2012 MLS Strength of Schedule: The Unbalancing Act
For the last two MLS seasons 'strength of schedule' wasn't really a meaningful concept. With a perfectly balanced schedule, the only differences in schedule strength came from the fact that teams didn't have to play themselves (good for Seattle, bad for Vancouver). But now that the new era of unbalanced scheduling has arrived, it's worth looking to see who's facing tougher competition and who's getting off light.
To calculate strength of schedule, I started by taking the split home and away Point Per Game totals for each team. Note that it's very important to look at home and away PPGs separately. It'd be hard to overstate how big the gap is between home and road performance. Last season the LA Galaxy ran away with the Supporters Shield with a 1.97 PPG, but their away PPG was only 1.53. That was second in the league to the Seattle Sounders absurd 1.88 away PPG, but it would have only been tied for 13th as a home PPG. LA's away results were the same as the home results of the Chicago Fire, who didn't even make the playoffs. That makes a big difference when comparing facing the Galaxy twice in Seattle versus facing them twice in Carson. Also note that we don't have any data for the Montreal Impact. I set their PPG as the average of the Portland Timbers and Vancouver Whitecaps results to get a reasonable 'average expansion team' value. Once I had the PPGs I just applied them to each game on the schedule for home and away and averaged the results.
In the process I also calculated the distance theoretically traveled by the away team in each game. This is a very rough estimate that just calculated the great-circle distance (i.e. as the crow flies) from stadium to stadium. It doesn't take into account actual flight routes, potential road trips that would move from one away venue directly to another, etc. (Note: mileage is for one-way travel.)
The results and some thoughts are below the cut:
| Team | Opponent PPG | Distance (miles) |
|---|---|---|
| Vancouver Whitecaps | 1.421 | 21,102 |
| San Jose Earthquakes | 1.399 | 20,003 |
| Portland Timbers | 1.392 | 21,199 |
| FC Dallas | 1.361 | 19,454 |
| Colorado Rapids | 1.356 | 18,555 |
| Toronto FC | 1.335 | 14,541 |
| Real Salt Lake | 1.331 | 14,487 |
| New England Revolution | 1.321 | 16,835 |
| Chivas USA | 1.316 | 20,277 |
| D.C. United | 1.314 | 17,581 |
| Seattle Sounders | 1.292 | 20,406 |
| LA Galaxy | 1.288 | 16,916 |
| Montreal Impact | 1.285 | 18,500 |
| New York Red Bulls | 1.285 | 13,789 |
| Chicago Fire | 1.266 | 14,282 |
| Philadelphia Union | 1.258 | 17,751 |
| Sporting Kansas City | 1.248 | 17,358 |
| Houston Dynamo | 1.241 | 21,732 |
| Columbus Crew | 1.214 | 13,573 |
The table has sortable columns so you can sort the teams how you like.
The first thing to notice is that the West predictably suffers from an unbalanced schedule. The Western Conference has consistently dominated the East over the past few seasons and now that the teams are scheduled more heavily against each other, their schedules get more difficult. The West has the top 5 hardest schedules and the East has the easiest 7. The easiest Western schedules belong to Seattle and Los Angeles. The Galaxy get the edge thanks to two home games against Vancouver and a home schedule against the East that includes such luminaries as Toronto FC, New England, and DC United.
The toughest schedule by far belongs to Vancouver, who get a Western Confernece schedule loaded with Shield contenders but fail to play the weakest team in the West (themselves). Cascadia rivals Portland get the third toughest overall for the same reason. At the other end, Columbus is rewarded not only with the easiest schedule by opponent difficulty, they also have the fewest straight travel miles in the league. The most travel miles (as calculated here) aren't actually owned by Seattle or Vancouver, but by Houston, who probably suffers from being an 'Eastern' Conference team that's actually pretty far west. Of course this doesn't count CONCACAF Champions League travel (and Club World Cup travel, amirite?).
Thoughts? Seattle's getting it about as good as you can get it in the West, but of course the league bends over backwards for the Galaxy once again.
Update:If you want to check my work or use the data for your own purposes, the spreadsheet is here.
48 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Did someone forget round trips?
I think this is only the one-way mileage… or am I missing something?
It is one way mileage
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
Doubling the number is left as an exercise for the reader
Doesn’t really matter when we’re focusing on the relative rankings
Nos Audietis
Matters for understanding wear-and-tear on bodies though
And if one compares 2011 to 2012, looks like Sounders fly 30k less miles rather than 10k less :)
It all depends...
On what you choose to focus on. This post was focused on the rankings not on the distance. I’m sure we’ll have another post for you about the distance and wear and tear.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jan 5, 2012 3:54 PM PST up reply actions
Oh I'm not saying focus on it
I’m just saying the heading of the table should read one-way distance.
I’m picking at nits here..
we added a note in the text
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jan 5, 2012 4:02 PM PST up reply actions
Seems Merritt missed the note...
https://twitter.com/#!/MerrittPaulson/statuses/155368156058230785
@MerrittPaulson: purists clammering for balanced sched/single table: we travel ~20K miles in 2012. traveled over 51K in 2011. USA + CAN = too big for balance
by bmvaughn on Jan 6, 2012 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
ha
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jan 6, 2012 12:42 PM PST up reply actions
Only 3 games in April?
Even though we travel less over the year, it looks like some of these distances may be packed together pretty tightly.
Reccomended
This is excellent work. Thank you.
by Stephen Catanese on Jan 5, 2012 3:47 PM PST reply actions
This kind of this is why I hate unbalanced schedules
But whatever.
At least there’s an away game to the Revs this year. We’ve got friends in Boston and my wife’s family is from Maine, so a trip to New England would be cool.
How much of a difference does it make if you ...
take two teams (say, Vancouver and Seattle) and remove the games against each other?
I mean, obviously Vancouver doesn’t have the advantage we do of playing a team as shitty as Vancouver once every ten games or so. And conversely, we don’t have to play three games against the Sounders either.
Are the schedules really all that different?
i'm not sure what you're hoping to do...
Are you asking how different Seattle’s SOS would be if you didn’t include games against the Whitecaps and how different Vancouver’s would be if they didn’t have to play the Sounders?
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jan 5, 2012 5:53 PM PST up reply actions
I think he has a point
If you use sidereal’s above method to approximate expected strength of schedule, then even under a balanced schedule, Vancouver would have a tougher strength of schedule than LAG. But, the difference is not very large—Vancouver would be at 1.32 Opp. PPG and LAG would be at 1.29 Opp. PPG—one point over the course of a full season. (Which is what you would get if you used this method to determine last year’s strength of schedule for each team.) I think that the best answer is just that not playing yourself doesn’t have a huge impact on strength of schedule.
I was honestly confused...
Since the Sounders do actually play the Whitecaps and teh Whitecaps actually do play the Sounders.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jan 5, 2012 7:41 PM PST up reply actions
Right, it's just that the Whitecaps don't play the Whitecaps
Which makes a difference in the SOS calculated by this method. It’s probably a weakness in the method of determining whether or not the schedule is fair, but as I noted, it’s a small difference.
a fair point if fairness is what you're after, you're right
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jan 6, 2012 12:43 PM PST up reply actions
The brutal truth
The toughest schedule by far belongs to Vancouver, who get a Western Confernece schedule loaded with Shield contenders but fail to play the weakest team in the West (themselves).
Ouch.
by Derek Young on Jan 5, 2012 6:02 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I think there should be some regression to the mean figured in here
Teams change from year to year and (on average) the really bad performances are unlikely to be repeated as are the really good performances. And you’re using PPG figured over the results of 17 games, which is not exactly a great big huge sample size. If you project each team to be (last year’s PPG + avg. PPG)/2 next season (this is not the exact correct regression to the mean, but it’s probably a step in the right direction), then it doesn’t change the order of the rankings, but the difference from first to last goes from 0.2 PPG to 0.1 PPG. 0.1 PPG is still about 3 points a season, which to me is practically in the noise. I’m not in love with unbalanced schedules, but a team has all kinds of opportunities to overcome a schedule adversity of that magnitude.
Let's hope they show the whole game this time...
Nos audietis in somniis, Nos audietis in altum: You will hear us!
I doubt
it. ESPN never cared for the sport enough to schedule where there will be some leeway between one 1 game is ending and the other game starts.
ESPN doesn't only do this to MLS.
by yuniform on Jan 6, 2012 7:58 AM PST via Android app up reply actions
And to justify pre-game, all they need
Is better viewership to pull in more ad dollars.
by bmvaughn on Jan 6, 2012 9:23 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
although
that was funny when friberg scored the second ESPN switched to the match feed.
At first I was worried
When I saw that the only other team with a weaker schedule was LA. But with Gonzales out with an ACL, Juniho leaving for Brazil and Beckham already scheduled to miss 2 weeks for the olympic tournament I starting to think either KC or RSL are going to be our biggest contenders for the shield this year.
I like that stat, that's nice
I think it would be cool to factor in some sort of rating of turn around time and distance traveled. Obviously a trip to Dallas for a Wed. game is a much harder trip than a trip to DC after two weeks off (just an example).
Interesting
At first blush though isn’t this exercise a bit circular? Since you’re going on last years’ totals, if you were a bad team last year, particularly in the relatively stronger Western Conference, your schedule is going to look the hardest since every other team is better than you, etc. right?
yes
but it’s what we have to go on
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jan 6, 2012 12:43 PM PST up reply actions
When SBN's first preseason power rankings come out we can do this again
That should adjust for off-season player movement.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan
Playing with yourself
I think if you just add an imaginary home and away game for each team against itself it would reduce the effect everyone is complaining about.
Why would adding imaginary matches make the analysis more accurate?
That just makes no sense.
it would limit complaining, sure...
but it would also be less accurate
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter. You'll Never Yacht Alone.
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jan 6, 2012 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Accuracy
is already out the window when you make the assumption that all the teams are the same caliber teams that they were last year.
This a great argument to add more inaccuracy
Or maybe it is not.
by AAAA on Jan 6, 2012 7:55 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
The distance they're cutting off the schedule (9000 miles, according to a Soundersfc.com article)
Is roughly equivalent (slightly shorter) than a round trip flight to London. That honestly doesn’t seem that bad. And yet the schedule is still longer date-wise than any before.
I don’t get this at all.
To clarify the Galaxy schedule difficulty
Without going deeply into the numbers I suspect the largest factor is that LA gets both RSL and FCD twice at home instead of twice away.
Nos Audietis
Of course they do.
Their three biggest competitors all get to go to Home Depot Center twice a year, where the Galaxy get most of their points…
Seattle doesn't
Seattle’s schedule sees LA and RSL here twice and Dallas once.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart | Follow Dave on Twitter @bedirthan

by 
















