A Closer Look At The MLS MVP Race

Editor's Note: This was the first of many articles by Jacob, who can be found at @MLSAtheist on twitter. It's quite amazing, and I encourage you to read it. He's one of several wonderful writers that we are adding to the site in the coming weeks. Please give him a follow and good feedback, as you have for Drew, Matty, and me. This is all part of putting together newer, better site content.

Not long ago, I saw a piece on ESPN handicapping the MLS MVP race, featuring the one and only Alexi Lalas. Say what you will about Lalas, but what he said on this topic got my mind jogging. The season was still a couple weeks from being complete, but the Redhead tipped Marco Di Vaio over Mike Magee for the award, based mostly on his higher goal total. He explained that goals are the rarest and most important event in soccer, so the guy who scores the most (and in the most games, giving his team a better chance to win) is the best candidate for the award. But here at American Soccer Analysis, we know that just because a guy puts the final touch on a goal doesn’t necessarily make him the most valuable component of that play, let alone that season.

Anyway, Lalas had a point: goals are important. And whether you like it or not, goal scorers and creators are always going to be the award winners in this sport. But still, looking solely at goal totals seems far too simplistic when handicapping the race for MVP. So, as we are wont to do around here, I tried to delve a little deeper.

First of all, you can contribute to goals without being the one to actually kick it into the net. I’ll do the most obvious thing possible, and just add assists to the equation. Additionally, not every player gets to play the same amount. Especially in MLS, where some of the top players are constantly called away for international duty, some MVP candidates only play in two-thirds of his team’s games. But if the premise here is that the award is intended to go to the most prolific goal creator, we should really look at how many goals they create when they’re actually on the field.

Here are the ten top MVP candidates (I know they probably aren’t all that deserving, but ten is a good round number and I’m a little OCD), and how many goals they’ve created, as well as their per 90 minute rate.

Player	Goals	Assists	G+A Per 90
M. Magee	21	4	.806
M. Di Vaio	20	2	.698
R. Keane	16	11	1.22
J. Morales	8	10	.710
Camilo	22	6	1.04
D. Valeri	10	13	.909
F. Higuain	11	9	.694
D. Fagundez	13	7	.742
T. Cahill	11	5	.642
G. Zusi	6	8	.535

It’s no surprise to see Keane and Camilo leading the way with over one per game, as they have the highest sum of goals and assists, and Keane did his work in fairly limited minutes. But again, goals and assists are a little too superficial for us here at ASA. After all, some goals are the fault of terrible defending, goalkeeping, or just some really fortunate bounces; instead it’s preferred to look at chance creation. If a player is consistently creating chances, it’s nearly inevitable that it should lead to more goals. Now rather than just the shots that actually end up in the net, we’ll run the numbers regarding shots, as well as passes that lead to shots (key passes) for the same players:

Player	Shots	Key Passes	Shots Created Per 90
M. Magee*	114	65	5.77
M. Di Vaio	89	25	3.62
R. Keane	54	53	4.86
J. Morales	33	94	5.01
Camilo	95	37	4.91
D. Valeri	55	59	4.51
F. Higuain	69	115	6.39
D. Fagundez	43	27	2.60
T. Cahill	47	19	2.65
G. Zusi	41	75	4.43

This time we’ve got a couple of different leaders, as Federico Higuain and Mike Magee take the lead thanks to their trigger-happy styles. Higuain’s incredible number of key passes, despite playing for a middling Crew team, should raise some eyebrows---the dude’s an absolutely fantastic attacker.

Still, I have an issue with just looking at shots created. After all, we know not all shots are created equal. Without looking up the shot location data of every one of the shots in the above table, I think there’s still a way to improve the statistics: add in a factor of accuracy.

For Higuain, creating over six shots a game is terrific. But from watching a lot of Columbus games, I can tell you that plenty of those shots were low percentage bombs from 30 yards out, and plenty of others were taken by other fairly inept Crew attackers. To try to factor this in, I’d like to look at how many shots on target each player creates - the ones that actually have a chance at becoming goals. While shots on goal stats for individual players are easy to find, it’s tougher to decipher when key passes lead to shots that test keepers rather than boots into the stands. To compensate, I used each player’s team percentage of shots on target to estimate how many key passes turned into shots on goal, leading to the final following table:

Player	Shots on Goal	Key Passes	Team Shot%	SoG Created Per 90
M. Magee*	50	65	48% / 51%	2.68
M. Di Vaio	56	25	54%	2.21
R. Keane	31	53	48%	2.56
J. Morales	19	94	52%	2.68
Camilo	56	37	49%	2.76
D. Valeri	31	59	49%	2.36
F. Higuain	36	115	43%	2.96
D. Fagundez	30	27	50%	1.57
T. Cahill	22	19	48%	1.25
G. Zusi	21	75	42%	2.00

There we have it. My endorsement for MVP this season, based on a combination of Alexi Lalas’ inspiration and my own twisted statistical mind, is Federico Higuain of the 16th-best team in the league, the Columbus Crew.

Just kidding, guys! Obviously the MVP debate should take more into account than who creates shots on goal. Defense, leadership, your team actually winning---all of these things should and do matter. But still, I think this was an interesting exercise and hopefully opened at least one set of eyes to how prolific Higuain is.

Finally, a few thoughts/takeaways in bullet form:

• Higuain was held back by his team’s terrible shooting accuracy, but not as much as Graham Zusi. Now I understand why analytic folks like Sporting Kansas City’s chance creation so much, yet the team hasn’t always seen the results.
• Diego Fagundez is incredibly selective about his shooting - almost 70% of his shots hit the target.
• Javi Morales doesn’t shoot much for being so prolific at creating others shots. Reminds me of this post by Tempo Free Soccer---really interesting as far as categorizing attackers as shooters vs. providers.

*Since Magee was traded mid-season, his season total stats were harder to find. While I used Squawka for everyone else’s stats, I ended up having to tally Magee’s game-by-game stats from Who Scored. It’s possible that the two sites have different standards for what constitutes a shot or key pass, and that could’ve skewed the data for Magee. I’m not sure any of them look too far out of whack that I’m too suspicious, but it’s possible so I thought it should be noted.

Rosales, not Dempsey, is the clear choice for Seattle's set-piece crosses

In Seattle’s 2-1 loss to Portland on Saturday, Clint Dempsey took all of the Sounders’ attacking set-pieces in the first half. He was impressive with his free kick shots on goal, clipping the crossbar and forcing Donovan Ricketts into multiple saves. But his corner kicks left much to be desired. Mauro Rosales subbed on in the 63rd minute and took the remainder of the set-piece crosses and created more chances. With Lamar Neagle suspended for yellow card accumulation and Seattle needing goals in leg two, Rosales seems likely to start. Requisite warning about small sample sizes aside, based off of the results in leg one, the data suggest Sigi Schmidt would be wise to let Rosales take over set-piece crossing duties in the second leg.

Here's how Dempsey’s nine corners and one free kick cross went in leg one:

3rd minute corner: To the near post, cleared by Diego Chara 6th corner: Near post, cleared by Will Johnson 20th corner: Near post, cleared by Will Johnson 25th corner: Near post, cleared by Chara 32nd corner: Near post, cleared by Chara 38th corner: Top of the six yard box, cleared by Pa-Moudou Kah 38th corner: Top of six, cleared by Kah 39th free kick: Cross from 18 yards out on the wing to the top of the six, cleared by Futty Danso 45th corner: Near post, punched clear by Ricketts

In the second half, Rosales took all three Seattle corners and two free kick crosses:

68th minute corner: To the penalty spot, shot by Djimi Traore, saved by Ricketts 69th corner: Top of six, Headed cross by Dempsey  blocked by Zemanski and eventually caught by Ricketts 82nd free kick: Cross from 38 yards in the center to the penalty spot, cleared by Danso 86th free kick: Cross from 28 yards on the wing to the edge of the penalty box, headed by Shalrie Joseph across the box 87th corner: Penalty spot, Headed shot by Dempsey off of the crossbar and out

In summary: Dempsey had 10 set-piece crosses, none of which reached a Seattle teammate. Rosales had five set-piece crosses, four of which found a teammate in the box, and three of which led to shots.

As you can tell, it was a tale of two halves. In the first, Dempsey’s crosses rarely cleared the first defender, and none found another Sounders player. In the second half, four of Rosales’ five crosses created chances, two off of the head of Dempsey himself.

If Seattle is going to win at Jeld-Wen Field on Thursday, they’ll need to do better with their crosses. Based on their chances in game one, it looks to be in the Sounders' best interest to allow Rosales to take the free kick crosses in game two. Not only did his crosses create better chances than Dempsey in game one, but Deuce seems to be more dangerous getting on the end of crosses than he is at taking them.

Two-legged Series Probabilities

It is hard to construct probabilistic models for two-legged, home-and-home series based on a season of games that were all independent of one another (for the most part). And because our data sets from Opta and MLSsoccer.com only go back to 2011, there isn't much of a sample size to work with come playoff time. Thus I will have to get tricky when trying to construct logical probabilities of victory in these playoff series. The first thing to point out is that our model is based on regular season games that may or may not act like two-legged playoff series. There is a common belief that the team that plays at home for the second leg has an additional advantage. However, much of that belief likely comes from people like Simon Borg, who likes shitting on data and the presenting it. A reasonable study would need to account for the fact that the team playing at home is probably better. One such study attempted to do so for the UEFA Champion's League, and found that the additional advantage due to hosting the second game was effectively nothing once team skill was controlled for. However, it should be noted that UEFA Champions League does not always play extra time when aggregate scores are tied.

As Borg notes, 22 of 36 (61.1%) two-legged series in the MLS playoffs have been won by the team that played the second leg at home. However, because home teams tend to be better, much of that is likely due to skill, and not an additional home-field edge. Our models, which don't give any additional home-boost for second-leg home teams, projected three second-leg home teams to win in the first round top win: Portland with 69 percent, Sporting with 66 percent, and New York with 59 percent. Even factoring in RSL's 46 percent, the average percent of second-leg home teams expected to win in the first round was almost exactly---you guessed it---60 percent. With the data currently available, we have chosen not to include an additional home boost for second-leg home teams. With that out of the way...moving on!

With two first-leg games down and two to go, we see two favorites in opposite positions. Portland is taking a one-goal lead back home, while Sporting returns to Kansas City facing a one-goal deficit. My method of projecting each team's probability of winning its series will be derived from the assumption that teams favor a regulation win to a regulation draw on aggregate (and a draw to a loss) with the same weighted preferences as it would have favored those outcomes during the regular season. Thus, for example, I will treat the Portland-Seattle matchup as though Portland has an early lead in a regular-season-type game, and adjust our model's probabilities according to that one-goal lead.

The probabilities will be adjusted based on some game states research I have been working on. I have shown some nifty graphs below to help us out. The two graphs chart the approximate probability that the home team has of each of the three possible match outcomes based on two things: the goal differential and the minute mark. These graphs were created from game data up through June 8th of this season. The data was smoothed out using a lowess curve.

Portland essentially leads a home match by one goal in the first minute. A league-average team would win this type of match with an estimated 75-percent probability and tie with about 20-percent probability.* Another way to say the same thing is to say that the home team has 3-to-1 (3.00) odds of winning, and 1-to-4 (0.25) odds of tying. Through June 8th of this season, typical home teams won with 46-percent probability (0.85 odds) and tied with 29-percent probability (0.41 odds). Thus I can say that a typical team increases its odds of winning from 0.85 to about 3.00, a factor of 3.53, with an early one-goal lead. Additionally a typical team decreases its odds of tying by a factor of about 1.6 with that one-goal lead.

.Portland's odds of beating Seattle at home from an even game state are approximately 2.00 (66.7%), and its odds of tying are approximately 0.23 (18.8%). Using the appropriate odds ratios, one might conjecture that the Timbers' odds of winning this game on aggregate are about 7.06 (87.6%), and it odds of tying this game are 0.14 (12.3%). A tie would essentially result in the coin-flipping grand finale known as penalty kicks, and thus Portland's chances of a Conference Finals berth are 93.8 percent (.876 + 0.5 x .123).

Instead of going all nutzoid on Sporting KC as I did with Portland, one can trust that I followed the same methodology to arrive at my final conclusion. Sporting's chances to advanced to the Eastern Conference Finals are about 47.8 percent by this use of odds ratios.** These probabilities will go into the simulation after all first legs are complete to update the overall Cup probabilities.

*Due to a small sample size of plus-one goal differentials in the first 15 minutes of matches, the graph is trying to make us believe that a loss is more probable than a tie, when our logic should allow us to infer that---with a one-goal lead---a draw would be more probable than a loss. Thus I am using the more-stabilized figures around the 40-to-60-minute marks. The even goal differential graph---not shown---as well as the two graphs above suggest that probabilities don't begin to change all that much until the 60th minute, an interesting topic for another day.

**For those wanting to check my math, I assumed typical home teams in SKC's position would win with 20-percent, probability and tie with 30-percent probability. SKC's probabilities against New England in an even game state would be 64-percent and 26-percent for a win and tie, respectively. 

Show Down: Juan Agudelo vs. Diego Fagundez

During our podcast on Thursday night, a short side conversation was sparked between Drew and me. Who would you take in a situation where you are starting a new team: Juan Agudelo or Diego Fagundez. While the question and how it's presented matters (i.e. how many years of control do you have, salary cap situation, blah, blah, blah) because it gives us context, let's not go there. The discussion here is more about the general response. We've all, myself included, just generally assumed that the answer to any question between the two is: "Agudelo now, Fagundez later". But what makes us think that Fagundez isn't the better option right now? While doing our podcast I generally have between 9 and 15 browser tabs open with general bits of information. I'm sure my wife would argue that it's more like 50. Whatever. It's a lot. During that point in the podcast, I had Squawka up and quoted a total performance score of 452 for Fagundez, as opposed to Juan Agudelo and his shockingly low score of only 57.

So, the response then transforms itself from the answer that we thought we were sure of, to understanding what exactly Agudelo has done over the course of the season. Trust me, I get that numbers, especially in soccer, can't tell an entire story. But they can help see us things that our brains don't naturally keep track of.

Agudelo, in my mind, is a special case of a lot of talent doing one specific thing and being credited for far more than perhaps initially thought. I know the other side of that argument stresses his physical traits and goal-scoring ability. Sure, those are two HUGE things when it comes to this game. Speed kills and Agudelo knows how to turn it on.

Let's take a look below.

	Mins	Goals	Shots	Goals pSh	Chances Created
Fagundez	2419	13	43	0.30	27
Agudelo	1019	7	17	0.41	4

First, we can see one thing. And it's quiet amazing. Together, the two players produced 20 goals on 60 shots. Take a second to think about that because that's major. The Revolution took 37 shots and scored just one goal over their first five matches of the season. These guys get thrown into the line-up and procure 20 goals on just 60 shots. That's special.

Second, what is most obviously the difference between the two is the number of chances created. You'll see in a second that Agudelo still made a fine amount of passes. The issue isn't that he's a ball hog, or that he just wants the chances for himself. The problem is those passes did not become chances on goal. You'd hope that a guy who gets plenty of attention from the defense has the ability to find open teammates that can create goals.

	Mins	Pass p90	TO p90	Pass pTO	Avg Length	Dribbles	DisPos per 90
Fagundez	2419	22.17	2.08	10.65	14m	0.86	1.71
Agudelo	1019	28.52	3	9.51	13m	0.53	2.91

Alright, onto the possession-based stuff. There are some interesting thoughts here. Such as Agudelo taking less dribbles, making shorter passes, and making more of them. It's not something that I would have generally have thought of about him. I think of an individual who is looking to constantly run at defenders, but maybe that isn't the whole picture. That said, he's still losing the ball quiet a bit, and while Fagundez doesn't make as many passes, he's less error-prone and creates more pockets of space up the field with the ball at his feet.

	Mins	Fouls	Cards	Tackles	Blocks	Interceptions	Clearances
Fagundez	2419	0.81	3	1.3	0.11	0.74	0.33
Agudelo	1019	3.53	2	1.4	0.09	0.35	0.71

The biggest number that stands out to me on this page is the number of fouls committed per 90 minutes by Agudelo. There is no way he makes that many fouls and continues to only pull about 6 cards over the course of a full season. That's impossible. Outside of that, you see that each of these players is rather close to one another. One is a bit more on top of clearances while the other interceptions.

Really, that's probably due to two random factors. 1) Agudelo is in the middle of the box more often for corner kicks, and 2) Fagundez works in the midfield where errant passes are more probable.

It's important to realize these players aren't like for like. Trying to compare them as apples to apples isn't going to work and makes this work less productive. I am willing to acknowledge that. Agudelo did have some opportunities in the midfield this season, however, he was primarily featured up top in the striker role. Likewise, Fagundez had some exciting moments playing center forward, but was primarily used out wide as a left midfielder.

Because they don't occupy the same space, certain statistical attributes that we associate with these players are going to be either more or less inflated. They have different responsibilities so they aren't going to be the same player statistically. We don't have a "Wins Above Replacement" calculator, as awesome as that would be.

There is no key that unlocks all events and makes them equal, as if to say this player is better than that player, regardless of position or team. Maybe this post was a complete waste because we should be comparing these two teammates to the rest of the league, rather than to each other. What I do know is that Fagundez is less a player of the future and more of an MLS standout now, but when Agudelo leaves for Stoke, he is still going to be missed by the Revs.

ASA Podcast XXVII: The one where we preview MLS Playoffs

Okay, it's only been a few days, but our trio returns with a vengeance. We preview the MLS playoff matchups, with the exception of Houston-New York (though we allude to it plenty). It's a short podcast---just one segment long. Have a listen. [audio http://americansocceranalysis.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/asa-episode-xxvii.mp3]

Help Wanted: People With Free Time

I think this is about as opportune a time as any to do this, so I'm just going to throw it out there. While I've been saying it for a while, we're really going to reboot this site to make data much more accessible, articles more engaging, and the experience more palatable.* However, baby steps.

We need some volunteers to make a lot of this happen. People that can help us collect specific pieces of data that we aren't able to poll or scrap. People that can help us transition this site into something usable. People to take the data we find, make something of it and write about it---tell people how this data can transform the beautiful game that we watch.

This isn't about us, and it never has been. We all want to give back to this soccer analytics community in the best possible way. This has been my vision from the start, and I was lucky enough to find two awesome dudes to kick it off with. We would love to see more hands join us in this process.**

I'm not asking for money. Actually, I'm asking for something much more valuable than that, your time. We want to know who else is out there that is like the three of us, and that wants to dive into these numbers, explore them, and improve our understanding of soccer.

If this interests you, please e-mail me at farfromport[at]gmail.com. I'd love to have more brains that can think out these problems, come up with solutions and more efficient methods,  and ultimately refine what I am doing wrong. We're about to head into the off-season, which lasts only about three months, and it gives us little time to make these changes.

The three of us all have important ladies in our lives, cats, other animals, families and college degrees to complete. Oh, and of course, full-time jobs too.*** We aren't asking for your full lives, just some help. Thanks,

Harrison Crow

Matthias Kullowatz

Drew Olsen

*This is one of the biggest words Harrison has ever used correctly.

**Harrison is a soccer data socialist.

***Matthias claims to work full-time. His friends are skeptical.

ASA Podcast XXVI: The one where we talk the last week of the Season

Okay, a crazy lot happened this weekend, and we are here for a bit of a rewind. We give you our take and how we enjoyed the last week of the MLS season. Also, some thoughts on various things that happened and some added talk about MLS expansion. I give a bit of a dissertation on the state of the Sounders, Matty (of course) mentions shot ratios and Drew has some excellent commentary on coaches. We conclude with some discussion on how goalkeepers may better be valued, and how we are going to try to tackle that project. This was the last week of the regular season, enjoy. [audio http://americansocceranalysis.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/asa-episode-xxvi.mp3]

Playoff Probabilities and Seeding

Now that the "Playoff Push" has given way to the actual playoffs, we have included the probabilities of all the various outcomes in this year's edition of the MLS Cup. One sees that our model's darling, Sporting Kansas City, has the best chances at an MLS Cup trophy of all teams, which is not surprising. But what this simulation really articulated to me were the differences between the three, four, and five seeds in each conference, as well as the top seeds overall. Despite the fact that our model thinks that fifth-seeded Colorado is nearly as good as Portland and Real Salt Lake, its chances at the MLS Cup are significantly lower as a five seed. Having to play that extra match on the road essentially chops the Rapids' chances in half right away, and then its slight disadvantage in a home-and-home against Portland---a 42-percent chance in that series---leaves Colorado with just a 3.2-percent chance at the silverware.

In the Eastern Conference, the same issue arises for fourth-seeded Houston. The Dynamo are not thought to be significantly worse than New York---the model projects the Red Bulls to win that potential home-and-home matchup with 59-percent probability---but the additional uncertainty of the play-in game really screws them over.

The three seeds, however, are well-represented in Cup probabilities. Though New England's Cup chances sit at just 5.1 percent, you have to remember that they play Sporting KC in the first round. We love SKC around here, if you weren't aware. And then Los Angeles, the West's third-seeded team, actually has the third-best chance overall at a Cup win---15.0 percent.

Finally, the potential for home-field advantage in an MLS Cup Final really has Sporting and New York drooling. Together those two teams hog nearly 44 percent of all the Cup probability. Given that Sporting makes the finals, the probability that it goes on to win them is about 64 percent (26.5/41.2). New York's conditional probability is similar at about 62 percent (17.4/27.9). That home-field advantage gives each of those teams a huge boost if  they can make it that far.

For Cinderella teams that make it that far, having to play a superior opponent on the road in the championship one-game-off doesn't bode well for a storybook ending.

Keep track of all the playoff outcome probabilities on our Cup Chances 2013 page under MLS Tables.

Supporters' Shield Probabilities

After completing the Eastern and Western Conference playoff scenarios yesterday, it only makes sense to move on to each team's chances at the Supporters' Shield and a potential home-field advantage in the MLS Cup Final. Only four teams could mathematically win the shield: New York, Sporting KC, Portland and Real Salt Lake.

New York has the best chance due its current lead in the tables and the fact that it's playing a home game. If New York wins at home against Chicago, then it will be the Shield winner, regardless of other outcomes, but that's not the only way the Red Bulls could hoist the trophy. A tie against Chicago would eliminate both RSL and Portland from contention---since New York holds the "wins" tie-breaker over Portland---and then an SKC tie or loss would leave the Red Bulls as Shield winners, as well. In fact, even a loss from New York could leave them in first overall if SKC, Portland and RSL all don't win. However, it's not probable that both Portland and RSL would each earn less than three points against Chivas USA. In the end, New York's Shield chances sit at 73.7 percent, with 61.8 percent of that coming from its probability of beating Chicago this weekend.

Sporting Kansas City has the next-best chance at the trophy at 15.5 percent. Obviously it needs New York to lose or tie and then---due to SKC losing the potential tie-breaker to New York,---SKC would need to win. The only scenario where SKC ties and still gets the Shield involves crazy scenarios like an 8-to-8 tie with Philly.

Like SKC, Portland and Real Salt Lake both need to win, and then things need to go their way. RSL would (likely) hold tie-breakers over both SKC and New York, so RSL would need SKC to lose or tie, Portland to lose or tie, and then New York has to lose. Portland loses tie-breakers to SKC and New York, so it needs to win, and then have SKC lose or tie and New York lose. In the end, Portland's probability at the Supporters' Shield is just 6.0 percent, while RSL's is 4.8 percent.

Team	Shield%
NYRB	0.737
SKC	0.155
POR	0.060
RSL	0.048

Eastern Conference Playoff Seeding

I put together the Western Conference version earlier, but the Eastern Conference and its four million more scenarios are so much more exciting. I used our predictive model to calculate the probabilities of each game's outcome, and then applied those to all possible scenarios. This is going to be fun... New York and Sporting KC have locked up a one-two finish in some order, and then there are five teams with mathematically non-zero chances at the final three playoff spots in the East. There are no San Joses here, as each of Montreal, Chicago, New England, Houston and Philly all have real chances of at least eight percent at a playoff berth. On to the scenarios!

The New York Red Bulls can guarantee themselves both first place in the East and a Supporters' Shield trophy with a win at home against Chicago this weekend, but that's not the only way it could take the top seed. A tie against Chicago coupled with SKC not winning, or losses by both New York and SKC would leave the Red Bulls in first place, as well. Totaled up, the Red Bulls chances at a top seed sit at 84.5 percent, with the other 15.5 percent going to a second place finish.

Sporting Kansas City's outcomes are the exact opposite of those of New York. SKC has to play on the road in Philly while New York plays in a more comfortable home environment, leaving SKC with a 15.5-percent chance of a first place finish. SKC has been our loving model's favorite team in the East since the model was born, and a two-seed shouldn't hurt its chances of a date in the MLS Cup final.

Despite limping into the postseason, its comeback win against the Union has Montreal on firmer ground going into the last week. A win at Toronto guarantees the Impact third place in the East, allowing them to avoid that one-game-off. In total, Montreal has a 53.1-percent chance at third place---remember, the model doesn't think the Impact are all that much better than Toronto, but at least they don't have to go through customs. The sequences leading to fourth or fifth place start to become more complicated, but those probabilities are 31.7 and 13.4 percent, respectively. That leaves the Impact with just a 1.8-percent chance of missing out on the playoffs altogether, a scenario that essentially requires a poor result from Montreal with wins from New England and Houston, and at least a draw for Chicago on the road in New York.

Chicago is in a surprisingly good position going into its game in New York. The outcomes leading to the Fire making the playoffs add up to 93.7 percent. 17.1 percent of that leaves Chicago in third, which would require Montreal to lose or tie and Chicago to subsequently earn a tie or win, depending on Montreal's result. And there's more good news for Chicago. If it gets stuck in the play-in game, it has a better chance of being the home team (43.8 percent) than the away team (32.8 percent). Chicago would win any potential tie-breakers with New England, Houston, and Philly, which is partly why its playoff chances are so high.

The New England Revolution could avoid the play-in game, but that would require a win at Columbus in addition to both Chicago and Montreal not winning. Our model suggests that probability is only 12.5 percent. If it makes the play-in game, New England is more likely do so as the fifth seed (30.2 percent) than the fourth seed (8.2 percent). Those of you keeping score at home know that the Revolution's chances of missing the playoffs altogether are thus 49.1 percent, the most probable outcome of the four. Though New England holds the goals-for tie-breaker over Houston, Houston has an easier opponent in D.C. United.

Speaking of Houston, due to that easier, aforementioned opponent, Houston has a better shot of claiming third place than New England at 17.3 percent. However that tie-breaker plays to New England's favor in all of the ways that each team could finish fourth or fifth. The Dynamo have just a 16.3-percent chance at fourth, and a 15.6% chance at fifth, leaving them out of the playoffs with 50.9-percent probability.

Philadelphia's best chance at the playoffs comes from the fact that they would almost surely win a tie-breaker to Houston if it came to that. A Philly win coupled with a Houston tie would leave both tied at 49 points and 13 wins. Philly currently leads Houston by two goals scored and holds the third tie-breaker, goal differential, as well. Essentially, in this scenario, Houston would have to tie something like 4 - 4, while Philly slipped past SKC 1 - 0. Not likely, so this scenario would lead to Philly's only real shot at the playoffs, an 8.0-percent chance at fifth place. There is no mathematical way the Union could do better than fifth, as it would lose potential tie-breakers to both Chicago and Montreal.

In conclusion, for your viewing pleasure, the table of probabilities:

	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	Out
NYRB	84.5%	15.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
SKC	15.5%	84.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
MTL	0.0%	0.0%	53.1%	31.7%	13.4%	1.8%
CHI	0.0%	0.0%	17.1%	43.8%	32.9%	6.3%
NE	0.0%	0.0%	12.5%	8.2%	30.2%	49.1%
HOU	0.0%	0.0%	17.3%	16.3%	15.6%	50.8%
PHI	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	8.0%	92.0%