Taking too long? Close loading screen.
Connect with us


If Billy Beane Is Done With Baseball, He’s Left An Indelible Mark



On Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane will soon have a stake in the Boston Red Sox through his company RedBall Acquisition Corp. Since you can’t be involved in running two MLB teams at once,with the 1899 Cleveland Spiders.

“>1 it appears Beane will instead leave baseball entirely — joining Red Sox owner John Henry’s business efforts across other sports (most notably soccer — Henry owns the Liverpool club).

If this is how the Athletics’ Moneyball era ends, what do we make of it? Under Beane, whose first full season as Oakland’s GM came in 1998, the A’s have won seven division titles and produced the sixth-most wins in baseball, all while spending the second-fewest dollars per wins above replacementour JEFFBAGWELL metric to blend WAR from Baseball-Reference.com and FanGraphs, for which you can download data every day this season.

“>2 of any club (trailing only — no surprise — the Tampa Bay Rays). So in that sense, the main thesis of Michael Lewis’s book on Oakland’s process held true throughout Beane’s tenure: Using sabermetric principles to hunt for inefficiencies, Beane consistently found success on a shoestring budget.

In the wake of that success, Beane’s analytical approach eventually transcended the small-market A’s and reshaped the way every team crafts a roster, for better and for worse. But at the same time he was changing the game, Beane could never quite build the right team for October. In their 11 playoff appearances under his watch, stretching back to 2000, the A’s went 18-29 and won only two series in 13 tries — including their recent ALDS loss to the Houston Astros. “My shit doesn’t work in the playoffs,” Beane famously told Lewis in “Moneyball.” “My job is to get us to the playoffs. What happens after that is fucking luck.” Perhaps so, but Oakland’s postseason struggles are also part of the Moneyball story, an unavoidable aspect of Beane’s legacy with the A’s.

Still, it is difficult to understate how much of a mark Beane will leave on the game of baseball. As detailed in “Moneyball,” he quickly transitioned from a mediocre playing career to a scouting role and eventually a front-office apprenticeship under then-GM Sandy Alderson — another nonconformist and an early adopter of analytics in his own team-building philosophy. The A’s roster Beane inherited in 1998 was the third-cheapest in baseball, a far cry from the star-laden team that had made three consecutive World Series from 1988 to 1990. If he wanted to win, Beane knew he’d have no choice but to find underappreciated talent. Analytics happened to be a mostly unexplored avenue for those seeking to do just that.

To the surprise of no one who read “Moneyball,” Beane’s early A’s teams improved quickly in on-base percentage after he took over as GM, rising from ninth in the American League in 1998 to third by 2000 and 2001. The 2000 team, which boasted five starters with an OBP of .349 or higher — led by Jason Giambi’s .476 mark — had the second-best offense in the AL with 5.88 runs per game. That represented the peak of what we might think of as the “Classic Moneyball” A’s, who loaded up on high-OBP hitters that other teams had overlooked. But despite the team’s reputation for getting on base, Oakland never ranked so highly in its signature stat ever again. For instance, in 2003 — a season after the one Lewis focused on in his book — the A’s ranked 10th out of 14 AL teams in OBP. Though they bounced back some the next season, Oakland has had an average AL ranking of 8.4 in OBP since Moneyball was written, never finishing any better than fifth over that span:

Oakland’s batters have fared slightly better when we consider their overall performance, with an average ranking of 8.1 in position-player WAR since 2003 thanks to fielding and base-running. (Defense was actually detailed as a source of inefficiency Beane chased immediately after “Moneyball,” since the market had caught up on OBP.) Athletics batters finished No. 1 in the AL in WAR in 2018, thanks to an exceptionally deep stable of well-rounded players who were talented both at the plate and in the field — as personified by modern A’s stars Matt Chapman and Marcus Semien. The idea of Beane’s lineups sacrificing speed and glovework on the altar of on-base percentage may have been true at first, but it wasn’t really the case for the majority of his tenure as Oakland GM.

Likewise, the OBP-centric narrative of “Moneyball” obscured just how great Beane was at drafting, developing or otherwise uncovering great pitchers. Early on, the A’s were far more driven by high-quality pitching than you might have known from reading Lewis’s book: From 2000 to 2003, Oakland had the third-most pitching WAR in MLB (compared with the ninth-most WAR from its position players). Those A’s were led by three of the 13 best pitchers in baseball according to WAR — Tim Hudson (fifth), Barry Zito (ninth) and Mark Mulder (13th) — a trio of aces who were mentioned a grand total of 32 times3 in “Moneyball.” (For comparison’s sake, Scott Hatteberg, who was worth only 7 percent as many WAR as the Zito-Hudson-Mulder trio, was mentioned 121 times.) Though later playoff-bound A’s teams featured more hitting star power — led by the likes of Semien, Chapman, Matt Olson, Josh Donaldson and Josh Reddick — Beane still managed to cobble together MLB’s sixth-best pitching staff by WAR from 2012 to 2020 (compared with its eighth-best corps of position players).

That so few A’s hurlers were big names during this period, with the possible exception of Sonny Gray, speaks to Beane’s knack for constantly cycling through pitching talent before it became too expensive for Oakland to retain. Weighted by WAR, the average ex-A’s pitcher since 1998 spent just 4.3 seasons with the club, easily the fewest for any team’s pitchers over that span:

Nobody cycled through pitchers like Billy Beane

For all players who departed a franchise, average length of tenure with the club and age in season of departure, weighted by wins above replacement (WAR) with the club, 1998-2020

Departed Batters Departed Pitchers
Team Avg. Tenure Avg. Age at Departure Team Avg. Tenure Avg. Age at Departure
Padres 4.7 31.1 Athletics 4.3 30.1
Rays 5.6 30.2 Royals 4.7 29.9
Brewers 5.7 30.8 Pirates 4.7 29.5
Dodgers 5.7 31.9 Rays 4.8 28.9
Tigers 5.8 31.4 Mets 4.9 33.2
D-backs 5.8 31.6 Brewers 5.0 30.5
Athletics 5.9 31.3 Marlins 5.0 28.6
Marlins 5.9 28.4 Dodgers 5.0 32.4
Cubs 6.3 32.5 D-backs 5.2 33.5
Cardinals 6.3 31.6 Cardinals 5.2 31.8
Blue Jays 6.5 31.5 Rockies 5.4 30.7
Reds 6.7 30.9 Rangers 5.5 31.3
Rangers 7.0 32.8 Nationals 5.6 30.0
Royals 7.0 30.7 Phillies 5.8 31.8
Mets 7.1 32.7 Padres 6.0 32.1
Pirates 7.2 31.0 Orioles 6.0 30.4
White Sox 7.2 31.9 Astros 6.0 31.9
Indians 7.4 32.1 Blue Jays 6.1 31.2
Mariners 7.4 34.4 Reds 6.1 31.3
Angels 7.6 31.5 Cubs 6.2 32.0
Orioles 7.6 32.8 Red Sox 6.2 32.8
Nationals 7.8 30.2 Indians 6.4 30.5
Red Sox 7.8 32.9 White Sox 6.5 30.7
Giants 7.8 35.0 Angels 6.6 31.4
Twins 8.3 32.0 Tigers 6.7 31.1
Astros 8.4 32.9 Twins 7.0 31.3
Braves 8.8 32.4 Giants 7.1 31.4
Phillies 9.2 33.2 Mariners 7.2 32.5
Yankees 9.7 35.7 Braves 7.7 33.0
Rockies 9.8 34.3 Yankees 8.0 36.2

Sources: Baseball-Reference.com, FanGraphs

The constant churn included trading Rich Harden4 and Gio Gonzalez when they were 26; Mulder, Gray, Dan Haren, Joe Blanton and Andrew Bailey when they were 27, and Hudson when he was 29. Those deals yielded Donaldson, Reddick and other important members of future A’s squads, in addition to planting the seeds for even more wheeling and dealing down the line. According to MLB.com’s Andrew Simon, Beane’s A’s have made more total trades than any other club since 1998 — a tally of nearly 300 going into the 2020 season.

Not all of them made Beane look like a visionary genius. Most infamously, he shipped Donaldson to the Toronto Blue Jays for Brett Lawrie and Kendall Graveman; Donaldson went on to win an MVP, while Graveman proved to merely be a serviceable (yet oft-injured) pitcher, and Lawrie was out of baseball within three years. But the frequent trades mostly helped Beane achieve his goal of keeping the A’s competitive despite bargain-priced rosters. As my colleague Ben Morris wrote years ago, the advantage Beane’s shrewd deal-making brought to Oakland year after year was worth far more than any one star player could have provided the franchise.

And yet, postseason success eluded Beane and the A’s. Based on a logistic regression using each team’s pre-playoff Elo ratings (including 2020),FiveThirtyEight’s prediction model to measure championships for still-active playoff teams.

“>5 we would have expected Oakland to win 1.4 World Series since 1998 in their 11 playoff appearances. Instead, it won zero — a shortfall that ranks as the worst in baseball during Beane’s time as GM:

Beane’s A’s always fell short in the playoffs

Differential between actual championships and expected (based on pre-playoff Elo ratings) for MLB teams, 1998-2020

Team Playoff Appearances Expected Actual* Diff.
Athletics 11 1.42 0.00 -1.42
Braves 14 1.60 0.28 -1.32
Dodgers 12 1.32 0.28 -1.04
Indians 9 0.93 0.00 -0.93
Twins 9 0.86 0.00 -0.86
Rangers 7 0.70 0.00 -0.70
Mets 5 0.55 0.00 -0.55
Tigers 5 0.49 0.00 -0.49
Brewers 5 0.38 0.00 -0.38
Rockies 4 0.35 0.00 -0.35
Reds 4 0.31 0.00 -0.31
Mariners 2 0.31 0.00 -0.31
Pirates 3 0.30 0.00 -0.30
Padres 4 0.30 0.00 -0.30
Orioles 3 0.30 0.00 -0.30
Blue Jays 3 0.28 0.00 -0.28
Rays 6 0.67 0.42 -0.25
Astros 10 1.21 1.02 -0.19
Angels 7 0.92 1.00 +0.08
Cubs 9 0.88 1.00 +0.12
Phillies 5 0.66 1.00 +0.34
Diamondbacks 6 0.60 1.00 +0.40
Nationals 5 0.52 1.00 +0.48
Cardinals 14 1.51 2.00 +0.49
White Sox 4 0.37 1.00 +0.63
Royals 2 0.18 1.00 +0.82
Marlins 2 0.13 1.00 +0.87
Yankees 19 2.51 4.00 +1.49
Giants 7 0.82 3.00 +2.18
Red Sox 12 1.62 4.00 +2.38

*Includes 2020, using FiveThirtyEight’s current World Series odds to measure championships for active teams.

Source: Retrosheet

But why did it happen? There’s plenty of blame to go around. Compared with their regular-season stats, A’s postseason pitchers put up an ERA 21 percent higher (3.98 versus 3.30) than we’d expect, with a fielding-independent pitching 13 percent higher (4.16 versus 3.67) and a WHIP 8 percent higher. At the plate, Oakland’s OPS was 8 percent lower (.711 versus .775) than we would expect from regular-season statistics, with a batting average 9 percent lower (.237 versus .259). And ironically, the largest percent decline for A’s hitters came in the category of on-base percentage, in which they dipped by 11 percent (.305 versus .341) in the playoffs. So Oakland’s core formula tended to fail when October rolled around — though it’s important to note that we still don’t really know what the right formula actually is for postseason success (relative to the regular season). All we can say is this: Whatever does cause teams to outperform expectations in the playoffs, Beane was never able to discover it, for all of his trying over more than two decades in Oakland.

However, the Athletics’ inability to win in the playoffs is but a small part of Beane’s overall legacy within the game. Other teams that followed his lead did find success in the playoffs — most notably the Red Sox, Chicago Cubs, Houston Astros, St. Louis Cardinals … and maybe even the Rays this season. And because of Beane’s influence, the entire way the game is played has changed over the past 20 years. To that point, Beane has acknowledged it was becoming more and more difficult to find an edge through analytics with the passing of time. “Teams are valuing the same things,” he told The Washington Post in 2018. “The big teams are run very wisely now. … There are really smart guys who have capital. There’s no soft spots. They’re smart guys, and they’re surrounded by smart guys. It’s a very intelligent industry right now.”

Maybe that realization played a role in Beane’s impending career change. After spending decades chasing inefficiencies, there are fewer to be found than ever before. But whatever the reason for it, Beane’s departure from the A’s marks the end of an era that drastically transformed baseball — and sports in general — forever.


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Dodgers in 6 … or a Game 7 for the crown? Previewing the rest of this World Series



If the Los Angeles Dodgers go on to win this World Series, remember that 1 inch — the 1 inch that Manuel Margot needed to complete the first steal of home in the World Series since 2002. Instead, he was the third out of the bottom of the fourth inning as Clayton Kershaw escaped a first-and-third jam with an infield popup, a strikeout and Margot’s failed theft attempt. The Dodgers maintained their 3-2 lead, added a run on Max Muncy‘s home run and held on for the 4-2 victory.

Now the Dodgers are win one away. The previous 46 times the World Series was tied after four games, the Game 5 winner went on to win 30 times (65%). Eight of the past 14 times, however, the team behind in the Series won the final two games, including the Nationals last year.

As we take a day to reload after all the action from Saturday and Sunday, let’s go through five keys to victory for each team.

Los Angeles Dodgers

1. Two games to win one. Look, you don’t want it to go seven games, but Dave Roberts can manage Game 6 knowing he has another game in his back pocket — with Walker Buehler ready on regular rest and coming off two terrific starts (allowing just one run over 12 innings).

Tony Gonsolin will start Game 6. He hasn’t been great in the postseason with a 9.39 ERA in three games, with Roberts cutting his leash shorter and shorter with each outing: 88 pitches in Game 2 of the NLCS, 41 pitches in Game 7 and then just 29 pitches and four outs in Game 2 against the Rays. Still, he was very good in the regular season with a 2.31 ERA, two home runs in 46⅔ innings and a 46-7 strikeout-to-walk ratio. The Dodgers’ offense has been scoring enough runs. I don’t think you necessarily have to pull Gonsolin as quickly as Roberts did in Game 2.

With 15 pitchers on the roster, however, Roberts can certainly construct a bullpen game and still keep everyone in good shape for Game 7. He also knows he likely has Julio Urias available in relief of Buehler for Game 7 if necessary. Dustin May did throw 30 pitches in Game 5 and looked much better than he had in his past couple of appearances. Do you save him for Game 7? Maybe you use him only like Roberts did in Game 5 — later in the game with a lead, leaving some of the other relievers as the first guys out of the pen if Gonsolin gets a quick hook.

2. Consider starting Austin Barnes at catcher. When Blake Snell started in Game 2, the Dodgers rolled out their usual lineup when facing a lefty, with Will Smith behind the plate, A.J. Pollock at DH, Enrique Hernandez at second base and Chris Taylor in left field. Now, for what it’s worth: The Dodgers are 6-1 when Barnes has started at catcher this postseason (including 3-0 in the World Series) and 7-5 when Smith starts. That’s small sample size stuff and some of that is the pitcher they have caught. Barnes, for example, has caught all of Kershaw’s innings.

Most importantly, Barnes is the better framer. According to ESPN TruMedia data during the postseason, Barnes has an expected called strike number of 119 and an actual called strike number of 129, so he’s plus-10. Smith has an expected called strike number of 235 and 225 actual called strikes, so he’s minus-10. Furthermore, with Smith catching, Gonsolin has allowed eight runs in 7⅔ innings. You also can question some of Smith’s pitch calls, especially the four-seam fastball that Pedro Baez threw to Brandon Lowe in Game 4 on a 2-2 count that Lowe hit for a three-run homer. Baez was in the game there specifically because his changeup is a good weapon against lefties, but with two strikes they went with the fastball instead.

L.A. can keep Smith’s bat in the lineup as the DH. So maybe you lose Pollock’s bat, but that’s not a big deal given that he’s hitting .231/.286/.282 in the postseason. The risk is that if you have to hit for Barnes or if he gets injured, the Dodgers aren’t carrying a third catcher (because they needed those 15 pitchers!), so they would lose the DH if Smith had to catch. But they’ve gone with that strategy several times this postseason.

Roberts alluded to the possibility of Barnes catching on Monday. “Yeah, it is a thought,” he said. “I love both of our catchers, what Austin does behind the plate. It is on the table and we will put a lineup out there that gives us the best chance to win.”

3. Don’t change anything at the plate. The Dodgers have outhit the Rays .264 to .228. They have more home runs (11 to 8), more doubles (9 to 5), more walks (23 to 14) and fewer strikeouts (50 to 54). Heck, they even have more stolen bases. They’re going to stick to being selective and making the Rays’ starters (Snell in Game 6, Charlie Morton in Game 7) run up their pitch counts. Corey Seager has deservedly been in the spotlight for his monster playoff numbers, but cleanup hitter Muncy has quietly been a key, thanks to 20 walks and a .461 OBP in the postseason. He’s hitting .389/.522/.611 with a team-leading six RBIs in the World Series. If the Dodgers are to close it out, it is likely because Seager and Muncy keep getting on base or doing some important damage.

4. Repeat to yourself: We’re not worried about the ninth inning. I have a feeling that with Blake Treinen getting the save in Game 5, he is now Roberts’ choice for the next save situation. Look, Kenley Jansen did run into some bad luck in Game 4, with two soft hits and the misplay in the field. But he’s a tightrope walker these days, and his stuff just isn’t what it used to be. In the postseason, he has a swing-and-miss rate of 27.1%. Guess what, though? Treinen’s rate isn’t that much better at 30.3%, and while he got the save Sunday, he has allowed six runs in 11⅓ innings in the postseason. Brusdar Graterol is another high-leverage option, and his swing-and-miss rate in the postseason is also 27.1%. All are viable candidates. If you save Treinen for the ninth, that means you might need Jansen or Graterol or Victor Gonzalez or Baez at a key moment earlier in the game. All are reasonable options, even if Dodgers fans are convinced Roberts will make the wrong choice no matter what.

Roberts didn’t tip his hand after Game 5 when he explained his choice to go with Treinen over Jansen. “They’re both great choices,” he said. “I just felt that Margot, I liked Blake right there. Gave up a grounder [for a single]. And then the lefties, and then another righty. I just felt like we’ve leaned on Kenley. We haven’t done three [days] in a row in quite some time. We’ve done three in a row with Blake. I just liked it right there. But Kenley is high leverage. And they’re both unbelievable guys in high leverage.”

(I’m reminded of what made Bruce Bochy so smart when the Giants won in 2010, 2012 and 2014. His top relievers in those years — Sergio Romo, Jeremy Affeldt, Santiago Casilla, Brian Wilson, Javier Lopez, Yusmeiro Petit, plus some Tim Lincecum and Madison Bumgarner — combined to allow 13 earned runs over 125 innings, a 0.94 ERA.)

5. Do not use Clayton Kershaw. He has done his job this postseason, going 4-1 in five starts with a 2.93 ERA and 37 strikeouts and five walks over 30⅔ innings. If the series does go to seven games, however, I fear Roberts will be tempted to use the future Hall of Famer, just like he was in Game 5 of the division series last year against the Nationals. Roberts may even think back to Game 7 in 2017, when Kershaw came on in relief against the Astros after starting Game 5 and tossed four scoreless innings. Do not do it. Do. Not. Do. It.

1. You’re down, but not out. Just play — and plan — with urgency. Look, the easiest scenario for Game 6 is your starting pitcher crushes it like Stephen Strasburg did last year for the Nationals when he pitched 8⅓ innings in a 7-2 victory. That’s not how it will work for the Rays, however. No starter has gone more than six innings this postseason. Snell’s longest outing this postseason is 5⅔ innings. Morton’s is also 5⅔.

So manager Kevin Cash will have to factor in that even if Snell and Morton are great, he probably needs eight innings over two days from his pen. Anything less than that is a bonus. So who can go multiple innings? Who will he use to get through that difficult Seager-Justin Turner-Muncy part of the order that has been particularly lethal? One thing we know: The Rays will have a plan.

No matter the plan, the Rays need to grab an early lead for a change. The Dodgers have scored first in four of the five games. “We are going to get aggressive tomorrow,” Cash said Monday. “If we can somehow get a lead and limit them, we’ve got some of the big guys in the back end of the bullpen that are ready to go. That is kind of our MO. That is what makes us special at times, especially from the pitching department. … It just hasn’t happened yet because they are up 1-, 2- or 3-0 by the second or third inning every night it feels like.”

2. Snell and the fifth inning. The 2018 Cy Young winner is making his sixth postseason start of 2020, and the overall numbers look pretty solid: 2-2, 3.33 ERA, 28 strikeouts in 24⅓ innings. But it’s really a tale of two Snells. Through the first four innings he’s allowed three runs in 20 total innings (1.35 ERA) and two home runs. From the fifth inning on, he’s allowed six runs and three home runs in 4⅓ innings. In Game 2 against the Dodgers, he tossed 4⅔ no-hit innings but then gave up a walk, a two-run home run, a walk and a base hit and couldn’t finish the fifth.

So Snell’s limit appears to be four innings or 75 pitches before he hits the wall. The Rays obviously know this and have had a pretty quick hook with him, but what if he’s sailing along like he was in Game 2? Does Cash you take him out if he’s pitching well and the Rays have a small lead? Does he try to get a few extra outs from Snell to save the bullpen — even a little — for Game 7? If it’s the third time through the order, does Cash go to the bullpen no matter what? The numbers this postseason seem to justify that, even if the eye test says Snell is pitching well.

3. Be realistic about your expectations for Nick Anderson. Anderson was dominant in 2019 and allowed just one run in 16⅓ innings in the regular season this year, so it’s understandable that Cash keeps trying to milk longer outings from him — but it simply hasn’t worked. Anderson has allowed a run (or two) in six straight appearances and in seven of nine in the playoffs (including three home runs). Yet seven of those appearances have been for more than three outs. He isn’t necessarily throwing a lot of pitches, making two appearances in the World Series in Games 2 and 4 while throwing 19 and 23 pitches. He has had at least two days of rest in each outing except one since the wild-card round, so I’m not necessarily sure if it’s fatigue or something else. Whatever the reason, Anderson just hasn’t dominated.

What it all means is Cash can’t just count on using Anderson, Diego Castillo and Peter Fairbanks, like he did in Game 5 against the Yankees. He’s already adjusted to that by using Aaron Loup in high-leverage moments; as the primary lefty in the pen, he’ll certainly be one guy to navigate through Seager and Muncy. But barring Snell and Morton going deeper than expected, Cash will likely need one of the deeper relievers — Ryan Thompson, John Curtiss, maybe Ryan Yarbrough — to get some big outs.

4. Get some hits with runners in scoring position. The Rays are hitting .192 in the postseason with runners in scoring position (although they’ve been a little better at .233 in the World Series). Yes, they’ve hit 33 home runs in 19 postseason games, but the Dodgers hit home runs too. The Rays are going to have to produce some runs the old-fashioned way.

One key here: Getting somebody on base in front of Randy Arozarena. Rays leadoff hitters — Cash has started six different guys there — are hitting just .173/.271/.320 in the playoffs and have scored just four runs. Yandy Diaz has a .409 OBP from the leadoff spot, but he only starts against lefties. Austin Meadows started there in Games 2 and 3, but he’s hitting .154 in 39 playoff at-bats with 16 K’s and one walk. Heck, if Arozarena is going to be batting with the bases empty, maybe you just hit him leadoff.

5. Run the bases … smarter. While I love the idea of the Rays using their speed to put pressure on the Dodgers — like Margot’s bunt single in Game 5 — their exploits on the bases have been a net negative. Margot’s attempted steal of home was daring and exciting, but in the end it didn’t work. Arozarena got thrown out trying to advance on a ball in the dirt earlier in the game. Overall in the postseason, the Rays have just four steals and have been caught stealing five times. So keep up the aggressiveness … just make sure you don’t get thrown out.


Continue Reading


Augusta National hosts GameDay during Masters



ESPN’s College GameDay Built By the Home Depot show has originated from dozens of college campuses across the country since 1993.

On Saturday, Nov. 14, the show will combine two of sport’s greatest traditions — college football and the Masters.

ESPN announced on Tuesday that College GameDay will originate from Augusta National Golf Club, which is hosting the postponed Masters Tournament on Nov. 12-15.

Top matchups that day are No. 9 Wisconsin at No. 13 Michigan and No. 2 Alabama at LSU.

“Any time College GameDay travels to a new destination it’s special, and the opportunity to be on the grounds of Augusta National Golf Club during the Masters is extraordinary,” said Jimmy Pitaro, chairman, ESPN and Sports Content. “As this iconic event coincides with the college football season for the first time, we look forward to getting fans ready for a football Saturday, while also showcasing the Masters and the greatest golfers in the world.”

Longtime ESPN hosts Rece Davis, Lee Corso, Kirk Herbstreit, Desmond Howard and others will broadcast from the par-3 course from 9 a.m. to noon ET.

In its 13th year at the Masters, ESPN will once again televise the first and second rounds from 1 to 5:30 p.m. on Nov. 12-13. There will also be expanded coverage on ESPN+, including exclusive practice-round coverage on Nov. 10-11.

Golf fans will also be able to watch Featured Holes coverage on ESPN+ on holes 4, 5 and 6 in each of the four rounds of the Masters.


Continue Reading


Trump Hasn’t Gained Ground Since The Debate, And He’s Running Out Of Time



One question we posed after the last presidential debate was, Will the presidential race tighten?

Since its peak on Oct. 19, Joe Biden’s lead over President Trump in national polls has narrowed from 10.7 percentage points to 9.4 points, while Biden’s popular vote margin in our presidential forecast also shrank from 8.4 points to 7.9 points. Although, as you can see in the chart below, Biden’s odds have been relatively stable.

So what gives? Is the race tightening? And, if it is, why is our forecast different from our national polling average?

Well, two things. First, we’re still expecting some tightening toward Trump in our forecast, so we’re pricing that in a little in our model. And second, the forecast is mostly based on state polls, which have been more consistent with an 8-point Biden lead than the 9-to-10-point Biden lead we’ve seen nationally. (Remember, if used properly, state polls give you a more accurate projection of the national popular vote than national polls do, which is why our forecast relies on them so heavily!)

But let’s unpack the latest polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the last presidential debate to better answer that question of just how much the race is tightening. Overall, we have six national surveys and eight battleground-state polls, and on average, these 14 polls show essentially no change from before the debate.

Not much has changed since the debate

State and national polls conducted entirely (or mostly) after the Oct. 22 debate compared to the last poll from the same pollster

Biden lead
Pollster Now Before change
MI Gravis Marketing +13 +9 +4
PA Gravis Marketing +7 +3 +4
PA InsiderAdvantage -3 +3 -6
PA Reuters/Ipsos +5 +4 +1
TX NYT Upshot/Siena -4 -3 -1
TX Data for Progress +1 +1 0
WI Gravis Marketing +11 +8 +3
WI Reuters/Ipsos +9 +8 +1
US IBD/TIPP +7 +5 +2
US Morning Consult +9 +9 0
US Rasmussen Reports -1 +3 -4
US RMG Research +7 +8 -1
US SurveyMonkey +6 +6 0
US Yahoo News/YouGov +12 +11 +1
Average 0

Source: Polls

In fact, the post-debate polls have arguably been pretty good for Biden. Gravis Marketing, for instance, last tested Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in July, but now finds Biden in better shape in all three states, including double-digit leads in Michigan and Wisconsin. Meanwhile, Ipsos and The New York Times Upshot/Siena College found essentially no movement in Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. Most national polls also showed little to no change. International Business Daily/TIPP’s five-day nationwide tracking poll had shown Biden declining, but it has recently found his lead back up in the high single digits.

There may have been a bit of tightening before the debate, but at this point, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of the race tightening since the debate. In fact, only two polls found clear, negative shifts for Biden, and they both come from pollsters that might have a particular interest in casting the president’s chances in a positive light.

First, a new InsiderAdvantage survey sponsored by the Center for American Greatness, a conservative media think tank, gave Trump a 3-point lead in Pennsylvania, which marks a 6-point swing in margin from its previous poll in mid-October. We, of course, can’t discount that this might be the case, but the ideological leanings of the pollster’s sponsor do give us pause. Similarly, a national poll from Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research found Trump ahead by 1 point, a 4-point shift from its last survey. But Rasmussen has a well-known GOP house effect, or put another way, it consistently shows better results for Republican candidates compared with other polling firms.

We choose to be very inclusive when it comes to our forecast, so we toss almost everything into the polling kitchen sink. But, on the whole, these recent polls may indicate some post-debate widening in the race rather than tightening, especially if you take the two quasi-partisan polls with a small pinch of salt (which we’d recommend).


Continue Reading