"All" or Nothing

It's not too early to be thinking about the 2011 Superdraft. Last night, the Vancouver Whitecaps won a coin toss at the all star game between the two expansion teams, which means that they'll get to decide whether they want the first pick in the Superdraft or the expansion draft (or one of several other league mechanisms, like discovery ranking). I was recently looking at some of the all-conference teams via Bigsoccer, where there are several threads with all of the year's conference awards in one place. I thought it would be an interesting exercise to look at the previous drafts to see how many of the players drafted made an all-conference team (regardless of whether or not it was the 1st team; all-freshman teams don't count) the season directly before the draft. Looking at the past three Superdrafts, it turns out that it's really important: Eligible All Conf. PCT 2010 60 53 88.3% 2009 55 50 90.9% 2008 49 42 85.7% Total 164 145 88.41% Some players weren't counted due to being GA signings, and I also didn't include any below division one or independents for which an all-conference selection was impossible. Only 19 out of 164 eligible players failed to make an all-conference team right before they were drafted. In addition, when you look back at previous years to see if those 19 players had ever made an all-conference team, it turns out that 9 of them had. Which only leaves 10 players drafted in the past three years without making an all-conference team at some point, while 93.90% did. Here's the list of 19, with the players who'd made it at some point in bold: 2010 20 KC Olukorede Aiyegbusi D North Carolina State ACC 2010 30 SJ Steven Beitashour D San Diego State Pac-10 2010 51 CHI Sean Johnson GK Central Florida C-USA 2010 55 DC Jordan Graye D North Carolina ACC 2010 59 SEA Jamel Wallace M San Diego State Pac-10 2010 61 CLB Othaniel Yanez M Louisville Big East 2010 62 HOU Euan Holden D New Mexico MPSF 2009 16 SEA Evan Brown D Wake Forest ACC 2009 25 NE Denaldin Hamzagic M Saint Louis A10 2009 26 DC Lyle Adams D Wake Forest ACC 2009 30 CLB Paul Gerstenberger D Boston College ACC 2009 49 CHV Jamie Franks M Wake Forest ACC 2008 13 NE Rob Valentino D San Francisco WCC 2008 27 NE Joe Germanese M Duke MVC 2008 29 LA Julian Valentin D Wake Forest ACC 2008 39 KC Matt Marquess D Santa Clara WCC 2008 47 COL Brian Grazier M Saint Louis C-USA 2008 49 COL Scott Campbell M North Carolina ACC 2008 55 NE Spencer Wadsworth F Duke ACC Johnson and Valentino were Generation Adidas players, so they were going to be drafted regardless. Another 9 were from the ACC, while Holden was the brother of a successful MLS player. Beitashour was an honorable mention selection last year. None of the players from 2008 & 2009 are currently on an MLS roster. All conference selections & awards: 2009 2008 2007

MLS Time Statistics

Goal differential is a statistic commonly found on every soccer league table. It's easy to look at it and see that some teams may be better or worse than their record indicates. The same goes for other sports; you'd expect a team with more points scored than allowed to have a winning record and vice versa. One thing you don't see though, is the amount of time a team spends winning, tied, and losing. Goal difference can be inflated by blowout wins or losses. For example, RSL last year had a positive GD despite a losing record, but that included a 6-0 win over New England. When you look deeper, RSL spent 9% more time losing during matches than winning. That 9% negative "time difference" was actually 13th in the league, under-performing their 8th place overall finish. I don't believe that this is a better indicator of team performance than GD, but I do think it can provide new insight. There's some surprising results for certain teams throughout MLS history. More on that in a minute. First, let's see how the year by year leaguewide stats look: MLS Time by Year: Lead vs Tied Lead Tied 1996 59% 41% 1997 52% 48% 1998 55% 45% 1999 52% 48% 2000 50% 50% 2001 55% 45% 2002 50% 50% 2003 46% 54% 2004 45% 55% 2005 49% 51% 2006 50% 50% 2007 48% 52% 2008 53% 47% 2009 53% 47% 2010 48% 52% 2010 stats are through last night's LA-SJ match. So for this year, the average team will spend 24% of the time each winning and losing. In 1996, 59% of the time one team had a lead, and only 41% of the time was the match tied. That year certainly stands out. On to the individual teams. First, I'll post every team's stats, then below I'll point out some interesting things. Finally, I'll look at the 2010 numbers so far. Time Statistics W T L Diff PPG GDA CHI 1998 31.6% 45.8% 22.6% 8.9% 1.781 0.531 CHI 1999 36.0% 43.4% 20.6% 15.4% 1.656 0.469 CHI 2000 33.0% 45.7% 21.3% 11.6% 1.781 0.500 CHI 2001 35.3% 45.6% 19.1% 16.2% 1.963 0.741 CHI 2002 30.6% 48.6% 20.8% 9.9% 1.321 0.179 CHI 2003 32.8% 47.5% 19.7% 13.1% 1.767 0.333 CHI 2004 24.0% 50.4% 25.6% -1.6% 1.100 -0.267 CHI 2005 30.7% 44.5% 24.8% 5.8% 1.531 -0.031 CHI 2006 32.7% 45.5% 21.8% 10.9% 1.469 0.063 CHI 2007 21.8% 56.1% 22.1% -0.3% 1.333 -0.167 CHI 2008 33.2% 41.0% 25.8% 7.4% 1.533 0.367 CHI 2009 20.4% 50.9% 28.7% -8.3% 1.500 0.167 CHV 2005 14.4% 55.7% 29.9% -15.5% 0.563 -1.125 CHV 2006 30.5% 49.7% 19.9% 10.6% 1.344 0.094 CHV 2007 31.2% 53.4% 15.4% 15.8% 1.767 0.600 CHV 2008 21.8% 48.3% 29.9% -8.1% 1.433 -0.033 CHV 2009 29.2% 53.5% 17.3% 12.0% 1.500 0.100 CLB 1996 32.8% 38.6% 28.5% 4.3% 1.313 -0.031 CLB 1997 23.0% 48.8% 28.3% -5.3% 1.344 0.031 CLB 1998 37.7% 40.1% 22.1% 15.6% 1.563 0.344 CLB 1999 27.2% 53.3% 19.5% 7.6% 1.531 0.281 CLB 2000 18.9% 47.7% 33.4% -14.6% 1.188 -0.313 CLB 2001 31.5% 48.6% 20.0% 11.5% 1.731 0.500 CLB 2002 26.8% 51.7% 21.4% 5.4% 1.357 0.036 CLB 2003 23.1% 62.0% 15.0% 8.1% 1.267 0.000 CLB 2004 22.4% 61.0% 16.7% 5.7% 1.633 0.267 CLB 2005 24.5% 45.7% 29.8% -5.3% 1.188 -0.344 CLB 2006 13.5% 60.0% 26.4% -12.9% 1.031 -0.375 CLB 2007 20.5% 57.0% 22.5% -2.0% 1.233 -0.167 CLB 2008 34.8% 37.3% 27.9% 6.9% 1.900 0.467 CLB 2009 33.1% 49.1% 17.9% 15.2% 1.633 0.333 COL 1996 22.3% 38.3% 39.4% -17.1% 1.031 -0.469 COL 1997 25.7% 44.5% 29.7% -4.0% 1.281 -0.281 COL 1998 29.4% 43.6% 27.0% 2.5% 1.438 -0.219 COL 1999 22.9% 53.3% 23.8% -0.9% 1.594 -0.031 COL 2000 18.1% 50.8% 31.1% -13.1% 1.344 -0.500 COL 2001 21.3% 49.2% 29.5% -8.2% 0.885 -0.423 COL 2002 27.2% 40.6% 32.2% -5.0% 1.536 -0.179 COL 2003 20.3% 51.3% 28.4% -8.1% 1.333 -0.167 COL 2004 19.1% 66.5% 14.4% 4.7% 1.367 -0.100 COL 2005 23.5% 56.7% 19.8% 3.7% 1.406 0.094 COL 2006 23.5% 43.6% 32.9% -9.4% 1.281 -0.406 COL 2007 19.4% 56.8% 23.8% -4.3% 1.167 -0.167 COL 2008 23.6% 50.6% 25.8% -2.1% 1.267 -0.033 COL 2009 26.0% 45.8% 28.2% -2.2% 1.333 0.133 DAL 1996 21.6% 52.4% 26.0% -4.3% 1.375 0.063 DAL 1997 26.3% 52.6% 21.1% 5.2% 1.375 0.188 DAL 1998 21.7% 44.9% 33.4% -11.7% 1.219 -0.500 DAL 1999 29.1% 52.2% 18.8% 10.3% 1.781 0.594 DAL 2000 26.3% 49.2% 24.5% 1.9% 1.438 0.000 DAL 2001 28.9% 45.5% 25.5% 3.4% 1.346 0.038 DAL 2002 20.0% 53.6% 26.3% -6.3% 1.536 0.036 DAL 2003 22.0% 43.6% 34.5% -12.5% 0.767 -0.967 DAL 2004 20.9% 51.0% 28.0% -7.1% 1.200 -0.367 DAL 2005 26.8% 50.0% 23.2% 3.6% 1.500 0.250 DAL 2006 34.1% 38.9% 27.0% 7.2% 1.625 0.125 DAL 2007 20.4% 50.3% 29.3% -8.9% 1.467 -0.233 DAL 2008 32.9% 41.1% 26.0% 6.9% 1.200 0.133 DAL 2009 33.2% 43.2% 23.6% 9.6% 1.300 0.100 DC 1996 39.5% 37.3% 23.2% 16.4% 1.531 0.188 DC 1997 37.6% 44.6% 17.8% 19.8% 1.844 0.531 DC 1998 27.6% 45.4% 27.0% 0.6% 1.906 0.813 DC 1999 39.6% 46.4% 14.0% 25.6% 1.875 0.688 DC 2000 14.5% 54.2% 31.3% -16.8% 0.938 -0.594 DC 2001 22.5% 36.1% 41.4% -18.9% 1.000 -0.308 DC 2002 11.1% 61.3% 27.6% -16.5% 1.143 -0.321 DC 2003 22.6% 59.0% 18.4% 4.3% 1.300 0.067 DC 2004 31.1% 42.0% 27.0% 4.1% 1.400 0.033 DC 2005 29.8% 51.5% 18.6% 11.2% 1.688 0.656 DC 2006 41.0% 47.7% 11.3% 29.7% 1.719 0.438 DC 2007 35.8% 43.1% 21.1% 14.7% 1.833 0.733 DC 2008 24.6% 40.9% 34.5% -9.9% 1.233 -0.267 DC 2009 28.4% 47.6% 24.0% 4.5% 1.333 -0.033 HOU 2006 22.2% 62.7% 15.1% 7.2% 1.438 0.125 HOU 2007 26.5% 54.1% 19.3% 7.2% 1.733 0.667 HOU 2008 33.7% 49.4% 16.9% 16.9% 1.700 0.433 HOU 2009 35.7% 46.9% 17.4% 18.3% 1.600 0.333 KC 1996 23.7% 39.6% 36.7% -13.0% 1.344 -0.063 KC 1997 27.2% 50.1% 22.7% 4.5% 1.594 0.188 KC 1998 23.7% 45.6% 30.7% -7.0% 1.125 -0.156 KC 1999 17.0% 47.8% 35.1% -18.1% 0.813 -0.625 KC 2000 33.7% 55.8% 10.5% 23.3% 1.781 0.563 KC 2001 23.1% 44.5% 32.3% -9.2% 1.333 -0.741 KC 2002 21.8% 57.1% 21.1% 0.7% 1.286 -0.286 KC 2003 27.0% 51.9% 21.1% 5.9% 1.400 0.133 KC 2004 26.4% 59.2% 14.4% 12.1% 1.633 0.267 KC 2005 26.6% 51.0% 22.3% 4.3% 1.406 0.250 KC 2006 20.8% 49.0% 30.2% -9.4% 1.188 -0.063 KC 2007 21.4% 54.7% 23.9% -2.5% 1.333 0.000 KC 2008 23.0% 50.7% 26.3% -3.3% 1.400 -0.067 KC 2009 21.3% 49.3% 29.4% -8.1% 1.100 -0.300 LA 1996 27.3% 41.3% 31.5% -4.2% 1.656 0.313 LA 1997 28.2% 47.7% 24.1% 4.1% 1.500 0.344 LA 1998 41.7% 39.3% 19.0% 22.7% 2.188 1.281 LA 1999 37.9% 43.2% 18.9% 19.0% 1.813 0.625 LA 2000 29.1% 56.8% 14.1% 15.0% 1.563 0.313 LA 2001 27.4% 50.5% 22.1% 5.4% 1.808 0.615 LA 2002 21.2% 62.1% 16.7% 4.5% 1.821 0.393 LA 2003 21.0% 59.0% 20.0% 1.0% 1.200 0.000 LA 2004 17.5% 58.4% 24.1% -6.6% 1.433 0.067 LA 2005 27.5% 49.2% 23.3% 4.2% 1.406 -0.031 LA 2006 16.9% 49.5% 33.5% -16.6% 1.219 0.000 LA 2007 20.0% 53.4% 26.7% -6.7% 1.133 -0.333 LA 2008 22.7% 41.3% 36.0% -13.4% 1.100 -0.233 LA 2009 29.2% 48.1% 22.7% 6.5% 1.600 0.167 MIA 1998 23.9% 44.0% 32.0% -8.1% 1.094 -0.688 MIA 1999 17.1% 43.8% 39.2% -22.1% 1.031 -0.531 MIA 2000 23.2% 47.9% 28.9% -5.7% 1.281 -0.063 MIA 2001 38.4% 47.9% 13.7% 24.7% 2.038 0.808 NE 1996 24.2% 47.2% 28.6% -4.4% 1.094 -0.406 NE 1997 20.6% 50.7% 28.8% -8.2% 1.281 -0.406 NE 1998 20.3% 49.2% 30.5% -10.2% 1.031 -0.406 NE 1999 18.5% 50.3% 31.3% -12.8% 1.031 -0.469 NE 2000 18.1% 58.0% 23.9% -5.8% 1.406 -0.063 NE 2001 18.7% 48.5% 32.8% -14.1% 1.000 -0.630 NE 2002 31.5% 38.7% 29.8% 1.7% 1.357 0.000 NE 2003 24.7% 51.9% 23.5% 1.2% 1.500 0.267 NE 2004 22.2% 51.8% 26.0% -3.7% 1.100 -0.033 NE 2005 26.1% 55.9% 18.0% 8.2% 1.844 0.563 NE 2006 28.6% 44.8% 26.7% 1.9% 1.500 0.125 NE 2007 34.1% 47.4% 18.5% 15.6% 1.667 0.267 NE 2008 31.7% 42.3% 26.0% 5.7% 1.433 -0.100 NE 2009 16.5% 54.3% 29.2% -12.7% 1.400 -0.133 NY 1996 30.2% 36.5% 33.3% -3.1% 1.281 -0.063 NY 1997 19.1% 53.0% 27.9% -8.8% 1.156 -0.313 NY 1998 26.9% 46.2% 26.9% -0.1% 1.219 -0.281 NY 1999 12.8% 49.0% 38.1% -25.3% 0.625 -1.000 NY 2000 31.6% 47.2% 21.2% 10.4% 1.688 0.250 NY 2001 33.0% 45.1% 21.9% 11.1% 1.615 0.115 NY 2002 24.3% 43.6% 32.1% -7.8% 1.250 -0.214 NY 2003 12.9% 56.4% 30.8% -17.9% 1.400 0.000 NY 2004 19.0% 52.4% 28.6% -9.6% 1.333 -0.067 NY 2005 25.9% 50.6% 23.6% 2.3% 1.469 0.125 NY 2006 21.9% 55.5% 22.5% -0.6% 1.219 0.000 NY 2007 31.9% 40.9% 27.2% 4.7% 1.433 0.067 NY 2008 23.6% 47.3% 29.0% -5.4% 1.300 -0.200 NY 2009 15.6% 36.7% 47.6% -32.0% 0.700 -0.667 RSL 2005 9.1% 39.8% 51.1% -42.0% 0.625 -1.094 RSL 2006 15.3% 50.9% 33.8% -18.4% 1.219 -0.125 RSL 2007 11.8% 56.6% 31.6% -19.7% 0.900 -0.467 RSL 2008 25.6% 55.8% 18.6% 7.0% 1.333 0.033 RSL 2009 23.4% 43.6% 32.9% -9.5% 1.333 0.267 SEA 2009 29.2% 51.7% 19.1% 10.1% 1.567 0.300 SJ 1996 31.5% 43.3% 25.2% 6.2% 1.406 0.000 SJ 1997 21.3% 46.5% 32.2% -10.9% 1.125 -0.125 SJ 1998 23.6% 45.4% 31.0% -7.4% 1.188 -0.375 SJ 1999 24.4% 48.6% 27.0% -2.6% 1.250 -0.031 SJ 2000 17.5% 47.0% 35.5% -18.0% 0.906 -0.469 SJ 2001 34.3% 42.6% 23.2% 11.1% 1.731 0.692 SJ 2002 33.2% 47.2% 19.6% 13.5% 1.607 0.357 SJ 2003 25.4% 54.0% 20.6% 4.9% 1.700 0.333 SJ 2004 23.3% 55.4% 21.3% 2.0% 1.267 0.200 SJ 2005 31.0% 57.6% 11.4% 19.6% 2.000 0.688 SJ 2008 19.7% 55.4% 24.9% -5.2% 1.100 -0.200 SJ 2009 22.8% 46.3% 30.9% -8.1% 1.000 -0.467 TB 1996 43.4% 32.3% 24.3% 19.1% 1.906 0.469 TB 1997 28.8% 46.1% 25.1% 3.6% 1.469 -0.156 TB 1998 18.9% 56.5% 24.7% -5.8% 1.219 -0.344 TB 1999 27.3% 49.2% 23.5% 3.9% 1.219 0.031 TB 2000 34.0% 43.7% 22.3% 11.7% 1.625 0.375 TB 2001 15.6% 36.8% 47.6% -32.0% 0.519 -1.333 TOR 2007 19.5% 47.6% 33.0% -13.5% 0.833 -0.800 TOR 2008 21.0% 54.7% 24.3% -3.4% 1.167 -0.300 TOR 2009 31.9% 40.9% 27.3% 4.6% 1.300 -0.300 How to read this table: The 1998 Chicago Fire spent 31.6% of the time winning, 45.8% tied, and 22.6% of the time losing. They spent 8.9% more time winning than losing. For comparison purposes, their points per game was 1.781 and their goal difference average was 0.531 per game. A PPG in the mid-1.3's is average. Notes: PPG counts shootouts as draws. Only regular season games are counted. All games (except those from 2000-03) are considered to have 90 minutes. If multiple goals are scored in stoppage time or in the same minute, then the score after the final such goal is what is considered to happen for that minute. Highest & Lowest "Time Differences" Highest: Diff PPG Rank 1 DC 2006 29.7% 24 2 DC 1999 25.6% 8 3 MIA 2001 24.7% 2 4 KC 2000 23.3% 16 5 LA 1998 22.7% 1 6 DC 1997 19.8% 10 7 SJ 2005 19.6% 3 8 TB 1996 19.1% 6 9 LA 1999 19.0% 13 10 HOU 2009 18.3% 40 Lowest: Diff PPG Rank 164 RSL 2005 -42.0% 162 163 TB 2001 -32.0% 164 162 NY 2009 -32.0% 160 161 NY 1999 -25.3% 161 160 MIA 1999 -22.1% 149 159 RSL 2007 -19.7% 155 158 DC 2001 -18.9% 150 157 RSL 2006 -18.4% 120 156 KC 1999 -18.1% 158 155 SJ 2000 -18.0% 154 Interesting Teams As noted above, DC 2006 has the best time difference of any team in league history. RSL 2005 is by far the worst. That RSL squad spent both the least time winning (9.1%) and the most time losing (51.1%). DC 2006 spent the second least time losing (11.3%). However, the best defensively should be no surprise: KC 2000. They were only behind for 10.5% of all minutes. The best offense? That's TB 1996 (43.4%), who also hold the record for least time tied (32.3%). The team with the most time tied is COL 2004 (66.5%), who also hold the record for fewest goals combined in their matches (2.033 for and against). Some surprising teams: LA 1996 - League's #2 team, but a negative time difference (-4.2%). DC 1998 - Second best goal difference average in league history, but only a 0.6% time difference. CLB 2003 - 2nd best time difference (8.1%) despite missing the playoffs with the 8th best record. RSL 2009 - Already mentioned above, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They actually spent more time losing than winning in the playoffs too. Also of note last year: CHI & NE finished 12th & 14th in time difference despite making the playoffs, while DAL finished 5th and missed out. 2010 Stats W T L Diff LA 52.2% 41.2% 6.6% 45.6% RSL 38.5% 46.9% 14.6% 23.9% DAL 26.0% 58.0% 16.0% 10.0% CLB 25.5% 58.8% 15.8% 9.7% SJ 25.2% 55.6% 19.3% 5.9% CHI 26.5% 51.0% 22.5% 4.0% HOU 27.6% 45.3% 27.0% 0.6% NY 23.6% 53.4% 23.0% 0.6% TOR 19.3% 61.3% 19.4% -0.1% SEA 25.3% 47.3% 27.4% -2.1% KC 23.2% 48.6% 28.2% -5.0% COL 16.1% 60.0% 23.9% -7.9% CHV 15.0% 49.8% 35.2% -20.1% DC 8.8% 60.5% 30.7% -22.0% NE 10.9% 54.1% 35.0% -24.1% PHI 13.7% 43.9% 42.5% -28.8% LA's on pace to smash a few of those records I just mentioned. They didn't fall behind until their 13th game, easily the best such start in league history.