Rapids Year-Over-Year Perfomance Comparisons

While ultimate judgment must be reserved for how the team performs in the playoffs, at this point this becomes the key comparison for me:

2002: 13w-11-4d (.542) Hankinson
2000: 13w-15-4d (.464) Myernick

While the winning percentage is better, the total number of wins (and ties, and points) has not changed a bit.

Wasn't this one of the key reasons that the Rapids canned Mooch?

Certainly a contributing factor (and one mentioned by Counce) was the idea that Mooch was not able to successfully combine the entertainment factor with a winning program.

But don't tell me that performances like our 0-4 loss to LA at home are entertaining. Or playing a 4-5-1 with two defensive midfielders.

For all the bunker-ball that may have been played in 1999, I don't recall too many people complaining in the first half of the season which saw the club in first-place league-wide. It wasn't until the horrendous scoring drought and losing streak that occupied the second half of the season that yelps of bunker-ball began to surface.

This year's team did not surpass the total goals scored in 2000 (even with 43); this puts us in 6th place for total offense. Granted the 2000 season had 4 more games, but the attacking talent then was a mere shadow of what is in place today.

But this game isn't all about offense.

I'm equally entertained by a stingy defense: consistent keeping, tight marking, smart fouling, solid communication and organization. This year, the Rapids allowed 48 goals -- second-most in the league. In 1999 the team allowed 39 goals, while playing 4 more games (2000 of course was a laugher, with 59 goals allowed).

I don't think I'm being too scrutinous when I say that our improvement win two years with Hankinson has not come in leaps and bounds.

Most will agree that this is the most talented Rapids side ever assembled. Yet the team still managed to finish only 1 game above .500 and were unable to win when it truly mattered -- namely at home against KC with the #4 seed on the line. Would have been nice to be one of the rare teams to win 3 in a row, too.

Perhaps it's my single-table mentality, but I'm not quite as hopeful of the Rapids in the playoffs this year. My fingers remain crossed but we haven't seen too much to indicate that this team can really turn it up in the games that matter most.

 

Re: Re: Rapids Year-Over-Year Perfomance Comparisons

to normalize 2002 results to the number of games played in 2000

14.86 wins, 12.57 loses, 4.57 ties
vs
13.00 wins, 15.00 loses, 4.00 ties


As far as the overall situation goes, the Rapids did fine. The Rapids did fine with Mooch. Mooch had four years to do better than fine. Hankison probably buys himself another year to do better than fine with a better than 500 record. Every year, most teams do fine. Who knows to what degree a coach is responsible? Well probably in the right situation, the coach makes a big difference, and in other situations the coach just does not matter.

The times it does matter are when the coach has the oppotunity to totally remake a team. This opportunity usually comes after a disasterous year. When that happens, the team either becomes much better (Yallop and the Quakers) or still sucks (Rongen and DC United).

The Rapids had a mini-remake over the last year and a half. Hankison was in charge of that. Short an impact forward (Amokachi disaster), the Rapids were remade but the remake was incomplete. The incompleteness is, of course, management's fault.

So my answer is, Hankison is marginally better than Mooch, and more can be desired from the team on the field, but the Rapids are not in a "wipe the slate clean" position being one of the more capable teams in the league, and there isn't a "supercoach" hanging around (Arena?) to take over our team that we would be so super-glad to have him. So, we stick with Hanki for another year.

The question becomes, when do you dump Hanki? And that is when the situation becomes a bit tired, which is not a reflection on the coach or team, but just an acceptance that the passage of time demands a change. The team is probably not there yet, by my guess, but next year might be a different story.

 

Re: Re: Rapids Year-Over-Year Perfomance Comparisons

The problem is that every team in the MLS, except maybe DC United, have the most talented team they've ever put together..

Due to the contraction, the competition in this league is the best it's been.

 

Re: Re: Rapids Year-Over-Year Perfomance Comparisons

While I don't disagree with you greenie, there is one thing I want to point out:

2002: 43pts - Tied for 3rd best point total

In prior years 43pts would have put you at:

2001: 6th (of 12) best point total
2000: Tied (with the 2000 Rapids) for the 8th best point total (of 12)
1999: 7th (of 12) best point total
1998: 6th (of 12) best point total
1997: 5th (of 10) best point total
1996: 4th (of 10) best point total

So we'd have to go all the way back to the inagural year for 43 pts. to have gotten us where we are now. Obviously there is room for improvement, but the same 43 pts. that Hankinson got gets us a lot further than the 43 pts. Mooch got.

 

43 points in a 28 game season is equivalent to 49.14 points in a 32 game season.

2001 - 3rd among 12
2000 - 6th among 12

Consider an average 50% success rate in shootouts, so halve the number of ties from the present season to compare with shootout years.

41 points in 28 "shootout adjusted" game season, equivalent to 46.86 points in a 32 game shootout season.

1999 - 5th among 12 (Rapids actually held 5th spot with 48 points)
1998 - 4th among 12
1997 - 3rd among 10
1996 - 3rd among 10

 

The on field performance has definately been better and more attractive. You guys have by far the most talented midfield in the league. I knew you would be trouble from the start of the season. The results tapered off more than I thought with Spencer out, but you still did well with a revived Carrieri up front (Is he still a whiney b!tch?).

But the real reason I came here was to congratulate you in taking first place in the most important race in my opinion. A few years ago your attendence was poor and there was talk of your team being on the chopping block after last season, but here you are with an average of over 20k! Very impressive. Did they market more? Is the stadium closer to the people that wanted to see the games? Just curious if anything changed significantly.

So here's to the first place Rapids fans! (Now give us Fraser back you b@st@rds!)

 

I generally agree with all the stats, and am not suggesting this team hasn't improved... only that it really hasn't made significant progress.

While contraction did strengthen every team, it also offered certain teams -- like the Rapids -- the opportunity to bring themselves up to another level, which the club clearly did so in comparison to their 2001 performance.

If you are to consider contraction however you should also consider what would have become of this team had contraction not occurred, and what moves outside of the dispersal draft were made by the club. To wit, the Rapids did not make too many significant moves, and we're left with the discovery of Kingsley as one of our non-dispersal highlights. The kid's been great, but he's hardly a Twellman or Ruiz.

Instead, the Rapids gambled on Amokachi and lost heavily. For all the rumors that suggest Simutenkov was promised as a second choice by the league, the Russian has hardly burned up the pitch for the Wizards.

Hankinson and Counce have told us on numerous occasions that what matters is how you're playing when you finish the season. Compare the Rapids' closing run to those of New England, Los Angeles and Columbus -- noting also that two of those clubs have also advanced to the Open Cup final.

At the end of 2000, the Rapids decided that they wanted a new coach to help guide the team to "what the fans deserve -- a championship." Mooch was fired under the guise that the team was underachieving, and that he had taken the club as far as they could go.

Hankinson was hired and took the opporutnity to gut the team over the course of the first year. Fortune smiled on his rebuilding requirements when contraction became a reality, yet the end result hinged on a failed gamble which left the team with only one forward for a long stretch of the season.

Meanwhile the fans sat back, waiting for that final roster move, that final piece of the puzzle that would pull everything into place for the Rapids, yet wound up with only the arrival of Kingsley and Palacios.

In the end the club did "fine," as Hanki accurately states. And as Jason adds, they were an improvement over most every other season.

Going strictly by Hanki's relative comparisons between 2002 and 2000, in two years we see the Rapids have earned an extra 2 wins and 1 tie. An extra 7 points in the standings is solid improvement, but in a league this small is hardly an outstanding leap.

But really it's not about the numbers, it's about where you finish and how you perform against other clubs. We may be tied this season for the third-best point total in the league, but between the tiebreaker and playoff seedings their performance was only good enough for 4th overall and 5th heading into the playoffs, against a team who's murdered us all season (except when we played their JV team).

I don't buy this bit about Hankinson not having two complete seasons with this club. Yallop had less time with the Quakes, yet made a much more marked improvement; he's even had less coaching experience. And for all the arguments that point out MLS gave San Jose more assistance than Colorado, then you need to look no further than what Gansler pulled off in Kansas City.

As my original post stated, it's all about how this team does in the playoffs now that they've made it, and for me neither recent nor distant history are suggesting that the Rapids are going to make a statement and advance to the second round.

Hankinson has not shown either here nor in Tampa that he's about to inspire this team -- heck, he's downright stated he doesn't believe that's his job.

The players themselves have shown that when they're great they're hard to beat... but not unbeatable. They've also shown that they're unlikely to be great in back-to-back games. Last I checked, that's a general requirement for advancing through the playoffs, as is winning the games that matter. In 2002 the Rapids showed they could play well in front of big crowds; Friday's (reported) crowd of 25,000 was apparently not big enough to get them into the 4th seed with home field advantage.

Here's to hoping the Rapids can string together a few solid performances and catch Dallas before they fully wake up -- and win their first playoff game since 1997.

oh my lord, has it really been that long?


And a note to Seraph -- you can have Fraser back if the Metros return a healthy Balboa -- we'll promise to return a healthy Shak.

 

Good post there greenie.

Let's see how they do in the playoffs.

I think Shak is playing for the Minnesota Thunder. Or was it just a temp deal to get him some playing time?

 

Sorry Greenie, but in a league where 51 points wins the Schield, 43 points is not bad. It is also a remarkable improvement over last seasons, 23 points. That is not to say that Hankinson did a remarkable job, because he hasn't, but I think we should look at a 20 point increase as a cause for optimism.

The Rapids went from 11th to 5th and had a great opportunity to get 4th. While their consistancy has been lacking and the fact they gave up 18 goals in 5 losses to LA, San Jose, and Dallas (all teams that finished ahead of them) should be cause for concern, I don't think that we should knock the success this team has had this year.

Hankinson definately needs to look at himself and make some changes to the way he handles his team, both personally and professionally, but he has reached some of his goals this season and the ultimate goal is still within reach. We will know a lot about the Rapids' chances this post season tomorrow night.

 

Never said it was bad. Only that it wasn't anything to stir the emotions of supporters, let alone casual fans.

Not to mention, this is a league where 38 points gives you a #2 seed.

Which was an abysmal drop from the previous season. Going from average to pathetic and back to average in 3 seasons is not the kind of things they write songs about.

Before the season began, Hankinson made it very clear that he only had one goal with this club: to win a championship. Simply making the playoffs was not going to be an acceptable accomplishment this year; the expectation that was put forth by the team was that they would be a contender.

Remember Spenny's quote? Something to the effect of the team needing to be lined up and shot if they couldn't be one of the top teams in the league?

Yes, the team has made some improvements. But despite finishing 8 points from the top -- which in a 28-game season is a bigger gap than you think it is -- they were only 1 game above .500, and finished the season with a negative goal differential.

 

Arthur Andersen accounting - and one big July4.

 

Didn't Colorado also host a Mexico-US game? I think 40,000 for that game probably helped too. 63,000 and 40,000 in two games will get you to 20,000 pretty quickly. I don't think there was too much enroning going on.

 

Hanki

Overall, he gets a B- from me so far.

Bad:
Trading Balboa
Amochi squandered Allocation
No inspiration
Team lost leads late, got blown out too much
Kept old guys Vald, Kotschau,etc. for sentimental sake
Cannot teach corner kick goal scoring

Good:
Carrieri
Spencer (was this his call..I forgot)
Improvement in 2002
Chung/Henderson
Garlick

Even:
Mastroeni-duh pick...
"Black and Blue" theory.

Tiebreaker? This comes NOW. If Hanki has built this team to be playoff ready and win 1-0 games, then we'll waltz thru and take the Cup, or at least show we're as good as anyone.

RLH

 

Re: Hanki

How wre either of these bad? If you missed it, Balboa played a whopping 5 minutes this season for the Metrostars (their final 5 minutes of the season) due to injury. In return we got a draft pick that I think we used to get Jeff Stewart (or Danny Jackson). Stewart was 10 times the player Balboa was this season.

As for keeping Valderrama, he only led the league in game wining assists, secondary assists, and 2nd in overall assists. Something tells me he was out there for more than sentimental sake (I'll agree on Kotschau though).

 

Re: Re: Hanki

Don't forget that it also cleared salary cap room to sign Chris Henderson and Mark Chung. Balboa was a great player and I wish him all the best, but this move was a stroke of genius in my book.

 

Greenie,

While his stated only goal this season was a championship, you gotta believe that making the playoffs was a significant goal of his. You can't win a championship without getting to the playoff first. And I agree that 'heads will roll' if they don't make a good showing in the playoffs this season. I'm just not sure if firing Hanki would get us closer to a championship. My money would be on Counce to go.

As for the 8 points, a couple of 2-1 losses get ties and a couple of ties get wins and that 8 points his pretty easily reached. I would say that the 8 point difference isn't as significant as you think it is.

I'm also sick of people saying that last season was such a waste. Yes, it was abysmal, from record standpoint, but Hanki did get Valderrama, Garlick, Kotschau, and Carrieri. Spencer was new and Hanki was employing a new system of play. There is no way that Mooch gets these players in and if Mooch is still in charge, the Rapids may make the playoffs but probably do nothing again. Hanki also had to spend so much time tying to get rid of dead weight (Adin, Paule, Agogo, et al) that I don't think the players had time to settle and play.

Then, this season he brings in a bunch of more new players and goes from 5 wins to 13. Yes he had more losses this season, and many were blowouts, I can't dispute that. But I don't think Mooch or another coach (people were talking about Dave Dir before Hanki was hired. God help us!!!) would have done as well. I for one am appreciative of the higher quality of soccer that Hanki has brought in.

Ricardo55,

As for trading Balboa as being bad, he played in ZERO games for NY this year, while Chung got us 11 goals and ended up in the top 10 in scoring. I think the trade was a steal for the Rapids.

 

Re: Re: Hanki

I think it's safe to say that part of the trade that sent Balboa to the Mutts is what brought Chung to the Rapids.

Technically speaking we gave them the #4 pick in the dispersal draft in exchange for Chung and Superdraft picks (one each in the 2nd and 3rd rounds)... but I wouldn't be surprised if this was done with the verbal agreement that Balboa would be sent on in another trade.

 

But when you consider that the Rapids weren't able to get the 1 more point necessary to pass Dallas and claim the #4 seed, 8 points is hardly a small hurdle.

The Rapids can only be partially measured by their record and statistics -- what really mattered is how they measured up to their opponents. They were mediocre against strong opposition, and inconsistent against weak opposition.

New England found a way to go 6-0-1 in their last 7 games. Over the same stretch, the Rapids went 3-3-1. Mediocre and average, just like most every other year for the Rapids.

Perhaps other fans have implied what you claim, but I've never stated that 2001 was a waste. I've always excepted that it would be a rebuilding year -- my criticism has stemmed from the fact that at not one point during 2001 did Hankinson or Counce admit this.

Of course, it should also be noted that most other MLS teams did not need to go into the tank and out of the playoffs to rebuild into a contender (or title winner).

What matters is that from the ashes was built a team that still was not able to overcome a mediocre string of results during the regular season. I'm hopeful that the mix of veteran talent and young energy (and the intangible Spenny Factor) guides this team straight to kickoff at the Big Razor.

You want to show some improvement? Let's start with winning a playoff game.

 

With last night's result, I would say something drastic needs to happen. No motivation, no killer instinct, no concentration, no win.

The Rapids get a goal from the one person who needed to step up and then they let the game slip away.

They should have pressed their advantage but instead sat back and let the Burn use Kramer as target practise.

A pathetic performance.

 

Balboa

I agree that this was a bad injured year from Balboa, but I disliked the trade because I saw this as a Balboa or Valderama choice, and plunking down the big bucks on a 40+ year old isn't how to build a long term winner. We need a 24 year old #10. Balboa didn't get traded for Chung, Henderson, CV, Carrieri, Garlick, Spencer, and Mastroeni. We'd have gotten most of those guys anyway. It was cap money (CV for MB).

You may recall I made these point pre-season, but felt that if we win a championship THIS year that the CV deal wass OK. I fear we'll not win the championship.

Next year, will CV be back? He's player better the 2nd half. In the next few years we'll need to keep track of the Balboa vs. CV worthiness. Balboa has a few good all-star years left.

RLH

 

How many 24 year old #10s are there in the US? Martinez and Vaca and.....?

After CV is gone, the Rapids have to rethink the #10 position, and by default the rest of the midfield. You can't find that talent anymore; that talent willing to take worthless hacks evening the playing field by fouling the crap out of them; that talent willing to play for what MLS will pay for it.

 

Re: Balboa

Um, Kyle Beckerman anybody. He has played well in the chances given to him. Next year he should be pushing for more playing time. But if CV resigns, I fear another year on the bench.

Um, I don't think so. We did trade Balboa for Chung. And how exactly would we have gotten all of those guys anyway? We got Carrieri for Agogo (a steal). We got Garlick, Kotschau, et al for Adin, Vermillion and a draft pick. And we got Mastroeni in the dispersal draft. As for Spencer, he almost went to San Jose. So how exactly were the Rapids going to get these guys anyway? If you believe some of the rumors floating around, I wouldn't expect MLS to do the Rapids any favors when it comes to talented players.

No, it was Hankinson who brought these players in by dumping dead weight and finding better players to play in his system. He had other options in the dispersal draft and chose Mastroeni. That gave him enough salary room to select Henderson, too.

Maybe not, but I doubt we are any closer with Balboa and not Chung. CV shouldn't be playing all the minutes he is but we are better off with him than without him. He definately did his part on Wednesday but without help, he can't do what he is capable of. Pablo needs to shut up and play. He might as well have not been on the field he was so invisible. Expect for when he was yelling at the refs and almost breaking guys legs with mistimed and reckless slide tackles.

Again, maybe. But CV was an all-star this year. Balboa didn't play. Can't predict the future and hindsight is always 20-20.

I like Balboa but for what Hankison was trying to do, he didn't fit. Would I want Balboa on my team? Absolutely. Would I want Balboa over CV? No. The Rapids never won anything with Balboa, so why not try something else.

 

Dead Horse Beating

After a nice 1-0 Playoff win, it's amazing how one's attitude can change, eh?

I actually sent a "ask the coach" email to the Rapids and Tim answeared it about keeping CV vs. Balboa. He admitted it was a cap choice to lose one of them. The trade for Shak (and some guy named Chung or something) was just the league's cap reduction solution.

If we build for 2002 and win, we're OK? I thought CV looked old last year, and looked old the first half of this year, but he's played at a higher level the second half. This is great, but at 42 what's really left in the tank for 2003,2004, etc.

If we're building a team, we need to use our big salary slots and allocations for LONG-TERM building blocks for a franchise, not just a year (or 2). I think that's the GTM's job. Build the Pope-to-Marco-to-Jaime connection for a the longterm, then add the spot players to supplement. We lost our franchise's only Hall of Famer for a two or three year player. Had I been the GM (I am not, I fully accept that they really have forgotten more about soccer than I'll likely ever know) I would have gone for a younger player. If I thought Balboa was broken/over the hill, I'd have retired/re-negotiated with him. "Play another year or two then retire as a Rapid, marcelo"... We've absorbed lots of "Star" players from other teams. Zambrano's etc. that have hurt us.

Looking at the MLS, I do agree with the points about making a new team can win a championship the first year. SJ, KC, Chicago....tradition didn't stop them from worst to first. So maybe I'm too old school..value now over long-term......CV for two years is worth anything you can replace otherwise (his "great game" isn't replaceable easily, other good 'Balboa' types exist). I am swayed by the instand success of teams. I am also swayed by the fan/attendence problem of the MLS rent-a-player system. For a fan base, we do need long term stars. Marcelo every July 4th for some. Scorer of clutch goals. Stepped up. He was the Rapids "Elway"....and did take them to the championship game, at least.

Oh heck, Balboa was at Mile High last night. Maybe he's going to weasle back now that NY is going to re-tool (Mathis to Europe, Diallo to whereever, etc.). We have new stars. Will we trade them away, too? I hope not.