World Cup Bracket Challenge

MLSsoccer.com has been kind enough to provide us with blank, virtual brackets for the World Cup. We here at ASA have been kind enough to provide prizes to the person that picks best. Here's the deal. Like us on Facebook to get info about our group's name and password, then fill out your bracket via the link above, and you could win stuff for free! The prize includes copies of the books Soccernomics and The Numbers Game. If you win and you already have those books, I'm sure we can find something comparable that you like.

Oh, by the way, the World Cup starts next Thursday. Get your shit together.

Penalty Kicks and Pressure

According to an article on BBC, there is a great difference in penalty kick conversion rates at various points in a World Cup shootout. When a kick would win the shootout, players in the World Cup have converted 93 percent of their opportunities, but when facing elimination with a miss, players have converted just 44 percent of the time. The article doesn't cite sample sizes for these situations, but we do know there were 204 penalties taken over 23 shootouts in the data set. Every shootout has to include at least one such chance--either a chance to clinch or a chance to choke--so a conservative estimate would be sample sizes of 10. And in fact, all we'd need for statistical significance are sample sizes of 10. Check!

Even with statistical significance covered, there could very well be some selection bias here, as perhaps the best PK takers are saved for clinching moments. The combination of small sample sizes and selection bias might explain a lot of the discrepancy in conversion rates, but that's just not a fun conclusion. So let's assume there is some effect of pressure.

In my mind, a PK to clinch a shootout should have some pressure associated with it, just as a PK to avoid elimination would. But what this data suggests is that it's the pressure to avoid elimination that really gets to players.

So I thought I'd check it out in MLS. The only problem is that we don't have nearly enough shootouts that I can access. So instead I will look at in-game PK conversion rates in scenarios where the shooting team is either down one or tied, controlling for which half and whether or not the kick taker is at home.

The results of a logit binomial regression led me to a few conclusions. First, taking a PK at home doesn't significantly alter its chances of going in, but there is significant interaction between the gamestate and the half. There are four scenarios that seem to matter for PK conversion: tied in the first half, tied in the second half, down one in the first half, and down one in the second half. Here's a chart that summarizes those outcomes in MLS:

Gamestate	Half	Goals	Attempts	Percentage
0	1	38	43	88.4%
-1	2	19	24	79.2%
0	2	18	24	75.0%
-1	1	5	13	38.5%

From our knowledge of World Cup shootouts it was predictable that the highest conversion rate belongs to the situation with the least pressure. Tied in the first half, a miss still leaves the team with a lot of time to win, and there the PK probabilities are highest. What's somewhat baffling to me is the rest of the chart. Like for instance the incredibly low conversion rate when down a goal in the first half. Though a sample size of 13 is small, the difference between 88.4 and 38.5 percent is still very statistically significant (p = 0.0002). Or how about why facing a deficit seems to matter in the first half but not the second.

I find it hard to blame selection bias here for our findings. Teams that go down a goal in the first half are likely to be worse teams with potentially worse penalty kick takers, but then that wouldn't explain why they are able to perform well from the spot in the second half. And teams that are tied in the first half have no reason to be the better teams on average, though it's that group that has converted 88.4 percent of its penalties. I'm left to wonder if I don't understand psychology, or if this is all a type-I error. After all, if we ignore deficits in the first half, then there is no statistical significance between the other three scenarios.

Top 50 Total Shots Created: MLS Week 13

I've been terrible with trying to keep up with this quantitative metric, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to throw out an updated version in a vain attempt to try to play catch up with the status quo, being that the league is crawling towards the World Cup break. Really, the point of this exercise is to try and capture how often players are creating shots--not just for themselves, but for teammates. It's still pretty simplistic, and by no means the definitive answer to who the most valuable attackers are, but it's a start in moving away from basing value judgements on goal totals.

To be as clear as possible this is not a metric that measures quality or success of the shot. It's purely about opportunities to score. Either by way of putting mates* in position to score through passes that lead to shots--key passes--or to create a shot by himself--assisted or not--are the ways I count shots created.

*Editor loves word choice.

One thing I did do to include the best available and least luck-influenced player was to set a threshold of 700 minutes played. That limit was arbitrary and selected merely based upon the results of compiling the list. For that reason, and no other, you won't see individuals such as Michael Bradley, Gilberto, Brad Davis, Joao Plata, Marco Di Vaio and Kekuta Manneh on this list even though their shot creation rates merited a position in the top 50. I am very high on both Plata and Manneh, and I would love to see both surpass the 600-minute mark and really fly beyond 2,000 minutes this season so we can see what their stable versions look like.

50-33:  The Above Average

RankNameClubPositionMinutesKey PassesAssistsShotsShCShC/90

50Blas PerezDallasFWD8996224323.20

49Nick DeLeonDCMF102612223373.25

48Vincent NogueiraPhiladelphiaMF134817230493.27

47JuninhoLAMF9629323353.27

46Benny FeilhaberKCMF126026317463.29

45Erick TorresChivasFWD11868137463.49

44Jack McInerneryMontrealFWD84411121333.52

43Baggio HusidićLAMF76113116303.55

42Dillion PowersColoradoMF8252139333.60

41Lamar NeagleSeattleMF98710228403.65

40Teal BunburyNEFWD117015330483.69

39Felipe MartinsMontrealMF99615224413.70

38Jairo ArrietaColumbusFWD8189025343.74

37Max UrrutiPortlandFWD7445026313.75

36Justin MappMontrealMF94917419403.79

35Travis IshizakiLAMF73520110313.80

34Andrew WengerPhiladelphiaFWD101211131433.82

33Diego FagundezNEMF10868237473.90

I'll admit there is quite a bit of disparity between Diego Fagundez (#33) and Nick DeLeon (#49). This group does however hold a few names seems that, to my mind, seem to fit together. Blas Perez (#50), Erick Torres (#45), Jack McInerney (#44) and Andrew Wenger (#34) all are viewed a bit differently in terms of success, but, again, this isn't about results-based productivity so much as process-based productivity. We're merely looking at how much they're involved in creating goal scoring chances, regardless of the quality of those chances or where they are located. In that context it makes more sense.

The lone surprise for me in this tier is Justin Mapp. I would have assumed he'd be much higher on this list being that he's been on the few bright spots for Montreal a long with JackMac.

32-10:  The Good.

RankNameClubPositionMinutesKey PassesAssistsShotsShCShC/90

32Chris WondolowskiSan JoseFWD8106030364.00

31Obafemi MartinsSeattleFWD124619631564.04

30MichelDallasMF74014218344.14

29Lee NguyenNEMF103224024484.19

28B. Wright-PhillipsNYRBFWD10518041494.20

27Edson BuddleColoradoFWD70710122334.20

26Shea SalinasSan JoseMF9163247434.22

25Sabastian FernandezVancouverFWD65410021314.27

24Will BruinHoustonFWD122120137584.28

23Graham ZusiKCFWD79424311384.31

22Alvaro SaborioReal Salt LakeFWD8695235424.35

21Leonardo FernandezPhiladelphiaFWD70113120344.37

20Giles BarnesHoustonFWD133512251654.38

19Gaston FernandezPortlandFWD75719018374.40

18Mike MageeChicagoFWD7149224354.41

17Harry ShippChicagoFWD89423417444.43

16Marco PappaSeattleMF75112124374.43

15Mauro DiazDallasMF64616214324.46

14Bernando AnorColumbusMF71811025364.51

13Cristian MaidanaPhiladelphiaMF87123220454.65

12Quincy AmarikwaChicagoFWD88015428474.81

11Dom DwyerKCFWD10507050574.89

10Deshorn BrownColoradoFWD9026043494.89

Two other names that are notable here. Edson Buddle (#27)--whom everyone thought was done two years ago when he was traded to Colorado--and Marco Pappa (#16), who was kind of a last minute signing before the start of the season, and who was a serious question mark considering his lack of playing time in the Netherlands.  Now both of these individuals that were stamped as likely non-essentials are two of most involved in the creation of their clubs attack. Lee Nguyen (29) coming in higher than Obafemi Martins (31) makes me laugh, simply because Martins is second in the league in assists and most people still hold that to being the truest or, perhaps, the most obvious sign of team goal contributions. Yet Nguyen has been a catalyst for New England and is simply their most valuable player when it comes to finding the ability to create chances. This is the meat and potatoes of the list.

9-4: The Elite.

RankNameClubPositionMinutesKey PassesAssistsShotsShCShC/90

9Javier MoralesReal Salt LakeMF115441521675.23

8Fabian EspindolaDCFWD108630430645.30

7Diego ValeriPortlandMF111728537705.64

6Landon DonovanLAMF80224225515.72

5Thierry HenryNYRBFWD117023449765.85

4Federico HiguainColumbusFWD108039527715.92

So there that is. There shouldn't be any argument here with any of these names. Fabian Espindola (#8) is the sole reason DC even has a shot at the playoffs. He is going to get every opportunity to be 'the man' in black and red. Landon Donovan (#6) despite his uncanny snubbery from the US National Team is still clearly a major factor for the Galaxy and their attack. Sticking with the theme of decline in skills, Thierry Henry (#5) is still one of the greatest to ever play in MLS.

Oh, and I'm just biding my time for Higuian to get past this "slump" and jet into the MVP Candidate category... because that's simply where he belongs. More on that down the road.

3-1:  The MVP Candidates.

RankNameClubPositionMinutesKey PassesAssistsShotsShCShC/90

3Robbie KeaneLAFWD99019245666.00

2Clint DempseySeattleMF75114243597.07

1Pedro MoralesWhitecapsMF82131438738.00

Clint Dempsey (#2) has had the kind of year that is simply bananas. It's been so crazy that it's somehow eclipsed the Pedro Morales (#1) show that is going on just a few short hours north of him. Sure, these guys take penalty kicks, but that's only a small fraction of their shots generated. If these two take this same show into the later stages of the season I can't think there would be much reason to consider anyone else for MVP.

Oh, I guess you could probably throw Robbie Keane's (#3) name in that list, too. People forget about ol' faithful, but even without his P.I.C. (read: 'Partner in Crime' for those that aren't as hip as I am) for a game or two here and there, he's still been incredible. Currently he ranks third in individual expected goals, proving that he also finds dangerous places to take his shots and doesn't hesitate to pull the trigger. Oh, and despite the angry looks and words AND finger wags, he gets his teammates those same opportunities.

And here's the Excel File for the top 50.

Sporting KC still has edge in the capital

If you come in from a certain angle, you can hype this evening's DC United-Sporting KC game as the Eastern Conference's clash of the week. The two teams enter this game tied for the second seed with two of the best goal differentials in the conference. With DCU playing at home, and Sporting missing half its team, the edge would appear to go to United. But not so fast. Despite being inseparable by points, DCU and Sporting are about as far apart as two teams can be by Expected Goal Differential. Sporting sits atop the league at +0.62 per game,* while DCU is ahead of only San Jose with -0.33. If we look to even gamestates---during only those times when the score was tied and the teams were playing 11-on-11---the chasm between them grows even wider. Sporting's advantage over DCU in Even xGD is more than 1.5 goals per game.*

To this point, as early as it is in the season, I have found that winners are best predicted by Even xGD, rather than overall goal differential. Though the sample size of shots is smaller for each team in these scenarios, the information is less clouded by the various tactics that are employed when one team goes ahead, or when one team loses a player.

Of course, Sporting will be missing the likes of Graham Zusi, Matt Besler, and Lawrence Olum, as they have for the past three games. The loss of those key players has mostly coincided with their current four-game winless stretch, and it would be tempting to argue that they are not in form. However, over those last three games, Sporting overall xGD is +0.27 per game,* and its Even xGD is +0.68.*

Making predictions in sports is generally just setting oneself up for failure---especially in a sport where there are three outcomes---but I will say this. Sporting is likely better than the +180 betting line I'm seeing this morning.

*I use the phrase "per game" for simplicity, but xGD is actually calculated on a per-minute basis in our season charts. Per game implies per 96 minutes, which is the average length of an MLS game.

Player Acquisition: The Tweeners

There is a thing that constantly steals my interest when it comes Major League Soccer. It's how teams choose to scout and evaluate talent that is already in the league. One thing that has been made quite clear with the financial constraints is that it is difficult to hold on to those players that hover around the $200,000 salary threshold, and yet aren't stars or obviously consistent difference makers. Player makers such as Chris Rolfe, Mauro Rosales and Bobby Convey have found new homes in MLS, either in the few months leading up to this season or since the first kick. The names themselves aren't specific references of importance, but rather examples of what happens in the off-season concerning players in the aforementioned pay range that are just casualties of cap situations in today's era.

These players we understand to a degree. They are interesting talents with a fair amount of room for critiquing, whether that be due to personality, problems with injuries or just inconsistent displays of performance from week to week. There are always one or two or even three (in this case) of these players that are available come the off-season.

Two of the three players went to clubs with the ability to take chances.

Chivas USA was obviously getting a steal in adding Rosales. Super Mauro, since being added to the roster, has accrued 17 key passes and 3 assists while producing 12 shots on his own. He leads the club in Total Shots Created.

DC United needed anything to help save their season and jump start their offense. The arrival of Rolfe in return for a bit of allocation money was seemingly a worthwhile risk--and his influence on Ben Olsen's chances of keeping the head coaching job can probably be debated to some extent. Prior to the trade, Olsen and DC United had only produced 1 point through 3 matches. Since the addition of Rolfe, they're now rolling at nearly 2 points per match.

Now, I'm not saying that Rolfe is truly responsible for the turn around. That idea would represent lazy analysis. In fact, DC United generated 34 shot attempts to its opponents' 36 in the first three games, and 108 to 112 since, so it's not like Rolfe's presence has indicated a stable improvement yet. Frankly, since MLS week 4, it's been the Fabian Espindola show at RFK, and that is a completely different discussion.

On to Convey, who didn't go to a team that had to take on a lot of risk. Instead he went to the defending Supporters' Shield-winning New York Red Bulls. He has been somewhat of middling attacking influence in his time on the pitch for the Bulls, adding 9 key passes and 2 shots in just under 700 minutes over his initial tenure this season.

WhoScored isn't exactly impressed. They have graded his performance so far by issuing him a 6.39 rating which is well below their league average rating for a player---which sits near 6.7. Squawka ranks him 16th on the  roster depth chart which mostly follows up that thinking being that WhoScored placed him 15th overall.

These three players represent teams that have taken advantage of a system available to them in an effort to improve their club. What is intriguing to me at this juncture isn't necessarily the impact they've made upon their current club but how their current clubs targeted them as being upgrades and financially worth their investments.

I'm sure that MLS teams have personnel that help front office types make decisions and help discern player talent and ability that make them right for the acquisition. I am familiar enough with certain clubs to be aware of the individuals that are involved in that process, and much of it seems archaic and awkward in method.

Mauro Rosales may have been less of a risk when it comes to Chivas. In fact it was kind of "duh" type moment that perfectly fell in their lap. The other side of the coin is that Rolfe and Convey were both risks, and heavy ones at that considering their price tags (before New York lapped Convey up, that is).

I would certainly concede that all are substantial talents within the US first division. But how they fit the rosters to which they were added to is a bit interesting.

Some could point to Convey's addition to New York as an attempt to add competition to the left side and some wide play making, Convey has instead shifted to the back line in the form of a full back. Which begs the question, was that the idea before he was added?

I, as well as many, had thought Luis Silva would be taking over the role of central play maker in Washington after the departure of Dwayne De Rosario. After the stumbles by Silva early on, I thought that Rolfe would take over that role, but instead he looks to be pushed out wide with Nick DeLeon, being featured more frequently in the central attacking role. Was this a decision made before acquiring him, and did the club think he could fill that role any better than some of the more natural wide midfielders who have moved clubs since?

Results-based analysis is often unhelpful, and in these cases, don't truly tell the story we're seeking in how MLS teams are valuing these types of players. I'm curious if there are any specific statistical values that teams could point to as to why they made this move--and please, I hope it's more than the assists or goals totals, or the fact that they're "winners." For all the talk about transparency in details for the league, it would be nice to see some of the true thought processes involved in analyzing these talents beyond tired cliches. Especially considering that all these clubs they have access to far better gauges and methods than what most of us have at our disposal.

How it Happened: Week Eleven

Another weekend of games, and another weekend of contradictions from teams across the league. I thought I'd write today about the six teams in the three games I watched through the lens of huge differences between those teams. Without any further ado, here's how it happened last weekend. Toronto FC 2 - 0 New York Red Bulls

Stat that told the story for Toronto: 6 through balls, 3 key passes from middle third

Toronto and New York are both flawed teams. Toronto doesn't particularly well with possession in the middle third of the field (especially without Michael Bradley), and they tend to set their defensive line of confrontation dangerously deep in their own half. But there's one thing they excel at that helps neutralize both of these weaknesses: they attack swiftly and directly through the middle third with through balls to a striker who's not bad at putting them away, Jermain Defoe. Take a look at that map above: three key passes from TFC midfielders and six more through balls, all coming from the middle third and springing dangerous attacks very quickly. For sake of comparison, New York had exactly zero through balls or key passes from the same part of the field in the match.

Stat that told the story for New York: 4 successful crosses, 34 unsuccessful crosses

If Toronto's greatest asset is their direct attacking speed through the midfield, it's one thing that the Red Bulls commonly lack. I already noted that they had no key passes or through balls from the midfield recorded against Toronto, but that number of crosses is fairly absurd as well. I'm not one who believes crossing is a terrible gameplan at all times: Lloyd Sam has maybe been the best Red Bull this year, and they really should've scored at least one goal from those 38 crosses on Saturday. But the lack of variety and speed in their attack is stunning for a team as talented as New York. Hopefully this improves when Peguy Luyindula returns and adds some spark to the midfield, but right now New York looks about as flawed as Toronto.

Real Salt Lake 2 - 1 Colorado Rapids

Stat that told the story for RSL: first 50 minutes of the game: 93/110 passing in center of field vs. 61/84 for Colorado

The Rocky Mountain rivalry is always a hotly-contested one, and in years past has been a game with a clash of styles, too. That was less the case in the first half of Saturday's game: both teams came out with narrow midfields looking to control the center of the field. The Rapids have tried out these tactics this season, but RSL has been using them for years, and to be frank, it showed early in the game. Salt Lake's diamond midfield (even without Kyle Beckerman) had little trouble passing the ball around Colorado like a church congregation with the offering dish. The lead-up to their first goal was absolutely beautiful to watch, and they created oodles of other chances in staking themselves to a 2-0 lead.

Stat that told the story for Colorado: 5 out of 7 successful crosses, 11 of 16 total crosses, 10 of 16 shots came after going behind 2-0

Pablo Mastroeni was a really good central midfielder in his playing days, and he has a couple of very good ones in his current squad (especially Dillon Powers). But his insistence on lining his team up with 3 or even 4 natural center midfielders on the field has confused me all season. Colorado was one of the surprise stories of the league last year, and a lot of their success was due to a fairly direct style of play. It certainly wasn't all long balls and crosses a la Stoke City, but they made a lot of good things happen by getting the ball into the box to Edson Buddle and Deshorn Brown. In this one, after falling behind 2-0 in the 50th minute, Colorado reverted a bit to their 2013 ways. They lumped in significantly more crosses, and not coincidentally they had more success getting legitimate chances, shots and goals. I hope the Raps were taking notes on some of what made them successful in the second half.

Seattle Sounders 1 - 0 San Jose Earthquakes

Stat that told the story for Seattle: Obafemi Martins was/is really good

So far this year, Clint Dempsey has (deservedly) gotten a lot of attention for being the best player in the league. Obafemi Martins has gotten less attention for being just about as good. Martins and Dempsey are absolutely the most fearsome attack combination in the league right now, and it's very much because of how well they play off each other. Dempsey's success has come very much thanks to Martins' passing and hold-up ability, while Martins has sacrificed some of his goal-scoring to do the dirty work for Seattle. In this one without Deuce, Oba unleashed the fury with a pretty incredible goal that you've probably seen already. He's been everything you could ask for of a Designated Player this year: making plays each and every game that have helped the Sounders to the top of the league.

Stat that told the story for San Jose: Jean-Baptiste Pierazzi was/is really boring

If Seattle's DP additions from last season have been the most fearsome duo in the league this season, San Jose's recent signings have been about as scary as the Odd Couple. Let's run them down: Yannick Djalo looked super exciting, then got hurt. Andreas Gorlitz didn't look very exciting, then got hurt. Brandon Barklage, Atiba Harris and Khari Stephenson have all been basically the best any Quakes fan could hope for: extremely average MLS journeymen. But the one guy that I want to mention is the one who's been most disappointing: Frenchman Jean-Baptiste Pierazzi. I mean no offense to Pierazzi at all, but he came in from French club AC Ajaccio with nearly 180 career appearances in France's top league and a lot was expected of him. From what I've seen of him so far, he's struggled to fit in with the team as well as the physicality of MLS. He's hardly been a bad player, but he's definitely not made the impact you expect of a high-profile addition from a top European league.

Agree with my assessments? Think I'm an idiot? Let me know. @MLSAtheist

Big Game in the Big Apple - my picks on who wins/loses in MLS for Week 12

Sorry, a bit late on this and not a lot of time to offer up detailed thoughts so here we go with my picks on who wins and loses this weekend keeping in mind I don't/won't pick draws...  my record without picking draws now hovers at 51%.  

New York at home to Portland - I've already offered up my thoughts on my home blog about this one.  If the Timbers don't make mental mistakes, don't get a red card, don't yield a Penalty Kick and don't score an own goal I think they win... Timbers take three.

Vancouver at home to Seattle - A big game in the great northwest with Cascadia Cup clash written all over it - Vancouver wins...

Columbus at home to Chicago - If the Crew don't win and Chicago does the early season dream start will have started to fade into a mid-season nightmare for Berhalter and his Crew; especially after being gifted three goals in Portland and still only coming away with a draw.  Columbus win...

New England hosts DC United - A huge test for Olsen and his crew coming off that disappointing draw to the worst team in MLS, Montreal.  Can the Revolution continue to win - since I can't pick draws I go with New England to win...

Colorado at home to Montreal - Really - is anyone willing to bet Montreal wins this game?  Colorado wins...

Real Salt Lake entertains FC Dallas - Perhaps a pivot point for FC Dallas as the mid-season approaches.  There might be room this week for Dallas to walk in and take 3 points - RSL are unbeaten this year and if all else fails I can see a draw with these two teams... but Plata should be a difference maker this game - along with the ever under-rated Grabavoy - RSL wins...

LA Galaxy at home to Philadelphia - Is this another one of those stunners for the Union?  Hard to say but with Donovan returning far to early, in my opinion, from the USMNT I see some fire in his eyes and the Union possibly getting crushed... LA wins...

San Jose entertains Houston - with Wondolowski missing, and rightly so... and Davis missing, and rightly so... this has all the makings of a draw but I think Houston wins with a better defense...

Best, Chris

You say you want a Revolution? Possession with Purpose From a Different Angle

A superb run with five wins and a draw in six games; by most standards that is a compelling argument for consistency.  I agree and their overall Composite Possession with Purpose Index rating continues to climb. They've (New England) climbed from 17th in PWP (week 5) to 7th after week 11; a superb shift of 10 full places in 6 weeks.

So in considering this giant push forward I'd like to take a different approach in how the data points from PWP can be viewed.  

This is new so please bear with me for a minute or two as I set the context.

Below are a number of diagrams referencing my PWP indicators for a few teams; the diagram being used this time is the 'doughnut' diagram from Microsoft Powerpoint.

The interesting thing about this diagram is that it allows me to offer up a view on my PWP data points that isn't relative to the exponential relationship (a line). Instead, it allows me to picture the overall tenor of PWP data points in relationship to themselves as being a part of a 'whole'; with the 'whole' being PWP.

I feel confident I can take this approach since my Expected Wins 2 correlation for my data points is ~.97 (R2) --- as near to rock solid as you can get.

Other context points include:  

• The teams used in this analysis are Seattle, New England, Montreal, Portland and last years' Supporters Shield winner (New York) plus last years bottom dweller (DC United)
• Reminder in case my explanation was a bit wordy above - the percentages indicated in the doughnut are not the percentages of those activities relative to the game; they are the percentage of those activities relative to each other with 100% being all those activities added together.
• Source - as usual the MLS Chalkboard and the MLS Statistics Sheets
• Gold Stars on the diagrams are intended to show you where differences occur.
• The team name on the outside of the doughnut is the outer ring of data and the team name on the inside of the doughnut is the inner ring of data.

To begin...

The volume of Final Third passes successfully completed by New England (29%) is 3% points higher than Montreal (26%).  Note also that Montreal has a greater percentage of PWP outside the Final Third (30%) than New England (28%). Both of these indicate to me that New England is more focused on penetrating and creating than Montreal.

For the future I will check into these three areas when looking to see if a 'direct attacking approach' can be better differentiated from a 'ground-based' (short passing scheme) approach.

The actual volume of penetration is higher for New England as well (11%) versus (7%). And like my regular PWP analysis the data here also supports the fact that teams who are more patient in creating shots taken (6% for NER versus 11% for MIFC) end up with more goals scored.

I did ask Matthias Kullowatz about the specific shot data for New England and Montreal; ~60% of Montreal's shots on target have come outside the prime scoring zones 1 & 2 while ~68% of the Revolution shots on target have also come outside of zones 1 & 2.  So what's different?

I think it's down to time and space again; though it could be the Revolution have better strikers - but when you see the DC United doughnut diagram a bit later I think it's back to time and space; and with fewer shots taken and more patience in the final third that seems reasonable to me.

Now for a contrast that might be better at explaining individual mistakes and bad fortune more than a bad 'style/system'...

Notice no 'gold stars'; why? Because there really isn't that much difference between how these two teams execute the six steps of PWP.

What separates these two teams in the league table are individual mental mistakes in defense - Portland sit on ten points while Seattle have 25. Through the course of this year the Timbers have dropped 7 points due to red cards and penalties - they did both against Columbus Saturday night!

In considering the 'sameness' of the data I expect as time passes an output similar to this could highlight 'individual mistakes' and perhaps 'good/bad luck' when it comes to rebounds and deflections - again recall Saturday night when Futty Danso deflected a shot and notched an 'own-goal'

All told things went pretty well for Columbus, a red card by their opponent, a foul in the penalty box by their opponent for a PK and a deflected own-goal by their opponent. If I were a Columbus fan I'd be pretty pissed they didn't win - bad luck for the Crew!

However viewed I'll revisit this diagram later when the Cascadia Cup battle heats up.

So here's the doughnut view of New York compared to DC United last year and then a bit further down how they look compared to each other this year.

First off - let's not forget Ben Olsen was not fired and perhaps this doughnut diagram can also help explain why given the overall poor performance in results last year for DC United.

Notice that the team does exceedingly well in comparison to New York with respect to Passing, penetration and creation; they actually exceed New York in the first two categories and only fall off when it comes to goals scored (7% for DC United versus 15% for New York).

So I'd offer that the system Ben Olsen ran last year worked - what he lacked was a pair of good strikers.  And if you recall the Montreal doughnut earlier the outputs from DC United do not mirror those of the Impact!

They added Espindola and Johnson and shored up their defense a bit; that also included adding Amos Magee to the staff.  Remember him as the Defensive Coordinator for Portland last year (I think - others can confirm or deny that I'm sure)

Bottom line here - the system didn't change and the Head Coach didn't change and I'd offer that was appropriate...  now for the same diagram this year:

In closing:

Note the increase for DC United in the final category - goals scored versus shots on goal - pretty compelling information to reinforce that the system used last year is the same system used this year and the difference - major difference - is the addition of two quality strikers.

I'm just in the learning stages on how this new doughnut diagram will take shape - I'm pretty sure it will have at least one hole in it - I'm hopeful there aren't a lot more.

Some changes afoot with OPTA and MLS - I see OPTA incorporated the Final Third Passing Accuracy suggestion - just need to find out if crosses are included in that metric???

As for the new MLS Chalkboard - I'm not sure how that will work if the 'numbers' of activities are not available to count when it comes to defensive activities and 'touches' for players...

And yes, the old Chalkboard still appears to exist given a separate link within previous articles but it's unclear if this change will be a permanent change for next year - or even the World Cup for that matter...

As for This Week in PWP; if you saw my tweets yesterday you know the top Attacking and Defending PWP teams of the week; New England in attack and Toronto in Defense with the Reds taking the Composite PWP Index top spot for Week 11.  

Sporting KC, along with LA Galaxy remain atop the Composite PWP through Week 11 while the Revolution moved to 7th and Columbus dropped to 4th as Real Salt Lake are now in a comfortable position of 3rd best overall.

Finally, this view also gives you and idea of what percentage each team gleans from each of the PWP Six Steps data points in the calculation for the overall Index number.

Best, Chris

Playoffs are a real possibility for the Whitecaps

Vancouver finished outside the playoff picture last year in a conference that allows 55.6 percent of its members to advance into November. Despite passing the "eye test" with a lot of talent, and despite producing a positive goal differential, the Whitecaps did little to convince our more advanced soccer statistics that they were a good team. Vancouver fired off 12.9 shots per game, but allowed 15.1. Furthermore, when those shots are valued based on quality, Expected Goals suggests Vancouver was below average, posting a negative xGD. Supporters may have pointed to their excellent shot accuracy and finishing rates as signs of talent and reason for optimism, but those things don't stabilize quickly, and the man who was most responsible deserted them for Liga MX. To kick off the season, we provided previews of all 19 teams. Jacob covered Vancouver, and he justifiably wrote, "As the 2014 season gets set to begin, Vancouver is one of just a few teams in the league that don’t appear to be as good as last year." Losing internationals Kenny Miller, Y.P. Lee and Camilo would probably make any MLS team worse, and before the acquisition of Matias Laba, Steve Beitashour was probably the most notable addition. On average, you readers picked the Caps to finish 7th in the West, and 76 percent of you guessed that they would miss the playoffs. I'm quite confident that I picked them to finish in 8th place. Missing the playoffs may very well still happen, but that outcome doesn't seem to have a majority of the probability anymore.

I think it's fair to say that Vancouver's 2014 has been surprising for most everybody. After ten games, nearly one-third of a season, Vancouver finds itself in third place. More importantly, it has an above-average shot attempt ratio (1.1) and positive expected goal differentials both overall (+0.13 per game) and in even gamestates (+0.36 per game). In 2013, the first 10 games of the season proved to be reasonably predictive of points earned in the final 24, as shown below.

Predictor	Correlation	P-value
GD	0.43	0.091
AttRatio*	0.55	0.000
xGD	0.78	0.000
xGD (zero)	0.75	0.000

A team's actual goal differential during the first 10 games had the weakest correlation to its points earned in the last 24 games, as any reader of this blog would have expected. But look at the correlations between xGD in the first 10 games and points earned in the last 24 games. Only more seasons of data will tell us if the correlation is truly that strong, but it's definitely a good indication for Vancouver. The xGD model would expect them to earn another 37 points, totaling 53 points for the season---a figure that, in combination with our playoff chances, suggests the playoffs might be more likely than not likely for the Vancouver Whitecaps.

*The correlation for Attempt Ratio was calculated from all team seasons between 2011 and 2013, while the other correlations could only be calculated from 2013 with the available data.

Expected Wins #2 - After 184 MLS Events (92 Games)

Hopefully most of you read Part I of my series on Expected Wins in Major League Soccer. As a quick reminder the Expected Wins analysis is my internal data quality review on the seven data points I use to support my quantitative Possession with Purpose analysis; the stronger the correlation these data points have the more confidence I have in the overall Indices that are created to assess team performance.

For your benefit, in case you forgot, here are the seven data points I continue to analyze as we reach the 92 game point in MLS; which equals 184 events:

1. Passes Attempted Entire Pitch
2. Passes Completed Entire Pitch
3. Passes Attempted Final Third
4. Passes Completed Final Third
5. Shots Taken
6. Shots on Goal
7. Goals Scored

All data points, at this time, have equal weight.

What is interesting is that over the week to week course of the season 40% (20/50) of the weekly top five teams, in Attacking PWP, have averaged less than 50% possession in their matches.  

For me that's pretty cool as it indicates this analysis is not really biased towards teams that use a shorter-passing scheme in attack.  Week 5, 3 of 5 teams were under 50% and the other two were both under 51% possession.

Some of those teams are possession based teams like DC United, Portland and Seattle but in that week the margin of possession did not have as much effect as the ability of those teams to finish quality chances - the top three teams that week all scored goals equal to their shots on goal.

The five teams that week who exceeded 80% in Passing Accuracy; usually a good indicator of ground based attacking all finished outside the top 5.

Moving on after that tidbit, here's the averages for overall (blue bar), teams that win (green bar), teams that draw (orange bar) and teams that lose (red bar).

Facts as they exist today after 184 Events in 2014:

• The overall tenor of the data points and their relationship really hasn't changed that much since XpW 1.
• Teams that win average 51.11% Possession; losing teams average 48.89% Possession, (lower)
• Teams that win average 76.39% in Passing Accuracy; losing teams average 74.10% (lower)
• Teams that win average 20.48% Penetration in the Final Third based upon Total Passes completed; teams that lose average 20.32% (lower)
• Teams that win average 18.64% Shots Taken per pass completed in the Final Third, losing teams average 19.22% (higher)
• Teams that win average 42.67% Shots on Goal per Shot Taken; teams that lose 32.13% (lower) (by over 10%!)
• Teams that win average 46.18 Goals Scored per Shot on Goal; losing teams 17.03% (lower) (by over 29%!)

Like after XpW 1 (102 Events - 51 games) losing teams shoot the ball more often, on average, but are less accurate when it comes to putting those shots on target and into the net.  Patience in creating quality continues to outweigh quantity...

Overall, the averages for Shots on Goal for winning teams has increased from XpW 1 (4.90) to XpW 2 (5.36); basically the better teams have gotten better and the losing teams have gotten worse (3.84 now) versus (4.10 in XpW 1).

I wonder how that trend will continue through the rest of this year?

Tthe 2% gap in Passing Accuracy between winning teams and losing teams has held from XpW 1 to XpW 2.

The gap in Shots on Goal has increased in losing teams to 10% as opposed to 9% (XpW 1).

The gap in Goals scored has remained near steady at roughly ~30%; though slightly smaller in XpW 2.

Losing teams still continue to take more Shots than winning teams; 12.74 (winning teams) to 12.80 (losing teams) but... that gap has dropped since XpW 1 - perhaps losing teams are looking to be more patient in their shot selection?

So how does the overall data relate in an Exponential Relationship?

Observations:

The light shaded lines are the lines of data as in XpW 1 - and the trend-line colors remain the same.

This time the R2 has dropped just a tad.98 to .95 - all things considered most would consider that correlation Rock Solid... I do - and the correlation of these data points, viewed as a whole, have a higher correlation together than Goal Differential (R2 = .88) to Points in the League Table.

Goal differential is usually a great indicator but it also remains a qualitative statistical indicator not a quantitative indicator.

Like last time there remains a difference in the R2 between winning teams, teams that draw, and losing teams; with draws now having greater correlation than wins.  Why?  I'm not sure - but as noted by the closeness of all the data points there still remains a fine line between winning, losing and drawing.

Last time I felt that helped explain the difference between mistakes or unlucky breaks - I continue to sense that is the main difference.  So might this be an indicator of luck - I don't know - what do you think?

I have seen discussions of late, on Telly, and in some articles written elsewhere, that focus more on 'space available' as opposed to just Shots Taken...  hopefully that trend continues!

I also remain hopeful that OPTA and other statistical web sites will offer up more critical events taking place in the Final Third...  One other article written since XpW 1 is my analysis (as promised in Xpw 1) on defensive indicators; here's a link to Hurried Passes and those details.

In closing:

I still don't have enough data, in my opinion, to offer additional thoughts on individual team performance relative to home and away games; that probably won't have statistical reliability until the midpoint of the season (game 323 - events # 646).

There are trends but I'll save that for another article, enough for now.

Best, Chris