Portland Timbers: Comeback Kids?
/I watched the Timbers go down 2 - 0 in the first half Wednesday night against FC Dallas before leaving disgusted for my indoor game. At halftime of my game, I noticed that Portland had come back to tie. Two common occurrences for the Timbers this year have been comebacks and ties, so perhaps it shouldn't have been that surprising. The Timbers have played nearly 400 minutes this season from behind--a quarter of their time spent on the field--which has given them plenty of time to win back the home crowd after early goals conceded. In all that time spent losing (nearly four game's worth) Portland has outscored its opponents 13-to-4. That's like four straight 3 - 1 wins. Even though most teams perform better when playing from behind, that still ranks Portland second in the league behind Vancouver (see chart below).
This begs the question, is Portland actually one of the best teams when facing a deficit, or might this be a product of some random variation? To the stats!
It turns out, Portland also does well by Expected Goals in losing gamestates. In fact, relative to the league, the Timbers are the best at generating quality and quantity of opportunities in these situations with an expected goal differential of +1.4. We know Expected Goals to be more stable, and thus it is probably a truer indication of what to expect in the future. Check out the chart below, scaled on a per 96-minute basis (basically, per game).
xGD When Losing
| Team | GF | GA | GD | xGF | xGA | xGD | GD Rank | xGD Rank |
| POR | 3.1 | 1.0 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 2 | 1 |
| FCD | 2.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 6 | 2 |
| SEA | 2.3 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 8 | 3 |
| LA | 1.8 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 3 | 4 |
| NYRB | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 9 | 5 |
| TOR | 2.3 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 7 | 6 |
| SJ | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 10 | 7 |
| PHI | 1.6 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 14 | 8 |
| CHI | 3.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 4 | 9 |
| SKC | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 12 | 10 |
| DCU | 2.0 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 5 | 11 |
| CLB | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 11 | 12 |
| COL | 2.7 | 2.3 | 0.4 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 13 | 13 |
| MTL | 0.8 | 1.8 | -1.0 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 16 | 14 |
| RSL | 1.6 | 2.6 | -1.0 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 17 | 15 |
| NE | 0.5 | 1.4 | -0.9 | 1.4 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 15 | 16 |
| CHV | 0.6 | 2.9 | -2.3 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 19 | 17 |
| VAN | 3.1 | 0.4 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 1.5 | -0.1 | 1 | 18 |
| HOU | 0.8 | 2.5 | -1.7 | 1.1 | 1.7 | -0.6 | 18 | 19 |
| Averages | 1.8 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 0.4 |
But wait! Hold the bus. There is one major confounding factor that we can control for here. Home field advantage. The Timbers have oddly found themselves frequently facing deficits at home, which means that a large portion of their time spent losing is spent in the friendly confines of Providence Park in downtown Portland. In fact, the Timbers lead the league in minutes spent losing at home--a weird stat, to be sure. Here's the same chart, but for teams losing at home.
xGD When Losing at Home
| Team | GF | GA | GD | xGF | xGA | xGD | GD Rank | xGD Rank |
| SJ | 3.3 | 0.8 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 3.0 | 5 | 1 |
| NYRB | 3.2 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 7 | 2 |
| POR | 3.6 | 1.0 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 2.1 | 4 | 3 |
| FCD | 2.8 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 3 | 4 |
| COL | 3.6 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 14 | 5 |
| TOR | 3.8 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 2 | 6 |
| SEA | 1.6 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 8 | 7 |
| CHI | 2.5 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 10 | 8 |
| LA | 0.9 | 0.0 | 0.9 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 9 | 9 |
| NE | 0.0 | 1.2 | -1.2 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 16 | 10 |
| CLB | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 13 | 11 |
| PHI | 2.4 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 11 | 12 |
| VAN | 5.1 | 0.0 | 5.1 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 1 | 13 |
| MTL | 0.7 | 1.5 | -0.7 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 15 | 14 |
| DCU | 1.9 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 12 | 15 |
| SKC | 2.1 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 6 | 16 |
| HOU | 1.5 | 2.9 | -1.5 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 17 | 17 |
| RSL | 0.0 | 1.8 | -1.8 | 0.5 | 0.8 | -0.3 | 18 | 18 |
| CHV | 0.0 | 3.8 | -3.8 | 1.0 | 2.1 | -1.0 | 19 | 19 |
| Averages | 2.1 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
Even when I control for home field advantage, we still see the Timbers among the best teams at playing from behind, averaging 2.1 more goals than their opponents per 96 minutes. Is it the coaching? The players' mentalities? The raucous home turf on West Burnside? Luck? I don't know, but I know it's happening.