So heading in to the all-star break, the only 3 teams under .500 are Chicago, San Jose, and New England, the 3 teams that were consensus favorites for MLS Cup 2004.
Hi, I'm a dumb ass. Nice to me at all of you. Now, who put the "Kick Me" sign on my back? What in the hell was I thinking? Good Lord.
Ees cool, man! Lord knows how many times I have been called on something I wrote and thought "Erg, what was I thinking?" At least you didn't say Central!
Hey, I'm sorry. Didn't mean to rag on you. I'm usually not like that at all. It's because my freakin' team is driving me crazy and putting me in a bad mood.
What I'm absolutely shocked about is that that punk kid, who's done nothing in this league, Freddy Adu, was named a starter, over the far more deserving Jaime Moreno and Alecko Eskandarian. Talk about collusion, this Mickey Mouse league... oh wait. my bad.
Actually, there are only 3 teams OVER .500. Code: Team GP W L T Pct. Pts. PPG Home Away East West GF GA Net GR M# Pts. Streak Last 5 DC United 15 5 5 5 0.444 20 1.333 4-2-2 1-3-3 4-3-2 1-2-3 22 21 +1 15 41 Won 1 2-1-2 MetroStars 15 5 6 4 0.422 19 1.267 3-2-2 2-4-2 2-3-3 3-3-1 26 31 -5 15 42 Lost 3 2-3-0 Columbus 13 5 5 3 0.462 18 1.385 3-2-2 2-3-1 4-2-1 1-3-2 15 16 -1 17 43 Won 1 2-2-1 Chicago 14 4 5 5 0.405 17 1.214 3-3-1 1-2-4 3-2-1 1-3-4 15 15 0 16 44 Lost 2 1-3-1 New England 14 3 8 3 0.286 12 0.857 2-3-1 1-5-2 1-2-2 2-6-1 14 22 -8 16 N/A Lost 2 1-4-0 Team GP W L T Pct. Pts. PPG Home Away East West GF GA Net GR M# Pts. Streak Last 5 Los Angeles 16 8 5 3 0.563 27 1.688 5-2-2 3-3-1 5-3-1 3-2-2 30 25 +5 14 39 Won 2 3-2-0 Kansas City 15 7 4 4 0.556 25 1.667 4-1-2 3-3-2 2-3-3 5-1-1 23 14 +9 15 41 Won 1 3-0-2 Colorado 14 5 3 6 0.500 21 1.500 3-1-3 2-2-3 4-1-2 1-2-4 13 12 +1 16 45 Won 3 4-0-1 Dallas 14 5 5 4 0.452 19 1.357 2-2-2 3-3-2 3-0-2 2-5-2 17 21 -4 16 47 Won 1 2-1-2 San Jose 14 4 5 5 0.405 17 1.214 2-1-4 2-4-1 2-2-4 2-3-1 23 21 +2 16 N/A Lost 2 1-2-2
LA and KC are OVER .500 (in terms of the percentage of possible points won.) By my math Colorado (before Saturday) is exactly at, not over .500, having 21 of a possible 42 points.
I'm not sure where you took that chart from, but it really doesn't make sense to use .500 as any kind of benchmark if you're going to use points/possible points as your 'percentage.' In this kind of statistic, most teams are going to be under .500, which sort of destroys the idea of what .500 means.
No it doesn't. I make these charts for my health and for everyone on BigSoccer. For the 1,000,000th time, ties are not worth 1.5 points, so don't count them as .500. They are only 1 out of a possible 3 points PG, so count them as .333. Take LA for example. On average, they will score about 1.64 PPG. In your way, you're saying that they will score 2.3, which is absolutely wrong. Speaking of which, here are my updated all-time standings: Code: 1996-2004 TEAM GP W L T SOW PTS PCT GF GA GFPG GAPG ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Fire 195 101 66 28 5 321 .549 341 258 1.75 1.32 Los Angeles Galaxy 260 140 92 28 11 426 .546 456 332 1.75 1.28 D.C. United 259 124 108 27 18 363 .467 448 410 1.73 1.58 Columbus Crew 257 114 116 27 13 343 .445 416 393 1.62 1.53 Dallas Burn 258 114 119 25 15 337 .435 400 420 1.55 1.63 Kansas City Wizards 260 112 114 34 16 338 .433 384 402 1.48 1.55 Miami Fusion 122 56 56 10 10 158 .432 199 219 1.63 1.80 Colorado Rapids 258 108 121 29 12 329 .425 369 437 1.43 1.69 San Jose Earthquakes 258 111 116 31 19 326 .421 396 388 1.53 1.50 Tampa Bay Mutiny 187 83 98 6 10 235 .419 312 336 1.67 1.80 NY/NJ Metrostars 258 107 131 21 11 320 .413 383 436 1.48 1.69 New England Revolution 259 100 133 26 17 292 .376 375 448 1.45 1.73
Don't feel bad. Today, I wrote a post asking why Ned Grabavoy wasn't starting on the U-20 squad when he's so obviously talented Problem is, he's 21
That wasn't my point. It's perfectly fine with me if you prefer using points/possible points instead of win percentage - I think the differences between the two are pretty much arbitrary. However, it doesn't make sense to talk about a team being above or below .500 if you're using your statistic. The idea behind a team being above .500 is that they're above average, below .500 is below average, etc. Nobody talks about whether a NBA or MLB team is above .550. However, that's effectively what you're doing by using MLS teams' points/possible points - most teams in this situation are going to be below .500, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to bother with. I'd just use pts/game instead.