Pts | Team | GD |
115 | Seattle Sounders FC | 23 |
114 | FC Dallas | 23 |
112 | LA Galaxy | 42 |
110 | D.C. United | 13 |
110 | New York Red Bulls | 24 |
105 | Columbus Crew SC | 15 |
105 | New England Revolution | 6 |
103 | Vancouver Whitecaps FC | 11 |
102 | Portland Timbers | 11 |
100 | Sporting Kansas City | 10 |
97 | Real Salt Lake | 5 |
90 | Toronto FC | -10 |
81 | Houston Dynamo | -26 |
79 | Philadelphia Union | -13 |
79 | Montreal Impact | -16 |
77 | San Jose Earthquakes | -13 |
69 | Colorado Rapids | -29 |
66 | Chicago Fire | -25 |
Next up is a look at the point differences, 2014 to 2015.
Team | Up/Down |
Montreal Impact | 23 |
San Jose Earthquakes | 17 |
New York Red Bulls | 10 |
Toronto FC | 8 |
FC Dallas | 6 |
Colorado Rapids | 5 |
Portland Timbers | 4 |
Vancouver Whitecaps FC | 3 |
Houston Dynamo | 3 |
Sporting Kansas City | 2 |
Columbus Crew SC | 1 |
New England Revolution | -5 |
Philadelphia Union | -5 |
Chicago Fire | -6 |
D.C. United | -8 |
LA Galaxy | -10 |
Seattle Sounders FC | -13 |
Real Salt Lake | -15 |
Going to have a little bit of fun here and whip up a little metric. We'll call it POWER POINTS. Consistency (repeatability) is extremely important in sports, so what I'm going to to is take the absolute value of the year to your point total difference and subtract it from the total of the two years.
Example: New York Red Bulls. 110 pts - 10 point, year to year difference = 100 POWER POINTS.
Power Pts | Team |
108 | FC Dallas |
104 | Columbus Crew SC |
102 | D.C. United |
102 | LA Galaxy |
102 | Seattle Sounders FC |
100 | New England Revolution |
100 | New York Red Bulls |
100 | Vancouver Whitecaps FC |
98 | Portland Timbers |
98 | Sporting Kansas City |
82 | Real Salt Lake |
82 | Toronto FC |
78 | Houston Dynamo |
74 | Philadelphia Union |
64 | Colorado Rapids |
60 | Chicago Fire |
60 | San Jose Earthquakes |
56 | Montreal Impact |
Crew SC get a gold star here. Their point totals year to year were 52 in 2014 and 53 this year. That's about as consistent as you can be. In fact, best in the league. I love results like that. For me, it's the first place I look when trying to figure out if something is going well or not. One year improvements like Montreal, San Jose or the New York Red Bulls suggest instability just as much as teams that dropped points like a rock in Real Salt Lake, Seattle or the LA Galaxy.
COST PER POINT
Another clean way to look at success in the regular season is to take the aggregate (year end) salaries of both years and divide them by total points earned in the regular season.
$ p Pt | Team |
$75,547 | D.C. United |
$76,057 | FC Dallas |
$79,456 | Columbus Crew SC |
$85,879 | Real Salt Lake |
$100,091 | Sporting Kansas City |
$100,185 | Chivas USA |
$105,319 | Portland Timbers |
$109,892 | Vancouver Whitecaps FC |
$116,918 | Houston Dynamo |
$118,635 | San Jose Earthquakes |
$122,525 | Colorado Rapids |
$126,126 | Philadelphia Union |
$131,657 | New England Revolution |
$138,175 | Montreal Impact |
$138,249 | New York Red Bulls |
$153,226 | Chicago Fire |
$198,897 | Seattle Sounders FC |
$291,386 | LA Galaxy |
$429,503 | Orlando City SC |
$438,746 | Toronto FC |
$495,258 | New York City FC |
You can see that there are basically three tiers of teams in MLS, in regards to spending on the competitive nature of the regular season (versus jersey sales, or ticket sales or what have you). DC, Dallas, Columbus and Salt Lake are clearly smart spenders. NYCFC, TFC and Orlando are wasteful.
The measure of success of any season is based upon goals each team sets forth (failing to set goals is a fail, of course), so it's impossible to know who achieved what on a team by team basis. What the above can do is give you a read on which teams are healthy and which are not.
No comments:
Post a Comment