After the final it really hit me how dominant Los Angeles has been in MLS. This was a league based heavily on parity and yet one club is consistently there at the last match of the season. Got me thinking, since 1996 how do the other major sport leagues compare? MLS 1996: DC United 3-2 Los Angeles 1997: DC United 2-1 Colorado 1998: Chicago 2-0 DC United 1999: DC United 2-0 Los Angeles 2000: Kansas City 1-0 Chicago 2001: San Jose 2-1 Los Angeles 2002: Los Angeles 1-0 New England 2003: San Jose 4-2 Chicago 2004: DC United 3-2 Kansas City 2005: Los Angeles 1-0 New England 2006: Houston 1-1 New England 2007: Houston 201 New England 2008: Columbus 3-1 New York 2009: Salt Lake 1-1 Los Angeles 2010: Colorado 2-1 Dallas 2011: Los Angeles 1-0 Houston 2012: Los Angeles 3-1 Houston 2013: Kansas City 1-1 Salt Lake 2014: Los Angeles 2-1 New England In 18 seasons Los Angeles has been to 9 finals (50%) and won 5 of them (28%), longest stretch was 3 years (2006-2008) when Los Angeles did not make a final appearance. ----------------- Since 1996: NHL Stanley Cup Detroit Red Wings - 5 Final Appearances, 4 wins MLB World Series New York Yankees - 7 Final Appearances - 5 wins NBA Finals Los Angeles Lakers - 7 Final Appearances - 5 Wins NFL Super Bowl New England Patriots - 6 Final Appearances - 3 wins --------------------- In that time frame only two teams match the 5 titles, and none match the 9 final appearances. Now, we could be living at the end of an era and Los Angeles could go a decade without a final appearance, but it is striking to me that leagues heavily parity structured (MLS) and leagues with far less parity (MLB) over this stretch of time still see someone rise up an be the dominant team of an era. Is it inevitable? Is it a good or bad thing? I just now it is damn impressive and very annoying as an opposing supporter.
Divide all those numbers by 2 if you want to compare to a 30-32 team league. Still impressive, but better reflects the relative parity of the respective leagues.
I do think it is a reflection of good investment. LAG has never been shy when it comes to investing in the future, whereaas SSS, Front Office, Players (they had a bad stretch with player aquisitions, but the saw their mistakes), Academies, etc. I think that even when you hate them, you still have give them props, that is a well run organization overall. I think other teams are taking notes and making the changes they need, like KC. I think that SEA is poised to follow the LA steps, but i think the playoffs tactics is what has been dooming that franchise to win their cup. We should also keep an eye on both NYC franchises in the following years.
How does the size of the league factor in? In 1996, LA made the finals of a 10 team league, whereas the other teams were fighting to reach the playoffs/finals of leagues twice MLS' size. While the league has grown (and shrunk)(and grown again) since then, it's still barely as big as the playoff pool size of other leagues. Not saying that what LA has done isn't impressive (it is and, as a Fire fan, annoying) but it's hard to put it in context against teams in other leagues that have a statistically smaller chance to win the championship.
LA has also benefited from a league expanding at a greater rate (in comparison to league sizes) than the other leagues. Since the league went back to ten teams 6 of the 9 teams added have been in LA's conference (Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Jose, Chivas USA, Salt Lake).
I'm not sure that's been of particular 'benefit' to LA--the West has been overall the better conference for a lot of those years.
Interesting that the league having less clubs makes it easier according to responses. Didn't really consider that as much. Dallas and New York went through those same years and have one final appearance each and 0 wins. DC United and Chicago enjoyed great success in early years, but last 5 have seen trophies dry up and last MLS Cup final appearance by either was a decade ago. Then we have New England who have made second most (5, tied with DC United) final appearances and have no titles to show for it. Of course MLS is a bit different in having three trophies as opposed to one that people concern themselves with. By the metrics above Seattle and Toronto are in the same category, yet one is seen as a huge success on the field, and the other not so much. At the end there are two finalists and one champion. Most sport leagues have three tiers to me. The elites, generally 1-4 teams that win majority of years and titles in a given era. The second tier win a title here or there and are competitive for a bit, and the third tier are the majority that never win and are lucky to even make an appearance. Made me wonder, is it possible to ever have parity in sport?
Lets not confuse what parity in sport means (at least to me and I know a number of other posters here). Parity doesn't mean "a different champion every year and no dynasties". Parity means that every team starts each season with the same resources and the winner is determined by who does the best with what they have, not just who spent the most (or nearly the most). LA is a top-class organization that makes the most with the MLS rules. Toronto, despite having as much money (approx.) invested does not. The Rapids have less money invested but even if they had LA's resources the FO is incompetent and would prevent the team from winning. Meanwhile Kansas City won last year despite being one of those smaller teams because they're organization did more with what they had. Knowing that its possible for a competent organization to pull a KC (or even a DC this year) despite the money TFC and LA are throwing around is what parity should be IMO.
I suppose you could state "parity mechanisms" and "parity results". MLS has the mechanisms to encourage parity with salary cap and revenue sharing and drafts. The issue is even with these one side shows that it does not bear out parity. Some clubs go to the final 50% of the time, and others go 0-5% of the time. You can even argue playoffs themselves are meant to encourage parity. To me, parity has three types. Historical parity - Is the same side winning over 20, 40, 60 years? Annual parity - Is someone running away with the league? Day of match parity - Is there often a clear favorite to win? MLS actually is much more exciting than other league in Europe in regards to annual and day of match. Start of this season I figured be Seattle and Kansas City in the cup, and through out the season no clear favorite emerged and even at playoffs it was hard to pick. It struck me that in spite of all this once the cup is fought for at the end the same side pops up over and over.
Here's LA's all time conference finish, and then league playoff finish, by year: 1996: 1, Cup Finalist 1997: 2, Conf Semi 1998: 1*, Conf Final 1999: 1, Cup Finalist 2000: 2, League Semi 2001: 1, Cup Finalist 2002: 1*, Champions 2003: 4, Conf. Semi 2004: 2, Conf. Final 2005: 4, Champions 2006: 5, DNQ 2007: 5, DNQ 2008: 6, DNQ 2009: 1, Cup Final 2010: 1, Conf Final 2011: 1, Champions 2012: 4, Champions 2013: 3, Conf. Semi 2014: 2, Champions It will be interesting to see what's next for them. I have the feeling next year's probably not the end of the road for them, but it may be coming a little further down. They still have great assets in guys like Robbie Keane and Bruce Arena, but they no longer have the guy who brought those guys in, and it'll be interesting, when the time comes to replace those guys, whether they'll be able to do it. LAFC is also going to factor into that argument down the line. For next year, the first thing is do you (can you, under the cap) bring in a DP that will make a major impact on play to replace Donovan. Second thing is whether Keane can keep producing at his level, and third is whether Zardes can improve upon 2014. Then there are probably a bunch of smaller roster questions like guys coming in for raises, young players who might deserve first team time, etc, but I think those are the three big ones.
LA and DC have been MLS elites, and one could certainly count the DynoQuakes in there as well, as that was basically the same team. Elites: LA Galaxy, D.C. United Mediums: Sporting Kansas City, San Jose, Chicago, Columbus, Houston, RSL, Seattle, New England Once in a while: Colorado, New York Red Bull, FC Dallas Ugh or too soon to tell: Toronto, Vancouver, Portland, Philly, Montreal Welcome: NYCFC, Orlando
I think it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out over the next few years. KC, DC and NE are all good stories about how the old ways can work, and yet there's only one trophy between them recently. Here's LA's run over the last 6 years: 2009 Cup runner-up, Shield runner-up 2010 Shield winner 2011 Cup winner, Shield winner 2012 Cup winner 2013 2014 Cup winner, Shield runner-up I'm curious to see if the non-spending teams can put together several good years in a row. It seems to me it's getting harder and harder as the new teams coming in seem like they know what they're doing and they're willing to spend. I'm not a big fan of extending the playoffs but I could see how you could end up in a world where a team can go 6-10 years without getting in the playoffs if you kept it at 10.
I predicted that would happen back when they relaxed the DP rules a bit. Once a DP no longer carried a penalty over the kind of max-cap player that most teams were going to carry anyway, you had to figure there'd be a team with both deeper pockets and some smarts about how to use them, and that this team would be a contender over and over again. LA's been that team, and Keane has been emblematic about what you can get for having deep pockets if you are pretty smart about how you use them.
Also, the way LA built the most recent dynasty wasn't so much about money as it was about good drafting and scouting. Over the entire history of MLS, LA has probably been the most successful team at the MLS draft, despite rarely having early picks. The foundation of the 2009 finalists and 2011 and 2012 MLS Cup winning teams was the best back four in the league, which consisted of four Americans, three of whom were drafted by the Galaxy in 2008 and 2009. And on top of that, there's a staggering number of LA-drafted players who have had great MLS and USMNT careers elsewhere. And then there's Juninho and Marcelo Sarvas, who have outshone better-known central midfielders around MLS: one brought in as a 20-year-old, the other signed from a Costa Rican club at low cost.
Although those drafts were the time that the Galaxy drafted towards the top. They were smart by using it to build the defense while relying on other methods to get the attacking players. I'm curious to see whether NY2 and Orlando do the same.
And the other factor is that it was Arena who put all the little pieces together, Arena who, until someone else takes the crown, is probably the best 'team architect' (by which I mean he both coaches and brings in the talent) in the country. . . . and Arena's signing was about money. It was about Lieweke throwing more at him than anyone else was making (as I recall, it was by a pretty good margin at the time). So even some of what wasn't about money was in another way kind of about money.
LA. DC was basically just the expansion team that got its stuff together faster than the other expansion teams.
True. But I'm also thinking of others who had their best years away from LA. Clint Mathis, Robbie Findley, Brian Ching, Matt Reis, Alejandro Moreno, and Ned Grabavoy, among others.
This is what is more impressive to me than the Galaxy as a Dynasty. Arena has been such a dominant force in MLS. No one even comes close. Sigi is a pale shadow compared to Bruce's Cup record. I actually would be curious to see how Bruce would handle a new generation of USMNT players...
LA, and its not even close. As much as we like to canonize those DC teams, the level of play in this league, along with the number of teams that you'd have to face, in much more hostile away games... yeah, there's no comparison.
I just ran a simulation of 1,000,000 19 year windows, where the winner each season was picked with equal probability from amongst the possible teams that were in the league at the time, for both NBA and MLS. For the MLS scenario, in 13.2% of those league histories, one team has won the championship at least 5 times (and in 2 of the 1,000,000 histories, a team won the championship 10 times). For the NBA scenario, in only 1.01% of the league histories did one team win at least 5 championships. In sum, it is much less likely that the Lakers won 5 championships in 19 years, than the Galaxy.
LA (AEG) has done so much to raise the bar in MLS: 2nd team to build an SSS, and stepped up the expectations of SSS' at the time DP rule pushed forward by LA to sign Beckham Pushed the league to allow 3 DP's when they wanted more First MLS team to own a USL-Pro team One of the fastest growing academies Local TV deal worth $5.5 Mil/yr Not to mention Uncle Phil effectively kept the league afloat owning roughly 70% of the teams. A well deserved dynasty with everything the organization has done to push MLS forward. Not to lose sight of the natural advantages enjoyed. Being in LA they have an advantage recruiting talent (stars want to play in LA), have a higher ceiling for their TV deal, and have a generous pipeline of natural talent feeding into their academy. All this being said I am curious to see how their rivalry with LAFC turns out.
Bruce Arena. LA were good in the 90s and early 00s, but beatable, as evidenced by three MLS Cup losses. Since Arena started coaching them though they've been almost unbeatable in games that matter. He's lead his team to the Final in seven out of ten full seasons (96-98, 07, 09-14), only missing out in 07, 10, and 13. LA have definitely had a successful history outside of Arena's tenure, but they made five finals in the first thirteen seasons (winning two of them), and have made it to four of the last six since Bruce's arrival (winning three of them).