Goodbye and Thank You, Seba
The Philadelphia Union released their expansion draft picks and many Sounders fans will be saddened to see the very first MLS Sounder on the list. While names such as James Riley and Stephen King were heard quite often in the speculation leading up to the announcement today, Le Toux didn't figure much in the discussion. I, for one, have to admit to being completely surprised. The press release from the Sounders is here.
While Le Toux wasn't our biggest star, he was one of the players who made the most effort to connect with the fans, so he'll be missed more than just as a midfielder or forward. Thanks for everything, Seba and good luck.
Here's the full list of expansion draft selections:
Jordan Harvey
Andrew Jacobsen
Brad Knighton
Sebastien Le Toux
Stefani Miglioranzi
Alejandro Moreno
David Myrie
Shea Salinas
Shavar Thomas
Nick Zimmerman
Update: Statement from Adrian
“We’re sorry to be losing a member of our family in Seba. He contributed in a number of ways, both on and off field the field, during his three years as a Sounder. Since we could only protect 11 players, we knew this could happen. It’s a sad day for us, but Philadelphia has got to be pleased getting a player of such quality and character. We wish Seba all the best.” -- Adrian Hanauer
In all competitions Seba had scored 4 Goals with 7 Assists (0.73 PP90). He was on target 47.5% to lead the team. In League play he only had 1 Goal with 3 Assists (0.31 PP90). His +/- was a 7 and 0.43 per 90.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
He was my favorite Sounder
I know he wasn’t the most talented, but I liked the guy and enjoyed watching him play. I will miss him on the roster, but I hope he does great in Philadelphia.
Mine too
I know from a play on the field perspective this pick doesn’t hurt that much, but it’s definitely an emotional hit. I also wish him the best, except of course when he’s facing the Rave Green.
I even wish him the best against the Sounders
I just want his team to lose 3-1 now instead of 3-0. :)
We'll miss you, Seba
He was an important link with the great USL Sounders teams, and was fittingly the first ever MLS Sounder. Class act, and someone who could actually drop in a dangerous corner kick.
Interesting day
Le Toux’s obviously a great person. Sounds like he fits the mold of the type of player Nowak likes. I really hope this works out for him.
The day just gets more interesting. Dave, one of your guys is gone. Fucito and a couple others got waived: http://www.soundersfc.com/News/Articles/2009/11-November/Brown-Fucito-Neagle-waived.aspx
Any ideas what’s up?
Mike fully intends to be back
Could the stories stop breaking while I work?
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Jose has updated his entry to say that all 3
CLEARED waivers.
My knowledge at least one has been invited to camp.
I have a source who has let me know that one of the picked up options was Roger Levesque.
Sounders have two open slots. I will continue updating my thoughts on the players in the recaps and then put out a new depth chart.
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
just so I understand
Dave, I think you know this stuff a lot better than I do, so I’m simply going to state my understanding of how this works.
When a player is waived, they become available in a waiver draft, which happened today. If selected by a team, that player’s rights transfer to that team. If not selected, the player is essentialy a free agent, and could go sign with, say, a USL side if the interest was there.
Not clear to me how dates for waiver drafts work, but that’s basically it, correct?
Yes, I was curious on Dave's thoughts regarding both Brown and Fucito
With Seba’s salary and roster spot open along with these three spots, the team already has a plan where they are going.
smart move for Philly
I think this is a good move for Philly. Of course, it is smart to get a seasoned player with the ability to score (at least in non-MLS games). But I think the bigger boon is his ability and desire to connect with fans. He is a great ambassador for a franchise. All told I think they served themselves well with their picks. Moreno and Le Toux will help them be exciting and likeable out of the gate.
This is what Ives of SoccerbyIves wrote
SEBASTIEN LETOUX
Could be the steal of the draft after struggling to live up to expectations in 2009. He made just 15 starts for the Sounders as he battled a deep crop of attackers in Seattle, but LeToux’s tenacity and skill could make him a fan favorite in Philadelphia the way he was one in Seattle.
That just about sums it up.
It would be cool if Ives learn to spell his name, though
There’s a space in Le Toux.
My sentiments exactly
I actually thought he was the player most likely scooped — rather than Riley. He’s a rare find.
Well, I feel rather foolish right now after
stating he probably wouldn’t be taken.
Good luck in Philadelphia Seba, it’s sad to see you go.
left NOTHING in the tank… when he came off the bench it was all being left on the pitch… he will be missed
"Four goals in sixteen shots... I'm really tired of the...............25% rule." -John Tortorella
It got us the US Open Cup
Le Toux outhustled a DC player down by the endline and was able to get the ball and send it across to Roger for the second goal. That goal was crucial becuase DC ended up scoring just a few minutes later, and that would have tied the game just before fulltime. That’s the most prominent example of how the team benefitted from Seba’s hustle. I can’t help but think that we might have gone farther in the MLS Cup if everyone had his energy and committment.
You can make up a little ground by trying harder but hard work is no substitute for talent
Le Toux becomes ok by working his ass off. It doesn’t make him good. If the rest of the team worked as hard as he did, sure, they’d be better. That doesn’t mean you should value Le Toux just for working hard.
by Graham MacAree on Nov 28, 2009 8:52 AM PST up reply actions
CarlosT
Agreed if everyone had Le toux’s energy and commitment, I believe Seattle would won the supporters shield and made it to MLS Cup and won it.
And if they all had his skill we wouldn't have made the playoffs
by Graham MacAree on Nov 28, 2009 8:49 AM PST up reply actions
Sure, but Seba is who he is
The hustle makes him viable as a player but he gets extra credit for it. If there was someone who played as well as Le Toux but was the laziest man alive, everyone would hate him. This seems silly.
by Graham MacAree on Nov 28, 2009 11:41 AM PST up reply actions
Not at all silly
Because we’d know that the lazy player was hurting the team by his laziness. Presumably the lazy player would be playing at Le Toux’s level because he had much more skill than Le Toux, but is unwilling to apply himself to bring that skill to the field. Therefore, he’s denying the team his talents, whereas Le Toux is doing everything he can to bring whatever talents he does have to the service of the club. And if his skills improve at any point, we know the team will be getting the full benefit of that. That’s why Le Toux gets the extra credit.
Did you notice that you’ve contradicted yourself, by the way? First you said hard work is no substitute for talent, then you said that Seba’s hustle is what made him viable as a player. The latter can only be true if the former is false, that is if hard work can be a substitute for talent, at least to some degree. Why do you deny the worth of working hard, anyway? It’s the only thing an individual can really affect. His talent is what he is, but how much of it comes out is up to him and how much he’s willing to commit. I would much prefer Le Toux over the lazy skilled player because with Le Toux I know I’m getting it all, but the lazy player might decide to be even lazier than usual and let me down.
I value Le Toux for what he did for us, not just last year but the ones before as well. I value him for the US Open Cup trophy we won this year that we wouldn’t have without him. If he did that more through hard work than skill that’s okay with me.
"And if his skills improve at any point, we know the team will be getting the full benefit of that"
And if a lazy player gets less lazy, which is much more likely than somehow getting extra talent, he’d be a much better player than the maxed out hustling one. Also, lazy play leads to intelligent play, which is far preferable to running around nonstop. Also, who cares if he hurts the team with laziness when he helps them with skill? You get the same value out either way.
I’m not saying Le Toux is worse than he is because he hustles, but the hustle shouldn’t be counted twice. He’s okay, he hustles. But the second is already counted in the ’he’s okay’ part. It’s a weird conceit of sports fans that trying hard somehow makes someone better than a guy who’d produce the same results but doesn’t try so hard.
by Graham MacAree on Nov 28, 2009 11:20 PM PST up reply actions
I think you've got it exactly backwards
Laziness is a character defect. Fixing your personality is much more difficult than improving your technique in shooting, passing, trapping or any particular aspect of your game. This is even more so if you’re not inclined to put effort into doing so in the first place. Maybe the “talented, but lazy” player has more potential overall, but if he’s truly lazy, we’ll never see it, because reaching his full potential would require hard work, and that’s not going to happen.
Also, there’s a difference between lazy play, and smart and efficient play. The former is just not putting the effort in and implies nothing about how intelligently you’re playing the game. Intelligent play sometimes requires putting in a big effort. For example, if you’re a team with a lot of speed in attack compared to the other team’s defense, a lot of running around nonstop can be exactly the right strategic approach to the game. A lazy player who refuses to put in that effort would be playing stupidly. Or maybe your best strategy is to send multiple players on runs off the ball and allow your creative midfielder to pick the best option. A lazy player who doesn’t sell his run is playing stupidly and defeating your teams best strategy.
As for why we care, isn’t it obvious? Here’s a metaphor. Let’s say you and I are building a cabin in the woods and we’re trying to get done before winter comes so we don’t freeze to death. Let’s also suppose that I’m twice as capable as you, so if we both worked equally hard, I’d get twice as much done as you. So let’s say you can do 100 units of work a day and I can do 200. But I decide that I’m going to peg my workrate to yours, so I’m going to put in 50% effort and only do 100 units a day. We’re giving up 1/3 of our productivity each day and making the work take that much longer, threatening both of us. However, by your standard, you don’t have any right to complain, because I’m giving you equal value. If winter overtakes us and we both die, we’re both equally culpable because we put in equal work. Or do you think you’d feel aggrieved, knowing that, if I cared enough to put in my full effort, we could have completed 50% more work each day and have been that much more likely to finish the cabin in time and live to see another spring?
In the case of team sports, the shared goal isn’t quite as dramatic as avoiding death, but it’s still there: we want to win championships. I’ve given you a concrete example of a situation where Le Toux’s willingness to work hard led directly to a goal scoring play, that led directly to a trophy. If that lazy player would give you 100%, you’d have a better chance of turning some of your losses into draws and some of your draws into wins. But he’s not, he’s content to let you draw games you could have won and lose games you could have drawn. He’s willing to throw opportunities for success out the window because he can’t bring himself to care enough to put in a full effort.
Laziness IS efficiency
Perhaps it’s my engineering background that biases me this way, but in general, the lazier engineers are much better at being efficient than the hard working ones. I know at least one example of an elite university that considers laziness to be a ‘tie-breaker’ when considering equally qualified students for admission to study engineering.
Smart play requires effort, sure. But smart players know how to maximise this effort, and pure hustle players don’t.
Yes, Le Toux’s hustle has helped the team. But if a hypothetical player that was all skill and no hustle and gave exactly the same output as Le Toux had replaced him, he’d have helped the team exactly as much, by definition.
by Graham MacAree on Nov 30, 2009 8:28 AM PST up reply actions
Testing this theory is simple
Stop showing up to work. By definition, you’ll be the most efficient employee at your organization. Also, don’t get out of bed, just in case anyone comes over to check on your efficiency. I expect that you’ll be getting plenty of promotions and raises because of your incredible efficiency. In fact, I predict that if you follow my plan, you’ll be CEO by the end of the month.
Both you and I know that what you mean isn’t the kind of laziness that people normally associate with the word and certainly not the definition that people think when they’re associating the word with soccer players. Your “laziness” is what’s been called “constructive laziness” and it’s the kind of thought process that leads one to spend four hours writing a script to automate a task that takes two hours. How is spending twice as much time on a task lazy? Because if the task is repeated weekly and the automated script requires as much as 15 minutes of your attention, you’re saving 87 hours over the course of the year (104 hours doing it manually vs four hours writing the script and 13 hours running the it).
In soccer, “constructive laziness” is letting the ball do the running; it’s finding the long pass that allows your player to slip in behind the defense, and so on and so forth. Plain vanilla laziness is your winger watching that long pass sail over his head without making an attempt to get to it, even though he very well could. When you say lazy, the latter is what people are thinking of, not the former. And by the way, arguing from special definitions is both cheap and lazy, and not the good kind of lazy, either.
Anyway, let’s make this hypothetical a little less hypothetical and actually name our “skilled, but lazy” player. Let’s say that Adrian Hanauer performs a miracle and signs Kaka to replace Seba. Kaka giving us a full effort could allow us to win the Supporters’ Shield, the MLS Cup, the CONCACAF Champions League, and allow us to dominate all year long. However, let’s say he decides to phone it in and matches Seba’s performance and calls it good. How would you feel about him in that scenario? He’d certainly be efficient, because he wouldn’t need to overly exert himself to do it. Would you be pleased by such an efficient player? Or would you be like the rest of us who, knowing what Kaka is capable of, would be furious that he didn’t care enough to make an effort. Because as fans, we want to win the Supporters’ Shield, the MLS Cup, the CONCACAF Champions League, and dominate all year long. A player who puts in a full effort demonstrates that he cares about those things too and therefore is valued over a player who doesn’t, even though their output might be the same. The player who refuses to make the full effort could very well be denying us titles, and with players like that, who needs opponents?
I understand where and why Graham has his belief's
There has been discussion after discussion regarding Willie Bloomquist regarding his hustle, which in baseball is semi-equivalent to work rate.
There were many Mariner fans that were huge fans of Bloomquist because he ran as hard as he could in everything he did. They thought he would be an all-star if the managers just gave him playing time despite all the statistical evidence that proved otherwise.
Hustling in baseball in and of itself does not make a player good and can be misleading. If Bloomquist hits 100 routine ground balls to the shortstop and he sprints to first base all 100 times, he will still be thrown out 100 times. His work rate gave him no advantage.
So, Graham has heard this work rate argument thousand’s of times.
Now, regarding work rate in soccer. It is a part of a players skillset. I think it is more important in soccer than baseball. But, it is a complicated issue.
Everyone knows that Blanco’s work rate is awful and his defensive ability is well below average. But, he is a more valuable player than Seba. His offensive skills are off the charts for MLS, which makes him a better player than Seba.
What Graham is trying to say is that if you rated each player on a scale of 1 to 100, whether a player is 75 based on one set a skills and another player is rated a 75 based on an entirely different set of skill, they are attributing the same amount. It doesn’t matter how.
However, because soccer is such a fluid game, work rate allows a player to be in the correct position more often than another player. Work rate allows a player to get back on defense enough to slow down or disrupt an offensive run.
But, Graham’s point would be the work rate is added into the 75 rating.
So, I think the answer is somewhere between what Graham thinks and what you think. Graham does not give enough weight to work rate. I think he believes it to be like the example I gave of Bloomquist, a misleading effort.
But, work rate is more than that. Work rate is more like Ichiro’s speed. When Ichiro hits a groundball to the shortstop, often he beats it out or causes the shortstop to make an error. Speed in Ichiro’s case is a weapon.
Now, not every fast player is speed a weapon. There are fast players that are awful baserunners or bad basestealers. There are fast players that get bad jumps on balls.
For Seba, his work rate is so above almost if not every other player it becomes a weapon like Ichiro’s speed.
My dissertation has been a defense of fan psychology
I’ve been mainly responding to the comment where Graham said he finds it silly that a player who contributed as much as Le Toux but was “the laziest man alive” would be hated.
To unpack this as quickly as possible (because I’ve been pretty verbose already):
- Lazy, under the normal definition, contains an implication that one is refusing to do what one is able. For example, no one would think of calling Stephen Hawking lazy because he doesn’t get up from his chair because he can’t. Usain Bolt refusing to jog to catch a bus, on the other hand, could definitely be called lazy.
- To use your system, let’s say Le Toux and Player X are equal at 75 and therefore contribute equally.
- However, Player X is lazy, and therefore could be, say, a 95 if he cared enough to work as hard as Le Toux.
- Fans note the gap between what Player X could do and what he is willing to do.
- Fans come to hate Player X because of what his lack of effort costs the club (goals, games, trophies, etc.).
You are ignoring the possibility that a player can reduce their value by being less "lazy."
Too many people assume that through conditioning all players are capable of exerting 100% for 90 minutes which is patently untrue. Each and everyone one of us has physical limits to how much energy we can exert during a match and still be able perform when the ball is in our area. Yes, there are some players who through more effort might be able to go from 75 to 95, but there are just as many who by overexertion would reduce their overall value from 75 to say 60 because they no longer can stay on the pitch for a full 90.
Good point
There are some players whose body types allow them to give maximum effort for the full 90 minutes. I liken them to a marathoner who can run for hours without slowing down.
There are others who are like sprinters who can give maximum efforts for short bursts before they need to slow down to let their body recover.
Sometimes we all mistake a player for being lazy when really it is that their body needs to rest to recover.
I didn't mention it explicitly, but this is something I'm considering
A player pacing himself in order to give a full 90 isn’t being lazy, because he’s giving what he can. That’s what I’m getting at a bit with the Stephen Hawking/Usain Bolt example. For example, even though Blanco can’t give a Le Toux level effort, I wouldn’t call him lazy because if he tried he’d be a thirty minute player at best. Lazy means a player is purposely doing less than he is able because he doesn’t feel like it.

by 
















