[mpruitt]

I crunched some numbers in regards to fouls created and fouls suffered. Some of the stuff that came out is pretty inteersting. Namely that Dallas was second only to DC (suprise suprise they were #1) with the most fouls given but also the fewest recieved. I wonder what that says about their wins and loss record?

2003 Regular Season

	FC			FS
DC	530		Dallas	397
Dallas	509		Colorado	419
Metro	498		SJ	420
LA	494		KC	445
Chicago	491		Columbus	468
Colorado	482		LA	479
Columbus	476		NE	493
SJ	476		DC	520
NE	458		Metro	522
KC	422		Chicago	523

	FC/FS
Dallas	1.252116
Colorado	1.150358
SJ	1.133333
LA	1.031315
DC	1.019231
Columbus	1.017094
Metro	0.954023
KC	0.948315
Chicago	0.938815
NE	0.929006

+/- FC
Dallas	112
Colorado	 63
SJ	 56
LA	 15
DC	 10
Columbus	  8
KC	-23
Metro	-24
Chicago	-32
NE	-35

As you can see DC certainly had a well earned reputation for fouling, with 118 more fouls than Fair Play KC. However, it's interesting that they were also near the bottom of the league in fouls suffered, leading them to be exactly in the middle of the pack for FC/FS ratio.

Also on the list you see KC, Chicago, and NE as the bottom three for FC/FS ratio. That's three out of four conference championship participants. However, San Jose is fairly up there. Although they ranked both 8th in the league for fouls commited and fouls suffered. Kind of strange if you ask me. Does that say something about their team speed and style of play?

[mpruitt]

note: There's something a little bit off with my numbers. I added up the total number of FC and FS for each team and they didn't come out to be the same. I'm going to have to go back and double check if i have the data entered correctly, also there might be a little blip in there in regards to players who were traded. Because shouldn't those numbers leaguwide be equal?

[Jon Martin]

Maxim,

I'd guess that the cellar dweller always rises to or the top of fouls committed as their frustration builds. Do you have data for previous years? Is that why the Revs got their now-undeserved reputation?

[beineke]

Maxim -- FC shouldn't equal FS since nobody "suffers" a handball.

Jon -- I'm not sure that the cellar-dweller thing is necessarily related to frustration. If a team is trailing or has less dangerous possession, it's going to end up commiting more fouls.

[gotyourback]

Originally posted by beineke
Jon -- I'm not sure that the cellar-dweller thing is necessarily related to frustration. If a team is trailing or has less dangerous possession, it's going to end up commiting more fouls.

An interesting comparison might be looking at Dallas' stats from a couple of years ago where Pareja was counted on for holding schemes. If put head-to-head with last years stats at Dragon Stadium where 'holding' was a myth - it will probably point out more fouls suffered.

Teams that achieve a strong holding midfield will usually suffer more fouls. It becomes very frustrating for opponents when they run around like chickens with their heads cut off - only to be constantly foiled at regaining possession themselves.

[beineke]

Fouls Commited per Game (one team)
03 16.12
02 16.28
01 16.49
00 16.89
99 14.46
98 14.07
97 14.32
96 13.85

By and large, the teams that commit a lot of fouls also receive a lot (correlation 0.55).

The two most extreme imbalances:
The 2001 Burn, who commited 17.9 fouls per game and received only 12.8. Deering and Pareja combined for over four fouls per game.

The 1998 Revolution who commited 16.3 fouls per game and received only 11.5, the fewest in league history. That year, Raul Diaz Arce finished fourth in the league in fouls committed.

I was a little surprised to see that Hudson's Miami teams weren't very foul-prone -- both of his DC teams led the league in fouls committed.

[ChrisE]

Interesting topic, Maxim, although I've always had my doubts about how much fouls relates to winning.

I thought I'd take a look at field players and their fouling habits. I excepted goalkeepers because they hardly ever commit fouls (average .03 fc/90, .15 fs/90)

Field players, meanwhile, average 1.51 fouls committed/90, and 1.44 fouls suffered/90. Leading the way in both categories are the forwards and m/f's (per mlsnet), who averaged 1.60 fc/90committed and 1.94 fs/90.

Defenders (and d/m's), unsurprisingly are last in fs/90, at .99, while dealing out 1.49 fc/90.

Surprisingly, midfielders commit almost as many fouls/90, 1.48, while suffering 1.59.

League averages (goalkeepers excepted), are therefore 1.51 fc/90 and 1.44 fs/90, leaving us with (.07*10) .7 f/90, approximately one in twenty, that is not committed against another person.

I've got lists by year, that I found pretty much useless, but since I've got em, I figure I'll post em.

FC/90	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	Total
f,m/f	1.43	1.51	1.50	1.54	1.78	1.67	1.76	1.62	1.60
m	1.34	1.33	1.36	1.40	1.63	1.62	1.54	1.60	1.48
d,d/m	1.41	1.49	1.41	1.44	1.61	1.57	1.55	1.49	1.49
total	1.39	1.43	1.41	1.45	1.66	1.62	1.60	1.56	1.51

FS/90	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	Total
f,m/f	1.72	1.84	1.91	1.75	2.12	2.16	2.22	1.90	1.94
m	1.54	1.60	1.41	1.49	1.64	1.66	1.68	1.81	1.59
d,d/m	0.98	1.02	0.87	0.98	1.16	1.01	0.97	0.93	0.99
total	1.36	1.42	1.33	1.37	1.58	1.53	1.51	1.47	1.44

[mpruitt]

Yeah the positional thign was what I was going to do next, as well as year by year and overall team ratio. I'm not sure it relates directly to winning, but once I break down the year to years it will be interesting to see if there's any connection. I think that htis is potentially a very important stat because it's about as a discrete event that you're going to find in soccer. Also, because a foul relates directly to a free kick it is directly related to an offensive opportunity whether it be possesive or attacking. Would seem to me, jsut as turnovers are very important in football, this might be along the same lines, of course I'll have to look at more of the data to see if it trends out that way. I don't think it's going to universally say anything, but I think it is a good indicator of certain aspects of a team's play.

[mpruitt]

Originally posted by beineke
Fouls Commited per Game (one team)
03 16.12
02 16.28
01 16.49
00 16.89
99 14.46
98 14.07
97 14.32
96 13.85

By and large, the teams that commit a lot of fouls also receive a lot (correlation 0.55).

The two most extreme imbalances:
The 2001 Burn, who commited 17.9 fouls per game and received only 12.8. Deering and Pareja combined for over four fouls per game.

The 1998 Revolution who commited 16.3 fouls per game and received only 11.5, the fewest in league history. That year, Raul Diaz Arce finished fourth in the league in fouls committed.

I was a little surprised to see that Hudson's Miami teams weren't very foul-prone -- both of his DC teams led the league in fouls committed.

That would seem to make sense in terms of quantifying a certain style of play. Very aggressive, physical teams are going to mix it up a little bit more than teams built on speed or what have you.

[ChrisE]

Originally posted by maxim-1
That would seem to make sense in terms of quantifying a certain style of play. Very aggressive, physical teams are going to mix it up a little bit more than teams built on speed or what have you.

Possibly, but it might also be that teams built around speed, teams that are more likely to play direct and not have too much buildup, are going to have more potential interactions with other teams (i.e. more events where you're not just making safe passes around the back or what-have-you); I don't think that fouls for/against are necessarily a sign of physicality, I think there's a chance they have more to do with how involved you are in the game (if I remember correctly, Peter Hirdt said something like this in an article about Hristo Stoitchkov's tendency to tire out as the game wore on).