking about the favorite or the front-runner here, Nate?

clare.malone: Front-runner was the original parameter. But I think the GOP is actually the better comparison here. Because now the Dems are the fractured party.

harry: Clinton was polling in the 60s at this point in the 2016 cycle.

clare.malone: Who was the GOP front-runner in July 2013?

harry: It was a mess on the Republican side.

clare.malone: Right. A scrum.

harry: Everyone between 10 percent and 20 percent.

clare.malone: I think we’re more in that zone.

harry: That’s where I think we are too.

clare.malone: lol, Chris Christie was among the front-runners. Take a moment with that, folks.

perry: To Clare’s question, Rick Santorum was not the GOP front-runner for 2016 in July 2013, even though he had finished second in 2012. Sanders is somewhere between Clinton and Santorum, in terms of front-runner status. But I think closer to Clinton.

natesilver: So, I’m going try to turn from pointing out how wrong all of you guys are to asking some “neutral” questions as your moderator.

First question: Why do you all hate Bernie Sanders so much?

clare.malone: For the traffic.

perry: I think Sanders has some huge strengths. I think by the way you defined “front-runner,” I might call him the front-runner. I just think I would bet the field over Sanders in 2020, and I would have bet Clinton over the field this time in the 2016 cycle.

natesilver: OK, real next question. Yglesias argues that Sanders’s performance is especially impressive in 2016 because “nobody thought he could win” and so he had very little support from the Democratic establishment, including from groups such as unions that might ordinarily be in his camp. As a result, he would be even more formidable in 2020 — perhaps enough to win. Do you buy that or not?

clare.malone: I do not buy that, in part because of the Clinton factor, as Harry mentioned.

A lot of people just had knee-jerk non-support of her, and they drifted over to Sanders. On the establishment question — I think a lot of Democratic Party institutions still dislike him.

perry: I guess I don’t know 1. Was the Sanders vote a Sanders vote or an anti-Clinton vote? And 2. Is there something about Bernie that turns off Latino and in particular black voters, or can he grow in those two groups?

harry: I would say I think that Sanders does have room to grow. I think he could do very well with Latinos. He fought Clinton closely among them in some states.

perry: Yes, he can grow his support. I still think he will have trouble with upper-income and older liberals and blacks, which is why I think you will see lots of people seeing if they can fill those lanes.

clare.malone: I really don’t think we can discount the behind-the-scenes frustration at the Sanders campaign. I think there are a lot in the Dem establishment who want Bernie ideas in a non-Bernie package.

natesilver: That’s an interesting way to put it, Clare. Is that what Democratic voters want, though?

clare.malone: What bloc of Democratic voters are we most unsure of? Black voters who didn’t turn out, maybe? I think that’s why you need a different vessel. Someone who carries less of the historical animus of Sanders and has more appeal to more groups.

natesilver: I suppose what I’m getting at — and this is a rhetorical question, but you can answer it! — is was it actually a disadvantage for Sanders not to have the backing of the Democratic establishment in 2016?

To me, that seemed like one of his biggest advantages — grievances against Democratic elites — so a more establishment-ified version of Sanders might not click.

perry: So, I think that Warren is a more establishment-friendly version of Sanders.

clare.malone: Well, I think more of the Democratic mainstream has digested the Sanders-esque rhetoric post-election.

harry: What Sanders needs to figure out is how to do what he did and not lose black voters by a wide margin. The problem of course is black voters are the base of the Democratic Party — a base that seems OK with establishment candidates.

natesilver: Agree or disagree with the following SAT-style analogy?

Elizabeth Warren : Bernie Sanders :: Rand Paul : Ron Paul.

clare.malone: Agree. I wonder if they still ask SAT questions like that?

harry: Well. Hmm. I don’t remember Warren beating the Senate leader’s preferred choice in a Senate primary like Rand Paul did. But I get what you’re going for.

perry: Not really. I sort of see Warren as a much more establishment-friendly person than either of the Pauls. So I disagree.

clare.malone: I love how everyone in these chats redefines the rules. Remind me to never play parlor games with you guys.

natesilver: I suppose I mean the analogy in this way: Ron Paul, like Bernie, got a lot of credit from voters for perceived authenticity and for really being quite pioneering.

perry: The analogy will work there. Sanders is reportedly mad at Warren for endorsing HRC and not him.

natesilver: One of Yglesias’s points is that “Bernie Sanders has a clear message” — everyone knows what he stands for. Do you agree that everyone knows what Sanders stands for? And how much of an advantage is that?

clare.malone: It’s certainly a big one, particularly since the only thing that most Democrats can seem to come up with is just to rant against Trump.

perry: I think I see Sanders much more through demographics than message. He was really strong among independents who voted in the primary and people under 30, really weak with blacks, weak with self-identified moderates and stronger with liberals.

I think that by 2020, many Dems will be closer on ideology to Sanders than Clinton was. I think you will see more Democratic presidential candidates pushing for single-payer health care, taking on the wealthy and big banks, etc.

harry: I think he has a few clear messages and each can work. There’s the left-wing message. That works. There’s the change message that works with younger voters. I think you’d rather have older voters, however.

clare.malone: Yeah. I think his message appeals to older voters in the upper Midwest, middle-class people who feel disenchanted with the way the economy is going in their neck of the woods, who have sort of adopted an anti-establishmentism but aren’t Trumpian. But in general the Dems have been shifting left for decades, so the Sanders direction makes sense.

natesilver: Harry, why would you rather have older voters? Aren’t there a bunch of people who will be 18 in 2020, who were 14 in 2016, who are also going to be lefty/Sanders voters?

harry: Because older voters turn out reliably.

natesilver: You sound like those U.K. pollsters who didn’t give Jeremy Corbyn a chance.

harry: Hah. No. Look, if the polls show Sanders, it’ll be Sanders, in my mind.

clare.malone: This chat is really the greatest hits, isn’t it?

natesilver: I’m just saying it’s worth pointing out that nobody in “the media” gave Bernie a chance last time — and then he won.

harry: OK. That’s very funny. Nice.

perry: I think he has a great chance.

clare.malone: We’ve lost the original thread: front-runner. I think he has a good chance. I just don’t think it’s fair to say he has the clear better chance over any number of other people right now.

harry: Let me point out one other thing that goes back to Clare’s point. Much was made about the education divide in the GOP primary, but an economic divide certainly existed in the Democratic primary as well. It’s part of the reason Sanders did so well in West Virginia, for example. He connected for whatever reason with those who were less well-off.

natesilver: So let’s get back to the thread. There’s another age-related question I have. Bernie Sanders is 75. He’d be 79 if he were inaugurated as president in 2021. How much does that hurt his front-runner status?

clare.malone: The age question is a real one. I think it’s difficult to get around, no? Christie Aschwanden and I wrote about this vis-a-vis Trump/Clinton, the oldest (first-term) candidates ever.

natesilver: No president has been that old at the end of his term, let alone at the beginning.

perry: I think his age hurts him in part because of the perception of it. I think if he were 62 and had just run the campaign he did, he would be screening out lots of potential rivals. There would be almost no talk of Warren running, for example. Because he is older, I think there is some uncertainty about whether he will run. That creates openings for others.

harry: I think we need to see where his health is in 2019 to make this assessment.

natesilver: So let’s say that Sanders runs in 2019. And he’s in apparently good health. How will the age issue play? Will other Democrats bring it up? Will the media?

clare.malone: Yes, people will bring it up. We’re an ageist society!

natesilver: Is it really ageist, though? I’m someone who thinks the media doesn’t talk enough about the candidates’ mental fitness. (I know there are a lot of people on our staff who disagree.)

perry: I’m not sure. John McCain was on the older end in 2008. His rivals made lots of comments about his years in the Senate; they cast him as an insider. Obama did at times too. But I feel like Bernie has the image of an outsider. And I don’t think direct age comments play well.

clare.malone: I think this is a total question of fitness for office in the long term. People talk about it with judges. Why not with presidents??

harry: I think age is a totally legitimate question. But each person should be viewed individually, not merely dismissed because they are older. If Sanders is in good shape, then who are we to say?

natesilver: What’s the cutoff then, Harry? What if a 92-year-old in apparently good health ran for office? Would you vote for him/her?

harry: I don’t know what the cutoff is, Nathaniel. I think as a society what we view as old continues to change.

clare.malone: But those changes about mental acuity and health are more reasonable to apply to, say, Gen X candidates as they age.

harry: On a related topic, anyone want to comment on this?

clare.malone: Yeahhh. It ain’t good.

natesilver: I was just going to ask about that, Harry. How much of a problem is it for Sanders? For BERNIE Sanders, I should say.

For readers who haven’t read the story: Federal authorities are investigating allegedly inappropriate loans that Bernie Sanders’s wife, Jane Sanders, may have secured while she was president of Burlington College.

harry: If nothing else, it can be one heck of a distraction. It suggests that the Sanders clan may not be immune to dirty politics.

clare.malone: Bank fraud allegations aren’t a stellar thing to have out in the public eye, even if they’re being exaggerated, as Sanders spokesman Jeff Weaver is telling reporters.

perry: I think this is significant. Dems, after Clinton’s constant legal turmoil, I think are going to be somewhat wary of a candidate who might be investigated by the FBI during the campaign. Maybe not the Bernie core, but outside of that.

natesilver: Is it just me, or has there been very little discussion of these charges on Twitter and elsewhere in the media?

clare.malone: You are correct. I think it’s the fact that Trump is just so big right now with the Russia stuff?

natesilver: I think it also illustrates something else, though: Nobody really has an incentive to go after Sanders. Left-leaning Democrats obviously don’t. Establishment Democrats want to bridge the divide with the left. The media has more pressing stories. And Republicans have better things to worry about.

But all of that will change if he’s actually the Democratic front-runner, no?

perry: I think that’s true, but kind of appropriate. 1. I think this Jane Sanders story would be covered more if it were July 2019 and Sanders were running for president. 2. I think the lack of coverage kind of confirms that the media, rightly or wrongly, may not see Sanders as the Democratic front-runner for 2020. I think if Clinton had a controversy like this in July 2013, it would have been covered much more extensively.

natesilver: We should start to wind this up soon. My position is that Sanders is the front-runner for 2020, but not necessarily the favorite — in part because the more of a front-runner he truly is, the more that potential liabilities such as his age and the Jane Sanders investigation will loom over him. Have I convinced any of you about the favorite/front-runner distinction?

clare.malone: No.

natesilver: Haha.

clare.malone: But I enjoyed the exchange of ideas as always, Nate.

I hold fast to the stance that I’m still not sure he’s risen to an appreciable degree above the rest of the 2020 rat pack.

perry: Totally convinced. But I think most people mean favorite when they talk about upcoming campaigns.

natesilver: Are any of you — including you, Harry — willing to go on the record as naming someone who is more likely than Bernie Sanders to win the 2020 Democratic nomination?

clare.malone: Wow, that young buck Mark Zuckerberg is just such a natural with other human beings.

harry: No. There are people I think are equal, like Biden.

perry: No, I would not say any single individual is more likely. So that’s why I would say you and Matt Yglesias have established something important. Bernie is ahead right now.

natesilver: He’s a vulnerable front-runner, not a Clinton-esque front-runner, but also not a Jeb Bush FAKE NEWS front-runner.

perry: Agree.

harry: I go back to what I said at the beginning. Sanders’s big problem is that the other candidates combined have a such a high chance of winning that I cannot consider him a favorite or front-runner.

clare.malone: OK, let’s close this up. Harry and I are right.

natesilver: So to conclude, Harry Enten and Clare Malone think Bernie Sanders is Jeb Bush.

clare.malone: Please clap for that expert conclusion.

harry: I think Nate Silver is Jeb Bush.

clare.malone: Let’s start the Empiricist Party and run Nate in 2020.

perry: What I would say more broadly is that discussion has been clarifying for me. I think I don’t take Sanders that seriously as a 2020 candidate. And after running through this, I think his age is huge, in a way I had not realized. It invites others to run against him. It suggests he may not run himself. And it will be a campaign issue.

natesilver: And let’s end on that note. Thanks, everyone.

Politics Podcast: Trump Asks For Voter Data

 












Subscribe: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
Download |
RSS |
Embed |
New to podcasts?


Embed Code

This week on the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast: The team is joined by senior editor and chief economics writer Ben Casselman to talk about President Trump’s economic vision. Then, senior science writer Maggie Koerth-Baker talks about the fight over voter data. Finally, is the latest Russia development smoke or fire?

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen .

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes . Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

Do The Celtics Have Enough Star Power To Win a Title? Not Yet.

The Boston Celtics, after whiffing on trades for Jimmy Butler and Paul George, finally got some good news this week when Gordon Hayward announced that he was leaving the Utah Jazz to play for the Celtics. Although Isaiah Thomas would have some beef with this assessment, Hayward’s well-rounded combination of skills will probably make him the best player on the Celtics next year. He’s a good fit with the team’s approach.

And yet, projection systems (including our own CARMELO) are somewhat skeptical of the Celtics, not expecting them to improve on last year’s 53-29 performance or to seriously challenge the Cleveland Cavaliers for Eastern Conference supremacy. Hayward is also fairly expensive; he’ll cost the Celtics $128 million over four years (the fourth season, 2020-21, is a player option). So let’s ask a tough question of Boston and general manager Danny Ainge: If Hayward is the best player on your team, could that team plausibly be good enough to win a championship?

The answer is probably not. Hayward made the All-Star team last season, but he’s a long way from being a superstar. A handful of modern NBA teams — the 1988-89 and 1989-90 Detroit Pistons, the 2003-04 Pistons, and the 2013-14 San Antonio Spurs — won a title with someone about as good as Hayward as their best player. But this is unusual: It requires a team to be constructed almost perfectly, with above-average players at nearly every position, a deep bench, and a cohesive rotation. It sometimes also requires a fair amount of luck.1

But Hayward can be a building block toward a championship. He’s roughly as good as the second-best player on a typical championship team. That might sound like faint praise, but it’s no small achievement.

Let’s develop some terminology to describe degrees of the stardom in the NBA. I’ll introduce three types of players: Alphas, Betas and Gammas.

An Alpha is a player who’s as good as the best player on a typical championship-winning team. This is an MVP contender — one of the half-dozen best players in the league.
A Beta is as good as the second-best player on a typical NBA champion. As I mentioned, Hayward is a good example of a Beta. Betas are usually All-Stars, perhaps even All-Star starters, and they’re among the best players at their position. But they’re not among the very best players in the league.
And a Gamma is good as third-best player on a typical championship team. A Gamma might be an All-Star, but he usually won’t make one of the three All-NBA teams. He probably has one or two weaknesses (defense, shooting, etc.) along with his obvious strengths. But he’s still a very good player and might be the best player on a non-contending team. Thomas, although he’s somewhat difficult to evaluate because of his defense — various statistical systems rate it anywhere from mediocre to execrable2 — is a reasonably good example of a Gamma.

At any given time, only a few dozen players in the league will rated as Alphas, Betas or Gammas. (CARMELO projects that there will be 35 of them in 2017-18, for example.) It’s these players who determine who competes for NBA championships. Doesn’t depth matter also? Well, sure. A well-rounded roster is often the difference between winning a title and losing one. But a team needs its share of star-level talent to compete for a championship in the first place. Otherwise, it’ll usually wind up like last year’s Celtics, a well-constructed team that was overmatched in the playoffs.

Below, you’ll find a table listing the top three players on NBA championship teams since 1984-85 — the first year the league used a salary cap — as rated by a statistic called Consensus Plus-Minus. Consensus Plus-Minus, or CPM, is a statistic I use when I don’t want to get into arguments about the value of individual players. It reflects a combination of four popular statistics — Real Plus-Minus,3 Box Plus/Minus, Win Shares and player efficiency rating — equally weighted and translated to the same scale. It also adjusts for the player’s position, which the other metrics do not,4 and it regresses players’ ratings to replacement level if they fall below a certain threshold of playing time.5 For predictive purposes, we think CPM is liable to be slightly less accurate than the blend of statistics CARMELO uses (a combination of RPM and BPM), but CPM is still a perfectly reasonable stat and much more in line with the consensus view of NBA players. Like BPM and RPM, CPM is expressed in net points added or subtracted per 100 possessions. So a player with a CPM of 2.5, teamed with four average players, would help his team to outscore his opponents by 2.5 points per 100 possessions, for example.

How good were the best players on recent NBA champions?

Player ratings based on Consensus Plus-Minus (CPM)

CONSENSUS PLUS-MINUS


YEAR
TEAM
NO. 1 PLAYER
/-
NO. 2 PLAYER
/-
NO. 3 PLAYER
/-




2017
Warriors
Durant
8.3
Curry
6.7
Green
3.7


2016
Cavaliers
James
8.9
Love
3.2
Irving
2.1


2015
Warriors
Curry
9.9
Green
4.4
Thompson
4.3


2014
Spurs
Ginobili
4.8
Leonard
4.8
Mills
3.2


2013
Heat
James
10.6
Wade
5.8
Bosh
1.2


2012
Heat
James
10.8
Wade
7.5
Bosh
1.7


2011
Mavericks
Nowitzki
4.9
Chandler
2.8
Kidd
1.9


2010
Lakers
Bryant
4.5
Gasol
3.7
Odom
2.2


2009
Lakers
Bryant
6.0
Gasol
3.6
Odom
3.0


2008
Celtics
Garnett
7.8
Pierce
4.5
Allen
2.8


2007
Spurs
Ginobili
7.2
Duncan
6.6
Parker
3.4


2006
Heat
Wade
8.0
O’Neal
5.2
Mourning
2.4


2005
Spurs
Duncan
7.5
Ginobili
7.1
Barry
1.9


2004
Pistons
B. Wallace
4.3
Billups
3.8
R. Wallace*
1.7


2003
Spurs
Duncan
7.5
Robinson
3.8
Ginobili
1.1


2002
Lakers
O’Neal
8.4
Bryant
4.7
Horry
1.9


2001
Lakers
O’Neal
8.9
Bryant
4.8
Fox
0.6


2000
Lakers
O’Neal
10.0
Bryant
5.0
Horry
2.5


1999
Spurs
Robinson
6.9
Duncan
5.2
Elie
2.8


1998
Bulls
Jordan
6.0
Pippen
5.0
Kukoc
2.5


1997
Bulls
Jordan
7.7
Pippen
5.5
Kukoc
4.1


1996
Bulls
Jordan
9.4
Pippen
5.6
Kukoc
4.6


1995
Rockets
Drexler*
6.1
Olajuwon
5.7
Smith
1.0


1994
Rockets
Olajuwon
5.8
Horry
1.9
Thorpe
1.6


1993
Bulls
Jordan
9.4
Pippen
3.6
Grant
2.7


1992
Bulls
Jordan
8.7
Grant
5.7
Pippen
5.6


1991
Bulls
Jordan
10.9
Pippen
4.9
Grant
3.6


1990
Pistons
Laimbeer
3.8
Rodman
2.6
Thomas
1.7


1989
Pistons
Laimbeer
3.8
Rodman
3.1
Johnson
1.3


1988
Lakers
Johnson
5.2
Scott
3.1
Worthy
1.9


1987
Lakers
Johnson
8.2
Abdul-Jabbar
2.2
Worthy
2.0


1986
Celtics
Bird
7.7
McHale
5.4
Parish
2.5


1985
Lakers
Johnson
5.6
Abdul-Jabbar
5.3
Worthy
1.6



Average

7.4

4.6

2.5

CPM reflects a combination of Real Plus-Minus, Box Plus/Minus, Win Shares and player efficiency rating.

* Player was acquired midseason. His /- total reflects performance for entire season, and not just for the acquiring club.

To no one’s surprise, the best players on title-winning teams are usually extraordinary talents. Among the 33 NBA champions since 1985, the top-rated player on the team, according to CPM, was one of the three best players in the league that season on 23 occasions. And the team’s best player was among the top 10 in the league on all but three occasions. The exceptions were Bill Laimbeer of the 1988-89 and 1989-90 Pistons (CPM, perhaps dubiously, rates Laimbeer ahead of his teammate, the other Isiah Thomas) and Ben Wallace of the 2003-04 Pistons. Pretty much all the other No. 1 players are current or future Hall of Famers, however, with the possible exception of Manu Ginobili, who may be a borderline case.

No matter how brightly he shines, however, a superstar usually can’t deliver a title without a good sidekick or two.6 On average, the second-best player on these championship teams was the 14th-best player in the league, according to CPM. And although not every champ had a classic “Big Three” like LeBron James’s Miami Heat, the third-best player on the championship team rated as the 37th-best player in the league, on average — still very solid.

So let’s get back to the idea of Alpha, Beta and Gamma players, which were meant to correspond to a typical championship team’s best, second-best and third-best players. By looking at the historical data, we can define these classifications as follows:

An Alpha has a CPM of 6.0 or higher.
A Beta has a CPM of between 3.5 and 6.0.
And a Gamma has a CPM of between 2.0 and 3.5.

I re-ran CARMELO using CPM instead of its usual blend of statistics, and it projected the following players to be Alphas, Betas and Gammas for the upcoming NBA season:

Who are the NBA’s championship-caliber players?

Projections based on Consensus Plus-Minus for 2017-18

ALPHAS
BETAS
GAMMAS


PLAYER
/-
PLAYER
/-
PLAYER
/-




Russell Westbrook
8.2
Chris Paul
5.9
Damian Lillard
3.3


James Harden
7.4
Jimmy Butler
5.5
Bradley Beal
3.2


LeBron James
7.0
G. Antetokounmpo
5.2
John Wall
3.0


Stephen Curry
7.0
Nikola Jokic
4.8
DeMar DeRozan
3.0


Kawhi Leonard
6.8
Anthony Davis
4.3
Paul George
2.9


Kevin Durant
6.7
Karl-Anthony Towns
4.1
Mike Conley
2.9




DeMarcus Cousins
4.1
Isaiah Thomas
2.8




Draymond Green
3.8
Kyrie Irving
2.8




Gordon Hayward
3.8
DeAndre Jordan
2.7




Kyle Lowry
3.7
Paul Millsap
2.6




Blake Griffin
3.7
Otto Porter Jr.
2.5




Rudy Gobert
3.6
Kevin Love
2.4






Kemba Walker
2.2






Klay Thompson
2.1






Victor Oladipo
2.1






CJ McCollum
2.1






Hassan Whiteside
2.0

CPM reflects a combination of Real Plus-Minus, Box Plus/Minus, Win Shares and player efficiency rating

This makes for a fairly intuitive list. LeBron, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, Stephen Curry, Kevin Durant and Kawhi Leonard are the league’s six Alphas. Chris Paul falls just short of the Alpha category; instead, he joins players such as Hayward, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Rudy Gobert and Anthony Davis on the Beta list. Gammas include players like Isaiah Thomas, Kyrie Irving, Kevin Love, John Wall, DeAndre Jordan and Paul Millsap.

So then all you need is an Alpha, a Beta and a Gamma and — presto! — you win an NBA championship? Actually, your options are more flexible than that. A team with an Alpha and a Beta — say, this year’s Houston Rockets — could probably skip the Gamma if they had a deep rotation. A team with no Alphas but three Betas — say, Jimmy Butler, Antetokounmpo and Kyle Lowry — would more than likely be good enough to contend for a title. A team with a very strong Alpha could go without a Beta and make up for it with two or more Gammas instead — that’s sort of how the current Cavaliers are constructed.

To help teams think through these decisions, let’s invent one more statistic, which I’ll call star points. The formula is simple: A team gets three star points for each Alpha on its roster, two for each Beta, and one for each Gamma. Next year’s Warriors project to have 9 star points, for example: three each for Curry and Durant, two for Draymond Green and one for Klay Thompson.

Even having that much talent on your roster doesn’t necessarily guarantee a title. But historically, a team’s chances of winning a title are remote if it has four or fewer star points. It has a fighting chance with five or six star points, depending on how the rest of the roster is constructed. And its probability increases rapidly once it acquires seven or more star points.

How much star power does an NBA team need?

Probability of team winning a championship based on star points

STAR POINTS
TEAMS
CHAMPIONS
CHAMPIONSHIP PROBABILITY




0
216
0
0.0%



1
147
0
0.0



2
167
2
1.2

–



3
143
4
2.8

–



4
103
2
1.9

–



5
74
7
9.5

–



6
42
6
14.3

–



7
25
8
32.0

–



8 or more
13
4
30.8

–

Star points: 3 points per Alpha player, 2 points per Beta player, and 1 point per Gamma player. Table includes all teams since the 1984-85 season.

This system isn’t perfect, but it lines up intuitively with how we evaluate teams. After the Warriors and their nine projected star points next season, the Cavaliers and Rockets are the closest thing the league has to ready-made title contenders, as they’re tied for second at five star points each. They’re followed by the Thunder, Timberwolves and Pelicans at four each; these four-point teams probably need at least one more thing to click (say, George taking the next step in Oklahoma City) to be title-worthy. The Celtics are one of several teams with three star points.

This measure can underrate the importance of team depth; the Spurs, who have only three star points, are rated too low, for instance. The Celtics — although they’re losing a few players to make room for Hayward — are also a deep team, with lots of average or slightly-above-average players and lots of draft picks to keep priming the pump. They could probably compete for a title with five star points, therefore, instead of needing six or seven. Adding another Beta-level player might be enough to do the trick.

It’s hard to see where that player comes from, however. The Celtics lost some of their financial flexibility in signing Hayward. And while they could develop a star player rather than acquiring one, giving more playing time to young players such as Jaylen Brown and rookie Jayson Tatum could make them less competitive in the short run.

If there’s one Celtics move that looks bad in retrospect, it isn’t necessarily trying and failing to acquire Butler or George, it’s trading the No. 1 draft pick for Philadelphia’s No. 3 pick, with which they chose Tatum. While Tatum has a fairly promising projection, he doesn’t have the upside of No. 1 pick Markelle Fultz, whose comparables include players such as Harden, Westbrook and Wall. The trade might have made sense for a team that already had its stars in place and wanted to develop complementary players around them, but the Celtics have plenty of complementary players and are short on stars.

At the same time, it would be easy to underestimate the challenge Ainge faced. The Celtics’ 53-29 record last year was deceptive, in that it came against a weak conference and relied on what were arguably career years from several players, including Thomas.7 In many respects, they were a rebuilding team dressed up as a competing team. And precisely because the Celtics weren’t just one player away from contending for a title, Ainge needed to acquire a player like Hayward or Butler without compromising the Celtics’ ability to acquire or develop another such player down the road. Even if the Celtics are still a star away from seriously contending for a title — maybe even a superstar away — that’s closer than they were last week.

Politics Podcast: Trump Goes Global

 












Subscribe: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
Download |
RSS |
Embed |
New to podcasts?


Embed Code

We’re back after a holiday break! This week the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team digs into President Trump’s trip abroad for the G20 Summit and how worldwide trust in U.S. leadership has changed since President Obama left office. Plus: Survey Monkey took a poll asking if Americans trust outlets like CNN and The New York Times more than President Trump. Was it a good use of polling or a bad use of polling?

You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen .

The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes . Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.

Are Trump And The Media Enemies Or Frenemies?

In this week’s politics chat, we look at the war between President Trump and the media. Is the war real? And, if so, who’s winning? The transcript below has been lightly edited.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Hello, chatters. Micah went to the Jersey Shore this weekend and, unlike Gov. Chris Christie, hasn’t been seen or heard from since. So I’ll be filling in as moderator. Did everyone see some good fireworks last night?

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): I watched some excellent East River fireworks drinking from an open container. New York is a great city.

natesilver: I was in Peekskill, New York, which has pretty damned good fireworks, I must say. Although my pictures of them didn’t turn out very well.

But today we’re here to talk about another sort of fireworks, and one which is always a pleasure to discuss. That is, the ongoing clash between President Trump and “the media.”

clare.malone:

Next Season’s NBA Heavyweights: Warriors, Cavs, Spurs, Rockets … Timberwolves?

UPDATE (June 30, 5:38 p.m.): Just as we were publishing this story, it was reported that Minnesota Timberwolves’ point guard Ricky Rubio will be traded to the Utah Jazz for a first-round draft pick. The story has been updated to reflect the trade.

It’s a dangerous time of year to be an NBA fan. With free agency officially getting underway on Saturday, and players such as Paul George available via the trade market, you can talk yourself into any number of far-fetched scenarios wherein your favorite team puts just the right pieces together and suddenly becomes a contender. (What if the Spurs added Blake Griffin? What if the Celtics brought in both George and Gordon Hayward?) Sometimes dreams really do come true — like when the Rockets landed Chris Paul this week — but most of the time, you’ll wind up disappointed instead.

At FiveThirtyEight, we sometimes play this dangerous game with spreadsheets — specifically, with a spreadsheet that projects team records based on our CARMELO player projections. And there’s one team that really caught our spreadsheet’s eye: the Minnesota Timberwolves. The Wolves already made their big move of the summer, acquiring the Bulls’ Jimmy Butler for Zach LaVine, Kris Dunn and an exchange of first-round draft picks. When we plugged the Wolves’ CARMELO projections into the spreadsheet,1 it came up with a projected record of 50-33.

The Timberwolves look like contenders

CARMELO projections for the 2017-18 Minnesota Timberwolves

PLAYER
MIN. PER GAME
OFF. PLUS/MINUS
DEF. PLUS/MINUS




Jimmy Butler
33
+3.8
+1.0


Andrew Wiggins
32
+1.5
-1.9


Gorgui Dieng
30
-1.0
+2.6


Karl-Anthony Towns
37
+3.7
+0.3


Shabazz Muhammad
16
-0.1
-3.1


Nemanja Bjelica
16
-0.7
+0.7


Tyus Jones
15
-0.3
-0.8


Cole Aldrich
10
-2.2
+2.6


Justin Patton
8
-2.6
+0.4


Repacement-level players
43
-1.7
-0.3


Team total
240
+5.4
+1.1





WINS
LOSSES




Timberwolves’ projected record

49.5
32.5

But that doesn’t account for the significant cap space cleared by the Rubio deal. If Minnesota added free agent point Jeff Teague, for example, their projected record would improve to 53-29. If they signed Kyle Lowry instead, they’d project to finish at 58-24. They could also use the extra cap room to sign a frontcourt player.

Projecting the Timberwolves to win 50-something games seems awfully daring, especially for a team that’s burned CARMELO in the past. (CARMELO boldly projected the Wolves to win 46 games last season. Instead, they won 31.) But let me walk you through what the system is “thinking.” The projection reflects a combination of three factors: Butler, the Timberwolves’ youth, and their bad luck last season.

Jimmy Butler is really good, and he’s replacing players who were really bad

CARMELO expects Butler to be worth about 10 wins next season, as compared to a replacement-level player. Oftentimes, replacement level is too low a bar when it comes to assessing an NBA acquisition. If the Celtics added players such as George and Hayward, their minutes would partly come at the expense of other pretty good players such as Avery Bradley and Jae Crowder.2 Thus, their net gain might not be as large as you’d think.

But the players the Wolves gave up for Butler weren’t making positive contributions at all, at least according to advanced statistics such as Real Plus-Minus and Box Plus/Minus. (CARMELO uses a combination of these stats to make its projections, weighting RPM more heavily.) LaVine is a good athlete who can create shots but who was woefully inadequate on defense; thus, he was no better than replacement level last season, these metrics figure. And Dunn, like many rookies, was overmatched, playing at a below-replacement-level clip. Thus, Butler is a true 10- or 11-win upgrade, relative to the players Minnesota gave up for him.

We should note, however, that where Butler falls on the spectrum between “really good” and “superstar” is a matter of some debate. According to RPM, Butler was the seventh-best player in the NBA last season on a per-possession basis and the third most valuable by wins added above replacement level when also considering his playing time. By a more subjective measure — the views of sportswriters voting for the All-NBA teams — he was somewhere between the 11th- and the 15th-best player in the league, by contrast.

Karl-Anthony Towns and Andrew Wiggins should continue to improve

The Wolves’ two former No. 1 overall picks are young — Karl-Anthony Towns turns 22 in November, while Andrew Wiggins will turn 23 in February — and both still have plenty of room to grow, especially on defense. Towns already has a well-rounded offensive game, having developed into a dangerous outside shooter last year (37 percent from 3-point range). But the advanced metrics are somewhat split on his defense, with RPM viewing it as below-average — unusual for a 7-footer3 — while stats based on opponents’ field goal percentages suggest that he does a respectable job of rim protection. Towns’s defense tended to fall apart in the fourth quarter last season, and overwork could have been an issue — he was second in the NBA in minutes played, behind Wiggins.

Wiggins’s indifferent defense has been a subject of frequent critique at FiveThirtyEight. But the advanced metrics are uniformly in agreement that it’s poor. He allowed an effective field goal percentage of 56 percent last season on shots where he was the nearest defender.4 NBA shooters also have an effective field goal percentage of 56 percent on uncontested shots, so it’s as though he wasn’t playing defense at all. Because Wiggins is a good athlete with a long wingspan — factors that usually predict good defense — the problems mostly boil down to technique and effort, and those things can sometimes be improved.

The Timberwolves were unlucky

Minnesota was outscored by only 1.2 points per game last season, and yet they went 31-51. If that seems like a mismatch, it is. A team with that point differential would typically expect to go about 38-44, according to the Pythagorean record as calculated at Basketball-Reference.com. Thus, the Wolves underperformed by seven wins last year, relative to their number of points scored and allowed. That’s because they didn’t play well in crunch time and went 10-18 in games decided by 6 points or fewer.

It’s easy to come up with hypotheses for why they played so poorly in these situations. Towns and Wiggins played too many minutes; Wiggins and LaVine took poor shots; Rubio isn’t a scorer, which limited their options in the half-court; they were bad on defense overall, and those differences are magnified in crunch time.

The fact is, however, that teams who underperform their Pythagorean records by as much as the Wolves did last season usually don’t have the same problem the next time around, or at least not to the same extent. There had been 19 previous cases since the NBA-ABA merger where a team underperformed its Pythagorean record by seven or more wins. On average, they fell only one win short of their Pythagorean record in the following season. There’s certainly some skill in which teams fare best in crunch time — and Butler, who’s both a good defender and a versatile scorer, can help the Wolves with that — but losing so many games in the clutch is usually partly a matter of bad luck.

Teams like the Timberwolves usually improved their luck

Difference between actual and Pythagorean wins for teams that underperformed their Pythagorean record by 7 or more wins, 1976-2017

ACTUAL – PYTHAGOREAN WINS


SEASON
TEAM
SEASON
FOLLOWING SEASON




2013-14
Timberwolves
-8
-3


2011-12
76ers
-8
+3


2010-11
Timberwolves
-7
-2


2007-08
Raptors
-8
0


2006-07
Celtics
-7
-1


2002-03
Nets
-7
-2


1999-2000
Nets
-7
0


1997-98
Pistons
-9
-3


1996-97
Celtics
-7
+3


1994-95
Bulls
-7
+2


1994-95
Trail Blazers
-8
-4


1992-93
Kings
-8
+2


1991-92
Timberwolves
-8
-2


1989-90
Timberwolves
-7
-1


1985-86
SuperSonics
-10
-3


1984-85
Trail Blazers
-7
-4


1982-83
Pacers
-7
-2


1978-79
Bucks
-9
-2


1976-77
Suns
-9
-2


Average

-8
-1

Source: Basketball-reference.com

What could go wrong — or very, very right

In addition to all the bad things that could happen to the Wolves from a basketball standpoint — injuries, poor chemistry, etc. — they’re also a challenging team to forecast. For the past two seasons, the Wolves have unquestionably had a lot of talent on their roster but have also unquestionably been bad. It isn’t quite as clear why this disconnect occurred. Towns, Wiggins, Rubio and LaVine are all somewhat unusual players, and they each engender disagreements both between the various statistical systems and between stats and “eye test” evaluations. The way RPM and CARMELO looked at the Wolves, Wiggins and especially LaVine were part of the problem last season, while Towns and Rubio were part of the solution. If that assessment was wrong, then jettisoning LaVine could be more costly than the system assumes. And as I mentioned, RPM and CARMELO view Butler as a borderline-superstar player and not “merely” an All-Star; that’s another source of uncertainty.

On the flip side, the Timberwolves do have some additional cap space and an opportunity to round out their roster via players such as Taj Gibson, J.J. Redick or Danilo Gallinari. Even modest improvements could go a long way because they don’t have a deep rotation as currently constructed.

Or the Wolves could go really bold and package Wiggins for another star. Before landing Butler, the Timberwolves were reportedly in the market for George, for example. But a straight-up trade of Wiggins for George would work under the NBA’s salary cap rules given the Wolves’ extra cap space. It would be a hugely risky move — George will be a free agent next summer and has said he wants to play for the Lakers — but a core of George, Butler and Towns could make the Timberwolves legitimate title contenders. Or at least, the spreadsheet says so.

Paul George’s Legacy Could Be Dr. J’s … Or Danny Granger’s

NBA’s free agency period begins on July 1, and some big names might switch teams, whether by choosing to sign elsewhere or getting traded. In the video above, Nate Silver looks at FiveThirtyEight’s player projections for three players — Paul George, Gordon Hayward and Blake Griffin — who might be on the move.

Wait, Is Lonzo Ball The Next Russell Westbrook?

Our CARMELO NBA player projections are back! In the video above, Nate Silver breaks down what CARMELO thinks about the league’s top prospects.