Donovan wishes the USMNT had been more aggressive; I do, too

By Matthias Kullowatz (@MattyAnselmo)

In so many words, Landon Donovan said that he thought the U.S. Men's National Team should have been more aggressive.

"[I]f I'm in that locker room before that game – before the Germany game, before the Belgium game – and the coach walked in and said we're playing a 4-5-1 and Clint [Dempsey] is up top by himself, I would have been disappointed. Because I would have said let's go for it. I want a chance to go for it and try to win the game."

The USMNT took a pounding against Belgium, facing 39 shots worth an average value of nearly five goals. The team's tactics mimicked those of many other teams in the tournament that were praying for a draw (and possibly the ensuing penalties, depending on the round). Iran against Argentina, Algeria against Germany, Mexico against Brazil.

These traditional tactics make some sense, as increasing the chances of a draw in regulation is beneficial for an underdog. But I'm not so sure it always maximizes that lesser team's chances of a positive result. I wrote a while back about how away teams in MLS did much better in the first half of games than in the second half when the game was tied. One possible cause might be that away teams fatigue faster, but I don't think that makes up the whole discrepancy. Tactics change, and though it might seem like a chicken-and-the-egg issue, I think it's the underdog that first decides to turtle up before the favorite becomes more aggressive. 

The World Cup showed us similar results, with many teams stubbornly sticking to a conservative gameplan. Expected Goals during tied scores (even gamestates) serves as a reasonable barometer for how aggressive a team was able to be---or chose to be. Using ESPN's Soccer Power Index, I can estimate by how much a favored team should beat the underdog in terms of Expected Goals during even gamestates. SPI was able to predict these expected goal differentials with an R-squared value of 0.35. The scatter plot (for games in which at least 20 minutes were played in an even gamestate) is shown below with 95-percent prediction intervals.

Among the underdogs, only Japan in its game against Colombia performed worse than the United States against Belgium---that is, compared to how they were "supposed" to do. Much of the deviation from the regression line can be attributed to the SPI not being a perfect indication of team ability, as well as the variance of Expected Goals over a small sample size. But combined with the fact that the USMNT came out in a 4-5-1, the American's massive underperformance in getting quality shots off suggests that tactics were at least as much to blame as any discrepancy in ability. 

Obviously, getting better shots---and more of them---is important to winning soccer games, and that's exactly what Expected Goals tries to measure. It's not surprising, then, that those underdogs that were able to outperform their predicted Expected Goals earned more favorable results collectively than those underdogs that were not able to do so. The only question that remains for any great deviation from expectation, then, is was it by choice or by force? The USA loss to Belgium reeks of choice.

I leave you with the list of results of those games in which at least 20 minutes were played in an even gamestate:

Favorite	Underdog	SPIdiff	EvenMins	xGoalDiff	PredictedxGoalDiff	Underperformance	Points
COL	JPN	1.4	26	2.92	0.97	1.95	0
BEL	USA	0.2	98	1.49	-0.01	1.50	0
ARG	NGA	1.6	47	2.05	1.13	0.91	0
GER	USA	1.2	55	1.71	0.81	0.90	0
GER	ALG	1.6	97	2.00	1.13	0.87	0
BRA	CMR	2.5	25	2.64	1.87	0.78	0
FRA	HON	1.9	44	2.10	1.38	0.72	0
NED	CHI	0.1	77	0.53	-0.09	0.62	0
SUI	ECU	0.2	67	0.55	-0.01	0.56	0
ESP	AUS	1.6	36	1.69	1.13	0.56	0
ARG	SUI	1.2	122	1.29	0.81	0.48	0
BRA	CHI	0.7	114	0.86	0.40	0.46	1
BIH	IRN	1.0	23	1.08	0.64	0.43	0
RUS	KOR	0.7	89	0.83	0.40	0.43	1
RUS	ALG	0.1	41	0.32	-0.09	0.41	1
JPN	GRE	0.1	96	0.18	-0.09	0.27	1
FRA	NGA	1.1	81	0.96	0.72	0.23	0
BEL	RUS	0.5	88	0.47	0.24	0.23	0
ENG	CRC	0.4	93	0.31	0.15	0.15	1
MEX	CRO	0.1	73	0.05	-0.09	0.15	0
NED	ESP	0.2	36	-0.01	-0.01	0.00	0
POR	USA	0.0	23	-0.20	-0.17	-0.03	1
COL	CIV	1.0	64	0.57	0.64	-0.08	0
COL	URU	0.7	28	0.32	0.40	-0.08	0
URU	ITA	0.4	83	0.07	0.15	-0.08	0
URU	CRC	0.5	27	0.11	0.24	-0.13	3
BRA	MEX	1.6	93	0.98	1.13	-0.16	1
BEL	KOR	1.2	79	0.65	0.81	-0.16	0
FRA	ECU	0.9	96	0.39	0.56	-0.18	1
BIH	NGA	0.4	28	-0.04	0.15	-0.19	3
ECU	HON	1.0	64	0.41	0.64	-0.24	0
NGA	IRN	0.6	94	0.06	0.32	-0.26	1
POR	GHA	0.1	53	-0.40	-0.09	-0.31	0
ITA	CRC	0.1	44	-0.41	-0.09	-0.31	3
CRC	GRE	0.3	91	-0.26	0.07	-0.33	1
URU	ENG	0.1	48	-0.43	-0.09	-0.34	0
NED	CRC	1.2	129	0.43	0.81	-0.38	1
BEL	ALG	0.6	33	-0.35	0.32	-0.67	0
MEX	CMR	0.9	62	-0.21	0.56	-0.77	0
ARG	IRN	2.2	92	0.83	1.62	-0.79	0
NED	MEX	1.0	58	-0.16	0.64	-0.80	0
BRA	CRO	1.7	54	0.32	1.21	-0.89	0
GER	GHA	1.3	84	-0.09	0.89	-0.97	1
CIV	GRE	0.5	61	-0.75	0.24	-0.98	3
ENG	ITA	0.3	49	-1.03	0.07	-1.10	3
NED	AUS	1.8	65	-1.08	1.30	-2.38	0

*The Algeria drubbing of Korea cannot be found on the graph, as it was such an extreme outlier.

**The SPIdiff can be seen as the number of goals by which a favorite was expected to beat an underdog, according Nate Silver's explanation.

A 2018 World Cup roster prediction that isn't entirely stupid

By Drew Olsen (@DrewJOlsen)

After a few days of mourning the USA's elimination from the World Cup, we've had enough time to catch our collective breath and look forward to the next one (only 1440 days!). This tournament isn't even over yet, but as we approach Independence Day riding the high on the USMNT’s run past Ronaldo to the round of 16, writers everywhere are already looking forward to 2018 and others are telling them they’re stupid for even trying.

I definitely lean towards the latter camp, but I don't think it's a useless exercise. None of us are mind readers, but that doesn't prevent us from making an educated guess. I’m not going to try to summon the names of who will go to Russia, as such an effort seems like a fool’s errand. Instead, I want to figure out the makeup of what the roster could look like. Based on past trends, we may be able to paint a vague picture of what the next World Cup roster might be built from.

Let’s take a look at where we were at this point in 2010, and what roster we ultimately ended up with.

First some ground rules. Per the venerable Paul Carr (Paul Carr blows your mind) we can probably assume[1] that it is unlikely there will be any players on the roster over 32. This rules out[2] Beasley, Beckerman, Davis, Dempsey, Jones, Wondolowski.

Only outfield player over 32 in last 3 U.S. WC teams was 2006 McBride. 35+ in 2018: Beasley, Beckerman, Davis, Dempsey, Jones, Wondo.

— Paul Carr (@PCarrESPN) July 3, 2014

If we keep riding the Paul Carr roller coaster, we can guess that there will probably be six to 13 players from the 2014 team on the 2018 roster.

Players from previous World Cup roster on U.S. WC roster: 2014: 6 2010: 8 2006: 12 2002: 11 1998: 13 1994: 6

— Paul Carr (@PCarrESPN) July 3, 2014

Let’s take that a step further and see what that list looks like when we add in the coaches for those teams.

Coach	Year	Returning Players
Jurgen Klinsmann	2014	6
Bob Bradley	2010	8
Bruce Arena	2006	12
Bruce Arena	2002	11
Steve Sampson	1998	13
Bora Milutinović	1994	6
Bob Gansler	1990

After digging a little deeper, we realize six is probably a low estimate. All three years that fewer than 11 players were chosen from the previous World Cup, it came with a new coach and followed a team that was generally considered a disappointment. 1990 was the first world cup the USA had been to in decades, so we were just happy to be there. Still, losing all three games and conceding eight goals wasn't exactly something to be proud of and only six players from that team made the squad in 1994. That year the USA impressed, making the knockout stage barely losing to eventual champion Brazil. In 2006, the USA finished last in their group and Bruce Arena was fired. Bob Bradley cleaned house in 2010, bringing only eight players from the 2006 team. Still, he was unable to overcome USA nemesis Ghana and was fired shortly thereafter. Klinsmann shocked many when he took only six members of Bradley’s team, but exceeded expectations by getting out of the Group of Death and pushing Belgium to the brink.

There is a clear pattern in the roster carry-over from cycle to cycle. If the USA did well 12 or 13 players returned for the subsequent tournament. If America did poorly the number was six or eight[3]. Based on both continuity – Klinsmann will probably still be the coach – and the success of the 2014 team, there is likely to be around 10-12 players from the current roster on the 2018 one. That leaves about 10 open roster spots.

If Klinsmann sticks to his youth-oriented focus, some players are likely to come out of nowhere. Of the 2014 squad, 12[4] of the 23 earned their first USA cap after the 2010 World Cup. Indeed, in some capacity seven of those players had been called up by other countries! We love our troops, and we love them even more when they marry abroad and produce talented young players. Klinsmann did well to recruit the low-hanging-fruit abroad in 2014, but it is safe to assume other countries will better court (read: protect) their young players before 2018, and the USA will have fewer new players to steal away.

Finally, there might be some guys that have been previously capped, but didn't make this squad. These are the Camerons, Beckermans, and the Davis’ of the group.  Forty-four different players that didn't make this World Cup team have been called up only in the last year, and 34 of those players will be 32 or younger in 2018. With Klinsmann likely to bring players he’s already looked (and is looking) at, we can assume that there are a number of players in that pool that will make it in 2018.

Based on all the above factors, I've pulled together a broad look at what the USA’s 2018 roster might look like. 

10-12 Players from the 2014 squad
4-8 Who have played for the USA, but didn’t make the 2014 team
5-10 Yet to earn their first USMNT cap

So there you have it! When reading projected 23 man rosters that you recognize all the names on, take a step back and remember how little we (and US Soccer) actually know. If I had told you four years ago that Matt Besler or Fabian Johnson[5] would be integral and instrumental parts of the 2014 World Cup team, you would have given me a blank stare. Also it’s a dumb premise because I wouldn't have told you that.

I won’t fault you for reading all those fun roster projections (clearly I've been reading them, too), but take each one with a grain of salt. And in 2018 when we realize that Simon Borg successfully predicted the roster four years prior, please send me an angry email.

[1] We can assume nothing.

[2] See the above footnote. Ruling any of them out right now is totally insane. As a reference, Tim Cahill was 34 for this World Cup and Andrea Pirlo was 35. They did alright.

[3] Notice that I’ve skipped 2002, which returned 11 players from the disastrous 1998 team that finished dead last. This is another ginormous assumption, but many blamed coach Steve Sampson (he of the famous 3-6-1 formation) instead of the players. That’s my flimsy excuse for this exception to the rule.

[4] Yedlin, Gonzalez, Besler, Brooks, Chandler, Fabian Johnson, Jermaine Jones, Diskerud, Green, Zusi, Johannsson, and Wondolowski

[5] Or DeAndre Yedlin, or John Brooks, or DaMarcus Beasley, or Timmy Chandler, or Mix Diskerud, or Julian Green, or Aron Johannsson, or Chris Wondolowski…

Tim Howard's effort against Belgium

American goalkeeper Tim Howard had a fantastic game against Belgium on Tuesday. It might have been the game of his life, and Wikipedia fittingly gave him a new job. We don't actually have data for every game he's ever kept, but we can put his performance into some perspective. 

On Tuesday, his Keeper Rating---based off each shot's origin, goalmouth placement, and pattern of play---represented the best single-game performance of any goalkeeper thus far in the tournament. Belgium laid siege on his goal, firing off a tournament-high 39 shots. 17 of those were on frame, also a tournament-high. They probably should have scored four or five goals, but that wasn't going to happen on Howard's watch. The chart below summarizes every game of the tournament to date for each keeper.

Keeper	Team	Opponent	SOT	Goals	xGoals	Rating
T. Howard	USA	BEL	17	2	4.68	-2.68
V. Enyeama	NGA	BIH	7	0	2.46	-2.46
A. Dominguez	ECU	FRA	9	0	2.44	-2.44
G. Ochoa	MEX	BRA	6	0	2.31	-2.31
D. Benaglio	SUI	ARG	8	1	2.93	-1.93
F. Dauda	GHA	POR	7	1	2.46	-1.46
T. Courtois	BEL	KOR	4	0	1.41	-1.41
C. Bravo	CHI	ESP	6	0	1.34	-1.34
F. Muslera	URU	ENG	6	1	2.34	-1.34
D. Ospina	COL	URU	4	0	1.25	-1.25
Julio Cesar	BRA	CRO	3	0	1.20	-1.20
S. Romero	ARG	SUI	4	0	1.17	-1.17
V. Enyeama	NGA	FRA	5	1	2.06	-1.06
C. Bravo	CHI	AUS	4	1	2.03	-1.03
K. Navas	CRC	GRE	8	1	1.95	-0.95
E. Kawashima	JPN	GRE	4	0	0.95	-0.95
N. Valladares	HON	FRA	5	2	2.84	-0.84
A. Begovic	BIH	NGA	9	1	1.80	-0.80
N. Valladares	HON	SUI	10	3	3.79	-0.79
I. Akinfeev	RUS	ALG	6	1	1.75	-0.75
T. Courtois	BEL	USA	5	1	1.74	-0.74
H. Lloris	FRA	ECU	2	0	0.73	-0.73
Alireza Haghighi	IRN	NGA	4	0	0.72	-0.72
K. Navas	CRC	URU	3	1	1.71	-0.71
O. Karnezis	GRE	JPN	4	0	0.62	-0.62
M. Neuer	GER	POR	4	0	0.61	-0.61
S. Romero	ARG	IRN	3	0	0.60	-0.60
S. Sirigu	ITA	ENG	5	1	1.60	-0.60
D. Benaglio	SUI	HON	3	0	0.48	-0.48
K. Navas	CRC	ITA	4	0	0.47	-0.47
G. Ochoa	MEX	CMR	1	0	0.47	-0.47
C. Bravo	CHI	BRA	6	1	1.45	-0.45
D. Ospina	COL	GRE	2	0	0.45	-0.45
T. Courtois	BEL	RUS	3	0	0.41	-0.41
V. Enyeama	NGA	ARG	13	3	3.41	-0.41
G. Buffon	ITA	URU	5	1	1.41	-0.41
Jung Sung-Ryong	KOR	RUS	5	1	1.41	-0.41
M. Neuer	GER	ALG	4	1	1.33	-0.33
Julio Cesar	BRA	MEX	2	0	0.33	-0.33
V. Enyeama	NGA	IRN	1	0	0.30	-0.30
S. Pletikosa	CRO	CMR	2	0	0.29	-0.29
D. Ospina	COL	JPN	7	1	1.29	-0.29
T. Howard	USA	GER	6	1	1.24	-0.24
J. Cillessen	NED	AUS	4	2	2.20	-0.20
B. Foster	ENG	CRC	2	0	0.19	-0.19
J. Cillessen	NED	ESP	4	1	1.18	-0.18
Beto	POR	GHA	4	1	1.16	-0.16
K. Navas	CRC	ENG	1	0	0.16	-0.16
A. Dominguez	ECU	SUI	6	2	2.14	-0.14
O. Karnezis	GRE	CIV	4	1	1.14	-0.14
Julio Cesar	BRA	CHI	2	1	1.14	-0.14
J. Cillessen	NED	CHI	1	0	0.13	-0.13
Kim Seung-Gyu	KOR	BEL	5	1	1.12	-0.12
A. Begovic	BIH	ARG	2	1	1.11	-0.11
H. Lloris	FRA	NGA	2	0	0.10	-0.10
G. Buffon	ITA	CRC	5	1	1.07	-0.07
H. Lloris	FRA	HON	1	0	0.07	-0.07
G. Ochoa	MEX	NED	4	2	2.07	-0.07
F. Muslera	URU	ITA	1	0	0.04	-0.04
R. M'Bolhi	ALG	RUS	4	1	1.04	-0.04
R. M'Bolhi	ALG	GER	12	2	2.01	-0.01
J. Reina	ESP	AUS	0	0	0.00	0.00
M. Neuer	GER	USA	0	0	0.00	0.00
C. Itandje	CMR	MEX	4	1	0.99	0.01
D. Ospina	COL	CIV	3	1	0.94	0.06
J. Cillessen	NED	MEX	5	1	0.92	0.08
I. Akinfeev	RUS	KOR	5	1	0.87	0.13
S. Romero	ARG	BIH	6	1	0.86	0.14
Alireza Haghighi	IRN	ARG	4	1	0.84	0.16
A. Dominguez	ECU	HON	5	1	0.81	0.19
Julio Cesar	BRA	CMR	1	1	0.79	0.21
A. Begovic	BIH	IRN	2	1	0.77	0.23
R. M'Bolhi	ALG	BEL	7	2	1.74	0.26
T. Howard	USA	POR	7	2	1.71	0.29
D. Benaglio	SUI	FRA	12	5	4.70	0.30
B. Barry	CIV	GRE	5	2	1.69	0.31
T. Howard	USA	GHA	3	1	0.68	0.32
T. Courtois	BEL	ALG	1	1	0.61	0.39
D. Benaglio	SUI	ECU	4	1	0.61	0.39
B. Barry	CIV	COL	6	2	1.57	0.43
I. Akinfeev	RUS	BEL	2	1	0.54	0.46
G. Ochoa	MEX	CRO	2	1	0.54	0.46
B. Barry	CIV	JPN	2	1	0.53	0.47
I. Casillas	ESP	CHI	4	2	1.50	0.50
F. Dauda	GHA	GER	4	2	1.49	0.51
M. Neuer	GER	GHA	6	2	1.45	0.55
N. Valladares	HON	ECU	4	2	1.43	0.57
O. Karnezis	GRE	COL	6	3	2.38	0.62
C. Itandje	CMR	BRA	10	4	3.32	0.68
C. Bravo	CHI	NED	4	2	1.28	0.72
S. Romero	ARG	NGA	3	2	1.24	0.76
O. Karnezis	GRE	CRC	1	1	0.22	0.78
R. M'Bolhi	ALG	KOR	3	2	1.06	0.94
E. Kawashima	JPN	CIV	5	2	1.01	0.99
F. Muslera	URU	CRC	4	3	2.01	0.99
S. Pletikosa	CRO	BRA	6	3	1.95	1.05
Rui Patricio	POR	GER	6	4	2.94	1.06
A. Larsen Kwarasey	GHA	USA	4	2	0.92	1.08
F. Muslera	URU	COL	4	2	0.89	1.11
Beto	POR	USA	4	2	0.85	1.15
J. Hart	ENG	ITA	3	2	0.79	1.21
S. Pletikosa	CRO	MEX	4	3	1.74	1.26
I. Casillas	ESP	NED	10	5	3.59	1.41
Jung Sung-Ryong	KOR	ALG	5	4	2.58	1.42
H. Lloris	FRA	SUI	4	2	0.58	1.42
Alireza Haghighi	IRN	BIH	5	3	1.54	1.46
J. Hart	ENG	URU	2	2	0.45	1.55
M. Ryan	AUS	NED	9	3	1.43	1.57
M. Ryan	AUS	CHI	4	3	1.39	1.61
C. Itandje	CMR	CRO	9	4	2.38	1.62
M. Ryan	AUS	ESP	4	3	0.90	2.10
E. Kawashima	JPN	COL	4	4	1.72	2.28

Welcome!

Do you remember a long time ago, like in November, when I had said that we were working to develop something soon? Well here it is. This is soon by our terminology.

You may or may not have noticed you can actually read what I am writing without squinting or feeling as though your eyes may bleed. That is because you are looking at the new and improved American Soccer Analysis site. Complete with readable font AND sortable tables for your viewing pleasure.

The site itself is a great upgrade over our old Wordpress house; the real perk of the transition though is the foundation for future growth. Our future goal is to provide you with a database of events that encompasses as much of American soccer as we can track and monitor. We want to work with analysts at the MLS, USL Pro, NASL levels and an assortment of proprietary data companies in the effort to build an open community that is interested in growing soccer analysis beyond what it is today.

We've only just celebrated our one-year anniversary, but in that time we've been seen by more than 25,000 sets of unique eyeballs. We have more projects, ideas and visions to keep us pressing forward and we hope that with your help we can achieve them all and that much more.

As always we welcome any help that we can get. We're constantly on the look out for writers, DBA's, graphic artists and just people in general that don't mind looking at a screen and collecting data for processes that we haven't automated.

Seriously, we did some great things last Winter in building up an MLS player shot database for the 2013 season. That was done by people that had 15 minutes to kill every so often and access to a computer with internet. Nothing all that special. We would love to go back and accomplish the same for the 2011 and 2012 MLS seasons. This is free information that we want to compile for everyone, and in the process, aide us in learning more about the underlying trends of soccer.

Enough of the campaign spiel. Here's to a bright + shiny new site!

- Harrison

Twitter: @Harrison_Crow
Email: farfromport@gmail.com
 

Brazil: better than you think!

Admittedly, it hasn't felt like Brazil has played all that well this World Cup.

The referee seemingly made its two-goal victory over Croatia a more relaxed finish than it should have been; against Mexico, the fourth-place team from CONCACAF, it only managed a draw; and Cameroon was just low-hanging fruit. The host team then took a lot of flak for its play in the Round of 16 against Chile, especially for its performance after halftime. Indeed, Brazil conceded a silly goal on a defensive giveaway, and Chile had chances to win that game.

But I'm here to tell you that Brazil has played better that it has looked. Too often, it seems, the scorelines heavily influence our praise and criticism of what's happening on the field.

Brazil dominated Group A in terms of Expected Goal Differential (xGD), and recorded the second-highest tally of any team during the group stage. Brazil's 1.05 xGD during even (tied) gamestates ranked fifth among the 32 teams. You might have expected better from the hosts, but most teams only played about 130 minutes in such gamestates. That's a big enough sample size to get a general idea of which are the best teams, but too small a sample to split hairs over the top five.

Croatia - June 12th

Against the Croats, a penalty awarded to Fred on what appeared to be a dive marred what was actually a solid performance by Brazil. Up to that controversial call, Brazil had earned 1.4 Expected Goals (xGoals) to Croatia's 0.4, dominating in quantity and quality of shots. Even after taking the lead on the penalty, Brazil still edged Croatia in xGoals the rest of the way, 0.30 to 0.24---a differential that matches what we'd expect of teams that were leading in this tournament.

Mexico - June 17th

Mexico is a better team than their last-second World Cup qualification (and that commentator) would suggest. It led the CONCACAF Hexagonal (the Hex!) in shot ratios and is currently ranked 13th in the world in the Soccer Power Index (though some of that improved ranking is because of their tie against Brazil). Despite a disappointing 0 - 0 tie on the scoreboard, Brazil's 1.4 xGoals again dwarfed that of its opponents. Mexico totaled just 0.5 xGoals.

Cameroon - June 23rd

There's not much to say about this one. Brazil's 1.9 xGD against Cameroon was the third highest discrepancy thus far in the tournament, trailing only France's drubbing of Honduras and Germany's handling of Portugal. It should be noted that both France and Germany enjoyed a man advantage for the majorities of those games.

Chile - June 28th

For Chile, the scoreboard and their well-developed rapport with the woodwork are clear indications that they could have won this game. However, the opportunity creation department informs us that Brazil probably should have won, as it did. 94 percent of this game's shots were taken during an even gamestate, either 0 - 0 or 1 - 1, and Brazil outpaced Chile during that time by a full expected goal. Even after halftime, when Brazil looked disorganized and sloppy, it still edged Chile 1.1-to-0.7 in xGoals.

Perhaps Brazil has not "looked" the part of tournament favorites during its first four games, but its shot creation numbers suggest it is definitely playing like one of the best teams. Add that to their pre-tournament resume, throw in the home-field advantage that's not going away anytime soon, and there is little doubt that Brazil is still the favorite to win this World Cup---maybe not with a majority of the probability, but definitely with a plurality.

The Manaus Effect

During the United States' game against Germany on Thursday, it was hard to go 10 minutes without hearing Ian Darke or Taylor Twellman mention Manaus and its effect on the players. The US Men's National team played its previous game against Portugal in the "Jungle City," as did Italy, England, Croatia and Cameroon, before each dropping three points in their next games.

Business Insider pointed out that those first four teams to play in Manaus lost by a combined score of 10 - 3, though it conceded the tiny sample size. A Washington Post article cited the same statistics, and pondered the possibility of a curse in Manaus. The Independent, based in the United Kingdom, noted on June 24th that each of the seven teams that played in Manaus lost its next game. That was confusing since only six teams had played in Manaus to that point, and only four of those had actually played a "next game." But whatever. #stats Graham Zusi, Sporting Kansas City's All-star midfielder and starter for the USMNT, wasn't having any of it, stating "I don’t think it was that bad to be honest. When it got down to it, at night it cooled off and the humidity wasn’t as bad. I think after about 24 hours the bodies felt great." Hugh Laurie would tell us that everybody lies, especially athletes on record, but there might be something to Zusi's statement. Below is a chart depicting the average temperature, humidity and heat index for each game site. The weather stats were taken from Weather Underground at the beginning of the second half of each game.

City	Games	Temp	Humidity	Index
Fortaleza	4	82.4	62%	85.4
Salvador	4	80.2	73%	83.5
Manaus	4	79.3	81%	82.1
Natal	4	78.5	83%	80.7
Cuiaba	4	78.4	66%	79.1
Brasilia	4	77.5	43%	78.7
Sao Paulo	4	69.4	55%	78.3
Belo Horizonte	4	76.1	40%	77.8
Recife	4	77.5	86%	77.8
Rio De Janeiro	4	75.7	71%	76.6
Porto Alegre	4	65.8	71%	75.5
Curitiba	4	64.0	79%	71.5

It's reasonable to theorize that more extreme environments take their toll on the human body, even professional athletes. But if we're going to get serious here, we need to consider all locales that were exceptionally uncomfortable. Manaus actually ranked third in average heat index, and had a lower average humidity than fourth-place Natal. Italy and England were the first to play in Manaus on June 14th and sparked the notion that it was a hell hole. But while they were duking it out in Manaus, Costa Rica and Uruguay were playing in Fortaleza, number one on that list up there. Though it was less humid to start the second half in Fortaleza, it was actually hotter, and Fortaleza's halftime heat index beat that of Manaus by a few points, 87.3 to 84.6.

It turns out that teams which most recently played in Natal, Salvador or Fortaleza---the other three extreme locations---did alright. Those teams outscored their opponents by a combined five goals. That makes it hard to believe that the conditions of Manaus were responsible for the downfalls of Italy, England and Croatia, though that still leaves the possibility of a non-weather-related curse.

To make this a legit study, there are some other factors we need to control for, and that is why God invented linear regression. Using ESPN's (Nate Silver's) Soccer Power Index, I controlled for each team's overall ability, and then I measured the effects of extra rest and past-game heat index on the goal differential outcome. The output is below:

Variable	Estimate	P-Value
Intercept	-0.37	15.8%
SPI Ratings Differential	1.01	0.1%
Additonal Days Rest (home)	-0.21	68.1%
Heat Index Differential	0.01	74.3%

If you're not a linear regression kind of person, then basically what that chart up there says is that neither the heat index of the teams' past games nor any rest discrepancy seemed to matter during this tournament. At least not in terms of goal differential. But we know that goal differential is finicky, and Expected Goals are a better indicator of team performance. Good thing we've got our World Cup Expected Goals data up and running! If we measure team performance by some Expected Goal Differential statistics (xGD), then we get these linear regression outputs:

Expected Goal Diff	Estimate	P-value	Even Expected Goal Diff	Estimate	P-value
Intercept	-0.06	61.9%	Intercept	0.01	88.4%
SPI Ratings Differential	0.46	0.1%	SPI Ratings Differential	0.34	0.2%
Additional Days Rest (home)	0.13	57.0%	Additional Days Rest (home)	0.17	37.0%
Heat Index Differential	0.00	79.7%	Heat Index Differential	0.00	86.3%

Again, regardless of whether we look at overall xGD or even-gamestate xGD, there are no statistically significant effects due to extreme heat index figures from past matches. Expected Goals data are obviously not a direct measurement of how heat impacts the athletes' bodies, but they should be a stable representation the teams' relative strengths during a match.

The Swiss were the last team (that is still in the tournament) to play in an 80+ heat index environment, but I wouldn't expect that to matter much based on what I've shown above. What will matter is that Argentina is much better. Talent has trumped the heat index so far this World Cup.

World Cup Statistics

We have begun rolling out World Cup statistics in the same format as those we provide for MLS. Scroll over "World Cup 2014" along the top bar to check it out! In the Team Stats Tables, one may observe that the recently-eliminated Spain outshot its opponents, and a much higher proportion of its possession occurred in the attacking third than that of its opponents.

Our team-by-team Expected Goals data shows that England played better than its results would suggest, earning more dangerous opportunities than its opponents. It was a matter of inches for Wayne Rooney a few times there...

SHOT MAP: Wayne Rooney has now missed with his right foot, his left foot & with a header. An English hat-trick. #ENG pic.twitter.com/HfR86YL23w

— Squawka Football (@Squawka) June 19, 2014

Finishing data suggests that James Rodriguez has made the most of his opportunities---surprise, surprise---but did you know that none of Thomas Muller's first seven shots were assisted?

And despite giving up a tournament-high seven goals in the group stages, our Goalkeeping Data actually suggests that Honduran goalkeeper Noel Valladares performed admirably---especially considering the onslaught of shots he faced that were worth a tournament-most 0.4 goals per shot on target.

5 Reasons Why You Should Watch Major League Soccer

So you’re excited about the US Men’s National team breaking through the group stage? It may even be that you find yourself liking this whole soccer thing. That’s not surprising; most Americans you talk to that follow soccer, including myself, have had that specific moment that sealed commitment, a moment often from a past World Cup. Whether that be the 2002 World Cup run in South Korea or the 2010 heart break against Ghana that brought you to the “beautiful game," because of the placement that soccer has in the standings of American culture, it’s just common to have these iconic moments associated with the sport. The thing that distinguishes people like us from the rest of the excited US supporters across the nation during this time is that, once the World Cup tournament concludes, we'll still want more.

Well, fear not because there is a serious and thriving league here in the US. If you are or have ever been called a ‘Euro snob’, then you can probably stop reading now. You’re going to argue and just generally disagree with most everything I have to say. So what’s the point? I’m not trolling you and it’s great that you like soccer in Europe. But we’re to talk to these new recruits about soccer in the United States. So here we go. Here are five reasons and examples about soccer in the US, and why you should follow it after the World Cup.

1)   Soccer in the United States is actually good.

Once upon a time Major League Soccer was viewed as a retirement league. A place where aged stars came for one last pay day once they were out of their prime. It was viewed as such simply because it was exactly that. It wasn’t that long ago, and because of that there some pretty common misconceptions about MLS.

“It used to be that just CONCACAF [The Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football] internationals and retirees came here. In 2014 Brazilians, Spaniards, Englishmen (that just miss out), Australians, Persians (Iran), and Irish all play in MLS, and they also play roles for their home countries in the World Cup, or are of World Cup quality.”

Look, most people that don’t like MLS likely have not watched more than a couple of games; which is silly considering they base all their opinions on those few games. It would be like me basing the entirety of the NBA on a Cleveland and New Orleans games or New Jersey and Phoenix. Neither of which are what we would call riveting match-ups.

The quality of MLS is improving every year. If you believe MLS still to be a ‘retirement league’ or a ‘first division with watered down depth’ you haven’t really invested any time in getting your facts straight. Truth is most people are forming opinions based on a small sample size from years ago.

Looking at numbers produced by Dave Clark and the statistician known by the handle Sidereal, one finds strong indicators that MLS has just continued to improved over the last few years. The league is gaining traction to being near par with some quality European soccer leagues.

2) MLS is on the verge of getting even better and it starts with increased wages.

“Although not often addressed, there's no question that achieving that vision will require increasing MLS player salaries to attract more top players. It's just a question of how fast, and the salaries may need to increase much sooner than 2022.”

“…”

“What could the future MLS look like? Or what would it need to look like for the Don Garber to see his vision meet reality? Let's build the reality. Let's assume by 2022 the MLS will pay their players 50% of total revenues, in line with the current Bundesliga level. MLS won't need to reach revenues of the Bundesliga to be considered a top league in the world, but they will need to be close to be paying quality players closer to market rate. Let's assume that MLS can achieve Don's dream by reaching Ligue 1 revenues but paying Bundesliga salaries. Finally, let's assume that Ligue 1 revenues grow at a modest 4% per year until 2022.”

“…”

“The target MLS revenue growth of 16% is very aggressive but Don Garber has a good amount of low hanging fruit to pick. The new rumored TV deal is for about $100M in 2015 and would increase the 2012 revenues (the basis for these numbers) by nearly 15%. The next TV deal might fetch the same 15% growth or more. MLS has also announced a five-team expansion plan which will bring at least 26% growth as the teams come on. Without doing much, MLS can get almost a third of the way to the goal according to my calculations.”

Okay, I pray that Jared will forgive me for lifting so many of his brilliant words from his article. Go read the whole piece because it’s great. Unfortunately it’s a bit of an involved article, and I just wanted to frame a great thought from his head.

The United States first division is growing, and growing at a substantial rate. That is due to the injection of money and the fact they can start paying players what their worth. This brings in more players from all over the place that can use the league as not just a place to end their career, but really to start it.

A new Collective Bargaining Agreement will be negotiated this year after the season is over. I get that most of us sports fan are sick of labor talks and news of player strikes. I read you loud and clear. The thing that makes this different is simply that the league gets better with increase salary caps for clubs and the increase of minimum player wages. I don’t want there to be a work stoppage, but with the increased revenue from the TV deal that MLS just signed, they owe it to the players and fans to further the cause of soccer in this country.

3a) It’s not just about overpaying old guys to get eyeballs, MLS is acquiring young and exciting talent…

The main example you could probably point to for young guys coming into the league is Fredy Montero. Montero has transitioned over the last 18 months from one of the MLS top scorers to being a perennial talent in Portugal. Montero, who spent four very good seasons in Seattle, had the opportunity to make mistakes in a league that pushed his abilities enough even four years ago.

Montero’s arrival was followed by an influx of young international talent.

Darlington Nagbe, for example, is an international and former collegiate star at the University of Akron. He has been a critical piece for the Portland Timbers, is one of the most creative and eccentric talents in all of MLS.

Fabian Castillo, the Columbian winger with plenty of technical prowess, passed up opportunities in Europe for a stable playing environment and a chance for consistent playing time in Dallas.

Deshorn Brown is a high-end prototypical speedster from Jamaica. In his first season with the Colorado Rapids, he lead his club in goals scored and took them to the playoffs for the first time in four seasons.

For every Montero, however, there will always be a player that just doesn’t work out. The examples are many. In spite of that, MLS has begun the reverse transition from retirement league to what many would call a feeder league. While many, if not most, would not purpose to spend the prime of their careers in MLS (see point: 3b), they can still make a fine career for themselves and good wages because of how the league has grown to reward these players.

More and more young players are coming here in the vein of Montero, now viewing the US as an opportunity to get on the radar of European scouts and develop a pathway to launch a more lucrative career while still having stability and having the chance to prove them in a physical league.

“The increased visibility in M.L.S. is attractive to the players, who also benefit from the league’s financial stability compared with some leagues in their home countries.” (Leander Schaerlaeckens, NY Times)

It’s true that MLS still has more players retire at the end of the year from soccer than will transfer out of its league, but the players that are being transferred out are going to better and better clubs.

3b) ...and some of that league talent is even in its prime.

As I said, there aren’t many who look at MLS and think “gosh, I could have a good living in the US in the prime of my career." However there are a few where the stars lined up perfectly and they've chosen to play in America rather than going abroad with their talents. Such examples are:

Diego Valeri, the creative midfielder from Argentina, has been a force since arriving in Portland. And teamed with their young budding star, Nagbe, they're a spectacular pair just to watch.

Juninho, the Brazilian, is often glossed over in terms of the whole league, but his consistency in LA and his ability to play both ways centrally is fantastic. He could be earning much more abroad but the allure of being on an iconic franchise and coached by one of the best US coaches in the business, Bruce Arena, keeps him in LA... for now.

Osvaldo Alonso is a unique case. His heroic escape from Cuba and passport situation limit his options abroad, but believe me... he has them. Yet, he loves Seattle and MLS. He's easily a top-3 midfielder in the entire league and still has a couple prime seasons left in the tank.

Matt Besler, the Sporting KC and USMNT centerback has had chances to go abroad, and yet here he is in his prime. This has happened by way of MLS introducing retention funds to pay for... well, people whom they define as worthy of using it. His salary relative to the cap has been kept manageable because of those funds and he loves playing in Kansas City. He's possibly and probably the best defender in MLS.

4) It’s not just about foreign talent; we have a thriving league to grow future US national team talent.

Players like Shane O’Neil (Colorado), Luis Gil (Real Salt Lake), Benji Joya (Chicago) and DeAndre Yedlin (Seattle) are just a few names that play significant roles on their MLS clubs, and they still can't drink legally in this country. You could almost have thrown Will Trapp (Columbus) on this list too, but he busted the beer-drinking landmark at the beginning of the year.

All four have been featured in U-23 matches gearing up for the Olympics, just two short years away, and all look to be prominent members of future World Cup teams. There are others worth mentioning also, but the point here is that MLS is starting to become a facilitator of growing US talent. That’s important.

That doesn’t even highlight players such as Gyasi Zardes or Jack McInerney, who are both big-time names in the league and may not qualify as members of the Olympic roster. It also doesn’t include 19-year old striking sensation Diego Fagundez, who just graduated from high school two weeks ago and just entered his fourth season as a member of the New England Revolution. Sadly enough, he is still technically not a US citizen…yet.

5)  There is parity, and possibly more so here than in any other relevant league in the world.

“The three factors above were weighted equally and assigned a standard deviation (either + or -) for each league and each metric. Add them up and MLS is indeed the most competitive league in this 15-league sample. Interestingly, Brazil was not far behind. Of course, there are multiple ways one can measure parity and competitiveness, and this is just one of many approaches.”  - Alex Olshansky

“This consistency, when combined with MLS’s overall lower variation, results in a lower proportion of the MLS’s points variation resulting from actual talent differences. The overall impact is that MLS table results are nearly a 50/50 split between talent and luck.” - Zach Slaton

Everyone hates the Yankees and yet wants to be them. It’s one of the greatest catch-22’s in sports. We all hate the winner---unless, of course, it’s us. MLS has developed a single entity program that just doesn’t lend itself to helping clubs that win, but it helps those that do not. In fact it’s worse to finish middle of the pack in the league than to finish at the back.

The league subsidies the salary cap of certain teams based on the order in which the teams finished. Teams towards the bottom get certain stipend (called allocation money) that assists in pay down contracts for cap purposes. Teams at the top also are awarded this money as a means of deepening the team for international competition in CONCACAF Champions League. This enables them to compete against the Mexican League teams that often tend to be superior in talent depth.

This all creates an environment on a yearly basis that creates volatility in casting predictions and makes the whole process rather difficult. A team can be good and have bad luck (see: LA Galaxy) or it can be mediocre with good luck (see: Real Salt Lake, according to Matthias), or it can have best of both worlds (see: Seattle Sounders). The beauty is that teams are never that far out of it, and never that far ahead.

The team that serve as the best example of this anything-can-happen league is DC United. Our readers had predicted prior to the season that they would miss the play-offs and would be generally sit near the bottom. In fact 15% thought they would end up dead last, opposed to the less than 1% that thought they would win the conference. Currently sitting nearly halfway through the season, they are in good position to fight for that very chance. And last year, this is the same club that nearly set all types of records for being anemic and generally pathetic in their overall performance.

There are few, if any, instances in which you can point to a club going from worst to best in a single season. The 1990 Atlanta Braves come to mind for me, but thinking abroad in the world of soccer, that seems improbable if not all together impossible. In MLS, it's a yearly event.

-------

These are just a few reasons on why you should turn your attention to Major League Soccer after the World Cup. I'm sure others could add to this list, and generally speaking I know I missed things that others would include. But in talking with so many people down here in the South, I felt compelled to at least try to provide a this motivation to get involved in a dynamic league right here in the United States.

Tim Howard's odd odyssey against Ghana

The United States match against Ghana felt odd, didn’t it? After years of focus on ball possession the United States could barely string together consecutive passes. After all the worrying about the inexperienced defense, the backline held like a tight string and almost pulled off perfection against an onslaught of attack. But the combination of those two circumstances, coupled with a remarkable early goal by Dempsey led to a very odd night for Tim Howard. Howard actually led the USMNT in touches in the match with 61. A goalkeeper. With touches. So far, the 61 touches leads the World Cup for a goalkeeper. The average has been 32. The second highest was Bravo’s 58 touches during Chile’s 2-0 smashing of Spain. The games were similar in that both Chile and the United States scored first against a team that would ultimately dominate possession. That can and did lead to an odd night for our goalkeeper.

In the Ghana match, Beasley was second to Howard with 60. The 102% ratio of goalkeeper touches to highest player touches is also the highest of the World Cup. But that got me thinking. What is a typical ratio?

I looked at all 20 games of the World Cup played through June 18^th. The average ratio was 45% goalkeeper touches to highest player touches. The standard deviation so far is 20%. That puts Tim Howard’s number at 2.8 standard deviations from the mean. Assuming a normal distribution, that implies the goalkeeper should have the most touches on a team just once in 400 games. That’s less often than once per MLS season. So it’s not unheard of, but it’s pretty irregular, and it definitely highlights some of the oddities of the United States win over Ghana; an early goal and a team that fails to keep possession, resulting in a backline and goalkeeper that were very busy.

Taking the touches analysis a bit further, I looked at the influence of certain positions having the most touches. I split the outcomes into games where Goalkeepers or Defenders had the most touches and where Midfielders or Forwards had the most touches. Some interesting things pop out even though the sample size is small.

Leader in Touches	Team-Games	Goals For	Goals Against
GK or D	19	1.37	1.84
Mid or FW	21	1.62	1.19

There is a pretty clear advantage so far when a midfielder or forward leads the team in touches. Certainly there is a cause and effect issue at play here. Is this the result of one team’s dominance over the other, or is it really more important to have the ball at the feet of the attacking players more often?

Of the 20 World Cup matchups thus far, eight of them included one team being led in touches by a defender while the other team was led in touches by a midfielder or forward. In those games, the team which was led in touches by a midfielder or forward produced a record of 5-2-1 (W-D-L).

Again, it’s too early to read too much into this data,  but it will be interesting to follow through the tournament. The data does open up thoughts of tracking where touches are occurring on the pitch and how that might help describe outcomes or predict them.

No matter what, Tim Howard was more involved than any player for the United States on Monday night. Neither he nor the American fans felt comfortable throughout the match, and the touches data justifies that sentiment.

USA versus Ghana: Gamestates Analysis

In analyzing MLS shot data, I have learned that---with small sample sizes---how a team plays when the game is tied is a strong indication of how well it will do in future games. The US Mens National Team spent just four-and-a-half minutes tied Monday evening, the epitome of small sample sizes. In case you were curious, the US generated two shots during that time worth about 0.13 goals. Ghana did not generate a shot over those 4.5 minutes. The next most-important gamestate for a team is being ahead. With at least 17 games of data in MLS, knowing how well a team did when it was leading becomes an important piece of information for predicting that team's future success. Almost 95 minutes were spent with the US in the lead, a time in which the USMNT took six shots worth 0.5 goals to Ghana's 21 shots worth 1.7 goals.

Though MLS is definitely far below the level of even a USA-versus-Ghana match, I think a lot of the statistics from our MLS database still apply. I wrote a few weeks back about how away teams that were satisfied with the current gamestate went overboard with their conservative play. I think that could apply to the World Cup, as well. By most statistical accounts, USA versus Ghana was a fairly even matchup going in, yet the US played an annoying conservative style after going up a goal early. It gave up a majority of possession to Ghana in the attacking third, completing just 81 passes to Ghana's 171 in that zone---not to mention the US being tripled up in Expected Goals when it was ahead.

Granted, Expected Goals likely overestimates the losing team's chances of scoring. But not by much. In even gamestates in MLS, we see that teams are expected to score 1.29 goals per game, and they actually score 1.30 goals per game. Virtually no difference. However, when teams are ahead they are expected to score 1.79 goals per game, yet they only score about 1.60---an 11-percent drop. This discrepancy is likely due in large part to defenses being more packed in and capable of blocking shots. Indeed, teams that are losing have their shots blocked 27 percent of the time, while teams that are winning only have their shots blocked 22 percent of the time.

All that was simply to say that Ghana's 1.7 Expected Goals are still representative of a team that was in control---too much control for my comfort level. Even if we assume it was really about 1.5 Expected Goals against a defensive-minded American side, that still triples the USA's shot potential. Either the US strategy was overly conservative, or Ghana is really that much better. I'd like to believe in the former, but it's picking between the lesser of two evils.

It just doesn't make sense to me to play conservatively to maintain the status quo. It invariably leads to massive discrepancies in Expected Goals, and too often allows the opposition an easier way to come back.