I threw out two accomplished and winning college coaches. Is arena the last college coach to come to the MLS? Look how well he did and where he is now. I guess the problem is that the good college coaches probably make more money and have less pressure at the college level (or at least Sam insinuated this).
I've coached two years. Seriously, I've seen Manny Lagos' father mentioned, although I don't know anything about him. There are plenty of assistant coaches who've set on the sidelines for years who have all the experience to be a head coach. There are people out there, its not like we dont have options. And on the .500 issue... We can do all the math we want, but the fact of the matter is that without doing the math we all know this team is below average. Unless you're a fan that is perfectly content with supporting a sub par team, you should be ready for a change after three seasons of below average, bordering on bottom third.
I know he is the Director of Coaching for Blue Valley Soccer Club. And interestingly enough, I saw him on FSW last week or the week before. They were televising the Super Y League championships for all of their age levels and they did an interview with Peter Vermes. I had it on mute until I saw him so I only caught part of what he said but it sounds like he is a regional director for their new ODP program they started for the Super Y League. They started it to give an option for kids who did not want to take part in the USYSA's ODP program.
Allowing Bob to continually barely survive is like giving a kid a time-out. They know that if they get in trouble, all they are going to have to do is sit in a corner and "think about what they've done" when they really should be disciplined more severely. I agree that the problem may not be coaching ability or player talent. A coach should not only be an X's and O's guy, but also a motivater and if the motivation, fire, and intensity is not there, then the coach has to take the blame for that. As for replacements, MoJo would be a good candidate. The guy has been in the game forever, played in one of the greatest rivalries in the world(Celtic/Rangers on both sides) and knows his stuff. Yea, he may not have any experience, but at least he has the intensity to fire up the locker room when needed. Coaches aren't just born with experience, they have to gain and earn it along with respect. All of this talk about finding a guy with loads of experience is BS. you find the guy who you think is the BEST FIT for your team. Oh, and for all those people reading this who think we are all being "negative", we're just venting our frustrations about the team we love and support and if that doesn't show we care, then I'm sorry you all can't see it!
Agree 100%. I'm not at all happy with the way the team has been playing for the last 2 months. Does this mean I'll no longer support them? Not on your life. The Wizards are my side now and forever. I just want them to be better.
I would never suggest people who want to fire the coach or bag on a player do it b/c they're bad supporters. They're great supporters b/c they love the team more than a coach or parts. I want what's best for the team too. --- Again on the math, AM, while I didn't get my math degree from prestigious KU (j-schoolers don't have to take math), I know for a fact that 10-10-10 is .500. If it's a 2 team league and both go 10-10-10, they're tied. But as you assert, 12-13-5, which is below .500, is more points, but would be lower than an above .500 opponent who is 13-12-5. My point is that you can't control who loses or ties in games you're not in, but if you tie, your opponent only gets 1 instead of 3, which is the same as winning one game and losing the next. 2 or 3 points, you're still tied at .500. can we keep going on this math debate? who's next?
I am. So you prefer 10-10-10 to 12-13-5? Because, as you state 10-10-10 is .500 and 12-13-5 isn't? MLS standings are based on points. 30 games -> 90 points on the table. 10-10-10 -> 40 points or 0.444 12-13-5 -> 41 points or 0.456 Heck, just to annoy you, even 13-12-5 is only 0.489 Your serve.
...except in Base 3 where it equals 11 2+2 always equals 4. If by "we", you mean Andy and I; then yes we can...except, we agree. If by "we" you mean anyone else and you - it seems fruitless because you have no concept of numbers that is grounded in reality. No offense. When you have a better grasp of the concept of 3 divided by 2 is greater than 1 in any and all circumstances then "we" - meaning you and anyone else - can continue the "debate". Again, no offense. 0-0-30 isn't .500 in soccer, it's .333. It's not a debatable concept. For number heads: So far in '03 28.3% of games have ended in a tie (including the 0-0 draw tonight). That puts ".500" this year at 1.358 pts/gm. Obviously with a run KC can be above average for this season. KC can't finish above ".500" over the last 3 seasons, even by winning out. People want to bury BG, OK. I'd again make the arguement that a man capable of having two sets of guys with a few similar parts produce both the best defense period and a half season on the best offense in MLS (two men down, BTW) can probably coach some. '03 isn't over, but if it was there is plenty of blame to go around... Curt Johnston: 'Zards campaign, useless other campaigns that prompted ancient Lamar Hunt, who should rightfully be able to relax a bit, into servitude for his own asset. Signing Wolff. You have to ask, just what has he done since being the first year GM for a title team he inherited? Bliss: He gets credit for the same things BG gets blasted. How does that work exactly? Mulqueen: Tony's play has been eratic. To Q's credit Tony's play has improved so there's something. Chet North: Is it the trainer's fault when guys go down consistently for long stretches? At some point it might be. Wallace Bennett: Does this dirty old man do anything besides show up at functions, elbow buddies, and ogle peoples' wives and girlfriends? Armstrong: He's an SI. Does he perform at that level? Arnaud: He's been freed. So what. Brown: More goals in NE Burciaga: Hurt all year...again Fabbro: I'm now a River fan, seriously. Garcia: Lives by the physical, has been burned too many times in '03. Not good enough Gomez: Is he a defensive mid? His numbers say he is Klein: Wholly underperformed in KC's jersey. Meola: Sub-par play on balance. Only the rebound king, Countess, has given up more goals. Quill: Has gone from a contributor to counter-productive Igor: Like a light switch without a dimmer, on or off, no inbetween. To justify his SI KC needs a bit more on. Wolff: 2 goals - that's your 3rd overall pick. KC could have had ---> Jaqua, Noonan, Dunivant, Ralph, McGee, Noonan, or Stokes. All of them have as many or more goals as our Josh Wolff this season. Everything is easier in hindsight, sure. Point is Wolff owes KC some big games starting Saturday. If it doesn't happen the blame should be CJ's. Zags: Bottom line is he's a D-mid in a poor D that gets caught on counters rountinely. Harris: He's 3 goals down in the trade. Hasn't scored yet. It's easy to say that all of the above are symptoms of BG's disease. The thought might be right, but I would substitute CJ for BG. If I'm the decision maker, I bring in a guy (or guys) that has obvious experience in talent recognition and marketing to obscure markets with unlimited potential. This person should be familiar with budgets larger than current MLS, American players at levels beyond A-league, and have connections to many areas overseas. Mostly this guy should have personality and balls while coming just short of arrogance. A leader. KC hasn't had one in the GM spot since inception, IMO. That's a failure squarely on HSG.
No, you're wrong. Twice. First you can control who you tie, by scoring enough goals to win. {Cue Jets coach..."You play to WIN THE GAME."} Second, a team that ties is tied with only the other teams that tied, but nobody else. All are still 2 full points behind the one or more teams that bothered to win. Again, you are tied at .333, two points behind the 1-0 team(s). One isn't half of 3...in any Base. If every league game ended in a tie then ".500" would be 1 point per game. Similarly, if there are no results paid less than 3 points, then 1.5 is .500, and your theory fits. The second any result is worth less than 3 points, the theory takes on water like the Titanic. 15-15-0 will always be worth 15 more points than 0-0-30. Only the first record is .500 (and would be well above "actual .500" if 1 or more results ended in less than 3 points being awarded). The second record is .333. Just because it's listed in error in the paper and referred to incorrectly by sportswriters does not make it any less wrong.
I can't find anything I disagree with in dave's post, and I don't have much else to add. Well put, sir.
Re: ...except in Base 3 where it equals 11 Not to mention the $200,000/year we could've spent on another player. We didn't just trade Wolff for the #3 spot. We gave up an incremental 10% of our salary cap.
Even though I'm an engineer and literally took years of math, Dave still manages to blow me away with some of this numbers. But, mostly for myself, I'm gonna throw out an idea that makes the whole "math debate" appear quite simple (although I think Andy beat me to it) 30 games = 90 points 90/2 = 45 = 50% = .500 Wizards currently have 29 points and 6 games to play. 29 + (6*3) = 47 For the year the Wizards can barely break .500, which we know won't happen anyway. The debate though is over the last three seasons... 2003- 29 points out of a possible 72 in 24 games 2002- 36 points out of a possible 84 in 28 games 2001- 36 points out of a possible 81 in 27 games So...in the three years since the championship Gansler has 101 points from a possible 237, or 1.28 points/game if you want to compare it to Dave's theoretical .500 taking into account the weight of a draw. But Ben's Hard Math (kinda like Mike's Hard Lemonade I guess...) says thats a .426 record. Either way, my point that we're below average and net getting any better from year to year is correct. And thats my WHOLE point.
You can throw all the stats out there and take them to extremes, but the fact remains that this team dosn't seem to want it anymore. We don't seem to have a definite leader in the locker room and therefore everybody just seems to show up play for 90' and go home. If they are "saving up" for November as some others have stated in this thread, then they better start spending more of it or were gonna "prematurely" leave the playoffs without getting full satisfaction (if you know what I mean!) Regardless of who is the best math expert here, I still believe that the spark, fire and intensity should start with the coach. If he doesn't care, it's very easy for that to become infectious. I think it's time we put the coach in quarantine for a while.
the problem with your base 3 league is that the league ends up under .500. How does that happen when it's a zero-sum league? I guess, you're saying MLS isn't a zero-sum league, and I'm saying it is. You guys' debate is in strict math and theory, and mine is in reality. If all the managers who finish below .500 get fired, about 6 or 7 of 10 get canned every year on your system. --- For the Gansler debate, I'll go by where we finish in the league. 2000, title; 2001 8/12; 2002 8/10. Right now we're tied for 8/10 again but safely in the playoffs. If we lose first round in the playoffs, depending on who's healthy and how we play, I may join the fire bob side.
But the MLS is not the NFL. A tie does not equal 1/2 win and 1/2 loss. Name one league that didn't fold where "all managers who finish below .500 get fired". Name one. We'll do it your way and go with "real" results year games potential points actual points "0.500" KC Wiz 2000 192 576 542 45.17 57/0.631 2001 158 474 446 37.64 36/0.472 2002 140 420 398 39.80 43/0.452 2003 120 360 326 32.60 29/0.445 (note: 0.500 for 27 games in 2001 was 38.11) Summary 2000 Champions: 0.631 Since then: 0.472, 0.452, 0.445 and dropping. If you want any more numbers David will have to help you, or you'll have to wait until I get back on Monday.
So, throwing all the math aside, you're saying that as long as we don't crap out of the playoffs the results in one or two games a year outweigh the crap we put up with to finish 8 or 10 out of 12?! Jesus your standards are set pretty low, thats all I can say. I never knew there were so many ways to interpret the stats surrounding MLS records. Interesting stuff.
I admit I have different standards for different teams I follow. I have a lot higher expectations for KU basketball than KU football. And for the Wiz, we did get a title in 2000. The MLS doesn't treat us like they do LA or NY or Chicago, so I have lower expectations. I'm not having fun with this year's team, but I most certainly will forget the bad august if we win that first playoff series. And I will not call for Bob's head if we do that. --- I look at this league and team not like the EPL but rather the NFL. I count ties as 1/2 wins and I place much more emphasis on playoffs and MLS cups than regular season and supporters' sheilds. For every person who says, "but VB, this is soccer, not NFL," I'll say this is the USA not England or Italy. No amount of quantatative analysis will convince me otherwise. Feel free to keep trying though. I enjoy the higher level of education on this thread.
I would not celebrate nor cry if Gansler were fired. My mantra remains the same: the players are the ones who are really deciding this. Gansler was no genius early in the year or in 2000, nor is he an idiot now.
And thats fine. I'm a HUGE NFL fan, and I think their playoff system does a great job of deciding the best teams. Often one or two of the best teams get eliminated, but in football one or two bad plays is more forgiving than soccer. With so few goal scored in soccer one bad call or fluke goal can decide the "champion". But a true champion plays the best over the course of 6 months, not four games in November.
My "Base 3 league"?!? Wha? {Cue AFLAC-duck-after-listening-to-Yogi face} Forget I said anything about Base 3, I don't have the time to explain. As for the league ending up below .500. The second there is a tie the average points awarded drops below 3. Therefore the average points per game for the league drops below 1.5. This being the case, .500 (or average) for a league, any league, will always be below 1.5 points. Which in turn means that equal wins and losses followed by any number of ties greater than 1 is always below .500 or below average. You might want to look up the definition of "zero sum". Cheers.
We're currently in the worst winless streak in team history. If Newman was let go for losing 7 games in a row, then Gansler's days are numbered.
Newman also was losing the players (see Richard Gough). I don't know if this is the case with Gansler. If it is, then he DOES need to go.