Expansion teams in the MLS - how do we match up?
by RHM on Jul 18, 2011 11:09 AM PDT
Email
PrintAs people state "well we are an expansion team" I thought on this cloudy afternoon it might be interesting to see how the Whitecaps compare to previous MLS expansion teams. I divided it into teams that effectively started from scratch as new organizations (These teams had to deal with ramping up a new soccer operation as well as a team - a tough situation at best) and teams that had an established organization which effectively "jumped" to the MLS (these teams had a fairly mature organization and could focus more on the team). I did not look at goal differential just wins and points.
1) Teams that started from scratch (e.g. Did not have an established organization prior to the start)
a) Philadelphia (2010) : 8 wins, 15 losses, 7 ties – 31 pts. (30 games we have 34 games now).
b) Toronto (2007): 6 wins, 17 losses, 7 ties – 25 pts. (30 games)
c) San Jose (2007): 8 wins, 13 losses, 9 ties – 33 pts. (30 games)
d) Real Salt Lake (2005): 5 wins, 22 losses, 5 ties – 20 pts. (32 games)
e) Chivas USA (2005): 4 wins, 22 losses, 6 ties – 18 pts. (32 games)
f) Chicago Fire (1998) : 20 w, 12 L – 56 pts (32 games,no ties, won the cup their first year!)
g) Miami Fusion (1998): 15 w, 17 L – 35 pts (again 32 games no ties)
2) Teams that started with an established organization
a) Seattle (2009): 12 wins, 7 losses, 11 ties – 47 pts (30 games, and they made the playoffs)
b) Portland (2011): 6 wins, 9 losses, 3 ties – 21 pts. This is after 18 games thus far
c) Vancouver (2011): 2 wins, 10 losses, 8 ties – 14 pts. This is after 20 games thus far.
Suffice it to say that with our well established organization prior to this season we should have a record closer to Seattle (and Portland) however as a minimum we need 5 wins and 20 pts have a better record than Chivas (adjusted for 34 games) and avoid being the worst MLS expansion franchise of all time.
We need 7 wins and 28 pts to be able to say we are better than TFC was in their first year (adjusted for 34 games).
I hope we can win at least 3 more games and avoid the tag as the worst MLS expansion franchise ever. Personally if we do not better TFC in their first year then this season has been a failure
RHM
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
hmmmm
My first fanpost ended up here. I must have screwed up the publishing.
by RHM on Jul 18, 2011 1:21 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Until The Man puts it on the front page, they show up on the sidebar. But Ben has always been kind enough to move things to the FP quite quickly, in my experience, including my rants that likely don’t deserve the honour.
Not always that quickly. I honestly forget to check the FanPost sidebar a lot of the time: if I hadn’t seen the bold “3 new” in the comments field for this one I’d have missed it.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Jul 18, 2011 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I think I’ve been fairly consistent with my stand on this. I am not concerned about the final league table. Sure, I’d love it if the Caps were way up there: it would be excellent for long-term considerations. But I don’t have that expectation. Comparing this team to other expansion teams, beyond the difference in the number of games (which you have addressed fairly), other than Portland, is problematic.
The league was different in those seasons. Different roster rules, different game rules (in the form of the shootout for all ties), different playoff rules, and, probably most importantly, different rosters. One of the most fun things to do as a fan of any sport is to contemplate a dream match up, one that could never happen due to that terrible cosmological scourge, time. Muhammad Ali in his prime vs. Tyson in his prime. Who would win? There is just no way to say. With rosters constantly changing, it is, despite persistent attempts by fans, dangerous to compare performance in one year by one team to performance in another year by another team.
Yes, we can say “the Whitecaps have fewer points than any other expansion team in history” but that doesn’t mean that they are the worst expansion team in history. There is just no way to prove that. All it means is they had fewer points. There is no way for the Whitecaps to play against the expansion teams from those other years. With Portland entering the league this year too, they are the only fair comparison.
I agree to a point however when trying to defend the whitecaps record to a tfc fan or a Seattle fan , philly fan it comes off a bit desperate to say well things have changed so dramatically since 2007, 2009 , 2010 they can’t be compared. By going back as far as Chivas I was searching for the lowest target but I believe a comparison back 1-4 years is valid. If we finish below tfc I will not use the “yeah but its different now” arguement..I will just cough and change the subject
by RHM on Jul 18, 2011 4:05 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I can understand that, but it that really doesn’t change the situation. Unless you (remarkably) field the same team two years running, even head-to-head comparisons aren’t truly accurate or perfectly valid. It’s not something most fans will consider, and that’s fine, but it is a bias in their comparison, not the facts.
I argue that the only thing factual in the end are the stats, anything else shows bias as well as people try and dig for “reasons”. Lets just hope the stats do not place us as having the worst MLS expansion record (maybe not team although that will be lost in translation)
by RHM on Jul 19, 2011 6:39 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
