Analysing the MLS SuperDraft: The GA debate

A more interesting comparison would be to start the GA comparisons at the point that they hit the age that they would be college grads, then move forward.

The whole point of GA is to get players earlier and develop them as pros.

To be shocked that 22/23/24 year old four year college players are getting more games/minutes than (sa) 19/20/21 year old GA players is to miss the point.

If the average minutes of GA players (who may no longer be GA, or even playing soccer) at 22/23/24 is less than the average minutes of drafted college seniors at 22/23/24, I'd find that very interesting.

 

There you have it; that would be the appropriate way to compare because now you are comparing a players development with the extra 2 years in college versus 2 years in the pro system; which is the point. But again, as long as Adidas is paying . . . .

 

But they're not. Even without taking age into account, GA players average more minutes, games, goals and assists. Normalizing for age will only increase that, but the OP hasn't addressed that argument yet -- to be fair, though, it would take more time than I have to make an age-normalized database of minutes, games and goals for MLS players.

 

I've only just been following along, and maybe I'll have to go back and re-read this whole thread, but this seems like a dignified climb-down. Also, I don't think alliteratively means what you think it means.

 

Of course, you get more time to look at 4 year college players and judge them. GA's are supposed to be high risk/high reward; and even then the data shows they are better contributors than players that have been scouted more due to playing in more college games. In the pro game; just more expensive (makes sense). Some folks in MLS may want it to be a selling league but most owners are just too apathetic. As long as MLS/Franchise's are making a steady profit who cares is what they think.

 

But then you get a 22 year old with 4 years of experience compared to a 22 year old rookie, so it doesn't seem to work either way.

Maybe if you model this over the lifetime of the contract ... except, then you introduce other variables.

In addition - value of an MLS player to the league and individual teams has not been well defined. Which player is worth $150,000 and which $1,500,000 and why?

One could also chart the "free agent", i.e., market values, of the GA's and the college seniors after their first contract expires.

 

Actually that works as intended. Nike Pro40/Generation Adidas is exactly supposed to provide that.

The apt comparison is the pool of 23 year-old GAs to 23 year-old four year college students and so on.

The whole purpose and objective of GenAd is that training in a pro environment is supposed to create more and better pros than four years of college - in general, not necessarily every instance.

 

And, perhaps, an even better comparison would be 23 y/o GAs versus 23 y/o college grads who were offered a GA contract but refused it...which eliminates the potentially confounding likelihood that the GA pool is simply more talented from the get-go.

That would be a great test of whether GA is truly helping develop players.

But the sample sizes are too small.

Personally, I would think that maturity, groundedness, and psychological strength are underrated factors in whether a player benefits from GA. I suspect that GA is very helpful for mature, put-together types...and potentially detrimental to immature, softer teenagers who would be better served and shaped by the more nurturing environment of college soccer.

 

It's tricky to define what it means for any MLS player to be "worth their salary," due to single entity. In most leagues, players earn their pay by helping their team win - in MLS, any win for one team is a loss for another one, so the definition of value for the money has to be based on something else.

I think that GA is important, and potentially worth the associated costs, for several reasons. In no particular order:

1. Transfer fees - as highlighted by scoachd1.
2. Perception - both for marketing purposes, and for attracting young talent in the future, it's important that MLS be viewed as a place where young American stars can get their early start.
3. Producing national team candidates - maybe most important. I'm a fan of college soccer, and I think that much of the criticism it receives here is misguided. That said, four years of college is usually not ideal, if only because a 22 y.o. college senior is effectively playing down an age group. If GA signings offer the opportunity for even a few talented young players to establish themselves as pros by age 21, and thus enter the national team picture with all of their prime playing years still to come, that could someday make the difference between qualifying and not qualifying for the World Cup.

On the other hand, I think some GA signings have been questionable and wasteful, and the program could be more cost-efficient in pursuing the above goals. Players under the age of 19, for example, are probably not worth signing unless they're close to a sure thing - meaning Altidore/Bradley/Gil levels of talent.

 

Well, a rough calculation would go something like this.

(Attendance for a club as first place team vs. the attendance as a last place team) x average ticket price/ total players on the roster /an average Castrol rating/salary.

Or, let's say an MLS club in town X is expected to average 18K when it's running the league and only 10K when it's bringing up the rear. Then 8K x 20 matches x $25 = $4,000,000.

(The logic behind this is that you'll never have a fully empty stadium and rarely a full one either)

Then, if you divide $4,000,000 by a 25 man roster, you get $160,000 per average player (incidentally, pretty close to the MLS mean wage and an average payroll).

Then you try to get some sort of a statistical score for an average MLS player. Let's say it's 480 Castrol points, making it 3 points per $1K in salary.

And those who score higher than 3 PPD are good buys. Those who score lower are not.

But here you are comparing only the experiences and not the investment as the OP does.

To add the financial variable, you'd have to add the cumulative salaries paid for the Gen Ad players development too (obviously, you can deduct the transfer fees, whenever applicable, from the initial investment amount).

 

If you look at the list you also see a large percentage of those that moved from MLS were GAs even though GAs make up a very small percentage of the draft. You claim there was no interest in Europe for Wenger. I'm more skeptical. I think there was interest for all the guys they paid higher money. What is your explanation for Tony Cascio getting paid more money than 3 of the GAs and 4 of the players drafted ahead of him? Tony have an uncle in New Jersey?

Your basis for argument is that there is not market for US players so MLS should make the play 4 years in college (or at least not pay them more). But the reality is that there is a market for these players and if MLS wants to keep a lot of them, the must pay close to market rates. The other part of your argument that is misplaced is that you only compare to 4 year college players instead of players from outside the US which is where MLS would need to replace them. If you did an analysis on every player in the league, what you would find when you factored in the the full length of contract and extensions, productions and transfer fees is not that GAs are overpaid, but instead that 4 year college players are under paid. If MLS is paying a player $50,000 but turns down a transfer offer of $500,000, because they could not find that type of value on the open market what is that player worth?

 

Good points. However, I believe MLS really doesn't care that much about developing National team players as much as it is concerned about having national team players associated with the league. If you look at some of the worst signings in terms of production, they have been nats coming back from Europe.

I also think you need to take into consideration the fact that investing in a young player is like investing in young companies. A lot of companies that seem good are complete failures. But when you hit one, you hit one big. But if you want to outbid the next guy, you can't worry about being criticized for the "expensive" misses.

 

Even though the OP doesn't like Castrol, I think yours is a reasonable statistical tool. The only thing I'm not following the "salaries paid for the Gen Ad players development." How are they different than any other player?

 

It's not.

But if your GenAd signing is not suiting up, his Castrol score will be zero and, if he only plays his 4th year, then you may want to add up his wages for the first 3 seasons too.

 

I disagree. I think MLS has proven that it has a big gap in its development of college age players. The two main reasons for GA are: 1) Keep players costs as low as possible. Even though GA will cost more than 4 yr college grads, they are still cheaper than importing similar players (or at least the keeping the same quality with by offsetting a weaker player pool of domestic players with a stronger even more high priced pool of non-domestic players).
2) Keep as many young and promising players associated with MLS as possible. It doesn't look good when a young US player like Charlie Davies blows up at the confederations cup and has no ties to MLS.

Your age argument is a reasonable one but to the OP point it doesn't matter that a young Yura Movsysian will be better when he's 25 and outside of the league. Your paying for paying him slightly bigger bucks at 20 so he should be performing like someone getting slightly bigger bucks.

 

The hype is part of the packaging the league to sell to fans. MLS helps ensure GAs will be "valued" and thus drafted higher (and thus "hyped") is to eliminate their salary going against the cap. I've already made more comments about the former than should be necessary.

 

I agree with you on counting the money paid for non-productive seasons. However what I didn't understand is why you qualified this with GAs when almost all the guys with zero by their Castrol score are non-GAs? Otherwise, I thought what you outlined was a logical approach. Once I got a few years of complete Castrol numbers, it was exactly what I was thinking of doing. While Castrol numbers certainly have some issues, they are more reasonable than any alternatives.

 

Do you happen to have any numbers for foreign players? I'm curious. I think MLS is actually improving in that regard. I did an analysis pre-castrol, so I think I just focused on forwards and goals. Even eliminating DPs (they severely skew numbers and have marketing consideration - see Marquez and Red Bull) goal per $$ was much better for US guys. BTW - to you argument GA Chad Barrett was one of the poster boys for people claiming US players were over paid as I recall. But from what I remember, Barrett was still better than the typical imported non-DA forwards.

In terms of cheap imports that will raise the standard of play, what players and what leagues are you suggesting? Although I have taken issue with some parts of your analysis, I think other parts are very good and would be interested in what you think. There are also labor law and marketing issues. For example, I think players with ties to the community or players with name recognition are more important than marginal improvements in quality of play.

 

Yes.

 

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing . . the reason you compare it that way is that is precisely the purpose of getting the top prospects out early - so they are ready to play by age 22-24.

 

I think the bold part is a faulty conclusion. A player that is cut for not fulfilling salary expectations can occur at any level and age. There is little difference between a 22 year old cut because they are not living up to a 160k or a 26 year old being cut for not living up to 80k. The one difference that does exist however, is these players in GA were able to prove their worth over four years while making 600k in cash. From MLS' standpoint it is a good risk because it allows them to identify players that will "make it" or not earlier, with little to no risk because the program is subsidized. I am not sure how the conclusion could be it isn't fair to the GA players. Each of those players, should teams deem them worthy, can renegotiate back to an appropriate salary on the next contract. Fact is they did not meet expectations, but again that is not a phenomena for only GA players.