Why don't we do a 4-3-3 with Fabian Johnson at RM, Brek Shea or Chandler (once he gets some training in with Stoke) at LM, Bradley in the middle, then some combo of Dempsey/Altidore/Gomez/Johnson up top?

Johnson is a left sided player. Manny's got a typo on that since he listed two RMs. You could play Johnson at LM, but then who is your LB? Castillo has been inconsistent, but there isn't anyone clearly better. Eric Lichaj has apparently faded into obscurity, Bocanegra can't play outside anymore, everyone else failed to take over the job when the US was just dying for a LB solution.

Seems like Klinsy is trying to get the most talented players on the field regardless if they are playing out of position or not, so far it's not working.

I disagree. He has been leaving more talented players on the bench in favor of his guys. Fitness being equal, Gomez shouldn't be starting over Altidore, Orsco Fiscal shouldn't be on the roster let alone start, Edu should probably play over Williams in key games.

Why don't we do a 4-3-3 with Fabian Johnson at RM, Brek Shea or Chandler (once he gets some training in with Stoke) at LM, Bradley in the middle, then some combo of Dempsey/Altidore/Gomez/Johnson up top?

Seems like Klinsy is trying to get the most talented players on the field regardless if they are playing out of position or not, so far it's not working.

I agree with the other comment it isn't quite enough defense.

If you want to play guys like Fabian or Shea outside, you're still want Bradley and another central player with Bradley, which is essentially what Bradley when he used a 4-man midfield like Dempsey-Bradley-Clark-Donovan. With Bradley, both of the CMs played typical box to box, but that isn't necessary, one of them could also be a more stay at home DM, which should make the defense more solid than under Bradley, but put more attackers on than Klinsmann.

Assuming we were stuck with the guys called this past game (and we're not), they could play Dempsey and Fabian outside and use Bradley and one of Williams, Jones or Edu in the middle and Johnson and Altidore up top. You could switch Eddie Johnson and Dempsey if you wanted as well. If you still wanted Fabian at LB, you could use Gomez either up top or on one of the wings. You'd essentially be removing one of Jones or Williams for another attacker, but still have a dedicated DM.

If you want stick to 5 midfielders there other options. Bradley could deep and with of Jones/Edu/Williams next to him, Dempsey as a central attacker and the Johnsons/Gomez on the wings. Another option is Bradley/Williams/Jones/Edu deep, one of Bradley/Jones at one CM, one of Zusi/Kljestan at the other CM and two of Johnson/Dempsey/Gomez wide.

There are a lot of ways to take the same roster and put what would probably be a more balanced lineup on the field. Replacing a few guys on the roster would add even more options.

Johnson is a left sided player.

Johnson is right footed, but is good with both feet, he can play either side, but he usually plays on the left because there are usually less left footed players. Dempsey used to play on the left a lot as well, but can play almost anywhere.

I am presuming it is Spurs for shots or else you probably wouldn't have mentioned it. I know it is CIty for shots on target conceded by some margin.

Just shots conceded, Grover. WhoScored only splits out SoT on the attacking stats, not defensive.

I'm collecting the data week to week - because I have an exciting life and many friends - and while City are well ahead of the pack in shots on target allowed (~2.6/game), Tottenham are solidly second (~3.2/game) ahead of Liverpool at 3.6 and Everton at 3.9.

Some stat notes:

-City continue to dominate in underlying stats, but they're still converting chances at a rate well below league average. I just have a lot of trouble imagining that will continue, given their forward talent.
-United have returned to about league average conversion rates in the last month and a half, but they keep winning anyway.
-Liverpool attack has caught up - on the season, they have actually scored more goals than would be expected based on underlying shooting and big chance numbers. They've been converting chances at an amazing rate since mid-December. Their new problem is that their G/GA numbers haven't converted into points at expected rates.
-Everton by contrast continue to produce significantly fewer goals than their chances would project. If they can't get a striker in form soonish, they're going to fall back. No one has had an easier schedule than Everton so far.
-Reading still probably suck. (Sorry Baldrick.) They've had a few weeks of ridiculous shot conversion (11 G on 19 shots on target) and poor opponent chance conversion, leading to some good recent results, but I see little reason to expect that will continue.
-Chelsea under Benitez might even have been lucky to take the points they have recently. Their underlying numbers for the last six gameweeks aren't meaningfully better than Swansea's or Southampton's.

Also, QPR's recent defensive form looks like a bit of a mirage. (Or, in part, a Julio Cesar in crazy form effect). Their defense has been significantly below average in all of shots / shots on target / shots in the box / big chances allowed, even as they're been brilliant at preventing their opponents from scoring.

I've watched a bunch of QPR for some reason this month, and it does seem like they rely on Cesar saving two or three excellent shots plus a big chance or two going awry every game. Cesar is good, maybe even excellent, but allowing 50% fewer goals than would be expected based on competition (QPR's form the last six weeks) can't be sustainable with their talent level.

Johnson is right footed, but is good with both feet, he can play either side, but he usually plays on the left because there are usually less left footed players. Dempsey used to play on the left a lot as well, but can play almost anywhere.

He is right footed, but he plays on the left for club and country. I'd prefer to keep him on the side he is used to, we have enough problems with playing guys in uncomfortable roles.

BTW, regarding SOT allowed, the top 5 are:

MCI 2.52
TOT 3.08
EVE 3.48
LIV 3.60
STO 3.88

Top 5 SOT differential:

MCI 3.44
TOT 3.16
EVE 2.20
LIV 1.68
ARS 1.24

The lack of United in the second group indicates how ridiculously clinical their finishing has been this season.

Speaking of, quick quiz: which team is second behind United in conversion of shots on target into goals? Hint: it's not Chelsea (they are third at 40.2%).

EDIT: ####, didn't see Matt Clement's post above. He already stole some of my thunder.

He is right footed, but he plays on the left for club and country. I'd prefer to keep him on the side he is used to, we have enough problems with playing guys in uncomfortable roles.

When he first started at Hoffenheim he would play all over, so he has experience on both sides, although since then he's settled into a more steady LB role, but I agree keeping on the left is usually going to be a good idea, but if it's between him at RM and playing Jones or Kljestan out of position there, I'd rather use Johnson.

In the suggested situation with Castillo playing LB and moving to Johnson midfield, if played left midfield, any of Dempsey, Gomez or Eddie Johnson could play on the right (EJ would be out position, but he already is on the left). If Shea is healthy for the next few games, he's left-footed and has experience on both sides, guys like Beasley, Pontius and Gatt I think can all play both sides as well and Donovan obviously can if he comes back.

BTW, regarding SOT allowed, the top 5 are:

My numbers are slightly different because I add shots off woodwork to shots on target - I figure they have to be just as good, really, for projection purposes. That's as much a shot on target as is an easily saved strike to the keeper's chest. Liverpool weirdly have not had a single opposition shot hit the post or crossbar all year. But the numbers all come out pretty much the same.

I'm collecting the data week to week - because I have an exciting life and many friends - and while City are well ahead of the pack in shots on target allowed (~2.6/game), Tottenham are solidly second (~3.2/game) ahead of Liverpool at 3.6 and Everton at 3.9.

The Spurs absolutely dominated the month of December on both sides of the ball. In my ratings, they went from 7th/8th to a solid 4th, just a bit behind Liverpool. They have been playing absolutely superbly since Dembele regained full fitness.

Not that anyone here didn't know that already.

Also, QPR's recent defensive form looks like a bit of a mirage. (Or, in part, a Julio Cesar in crazy form effect). Their defense has been significantly below average in all of shots / shots on target / shots in the box / big chances allowed, even as they're been brilliant at preventing their opponents from scoring.

QPR has actually been better against better competition recently, mainly because they haven't even attempted to come out from the back on anything but a clear counter. Norwich and especially West Ham tore them up statistically, but City, Chelsea and Spurs were all kept below their season production in my metric.

It will be interesting to see how QPR play going forward. They are 6 points out of safety and I don't think they can draw themselves out of relegation. They are going to have to score somehow and that may very well lead to the backline caving and Cesar being their only hope.

Norwich and especially West Ham tore them up statistically, but City, Chelsea and Spurs were all kept below their season production in my metric.

Huh, you're right. I have the Chelsea performance particularly excellent, and in the other two as you said they kept elite opposition below expectations by 10% or so. I was just looking at rough six-week form, which also includes them getting completely shredded by Liverpool at the end of the holiday rush of games.

Reading still probably suck. (Sorry Baldrick.) They've had a few weeks of ridiculous shot conversion (11 G on 19 shots on target) and poor opponent chance conversion, leading to some good recent results, but I see little reason to expect that will continue.

Oh, they definitely suck. The only reason it might continue is magic. But...magic won them the Championship last year, so it could always happen again.

Oh, they definitely suck. The only reason it might continue is magic. But...magic won them the Championship last year, so it could always happen again.

BTW, the answer to my lame trivia question was Reading. As Matt indicated they have scored on 11 of 19 and were well above average before that. Progrebnyak and Le Fondre have 15 goals on 27 shots on target. That's pretty amazing actually.

Liverpool attack has caught up - on the season, they have actually scored more goals than would be expected based on underlying shooting and big chance numbers. They've been converting chances at an amazing rate since mid-December. Their new problem is that their G/GA numbers haven't converted into points at expected rates.

Hmmm, significantly underperforming the component numbers...where have I heard that before? Is this shaping up like it's an FSG calling card or what?

Anfield and Fenway, home of the pythagorean champions of the woooooorld.

Good news for Pompey.

MLS ASTON VILLA ok, ok SPURS THINK FACTORY
Well-traveled pro footballer Rohan Ricketts writes about erstwhile Spur and new Villan Simon Dawkins and the influence of Tim Sherwood, with bonus hatchet work on David Pleat!

Dawkins is an interesting gauge to measure MLS, I think. He's been very good in MLS, but not an all star or anything. If he can step into Villa and hold his own I think that will speak well of MLS and maybe make MLS a more attractive loan destination for PL teams looking to get players game time.

More boring stats stuff. So, I don't know if this is common knowledge, or if maybe it's not common knowledge because I did something wrong. But I hadn't read this before, and I've got 20 years of Premier League stats that fit.

The relationship between goal difference and points can be modeled with a really simple linear function. For a 38-game season, something in the range of .65(GD) + 50. I'd be interested to see if this holds true for other leagues - I did the fit off odd seasons and it worked almost equally well for even seasons. It'd be worth playing around with whether this has any particular predictive utility. I assume folks have done the work, but I couldn't find it anywhere online.

MCoA, what's the layman's-terms description of that equation -- 65% of the variation in points can be explained through goal differential? I'm a bit rusty on interpretations, as I'm now a couple years removed from econometrics.

Oh, man, you make it sound so much more impressive than it is. I'm saying that a simple linear function of (0.65 x Goal Differential) + 50 = Expected Points. The 50 (~52, actually) is just the y-intercept. I get an r-squared of about .93.

The relationship between goal difference and points can be modeled with a really simple linear function. For a 38-game season, something in the range of .65(GD) + 50. I'd be interested to see if this holds true for other leagues - I did the fit off odd seasons and it worked almost equally well for even seasons. It'd be worth playing around with whether this has any particular predictive utility.

It seems like a pretty decent quick and dirty way to tell if a team is under- or over-performing without getting down to the nitty gritty of looking at the more sabery stuff like shots on target.

Using your equation and pro-rating a team's GD/game over a full season compared to their current points total pro-rated over a full season, I came up with some very coarse rankings. The number is expected end of season points by current point per game rate minus expected end of season points by current goal difference.

TOP THREE UNDERPERFORMERS
Arsenal -7.4
Liverpool -7.1
QPR -5.4

TOP THREE OVERPERFORMERS
Manchester United +15.6
Aston Villa +7.6
Norwich City +7.4

If this method does have any predictive utility in the short term, that's really bad news for Villa.

The team that this method says is most likely to end up closest to where it "should" be? Wigan (-0.3).

EDIT: If I use 52 instead of 50 as the constant, then the overperformers are less overperformy and the underperformers are more underperformy. And the team that projects to finish with as many points as it "should" is Newcastle (-0.1).

According to this astonishingly strange BBC article--based on real math!--the top five managers in England this year are:

(1) Sir Alex
(2) Eddie Howe
(3) Malky Mackay
(4) Mancini
(5) Dave Flitcroft

I'm just going to put this out there: I don't think this list is worth much.

Any list without Big Sam at or near the top surely isn't worth a tinker's damn.

It's not that surprising that final GD would predict final points. The problem is goal scoring (and goal...allowing) are somewhat flukey events, so the GD itself is going to take time to stabilize. Also is that raw GD or GD per game? Because the former will accumulate over time for the good teams.

Big Sam is down at down at #74, only 54 spots behind Gianfranco Zola. But 17 spots ahead of Alan Pardew, in the category of recent Hammer managers. (Avram Grant, of course, is unranked and, I believe, unemployed at the moment.) Other notables:

'Arry: 92
AVB: 19
Wenger: 29
Sean O'Driscoll: 41
Sean O'Driscoll: 42*
Mark Hughes: 121 (of 122)


*Not a typo, he's listed twice for his management of different clubs. This seems profoundly stupid to me.

So teams that have won the most points have managers that have won the most points? Thanks BBC! That was a a lot of effort to show Di Matteo was getting better results than Rafa Benitez.

The problem is goal scoring (and goal...allowing) are somewhat flukey events, so the GD itself is going to take time to stabilize.

Right, but in theory not quite as flukey as game results.

(By the way, the only team to overperform the linear model the last ten years by any amount - you guessed it, Fergie's Man United. About three points per year more than the model expects. This doesn't appear to be a function of just being really good, since Arsenal and Liverpool have slightly underperformed in producing points, while Chelsea sits right on the regression line over the last decade.)

So, my class got cancelled today along with my office hours and I figured that meant a free morning. One last thing, then to grading and editing. (Or, one last thing and I'll stop cluttering up this thread with charts.)

These are sort of like projected standings for the Premier League. The first is based on goal difference, with a schedule adjustment (quality of opposition and home/road). The second is based on expected goal difference, based on shots and chances, with a similar schedule adjustment.

Standings 1 (Goal Difference)
51 Manchester United
49 Manchester City
49 Chelsea
46 Arsenal
44 Liverpool
44 Tottenham
37 Everton
32 Swansea
32 Sunderland
31 Stoke City
31 Newcastle United
31 West Bromwich Albion
30 Southampton
29 Fulham
29 Norwich City
28 West Ham United
27 Reading
22 Aston Villa
22 Queens Park Rangers
20 Wigan Athletic

Standings 2 (xGD)
54 Manchester City
49 Manchester United
44 Liverpool
43 Tottenham Hotspur
42 Everton
40 Arsenal
40 Chelsea
34 Swansea City
32 West Bromwich Albion
32 Fulham
31 West Ham United
31 Southampton
31 Stoke City
31 Newcastle United
29 Norwich City
27 Aston Villa
27 Queens Park Rangers
26 Sunderland
25 Wigan Athletic
17 Reading

And to be clear, of course I understand that football is super complicated, and I haven't done enough work to figure out what level of predictive utility (if any) these numbers have. (When I looked at past seasons, even/odd gameweeks, SoT and "big chances" in even weeks were better at predicting goals scored in odd weeks than simply goals scored in even weeks, so that's a little bit of something.)

On Wednesday, the Tunisian referee who was ultimately frustrated in trying to hand the semi-final to Ghana was suspended.

Today, Pitropia's red card has been rescinded, and he will be playing for Burkina Faso in the final.

For once, the CAF has done the right thing. Nigeria remain big favorites to win, but at least Burkina Faso now have a puncher's chance.

By the way, the only team to overperform the linear model the last ten years by any amount - you guessed it, Fergie's Man United.

Managing to the score!

I prefer Standings 1!!!

Surprised by international match fixing....dont be!

Big article in ESPN today

English clubs as classic Penguin book covers.

Uh oh. Bob Ley reports that games in the US were part of the massive match fixing ring, including a USMNT game, but says that the fixing did not involve the USMNT and it's unclear if the fix actually happened. He specifically said the Mexico 5 - El Salvador 0 Gold Cup 2011 game at Cowboys stadium was one. The US vs El Salvador friendly in 2010 is another. There was a 92nd minute goal by the US.

English clubs as classic Penguin book covers.

Shooty likes that, but he's not sure how he can show it off at Kinsale's. Bad form to carry it around?

Matt -

I have seen work of a similar vein elsewhere. I will have to find the link when I get to my home CPU.

RE: match fixing -

I think Americans have their head in the sand regarding fixing across the board. IMO, Tim Donaghy is just the tip of the iceberg. This isn't isolated to soccer.

This isn't isolated to soccer.

Don't want to derail the thread, but it's extremely hard to fix NBA games and there was never any evidence that Donaghy was anything other then a guy with a lot of gambling debt that got involved with the wrong people -- when he got scared he squawked so he could get a book deal and federal protection.

RE: match fixing -

I think Americans have their head in the sand regarding fixing across the board. IMO, Tim Donaghy is just the tip of the iceberg. This isn't isolated to soccer.

I'd be shocked if it wasn't rampant among college sports. hose are just too easy targets for it not to be.

Don't want to derail the thread, but it's extremely hard to fix NBA games

Final score, for sure.
Over/unders though? Call a bunch of ticky-tack fouls on both offenses. Let defenses get away with stuff. Presto.
Prop bets? Player x will foul out. There will be >x FT in the game. Incredibly easy to fix.

Don't want to derail the thread, but it's extremely hard to fix NBA games

As mentioned above, the game themselves are not always fixed but elements of them--cards, possessions and so on--can be.

What Fancy Pants Handle (fantastic, btw) said. There are also alternative lines that can be bet. And teasers. And half lines. And quarter lines. And live betting. There are so many combinations that it is impossible to mitigate IMO.

The internet has changed sports gambling forever, at least for those with the will and means to fund and collect offshore.

I'd be shocked if it wasn't rampant among college sports. hose are just too easy targets for it not to be.

Me too. You think anyone is going to bat an eye if SIU-Edwardsville loses by a few too many against SE Missouri State because their best player kept jacking threes?

Hell, last season I had the opportunity to bet on Loyola Marymount - La Sierra basketball game. Who is La Sierra you ask? An NAIA program located in Riverside, CA. They went 13-17 last season. For whatever reason, they were in Loyola's December tournament and, even more inexplicably, they were given a spread. The spread was about 23 I believe and they proceeded to lose by 42.

You don't think it wouldn't have been simple as all Hell for a bookie to get a player or even the coach on the take? Few paid attention to the game and even those that did really didn't know what to expect. That game could have been fixed and no one anywhere would have known.

Don't want to derail the thread, but it's extremely hard to fix NBA games

I dont think so. Especially with the amount of money that the players spend. It wouldn't take that much for a player to have an off night and this isn't even figuring if the refs are on the level.

I dont think so. Especially with the amount of money that the players spend.

Which of course would make it rather expensive to buy them off, They're not going to be tempted into illegality by money that wouldn't even cover a night out with their entourage, there's a reason the gangs target poorer countries.

Isn't the thing with gambling on the American sports that the risk/reward just doesn't make it worthwhile? I'm not saying that it can't be accomplished. Just that the individuals involved have much less incentive to consider it since they would be putting their very comfortable salaries at risk. So I'm referring to top division pro leagues. Can you get away with it? Yes. Is it worth throwing away a nice six figure salary and pension? Not so much.

And to be clear, I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm just not sure it would be happening with anywhere near the frequency that takes place in a Serie C2 game. And I mean less than 1%. Maybe that's me being naive.

Of course, as I was typing this I thought of aging athletes running out of big paydays that have fathered one too many kids, had one too many in the posse to support, had one too many failed business endeavor, etc. So I suppose that those guys would be the ones most likely to engage in a fix. (I'd also argue that these kind of players have unrealistic expectations in terms of a payoff -- I could see them asking for $50K+ to fix a game.) I still think that's much less likely to happen than in a league where every single participant and official doesn't make enough to avoid the temptation.

[Typed as 545 & 546 were posted ...]

As mentioned above, the game themselves are not always fixed but elements of them--cards, possessions and so on--can be.

That's spot fixing, which can be really hard to detect. This is about match fixing.

re: fixing

I've never bought the arguments that shaving at some level is not rampant in sports in America. The NBA and NFL in particular have their collective heads in the sand regarding the issue. NBA people will usually argue that the athletes make too much money to be involved.

Really? In a world where some of those guys are getting advances on paychecks and felons are reffing games? I'm not saying games are fixed (although with a league owned team vetoing trades and winning the lottery who could tell) but prop bets would be easy.

I'd say the same sort of the thing in the NFL also isn't all that hard to arrange and probably goes on.

College sports, I agree its probably widespread.

But that's enough, I've rambled too long on other sports. Don't want to derail the thread.

edit to add: Hadn't seen your comment Topher. I don't think the argument that they make too much money to risk it is a strong one. Many athletes live paycheck to paycheck. There may also be pressure from the posse for some money on their end. I have a friend at work whose cousin ran in Iverson's entourage. Some of the stories are crazy.

And to be clear, I would be very surprised to find games actually thrown in a major sports league in America. But the nonchalance towards some of the other stuff that likely goes on has always surprised me.

Matt -

Here's two links discussing using Pythagorean principles applied to the EPL. There are more out there but these were two I had saved previously.