Numbers geeks rejoice: there's a new column. http://www.mlsnet.com/content/03/analyze0613.html Pepsi Pop Quiz Who is closest in age to MetroStars rookie Mike Magee: (a) Justin Timberlake; (b) the Olsen twins; (c) Freddy Adu; or (d) Avril Lavigne? Tune in to ESPN2’s coverage of Fire vs. MetroStars at 4:00 P.M. EDT on Saturday afternoon for the answer. Magee is 18. My guess: Olsen twins just turned 17, so it might be them. Or Avril? BigSoccer speculation: Freddy Adu, because he is actually 18 years old. There's no way he is only 14.
I'm sure some in Aregentina and Brazil, not to mention Mexico disagree with this... Eddie Pope Clint Mathis Tim Howard Those are not only the team’s three most valuable players; they are arguably the best keeper, defender, and sniper on the same club’s roster this side of the Atlantic. Pretty lame Pop Quiz after the ones they had before. I mean, who guessed Welton?
Virgil Trucks, the pitcher mentioned in the column, is one of only four pitchers in MLB history to throw two no-hitters in one season. Maybe Grafer will go on to similar MLS success.
I guessed right! I just remember that Welton was one of the top players in MFLS that year, so took an educated guess.
Analyze this is the most USELESS waste of a column i've ever seen. its so obvious that the author is desperate trying to pull statistic (MEANINGLESS STATISTICS) out of any orifice he can find. and its the same way EVERY WEEK. lets look at some of the stats for this week: Since Mathis debuted for the team on May 20, 2000, the Metros have out-scored their opponents 87–65 with the Cowboy on the field; without him, they have been out-scored by eight goals (65–57). what exactly does this prove? that mathis inspires good defense? that alot more goals have been scored (both for and against) with mathis on the field? meaning that mathis has spent more time on the field than off? or that the team sits back and plays defense when he isn't on the field? why bother telling us this? are we supposed to be memorizing it? its about as relevant as the number of vowels i've used so far in this post (215 not counting quote). how about this: A similar look at D.C. United’s performance with and without Eddie Pope illustrates the dangers of taking the numbers too literally. Over seven seasons, D.C. posted a better record without Pope in the starting lineup (40–30–4) than with him (69–62–9). So a different approach is needed to estimate the value of a defender whose worth is not reflected in those figures. followed by... Instead of limiting the survey only to Pope, it was broadened to include each season’s Pepsi Best XI defenders. Although the data are no longer Pope-specific, they provide a much larger sample from which to estimate the value of a generic “All-Star defender.” ...but then he ends it with... Despite the evidence that Mathis and Pope could each be worth as much as four or five wins per season but wait.... HE CLEARLY STATED THAT DC WON MORE W/O POPE!!! what kind of stupid trick is this? i could go back and pick some gems from past entries? if i recall last weeks was filled with em. (maybe it was the weeks before.) MLSnet.com might as well just fire this guy and post the worst bigsoccer post of the week on their site.