Why are you worried at all about the 2002 season at this point? Just sayin'. Even if 2002 was a great season, I wouldn't be concerned about it too much at this point.
Illustration = worry? It's an illustration of where the tradition of 8 playoff teams conspired with a bunch of other factors to make one of the worst seasons in MLS history. It doesn't mean I worry about a return to 8 of 10 team playoffs-- it just means that it's not hard to imagine a situation where competitive needs should trump tradition.
I understand that. I'm just sayin' that once a season is in the rearview mirror (less than five years removed, for sure), why does it need to be retroactively fixed? Or why wish it could have been better? It's done. If 2002 was a crap season, oh, well. If it had been The Best Season Ever, we could point to it as such, but it would still be irrelevant, seeing as how it happened five years ago. If we'd had five crap seasons since then, it would be more an evidence of a trend than an aberration. And that would be a different discussion. Besides, a crap playoff can render an entire season crap?
That's actually not where I'm heading-- I'm not saying 2002 shows that the current system sucks and that we should fix it because of that. Instead, it illustrates a flaw in the decision-making process when you value tradition too much. That kind of mistake can happen anytime. A crap system absolutely can render an entire season crap. The 2002-2004 seasons definitely suffered because 8 of 10 teams got into the playoffs. In contrast, this year, with more competition for playoff spots, with extra rewards for spots 1-4 in the form of Superliga, is better partly as a result of the structure.
And yet, the team with the most points in the 2002 regular season won the championship. Over the team that finished with a flourish and won the other conference after being left for dead. The top two teams met in an exciting final in 2003. One of the two top teams played the fourth best team in a close final in 2004. So what's the difference? First-to-five was crap in 2002. I just don't think "the season" was crap because 8 of 10 teams made the playoffs. If you were a fan of one of those teams at the bottom, you probably say "Well, at least we made the playoffs." And they didn't hurt anybody. So, again, I'm not seeing the harm.
Maybe this is where we differ. I take it as an article of faith that, if you know only two teams are eliminated, you don't need to try as hard as you do when four teams are eliminated. So I believe that teams in 2002 tried less than teams in 2001. I just think that's logic, but you may be starting from a different place. But, even if it weren't for that abstract principle, my subjective observation of 2002 also was that it was a crap year. The games really seemed worse than in 2001 to me. It's entirely subjective, but I felt like the league didn't really start to recover the level of play from 2001 until 2006. I'd attribute at least some of that to the fact that getting into the playoffs started to require a little more effort.
Fair enough, and, again, I'm not trying to pick a fight or be contrary. I just think while it may be logical to think you don't have to "try as hard" (as if you can measure effort) because of the math involved, I think it's disrespectful to professional athletes to presume they don't play hard. Now, you and me? Hell, yeah. If your boss is gone for the day, you're not always busting your hump. But we're not professional athletes. I don't want to ascribe supernatural abilities to them, but they are a bit different than us because they've done what it takes to play a sport professionally at a fairly high level. I can see where it would seem that the simple math would lead one to conclude, logically, that less effort would be required to make the playoffs in 2002 than in 2008. I just am not sure that players will try 22.9% harder in 2008 or that the games will therefore be 22.9% better. Well, that's completely objective and your observations on that are certainly as good as anyone else's. There's no real way to discern that, but it's an eye of the beholder thing. I'd like to think the level of play has gone up because MLS regulars have reserve players right behind them now (which they didn't have before), and reserve guys are getting more experience in their own league, not to mention the influx of guys like Angel and others. I'd attribute less of any perceived rise in the level of play to it being 13% harder to make the playoffs than you might. But to each his own.
Yeah-- this is what I was thinking of when I said that you might be starting from a different place. I know a number of reasonable people who believe exactly what you're saying. But for me, I'm not entirely sure that they are different from everyone else. Yeah, as the ad goes, I wouldn't make it in the NFL. But does being really, really good at something mean that you try when you don't have to? Or does it mean that, when you need to turn it on, you perform at a higher level than the rest of us? I think slacking when you can is human nature. Maybe that says more about me than it does about MLS players. At the same time, there are plenty of quotes from MLS guys about dogging it in the regular season or taking plays off because they could, so I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb or being disrespectful. Yeah-- I wouldn't disagree with any of those factors. I think you need all of them to make the league better. But the intensity of the regular season is, in my view, sort of a bottleneck. You could have the squads of Man U and Barcelona, but if you're playing almost an entire season at the intensity of friendlies, the talent's going to waste and you'll have a crap season.
Well, there's the fact that they can turn it on that makes them better than us, for one thing. There's also the notion that it requires a certain level of dedication, perseverence and discipline to (first) get a college scholarship (second) make it as a professional player and (third) continue to earn a living as a professional player. To me, just as you think it's logical that someone would slack off with less on the line, it seems logical to me that the very qualities that would help you become a professional athlete would preclude that very slacking, by definition. But, again, that may just be me, and I don't know who would agree with me. But it seems logical. Now, it may be that their "slacking off" is still at a much higher level than we could aspire to. But I honestly haven't seen much difference in how hard Kelly Gray plays today than he did in 2004, not that I've really been sitting there with an Effort-o-meter (TM). I'm not sure they don't exaggerate that (and, to be honest, I can only remember a couple of anecdotal instances, most of them Landon Donovan, I believe). I mean, I don't think "taking plays off" equates to season-wide suckitude on a major scale. Do you, really? Do you see this as a widespread problem? So now we've gone from "taking plays off" to "playing almost an entire season at the intensity of friendlies?" Just sayin'. What's the difference between what you're describing and ManU being fairly well assured of a place in Europe, and really only having to put it in a higher gear when they play Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool? Or do you think they play with the same intensity against Bolton, Derby and Spurs as they do against those bigger clubs? So....does that render the rest of the EPL season not worth watching? And, again, do you think there's a widespread slacking problem in MLS? And how can you possibly quantify that (I've been asking that question for years now)?
Like I said, I figured the disagreement here was really more about fundamental human nature. You nailed my point of view in the next sentence: it may be that Ben Olsen's day of slacking involves more work than a week in the life of a common man. But let me ask you this: do you think players try harder at the World Cup? You're missing the other type of quote I mentioned: that players have said that the regular season doesn't matter. But fwiw, yeah, I think players taking a few plays off every game leads to crappier games. I think it adds up. Sorry I don't have links, so this is all from memory, but it wasn't just Donovan. I think the intensity of MLS has been adequate (for me) the entire time, but it was much lower than it could have been in the post-contraction years. "if you play a less meaningful regular season, then the talent, reserve leagues, etc, can't change that." It's all a question of degree. A late season tie between Man U and Derby is not something I'd schedule a dentist appointment around. To me, at least, the prem would indeed be better viewing if the top teams needed to play with intensity against Bolton and Spurs. Well obviously you can't, but just because some things are tough to measure doesn't mean that they're not problems. Now, I'm not crazy about calling this a "widespread slacking problem" because that sounds a little too alarmist-- instead, I'd say MLS has been less intense than it could be, given the talent of the players. To me, that's a real, tangible issue that can be partly addressed through the playoff system.
Moving back to the articles that started this discussion: Steve Davis makes a fatal flaw in this entire article when he bases his central thesis upon this statement: From there, seedings are absolutely irrelevant in the first round Its a very blanket statement and has no statistical support or empirical evidentiary support whatsoever. In fact every piece of evidence we have over the past 4 seasons of this format suggest the complete opposite. And if you want to go even farther to the start of the playoffs in 1996 we ca see that this seeding system produces an advancemnt rate of apporximatly 66-75% adjusted for a margain of error of +/- 5%. That says basically regardless of the format used in MLS's past higher seeded teams will advance in any given year between 2 of 3 or 3 of 4 times. What makes that stat even more impressive IMO is that MLS seeding is based om an 8 team model split in half of 1-4 seeds. Yet it prodices advancment rates at about the same level as the NBA which uses a 1-8 seeding. The greater the disparity in the seeding range the higher the liklihood of advancement. So seeding is COMPLETELY revelavnat, especially in the first round since there really is no signifigant other advantage. Yes the second leg is at the higger seed's home pitch, its the deciding game, usually much better crowds, and if needed extra time and PK's, plus the ever intangible home call chance. But its not a straight forward advantage and its tough to measure how well that advantage matters. Chang also supplies a false premise in his short blog blurb when he hypthezises the same thing that seeding is irrelevant. It clearly does matter. Then Davis sums up his playoff article by stating and you can tell the distain in his words: It looks like another year when a higher seed is going to fall -- somewhere. Well, that is sort of the compelling point of a playoff system. It doesn't guarentee that the top teams will advance all the time. What good would March Madness be if a higher seed rarely fell, or if a wild card could almost never win, or if there wasnt a chance the Mavs could blow a lay up series in the first round? In our other US sports it is accepted that the post season is the second season and that the second season is where stars turn into legends and where the wheat gets seperated from the chaff, as only a deserving champion can emerge from the field and get it done when it matters most under the greatest pressure to perform. Yet in MLS, the idea of the second season is looked at by many quite the opposite. The problem people have with the playoffs, like i said before, has nothing to do with format. They have complained under every format MLS has had and will continue to do so. What people have always used a playoff whine thread to do is use the subject as a means to state the underlying opinion they have-- that regular season achievment is diluted and unimportant beyond securing a playoff spot. The way to "fix" the complaints about the postseason doesn't rest with what format we use, it rests with how we treat the regular season champions and the table positions. They way you do that is: -- Adopt the Supporters Shield, get a sponser, get a signifigant cash award for players and club -- Provide real tangible rewards for table position, such as international births like CCC and Superliga (and eventually Interliga) -- etc. The playoff format can always be slightly adjusted if need be. If the trends start to show that the avg advancments are too random then another level of advantage to higher seeds might be needed while still preserving the tradition and integrity of what post season play should be. ESPN freelancer writers like Chang and Davis need to start acting like real sports journalists and engage facts not conjur; and they also need to start researching and understanding the subject they are writing about instead of just throwing out their opinions that are not suported by the weight of the evidnce.
I don't really feel like engaging in any sort of stat driven discussion on the topic. You seem to have you mind made up based on the evidence you have calculated. That's fine. My question to you is, if your argument is so obvious, clear and correct, why are so many people missing the point? Are they (we) all just stupid? Ignorant? Just a bunch of whiners? Don't answer that, please. Just the other night I was watching Fox Football Fon In (It's not a pro MLS show, so I am sure it is not a favorite around here) and literally every caller (and the hosts) disparage the format. Chris Armas, whom is a beneficiary of the format, killed it during his interview aswell. Across the board, people were dissastisfied with it. Where, do you feel, is the disconnect? Why do so many believe the format cheapens the season/Championship when the statistical evidence you have to the contrary is so readily available?
I support having just single game elimination even though my team the Fire has benefited from current system. The current system allows a lower seed to advance by winning at home and tieing at higher seed. The higher seed should have to be beaten at home,they earned that right. To those who say it allows fluke goals or winning by pks, I say if you have a real home field advantage and don't win, no matter how, you don't deserve to advance. I hate games where it is not do or die. Where one team plays either for a tie or not to lose by more than one goal. Also does anyone realize the current system makes the higher seed travel more? The higher seed has to travel to lower seed then both teams travel to higher seed.
Because many people are misinformed and engage in making up their own conclusions. They dont like playoffs and look for any reason to attack them. That's all fine, but when the crux of your attack (like Chang and Davis whoa re supposed to be objective and factually correct) is based on attacking a premsie that is contrary to all the evidence in possesion....you have to call it what it is. If you dont like the format fine, if you think there is a bteer way fine, but dont say the thing that is wrong with it is that seeding is irrelevant when it is clearly (vased on MLS data and other sports data) is relevant. Its not a traditionalist viewpoint to support post season championship in soccer. That show is a haven for traditionalist fans like its hosts. I would expect nothing less than resistance to the format in that forum. Its one thing to say you want the format changed because you don't like it or would rather see something else, but to say that seeding is irrelevant just isnt factual correct. Now if the trends in MLS change to a point where its 50-50 then maybe we can re-evaulate it. But honestly, i dont see that happening long term. If it does then maybe these arguments have more wieght. But in the present, it just doesnt pass mustard. I said it previously. Its not about format, its about making the regular season mean something, thats always been the point of conflict. Playoff bitch threads are just the perfect springboard for fans that think it cheapens the regular season to sound off. Essentially these people feel so strongly that the top team in the league should be champion that they want to see formats that help ensure that regular season accomplishment. Thats why we always see hypotheticals where there are less teams invited, where #1 seeds get byes, or where some other advantage is given to #1 seeds. These format threads are always about whats best for the best teams, never whats best for balance or other things. Read between the lines. That's the disconnect. They dont care about advancement % or anything like that because there is always a chance SS winner DC won't win and a team like #8 LA will. That basic premise is so revolting to them that it becomes...the playoff format is crap despite evidence to the counter. They want more advantage to higher seeds to help ensure both1 seeds meet in the final. They dont care that only 1 year has a #1 seed not made the post season and only once since 2003 has a team seeded lower than #2 made the final. They hate it so much, reality doesnt matter, thats where your disconnect comes from.
And this is what I said above. Just more succinctly. But you nailed it, too. And this, gentle reader, is another reason I've come to the conclusion that Steve Davis isn't very bright. That, or he's been ESPN-ized to the point where it doesn't matter what you say, just that you say it with some hyperbole and they can plug what you say into the space they need to fill and move on to the next bit.
a - There is not a playoff system that can be concocted that will meet with universal acclaim; perhaps not even a consensus of acclaim. b - Fox Football Fone-In (and its derivatives, on radio and elsewhere) will bitch about MLS being wrong no matter what it does, just to bitch. Because it's not English. Kinda like Bigsoccer. c - Chris Armas also prefers that the All-Star Game be East vs. West. I love Chris, but I don't think he's with the majority on that one. Doesn't make him wrong and us right, but it just points up that you can always find someone who'll disagree loudly with the way things are done. No matter what you do.
I don't think people are stupid at all. But there are certain fact patterns that cause reasonable people to make bad decisions in all walks of life all the time. If the right answer isn't intuitive, I expect smart people will get it wrong. It seems intuitive that MLS high seeds wouldn't have as much of an advantage as NFL or MLB teams. Home field advantage in MLS is sort of nebulous-- and people don't really think of the seeding as a reward in its own right. But when you drill down, you see MLS high seeds actually have a big advantage, even compared to their NFL and MLB bretheren.
Great post. But I do think fixing the regular season does have something to do with the postseason format. It's just that, in our case, seeding appears already to be enough of an advantage. The problem is really just in getting people to understand that. Here's a random thought, though: let's assume there's a normal distribution of good, bad and awful teams in MLS. Right now, a few teams from the wrong side of the curve get into the playoffs (this is crusio's main gripe, I think). The seeding advantage is huge. But when the league expands to 16 or 18 teams, won't the advantage of seeding be correspondingly less? At that point, proportionately fewer playoff spots would help the regular season be more meaningful. At the same time, the decline of the seeding system would help make regular season positioning among playoff teams less meaningful. I don't know which wins out, but maybe tweaking the format will be needed then.
For some of us, it isn't about ensuring that the number 1 goes to the final. It's about ensuring a team like LA (as used in your example doesn't). The playoffs, according to some (me), should be reserved for the better clubs. For me, even if DC won single everytime and LA lost everytime and there were no upsets and everything held true to form along the way, I still wouldn't like it. I believe the playoffs should be reserved for the better performing clubs. It's not about a winning %. That doesn't factor in. You can have a format where you allow 18 of 20 teams into the post season, and still, your percentages would probably hold true. The higher seed would probably win 70% (or whatever the figure might be). Yet, most would not favor a format like this. Same with the first round situation of home and home. The higher seed could win every single time and yet, I wouldn't like it. I perfer a team to be rewarded for their regular season success. I don't (like most) see the reward of the second home game and the possibility of OT as reward enough. I perfer the NFL style of bye weeks and one offs offering a more true HF advantage. After watching that league for years it looks like a format that works that most people seem to love. I don't feel it just crowns the higher seed Champion and believe that it offers enough room (for my taste) for upsets. To sum up, for some, its not about making sure the higher seed wins. I wouldn't want that as I know many other people that don't like this format wouldn't. This might go a little way to explaining, why atleast some of us are not moved by the stats. It not about who winds up winning or wether the higher seed beats the lower sead more othen, its about the the reward winning with more tanglible rewards along the way. This isn't a post trying to convince you of anything, it's just trying to explore why some still hold on to these thoughts when it comes to the post season. Its just another take. As to the rest of your post, I would love to see a big prize offered for the SS winner. That wouldn't really change my thoughts on the post season though. I still would perfer it to be for the upper echelon and for teams to be rewarded better based on their reg season performance (thats just my preference). If we were to go the other way (which would be a distant second option), I would favor the playoffs be all inclusive inviting all the teams to the party. The SS would be the regular season Champ and the playoffs would be a tournament to follow. Again, just my preference.
If that was true you would see more formats devised to kill off lower seeded teams before they even got a sniff at the top teams. While in may proposals that tends tp be the by-product, the focus is clearly on giving higher seeded sides bigger advantages, not so much reducing the chance of lower seeds. Its a subtle point but i think its true. Which is why it was almost universally believed in 2002-2004 when 8 of 10 made it the format wasn't true to the spirit. That argument has become less and less relevent as expansion increases, and thats what defenders of the format said back then too. While in the present when they made the point it wasn't applicable to that season, in the long term they have begun to be proved more right as each year it gets tougher to qualify. Yeah, you can talk about other variables, but this thread was in response to Davis's article that seedings are irrelevent, which is against all the evidence at hand up till now. My arguments have been mostly contained to countering that assertion. If the League commisioner sat me down and forced me to alter the playoffs and said something has to change i would reccommend this: 1. Seeding System of 8 qualified participants based soley on points. Seeding #1 vs. #8 regardless of conference. In theory it would provide slightly less variabilty in upsets. 2. Away goal rule in effect as a neutral rule to encourage less defensive play in first legs. 3. FMF rule as second tie breaker to repalce home field advanatge. I think HFA is sort of insignifgant in a two leg series as well, over the long term HMA does have statistical support, but in one offs in a sport where one mistake can cost you the game it tends to be minimal. FMF rule would provide HMA by delcaring aggregate ties a win for the higger seed. But if this rule happens then we have to have two leg sereis in all rounds before neutral cup final. 4. H-A legs each series. Because if you combine seeding, FMF rule and HFA then the prospects for compelling matches dies quickly and games like 0-0 become the norm. Thats about as far and as wild i would go if i was forced to change things, however, unless i see evidence that the current format is producing random results (meaning approaching 50-50 advancement for higher seeds, i wouldn't reccomend it. As for the rest of your responce, there is nothing wrong with not liking a particular format on personal taste, but if your going to be a Davis, and base your entire dislike on a statement that is currently without evidenciary merit, well your gonna get called out on it.
Since it is clear that many people have this data at hand, I have to ask. How often has the 3 seed advance over the 2 seed? The 1 seed is expected to advance over the 4 seed because there is (or should be) a significant gap in the quality of the teams. But, theoretically, the 2 and 3 seeds are much closer in quality. So, it seems to me that if we're asking the question "does seeding matter," than part of the answer is whether or not a 2 seed advances more often than the 3 seed. Can anyone answer that for me? Thanks.
I dont have the numbers but based on the small sample size we have and the margain of error that would correspond to the sample size i think the %'s are actualy within the margain of error of each other. that margin is 66-75% IIRC
I wasn't defending his take and know you were responding to his stance. I was just trying to balloon out from that a little bit. Good posts.
So, wait, you keep suggesting that the data shows Davis and others to be wrong. That seeding does matter. But, here you're saying the sample size is too small to be valuable? I'm not being a dick, I just don't understand what you're saying? Are the stats significant enough to be valuable? If not, why use them in defense of seeding? If so, I'd still be interested to see the results between the 2 and 3 seed. Off the top of my head, in '06, both 2 seeds advanced. But, in '05, both 3 seeds advanced. Suggesting that seeding really doesn't matter. But, that is a very, very, very small sample. And, beyond the last two seasons, I can't really remember what happened (or look it up quickly on my own). Anyone with that info at hand?
Of the eight teams that have advanced to the final in this format, I suspect that seven of them were one or two seeds. Galaxy is the only exception. Meanwhile, most of the most interesting games have occurred in this format. Not broke. Don't fix.