Nate Silver's Blog, page 94

Emergency Podcast: Al Franken Is Accused Of Groping A Woman

FiveThirtyEight












 












More: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
RSS
| Embed


Embed Code
https://fivethirtyeight.com/player/po...

The wave of sexual misconduct accusations has reached the U.S. Senate. On Thursday, radio news host Leeann Tweeden accused Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota of groping and kissing her without her consent while they were on a USO tour in the Middle East. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team discusses what the accusations say about the culture in Congress and how lawmakers have responded to them.

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.

Emergency Podcast: Al Franken Is Accused Of Groping

FiveThirtyEight












 












More: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
RSS |
Embed


Embed Code
https://fivethirtyeight.com/player/po...

The wave of sexual misconduct accusations has reached the U.S. Senate. On Thursday, radio news host Leeann Tweeden accused Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota of groping and kissing her without her consent while they were on a USO tour in the Middle East. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team discusses what the accusations say about the culture in Congress and how lawmakers have responded to them.

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.

Would Republicans Be Better Off If The Democrat Won In Alabama?

“If I were in Alabama, I would run to the polling place to vote for the Democrat,” said Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake on Monday. He was referring to next month’s special U.S. Senate election in Alabama, where Democrat Doug Jones is running against Republican Roy Moore, who has been accused of initiating unwanted sexual contact with two teenage girls.

We don’t necessarily expect a lot of other Republicans to endorse Jones. But a number of Republican senators have said that Moore should drop out. Some have also encouraged a write-in bid by an “establishment” Republican such as Sen. Luther Strange, who lost to Moore in the primary. Meanwhile, Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has said that Moore should be expelled from office even if he wins.

With this menu of complicated and undesirable options in front of Republicans, we probably ought to ask a few questions — such as: Would Republicans really be better off if the Democrat wins in Alabama? And if not, what should they do about Moore?

Could a Republican write-in bid work? It’s not quite right to say there are no good outcomes for Republicans in Alabama. Although it’s too late to remove Moore’s name from the ballot, a Republican such as Strange could run a write-in campaign.

But the write-in campaign might not succeed — and it could split the GOP vote, making a win by Jones more likely. There’s some question about whether, even under these unique circumstances, there are enough people willing to vote Democratic in Alabama to get Jones 50 percent of the vote. But if Jones needs only, say, 43 percent to come out with the plurality — or 38 percent, or 34 percent, depending on how votes split between the other candidates — his task is easier. For instance, an Opinion Savvy poll found that a Strange write-in bid would receive only 12 percent of the vote — and would draw more votes from Moore than Jones, enough to put Jones narrowly ahead in the race.

Republicans could also hope that Moore withdraws — but that’s no guarantee that Strange would be elected. Strange isn’t especially popular and wasn’t doing any better against Jones than Moore was in polls before the allegations against Moore came to light. One can imagine extremely depressed turnout among Alabama Republicans if Moore withdrew and Strange, a candidate they’d already rejected, were foisted upon them again.

Moore would probably also get a fair number of votes even if he quit the race. When Republican Dierdre Scozzafava withdrew just days before a special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District in 2009, she still wound up with 6 percent of the vote, after having polled at about 20 percent before her withdraw. And in my experience working with data from the presidential primaries, candidates typically retain somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 percent to 25 percent of their pre-withdraw polling average if they quit a race but their names still appear on the ballot. Since Moore is polling in the 40s in most polls, that would imply he’d finish with 8 percent to 12 percent of the vote even if he withdrew — or perhaps slightly more if some Alabamians voted for him as a protest against how he was treated by the Republican establishment.

So a successful write-in bid isn’t impossible, but it wouldn’t be easy. Therefore, let’s consider three other outcomes from the GOP’s standpoint: Jones winning; Moore winning and staying in office; and, finally, Moore winning and being expelled.

How bad is it for Republicans if Jones wins? It’s really bad. Having Jones in office would reduce the GOP margin in the Senate to 51-49, meaning that Republicans could afford only one defection on legislation such as tax reform. For example, if both Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska opposed a bill and everyone else voted along party lines, it would fail by one vote.

Moreover, whoever wins the special election will serve out the remainder of former Sen. Jeff Sessions’s term, which runs through January 2021. Having Jones in office already would make it considerably easier for Democrats to win the Senate in the 2018 midterms: With a win banked in Alabama, flipping Flake’s open seat in Arizona1 and Republican Sen. Dean Heller’s in Nevada would be enough to put Democrats in control of the Senate — provided (and it’s a big provision) that Democrats didn’t lose any of their own seats.

To play devil’s advocate: One could argue that control of the Senate in 2019 and 2020 isn’t all that high-stakes. Because there are so few Republican-held seats up for election next year in that chamber, winning control of the Senate is a tougher proposition for Democrats than is taking the House. So, if Democrats somehow win the Senate, they’ll probably already have won the House — and will already be able to block President Trump and Republicans from passing key legislation.

Another silver lining for Republicans is that Jones — looking to win re-election in Alabama — might vote with the GOP on some issues. He could behave similarly to West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, for instance, who has taken Trump’s position on 54 percent of roll-call votes so far.

But that would be a dangerous game for Republicans. Even if there isn’t much legislation passed, Senate control has major consequences, including for Supreme Court nominations and Cabinet picks, in the establishment of committees and commissions to investigate Trump, and in determining which party would oversee an impeachment trial against the president. Moreover, the policy positions that Jones has articulated look more liberal than Manchin’s; he might side with Republicans on some issues, but not necessarily on the most pivotal votes.

How bad is it for Republicans if Moore wins and remains in the Senate? It’s really bad. The inverse of Jones sometimes voting with Republicans is the likelihood that Moore would sometimes vote against Republican leadership. Moore’s policy positions actually aren’t all that different from Republican leadership on issues such as health care and taxes — he’s a culture warrior but not an economic populist. However, he likes to pick fights with the Republican “establishment” and might try to undermine Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. (That McConnell has said Moore should get out of the race would likely only make the antagonism worse.) A good analogy might be to Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who has somewhat heterodox political views and is generally an unpredictable vote for McConnell.

But let’s not neglect the much greater consequence, which is that Republicans — if they didn’t expel Moore — would be seen as aiding and abetting, or at least tolerating, someone who has credibly been accused of being a serial child molester. There’s precedent for voters caring about this sort of thing: In 2006, most voters thought Republican leadership was too slow to take action against Republican Rep. Mark Foley, who sent sexually explicit messages to underage congressional pages. That was a contributing factor to a political environment that cost Republicans both the House and the Senate.

Moore’s case is potentially even more explosive. A plurality of voters already disapprove of how Republicans are handling the allegations against Moore, according to a Quinnipiac poll that was released on Tuesday. The conduct that Moore is accused of is more severe, involving physical assault. And he has a somewhat Trumpian penchant for drawing attention to himself — serving as every liberal’s worst caricature of what it means to be a Republican. Keeping one rather erratic Republican vote in place might not be worth it for McConnell if it further hurts the Republican brand and puts more House and Senate members at electoral risk next year.

How bad is it for Republicans if Moore wins and is expelled by the Senate? It’s really bad. This is the least predictable of the bad outcomes, however. There are cases in which expulsion could turn out to be relatively smooth for Republicans and others in which it would be the most disastrous option of all.

Although no senator has been expelled since 1862, the Senate probably has the constitutional power to expel Moore, which requires a two-thirds majority.2 In McConnell’s perfect world, all but a handful of Republicans would vote for expulsion, and all or almost all Democrats would come along, avoiding a protracted debate. Another special election would be scheduled, which could have an unpredictable outcome (more on that below) — but as a bonus for Republicans, Republican Gov. Kay Ivey could appoint an interim replacement for Moore, presumably Strange or another “establishment” Republican.

But that’s if everything goes relatively well — and at every stage, there’s the chance it might not. The expulsion process itself is somewhat fraught; it would probably require committee hearings at which Moore and his accusers could be compelled to testify. At a minimum, it would be a distracting political circus at a time when Republicans were hoping to pass tax reform and other legislative priorities.

Then there’s the question of whether McConnell would have the votes. For the time being, expulsion might seem like a relatively attractive option for Republicans — but there’s already some disagreement within the Republican caucus. There might be more once Moore was elected and Republicans had to consider the consequences of overriding the popular will for a senator whose alleged conduct was publicly known at the time of the vote. Democrats could play games with the process by withholding their votes, forcing the GOP to come up with more Republican votes instead. Perhaps most risky of all: Trump has yet to weigh in on expulsion, and he could use the occasion to go “nuclear” on McConnell by opposing it.

Finally, Republicans might face the same dilemma after the next special election. Moore could run again and win again. And Jones or another Democrat might also have a shot. So the worst-case scenario for Republicans is that Moore is expelled after an extremely contentious process that further poisons the relationship between the GOP base and GOP leadership — and then Moore (or Jones) wins the next special election anyway.

So, what should McConnell do? I really don’t know. But there’s an argument that all of the other outcomes are so bad that Republicans might as well try their luck with a write-in campaign.

Let’s say that without a write-in, the odds are 60 percent that Moore wins and 40 percent that Jones wins and that with a write-in, the odds are 50 percent Jones, 25 percent Moore, and 25 percent Strange. So, sure, the write-in campaign makes Jones more likely to win. But it reduces Moore’s chances by more than it helps Jones’s chances — and if you’re truly indifferent between Jones and Moore, the trade-off is worth it for you.

Then again, it wasn’t so long ago that another Republican was credibly accused of sexually assaulting multiple women just a month or so before a major election. Many Republicans legislators called for the candidate to drop out. Instead the candidate stayed in the race and won — and the claims are rarely discussed today. As was the case with Trump, Republicans may decide that the only thing worse than living with Roy Moore is living without him.

Do Democrats Need To Win In Alabama To Take The Senate In 2018?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): Greetings, colleagues! For your consideration today: Do Democrats need to win the special election for Alabama’s Senate seat in order to have a chance to win control of the chamber in 2018?

Implicit in that question, obviously, is: Can Democrats win the Senate in 2018?

So let’s start off with this, from friend-of-the-site Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics:

I would buy the bejeezus out of "Democrats to take the Senate" right now if I were involved in the market.s

— Sean T at RCP (@SeanTrende) November 10, 2017

He says he would buy Democrats to win the Senate at 30 percent. And that it would be 50-50 if Democrat Doug Jones wins in Alabama.

Would people buy at 30 right now?

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): Yes. While I don’t think it’s a sure thing by any means, this environment is a lot friendlier for Democrats than Republicans.

harry (Harry Enten, senior political writer): Ohhh boy. I tell ya. This is where a formal model would really help. Here’s what we know: Incumbent senators of the opposition party (the party that doesn’t control the White House) rarely lose in midterms, and Democrats have two clear pickup opportunities in addition to Alabama (Arizona and Nevada). They need a net gain of three seats to get the majority, so the math is there. Of course, the Democrats are defending seats on some very red turf, including in Missouri, North Dakota and West Virginia, to name just a few.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Answer the question, dude.

micah: You answer it, Nate!

natesilver: A-N-S-W-E-R. T-H-E. Q-U-E-S-T-I-O-N. H-A-R-R-Y.

micah: Clare is the only brave one here.

natesilver: I’d hold at 30.

micah:

Politics Podcast: Alabama’s Senate Race

FiveThirtyEight












 












More: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
RSS |
Embed


Embed Code
https://fivethirtyeight.com/player/po...

In the past week, several women have accused Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore of making inappropriate advances toward them while they were teenagers. Two of those instances allegedly included forced sexual contact. On this episode of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, our team discusses how the accusations have affected a race that Republicans were expected to win handily.

The crew also assesses the disunity within the Democratic Party after a strong showing in the 2017 off-year elections.

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.

Is It Time For Republicans To Panic?

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): Our topic for today: PANIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Politics Podcast: 2016 Anniversary Edition

FiveThirtyEight












 












More: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
RSS |
Embed


Embed Code
https://fivethirtyeight.com/player/po...

It has been a year since President Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. The election was historic from start to finish, and it was often challenging to make sense of in the moment.

In a special edition of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, editor-in-chief Nate Silver and politics editor Micah Cohen sit down to discuss how FiveThirtyEight covered the election — the mistakes we made, the behind-the-scenes editorial decisions and the emotions of those final weeks.

Ultimately, the 2016 election was a lesson in throwing out conventional wisdom and embracing probabilities. A year later, has the message stuck?

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.

 

Emergency Politics Podcast: A Good Night For Democrats

FiveThirtyEight












 












More: Apple Podcasts |
ESPN App |
RSS |
Embed


Embed Code
https://fivethirtyeight.com/player/po...

Democrats had a strong showing across the board on election night 2017, including winning the Virginia governor’s race by 9 percentage points. The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast team discuss what the results say about the national political environment and what the Democratic strategy will be heading into a midterm year.

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.

The Fundamentals Favor Democrats In 2018

Democrats had a really good night on Tuesday, easily claiming the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races, flipping control of the Washington state Senate and possibly also the Virginia House of Delegates, passing a ballot measure in Maine that will expand Medicaid in the state, winning a variety of mayoral elections around the country, and gaining control of key county executive seats in suburban New York.

They also got pretty much exactly the results you’d expect when opposing a Republican president with a 38 percent approval rating.

That’s not to downplay Democrats’ accomplishments. Democrats’ results were consistent enough, and their margins were large enough, that Tuesday’s elections had a wave-like feel. That includes how they performed in Virginia, where Ralph Northam won by considerably more than polls projected. When almost all the toss-up races go a certain way, and when the party winning those toss-up races also accomplishes certain things that were thought to be extreme long shots (such as possibly winning the Virginia House of Delegates), it’s almost certainly a reflection of the national environment.

But we didn’t need Tuesday night to prove that the national environment was good for Democrats; there was plenty of evidence for it already. In no particular order of importance:

President Trump’s approval rating is only 37.6 percent.
Democrats lead by approximately 10 points on the generic Congressional ballot.
Republican incumbents are retiring at a rapid pace; there were two retirements (from New Jersey Rep. Frank LoBiondo and Texas Rep. Ted Poe) on Tuesday alone.
Democrats are recruiting astonishing numbers of candidates for Congress.
Democrats have performed well overall in special elections to the U.S. Congress, relative to the partisanship of those districts; they’ve also performed well in special elections to state legislatures.
The opposition party almost always gains ground at midterm elections. This is one of the most durable empirical rules of American politics.

So while Northam’s 9-point margin of victory was a surprise based on the polls, which had projected him to win by roughly 3 points instead,1 it was right in line with what you might expect based on these “fundamental” factors. For instance, a simple model we developed based on the generic ballot and state partisanship forecasted a 9-point win for Democrats in Virginia and a 13-point win in New Jersey, pretty much matching their actual results in each state.

To put it another way, Tuesday’s results shouldn’t have exceeded your expectations for Democrats by all that much because you should have had high expectations already. Midterm elections — and usually also off-year and special elections — almost always go well for the opposition party, and they’re going to go especially well when the president has a sub-40 approval rating.

So, does that mean that Democrats are clear favorites to pick up the House next year? No, not necessarily. I’d say they’re favorites, but not particularly heavy ones. Democrats face one major disadvantage, and they have one major source of uncertainty.

The uncertainty is time: There’s still a year to go until the midterms. This could cut either way, of course. The political environment often deteriorates for the president’s party during his second year in office, and one can imagine a variety of factors (from attempting to pass an unpopular tax plan to ongoing bombshells in the Russia investigation) that could further worsen conditions for Republicans. One can also imagine a variety of factors that would help the GOP: Democrats overplaying their hand on impeachment; a rally-around-the-flag effect after a war or terror attack; Trump quitting Twitter. (OK, probably not that last one.) That Trump is so unpopular so soon in his term makes all of this harder to predict because there aren’t any good precedents for a president with such a poor approval rating so early on.

Democrats also face a big disadvantage in the way their voters are distributed across congressional districts, as a result of both gerrymandering and geographic self-sorting. Although these calculations can vary based on the incumbency advantage and other factors, my back-of-the-envelope math suggests that Democrats would only be about even-money to claim the House even if they won the popular vote for the House by 7 percentage points next year. The Republican ship is built to take on a lot of water, although it would almost certainly capsize if the Democratic advantage in the House popular vote stretched into the double digits, as it stands now in some congressional preference polls.

Nonetheless, my sense is that the conventional wisdom has, to this point, somewhat underrated the Democrats’ chances of having a wave election next year. And it’s for some fairly stupid (although understandable) reasons.

One is in the tendency to fight the last war. Journalists and pundits are always chastened by the “lessons” of the most recent election, especially if the outcome was surprising to them. And they usually like to argue that the results represented a realignment or a paradigm shift, rather than — as is more often the case — a fluctuation that came about from a combination of cyclical and circumstantial factors that may not replicate themselves. So they’re often slow to recognize signs that the political climate is shifting in the opposite direction from the supposed realignment, even when they’re really obvious. (Like, say, a Republican winning a Senate seat in Massachusetts only a year after the Democratic president took office.)

Second, the pundit class has a poor understanding of polling, and how it performed in 2016 — and it’s making 2018 punditry worse. As I wrote in our live blog on Tuesday night:

[It’s] been interesting to see how television pundits adapt to the post-2016 environment. Pretty much everyone on Monday morning’s “Morning Joe” panel predicted that Gillespie would win in Virginia despite Northam’s modest lead in the polls, for instance…

[The] segment was a bit worrisome in that it suggests that political pundits and reporters learned the wrong lessons from 2016. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the polls weren’t that far off last year — they were about as accurate as they’d been in past elections. But they were filtered thru a lens of groupthink that was convinced Trump couldn’t possibly win — and so pundits routinely misinterpreted polls and ignored data showing a competitive race.

It’s healthy to take away the lesson from 2016 that polls are not always right… But that polls aren’t always right doesn’t mean that one’s gut instinct is a better way to forecast elections. On the contrary, the conventional wisdom has usually been much wronger than the polls, so much so that it’s given rise to what I’ve called the First Rule of Polling Errors, which is that polls almost always miss in the opposite direction of what pundits expect. That the “Morning Joe” panel thinks Gillespie will win might be a bullish indicator for Northam, in other words.

If you think numbers like Trump’s 37.6 percent approval rating are “fake news” because polls perpetually underrated Trump before, then the political climate doesn’t look quite as scary for the GOP. However, one needs to be careful about assuming the polling error always runs in the same direction; historically, it’s been just as likely to reverse itself from one election to the next. (For instance, polls lowballed Democrats in 2012 but then did the same to Republicans in 2014.)

Finally, there’s perhaps an unhealthy obsession with the white working-class vote, and its potential to sway the 2018 midterms in favor of Republicans. This could be more of a concern for Democrats in 2020. But the midterm electorate is typically more educated and better off financially than the presidential-year one. Also, most of the pickup opportunities that analysts envision for Democrats are in wealthy or at least middle-class areas. On average, the 61 Republican-held Congressional districts that the Cook Political Report rates as competitive rank in the 65th percentile in educational attainment (as measured by the share of adults with at least a bachelor’s degree) and also the 65th percentile in median household income. Some of them are fairly white, and some aren’t — but almost none are both white and working-class.

Competitive districts are mostly well-off and well-educated

Demographic ranking for the 61 Republican-held Congressional districts that the Cook Political Report rates as competitive

PERCENTILE RANK AMONG ALL 435 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS


SEAT▲▼


COOK RATING▲▼


EDUCATION▲▼


INCOME▲▼


NONWHITE▲▼






Georgia 6
Leans Republican
99
92
62


California 45
Leans Republican
97
96
71


New Jersey 11
Leans Republican
96
99
36


Virginia 10
Toss-up
96
100
58


Illinois 6
Leans Republican
95
96
29


New Jersey 7
Leans Republican
95
99
43


Minnesota 3
Leans Republican
94
91
28


Texas 7
Leans Republican
94
80
77


Kansas 3
Leans Republican
93
81
39


Michigan 11
Toss-up
92
88
25


California 48
Toss-up
90
93
66


California 49
Toss-up
88
89
60


Pennsylvania 7
Leans Republican
88
92
18


Texas 32
Leans Republican
88
78
73


Pennsylvania 6
Leans Republican
87
90
19


Illinois 14
Likely Republican
86
94
28


California 39
Leans Republican
85
91
88


Colorado 6
Toss-up
85
85
57


Michigan 8
Leans Republican
82
71
22


Georgia 7
Likely Republican
81
82
76


Nebraska 2
Toss-up
81
66
37


Pennsylvania 8
Leans Republican
81
89
17


Virginia 7
Likely Republican
80
83
50


Minnesota 2
Toss-up
79
88
22


Florida 27
Leans Democratic
78
39
93


Pennsylvania 18
Likely Republican
74
67
2


North Carolina 2
Likely Republican
73
70
51


New York 11
Likely Republican
70
80
61


Virginia 2
Likely Republican
70
72
57


Arizona 2
Toss-up
68
25
58


New York 1
Likely Republican
68
94
33


New Jersey 3
Likely Republican
67
84
33


North Carolina 9
Likely Republican
66
50
60


Ohio 1
Likely Republican
66
49
45


Iowa 3
Leans Republican
64
65
18


Ohio 16
Likely Republican
64
68
3


Kentucky 6
Likely Republican
61
32
21


Montana
Likely Republican
59
29
13


Florida 18
Likely Republican
57
47
48


New York 24
Likely Republican
56
51
21


Illinois 13
Likely Republican
55
27
26


Kansas 2
Leans Republican
50
38
19


New York 19
Toss-up
50
57
18


Washington 8
Toss-up
49
65
49


California 50
Likely Republican
47
81
68


Utah 4
Likely Republican
47
76
34


Virginia 5
Likely Republican
46
40
38


California 25
Toss-up
44
84
78


Florida 26
Leans Republican
42
45
95


Iowa 1
Toss-up
42
54
10


North Carolina 13
Likely Republican
41
21
53


New York 22
Leans Republican
37
42
12


New Jersey 2
Toss-up
36
60
52


Pennsylvania 16
Likely Republican
33
52
39


Michigan 7
Likely Republican
31
51
11


Illinois 12
Leans Republican
29
20
31


Maine 2
Leans Republican
24
18



Texas 23
Leans Republican
18
35
91


New Mexico 2
Likely Republican
16
8
83


California 10
Leans Republican
5
58
77


California 21
Likely Republican

7
95

Sources: COOK POLITICAL REPORT, AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY

Of course, this logic is somewhat circular: if Democrats aren’t trying to compete for the white working-class vote, outlets like Cook won’t list white working-class districts as being competitive. It’s possible there are some overlooked opportunities, such as in South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District, which Democrats came surprisingly close to winning in a special election earlier this year.

Nonetheless, Democrats have quite a few pathways toward winning the House that rely primarily on middle-class and upper-middle-class suburban districts, plus a few districts with growing nonwhite populations. Many of these are in coastal states or in blue states, including four of them in Virginia, four in New Jersey, four in Illinois, five in New York and eight in California, according to Cook’s list. It might not be advisable for Democrats to only target these sorts of districts; history suggests that parties usually benefit from competing ambitiously in all sorts of districts and seeing where the chips fall. But it’s plausible for them to do so and reclaim the House. Come 2020, though, it will be harder for Democrats to win back the Electoral College without rebounding among the white working class.

Related:

Last thing: while Tuesday’s results may not change the reality of the 2018 outlook all that much, it could change perceptions about it, and that could have some knock-on effects. (Politicians are often like “Morning Joe” panelists in how they think about elections.) Republicans’ retirement issues may get even worse; Democrats’ recruiting may get even better. Republicans might think twice about how they’re proceeding on tax reform — especially given that their current plans could have negative effects on just the sorts of wealthy coastal suburbs where Republicans performed poorly on Tuesday.

And there will be lots of recriminations about the race that Ed Gillespie ran in Virginia, which could change Republicans’ thinking on how they should relate to Trump. Some of this is going to be silly: Gillespie did no worse (and no better) than you’d expect given Trump’s approval rating and Virginia’s blue lean. But if those politicians think Tuesday was a huge game-changing deal, they may begin to act like it and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Kenley Jansen Is The Model Of A Modern Reliever

After a year of searching, we didn’t our find our new Goose Gossage. But we did get a glimpse of what one might look like in baseball’s just-concluded postseason.

This spring, we introduced a new pitching statistic called the goose egg — named in honor of Gossage, the Hall-of-Fame reliever, who had a record 82 goose eggs in 1975. Essentially, a pitcher gets a goose egg for every clutch, scoreless relief inning (see the original article for a more formal definition). Goose eggs have a substantially better correlation with relievers’ win probability added than saves do, especially if paired with their companion statistic, the broken egg.

This year’s major leader in goose eggs was the Milwaukee Brewers’ Corey Knebel, who finished with 47 of them. The American League leader was the Seattle Mariners’ Edwin Diaz, who had 40. You can find a complete rundown of this year’s final goose stats in the table below. (A “broken egg” is essentially the blown save of goose stats, and a “meh” is any situation which doesn’t result in either a goose egg or a broken egg.)

Corey Knebel gets the golden egg

Final goose egg stats for 2017

PITCHER▲▼


TEAM▲▼


GOOSE EGGS▲▼


BROKEN EGGS▲▼


MEHS▲▼


GWAR▲▼






Corey Knebel
MIL
47
8
2
+3.9


Kenley Jansen
LAD
44
0
1
+6.3


Edwin Diaz
SEA
40
7
4
+3.4


Alex Colome
TB
38
6
6
+3.5


Brad Hand
SD
38
6
6
+3.2


Felipe Rivero
PIT
37
4
2
+3.9


Addison Reed
BOS/NYM
35
6
7
+3.0


Brandon Kintzler
MIN/WAS
34
6
4
+2.9


Fernando Rodney
ARI
33
4
5
+3.5


Andrew Miller
CLE
33
5
3
+3.5


Raisel Iglesias
CIN
31
2
2
+3.8


Craig Kimbrel
BOS
31
4
0
+3.5


Archie Bradley
ARI
31
4
8
+3.2


Hector Neris
PHI
31
7
4
+1.9


Brad Brach
BAL
31
8
2
+1.9


Roberto Osuna
TOR
31
10
1
+1.1


Wade Davis
CHC
30
3
1
+3.2


Tommy Hunter
TB
30
6
1
+2.3


Bryan Shaw
CLE
29
8
5
+1.8


Cody Allen
CLE
29
8
5
+1.8


Joakim Soria
KC
29
8
2
+1.6


Pat Neshek
COL/PHI
28
4
8
+2.8


Nick Vincent
SEA
28
5
6
+2.4


David Robertson
CHW/NYY
28
6
2
+2.1


Mike Minor
KC
28
7
4
+1.8


Arodys Vizcaino
ATL
28
8
2
+1.1


Greg Holland
COL
27
6
2
+2.1


Kelvin Herrera
KC
27
7
3
+1.6


Sam Dyson
SF/TEX
27
11
2
-0.1


Alex Claudio
TEX
26
4
8
+2.6


Hunter Strickland
SF
26
6
1
+1.5


Michael Lorenzen
CIN
26
7
2
+1.2


Jacob Barnes
MIL
26
9
4
+0.5


Chris Devenski
HOU
26
10
6
+0.1


Ryan Tepera
TOR
25
3
1
+2.8


Trevor Rosenthal
STL
25
8
1
+0.6


Sean Doolittle
OAK/WAS
24
3
7
+2.4


Anthony Swarzak
CHW/MIL
24
4
4
+2.1


Ryan Madson
OAK/WAS
24
4
1
+2.1


Ken Giles
HOU
24
5
3
+1.7


Justin Wilson
CHC/DET
24
6
3
+1.4


Dellin Betances
NYY
24
8
2
+0.9


Yusmeiro Petit
LAA
23
4
2
+2.0


Blake Parker
LAA
23
5
2
+1.6


Tony Watson
LAD/PIT
23
9
6
-0.0


AJ Ramos
MIA/NYM
22
4
4
+1.6


Seung-hwan Oh
STL
22
5
6
+1.3


Matt Belisle
MIN
22
6
3
+1.1


Kyle Barraclough
MIA
22
6
1
+0.9


Juan Nicasio
PHI/PIT
22
8
8
+0.2


Carl Edwards
CHC
22
8
3
+0.1


Blake Treinen
OAK/WAS
22
10
3
-0.4


Shane Greene
DET
20
4
5
+1.6


Jose Ramirez
ATL
20
6
6
+0.7


Joe Smith
CLE/TOR
19
2
1
+2.2


Pedro Strop
CHC
19
3
5
+1.6


Aroldis Chapman
NYY
19
4
3
+1.5


Matthew Bowman
STL
19
7
7
+0.1


Jim Johnson
ATL
19
9
3
-0.6


Brandon Maurer
KC/SD
19
10
0
-1.0


Zach Britton
BAL
18
2
0
+2.1


Mychal Givens
BAL
18
3
4
+1.7


Will Harris
HOU
18
3
0
+1.5


Jerry Blevins
NYM
18
5
13
+0.7


Taylor Rogers
MIN
18
7
6
+0.2


Bud Norris
LAA
18
7
1
+0.1


Matt Barnes
BOS
18
8
4
-0.0


Joaquin Benoit
PHI/PIT
18
11
0
-1.5


Matt Bush
TEX
17
6
3
+0.5


Santiago Casilla
OAK
17
8
3
-0.4


Luis Garcia
PHI
16
6
4
+0.1


Tommy Kahnle
CHW/NYY
16
9
2
-0.9


David Phelps
MIA/SEA
16
9
4
-1.1


Mike Dunn
COL
15
0
3
+2.4


David Hernandez
ARI/LAA
15
1
5
+1.9


Matt Albers
WAS
15
2
4
+1.4


Wandy Peralta
CIN
15
4
4
+0.7


Brett Cecil
STL
15
4
3
+0.7


Jake McGee
COL
15
5
2
+0.6


Mark Melancon
SF
15
5
0
+0.3


Ryan Buchter
KC/SD
15
6
4
-0.1


Koji Uehara
CHC
15
6
3
-0.1


Mike Montgomery
CHC
14
2
2
+1.3


Danny Farquhar
CHW/TB
14
4
2
+0.6


Enny Romero
WAS
14
4
6
+0.5


Kirby Yates
LAA/SD
14
6
2
-0.2


Junichi Tazawa
MIA
14
7
0
-0.6


Pedro Baez
LAD
14
7
8
-0.6


Darren O’Day
BAL
13
3
2
+0.9


Chris Rusin
COL
13
4
4
+0.6


James Pazos
SEA
13
4
5
+0.5


Cam Bedrosian
LAA
13
5
4
+0.1


Adam Ottavino
COL
13
7
3
-0.5


Alex Wilson
DET
13
7
7
-0.6


Sam Freeman
ATL
12
2
6
+1.0


Cory Gearrin
SF
12
3
2
+0.6


Brad Ziegler
MIA
12
3
3
+0.6


Joe Kelly
BOS
12
4
5
+0.5


Josh Hader
MIL
12
4
5
+0.3


Brandon Morrow
LAD
12
4
2
+0.2


Jorge De La Rosa
ARI
12
5
1
-0.0


Liam Hendriks
OAK
12
6
1
-0.4


George Kontos
PIT/SF
12
8
3
-1.3


Paul Sewald
NYM
12
8
3
-1.3


Drew Steckenrider
MIA
11
1
1
+1.2


Derek Law
SF
11
3
1
+0.5


Tyler Lyons
STL
11
3
2
+0.5


Hector Rondon
CHC
11
3
2
+0.4


Tyler Duffey
MIN
11
4
3
+0.2


Marc Rzepczynski
SEA
11
4
12
+0.2


Peter Moylan
KC
10
0
5
+1.6


Juan Minaya
CHW
10
1
3
+1.1


Steve Cishek
SEA/TB
10
2
4
+0.8


Kenyan Middleton
LAA
10
2
1
+0.8


Craig Stammen
SD
10
2
3
+0.7


Keone Kela
TEX
10
3
2
+0.5


Adam Warren
NYY
10
4
1
+0.1


Jared Hughes
MIL
10
4
2
-0.0


Heath Hembree
BOS
10
5
6
-0.2


Neftali Feliz
KC/MIL
10
6
0
-0.7


Luke Gregerson
HOU
10
6
2
-0.8


Ross Stripling
LAD
10
9
1
-2.0


Tyler Clippard
CHW/HOU
10
11
7
-2.5


Miguel Castro
BAL
9
1
2
+1.0


Adam Morgan
PHI
9
1
0
+0.9


Joe Biagini
TOR
9
3
2
+0.3


Trevor Hildenberger
MIN
9
3
3
+0.3


Dominic Leone
TOR
9
4
6
-0.1


Jose Alvarado
TB
9
4
3
-0.1


Hansel Robles
NYM
9
5
2
-0.6


Chris Hatcher
LAD/OAK
9
6
3
-0.9


Edubray Ramos
PHI
9
11
1
-2.8


Joe Musgrove
HOU
8
0
0
+1.2


Kevin Siegrist
PHI/STL
8
1
3
+0.8


Koda Glover
WAS
8
2
2
+0.4


Jeurys Familia
NYM
8
2
2
+0.4


Josh Smoker
NYM
8
2
3
+0.4


Scott Alexander
KC
8
4
4
-0.2


Tony Zych
SEA
8
5
3
-0.6


Daniel Hudson
PIT
8
6
4
-1.1


Fernando Salas
LAA/NYM
8
6
4
-1.1


Danny Barnes
TOR
8
9
3
-2.1


Carlos Ramirez
TOR
7
0
0
+1.1


Erasmo Ramirez
TB
7
1
2
+0.7


Scott Oberg
COL
7
2
5
+0.4


Brandon Workman
BOS
7
2
2
+0.4


Deolis Guerra
LAA
7
2
0
+0.3


Jeanmar Gomez
PHI
7
2
1
+0.3


Tony Cingrani
CIN/LAD
7
2
4
+0.3


Jose Leclerc
TEX
7
3
3
+0.0


Tony Barnette
TEX
7
3
1
+0.0


Phil Maton
SD
7
3
2
-0.1


Steven Okert
SF
7
4
12
-0.5


Jake Diekman
TEX
6
0
1
+0.9


Blaine Boyer
BOS
6
1
1
+0.6


Jonathan Holder
NYY
6
1
1
+0.6


Oliver Perez
WAS
6
1
5
+0.5


Nick Wittgren
MIA
6
1
1
+0.5


Chasen Shreve
NYY
6
2
3
+0.2


T. J. McFarland
ARI
6
2
2
+0.2


Ian Krol
ATL
6
2
3
+0.1


Shawn Kelley
WAS
6
2
1
+0.1


J. J. Hoover
ARI
6
3
3
-0.2


Ryan Dull
OAK
6
3
4
-0.2


Sergio Romo
LAD/TB
6
3
0
-0.2


Brian Duensing
CHC
6
3
1
-0.3


Chase Whitley
TB
6
4
1
-0.6


Carlos Torres
MIL
6
4
3
-0.6


Luis Avilan
LAD
6
4
4
-0.7


Jumbo Diaz
TB
6
5
3
-0.9


Josh Fields
LAD
6
5
2
-1.0


Hector Velazquez
BOS
5
0
0
+0.8


Randall Delgado
ARI
5
0
0
+0.8


Fernando Abad
BOS
5
1
1
+0.4


Jarlin Garcia
MIA
5
1
7
+0.3


Robby Scott
BOS
5
2
12
+0.1


Jacob Turner
WAS
5
2
0
-0.0


Joely Rodriguez
PHI
5
2
4
-0.0


Josh Edgin
NYM
5
2
5
-0.0


Aaron Loup
TOR
5
3
12
-0.3


Ryan Pressly
MIN
5
3
2
-0.3


Dovydas Neverauskas
PIT
5
3
0
-0.4


Brian Ellington
MIA
5
3
0
-0.4


Jose Alvarez
LAA
5
5
5
-1.1


Jose Torres
SD
5
5
2
-1.2


Andrew Chafin
ARI
5
8
7
-2.2


Logan Verrett
BAL
4
0
0
+0.6


Austin Brice
CIN
4
0
0
+0.6


Nate Jones
CHW
4
1
0
+0.2


Francis Martes
HOU
4
1
2
+0.2


Justin Grimm
CHC
4
1
2
+0.2


Dustin McGowan
MIA
4
1
2
+0.2


Doug Fister
BOS
4
2
0
-0.1


Donnie Hart
BAL
4
2
3
-0.1


Richard Bleier
BAL
4
2
2
-0.1


Austin Pruitt
TB
4
2
0
-0.1


Drew Storen
CIN
4
2
3
-0.2


Sammy Solis
WAS
4
2
2
-0.2


Josh Osich
SF
4
2
6
-0.2


Bruce Rondon
DET
4
3
0
-0.5


Dan Altavilla
SEA
4
3
1
-0.5


Blake Wood
CIN
4
3
2
-0.5


Joe Blanton
WAS
4
3
0
-0.5


Albert Suarez
SF
4
3
0
-0.6


Jason Grilli
TEX/TOR
4
4
3
-0.8


Brad Boxberger
TB
4
4
3
-0.9


Oliver Drake
MIL
4
4
1
-0.9


Sam Tuivailala
STL
4
4
1
-0.9


Aaron Bummer
CHW
4
5
6
-1.2


Daniel Coulombe
OAK
4
5
6
-1.3


Carlos Estevez
COL
3
0
0
+0.5


Matt Dermody
TOR
3
0
2
+0.5


Jimmy Yacabonis
BAL
3
0
0
+0.5


Alan Busenitz
MIN
3
0
2
+0.5


Bryan Morris
SF
3
0
0
+0.4


Chasen Bradford
NYM
3
0
1
+0.4


Jen-Ho Tseng
CHC
3
0
0
+0.4


Alex Wood
LAD
3
0
1
+0.4


Alec Asher
BAL
3
1
1
+0.1


Mike Bolsinger
TOR
3
1
0
+0.1


Tom Koehler
TOR
3
1
2
+0.1


Chris Rowley
TOR
3
1
0
+0.1


Drew VerHagen
DET
3
1
2
+0.1


Buddy Baumann
SD
3
1
1
+0.1


John Brebbia
STL
3
1
3
+0.1


Chad Green
NYY
3
2
2
-0.3


Greg Infante
CHW
3
2
7
-0.3


Jhan Marinez
MIL/PIT
3
2
0
-0.3


Casey Fien
PHI/SEA
3
2
0
-0.3


Travis Wood
KC
3
3
1
-0.6


Rex Brothers
ATL
3
3
1
-0.7


Emilio Pagan
SEA
3
4
2
-1.0


Francisco Rodriguez
DET
3
8
2
-2.5


Dan Otero
CLE
2
0
0
+0.3


Tyler Olson
CLE
2
0
4
+0.3


Carson Smith
BOS
2
0
0
+0.3


Austin Maddox
BOS
2
0
0
+0.3


Dario Alvarez
TEX
2
0
1
+0.3


Jake Junis
KC
2
0
0
+0.3


Trevor Cahill
KC
2
0
0
+0.3


Jake Barrett
ARI
2
0
3
+0.3


Zach Putnam
CHW
2
0
0
+0.3


Asher Wojciechowski
CIN
2
0
0
+0.3


A. J. Schugel
PIT
2
0
1
+0.3


Ty Blach
SF
2
0
1
+0.3


Jamie Callahan
NYM
2
0
1
+0.3


Brock Stewart
LAD
2
0
1
+0.3


Chad Qualls
COL
2
1
0
-0.0


Jordan Lyles
COL
2
1
0
-0.0


Luis Santos
TOR
2
1
0
-0.1


Kyle Ryan
DET
2
1
0
-0.1


Andrew Kittredge
TB
2
1
0
-0.1


Eduardo Paredes
LAA
2
1
0
-0.1


Josh Smith
OAK
2
1
0
-0.1


Eric O’Flaherty
ATL
2
1
1
-0.1


Jason Motte
ATL
2
1
2
-0.1


Matt Grace
WAS
2
1
2
-0.1


Victor Arano
PHI
2
1
0
-0.1


Robert Gsellman
NYM
2
1
0
-0.1


Jacob Rhame
NYM
2
1
0
-0.1


Ricardo Rodriguez
TEX
2
2
1
-0.4


Jake Petricka
CHW
2
2
3
-0.4


Simon Castro
OAK
2
2
1
-0.4


Francisco Liriano
HOU
2
2
1
-0.4


Robert Stephenson
CIN
2
2
0
-0.5


Ryan Sherriff
STL
2
2
1
-0.5


Matt Strahm
KC
2
3
1
-0.8


Wade LeBlanc
PIT
2
3
2
-0.8


Daniel Stumpf
DET
2
4
5
-1.2


Jeremy Jeffress
MIL/TEX
2
5
1
-1.5


Dan Jennings
CHW/TB
2
5
9
-1.5


Boone Logan
CLE
1
0
4
+0.2


Tyler Anderson
COL
1
0
0
+0.2


Ben Taylor
BOS
1
0
1
+0.2


David Price
BOS
1
0
1
+0.2


Robbie Ross
BOS
1
0
0
+0.2


Tanner Scheppers
TEX
1
0
1
+0.2


Ben Heller
NYY
1
0
1
+0.2


Chris Young
KC
1
0
0
+0.2


Kevin McCarthy
KC
1
0
0
+0.2


Dillon Gee
MIN
1
0
0
+0.2


Gabriel Moya
MIN
1
0
0
+0.2


Jimmie Sherfy
ARI
1
0
0
+0.2


Brooks Pounders
LAA
1
0
0
+0.2


Jean Machi
SEA
1
0
1
+0.2


Mike Morin
LAA
1
0
1
+0.2


Yovani Gallardo
SEA
1
0
0
+0.2


Brad Peacock
HOU
1
0
1
+0.1


Jackson Stephens
CIN
1
0
0
+0.1


Luke Jackson
ATL
1
0
0
+0.1


A. J. Cole
WAS
1
0
0
+0.1


Matt Cain
SF
1
0
0
+0.1


Miguel Socolovich
STL
1
0
1
+0.1


Kyle McGrath
SD
1
0
0
+0.1


Kyle Crick
SF
1
0
0
+0.1


Felix Pena
CHC
1
0
0
+0.1


Dillon Maples
CHC
1
0
0
+0.1


Odrisamer Despaigne
MIA
1
0
0
+0.1


Chris O’Grady
MIA
1
0
1
+0.1


Tyler Chatwood
COL
1
1
0
-0.2


Caleb Smith
NYY
1
1
0
-0.2


Jeff Beliveau
TOR
1
1
1
-0.2


Tyler Wilson
BAL
1
1
1
-0.2


Justin Haley
MIN
1
1
0
-0.2


Warwick Saupold
DET
1
1
3
-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


Tony Sipp
HOU
1
1
1
-0.2


Rob Scahill
MIL
1
1
0
-0.2


Amir Garrett
CIN
1
1
0
-0.2


Dan Winkler
ATL
1
1
1
-0.2


A.J. Minter
ATL
1
1
0
-0.2


Hoby Milner
PHI
1
1
5
-0.2


Zach Duke
STL
1
1
2
-0.2


Grant Dayton
LAD
1
1
2
-0.2


Javy Guerra
MIA
1
1
2
-0.2


Josh Ravin
LAD
1
1
0
-0.2


Zach McAllister
CLE
1
2
1
-0.6


Al Alburquerque
CHW/KC
1
2
1
-0.6


Jesse Chavez
LAA
1
2
1
-0.6


John Axford
OAK
1
2
0
-0.6


Wily Peralta
MIL
1
2
0
-0.6


Kevin Shackelford
CIN
1
2
0
-0.6


Ricardo Pinto
PHI
1
2
1
-0.6


Erik Goeddel
NYM
1
2
1
-0.6


Jonathan Broxton
STL
1
2
0
-0.6


Kevin Quackenbush
SD
1
2
0
-0.6


Blaine Hardy
DET
1
3
1
-1.0


Rafael Montero
NYM
1
3
1
-1.0


Akeel Morris
ATL
0
0
1
+0.0


Andrew Romine
DET
0
0
1
+0.0


Brent Suter
MIL
0
0
1
+0.0


Chad Bell
DET
0
0
1
+0.0


Dan Runzler
PIT
0
0
1
+0.0


Gabriel Ynoa
BAL
0
0
1
+0.0


Justin Nicolino
MIA
0
0
2
+0.0


Lucas Harrell
TOR
0
0
1
+0.0


Mike Pelfrey
CHW
0
0
1
+0.0


Parker Bridwell
LAA
0
0
1
+0.0


Brad Goldberg
CHW
0
0
1
+0.0


Ariel Hernandez
CIN
0
0
1
+0.0


Reymin Guduan
HOU
0
0
1
+0.0


Troy Scribner
LAA
0
0
1
+0.0


Austin Bibens-Dirkx
TEX
0
0
1
+0.0


Tim Mayza
TOR
0
0
1
+0.0


Mike Clevinger
CLE
0
1
0
-0.4


Nick Goody
CLE
0
1
2
-0.4


Ernesto Frieri
TEX
0
1
0
-0.4


Bryan Mitchell
NYY
0
1
0
-0.4


Giovanny Gallegos
NYY
0
1
0
-0.4


Ronald Herrera
NYY
0
1
0
-0.4


J. P. Howell
TOR
0
1
0
-0.4


Jayson Aquino
BAL
0
1
0
-0.4


Stefan Chrichton
BAL
0
1
0
-0.4


Vidal Nuno
BAL
0
1
0
-0.4


Craig Breslow
CLE/MIN
0
1
2
-0.4


Hector Santiago
MIN
0
1
0
-0.4


Rubby De La Rosa
ARI
0
1
1
-0.4


Chase De Jong
SEA
0
1
0
-0.4


Christian Bergman
SEA
0
1
0
-0.4


Diego Moreno
TB
0
1
0
-0.4


Ryne Stanek
TB
0
1
3
-0.4


Xavier Cedeno
TB
0
1
3
-0.4


Sam Moll
OAK
0
1
1
-0.4


Jandel Gustave
HOU
0
1
0
-0.4


Antonio Bastardo
PIT
0
1
0
-0.4


Johnny Barbato
PIT
0
1
0
-0.4


Tyler Glasnow
PIT
0
1
0
-0.4


Mark Leiter
PHI
0
1
0
-0.4


Miguel Diaz
SD
0
1
0
-0.4


Neil Ramirez
NYM
0
1
2
-0.4


Tyler Pill
NYM
0
1
0
-0.4


Adam Conley
MIA
0
1
0
-0.4


Vance Worley
MIA
0
1
0
-0.4


Domingo German
NYY
0
2
0
-0.7


Buddy Boshers
MIN
0
2
0
-0.7


Casey Lawrence
SEA/TOR
0
2
0
-0.7


Joe Jimenez
DET
0
2
0
-0.7


Adam Kolarek
TB
0
2
1
-0.7


Chris Beck
CHW
0
2
2
-0.7


Evan Scribner
SEA
0
2
0
-0.7


J. C. Ramirez
LAA
0
2
0
-0.7


Shae Simmons
SEA
0
2
0
-0.7


Tim Adleman
CIN
0
2
1
-0.7


Josh Collmenter
ATL
0
2
0
-0.7


Ryan Garton
SEA/TB
0
3
1
-1.1

SOURCE: SEAMHEADS.COM

However, from an efficiency standpoint, the best season came not from Knebel or Diaz but from the Los Angeles Dodgers’ Kenley Jansen, who finished with a perfect record of 44 goose eggs and no broken eggs. That’s the most-ever goose eggs without a broken egg. The Dodgers used Jansen smartly and lined up his 68.1 innings pitched to coincide with mostly high-leverage situations. He made 15 multi-inning appearances, entered with runners on base 12 times, and often pitched in tied games — all things that closers weren’t doing much of a few years ago. And Jansen generated 6.3 goose wins above replacement (GWAR) in the regular season, the 7th-highest total of all-time.

Kenley Jansen’s season was Goose-toric

Highest single-season goose wins above replacement (GWAR)

PITCHER
YEAR
GOOSE EGGS
BROKEN EGGS
MEHS
GWAR




Stu Miller
1965
79
7
3
+7.5


Rich Gossage
1975
82
11
8
+6.7


Mariano Rivera
1996
54
6
2
+6.6


Ron Perranoski
1969
79
13
9
+6.6


Troy Percival
1996
47
3
1
+6.5


Willie Hernandez
1984
65
7
7
+6.4


Kenley Jansen
2017
44
0
1
+6.3


Doug Corbett
1980
68
10
3
+6.3


Ted Abernathy
1967
51
3
14
+6.2


Sparky Lyle
1977
66
8
13
+6.1

Sources: Retrosheet, The Baseball GAUGE

Jansen’s also the exception that proves the rule, however; it’s hard to provide all that much value when you pitch only 70 innings or so, which is about how much the best relievers pitch nowadays. After Jansen, the next most-valuable season came from Knebel, who finished with 3.9 GWAR — which ranks just 200th among relief pitching seasons all-time.

If you want a model for a more Gossage-like usage pattern, you need to look no further than … how Jansen was used in the postseason. Jansen appeared in 13 of the Dodgers’ 15 playoff games and threw 16.2 innings. Extrapolated out to a full, 162-game regular season, that would work out to a Mike Marshall-like total of 180 relief innings.

Jansen didn’t keep his perfect streak alive in the playoffs. Instead, he allowed 2 broken eggs to go with 6 goose eggs. He was also used in some situations that we wouldn’t recommend — for instance, to close out an 11-1 lead against the Chicago Cubs in the NLCS. Still, his postseason goose egg pace would extrapolate to 65 goose eggs over a 162-game regular season.

What I’m really advocating for is a hybrid between how pitchers like Jansen are currently used in the regular season and the entirely different way that they’re used in the postseason. The extra off-days the playoffs provide help to enable more creative usage patterns that might not be viable in the regular season. And even with those extra rest days, Jansen may have been overused in not-very-clutch situations in the NLCS and NLDS; perhaps as a result, he was not especially sharp in the World Series. At the same time, he went from throwing 4.7 percent of the Dodgers’ regular season innings to 12.3 percent of their postseason innings — almost a threefold increase. Surely there’s a happy median somewhere in between?But congratulations to Jansen and Knebel, and we’ll resume our hunt for goose eggs next year. In the meantime, you can download detailed data on goose eggs and broken eggs for all pitchers since 1930 here.