Tallent Dillution from Expansion?

With 2 teams missing the playoffs this year I think that will improve a little bit. I also want the number one team in each confrence to have both first round games at home.

 

While I agree with you about Orlando Perez NOW, I think it is instructive to remember that he was a very serviceable and useful player in the Fire's run up to the cup final. In fact, he scored a goal at Kansas City that season that was arguably a turnaround event for the team. And he was a versatile player -- able to play wide midfield as well as outside back.

In my view, Orlando Perez represents that mass of players who you would put in the bottom 25% of the league -- they can do alright, but they can also regress dramatically and stink up the joint. At 27, you wouldn't think he was on the downside of his career, but maybe, that's exactly the case.

I think all leagues around the world have players at the margin. They can be useful if the stars align, but they can also force you to hold your nose. I think in MLS our top 25% are pretty good relative to other top players in other leagues, but our bottom 25% are worse than a similar cohort, say, in the French or Dutch leagues. That's why they stand out more.

I actually think the league will improve when our WORST strata of player start to look as good as the worst strata of players in top leagues.

 

Way off topic - 6 out of 12 is easily doable and 50% is the perfect number because the "top half" then plays for the MLS Cup. Conference winners get a "bye" in the first playoff round (rest is a great reward heading into the playoffs).

On topic - people can site Convey as proof of week MLS talent in other leagues but what about Beasley? He's tearing it up at PSV and they've beaten some of the "best" in Europe this year... In fact, he's playing better for PSV than he ever did in MLS. What about McBride (a regular contributor in the EPL), Bocanegra ??? Mathis is riding the pine because he can't get along with his coach (that happens to non-Americans too). The question isn't "is MLS equal to the big leagues?" - it's simply will we see a dillution of talent through expansion? seeing where the players are coming from, I doubt it.

The question is does Expansion cause too much talent dillution... there will still be plenty of parity next year in MLS - the expansion draft didn't significantly damage anyone's starting lineups and we'll find out how much parity in talent there is next year... If RSL or Chivas manage to compete (i.e. they aren't the worst 2 teams of the league), then talent didn't dilute because they didn't alter the makeup of any existing teams.

Michael K, makes a VERY good point about clumsy play... it happens on all levels in all leagues.

 

The expansion of foreign player slots should also help minimize any talent drop.

 

Absolutely, it sounds like Chivas is bringing in some Mexican Nats (Palencia, Ramirez). Plus the possibility of Keller, and Mathis returning to play for SLC.

 

I'm not arguing with Perez' or Arena's suckitude, I'm saying they're not making Convey complacent.

Bill James has a concept, replacement level player. It's the caliber of player whom you can just go out and find someone. In MLS, that would be at the Chris Carrieri-Ezra Hendrickson-Orlando Perez level. Soccer is different from baseball in that the roles from one team to the next are MUCH more different. If you can put Perez in a role where you maximize his strengths and cover his weaknesses, he's alright. But once one little dynamic in the team changes, he drops down to replacement level, and then a notch below.

 

Arena and Perez were guys playing about 20-30% of the possible minutes over the season. With Perez his minutes dropped IIRC as he started declining from expectations. Arena being the USMNT coaches son probably benefits from some nepotism, but that's to be expected and in the overall scheme of things the league is widely merit-based IMO. Arena is one of 5 developmental players for Metrostars. Metrostars loaded the roster with foreign nationals (Ziadie, Taylor, Glen, Brenes, Bonseu, Guevera). Pope and now Gaven are USMNT selections. So with a couple of injuries, big surprise the developmental players need to fill in occassionally. On the developmental list is 2 players injured during 2004 (Gilberto Flores and Stammler), a GK, a 16 y/o that's the coaches son, Gaven, and Arena. Nugent left the team and they didn't find a replacement. So there's a unique set-up here that pushed Arena into more minutes than he probably deserved. Not too common on most other teams. I'm fine with expansion, especially considering that over half the starters for Chivas will likely be Mexican. Expansion next year by 2 teams might result in a drop in the level of play. For this league to be financially viable, I think it has to count on some marginal domestic players and those players are improving IMO.

 

You don't have to be so harsh on someone for expressing their opinion on college soccer. But you do have point in that we have to be realistic because of MLS' current financial situation.

 

Every year there are multiple threads worrying about talent dilution due to expansion, and each time I respond "they'll just increase the number of SI's to make up the gap. The total talent per team will stay the same as long as the salary cap stays the same."

So given that:

They've increased the number of SI's to make up the gap. The total talent per team will stay the same as long as the salary cap stays the same.

 

It makes sense to do it bevause creating better players will help to increase the quality of play on the field which will in turn bring in many of the people who ignore this league now.

 

Talk about seeing only what you want to see! Show me where I compared MLS to any other league in that statement? Show me where I said anything about there being morte clumsy play in MLS than anywhere else. As I see it you are the one who got defensive about it and compared MLS not I. You were the one who went on the quest to prove soemthing I didn't question.

The fact is you were uncimfortable with what I said and felt the need to compensate by proving something taht we all already know. You need to look at yourself before putting words in my mouth.

 

Thats a nice rant and all but it is simply not based in reality. The argument has nothing to do with the players on the bottom like Perez and everything to do with a player like Beasely and Convey who are under absolutely no pressure to improve because at the end of the day they are still more effective than the people backing them up and they are american. Beasely's performance up until the transfer is an indication of that.

This idea about MLS players being under more professional pressure than any other league is pure fanatasy and if people would spend less time calling everyone who disagrees with them eurosnobs they might see some of these things.

Did cobi jones justify his cap number the last two years? Was there any chance he would be released?

 

Which is my point.

There was nothing in this league that motivates players like him to play at their best all the time. Now he is in an environment where he has to play well all the time or he won't play at all.

 

Thanks for the support. But I say a lot of things people don't want to hear and I say it often so reactions like that are common.

But its not like I am advocating MLS breaking the bank (some people just can't think creatively and automatically see it that way. All I want MLS to do is make a commitment to developing talent. That can take many forms as well as be done in baby steps.

The number one move should be getting rid of these silly rules concerning player acquistion (discovery picks, etc). We already have a cap which we all know is going nowhere that already makes it impossible for teams to stockpile talent. Allow teams to be creative. One talent level apparatus is more than enough. But the reality is these rules are about curtailing player power and not about parity.

Number two get rid of the draft and allow college players to sign with whoever gives them the best deal. We already have a draft so no team can outspend anyone else anyway. But MLS is more concerned with getting players to play for as little as possible for as long as possible so that won't happen.

Number three get rid of all these foriegner classifications. No TI's or SI's just foriegners. Only four SI's and 3 TI's? Scrap that. Seven foreigners total. Allow teams to be creative. What if soem team already has four SI's but can find some 27 year old brazilian who can fit their needs (while they only have 1 TI on the roster) they can't sign him? Thats nonsense. Let teams be creative don't tie their hands for arbitrary reasons. There is a salary cap it is alreadya leveling device. It is more than enough.

So far I have cost MLS zero dollars above what they already spend but I am sure someone will step in and say something about how this will lead to an NASL like fate for MLS

Number four, which should be pursued only after the first two have come to pass, invest in actual youth development no matter how small. This is not complicated. The fact is this league routinely allows teams to spend above and beyond the cap (cap exempt players, players who only have part of their salary count against the cap etc) so the cap is in mainly a paper tiger that is convenient when MLS wants it to be.

I would like to see the cap be tightened and hardened. A $1.73 million cap should be $1.73 million period. If nike wants to pay P40's salaries fine, we should take all the free stuff we can get. All this other money the league decides to spend should be channeled into a fund that is divided equally amongst the team and be specifically used for working with young players. That means all this allocation money as well.

Let teams teach kids how to be pros from a younger age (many kids won't want to give up eligibility but thats okay some will) and when those players get to be good enough well the team that brought them up owns them. If a player gets sold all the money goes to that team and they will now be allowed to spend that money above and beyond the cap (if they wish) up to a maximum of 500,000 per season until the money is depleted. Or if they wish they can only spend 250,000 per season the first two years after the sale then spend 1 million the third and So (much like the way NFL teams engineer the cap so that they have good cap years and so so cap years) Allow teams to be creative. Create some incentives for teams to work harder than other teams.

/rant

 

The nature of team sports and budgets is that for many players, they're alot better than their backup. Is the distance between Bobby Convey and Joshua Gros larger, or the distance between Sol Campbell and Pascal Cygan? Is the difference between Landon Donovan and DeRo larger, or the difference between RVN and Louis Saha?

Unless it's the rare team like Chelsea that manages to overflow the pantry with great players, it's the nature of sports that the best players are alot better than the mediocre players, by definition of "best players."

IOW, like so, so, so much you criticize MLS for, it's in the nature of the sport, and in no way distinctive of MLS. Most EPL matches have no impact on who wins the championship, and few MLS matches have more than a minimal impact on who wins the MLS Championship. MLS has players who are much better than their backups, meaning that any motivation is self-generated, and the EPL has players who are much better than their backups, meaning that any motivation is self-generated. Players miss sitters in MLS, they miss sitters in England. Referees miss calls in MLS, they miss calls in England. (OK, there, there's a substantial difference. ) And on and on and on.

The reason so many people take issue with your posts isn't us trying to conform you to our groupthink, it's the faux profundity in them. The banality of your observations is almost but not quite covered by quality writing.

The next time you're thinking of launching one of these screeds, before posting, rewrite it by substituting "EPL" for every iteration of "MLS" and see if it's just as true. If it is (and it will be), don't hit "submit."

 

Right, but that has NOTHING to do with the structure of MLS, but the relative quality of the Fire and PSV. If he had gone to Willem II, I doubt it would have had the kind of impact you're talking about.

I think the problem in your observations is that you always equate causation with correlation, so long as it supports your predetermined position on something. If you search for other correlations, you might find them to be more compelling causations.

 

What in the world are you talking about?
You said something about MLS having more clumsy soccer and embarrassing goals because of talent dilution, as if now instead of seeing 2 goals per game through players falling on their asses, slamming it in their own goal and the like, we'll see 4. Well, there are other national first divisions of varying standards out there in the world, and you see plenty in ALL of them that can be characterized as clumsy and embarrassing if you just watch. You didn't have to compare them directly - it's implicit. Or what else did you want me to compare MLS to, the Highland Games?

 

I'd be careful with the dangling pronouns. Unless the faux profundity is in the groupthink.

 

I for one am unconcerned about talent dilution due to expansion. The net effect of expansion is all about the "80/20 Rule:"

Any organization obtains ~80% (or more) of their results based upon the ~top 20% of their roster. The remaining mass of mediocre players are all window dressing.

In Chicago, the Fire made a run for the domestic Treble in 2003 because of their top 20% of their roster: Thornton, Bocanegra, Beasley, and Ralph all were among the best in the league in 2003. By contrast, the players that played more prominent roles, and replaced [In particular] Beasley, Bocanegra, Williams, and Ralph engaged in theft of payroll in 2004. Hence, the arrival of the first-ever YSA to Chicago soon followed.

Given the increase in the salary cap and the increase in the available internationals, a club will have opportunities to improve the "top 20%" of their rosters. In this way, the quality of the product will have an opportunity to improve. Whether or not improvement actually follows is still subject to the abilities of clubs' front offices. [IMO, play has worsened in MLS due to the losses of quality internationals, a la Nowak, Etcheverry, Valderrama, et al in the early years v. the generally mediocre internationals today...]


Thinking about the mediocre 80% of MLS rosters, the reserve league is similarly a great idea, for no other reason than these:

1. Suck-@ss players like Perez and Arena can play like shyte outside their clubs' first teams.
2. Wasted draft picks like Buete can fail in the reserves rather than rot on the bench and steal money.
3. Players that feel like they can cruise [As Convey did after the failed Tottenham transfer in 2K3 and Beasley in 2K4 before the PSV transfer] have the stick of being banished to the reserves, IN ADDITION TO the carrot of a transfer to richer pastures abroad.

[Before Rommul gets over-zealous about what I've posted here] I too don't think that MLS' current structure is ideal. But the proposed changes reflect significant improvements in league policy, IF they are indeed enacted. I'm not after obtaining perfection tomorrow, but every step in the right direction is a good thing.

 

I think that you're placing far too much faith in a heuristic. Over the league's history, we've seen some successful teams that relied heavily on a small number of players (e.g. both 2002 MLS finalists), and other teams where success depended much more on collective play (e.g. both 2004 MLS finalists). By the end of this season, KC was getting virtually 0% of its production from its top 20%.

 

By and large, soccer is still a game that is controlled/defined by the Peles, Zidanes, Baggios, and Maradonas of the world. [Or in MLS terms, the Nowaks, and the young/interested Etcheverrrys moreso than the Mike Burnses, Orlado Perezes, or Kenny Arenas of the world.]

While you're correct in that many teams rely on teamwork moreso than star power, I think that KC's loss in MLS Cup is entirely due to their having 0% production from its top 20%. DC benefitted from having all of their top 20% available and producing, by contrast. I think the Final defined the 80/20 rule with perfect clarity: DCU had their top 20%, KC did not.

Speaking to the league at large, few can argue that an improvement overall of MLS' top 20% will improve the product.

 

... and I saw it as a game where KC struggled not so much because they lacked star players, but more because their weakest starters (Stephenson and Jewsbury) gave DC a soft spot to attack. Meanwhile, players like Brian Carroll and Earnie Stewart made big contributions for DC.