Reactions to MLS Semifinals, Conference Final Odds, and an Update on Semifinal Model

Conference Semifinal Reactions

MLS’s annual bastardization of soccer playoffs – aka the conference semifinals – is now complete. Sure, I’m a little bitter because my team dug a hole in its first leg that it couldn’t climb out of even with an outstanding performance.

I was at that second leg this past Wednesday, and the energy was electric until the final whistle. It’s more that this league can’t seem to figure out what it really wants to be – it wants to cater to the American sports fan via a playoff format, but then in a nod to every other knockout format by utilizing two-legged semifinals while not even implementing the away-goal rule.

MLS would be better off picking one direction or the other and sticking to it.

Nonetheless, the Sounders and three other teams are out of the playoffs now, and we’re down to the final four teams fighting for a spot in MLS Cup 2011 in LA. The format is what it is, so it’s time to see how I did against it. I went 2-for-4 in my conference semifinal picks, with varying reasons for success and failure.

I got the LA and Kansas City wins correct.

 

In LA, I correctly bet they were too good to go down due to the six match goal differential they had to the Red Bulls. In Kansas City, I correctly bet they would hold serve on match differential and were simply too hot to not win. Clearly, their 4-0 drubbing of Colorado over two matches demonstrated that superior form.

Honestly, the Philadelphia/Houston series was a toss up from a statistical prediction standpoint. It was the closest of the four using my statistical methods, but any statistical advantage for Philly came in that their coach had less experience than Houston’s (they were even on matches played).

Luckily, this year’s results got rid of that silly “coach experience” anomaly as a statistically significant predictor (more on the adjustments to the model later). The matchup was really just a flip of a coin statistically, and perhaps I should have gone with the experience of Houston over the second-year improvement and first playoff birth for the Union.

In the Seattle/Real Salt Lake series I picked against my statistical judgement, giving in to supporter’s optimism. In the closing weeks of the regular season I told any Sounders supporter I knew that I would rather the Sounders have faced FC Dallas in the first round than Real Salt Lake.

RSL’s skid at the end of the season was a false one – one predicated upon missing personnel they were getting back by playoff time.

FC Dallas, on the other hand, was clearly a slumping team that continued to slump in the playoffs. The Sounders would have matched up far better against FC Dallas, would have likely been playing to finally get the LA monkey off their back in the Conference Final, and Real Salt Lake would have been tearing up the Eastern Conference Playoffs and be in that conference’s final right now. They’d likely have won the East, and we’d be staring at an RSL vs. Sounders/Galaxy final in several weeks.

For all the griping that would have come from a “Western Conference team winning the East”, it would have been a just end to a season that saw those three teams dominate the Western Conference and largely the entire league. Ironically, one of the few just endings from the MLS playoffs in recent memory.

Rarely do things work out as desired, and Seattle faced RSL in the conference semifinals. As a supporter, I picked against the statistics, the Sounders’ history of troubles in the playoffs (they had to end sometime, right?), and Real Salt Lake’s playoff experience.

I felt the Sounders and Galaxy would both overcome the statistics, and perhaps we’d be able to say the league had gotten to the point that its playoff format didn’t determine champions based upon who had played fewer matches in a season.

Watching the first leg from the couch of my living room, I immediately regretted the pick (side note: luckily an 8-hour exam earlier in the day and three beers throughout the match luckily made me too tired to throw anything at the television, or else I’d be out a couple grand right now due to buying a new television).

The Sounders picked the worst day of the year to play what was their worst game of the year, resulting in a 3-0 deficit for them.

The return leg was the polar opposite. It was very clear that RSL was intent on parking the bus and earning a berth in the Western Conference Finals based purely upon the three goals they scored in the first leg. The statistics in the table below, which compares the change in different statistics from games one to two for each of the clubs leading after the first leg in the 2011 conference semifinals, bear this out.

Granted, the other three teams were heading home to defend their leads, none of them was as large as Real Salt Lake’s, and none of their first leg performances had been as dominant as Real Salt Lake‘s.

RSL said all the right things going in to the second leg in Seattle, recognizing the Sounders were a dangerous team – they had won eight matches during the regular season by scoring three or more goals, six of those wins were by two or more goals, and two of them were 3-0 shutouts. Still, watching the game live, re-watching highlights, and then looking at the statistics above I can’t help but feel RSL went beyond parking the bus. Time wasting got so bad that Nick Rimando was issued a yellow card for just such an infraction.

RSL simply hunkered down and was content to boot the ball forward. The starkest contrast could be drawn with Sporting Kansas City, who went home up 2-0 and came out with attacks in the second leg that netted another 2-0 result for them. RSL was the only team of the four to move on to the second leg and have a worse performance across the board.

Nonetheless, the Sounders fell short of their attempt to come back from a three goal deficit. What will likely haunt them the entire offseason is not the misses or blocks in the second leg – there’s not much they can do about a Real Salt Lake defense that played relatively well against the 26 shots they faced. It will be the Grabavoy goal in the dying minutes of the first leg that ended up giving RSL their three goal lead going back to Seattle.

None of this is to say that RSL doesn’t deserve the win. They played outstanding, attacking football in the first leg, and combined with the Sounders horrible performance they earned their three goal lead. The shame is that they didn’t pursue the single goal in Seattle that would clearly put them through to the final, and instead played cynical, time wasting, park-the-bus soccer that helps fuel criticism of MLS’s two-legged format.

Update to the Conference Semifinal Models

With the conclusion of this year’s conference semifinals, eight new data points were added to the model that is based upon MLS playoff data from 2003 forward. Those new data points have helped to make the model a little more logical, as well as confirm one of the early trends.

On the logic front, losses by Philadelphia and New York, who had some of the shortest tenured managers in the playoffs, eliminated the odd historical anomaly of less experienced managers fairing better in the conference semifinals from the ranks of statistically significant predictors.

Replacing it in the list of significant predictors was the difference in the teams’ seeds. A plot of the effects of seed difference are shown in the graph below. Seeds are listed numerically, so top seed LA (1) playing bottom Western Conference seed New York (6) would produce a seed difference of -5 for LA and +5 for New York.

Based upon the graph and its associated equation, each unit difference in seed changes the odds of winning a two-legged playoff by 6.8%.

Despite the LA Galaxy becoming the first team to win a two-legged conference semifinal when facing a team that had played 6+ fewer games than them, the trend of teams playing more games losing their two-legged playoff continued. Two of the teams that lost – Seattle and Colorado – each played four and three games more, respectively, than their opponents. The net impact of the 2011 results is expressed via the graph below.

Astute readers who compare the exponent term in the equation to the same term from the 2003-2010 data will see that it is numerically smaller. The net effect is to lower the impact of the difference in matches being played: a 6.9% change in odds of winning the series for each unit change in game differential compared to a 7.5% change excluding the 2011 playoff data. The addition of the extra data points also tightens up the 95th percentile bounds. Data through 2010 indicated a 95th percentile range of .34 around the nominal (solid) line between game differences of -5 and +5. The increased sample size and results from the 2011 data have now tightened this range to 0.29. In statistical speak, the accuracy of the model’s nominal prediction continues to increase, while the effect of increased matches seems to be a bit lower than originally predicted.

A Brief Prediction of the Conference Finals

Going in to the conference finals, the playoffs switch back to a single match, winner-take-all format at the higher seed’s home pitch. As was shown in my earlier post on the history of MLS single-match playoffs since 2003, the only statistically significant predictor of success is the difference in the team’s two goal differentials throughout the season (including playoffs). The table below provides a comparison of the conference finalists‘ goal differentials and their odds of winning.

I’ll be sticking with the numbers. In the case of Kansas City, I think they’re simply too hot to lose this match at home. A rough start to the season on the road has been rewarded with a second half of season homestand and outstanding play to go with it. I agree with Grant Wahl when it comes to LA – their season may go down as the single greatest in MLS history if they’re able to to win the MLS Cup. The match with RSL will be close, but in the end I think they will prevail. I just think LA is too good to not win at home in the conference finals, and then win again at home two weeks later to hoist MLS Cup 2011.…

That’s Why They Play the Games

 

The Rematch is almost upon us, and it’s only appropriate that I turn to the Soccernomics model for national team performance to provide a prediction of the possible outcome. If two teams, i and j, face each other the Soccernomics model uses the following equation to predict goal differential:
GD(ij) = 0.137 ln[pop(i)/pop(j))] + 0.145 ln[GDP(i/GDP(j))] + 0.739 ln[exp(i)/exp(j)] + 0.657 for home team
 
In the case of England and the US, no one is the home team so we can drop the final term in the equation. Now we turn to the population, GDP, and experience terms.
 
Population
  • England51,456,400
  • US309,449,000
GDP
  • England: $35,334
  • United States: $46,381
Experience:
  • England: 780 matches
  • United States: 403 matches
Plugging these variables into the above equation yields a 0.203 goal differential advantage for England. England greatly benefits from their nearly 2-to-1 advantage in international experience that counts nearly six times as much as the other variables. For all the smack talk from English fans, this is hardly an advantage in the World Cup.
 
This match will likely be far more even than some would think. It’s certainly within the United State’s capability to win it. Both teams are in top form, and everyone is hoping for an outstanding clash worth the 60 year wait.
 
I have only one thing left to say.
 
“DON’T FIRE UNTIL YOU SEE THE WHITES OF THEIR EYES, BOYS! BEAT ENGLAND!!!”