The 2016 MLS East/West InterConference Play Thread

[mgarbowski]

Recently I was disappointed not to be able to find any information on the record of the two conferences in head-to-head matchups last year. I decided to just do it myself this year. Each 10 teams in the East play each 10 in the West once which works out to 100 games and that's not too hard if you tally as it goes.
Since we're focused on the East, all records, etc will be from the standpoint of that conference.

All Records are in standard MLS format W-L-T.

Week 1 - 6 Games
East Record 1-3-2
At Home 0-0-1
On Road 1-3-1
Goal Differential -5
East Points 5
West Points 11

One week. Small sample size. Significant imbalance home/away. I wouldn't read much into this yet.
Next week 0 interconference games. On average there should be 3 each week.

 

[FootyLovin]

Recently I was disappointed not to be able to find any information on the record of the two conferences in head-to-head matchups last year. I decided to just do it myself this year. Each 10 teams in the East play each 10 in the West once which works out to 100 games and that's not too hard if you tally as it goes.
Since we're focused on the East, all records, etc will be from the standpoint of that conference.

All Records are in standard MLS format W-L-T.

Week 1 - 6 Games
East Record 1-3-2
At Home 0-0-1
On Road 1-3-1
Goal Differential -5
East Points 5
West Points 11

One week. Small sample size. Significant imbalance home/away. I wouldn't read much into this yet.
Next week 0 interconference games. On average there should be 3 each week.

If you think about it, the road record is almost to one of the soccer standards, with 4 points from 5 games, that's almost to a point a game on the road.

 

[mgarbowski]

Once started, I cannot stop.
In 2015 the East record against the West was 35-46-19. That's each team in the West being slightly more than one game over .500 and each East team one game under the line. The East earned 124 points and the West earned 157, a 33 point gap that matches the 11 game win differential.
And now a chart:

This shows the final point total for the East/West finishers at comparable finishes in the table. While there is no position where the East is ahead it stays close in the top half and falls way behind in the bottom, especially among non-playoff teams.

I think it's fair to say that the playoff teams in the East were able to inflate their point totals somewhat compared to the West since they played about 10 games against the bottom 4 in the East while the West played 4 games against those same bottom four. So even though the 7th place team in the West had fewer points than the 6th Place in the East, it might have been good enough to make the playoffs if it played an East Conf Schedule. It would be a stretch to argue for two, and definitely not all 3 or all 4 I think.

Finally, notice that the West earned 33 more points in H2H against the East but the East finished only 24 points below the West overall. The East made it up by having 12 fewer ties than the West, thereby generating more points intra-conference. That leaves me with a 3-point gap I can't reconcile, but I'm done.

 

[Seth]

That leaves me with a 3-point gap I can't reconcile, but I'm done.

You may *say* you're done but I don't think anyone believes you.

 

[Seth]

Once started, I cannot stop.
In 2015 the East record against the West was 35-46-19. That's each team in the West being slightly more than one game over .500 and each East team one game under the line. The East earned 124 points and the West earned 157, a 33 point gap that matches the 11 game win differential.
And now a chart:
View attachment 4312
This shows the final point total for the East/West finishers at comparable finishes in the table. While there is no position where the East is ahead it stays close in the top half and falls way behind in the bottom, especially among non-playoff teams.

I think it's fair to say that the playoff teams in the East were able to inflate their point totals somewhat compared to the West since they played about 10 games against the bottom 4 in the East while the West played 4 games against those same bottom four. So even though the 7th place team in the West had fewer points than the 6th Place in the East, it might have been good enough to make the playoffs if it played an East Conf Schedule. It would be a stretch to argue for two, and definitely not all 3 or all 4 I think.

Finally, notice that the West earned 33 more points in H2H against the East but the East finished only 24 points below the West overall. The East made it up by having 12 fewer ties than the West, thereby generating more points intra-conference. That leaves me with a 3-point gap I can't reconcile, but I'm done.

Seriously though, that's a really interesting analysis.

 

[Ulrich]

Once started, I cannot stop.
In 2015 the East record against the West was 35-46-19. That's each team in the West being slightly more than one game over .500 and each East team one game under the line. The East earned 124 points and the West earned 157, a 33 point gap that matches the 11 game win differential.
And now a chart:
View attachment 4312
This shows the final point total for the East/West finishers at comparable finishes in the table. While there is no position where the East is ahead it stays close in the top half and falls way behind in the bottom, especially among non-playoff teams.

I think it's fair to say that the playoff teams in the East were able to inflate their point totals somewhat compared to the West since they played about 10 games against the bottom 4 in the East while the West played 4 games against those same bottom four. So even though the 7th place team in the West had fewer points than the 6th Place in the East, it might have been good enough to make the playoffs if it played an East Conf Schedule. It would be a stretch to argue for two, and definitely not all 3 or all 4 I think.

Finally, notice that the West earned 33 more points in H2H against the East but the East finished only 24 points below the West overall. The East made it up by having 12 fewer ties than the West, thereby generating more points intra-conference. That leaves me with a 3-point gap I can't reconcile, but I'm done.

My biggest issue with the East/West format is there's no home/away for each team. Last year, playing LA in LA was a huge advantage for them and they didn't have to return the favor. It's like in college football when a particular season schedule rolls around and all of a teams away games are cupcakes and the home games, where advantage is key, are against the better teams.

 

[mgarbowski]

My biggest issue with the East/West format is there's no home/away for each team. Last year, playing LA in LA was a huge advantage for them and they didn't have to return the favor. It's like in college football when a particular season schedule rolls around and all of a teams away games are cupcakes and the home games, where advantage is key, are against the better teams.

Completely true. But it just comes down to math, with more expansion it will only get worse, and we just have to live with it. The alternative, I think, would be to split the conferences completely for scheduling purposes like it used to be in baseball when the AL and NL never met except in the All-Star game and World Series. But that would never fly, because east fans want to see Dempsey, Dos Santos, etc. and vice versa for the west fans seeing east stars. I expect we'll end up with an even worse imbalanced schedule like the NFL, where you rotate playing different divisions each year, and the difficulty of your schedule is determined by whether it's your turn to play the mediocre NFC East or stacked NFC West, and then further depending on whether by chance you play Arizona and Seattle at home or on the road.

I think MLS said it plans to go to 28 teams. If you play everyone in your conference twice that alone is 26 games, leaving 8 against the opposing conference without an increase in games. We're going to get divisions, with fewer games against everyone. I think the days of 3 games against even RB are numbered.

 

[Ulrich]

Completely true. But it just comes down to math, with more expansion it will only get worse, and we just have to live with it. The alternative, I think, would be to split the conferences completely for scheduling purposes like it used to be in baseball when the AL and NL never met except in the All-Star game and World Series. But that would never fly, because east fans want to see Dempsey, Dos Santos, etc. and vice versa for the west fans seeing east stars. I expect we'll end up with an even worse imbalanced schedule like the NFL, where you rotate playing different divisions each year, and the difficulty of your schedule is determined by whether it's your turn to play the mediocre NFC East or stacked NFC West, and then further depending on whether by chance you play Arizona and Seattle at home or on the road.

I think MLS said it plans to go to 28 teams. If you play everyone in your conference twice that alone is 26 games, leaving 8 against the opposing conference without an increase in games. We're going to get divisions, with fewer games against everyone. I think the days of 3 games against even RB are numbered.

Gotta go to 38-40 games. Increase the salary cap for greater squad depth - it'll be paid for by the extra beer sales of those games.

 

[ktdNYCFC]

Gotta go to 38-40 games. Increase the salary cap for greater squad depth - it'll be paid for by the extra beer sales of those games.

Also, I don't fully buy the whole North America climate argument againt playing in the winter. We all have coats. Green Bay and Minnesota still sell out snow games. Grow a pair. Toronto has been playing long away streaks at the start of the season for stadium renovations - no reason they can't do the opposite and play a few away games late in the season in warmer areas. What's the use of all these scarves anyways?

 

[LionNYC]

It's like in college football when a particular season schedule rolls around and all of a teams away games are cupcakes and the home games, where advantage is key, are against the better teams.

Auburn-Alabama is once a year. Michigan-Ohio State is once a year. All conference games are once a year.

 

[Ulrich]

Auburn-Alabama is once a year. Michigan-Ohio State is once a year. All conference games are once a year.

You took that out of context. Point being that there are certain years that college football schedules just align with the stars - bad teams, or typically-thought-of good teams having bad years, all seem to be away games, and the home schedule's slate has the tough teams, which is advantageous with the home crowd-12th man.

 

[BossNYC]

My biggest issue with the East/West format is there's no home/away for each team. Last year, playing LA in LA was a huge advantage for them and they didn't have to return the favor. It's like in college football when a particular season schedule rolls around and all of a teams away games are cupcakes and the home games, where advantage is key, are against the better teams.

I actually prefer playing the other conference teams just once. It makes that one game much bigger in importance and remembrance. I think LA raised their level of play against us out of excitement at the significance of that one game last season.

As big teams continue to spring up out West, like LAFC, it'll be cool having a handful of really big games that are all or nothing that season with the likes of LA Galaxy, LAFC, Seattle, Portland, SKC and, hopefully, Houston and Dallas someday get it in gear and act like clubs from the 4th and 5th largest metros in America.

And I'm sure fans out West will be a little extra excited for that one game every other season when big clubs like NYC, Miami, DC United, Toronto, ect come to town.

 

[Gotham Gator]

Auburn-Alabama is once a year. Michigan-Ohio State is once a year. All conference games are once a year.

Not in basketball.

 

[Gotham Gator]

One question I've had is why do we play 3rd games against 6 teams in our conference rather than 2nd games against 6 teams in the other conference? That would help even out everyone's schedule both within each conference and the league overall. I suppose the reason is to milk an extra game between rivals and to cut down on travel costs, but there would be practical benefits to more interconference games.

 

[mgarbowski]

One question I've had is why do we play 3rd games against 6 teams in our conference rather than 2nd games against 6 teams in the other conference? That would help even out everyone's schedule both within each conference and the league overall. I suppose the reason is to milk an extra game between rivals and to cut down on travel costs, but there would be practical benefits to more interconference games.

You answered your own question I think. I understand your point, but prefer this setup.

 

[FootyLovin]

The alternative, I think, would be to split the conferences completely for scheduling purposes like it used to be in baseball when the AL and NL never met except in the All-Star game and World Series. But that would never fly

One question I've had is why do we play 3rd games against 6 teams in our conference rather than 2nd games against 6 teams in the other conference? That would help even out everyone's schedule both within each conference and the league overall. I suppose the reason is to milk an extra game between rivals and to cut down on travel costs, but there would be practical benefits to more interconference games.

I'm not convinced the East/West split is out of the question. Let's assume that the league continues to grow and someday wants to expand beyond 28 teams. By that time you (hopefully) have a cadre of spending owners on both sides of the continent. Plenty of great players for the fans even without cross-continent play. More local rivalry games. Less travel costs. If the bean counting suggests they could make more money through a split like that, I suspect that's what would happen. In fact, the only reason MLB broke that tradition is that their leagues were geographically mixed. So they were missing out on natural rivalry games. I suspect NYCFC and MLS would make more with one more NYCFC/NJRB game each year than they would with one more NYCFC/LA game each year. The problem for now might simply be that a team like Atlanta has no local rivals.

Random rant done.

 

[joe]

By that time you (hopefully) have a cadre of spending owners on both sides of the continent.

For giggles, and using 2015 base salaries:
Of the top ten spending teams, five are from each conference
Of the top five spending teams (which spend significantly more than the other 15), three are from the east and two are from the west.
Of the bottom five spending teams, two are from the east and three are from the west.

East teams spend, on average, $1.2M more than west teams.
Removing the top five evens that out, with remaining east teams spending only $60K more than west teams.

Some unknown percentage of this will be due to the salary cap, but it's actually a lot more even than I thought it would be.

 

[FootyLovin]

For giggles, and using 2015 base salaries:
Of the top ten spending teams, five are from each conference
Of the top five spending teams (which spend significantly more than the other 15), three are from the east and two are from the west.
Of the bottom five spending teams, two are from the east and three are from the west.

East teams spend, on average, $1.2M more than west teams.
Removing the top five evens that out, with remaining east teams spending only $60K more than west teams.

Some unknown percentage of this will be due to the salary cap, but it's actually a lot more even than I thought it would be.

Very interesting, especially in light of mgarbowski 's analysis of win/loss between the conferences. East spending more. West winning more. Maybe everyone should spend less.

Clarification: Do those spending numbers cover cap spending only? Or do they include the above the cap DP spending/TAM/etc?

 

[mgarbowski]

Very interesting, especially in light of mgarbowski 's analysis of win/loss between the conferences. East spending more. West winning more. Maybe everyone should spend less.

Let's go with that. Correlation and causation are virtually the same word.

 

[FootyLovin]

Let's go with that. Correlation and causation are virtually the same word.

Both start with c. I'm sold.