Huh? That doesn't actually match what happened. Yeah the pieces to figure out Pearl Harbor was going to happen were there in hindsight but nobody "allowed" it to happen. Odds are one way or the other the Japanese aggression was going to bring the U.S. into the war at some level eventually. Even if they ignored Pearl and just stuck to their goals in Southeast Asia they would have had to deal with the Philippines eventually (since it was astride the only realistic routes between Japan and the oil fields they were conquering) which means the U.S. forces there would have ahd to be neutralized. Maybe it doesn't become a whole second front like it did but there would have been some level of engagement by the U.S. in the Pacific, Pearl Harbor or no.
So, just looking at these 4 teams remaining in the West, Portland is the real outlier. They'd be "fine" traveling to play on a natural field on the road (even though their home field is the opposite). (Although their road synthetic record from this season doesn't bode well for their second-leg match at VAN.) Seattle and Vancouver would seem to prefer to play on a "familiar" (synthetic) field when they travel. Dallas would seem to prefer to play on a "familiar" (natural) field when they travel. And all 4 of those teams would rather host MLS Cup.
No, not that seriously. It was a play on the idea/comment I directly quoted. Although, looking at the data for FCD, VAN, POR and SEA from this season, and specifically their results on the road, seems to provide some interesting insight. I'd contend that MLS players in the PNW really aren't "playing on grass all of their lives." The majority of their competitive club matches in recent years seem to be on synthetic fields. Going on the road to play on grass likely is a bit of a "foreign" challenge for them, relative to what they play on while in their home venue, and relative to how a team that plays on grass at home feels about playing on grass on the road. Might be interesting to look at the NE and OCSC results from this season, for some additional context.
3 games is not a valid sample size to convince me otherwise. A team whose offense depends on quick combination play between ObaDempsey doesn't strike me as being "built for turf". What was the context of those away games? Were those when it was Lamar Neagle leading the line when Clint was at the Gold Cup, suspended or out injured? Its a meaningless sample to try and draw a conclusion from.
The 31 other regular season games they played in 2015 looks to be a fairly decent sample size. 2.059 PPG at home on turf (in 17 games). 0.714 PPG on the road on grass (in 14 games). And we can add in the 2-0-0 record at home in the post-season so far, for more context. Will be interesting to see what they can do at Dallas in leg 2. A team is "built" beyond its desired starting XI. Results are acquired all season long, with or without the likes of Lamar Neagle getting significant minutes in some match(es).
Yeah. Or maybe they are built to play on turf. Or, a bit of both realities. Even the limited sample of their 3 road matches on turf doesn't seem to support the idea that they (only) suck on the road.
Having now compiled and looked at the remaining Western teams regular season records by location and surface, I will slightly revise to admit that Portland at NYRB would also be a very good Cup final, and perhaps the best one. Put Portland has a tough road to get by VAN, and then either FCD/Seattle. And I'm not really convinced that NYRB will reach the final. If they can hold on against a DC team that many are underestimating (or perhaps do have accurately pegged) the Eastern final series does have some potential to be a real challenge for NYRB.
My sample size is the full 2015 regular season, and looking at the home and away records (and the surfaces involved) for all the regular season games played by FCD, VAN, POR and Seattle. The Cascadia Cup Matches are a subset of that sample. But the fuller sample tells a much more interesting/accurate story, imo. No thanks. This is a fairly clear Win for me. (Or what I compiled and shared is a data-set that at least leans more toward supporting, rather than disproving, my earlier hypothesis/statements about how the turf or natural grass home teams tend to travel and succeed, or not, on various surface types.) I think you're miss-reading (or just not seeing) all of the data that was compiled and just shared in this thread -- in terms of the full set of regular season results for the four currently remaining Western Conf teams. Yes. I'm working with the current season data that is available. (The data set of just the Cascadia matchups is indeed limited, and likely not all that relevant to the full playoff picture that is yet to unfold.) Still, the full 34 game results for all of FCD, VAN, POR and SEA (presented as PPG averages) does provide some interesting insights. (And it provides, imo, a bit of a better context than the simple/earlier approach of let's just see how these Western teams have done at RBA all time.)
Stop moving the goalposts. First, you hypothesized that the Red Bulls would have an advantage over Cascadia teams in a Final because they play on grass. Then you brought up the teams play on grass vs turf. Which showed for FC Dallas and NYRB that they play worse on turf. Then you brought up the Cascadia teams struggles away from home. Which is ridiculous because Vancouver has the BEST away record followed by Portland. Which were both better than both NYRB and FC Dallas. Keep in mind that MLS teams tend to do worse on the road. The Average PPG for Playoff Teams on the road is just below 1. Then You gave this data based on this Season. I added and bolded the teams that each team played away on synthetic, despite the fact that you are using 3-4 games as a sample size. Here's FCD, Vancouver, Portland and Seattle (for the 2015 regular season, all records as W-D-L) :: Removed the FC Dallas VAN at home (on synthetic) = 9-2-6 = 1.706 PPG VAN away (on grass) = 5-1-7 = 1.231 PPG VAN away (on synthetic) = 2-2-0 = 2.000 PPG Win 3/21 at Orlando, Draw 5/2 at Portland, Win 6/27 at New England, Draw 7/18 at Portland, Win 8/1 at Seattle Loss 9/23 at Seattle CCL POR at home (on synthetic) = 8-6-3 = 1.765 PPG POR away (on grass) = 7-2-5 = 1.643 PPG POR away (on synthetic) = 0-0-3 = 0.000 PPG Loss 3/28 at Portland, Loss 4/26 at Seattle, Loss 8/30 at Seattle SEA at home (on synthetic) = 11-2-4 = 2.059 PPG SEA away (on grass) = 2-4-8 = 0.714 PPG SEA away (on synthetic) = 2-0-1 = 2.000 PPG Win 5/16 at Vancouver, Loss 6/28 at Portland, Win 9/19 at Vancouver Draw 8/5 at Vancouver during CCL From this data, you can't conclude a damn thing. Only Vancouver player any turf games outside Cascadia. NYRB and FC Dallas can beat up on Colorado, Chicago, Philly, and NYCFC on the road on grass to help your argument, while the Cascadia teams play each other (ALL PLAYOFF TEAMS) in a limited number of games (3-4) to support the road turf argument.
No one is moving goal posts. This is an evolving discussion and analysis of available results, with an aim toward understanding the impacts of playing on turf or grass. And that (very fine) hypothesis is supported for 2 out of the 3 Cascadia teams, based on the full set of 2015 season results and how those Cascadia teams tend to preform on the road on grass vs on the road on turf. (Actually, it was a more nuanced hypothesis/idea, given that all home teams are going to have an advantage over every road team in a one-off Cup final. The idea was to ascertain the truth to the assumption of "turf teams" even facing a "bigger disadvantage" when playing away on grass, relative to what a "grass team" faces when playing on the road on grass.) It is certainly worth noting that FCD has a better road record (PPG average) on grass than do either Seattle or Van, in 2015. (And their turf road record isn't that great, which indeed will/could be a factor in determining if they can even make it to the MLS Cup final.) So that reality (from the 2015) seemed to generally support the contention that FCD would be "the best" opponent for a Cup final played at RBA (relative to what VAN, POR or Seattle would offer). The only "error" in the contention is the later noted fact that POR has a better PPG road average on grass than does FCD. And I admitted that Portland was the exception that went against my assumption (again based on the 2015 regular season data). That's not called moving the goal posts, that called looking at the data and giving it a worthwhile analysis. ymmv. Yes, I brought it up for FCD (and their 2015 road results) to help support my earlier contention that teams seem to prefer to (generally) play (when on the road) on a surface comparable to their home surface. (I actually haven't looked at NYRB's road results this season, because if they make it to MLS Cup, they will host it.) I'm using the sample size available in the 2015 regular season. I'd love to see a deeper dive on this, and a look back at 2014 (or earlier seasons) as well. Yeah, that was an error on my part, and put NE in the grass column by accident. Thanks for catching that. Here's Vancouver's corrected table. VAN at home (on synthetic) = 9-2-6 = 1.706 PPG VAN away (on grass) = 4-1-7 = 1.083 PPG VAN away (on synthetic) = 3-2-0 = 2.200 PPG (I chose to ignore the CCL matches and the already played post-season matches as well, but they could certainly be added to the analysis.) No one is asking for a conclusion. This data was presented to offer insight. The data does offer insight. Take it for what it is worth. Portland ran off a string of some late-season solid road results (at LA, CLB and twice at RSL) on grass to also not support my initial hypothesis. But overall, I find the data interesting to look at. ymmv, clearly.
I think Portland will advance on away goals. Calling for a 1-1 draw. Drogba scored twice. Montreal advances. 1-1 in Dallas. Seattle advances. Upset alert. 2-0 DC to advance.
Unfortunately the forecast does not call for snow in Harrison between now and Sunday. But I like the gutsy projection of seeing all the 1 and 2 seeds eliminated.
The last two times the Sounders traveled to the East Coast to play a one off cup final they won. Both games were played on grass.
Yes. Good insight there. Seattle has to get through Frisco first before they can perhaps head farther east in December. And I'm interested by the fact that a "turf home" team has never lifted MLS Cup, afaik.
That is a bold prediction, considering that DC's away goal scoring record during the regular season looked like this: 0 goals: 9 games 1 goal: 7 games 2 goals: 1 game (against Vancouver back in April)
I was assured this thread had a 20 character limit, with a preference for silly pictures and one liners
All these stats are beyond me, but have they taken into account the huge home field advantage all around MLS this year? No team in the league had a winning record on the road, and I'm pretty sure no team had a losing record at home. That surely complicates a grass versus turf analysis. That said, does anyone know if the turf on the PNW MLS fields is any slower than the turf being installed on high school and park fields? My daughter plays on those, and the ball rolls so fast that's it makes a significant difference. When teams play on grass I've seen them stop playing balls that then roll to a stop before crossing the line. That much of a difference in playing surface must result in a difference in play.
Thanks for running the numbers. When looking at how Cascadia does away on grass, based on the numbers you provided for this year only, it appears their ppg is not significantly different than Dallas: Cascadia = 14-7-20, 1.20 ppg Dallas = 4-3-5, 1.25 ppg Statistically that is not much of a difference, especially when variables such as the greater travel distance for Cascadia teams are thrown into the mix. So it really doesn't appear that Dallas has any significant advantage for an away game at Red Bull Arena due to surface (which, IIRC, was your original argument), especially when you consider they have never won at Red Bull Arena. You noted based on this year Cascadia does worse on grass than away turf. Of course, other variables such as distance come into play with that. Regardless, there is no reason why we should restrict ourselves to just this year if looking at the premise of does grass hinder the turf teams. For better sample sizes it would be better to pool data over a multitude of seasons but, unfortunately, the distance factor will always come into play. More importantly, this thread is testimony to the need for more MLS games. The offseason is going to be much too long.