Team leaves town, team comes to town
We don’t do a lot of Seahawks or Sonics discussion here. I enjoy other sports but I don’t know nearly enough about how they’re played to do serious analysis. I’ve been arguing about baseball for ten years now and I know more about the Mariners than I think is frankly healthy. I’d feel dumb writing about, say, college basketball or whatever.
But amid the continuing saga of the Sonics’ attempts to get out of town*, I thought it was worth noting that Seattle will be getting an MLS soccer team. Of unknown quality, with an unknown manager… so why not put your season ticket deposit down now?
In many ways, soccer’s a lot like baseball (hear me out): casual viewing of a three-hour game will have a couple of pretty spectacular plays, but long periods of what appear to be tedium. But when you’re into baseball – watching the defensive positioning, how pitchers set up hitters, how the strategies all come together – it reveals much more.
As a result, both of them are tagged as “boring” by many people, compared to the breakneck once-every-minute collision of football play, or the near constant ball-in-motion shuffle of basketball, and that’s unfortunate.
But then, I watch professional bicycling telecasts, so I’m clearly not to be trusted.
Anyway — welcome, Team to be Named. I wish them great success.
* That’s a whole other rant
Comments
119 Responses to “Team leaves town, team comes to town”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
USSM uses and recommends
Man, you really do have a one-track baseball mind … it’s an MLS team. Although a Seattle Major League Baseball soccer team would definitely be worth watching (insert your own joke about Mariners who kick the ball around too often here).
I could go either way on whether the team adopts the Sounders as a name, but I hope they bring back the old NASL Sounders’ snazzy theme song (which, for those too young to remember, sounded a bit like the theme to the great Stallone-Caine-Pele movie, Victory).
An interesting thing about the soccer team is that people can pay a fee to be a member of some club. Every five years, members of that club vote on whether or not the GM of the soccer team retains his job. I wish we had this feature for the Mariners.
#2- I second that! (the theme song part, not necessarily the opinion of Victory).
DMZ, this post brings to mind a question I’ve wondered about for a while: namely, what are the general demographics of the USSMariner readership? I mean, geographically, as I’m sure you don’t have any more information on us than that (or DO YOU? Mwahaha!). What percentage of the blog fan base is local to Seattle?
And soccer is a natural for all those displaced NBA fans. Or, you know… not.
1: Why not just combine the two and start a professional kickball league?!
I’ve often thought that baseball and soccer have a similarity in rhythm, but whenever I’ve said that to someone they’ve looked at me as if I’m insane. It’s a “big picture” thing. Anyway, I’m glad to know someone else views it like I do. I’m certainly more likely to spring for whatever $$$ a ticket for a soccer game costs than I am for a Seahawk game……
Oh yeah, I’m with you on the Tour de France telecasts as well. Can I assume you watch golf tournaments too?
I should have clarified that Victory is great in terms of enjoyment, a guilty pleasure if you will, not necessarily in terms of acting (Pele! Stallone!), screenplay (”Colby, I don’t need this aggravation!”), or realism (old and pot-bellied Michael Caine as a world class footballer? the good Nazi applauds? the last 15 minutes of the movie?). Bill Simmons is a bit hard to read anymore, but his recent column on Victory was spot on.
I have to say that I enjoyed every moment of Paris Roubaix and the Tour of Flanders this year.
I think it’s dumb that the Seattle MLS team is going to be built by expansion draft. The Sounders team that played last year would be about middle-of-the-pack if we just threw them into MLS. It would be much easier to start with that core, and put a few experienced players on top of that.
As a fan of both soccer and baseball, I must say that I hear the “But it’s so BORING, nothing ever HAPPENS” bit all too much.
I’m pretty stoked for MLS Seattle. I’ve had some issues with Timbers Army, so it’ll be nice to be able to go to games and see a game instead of some people who seem to think that it’s not soccer until they’ve attacked someone.
I’m really excited about this…this is excellent! Maybe we can sign fat Ronaldo in a few years!
Also, the kind of people who think soccer and baseball are boring are the same kind who prefer checkers to chess.
11 – it looks like there be some weird set of rules going on where the Sounders will play next year in USL and get to keep the players they want. I’m not quite sure how they got that.
A week or so ago, I was interested in just how much scoring there is in an NFL game. Roughly, I found that there are about 2.5 touchdowns per team per game. And games take 3+ hours from start to finish. A soccer game basically takes about 2 hours from start to finish, so it would only take scoring at a rate of about 1.7 goals per team per game to have a similar scoring frequency. (Unless you really think field goals are hella exciting, which I guess they might be once per game or so.)
I really don’t think it’s scoring frequency that people enjoy, though. I think what makes most games compelling is the threat that something significant could happen at most points during the contest. For baseball games, that means that teams are at least getting runners in scoring position while the game is close. It might be disappointing if you don’t score those runners, but on the other hand, for the other team it can be quite exciting to strand runners in a tight ballgame. Games are generally considered the most entertaining when they are close throughout and have multiple lead changes.
For soccer, especially World Cup soccer, this seems to be why most people find the games more enjoyable after the first goal is scored. Once a team is down, there is more incentive to generate scoring opportunities, which also opens up more opportunities for the other teams to score. That is, it doesn’t seem to be that important how many goals teams score just as long as they are generating opportunities.
Also, by my reasoning, I think you could invent some metric like leverage index per plate appearance (or maybe LI squared per PA) to get a rough estimate of which baseball games were the most exciting in each year. You might do even better if you had some sort of season leverage index to weight the significance of a game in a pennant chase.
very excited to have an MLS team. I’ll buy seasons.
Thanks for the comparision. I don’t know anything about soccer, or basketball. Whenever I watch even 2 or 3 minutes of either I am bored out of my mind! I have zero understanding of what is going on. I will remember your comparision the next time.
Put me in the “Love baseball, no interest in soccer” camp.
MLS is a welcome additition to the local sports scene, but continues to suffer from it’s main flaw as it seeks a major US audience: It isn’t advertiser friendly.
I don’t mean that the don’t like advertisers, they love them. The structure of the game is not friendly to US media sports advertising requirements. All successful sports are.
Baseball: The game is guaranteed to pause at least 54 times,each new batter. Insert commercial {HERE}. Also, ref calls, pitching changes, top and bottom of innings, 7th stretch, etc… There are at least 120 chances to break for commercial. There are those here who have heard Niehaus segue into a commercial after the train whistle blows outside Safeco.
Football: Quarters, half, 1st downs, penalties, special teams, injuries. All advert chances. Guaranteed.
Golf: Um, well, all of it.
Soccer: Where are 100 or more pauses in a soccer game for the media to sell commercials? It seems very quick and long. ‘Drink Modelo’ every quarter may feed the bulldog in other parts of the world, but I don’t see NFL punters signing up to play soccer in Brazil, or Minor League pitching prospects converting to cricket. I could be wrong, but it seems like a money thing.
The very structure of MLS must bend to the media need for more commercials or be relegated to low rent cable access like, um, now.
Just saying.
Not only are fans who buy a membership going to get to vote on the GM, the team is going to have a marching band!
skip, low rent like ABC?
Doesn’t make a lot of sense the “An MLS soccer team” now does it Derek? Lol.
bedir, yep. Just like ABC.
ABC currently has contracts for the following sports:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. West Texas roller derby!
I really don’t think it’s scoring frequency that people enjoy, though. I think what makes most games compelling is the threat that something significant could happen at most points during the contest.
The viscous seduction of baseball is that the tension gradually builds over ten or twenty minutes, ratcheting up with every at bat, and eventually with every pitch. Consider: second and third, two out. It’s taken four at bats to get here, probably ten minutes. A base hit now scores two runs, but an out scores zero, wipes the bases clean, and wastes ten minutes of progress. That fifth AB is a big deal, and it took a while to get there. Sure, you can score a run with one swing of the bat, but that’s just one run. put a couple of guys on base and it’s a lot bigger blast. A lot bigger dissapointment for the K, too.
I play soccer (the real football) 3 times a week. Generally I find that people who don’t like it haven’t played or experienced since they were kids. If you play, it’s some of the best, and most fun, exercise you can get. Trust me funning is boring, but chasing a little white ball is far more exciting.
Generally, I’ve noticed, anyone who says they don’t like soccer, has never, actually played it.
Where was this “three-hour” soccer match you managed to take in, Derek? I’m having trouble adding 90 minutes, 15 minutes for the halftime, maybe 5-10 minutes of injury time, and two 15 minute overtimes, in a way that totals three hours.
Soccer also features constant action, unlike baseball, football, or especially basketball, where the last minutes of a game can take a quarter of an hour to play.
20 – Where do we sign up for that?
If you suspect you might want to be converted to football (sorry, but here in Europe ’soccer’ is a word used as a sneering insult by rugby fans) then watch the European Championships instead of the World Cup.
A more concentrated tournament of better quality matches.
In 2000, the Spain-Yugoslavia, Portugal-England, France-Italy classics.
In 2004, Holland-Czech Republic.
YouTube some goals, then remember to check in next June.
OK Dave, so what do you know about skills driven analysis in soccer? Is there a Bill James of soccer yet? What is soccer’s OBP?
“I really don’t think it’s scoring frequency that people enjoy, though. I think what makes most games compelling is the threat that something significant could happen at most points during the contest. ”
I think the reason a lot of people find soccer boring is that a lot of the play is unspectacular. There’s quite a bit of slow passing around midfield where little is happening, as the teams set up. Even a punt in football has people running downfield at full speed and baseball has people throwing 98 mile an hour pitches. The excitement when a team is pushing the ball makes up for it (at least for me), but I think that’s what people are turned off by more than the lack of scoring.
“(sorry, but here in Europe ’soccer’ is a word used as a sneering insult by rugby fans)”
That’s the other problem the sport has. The fan base is filled with people who want everyone to use European terms (”table” instead of “standings,” “pointyball” or “gridionball” for “football” to free up the word for soccer) which takes some of the joy out of it. It can definitely seem like there are too many rules to being a soccer fan.
Ya…I’ve wondered why the many Mariners who required support of Sonics fans to get their Shrine built and keep the team haven’t been so willing to do the same thing for the Sonics. Talk about only looking out for your own…too bad.
Sweet! I hadn’t heard about a northwest MLS team until you mentioned it. Definately be headed up to seattle to get me some of that. Thanks for the heads-up Derek, even if it’s not Mariners related =)
I really, really tried with soccer/football. I’ll watch the World Cup almost all the way through, but I can’t stand it on TV generally speaking. I watched the first couple US matched at the Dubliner in Fremont here in Seattle with some friends who are really into soccer and that was a blast. But I’ve never watched more than 2 minutes of american soccer.
Between the M’s and Husky games I don’t have a lot of time for the Sonics or the Seahawks. But, I’ll certainly try to go to some matches.
OK Dave, so what do you know about skills driven analysis in soccer? Is there a Bill James of soccer yet? What is soccer’s OBP?
Is it really that hard to keep authors straight?
Also — I have no idea. I could tell you pretty quickly who’s been doing this kind of thing in basketball and (US) football, but I’m not familiar enough with it to know if anyone’s done that kind of analysis for soccer. Like basketball, it seems like it’d be a much tougher thing to break down to individual contribution.
Baseball generates a plethora of statistics that lend themselves to fun diversions such as multiple regression analysis. Soccer, not so much. There’s so much money in the game that I’d guess someone at Arsenal or Juventus or Real Madrid is stewing over some analytical tools, but I don’t know for sure.
Colm! Whatever happened to our end of the year party at the Baranoff?
Of course you don’t. The NFL won’t even make its rules freely available. How can a sport expect to attract fans if it won’t let them learn the rules.
I tried to become an NFL fan once. Growing up with the CFL, I understood the basics of football, but I also knew that some rules were different between the two leagues (off the top of my head, the CFL has only a 20 second play clock, the field is about 12 yards wider and 30 yards longer, and there are more guys on the field at once). The more obscure rules matter, though, because if I’m watching a game I want to be able to yell at my TV that the coach should have done something differently – but I can’t know that if it turns out you can’t score a field goal by kicking the ball through the uprights on any play (I haven’t been able to find this anywhere), or if you can get two points by intercepting a pass on a two-point convert and running it back.
So, as long as the NFL keeps its rules a secret, there’s no way a new fan can learn the game.
Its hard to be just a casual fan of football without growing up with it. From experience I have learned to just keep quiet when I don’t understand something and then maybe figure it out later, or agree with the next person until I have figured it out myself. Fortunately for baseball I don’t have to worry about that, for the most part.
And on the soccer thing, in my opinion, its one of those games which are fun to play but boring to watch unless you are really into it. Such as tennis or golf.
Also, I dont think anyone has mentioned this, but Drew Carey will be part owner of this new soccer team
. Gives all the more reason to like/hate it more.
In the USA, soccer is a sport that is enjoyed by the mainly middle to upper class, whereas in the rest of the world, it is the main sport from the dirt poor to the richest people on the planet.
Picture living in brazil or norway or japan, and trying to put together a group of people who have interest in a game like football. Now, after you assemble, them gather the proper equipment, pads, helmets, odd shaped ball. then play. Won’t happen. It is much easier to find a ball and run around and kick it.
I realize this is a baseball site – but there is a lot to be said by the fact that soccer is the biggest sport on the planet.
Like teaching my wife to appreciate baseball, which took 5 years, you TOO can learn to love soccer.
One last thing – if you like minor league sports, and college sports, and love underdogs, you should really look into the whole soccer pyramid system, where the bottom team from each league is relegated to a lower league, while and the same time, the winner of that lower league is promoted up.
Imagine, the Devel Rays being demoted, and getting the Tacoma Rainiers in their place. It wouldn’t work in baseball, of course, but it is a pretty neat thing to watch and root for in soccer.
Fortunately for baseball I don’t have to worry about that
Because MLB’s rules are freely available.
Grew up as a love baseball, no interest in soccer person. Like 99% of the US population. Never played soccer as a kid.
Then my kids played and as I watched their games over several years, I got to know the game a bit and learned how to appreciate some of its very subtle aspects — footwork, speed, positioning, scoring and defensive strategies. I still did not watch any professional games, really, but at least I felt I understood the game.
Then I watched some of the World Cup and some Premier League games with my kids, and the light clicked. Here was the game at the very highest level for the very highest stakes, and it was very exciting and interesting. And one could get to know the personalities and strengths of the individual players and how they fit into their team and what the teams were trying to accomplish. Watching the best players in the world do this is substantially different than watching those who try but are at a lower level — kind of like the difference between MLB (top 750 players in the world) vs. AAA or AA or college baseball.
So put me in the love baseball, love soccer camp, but really only at the highest levels. Not sure what the MLS team will be, but I was a Mariner season ticket holder in 1984 and have been ever since, so I guess I have proven my willingness to endure a bad team for the love of the game. So I have my season ticket reservation in.
And the most important issue above that Dave touched on shows that he really does not watch soccer: there is no “three hour game.” The game is 2 hours, max. 45 minute halves, no time outs, minimal extra time for injuries, 15 minute half time. Any real soccer fan knows that it is not 3 hours long — it is those who don’t even watch soccer that think it takes forever.
what do you know about skills driven analysis in soccer? Is there a Bill James of soccer yet? What is soccer’s OBP?
There ain’t one. For either of your questions. Soccer – and I don’t care if most people call it “football”, “Soccer” is a shortening of the game’s official name, which is “Association Football”, so that’s good enough for me – is a complete team sport with one goal, putting the ball into the net.
There are different player formations that can be used, like 4-5-1, 4-4-2, 4-3-2-1, etc, but there’s really no way to quantify an individual’s performance within that system except by what most advanced analysts would consider crude methods – goals/game by a forward, for example.
There’s no real statistical base in soccer – I mean, there are some stats generated, but by and large they’re useless in deriving a “big picture” like you can do with baseball. Midfielder A can be said to have completed X of a total Y pass attempts, but that stat is fairly meaningless; the only complete pass that matters is the one that leads to a goal.
That said, coaches build their teams around a certain model – the top teams in England (Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea) build lethally fast teams that can string together a bunch of passes, for example, and lesser teams usually stockpile players that aren’t quite as fast but are a lot tougher, which presents its own challenges.
But to answer your “what’s soccer’s OBP” question, there’s really no statistic that can quantify the type of player that would work in a particular system – it really comes down to having the requisite soccer skillset and that dreaded-in-baseball word “chemistry”.
What does that mean in soccer? Take Steven Gerrard and Joe Cole, for example. Both top quality players for their individual teams, but when they play together for the national team, they just can’t get it together. There’s no real reason why, it just doesn’t work. Different players have different styles of play, and sometimes they just don’t mesh.
but there’s really no way to quantify an individual’s performance within that system except by what most advanced analysts would consider crude methods – goals/game by a forward, for example
I wouldn’t just assume that – you could start tracking range factors as you do in baseball, % of challenges won & lost, pass accuracy (which agreed would probably have limited value of it’s own). I could envision a crude +/- analysis too, based on something like posession or shots.
I’m not sure how much fruit any of these would bear, but it’s not like there’s nothing you couldn’t start tracking.
I think the reason a lot of people find soccer boring is that a lot of the play is unspectacular. There’s quite a bit of slow passing around midfield where little is happening, as the teams set up. Even a punt in football has people running downfield at full speed and baseball has people throwing 98 mile an hour pitches. The excitement when a team is pushing the ball makes up for it (at least for me), but I think that’s what people are turned off by more than the lack of scoring.
I would tend to disagree that the fraction of ‘unspectacular’ play in soccer is all that large compared to other sports, at least on the basis of minutes watched. While teams may spend time passing the ball around midfield, it’s tough to say that’s less exciting to watch than, say, Eddie Guardado adjusting himself four times before he makes a pitch.
Is it really that hard to keep authors straight?
Well, it would help if you one you changed your name so they both didn’t start with “D”.
More seriously, you weren’t around this summer when USSM was all-Dave-all-the-time. And then he extended his media domination to a regular radio gig. There are a bunch of people who arrived at USSM and saw nothing but post after post by Dave, that smart guy they heard schooling Groz on KJR. And the rest of us, well, you were kind of the precocious kid (He wrote a book? Really?) who had gone off to college and wasn’t around much any more. So when you’re back on the holidays, even your mom calls you by your younger brother’s name because that’s the only one she’s been using for months.
Yes, how soon they forget. Like Sandra Day O’Conner’s father, we’re fickle alzheimer’s patients who transfer our affections to whoever is around.
While I’m not a complete soccer fan (I played when IO was little, but found baseball much better), my two brothers are, so I bought them their place in line for getting season tickets for our unnamed soccer team for their Christmas present.
If I sit down and actually pay attention and not fall asleep, I can watch soccer. But I don’t have a general knowledge of the game with strategy, such as I do with baseball. Of course, I love all the stats that baseball has with it. But I know that people find both sports boring, and I don’t argue with them; you can’t change their opinion on that topic.
What I am jealous about the new soccer team is the membership, which I wish we had here. My girlfriend can do a better job than Bavsi, at least she’ll pick the “cute” players (Like Abreu).
It shouldn’t be too hard to measure soccer. After all, rugby statistics include metres gained on the ground on a per player basis. You could incorporate something similar to soccer players in terms of moving the ball upfield.
And I disagree that the only pass that matters is one that leads to a goal. Any successful pass prevents the other team from scoring right now (because they don’t have the ball). Playing for a 0-0 draw is a perfectly viable strategy in some cases (think back to the Paraguayan World Cup teams).
I’m British born and bred, always loved football (soccer), came to love baseball whilst spending a year in BC. Little interest in NFL or NBA (although I did enjoy the one game I went to), quite like the NHL.
It’s weird that some should think that soccer is slow and boring. In the UK (American) Football is thought of a far too stop-start to be entertaining – particularly around the end of each half.
Over here Rugby Union gets criticised for being stop-start, and the ball is in play far more often that in American Football.
Personally, whilst I found the stop-start nature of American football artificial and annoying, I find the more natural ‘gaps’ in baseball actually add to my enjoyment of the games. Before NASN (North American Sports Network) became available over here – and before I had broadband – the only baseball available was 2 games per week on Channel 5, both starting at about 1am. I used to tape them and watch them the following evening, I found that if I was busy and fast-forwarded through all the interruptions – that I missed the flow of the game, that the “ratcheting up” of tension that JMHawkins (#27) speaks of – was diminished.
Maybe, as an Englishman used to watching cricket, I have learned to be patient watching sport?
I know that the breaks in baseball allow advertising, but that seems to be a coincidence – whereas American Football seems to have been intentionally designed to facilitate TV – and for some reason I resent that.
As for enjoying soccer, well a good football match is gladiatorial, whilst you can watch 2 or 3 minutes and appreciate a bit of skill, you can’t really appreciate the game. To appreciate it I would think you’d have to watch the whole 90 minutes or extended (45 min+) highlights at least. Any less could still be enjoyable – but you won’t get the ebb and flow of the game.
I can think of two reasons why soccer is enjoyable despite being relatively low scoring:
1. A goal is a very precious thing. I’ve been to a few baseball games, and I’ve never felt as elated by a home-run as I have a goal. I have felt as elated or downcast by an overall result – but not in the moment of scoring.
2. It can be beautiful. Because it relies so much on the unscripted interaction of team-mates – good football can be beautiful in a way that American Football can never match, and that baseball and hockey only have in fleeting moments.
I suspect a number of people particularly in the States are put off by deciding to watch a game, and being unfortunate to pick a dull one. Although there have been some great World-Cup matches (Brazil-France ‘82 for one)I wouldn’t recommend them as a starting point – the players are not as familiar with each other, and a good Premiership or La Liga side would take apart the best international side IMHO.
If you want to watch football I’d attempt to watch a game involving Arsenal, Barcelona or Real Madrid. The football Arsenal are playing so far this season is a joy – they are the only team (other than the ones that we support) that my friends, family and I actually go out of our way to watch. That Cesc Fabregas is an absolute gem.
Watching a lot of hockey (and learning to play it) helped me understand and appreciate soccer a little more. There’s a lot of passing and moving around (of course, soccer never had Scott Stevens destroying guys coming across the line with their heads down). Not a lot of scoring, but each goal is a thing of beauty.
I love soccer. I play 3x a week, coach a couple of youth teams, follow Champions League, EPL and even managed to watch the MLS cup last weekend (despite the fact it was supposed to be on ABC, got shunted to ESPN deuce but not the HD version and didn’t appear on any program guides in the Seattle area, way to sell your league MLS).
I’m excited to see an MLS team in Seattle. The MLS doesn’t compare to well to any European League but it’s getting better and they have a decent fiscal plan in place (unlike the NASL). The league is building a decent fan base, building some good soccer only stadiums and slowly getting in some international stars without breaking the bank to get them in. Despite the enormity of Beckham’s contract with the Galaxy, the league is only on the hook for $400k a year, the Galaxy only owes him around $4 million. The rest of his deal is really retaining his naming rights to sell as he sees fit (His old club used to get 50% of those deals).
Those of us in the soccer community are excited and putting down $ for our season tickets (it’s only $50 to reserve them). The new MLS club will be allowed to protect some of the current Sounders and move them to the new club. The how & why of this doesn’t make much sense because the USL and MLS leagues are totally independent but considering the USL Sounders made it to the semi finals of the US Open Cup and defeated several MLS squads to get there, shows just how good they already are.
Bye-Bye Sonics and your duplicity and quest for a Taj Mahal. I’ll spend my $ on the MLS instead.
Re:31
There isn’t really any skill driven analysis in soccer – mainly because skill is not enough, yes you need to be able to control the ball and to pass it – but there are too many more important factors that are too hard to measure – did you choose the right pass, did you make the right run etc.
There are a number of basic outputs that at the end of the season make interesting reading – which strikers had the most % shots on target, goal to shot ratios, fouls conceded, fouls drawn etc. But with teams playing in different ways and with different formations – it’s really hard to compare like with like.
There is a movement towards tracking player movement, pass maps, areas of possession etc. There are a few systems I think, there’s certainly one called Prozone – it’s not something the fans are really interested in though, more for coaching. http://www.pzfootball.co.uk/
pdb/dmz:
The only things I’m aware of on assoc. football analysis are fairly simple pythagorean stuff and an application of leverage index to ‘weight’ goals (you can see this applied to MLS here).
I think Max is right that eventually someone will start the BIS of soccer and do something like zone ratings or challenges won/lost for attackers/defenders. It seems pretty hard, but I always thought decent stats on offensive line play would be impossible in (american) football – but Football Outsiders does a half decent job of it.
I would tend to disagree that the fraction of ‘unspectacular’ play in soccer is all that large compared to other sports, at least on the basis of minutes watched.
I’ve said it before, but I think what turns some people off about soccer is not that the play in unexciting, it’s just that it doesn’t seem *precise*. That is, a number of promising attacks fizzle because a cross goes to point A, and the target player broke off to go to point B. This is natural, because there are no easy ’stop’ points for a team to set up something like a ‘play.’ So it can often end up looking like playground basketball or football with guys who play together, but can’t know where their teammates will be at any moment. To soccer fans on the other hand, basketball must look like the product of a bizarre desire to remove any fluidity and rhythm from a game. All the stops, the foul calls, etc…
I think Americans are so used to (and so tolerant of) breaks or stops in play that games without them tend to look weird. And obviously, if you grow up on soccer, something like American football must be both inscrutable and monumentally boring.
I forgot to mention one of the things I love most about soccer. Once the game is in play, it’s totally up to the players on the field. There’s no coaches timeouts, no calling of plays from the sideline, no radios from manager to players, no full scale offensive vs. defensive substitutions, no visits to the mound. It’s almost a complete lack of institutional control. Coaches do their work during the week, once the whistle blows, it’s up to the players.
In the USA, with the majority of sports being driven by managers/coaches and their egos. It’s nice to see the game be more in control of the players. Of course, you’ll always get your Jose Mourinho’s, who relish being in the spotlight but even he can’t make much impact on match day.
In the USA, soccer is a sport that is enjoyed by the mainly middle to upper class, whereas in the rest of the world, it is the main sport from the dirt poor to the richest people on the planet.
That’s not what I’ve seen. Here, soccer is a sport that is enjoyed by immigrants and schoolkids. If you drive around to the playfields in Seattle in the summer and find adults playing soccer, it’s almost always the africans vs the europeans, or the asians vs the latins, or some combination thereof. They might be doctors or sanitation workers, blue collar or white, arrived as refuges or to attend the ivy league, but what unites them is that they weren’t born here. And while that’s what you might expect in areas like Deldridge and South Seattle with high immigrant populations, it’s also true at the field at Greenlake, yuppie ground zero. In fact at Greenlake just about the only native-born folks I’ve seen play are college women who were getting some practice in playing against the guys (and often absolutely dominating them).
I like soccer, but I prefer the women’s game. The passion seems to fit them better, and having watched friends’ and relatives’ daughters growing up playing the game, I feel a closer relationship to women’s soccer even though soccer was the second-biggest boys’ sport at my highschool. (And unlike the WNBA, where the players seem weirdly graceless and earthbound compared to the NBA, the women’s game is at least as much fun to watch). MLS should be co-ed
I make a point of catching some of the World Cup matches when it happens — if for no other reason than the atmosphere at the pubs that put them on — but given the choice I’d rather watch the Women’s World Cup. And, at the end of the day, if I’m going to see a player tear off a shirt after scoring a goal I’d much prefer it to be Brandi Chastain than Renaldo.
It shouldn’t be too hard to measure soccer. After all, rugby statistics include metres gained on the ground on a per player basis.
That’s my point – you could indeed do that, but in soccer, it doesn’t matter. Field position is irrelevant, at least in the way it’s thought of in rugby/american football, so the number of meters gained by an individual player is extremely unimportant.
I wouldn’t just assume that – you could start tracking range factors as you do in baseball, % of challenges won & lost, pass accuracy (which agreed would probably have limited value of it’s own). I could envision a crude +/- analysis too, based on something like posession or shots.
You could, but again, none of those things really matter. Scoring a goal in soccer is not like scoring a touchdown in football – it’s not necessarily a series of objectively assembled events that, when performed correctly, automatically result in a score. there’s as much of an element of art in soccer as skill.
The goal I always point to to describe what I mean here is this one. Arsenal in 1999 had one of the stingiest defenses in England; defense was their bread and butter for several years.
But, Ryan Giggs carved through that defense like they weren’t even there. There’s absolutely no way, if you were to perform an analysis of the Arsenal defense, that they would give up that goal (just knock the bastard DOWN, for god’s sake), yet they did.
That’s not to say that moments of brilliance like that don’t happen in football, or in baseball – just that this sort of thing happens far more in soccer than in most sports (look at Man Utd’s Champions League final in that same year – they were DEAD AND BURIED but they scored twice in extra time to win) which is why I tend to think that advanced statistical analysis, while definitely doable, doesn’t really bring much to the table.
Field position isn’t particularly relevant in rugby, either. A top defensive team will allow you to make ground when it doesn’t matter, because working to stop you runs the risk and allowing a try. If the defensive line gets too aggressive, a good flanker with the ball can rush through like a rat up a drainpipe.
But it does get measured. The trick is to measure a ton of stuff in soccer and then do the regression on a big dataset to work out what’s relevant and what isn’t (much as we’ve managed to discard popular but useless stats in baseball).
I don’t know if you could say that advanced statistical analysis wouldn’t bring much to the table, I think particularly in the areas of player evaluation it would be ideal. Virtually all player evaluation is done on the basis of scouts and this leads to some notable areas of confusion. There are lots of potential statistics which could be used to remedy this – passing accuracy, shot accuracy and so on – in my view.
A statistic I think soccer has been crying out for in particular is some measure to assess goalkeepers. Judging their performances through scouting alone is notoriously difficult – for the same reasons that judging baseball defence is difficult – and some sort of range factor equivalent would be hugely useful in this area as far as I’m concerned. At present what tends to happen is goalkeepers earn a reputation at an early age for being a good performer and from then on, barring obvious mistakes, their place in the team is almost guaranteed.
To add to that, there should be a way to look at the past performance of a player and determine whether he’s the sort of guy who should take shots from outside the penalty area (like Dennis Bergkamp in his prime), or should work to improve his position from there instead.
But no one’s measured it.
#62 –
I think the reason no one’s ever measured anything like that is because it’s hard to nail down, in a game, when a player should take a shot even if he’s capable of doing so.
Dennis Bergkamp happens to be my own personal sporting god, so maybe I’m a bit biased here, but even if he was capable of shooting from outside the area, he was much more capable of putting a ball at the feet of a player who was 6 feet from the goal mouth, through the feet of six defenders – so it was more important to me (and to Ian Wright) that he pass rather than shoot, even though an analysis might suggest that he’s capable of shooting from distance.
At present what tends to happen is goalkeepers earn a reputation at an early age for being a good performer and from then on, barring obvious mistakes, their place in the team is almost guaranteed.
Unless you’re (a href=”http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2214085,00.html”>Paul Robinson. But you’re right, keepers seem immune from most criticism as long as they were good when they were young.
Gah, stupid no-edit-post button. Try this.
Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered such intelligent soccer chat on a forum.
pdb is exactly spot on but completely ruins it by using Man Utd in his two examples
and bunk_medal is spot on about evaluation goalkeepers. I used to watch a lot of reserve and youth team football – and generally I could pick out the good outfield players with reasonable success – never had a clue with the goalkeepers though.
I would add that they are rated in a similar way to middle infielders defence – shot-stopping, particularly flashy shop-stopping is valued far more than simple handling, and command of the area. The claiming of crosses is becoming a lost art. Fortunately my team’s goalkeeper – an American no less (Tim Howard) is one of the few who does command his area.
pdb is exactly spot on but completely ruins it by using Man Utd in his two examples
Believe me, it burned me to do it, as an Arsenal fan, but they’re the two that came most quickly to mind. Now I have to go wash.
People have measured it, but I’m not sure I’m allowed to talk about it.
And as long as everybody is going strictly by eyeballs you’re going to suffer from the Jeter Effect: a player who is consistently graceful is going to sport a better reputation than a player who isn’t, even if the latter is actually more effective. It is called “the beautiful game” after all.
Someday, just as with baseball defence, we’re going to be able to track the players and the ball through sub-cubic-meter volumes of space, and do analysis based on time, position, and vectors — given where that ball was going and where the players were, how many players would have got to it? Given where the players were and where they were going, how accurate would most players be on that pass? And then you have a basis for comparing the performance of any given player against his peers. Just as with fielding in baseball, a slower player can often compensate by better anticipating a play, and you be able to tease that out as well. Goalkeeping would be tough, though, because goals often involves multiple players precisely because it defeats any anticipation the keeper might employ. Like catchers, the many confounding varibles will make that the position most resistant to analysis.
I don’t think you should necessarily tell a player like Bergkamp never to pass when he has a shot, but you might want to tell a lesser player never to shoot from that position, especially a player who isn’t a top star.
Guys like Bergkamp you just let play.
The point about long range shooting is a good one. Another aspect to that which I’ve always thought would be interesting is the percentage of success with respects to direct shots on goal from a free kick and goals resulting from playing the ball into the penalty box for others.
For instance, I remember a common criticism of Roberto Carlos (Brazilian soccer player) was that he used to take an incredible amount of free kicks around the penalty area and whilst he would score the occasional one in spectacular fashion, he’d waste about 15-20 opportunities before he had any success. That’s certainly an obvious area where tactics could be tweaked on the basis of relatively simple statistical analysis in order to refine a team’s performance.
Finally, just on the question of drama, I have to throw in a video clip – though my excuse is that it’s also a good example of poor goalkeeping. I’m Scottish and if there’s any doubt about how exciting a sport it can be, imagine your team being completely outplayed for an hour and there being 20 or 30 occasions where you were absolutely convinced they’re about to concede, before one of your players breaks up the pitch and produces this –
…and by “this” I mean this – goal
regarding all the discussion about Soccer and Basenall similarities:
I remember a bit from the Ken Burns Baseball series, an interview with someone who said he liked opera and baseball. And when his friends said those are different, he said “no, they are exactly the same!”
There are a number of baseball fans at Seattle Opera (including Speight Jenkins, the General Director), and it makes perfect sense to me.
For those of you that would watch baseball even if it was two teams you didn’t care about, I recommend you get a copy of the book “Opera for Dummies”. It’s a great read.
I think it would be very hard to generate statistics for soccer outside of the goalkeepers. There are just too many strange things that can happen that can’t be quantified. Goals scored from midfield, own goals, passes that go off the center referee, pitch invasions, etc.
Still, great analysis of the beautiful game especially for a baseball site. I haven’t seen any Rovers fans pop up yet though…
There are just too many strange things that can happen that can’t be quantified. Goals scored from midfield, own goals, passes that go off the center referee, pitch invasions, etc.
Uh, own goals can’t be quantified? We can keep track of all of those things you just listed if we want to.
I’ve found that my knowledge of sabermetric principles has helped me improve as a soccer player. It’s easy when you play soccer to be subconsciously spooked by failure: for example, if you get the ball stolen from you by a defender, it’s easy to start rushing your decision-making the next time you get the ball. But understanding that (1) you have options in every given situation, and (2) each of those options (like stolen bases vs. bunting vs. swinging away) has different risk/reward ratios, helps me avoid getting spooked by failure.
Obviously, I don’t know any of the exact statistics, but I can at least estimate them in my head as I play. If I understand that that my one-on-one dribble is going to fail about 80% of the time, but put me in position to take a good shot 20% of the time, I may go ahead and try it if all my other teammates are covered and that’s my best option. And if it fails, I don’t worry about it; the odds were against me anyway, but I’ll make the exact same decision next time.
Most importantly, this knowledge has helped me slow down my game and make good decisions. When I pause to look around me and survey my options, I figure I get the ball stolen from me roughly 10% of the time in the process. That used to bother me, but now I’ve come to understand that it’s worth it, because it helps me make a more optimal decision 90% of the time.
Uh, own goals can’t be quantified? We can keep track of all of those things you just listed if we want to.
But what you can’t keep track of, and what I think a lot of us are trying to say here, is whether an action was intended or not (own goals aside, of course).
Let’s say that a player scores on a low, hard shot from 10 yards outside the area – looked like a fantastic shot, right? But then, at the post-game interview, the player said that the ball was intended as a pass, but he mishit the ball, got lucky, and it went into the goal instead. How does that quantify?
If you class it as a goal, then you get a false impression of a player’s goal-scoring ability; if you class it as a pass, was it a failed pass because it didn’t get to another player, or was it a successful pass, albeit to the back of the net?
What strikes me is how resistant the Premiership, for example, is to bringing new statistics/analysis into the conversation.
I’m struck that they never mention that someone with a high goal tally might have got 3/4 of them from the penalty spot coughandyjohnsoncough. Mat’s right; these things can be and are kept track of, and yet when it comes to discussions about best strikers or who to cap for an international, they’re not often referred to explicitly. I can’t think of any reason why not.
#70,71
…now if only he could do that for Everton!
So what you’re all saying is that we should start a splinter site for soccer and try and put all this stuff together while following a nice new team.
If only I had the time.
#77
although to be fair to Johnson – he does win most of those penalties himself.
But yeah, almost all TV Premiership analysis seems to be carried out by ex-players, many of whom will not say a bad word about any of their ex-colleagues.
And much of the tabloid press coverage is only concerned with a few high profiles players (and who they’re sleeping with).
Any non-trivial use of stats is met with – “there’s only one stat that counts”.
There’s really not that much intelligent analysis going on.
I can’t think of any reason why not.
Because the FA are clueless hacks? Because they value Bloomquistian grit more than actual talent?
80 –
True, and that’s ANOTHER thing that you’d think would be part of the conversation. How many penalties awarded, how many penalties taken, etc.
“Any non-trivial use of stats is met with – “there’s only one stat that counts”.
That’s exactly right. You hear it all the time.
“Because they value Bloomquistian grit more than actual talent?”
I don’t think so; the FANS do – that’s why Stefen Freund is a football genius, for example – but the FA cares only for goals scored.
It’d be interesting to try and apply some of the principles of basketball analysis to soccer and see where that gets you. Some of these problems have already been attacked in different ways, with good results.
That’s a nice idea, DMZ, but it seems like the idea of possession (the unit of analysis in basketball) is to nebulous a concept in football. Maybe possessions that cross a certain point on the field, instead of counting each time possession changes hands in midfield?
Still, the infrequency with which any possession ends in a goal might pose a problem, and even more than that, how to normalize the quality of opposition in a system with promotion/relegation… yikes.
Even granting that, there’s a lot that could be done with bringing some quality stathead analysis to soccer.
Uh SkipJ, ABC has this little sport you may of heard of called College Football…
Well, no one’s arguing with THAT, derek – I’m just not sure that the basketball model is the best to use. But who knows, maybe it is… you’d at least push your n value up towards something significant.
I’d be interested in a mixture of basketball-style possession analysis with on-field location, as football does in simplistic form with the red zone. Where and how possessions begin and end, and the distribution between dribbling and passing during possessions, could be useful.
The primary problem, I think, is that the successful outcome (a goal) is so infrequent that it’s difficult to identify the influence of individual actions in statistical terms. That and the absence of much in the way of intermediate measures of success, the way football has yardage and first downs.
“Any non-trivial use of stats is met with – “there’s only one stat that counts”.
That’s exactly right. You hear it all the time.
——-
I agree with that, in terms of mainstream fans and pundits there seems to be an anti-stats feeling in some quarters. However I can almost guarantee that if a web community started up which brought an informed and in-depth analysis of, say, the Premiership, it would be incredibly popular with some people. It seems strange in comparison to baseball, but even basic stats such as games played/goals scored can be hard to find for some players. I think potentially there’s a huge market for it.
Hockey (lots of action with few recorded events) strikes me as being more similar to soccer than basketball (lots of action with recorded events every 20 seconds or so).
Unfortunately, recent hockey has seen so many significant rule changes that so data set would be consistent.
I think the problem with statistical analysis of soccer is that it has far fewer events with a defined outcome. In Baseball, you have in each game more than 50 plate appearances, each ending with a defined outcome (K, BB, HR, groundout, flyout, non-HR basehit, FC and so forth). The results are counted and widely available.vIn Soccer, the most similar parallel to a plate appearance is probably the penalty kick, which does not happen all that often.
Regarding DMZ’s suggestion to apply Basketball analysis to soccer: To me, hockey is much more similar. Didn’t Tom Tango do some hockey analysis?
Also, this is probably not widely known but there is quite a bit of advanced analysis of soccer being done. Not necessarily statistical but on a level of looking at the field as a whole and continuously following the positioning and movements of the individual players and the ball. I saw something like this at the last documenta as part of an installation. Fascinating (google “harun farocki deep play” if you’re interested). I could have rewatched the whole world cup final this way but my mother was with me and there was a lot more to see (documenta is the world fair of contemporary art, taking place every five years, btw). Anyway, back on topic, this kind of analysis of soccer is not publicly available as far as I know but some of the more progressive teams make use of it.
The primary problem, I think, is that the successful outcome (a goal) is so infrequent that it’s difficult to identify the influence of individual actions in statistical terms
Thank you – this is exactly what I’ve been trying and failing to express.
Hockey has some nice metrics like +/- turnovers that could be applied. You could also do some interesting stuff around % of possession that results in a shot, % of free kicks from different spots on the field that resulted in an attempt on goal, same with corners.
Goalkeeping lends itself to numbers like rebounds allowed, shots turned into corners, range ratings and crosses defended. Even something like distance of goals allowed would be nice.
You’d need a group like baseball has that is willing to track every event in a game and put it into a database. You can’t just crunch the box scores to get the numbers.
Hockey is probably more applicable than hoops for metrics.
Heck I remember back in my early school days, in the states we used to keep track of corners and if a game ended in a tie, the team with the most corners won!
Totally OT, but it’s [totally ot]
vj – tom tango is employed by an NHL team, as I recall.
Anyway, Hockey may be a better place to look for comparisons, but again, it’s a higher scoring environment, and it seems like you can define ’success’ better- i.e., clearing the zone, shots on goal, etc.
For soccer, it’s not clear that, say, increasing the percentage of your possessions that end in a shot is at all correlated with scoring or winning.
That’s why the most important thing seems to be breaking the game down into discrete events with defined outcomes. One-on-one challenges won/lost might help you measure a particular skill, though its relationship to scoring is again a bit amorphous. Possessions that result in a player in a defined scoring area might be good too, but I keep thinking that something to with midfield possession might be really cool to analyze, though how you get the discrete events there is a bit tricky. There’s gotta be a way to measure Michael Carrick’s effect on a game, or Viera, or…
There’s gotta be a way to measure Michael Carrick’s effect on a game, or Viera, or…
I’m not sure there is a way, outside the dreaded “chemistry”-type arguments.
Look at Vieira, for example. When he started with Arsenal, he was a hothead, had no discipline and was as likely to explode in rage and get sent off as he was to play well. Fast forward to a couple years later, and the only thing he changed in his game was controlling that rage, yet he was the best midfielder in the world for a few years there.
I’m not sure anything in his skillset changed to make him that dominant player, but I am sure that channeling/subjugating that anger made him more effective at the things he did well. How does that get measured?
I just don’t believe that a guy went from scrub to the best midfielder in the world, and all that changed was rage subjugation. It seems that if you’re a world-class player that *something you do shows up on the field* to say nothing of the scoreboard. I don’t know how to do this, but someone should figure this out. The ‘chemistry type arguments’ just seem like corollaries of that ‘there’s only one stat that counts’ mantra that sneekes mentioned: “you can’t measure his impact on the game.” Really? Is that true, or is it just that no one’s really tried?
I dunno, maybe you’re right pdb, but I keep thinking there has to be something – either in passes, interceptions, successful challenges, etc. that might actually demonstrate that Vieira’s better than someone else.
Too bad David Stern has a friend from Oklahoma City who was looking for a team to move to his home town.
I dunno, maybe you’re right pdb, but I keep thinking there has to be something – either in passes, interceptions, successful challenges, etc. that might actually demonstrate that Vieira’s better than someone else.
I’ve actually thought about this quite a bit, but somebody hit it on the head earlier – it’s very difficult if not impossible to measure the impact of a single discrete action on the outcome of a game, and thus I don’t think it can’t really conclusively be said that “Vieira’s better than Keane, because he made X successful tackles last year and Keane made X minus 5 successful tackles” or whatever.
I’m open to being proven wrong, I’m just not aware of a way to do it…
I dunno. there have been some seasons around here when a run was a very precious thing.
I hear that a book makes an excellent Holiday gift.
well, you may be right. But just because *goals* are infrequent doesn’t mean that *any* success is infrequent.
It’s tying the latter to the former that might prove difficult.
If a pass that cuts open a defense is botched by the forward, that absolutely counts as a success for the midfielder (at least to me). If a wing puts a gorgeous pass to the top of the box, but the shot is saved acrobatically, that’s not a failure for the winger (or possibly even the shooter). You know? There are other successes besides goals…or at least there better be.
Let’s say that a player scores on a low, hard shot from 10 yards outside the area – looked like a fantastic shot, right? But then, at the post-game interview, the player said that the ball was intended as a pass, but he mishit the ball, got lucky, and it went into the goal instead. How does that quantify?
If you class it as a goal, then you get a false impression of a player’s goal-scoring ability; if you class it as a pass, was it a failed pass because it didn’t get to another player, or was it a successful pass, albeit to the back of the net?
So you’re saying that because luck (variance, whatever you want to call it) exists in soccer that there is no way statistics can be useful? In 1900, I could have said that batting average is obviously useless because sometimes a hitter can get a hit when he’s actually trying to lay down a sacrifice bunt. The only reason we know that batting average is useful is that we’ve kept track of it, and seen that it describes a hitter’s ability to get a base hit pretty well. (Similarly, one could argue that baseball statistics are worthless because sometimes umpires make incorrect calls, thereby giving us a “false impression” of that player’s abilities.)
Frankly, the idea that it’s somehow obvious that statistics would not be worthwhile in soccer (or any other sport for that matter) is ridiculous. The only way you can find out is to think hard, collect data, analyze the data, and repeat. Maybe it would be useful, maybe it wouldn’t be, but that’s not something you can know definitively a priori.
If you haven’t been that elated by a home run, you just haven’t been there for the right one.
“Here comes Sojo…he scores! Everybody scores!”
Heck, it doesn’t even have to be a home run.
And I’ll take this over any “nil-nil” footie game in history. (4.5MB .mp3 here)
Maybe Voros McCracken will be “the Bill James of soccer” instead of “the next Bill James.” Okay, not exactly, but he became a soccer guy and shows up a lot in this message board discussion of soccer analytics, maybe the best I’ve seen:
http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63798
So you’re saying that because luck (variance, whatever you want to call it) exists in soccer that there is no way statistics can be useful?
Pretty much not at all what I’m saying, but thanks for the dismissive reductionism. What I was saying, and what most everyone else has been saying, is that the action that takes place on a soccer field is largely unquantifiable in a baseball-analytics sense, because a lot of it is random, non-linear action. In baseball, pitch leads to swing, swing leads to result (hit, miss, whatever), result leads to next thing, and all of these things can be measured and teams can be built to maximize return based on those things. You can say, for example, that given a specific set of circumstances, a certain player will get a certain result X% of the time, and that will most likely hold up.
In soccer, though, so much of the action and the quantifiable events depend not on the actor, but on the recipient, that it can’t be measured in that way. For example, it may in fact not shed any light on how to construct a successful team if you know that Player A completes 45% of his passes. The reason for this is that the 55% of passes he does not complete are probably not down to his lack of skill, or to his teammates’ lack of skill, but to being in the right place in the right time, every time, which almost never happens. Does that mean that Player A is a bad passer? No, but the statistics say he is.
That’s not luck, that’s more being able to predict the flow of a constantly shifting and evolving game, which is incredibly hard to quantify via statistics. Not impossible, but difficult, and probably with fairly limited value.
95: That actually is a little better comparison, as the two have some similarities. You’re right though, hockey does tend to be a higher scoring game, largely ‘cuz it’s played on a smaller surface plus the game is moving a hell of lot faster (i.e. like, 30MPH down the ice).
If the Sonics leave, does that mean that the Seattle Storm is also leaving?
That Sue Bird is a hottie!
In soccer, though, so much of the action and the quantifiable events depend not on the actor, but on the recipient, that it can’t be measured in that way.
Show me the evidence that supports this claim. In the absence of data on baseball, I might say that hitting would be really difficult to quantify because it depends not only on the hitter, but also on the pitchers and the fielders. (And the weather, and the field dimensions, and the field conditions, etc., etc., etc.)
For example, it may in fact not shed any light on how to construct a successful team if you know that Player A completes 45% of his passes. The reason for this is that the 55% of passes he does not complete are probably not down to his lack of skill, or to his teammates’ lack of skill, but to being in the right place in the right time, every time, which almost never happens.
Just because passing isn’t deterministic doesn’t mean keeping track of passes is a priori worthless. Yeah, some passes won’t be completed due to bad luck, some passes won’t be completed due to good defending, and some passes won’t be completed due to bad play from someone else on the team. But you don’t know how large those effects are until you look at the numbers.
Not impossible, but difficult, and probably with fairly limited value.
Again, you don’t know how difficult or of how much value until you actually try. At a glance, you might expect baseball to be a highly non-linear game (and it certainly would be if team OBP’s ranged from .100 to .900 instead of .310 to .370), but it turns out that linear models work quite well.
erik,
RE:#86
Wondered when I’d get called on that. Yes they do have some, in a joint agreement with ESPN. CBS has the SEC, and NBC, (for their sins, I assume) has Notre Dame. Not including ESPN2 and cable available pay packages, I hardly call ABC ‘the’ college football channel
Show me the evidence that supports this claim.
I can give you reams of anecdotal evidence, but I can tell by your tone that nothing I give you will satisfy you. But here’s one quick example – you could have a guy that’s the best passer on your team, and he could have a crap day, or even a bad stretch of games, because all of his normally right-on-the-money passes are not gathered by their intended recipient.
Is that the fault of the passer, or is that the fault of the recipient, who couldn’t get to where he needed to be, or is it to the credit of the defender, who stopped the recipient from getting somewhere? In baseball, if a batter strikes out, it’s purely his fault, and if a batter makes an out on a ball in play, it’s credited to the person who makes the out.
In soccer, though, how would it be possible to ascribe responsibility? Again, an anecdote. A midfielder has the ball. HE surveys the field, and he sees one of the forwards making a run in a specific direction, and in his head, Mr. Midfield Maestro says “OK, forward, you’re going over there, I’ll put the ball there”.
But then, in that same split second, say that Mr. Forward decides to take a different route, due to some perceived or real obstruction. Mr. Midfielder passes the ball as intended, but Mr. Forward wasn’t there – whose fault is that? The forward, for not being able to read the midfielder’s mind, or the midfielder, for not being able to predict the forward’s intentions?
These types of things happen dozens of times a game, which is why I think it’d be nearly impossible to quantify. Again, doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying, but I’m not sure what it would tell you.
But you don’t know how large those effects are until you look at the numbers.
But see, this is exactly what I’m trying (apparently without success) to argue – however large or small those effects may be, I don’t see that they necessarily have predictive value in soccer, the way they would and do in baseball.
It’s the same thing as basketball, though — if you’re a guard and your forward has stone hands, the only way you separate that out is by looking at the forward’s inability to catch anyone’s passes. And if they manage to retain possession on 25% of a particular guard’s passes and that’s good, then you credit the guard.
The issue, though, is that you’re not going to get the kind of differential data that allows detailed situational analysis by person… it’s a thorny problem.
I still think you could get somewhere with even the passing issue, though.
In baseball, if a batter strikes out, it’s purely his fault, and if a batter makes an out on a ball in play, it’s credited to the person who makes the out.
Getting worked over by King Felix for a strikeout is not the same as striking out against Horacio Ramirez. A strikeout is not “purely” the result of any one player’s actions. And on a ball in play, there’s no reason to give all the credit to the fielders–Ichiro is going to have a different BABIP than Richie Sexson in the long run. So even there, you have to split credit between the hitter, the fielders, and the pitcher.
But see, this is exactly what I’m trying (apparently without success) to argue – however large or small those effects may be, I don’t see that they necessarily have predictive value in soccer, the way they would and do in baseball.
They don’t necessarily have predictive value. My argument is simply that they could and you don’t know until you check. Define some sort of passing percentage, and hire some college interns to keep track of it. Then divide the games up into two subsets (odds and evens or something like that) and check to see how passing percentage in one set correlates to passing percentage in the other set. Maybe it’s awful, but it’s not like it’s impossible to find out if you have the resources.
The issue, though, is that you’re not going to get the kind of differential data that allows detailed situational analysis by person…
See, if I were more statistically inclined, I could have written that sentence several posts ago, and saved everyone a lot of headaches. hahaha. That’s what I’m trying to get at, really.
Meant to say yesterday:
Props to Derek; road cycling, soccer and baseball are the holy trinity of sports.
You forgot fencing. Fencing rocks.
(newly minted fencing geek)
Fencing is why the Modern Pentathlon is the greatest Olympic sport.
One-touch epée fencing
Air pistol target shooting
Show jumping
Swimming
Cross-country running
Now that’s an awesome sport.
Big Mariner fan here, but bigger fan of the sport of soccer. To get a simple understanding of soccer, I’d encourage anyone (who hasn’t aleady) to go out and play a simple 20-minute pick-up game … nothing major. After 10 minutes, you’ll be gasping for air. For the following 10 days, you’ll walk funny. Take my word for it. A lot more physically demanding. Anyone who has played can appreciate the sport, not only for its physical demand, but the incrdible level of skill that is involved.
http://www.fanhome.com/forums/north-american-soccer/12533-moneyball-comes-mls-billy-beane-working-san-jose-earthquakes.html
This is probably such an old thread that you will miss it, but Beane is trying his hand at statistical analysis of soccer while working for Lew Wolf’s other team, the San Jose Earthquakes.
Linked the original source material at the link above as well as some initial thoughts.