this is also confusing to me. from what i recall they use previous seasons results into the calculation. and we did not do well ending up 5th. no way we are up there even above columbus for example. unless it means that losing mata and ring helped us in the numbers game and go even higher?
This surprised me as well, though looking at it more closely, it is a bit less shocking than I first thought.
I understand the three pillars of their analysis to be prior results, transfers out/in (with money as a proxy for quality), and some element of advanced stats. On prior results NYCFC finished 7th in the league last year. I tend to forget that because we were only 5th in the East. So we're not starting as far down as I thought.
On transfers, I cannot see how we are anywhere above mid-table.
Transfermarkt has our squad ranked 11th most valuable at the moment. You can reasonably expect big moves come summer but I don't think the 538 algorithm can do that.
But then on advanced stats, ASA had NYCFC second in the league only to Seattle last year in xGoal differential (and first in Goals Added Diff). We weren't especially lucky or unlucky, as our Actual GD slightly exceeded our xG GD by 0.63. Basically, our GD matched what the stats predicted.
Now look at which teams had an Actual GD that was much better than their xGD last year and by how much:
POR 16.25 (3)
CLB 14.65 (1)
PHI 13.55 (4)
ORL 11.83 (7)
MIN 9.61 (5)
Were they lucky? More gritty or clinical? Are advanced stats silly? We might never get a definitive answer, but that list is a who's who of the consensus best MLS teams right now according to humans, excluding LAFC (a special case with Vela out last year). In fact, the number in "( )" is their current MLS Power Ranking. Meanwhile Advanced Stats indicate that those teams are not as good as their actual results make it seem. I have to think the difference between the human made Power Rankings and algorithmic 538 rankings is mostly the advanced stats, where NYCFC looked really good last year.
www.mlssoccer.com
