One of the most common criticisms of the MLS playoff system (or playoffs in general) is that games don't "matter" until the end of the season - that a team only needs to get "hot" at the end of a season, and thus the early season is worthless. Personally, I find this notion ridiculous, since 3pts in April is worth just as much in the final standings as 3pts in October; and yet, it's almost an article of faith among critics that games don't "matter" until late-season if you have playoffs. So, I'd like to see some data on this alleged phenomenon. Does anyone have a monthly breakdown of points or standings? I'd love to see it. Particularly, I'd love to see the "Points earned in September" table and the "Points earned in October" table. Does anyone have the spreadsheet/data/etc readily available and can spit out these tables? Thanks in advance. I'm sure I could do this on my own, with enough time. But I thought maybe someone might already have this breakdown.
And when that person finishes this, let me know because I've got some analysis I need to perform on the stock option expense under Fas 123 r that I need to perform for one of my clients and if someone on bigsoccer could take care of that for me, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks in advance. I'm sure I could do this on my own, with enough time.
There are two kinds of people that BigSoccer has in abundance: geeks and douchbags. It's reasonable to assume that someone in this first group might already have the tables I'm looking for. But thanks for reminding me that it's equally reasonable to expect a swift response from the second group.
(1) It doesn't matter that it's ridiculous (and I agree that it is)-- it's not entirely rational that MLS players wouldn't try hard in April but plenty have come out and said so. It doesn't surprise me because it seems to mirror irrational behavior that stumps economists all the time. (2) What exactly would points per month show you? Even if teams are slacking off, there's still three points at stake, so I'm not quite sure what you'd be hoping to find. What am I missing?
Well, the idea was to show that an exceptional effort at the end of a season - when the games magically "matter" - doesn't compensate for a sub-par-or-poor performance earlier in the season. If, as critics charge, the beginning of the season is worthless, then teams can sleep through spring and summer, only needing to wake up in fall for a strong finish. Monthly tables would help expose the absurdity of this charge. For example, after a quick look, RSL secured nine points in the month of September (only three teams did better), but they will not even come close to making the playoffs because of early and mid-season ineptitude. While, at the same time, a strong early and mid-season allowed Dallas to saunter into the playoffs, despite recording only four points in all of September (one of the lowest totals in the entire league and less than half the points that bottom dwellers RSL managed). But, of course, since first starting this thread I've realized/accepted: 1. Evidence and strong reasoning won't sway the critics. They disparage playoffs/conferences/schedules/etc as a matter of faith, not from a consideration of the facts. 2. The LA Galaxy prove my point without the need to reference tables. Even if they DO manage to make the playoffs, it's quite telling that it took both an utterly astounding end-of-season run (7 straight wins; including a sold-out deathmatch victory in Chicago on the last day of the regular season!), and the good fortune of one or two other teams slipping up. BUT, of course, if they DO NOT make the playoffs, it shows the same thing: how difficult it is to overcome a poor start. Playoffs or not, the Galaxy are proving the value of the early and mid season. 3 points is 3 points. April or October. And if you get them in April, you may not need so many in October when the games, suddenly and magically, "matter."
You can probably make a graph similar to a stock and compare all teams. It would be pretty interesting seeing us go from rock bottom to almost in the playoffs.
But if everyone was sleepwalking, then everyone would still be getting points in March and April, but just playing at a much lower level. When everyone is playing harder in September, they'll all be playing at a much higher level, meaning that teams trying to make a charge will generally have a tougher time of getting points later. Unfortunately, I don't think your evidence shows quite what you think it does. The fact that you're right-- 3 points is 3 points regardless of when you earn it-- doesn't mean that players act like you're right. They have said that they don't play hard until late in the season. And frankly, although this is irrational, it's entirely consistent with human nature to act this way. Frankly, I think your premise needs a little work. All your table will show is that teams who consistently win more points in more months will tend to do better. IN other words, that points are points are points. Yes, we already know that-- so it's not really going to change anyone's mind.
Yes, but only if everyone is sleepwalking. Because the instant anyone wakes up - or refuses to sleep in the first place thanks to a proper coach - the sleepwalkers will find points hard to come by. A team already rich on points won against early-season slackers, doesn't have to "play harder" in September (see Dallas). The only teams fully motivated to "play harder" are those that squandered opportunities to get points earlier in the season and are desperate for them now (see LA). This rigidly uniform rising tide of intensity does not exist. Not everyone slacks in April, and not everyone hustles in September. I don't think you understand my premise. And I'm not saying that that's your fault. It's probably my fault. I'm sure I'm not explaining it well. Let me have another go at it. Very simply: critics allege that, with playoffs, only the last two months matter. But, if you fatten up on enough points in the first two months, the last two months do not matter. With enough early-season points, you can get almost no points at all in September/October and still make the playoffs. But, without enough early-season points, you can win almost every point in September/October and still fail to make the playoffs. Thus, the early season matters. Your "human nature" argument is overstated. A steady season-long crescendo isn't universal. Intensity varies wildly depending on individual context. Yes, some players will "play harder" late in the season. Some will play harder out of necessity - attempting to secure a playoff spot or a paycheck for next season. And others will play harder out of opportunity - given them because other players have failed to play hard/well. But still others will ride pine and not play at all, or play soft, because they played hard early in the season, built a comfortable point total for their team, pleased their coach, proved their ability, and are resting/preparing for death or glory in the playoffs.
It's human nature to be easier to motivate as the rewards become nearer-term, so I think people playing harder in Sept/Oct than they do in April is just a fact of life. As far as the data you requested, a week or two ago I put together a look at playoff teams since 2004 and their records in the last 5 and last 10 games of the season, but the data was quite noisy. For example, DC United last year, a great example of a strong team that really faded at the end of the season, beat the Metrostars in the playoffs, but when you look at the records late in the season they had absolutely no business winning that series. There may be some subtle correlations but the sample size is too small to bring any heavy duty statistical analysis to bear on the problem.
I still disagree with this. There are lots of "nearer-term" reasons to be motivated in April. Like the three points in the game you're playing. Or the thrill and possibility of a new season. Or your home fans. Or your place in the starting line up. Or a match against a rival. Or establishing good form. Or reversing bad form. Or impressing your national team coach. Etc. Etc. There are also lots of "nearer-term" reason to be unmotivated in Sept/Oct. The spoils of a motivated April, chief among them. Nevertheless, even if there are no motivations in April (or even just less motivation in April) due to "human nature," then this is hardly a unique criticism of playoffs. It would apply equally to a single-table league. And thus, the point of my argument. It's a ridiculous criticism of playoffs.
Sure-- which would seem to suggest that a team that didn't sleepwalk would push up the intensity for everyone else. However, very subjective observations of early season games suggest to me that this, in fact, doesn't happen. Couple that with a few anecdotes from players that they don't try hard until later and there you have a sliver of evidence for the sleepwalking argument. It is subjective and anecdotal, but it explains what a large number of people have observed, so I'm inclined to believe it. It doesn't need to be rigid to be generally true. It's messy and sloppy-- and certainly this year, the early season games were much better than in years past. Yeah. I get that. You can fatten up on enough points at any time and render any other part of the season "meaningless". Some of the guys around here that aren't too bright probably really do think that, because of this phenomenon, the early season really is meaningless. But the smarter critics wouldn't say that. Instead, they'd say that teams don't really seem to "bring it" until late in the season. Which brings us to: It's only overstated if you don't understand the natural limits of what market forces can and cannot do. "Human nature" affects everyone, no matter where they stand on the lazy-hard-working continuum. It may not affect them all the same way. It may combine with other factors to lead to results that are inconsistent with human nature. But it's there regardless. Let me give you a silly example: if a player is in a contract year, let's say his intensity would be a "9" of 10. Human nature tells him to slack off early in the year, so in early season games, he's only an "8". Is he still way more intense than, just to pull a name completely out of a hat, Pando Ramirez (a "4" normally, but apparently an "8" in the playoffs)? Of course he is. Human nature doesn't crush intensity-- it merely affects it.
I found your idea quite interesting (although I must admit that It would have been more interesting if you would have done the graphs yourself...) I did a quick thing in excel, here East and West separated (I have a chart of all teams together, but it just looks like a mess...)
This thread was originally started to refute the assertions of "some of the guys around here that aren't too bright" (which includes various media personalities I won't mention). We seem to be in agreement that their dim argument about a "meaningless" April is nonsense. However, it seems we've now upgraded the argument from a question of "meaning" to a question of intensity. (This is the reverse of what typically happens on BigSoccer, where arguments are usually downgraded; so I thank you for that.) But I'm not sure that I want to engage in this particular debate, in this particular forum, because, as you said, it's subjective and anecdotal. It also starts up a debate on what is and is not "human nature." And I can guarantee you that we have some very different ideas about that. To begin with, I reject the conception of homo economicus that you seem to support. But, even if I grant your version of "human nature," my point remains: this is a poor criticism of playoffs. Because it is not unique to a league with playoffs. It would apply equally to a league without playoffs. Can we agree on that much?
Yes-- although the structure of the playoffs or promotion and relegation do much to mitigate the problem. If you have parity and a relatively large number of playoff spots, that combination will allow teams to coast until late in the season. If you had, say, only one relegation slot and 12 European spots, then that too would create an incentive to slack off.
I'm not saying people aren't motivated at all in April and I, for one, said nothing about the playoffs. In fact I said that my research seemed to indicate that sept/oct performance is not a great predictor of success in the playoffs. Looking at this season in particular I think you can make an excellent case that the teams doing the best are the ones in the most dire straights, so it follows they aren't very good (and unlikely to succeed in the playoffs because of this) or else they could coast like the teams that have clinched are. But I can't believe you would argue with this statement: Even though the results were equally important to making the playoffs, the Colorado Rapids were probably more motivated against Chivas on Sunday than they were for a game in early May. 3 points is 3 points is 3 points, but when you are eliminated by a loss in this game you are about to play, it just feels like the 3 points is worth more. That's what I'm calling human nature, you can call it what you want. You see this same phenomenon in other sports (NFL fourth down decisions come to mind), I guess most notably in NBA games, where because the time frame is much shorter it is much more ridiculous. Points count the same in both quarters, but the fourth quarter feels more significant...the fans feel that way, the coaches feel that way, the players feel that way. It's not true, it's just how it feels and it affects the game.