Your question doesn't include any extra info, like should we consider salary problems, contract difficulties, and the like. So I just voted for the two players I thought would help the team the most, absent any contract considerations. Landon Donovan is the best player on the team, and the youngest of the four players in the poll. Anyone who votes to dump him is being silly. And yes, I've seen that 10 of the first 16 voters dumped Landon Donovan. They are wrong.
Barry: Bulls***!! Rob: How can it be bulls*** to state a preference? (High Fidelity) It's great how people think that opinions can be wrong. They are opinions. From a English professor, no less. Sean
This from a guy who believed Tony Womack was a good baseball player. Hey, it was only an opinion, right? No matter that it was contradicted by actual evidence. As for High Fidelity, I think I remember that movie. I used to have it on DVD .
Let's not bring personal arguements to surface, but since we already have: What team was Tony Womack on last year, and who won the World Series? Sean
Well, if there's supposed to be a problem bringing personal arguments to surface, what was with the "From an English professor, no less" comment? As for your argument that Tony Womack must be good because he played on a championship team, using that logic, the worst player on the 2001 Quakes was better than the best player on any other team, because they were "champions." Think that way, and you'll end up thinking Zak Ibsen is a better player than Pablo Mastroeni. I understand your point about opinions, and you're absolutely right. The problem, in my opinion , is that folks seem to think the entire world is nothing but a subjective experience ready for our opinions. The proper place for an opinion is, say, the movie High Fidelity ... people have opinions about how good or bad it is. It's silly, though, to have an opinion about the name of the actor who plays the lead in the movie: it's John Cusack, even if your opinion is that his name is Ronnie Ekelund. Tony Womack is a demonstrably poor major-league baseball player. Opinions won't change that. But I give you the point about Donovan ... soccer players are much harder to figure out than baseball players, due to the lack of useful statistical data. So you're right, it's only my opinion that anyone dumping Donovan over Cannon/Ekelund/Barrett is wrong. But I don't think it's merely opinion that LD's skills on the soccer field are superior to those other three guys. And it's simple fact that he is younger, and thus yet to reach his peak, meaning his value should increase in the next few years, all else being equal. It may be that Donovan is underachieving, or has a bad attitude ... I don't know those things. What I do know is that certain people around here, in exercising their right to have an opinion, are blind to any possible value Landon Donovan might bring to the Quakes. Ronnie Ekelund has been the least-recognized crucial player on the club the last two seasons ... Wade Barrett is similarly underrated. Joe Cannon seems like a great guy and he's probably one of the better goalies in MLS. But for the purposes of this poll, Ekelund is getting old and it seems to be showing, and Cannon is one of the better goalies but not the best. I voted for Donovan and Barrett, two fine players who will likely continue to improve for a few years now. There are things we have seen Landon Donovan do on a soccer field that no one else on the team can do. Despite missing significant time with the national team (where he established his abilities in the World Cup at a level none of the other people in this thread can come close to), he was second on the Quakes in goals scored and third in points. You've got a 20-year-old player, proven on the international stage, putting up very good numbers even in an "off season," and yet some people still think Dwayne DeRosario should be starting over Landon Donovan, and the only reason I can see is that Landon attracts the wrong kind of fans. So here's my opinion: if you and I created soccer teams, and I get Landon Donovan and whoever you don't want of Ekelund, Barrett and Cannon while you get the two you want of that list, then we fill our rosters with 18 other matching players, my team will be better than your team.
I have mathematically proven in another thread that Donovan hurts out team's offense. Vote Joe and Wade for a better America!
Nice try, but no. In another thread, you offered some data that contributes to a better understanding of the Quakes, information that indeed gives one pause to consider Donovan's contributions to the team this season. You did not prove, mathematically or otherwise, that Donovan hurts the team's offense. A lot more work would need to be done; your post was a first step. Meanwhile, what we're asking here is, who would you keep for 2003 and hopefully beyond? Pele was a better player than anyone in the history of MLS, but I betcha even Zak Ibsen would have a better season in 2003 than Pele. Once you establish which of the players in question were the best in 2002, you need to ask what kind of performance can be expected of them in the future. Donovan at 20 is probably going to have a better future than, say, Ekelund.
Agreed with spejic that Donovan HURTS our offence. DeRo would be much more productive playing 90 than Landon, and DeRo sucks playing 90. If you had to choose between Barclay and Donovan, who would you pick? Barclays younger.
> Nice try, but no. I have shown that the Quakes score significantly fewer goals when Donovan plays, whether you count the whole team or just the forwards. If there was some super stats kept for all games, we might see some improvement in things like completed pass percentage or whatever, but that does not matter. You win games by scoring goals. > Donovan at 20 is probably going to have a better > future than, say, Ekelund Valderrama has a better future than Ekelund.
Context, spejic, context. Somewhere right at the very minute, some 12-year-old team is averaging 8 goals a match. That does not mean they could beat the Galaxy. The information you posted was useful and important. By itself, it doesn't prove a thing ... you, or someone, needs to do more work. Here's some of the questions that need to be answered before your data can be considered conclusive: * Who were the Quakes' opponents in the various matches in question? * What lineup did the Quakes use in those matches? * What injury problems or other matters which might affect the play on the field occurred during the season, and when? That's just off the top of my head. Here's an example of the kind of work that needs to be done. On June 29, Ariel and DeRo started up front for the Quakes at home, where they were unbeaten much of the season, vs. KC. The Quakes trailed 1-0 at the half; Landon came on in the second half, Graziani scored two late goals, San Jose won 2-1. On July 27, the Quakes traveled to KC, where they hadn't won in more than three years, and lost 2-1 to the Wizards. Donovan played the whole game. Simuntenkov had a great match and scored the winning goal for the Wizards; he'd played a little more than 10 minutes in the earlier match. OK, based on the above information, how do we usefully extract the value of Landon Donovan to the Quakes? Which goals do you count as being "his?" How do you decide which match to give Landon a "win" and which one do you give him a "loss?" One way to do it is to say "when he didn't start, the Quakes won and scored twice, when he did start, the Quakes lost and scored once." Do that enough and he'll look like a detriment to the offense and to the team. Another way is to say when he came in the first game, the team scored goals and won. Or you could say that the Quakes were winning all of their home games at that point in the season but couldn't win in KC no matter what, and figure Landon had minimal impact for good or bad. Or you could say the key to the matches was Simutenkov. There's just a lot of variables, far too many to do a simple breakdown of goals scored in a group of matches and say "here's proof that Landon Donovan hurts the offense." Meanwhile, the question in this thread is, who do you keep for 2003? What are some of the complaints about Landon Donovan? * he's immature * he was burned out post-World Cup * he didn't mesh with his teammates To the extent the above is true (I'll agree with the second, myself), what can we expect in the future? Maturity? Most people get more mature as they grow into adulthood; Landon will be 21 next year. Burned out? There are no more World Cups until 2006; I doubt Landon Donovan or any other American player will be spending lots of time on late-night television for a couple of years. Teammates? The longer a team plays together, the better it should mesh. There is ample evidence that Landon Donovan will be better in 2003 than he was in 2002. The better he gets, the more he will help his team. He already plays at a world-class level. Given all of this, the burden of proof is on the Landon-bashers. And you haven't given enough evidence to constitute proof yet.
Excellent post, masoo. Now I don't have to arm-wrestle you on the Spartan center line for bitching about baseball.
> OMG, he's back at it again. Somebody get the hook! Last year I predicted that Carrieri would get more goals than Donovan. He did. For next year, I predict Valderrama will get more MLS points than Ekelund.
That doesn't mean anything spejic. If Carrieri had stayed with the Quakes he wouldn't have done as well as he has at Colorado because he would have destroyed Quakes team chemistry and drug the team down with him.
> Context, spejic, context. Somewhere right at the > very minute, some 12-year-old team is averaging > 8 goals a match. That does not mean they could > beat the Galaxy. Donovan is playing with the same teammates as Graz, and he is playing against the same defenses as Twellman. The context is close enough. > * Who were the Quakes' opponents in the > various matches in question? The problem is that this is not an independent variable to Donovan's play. When you take into account all teams season records, the teams in the WC time frame are slightly weaker. However, the fact that we do not score means we lose more often, and thus affect the records of those other teams. > * What lineup did the Quakes use in those > matches? Yallop used a different lineup almost every week. It would be impossible to determine how this affects scoring - there are not enough datapoints for each variation. > * What injury problems or other matters which > might affect the play on the field occurred during > the season, and when? Goals scored by non-forwards during all periods did not change as a percent of all goals scored, so it is not different scoring by midfielders and defenders that affected the stats. Graz and DeRo were not hurt this year, so Donovan had all the weapons that were available during his absence (and the addition of himself). > That's just off the top of my head. Here's an > example of the kind of work that needs to be done. No, what you gave me were a couple of anecdotes. That is not statistics. If you want to use particular plays as a demonstration of Donovan's usefullnes, you will need to create a list of all such plays this season and show how particular plays (say, cross from left side by Barrett) end out with Donovan and without Donovan. > Which goals do you count as being "his?" If he touched the ball last before it goes in the net (not including deflections off defenders). > How do you decide which match to give Landon > a "win" and which one do you give him a "loss?" Strictly speaking, I don't care who wins, although scoring less means it is less likely a win will occur. > One way to do it is to say "when he didn't start, > the Quakes won and scored twice, when he did > start, the Quakes lost and scored once." Do that > enough and he'll look like a detriment to the > offense and to the team. Another way is to say > when he came in the first game, the team scored > goals and won. Or you could say that the Quakes > were winning all of their home games at that > point in the season but couldn't win in KC no > matter what, and figure Landon had minimal > impact for good or bad. Or you could say the key > to the matches was Simutenkov. There's just a > lot of variables, far too many to do a simple > breakdown of goals scored in a group of matches > and say "here's proof that Landon Donovan hurts > the offense." I am not going to do your work for you. I showed that the team scores less with Donovan than without. If you think there are extenuating circumstances that explains the fewer goals (like, say Dayak not playing or Agoos playing) then you should show them. I don't know that Donovan hurts the team by playing. I just showed the team scores less. However, it does hint that Donovan is not an irreplacable player nor one of the top players in MLS. If he costs us a lot in salary cap, then our team could actually improve by his going to Germany.
> That doesn't mean anything spejic. It proves my prediction was right. > If Carrieri had stayed with the Quakes he > wouldn't have done as well as he has at Colorado So? I knew that he was playing for Colorado before I made the prediction. It isn't like I want to see him playing for the Quakes or anything.
Sorry. I assumed that you were comparing the two against each other. It seems to me that the situation for each has to be judged by the environment they are playing in and that has differed for both in each year. Carrieri wasn't doing as well as Donovan last year and has done better this year. And, why compare the two if you are not thinking of them as alternates? Or is this just a statistical exercise of yours?
> Sorry. I assumed that you were comparing the > two against each other. Well, I was. But it was not ment as an argument that we should have kept Carrieri and traded Donovan. It was only ment to defend my own feeling that Carrieri is a great player.