MLS: Setting the Table - Week 10

[JDG]

http://www.settingthetable.info/


http://i49.tinypic.com/2m3jq4w.jpg


I've never understood what the criteria is for placing one team above another on the table when they are equal in points. We always seem to default to the lower position :(

[DichioTFC]

http://www.settingthetable.info/





I've never understood what the criteria is for placing one team above another on the table when they are equal in points. We always seem to default to the lower position :(


As for us, its goal differential. For everyone else it could be head-to-head

[JDG]

As for us, its goal differential. For everyone else it could be head-to-head

That's a shame because it seems to me that 16 points in 11 games for Houston is more telling than the goals they've scored and allowed along the way.
San Jose has 16 points in 9 games, and TFC has 16 in 10 - both records should trump 16 in 11 IMHO.

[twistedchinaman]

It's looking good... :scarf:

[DichioTFC]

That's a shame because it seems to me that 16 points in 11 games for Houston is more telling than the goals they've scored and allowed along the way.
San Jose has 16 points in 9 games, and TFC has 16 in 10 - both records should trump 16 in 11 IMHO.

Logical explanations have no place in the MLS :D

I guess giving certain teams the opportunity to have a game or two in hand over other teams work for playoff bubble teams (in theory). It all works out in the end, but for now, its good to see we're on par for the course

[JDG]

Logical explanations have no place in the MLS :D

I guess giving certain teams the opportunity to have a game or two in hand over other teams work for playoff bubble teams (in theory). It all works out in the end, but for now, its good to see we're on par for the course

If we keep this up, we're on track to finish with 48 points! Comfortably in the playoffs.

[DichioTFC]

I optimistically guesstimated 50 points in a thread earlier today. That was really optimistic, but mid-high 40s are not out of the realm of possibility.

It looks like 42 points is the playoff boundary anyways, so anything north of that will serve us well.

[JDG]

A couple of years ago the line to cross was widely accepted as being 40 points to get in. That should be higher now, but 48 - 50 points looks good to me.

[DichioTFC]

^ my bad, i meant 42 points is the standard

[twistedchinaman]

Historically, we can look at the point totals of the 8th seed in the 30-game season era (28-32 games were played per season from 1996-2003):

2003: 36 (LA)
2004: 33 (NE)
2005: 45 (LA)
2006: 39 (Red Craps)
2007: 40 (KC)
2008: 39 (Red Craps)
2009: 40 (RSL)

Average is 38.8 points...but I think the whole mantra of every point counts applies here. Each point towards 40 is another point towards the playoffs.

The remaining games are all winnable, and we've proven that we're able to take on the big boys and stop them cold, or beat them outright. We have the power, and we're going to have to use it.

[James17930]

That's a shame because it seems to me that 16 points in 11 games for Houston is more telling than the goals they've scored and allowed along the way.
San Jose has 16 points in 9 games, and TFC has 16 in 10 - both records should trump 16 in 11 IMHO.

I agree -- I think it should be games played first (so, teams with games in hand would get ranked first), with GD second.

[Oldtimer]

^ my bad, i meant 42 points is the standard

42 makes it quite likely (88%+) you're in, but not guaranteed, depending on the exact permutations and combinations.
43 makes it 95+% sure.

45 is the magic number that guarantees a spot.

[CoachGT]

And the number will continue to rise in coming seasons as more teams are added.

[stugautz]

http://www.settingthetable.info/


http://i49.tinypic.com/2m3jq4w.jpg


I've never understood what the criteria is for placing one team above another on the table when they are equal in points. We always seem to default to the lower position :(


Looks like this time it's alphabetical.

[rocker]

And the number will continue to rise in coming seasons as more teams are added.

I've wondered about this... I'm crappy at math, but wouldn't the number stay the same because the number of games in a season stays the same?
All the league did was take those extra third games in the unbalanced schedulae and redistribute them with the introduction of the Union so now it's balanced.
Wouldn't that mean the safe target number of points is the same, but you play an extra team to get to it.

[Cashcleaner]

^ Yeah, I think you're right about that. I suppose things will be different when we're at 20 teams in the league, but for the last few seasons and the current one, we've been playing 30 games.

[ManUtd4ever]

TFC's current ranking of being tied for 4th overall in the MLS is even more remarkable given their record of 1W 3L after the first 4 games. Since that dismal start to the season, TFC has compiled a very impressive record of 6W 2D 1L in all competitions.

TFC plays the majority of the next dozen matches at BMO Field. If Frei and DeRo remain healthy and the overall squad continues to improve their recent form it is entirely possible that the Reds will be challenging Columbus for 1st place in the Eastern Conference going into stretch drive of the season...

[Steve]

I've wondered about this... I'm crappy at math, but wouldn't the number stay the same because the number of games in a season stays the same?
All the league did was take those extra third games in the unbalanced schedulae and redistribute them with the introduction of the Union so now it's balanced.
Wouldn't that mean the safe target number of points is the same, but you play an extra team to get to it.

No, it would be different. The difference is, half the teams aren't making the playoffs (which is what you're basing your logic on, which would be sound) 8 teams are. Think about it this way, when your league is at 8 teams, and 8 make the playoffs, what's the cutoff for points? Well, whatever the last place team gets (for simplicity we can think of the data set as normal distribution, so a bell curve). Now, when you add teams (but not games), it might be true that your average (or center of your curve) remains the same (let's say 40 points), but you're now moving the lower limit up. Since the lower limit isn't a function of the curve, but a function of the number of teams (8 total) as you move from 8 teams to 20 teams, again, though the average might stay the same, the lower limit for making the playoffs moves gradually up.

So, 8 teams, and the lower limit (let's say 20 points) is the "cutoff". Then it may move to 24 points when you have 9 teams, and when you have 20 teams, it might be 48. Each team added would theoretically add to the cutoff point (of course, since it's real life, teams having bad seasons, or lots of draws, or differing amounts of games will change the "theoretical" to the "actual", but the logic still stands).

[Bdking2]

I've never understood what the criteria is for placing one team above another on the table when they are equal in points. We always seem to default to the lower position :(



As I recall from last year near the end when it seemed as if four teams might be tied for 8th place. The tie breaker after points would be goal differential between tied teams. After doing the math though either I'm wrong or the setting the table list is.

TFC: -2 vs COL
+2 vs SJE = 0

SJE: +1 vs COL
-2 vs TOR = -1

COL: +2 vs TOR
-1 vs SJE = +1

And Houston hasn't played any of these teams yet, so 0 for them. So it is all still a mystery to me.

[Miss Jones]

I think its just in alphabetical order the ones with 16 points.
We just happened to be the lowest letter in the alpahbet - nothing more.

[tfc2007]

we're looking pretty good.
http://www.sportsclubstats.com/USA/MLS.html

[RPB_RED_NATION_RPB]

hopefully the quakes will bounce back this week when the host the CREW....:) and the Rapids will thump them at home also! ;)

When the smoke settles sat night we could be as much as 1 point back of the CREW and even on games! :)