Thursday, July 29, 2010

"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:

Labels: ,

Friday, July 23, 2010

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.

Labels: ,