Much of my summer was spent on a consulting project that I did in conjunction with ESPN, in which I helped them a design a soccer ratings system known as the Soccer Power Index (SPI). SPI launched today and we're pretty proud of the results, which feature a combination of intuitive (Brazil and Spain are #1 and 2, natch) and somewhat bolder rankings (SPI is fond of 'second-tier' South American teams like Chile, Uruguay, and Paraguay, as well as African up-and-comers Ivory Coast). The United States is ranked 14th.
Unlike other soccer ratings systems, SPI is explicitly designed to be predictive -- so a team like Argentina, which in fact struggled to qualify for the World Cup, won't be penalized that much provided the system is convinced that the talent is still there. The two main innovations in the SPI are to incorporate results from club play -- if Cameroonian striker Samuel Eto'o scores a goal for Inter Milan, it will (marginally) help Cameroon's rating -- as well as to incorporate a "competitiveness coefficient" based on the actual lineups that each team used in each match. The latter is important because international soccer clubs play a lot of matches -- friendlies, some second-tier international tournaments -- in which they're essentially sending their taxi squads in, which tell us very little about the teams that will actually be on the field in South Africa next year.
Anyway, this is a politics blog -- not a sports one -- so I'll direct you over to the very, very, long article on methodology I did at ESPN.com if you're curious about the details -- or check out the Wall Street Journal's Carl Bialak for a good capsule summary.
11.11.2009
For the Soccer Fans Among You
@ 8:13 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
95 comments
Italy at 11? Wowsa.
Great article, congrats! Maybe now you can find some time to explain your thinking behind the Palin bet with Tom Schaller? Or, are you waiting for her book when it becomes obvious to everyone that she is, indeed, running for President?
Gooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooal!!!!!!
Isn't Ivory Coast number 11?
Run, Half-Baked, run.
You have Oceania ranked higher than Concacaf? Come on...
How does this compare with Voros' rankings?
I saw this on ESPN.com's main page this morning. Good luck on the new venture.
Anything has to be better than the official FIFA rankings which have so many flaws in it that it is considered a joke by soccer (football) fans.
zackc, I think you need to re-read the methodology. I don't think he's saying that Oceania is better than Concacaf, just that on average, the teams take an Oceania world cup qualifier marginally more seriously than a Concacaf one in terms of starting all their best players, hence the result is given slightly more significance in cases where they don't know the exact line-up of the teams.
Nate, I'm skeptical that such a system doesn't account for the different formations in which a player might find himself when he transitions from club to country. His value in various systems of play isn't identical, and so the weight that he carries for his club will be disproportionate to his strengths/weaknesses on the national side. See Clint Dempsey or Frank Lampard for a typical example of this.
I'm also skeptical that you can isolate individual ability using goals as your only measurement of a player's success. Goals scored in soccer have a weaker predictive value than points scored in other sports, such as baseball. Whereas every interaction between hitter and pitcher is a closed situation, and thus measures success relatively well (through outs/hits), goals scored in soccer just aren't that predictive. The bottom line is that you'll find more soccer games than baseball games in which the final score inadequately represents the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two sides on that given day.
Now with that being said, I wish your system well -- it has to be better than the current FIFA rankings. I just don't see a way to work sabermetric magic on the beautiful game.
I saw this on ESPN this morning, and I was hoping you'd link to it here. It's interesting reading the comments on ESPN compared to the comments on the articles here. It's a very different audience... I particularly liked the guy who offered a lifetime supply of beer to the first guy who read all the methodology.
I saw this on ESPN this morning and squealed in glee. Excellent rankings, I like them a lot.
And by the way, if Gay Marriage is ever legalized in PA, and you want to move here and get gay married to someone you don't know... i'm available.
The girl's soccer team at my high school have won (4) state titles and are currently trying to win their 5th and the boys soccer team has won (3).
Other than that don't care much for soccer, those 0-0 World Cup games being sooo riveting lol.
But Brandi Chastain taking her soccer jersey off after the U.S. won the 1999 Women's World Cup at the Rose Bowl was somewhat interesting. ;)
And after the U.S. Women's team won the 1996 Olympic gold medal they took their clothes off and ran around the streets of Atlanta nude at night to fulfill a bet and having a pic of Mia Hamm and her teammates in their birthday suits would be nice! :)
Yea, seeing them nude would be a good reason to shout ... GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!
carry on
shiloh, please put (NSFW) next to links like that.
#14? Sweet!
Persuter said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Actually my high school is very conservative. ;) OK, have no idea, Jesuits being sooo finicky ...
When in doubt, don't look, but I will take your post under advisement.
unless NATE factored in the influence of the referees into his predictive formula, then not much to see here.
futbol/soccder is the most heavily influenced sport by the zebras in determining the eventual 'winners' or ties [especially with the free kicks awarded, red cards & stoppage time manipulations inherent in gaming the sport]
yes, even worse than college football & pro baseball + roundball combined since they have such direct impact on the ultimate score [or lack thereof]
bend that one...
I'm sckeptical about England being third or Uruguar being better than Italy.
But the exercise is very welcome.
Good luck.
You should be on Bill Simmons podcast and talk about this
Nate, do you ever sleep, and if so, during which hour of each week?
When in doubt, don't look
I wasn't at work when I clicked on the link, luckily, but I would have never guessed that it contained a naked picture of Brandy Chastain. NSFW tags are common Internet courtesy - please use them in future. It's not a matter of "conservative" - a manager who looks the other way on things like that can be accused of creating a hostile working environment.
(P.S. Whatever happened to the word Netiquette? Just doesn't seem like you hear it anymore.)
Are you able to put confidence limits around a team's rating?
Thx,
P
Any extra attention on football is appreciated, where do you watch your games at Nate? Maybe I'll get a chance to meet up with you here in NYC.
I wish Nate would turn his attention to real football - that is to say, US college football.
Come on, Nate - what are the odds that the Longhorns win the national championship this year? Why do you only apply math to the boring sports? :P
Consider that the BCS uses mathematical ranking systems already. Make your own much more awesome ranking system and sell it to them! :D
So... the methodology seems sound enough (at least, on first blush), but if these results are meant to be predictive, well, there's a problem. If they are meant to show 'here is a sum of how well the players of a country are performing now, and have performed for the last couple of months', well, fine.
But seriously; Honduras are going to be the team that everyone wants to be drawn with come the world cup. England, whom, for my sins, I see a lot of, are far, far, far, far away from being the third best team in the world.
Portugal are a mess, France are a mess (both teams having decent players, but clueless managers), Ireland are a workmanlike side with a manager who knows how to get results (see also, Greece in 2004. Not that Ireland will win anything, but they're a better team than... six teams above them?)
I struggle to believe Chile at eight, too.
Overall, though, it's nice to see an attempt at a statistically rigourous approach taken to rating the qualities of international football teams; hopefully this will be the start of good things to come
I have two passions - psephology & football (soccer). Knocked out by 538 since Obama campaign. I can see that your football ranking are fine predictive assessments. These highly critical of your system's outcomes on ESPN seem to be talking about what has happened - not what is likely to happen. That Argentina and France are likely to play better than they have (and better than their FIFA ranking) seems eminently logical. Congrats!
PS My other passion is Lawn Bowls - any statistical thoughts on that game?
Persuter said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Was just being snarky re: conservative ie ;) ~ not too long ago posted a NSFW video of Stormy Daniels in the David Vitter thread, and nobody seemed to care. But alas ;) that thread went nowhere 'cause 538's conservative winger trolls did not want to discuss Diaper Dave lol go figure.
And yes, technically Brandi was naked, but she didn't show anything per se, just her ball! Not really all that racy imo, different strokes for different folks. Hey, Carrie Prejean, Hannity's babe ;) will be the first to tell you, pornography is not a big deal and everyone should have their own sex tape ...
TMI
OK (3) posts in a soccer thread at a political blog, I'm done.
I think the main criticisms of this methodology apply to pretty much any metric that tries to measure how good a team is. For example, baseball's WAR doesn't take into account batting orders / defensive lineups (comparable to soccer's formations), nor does it take into account the skill of the coach or team chemistry (which also have an effect in soccer, obviously).
England were unbeaten (IIRC they won them all) in meaningful qualifying matches; I'm sure that's why they're ranked so high. Italy, meanwhile, were probably punished for their inability to record convincing victories over inferior teams (e.g. 0-0 draw at Bulgaria, 3-2 win at home against Cyprus).
Meanwhile, Uruguay had convincing victories against the likes of Bolivia (5-0 at home) and Peru (6-0 at home); against the larger teams they had some good results, like 2-2 and 0-0 draws against Chile (ranked very highly overall) and they "only" lost 2-1 at Brazil.
I think if you look deep enough, it all makes sense. Maybe Uruguay would lose to Italy in a head-to-head game more often than not, but based on qualifying results, I can defend a Uruguay > Italy ranking.
FIFA used to take home field and score difference into account for their rankings, but then they decided to tweak their formula virtually every year until they got the rankings pretty much how they like them. Sadly the FIFA rankings do actually count for something as they influence who gets the seeds for the World Cup.
Nate
A very interesting approach. I think however that it will need refining over time. The US appears to be low rated because as professionals US players either play in the low rated MLS or ride the pine in Europe. I have long said that the best opportunity for US players to show their true skills is on the national team. I think the Confederations Cup was an example of that.
The US is legitimately a top ten team as their victories in South Africa show. I promise you they would beat either Ivory Coast or Russia convincingly.
Very cool, but the proof will be in the playing. Can't wait to see how this works out in real games. As stated above, does the SPI depend too much on goals in strong leagues, and not enough on the team play when the team is actually playing together.
LADUUUUUUUUUUMA! Too bad South Africa is #65. And they did so well during the Confederations Cup.
This is awesome, Nate!
Nate,
This is great. Some of the ranking and predictive systems are so bad that a knowledgeable soccer fan couldn't even take them seriously. I look forward to evaluating how your system works in practice.
This is very interesting, Nate, and it certainly appears to be a marked improvement over the FIFA rankings. Congratulations!
I made a couple of observations while reading your guide to the SPI. Some of them I want to think through myself before saying anything, but the one I do want to point out now is that Ronaldinho didn't receive a caution against England in 2002; he was sent off.
Loath though I am to second guess Nate's maths, I can't see England as third favourites.
Most of the England players play in the English league, which has most of the richest clubs and therefore the best players. (Look at the finalists in the Champions' League [European Cup] over the last five years - Liverpool, Arsenal, Liverpool again, Man United, Chelsea, Man United again.)
Maybe that's why English players look better to the system - they're playing with better players.
Or maybe that's rubbish... either way, we'll find a way to f*ck it up.
Nate, I noticed a minor error towards the end of your ESPN post:
"(.88 x 3) + (0.09 x 1) + (.3 x 0)
(1.00 x 3)
...which evaluates to 0.91, which..."
The .3 should be .03, since it refers to 3%. Of course multiplying by zero will give the same result anyway.
I was confused, though, about what the "(1.00 x 3)" line means. Why is it there, and is it added or subtracted to something? And where does the 0.91 come from? It seems like the formula is missing a step, or maybe I just missed it.
Now, if only they'll hire you to fix the BCS.
Boing, as an American, having watched a bunch of their WC qualifiers, England absolutely deserves to be number 3. Who do you honestly think has looked better than them lately other than Brazil and Spain? The only even plausible answer is the Netherlands. Doesn't mean they can't crash out in spectacular fashion at the WC, but any ranking below 4 for them would be a joke.
Pretense:
"The SPI rating is designed to provide the best possible objective representation of a team's current overall skill level."
Truth:
The SPI rating is designed to facilitate betting on soccer.
The FIFA rankings have much improved since it has changed its methodology. I remember the days when CONCACAF teams were grossly overrated by the FIFA list.
In any case, Nate is taking into account more data, which really helps avoid the pitfalls of overblowing a bad run in the few games a national side plays each year.
Anyway, I'll take Nate's ranking into account when I shall do trades on a mock World Cup stock exchange. I had a lot of Ivory Coast in my portfolio in 2006, though sadly they didn't live up to my hopes. And those dastardly Italians made a hash of my "buy France" policy. Grrrr....
As a German, I'm pleased, though a bit surprised, we're rated that highly. But then, while other countries might have more star power, we know how to play a tournament.
Anyway, I dare say I'll feature Chile and Ivory Coast in my portfolio. After all the favourites will allow for little profit. Better to opt for a dark horse that has a decent shot at the semi-finals.
As for the US, ranked 14 seems perfectly reasonable to me. Perhaps even a bit on the low side.
Anyway, I wonder what the chances are of the MLS becoming a major football league in coming decades to rival Europe's big four.
Oh, and wouldn't a merger of CONMEBOL and CONCACAF make all the sense of the world? For one, it'd really create a very nice continental competition. Who needs that Gold Cup, after all?
Let's get totally geeky.
http://knol.google.com/k/tarjei-kirkesaether/country-specific-factors-influencing/10y2vsveb11uo/2#
I'll be interested in reading the methodology when I have a moment, given a couple of surprises in the ranking like Chile, Portugal, Ivory Coast and Argentina (the players are worth the top 5, the coach isn't, especially when he doesn't call up his best players).
The real problem of an international soccer ranking is that national teams don't play enough against each other to make a valid statistics. For example, Brazil and Italy in the last 40 years have played only 5 competitive matches against each other (plus a couple of friendlies). Clearly not enough. Including the club results is interesting, but don't know how significant.
Addendum: some official games are not nearly as important as others. Ugen64 brings up Italy's win over Cyprus for 3-2 (Cyprus was actually winning 2-0 well into the second half). The problem with judging that game is that Italy had already clinched the top spot in it's group, therefore it treated that game more like a friendly/training matching starting a lot of reserves who had never played together. This is quite common (big difference between drawing the first match in WC play and the third).
I am skeptical about adding in the club results. This doesn't seem to take into account the differences between how players play for club and for country. I mean, we know that Portugal has a lot of players that are good on the club side - but they have been a mess for country. Yet, because they are good club players, we have Portugal at Number 7. If Portugal had the ability to bring all those good club players together for country, they might deserve a #7 ranking, but they have not yet been able to do so. And so this system seems to rank Portugal too high.
I'll add that the official FIFA rankings have improved greatly in the last couple of years. They always USED to be terrible, but my understanding is that they went to a modified ELO system, which is much better. (I think the ELO ratings - published at eloratings.net - are always pretty good.)
England at #3 ? I'm torn between faith (this time!) and experience (we're doomed) A semi-final exit sounds plausible.
I don't think that English players are flattered by playing in the Premiership. The opposite is true. The competition from players of international quality from around the world is pretty stiff. Just getting into the first team is a tough challenge.
Prediction is tricky though, as Nate clearly recognises. The teams that play in South Africa may differ considerably from the teams that qualified Players can get injured (may God preserve Rooney's metatarsals) or return to form. New talents will probably emerge.
This system is as good as the the tangibles it measures, and I believe that Nate did his homework well. But the intangibles are what defines football (real one, not the American handball that passes for football, I mean if an overweight guy can do it, it can't be called a sport, right?). So, even though England is #3, my prediction is that they will, as always, choke in the final tournament. And God forbid they have to win on a penalty shootout... especially against Germany ;)
So, in conclusion, I wish there was a way to include these less substantial measures in the final rankings. Great job, though!
ugen64:
I agree that formations affect statistical calculations of players' abilities in baseball and in soccer. But there's a massive difference of degree. If Albert Pujols bats 6th in the Cardinals' lineup, his numbers would be slightly but not significantly different than his numbers batting cleanup. There is a much larger discrepancy, however, between Michael Essien playing right back for Chelsea and his attacking role for Ghana. Or even between Frank Lampard's central midfield role at Chelsea (in which he covers large amounts of territory) and for England (in which Rooney is frequently dropping back into Lampard's space to retrieve the ball).
This isn't to suggest that this metric doesn't have some use; I find it really interesting to compare with the FIFA and ELO rankings. But baseball and soccer diverge significantly on the extent to which individual performances can be statistically measured. I'm worried about the potential for ESPN to deliver bad soccer analysis (especially given its track record of hiring commentators with no knowledge of the sport) by over-emphasizing the accuracy of the rating system.
Nate,
Regarding your competitiveness factor -- do you take account of why a sub-optimal lineup may be on the pitch? Injuries and red cards may limit the squad that can be on the pitch, without any reflection to how "serious" the match is being taken.
Case in point -- the Davies-Altidore striker pairing is currently the best U.S. lineup -- but that lineup is not and will not be available until, most likely, after the World Cup. The U.S will have to field a sub-optimal lineup, but not by choice.
Nice!
No hate mail from Guam or American Samoa yet?
Well, Guam anyway. American Samoa knows full well what it did to get that low.
Persuter said...
I wish Nate would turn his attention to real football - that is to say, US college football.
Come on, Nate - what are the odds that the Longhorns win the national championship this year? Why do you only apply math to the boring sports
Hey Persuter, not a snowball's chance in hell. You guys will have to play us (or maybe Bama,...oh hell no), anyway somebody from the SEC. That means... no chance in hell! GO GATORS!!
Since you apparently have them calculated, why not publish the individual player ratings as well, they would be very interesting.
Agree that ESPN should hire you to create a true competing product to the insanely bad BCS...
But does it account for England's legendary propensity for choking? Ha, apparently not! Regardless, I must hope that Italy & Germany once again overcome a relatively poor pre-tournament prognosis to finish in the top 3 again. Perhaps Nate can convince Francesco Totti to play next summer.
I read through the methodology: plenty of moving parts in that model. As game play increases, weights will shift away from players so the ratings will dramatically shift from "talent teams" to "system teams". I'm not sure if that is a great feature, but it will be fun to watch.
Please, please, please do not publish this in England! Those poor sods will be convinced - yet again - that they should be treated as serious contenders for the World Cup. And it will yet again be a big surprise to all of the English when they flame out.
Soccer? Lame.
Nate,
you are great at political stuff. You are baseball guy. Leave soccer alone. Your weigth are SO MEANINGLESS!
Euro at 1? Should be 1.27.
Intercontinentla qualifier at 1.09? Areyou out ofyour mind?
The confed cup at 0.79 which NO ONE except soccer ignoramus people care about.
The oldest country competition, the copa america ranked 0.01 higher than the silly and useless gold cup? No even the US takes the gold cup seriously (e.g. the D team that got trashed 0-5 by MEX in the final).
And how do you define the A team?
Is Benzema part of the France A team?
Will you consider portugal lining up its A team without Ronaldo fort he upcoming two game?
Stick up to a drug filled, cheater game of ball and stick and use your free time trying to save the democrats from themselves and have them build a spine. Leave soccer alone.
BTW, the fact that ESPN went after you does not surprise me because ESPN has ZERO (I repeat ZERO) talent when it comes to analyzing soccer. No wodner they went after the wrong guy for their useless ranking.
Hey Persuter, not a snowball's chance in hell. You guys will have to play us (or maybe Bama,...oh hell no), anyway somebody from the SEC. That means... no chance in hell! GO GATORS!!
First off, you're not playing those wussy Sooners this year. We beat them by the same amount you did last year.
Second, I'd wait until the Alabama - Auburn game before crowing about who's in the national championship. Not saying the SEC won't be there... but it ain't a shoo-in either. :P Two of the six computer rankings already have Cincy over Alabama and they've got two more ranked teams to play. If Alabama loses to Auburn and then beats you...
Finally, how in the world are you going to win a national championship without SEC officials anyway?
Oh now, all y'all have got your favorite sports, football, fütbol, baseball-but I tell you, none of you has any real concept of sport.
You see, sport requires something more than merely hauling a round-ish chunk of animal hide across a chalk-stained lawn. DoN't get me wrong, I do LOVE the tight little uniforms those big handsome men wear for these kinda events. I just think the whole emphasis on points distracts from any real grace or style. What good is an event where any stumbling, bumbling idiot who manages to fall on the right side of the chalk with a ball in his hands gets as many points as someone who manages to do so with grace and dexterity?
No, I tell you, if there WAS a real concept of sport in the world, there would be an Olympic event for drag queens in tight miniskirts and high stiletto heels racing across a highly polished marble floor with a cocktail in hand. You can't spill a drop, you're not allowed to hike up your skirt, and you cannot take off your shoes the whole time. Plus, you must be drunk.
Bonus points for hair. remember always: the bigger the hair, the closer to God.
@Persuter
one word... Tebow! No, actually I think the Horns look great again this year. I hope we get to play. But remember: defending nat champs, 19 consecutive wins, wire to now #1. Somebody has to beat us to take away the crown. Not sayin' it won't happen, but til then we are #1. Chomp Chomp
@ Statler N Waldorf
I think they have that contest at Fantasy Fest. I seem to remember something of the sort. But I was pretty drunk, so it could have just been the opening notes of 'Vogue' on a dance floor in a club.
Gatordad said...
Come on, Nate - what are the odds that the Longhorns win the national championship this year? Why do you only apply math to the boring sports
~~~~~~~~~~
Gator, we have finally found common ground on (1) subject lol.
and not being a soccer aficionado, praise the lord ;) I will make one comment. Games should never end on a tie breaker. If necessary, championship games should be played until the cows come home 'til one team scores a damn goal to break a tie. Especially those riveting 0-0 games as I previously mentioned.
And sorry Gator, not having a passioned interest in any of the competing BCS contenders, this is gonna be Texas' year to win the big one. Also, FL will lose to Alabama.
And it's really quite elementary re: interest in particular sports. America, being a violent country, Americans much prefer contact er collision sports like football ;) whereas other less violent countries prefer fútbol where a "bully" receives a yellow or red card lol.
carry on
p.s. Basketball seems to be the sport that is gaining more and more worldwide interest as it's a 24/7 action paced, contact sport, not as violent as football and much more exciting than zzzzz soccer.
ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Sorry Gatordad. We're comin' for you guys.
Gatordad said...
@ Statler N Waldorf
I think they have that contest at Fantasy Fest. I seem to remember something of the sort. But I was pretty drunk, so it could have just been the opening notes of 'Vogue' on a dance floor in a club.
It was noteworthy enough for you to notice because you saw it right before you fell for that Trap? :)
@MU
'Mr. Universe said...
ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Sorry Gatordad. We're comin' for you guys.'
Bring it Mr. U. We're the Mighty Gators. Somebody is ALWAYS coming for us.
@Dwight
'It was noteworthy enough for you to notice because you saw it right before you fell for that Trap? :)'
I somehow managed to escape. The girlfriend wasn't so lucky. I was, but that's another story for another thread! LMAO!
@Gatordad,
You guys should have a loss already, at the hands of the Arkansas Razorbacks.
If it wasn't for a shady officiating crew (who was SUSPENDED later for making terrible calls), then the Hogs pull it off and you guys are on the outside looking in for the National Title.
*sigh*
And once again it's a battle among the southern teams with no chance for the Golden Gophers.
Still, someone's gotta say Go Big Ten!
@ Mule Rider...
woulda', shoulda', coulda'...
but didn't. so we're 9-0 and Arkansas is what 5-4, 6-3? oh well it really doesn't matter. the record, much like the Razorbacks, inconsequential. maybe next year.
anyway, aren't you SAU, not a hog?
10 states in financial hot water
1. California - BLUE
2. Arizona - RED
3. Rhode Island - BLUE
4. Michigan - BLUE
5. Oregon - BLUE
6. Nevada - LEANING BLUE
7. Florida - PURPLE
8. New Jersey - BLUE
9. Illinois - BLUE
10. Wisconsin - BLUE
honorable mention goes to
Colorado - LEANING BLUE
Georgia - RED
Kentucky - RED
New York - BLUE
Hawaii - BLUE
Anybody see a pattern here?
(hint: 11 are blue or are leaning blue while only 3 are red and 1 is purple)
woulda', shoulda', coulda'...
but didn't.
Yeah, and as I said, it was because they were working against the middle-aged men in stripes as well.
so we're 9-0 and Arkansas is what 5-4, 6-3?
Arkansas is 5-4 but should be 7-4 after the next two weeks with a chance to finish 8-4 if they can muster a win against LSU.
oh well it really doesn't matter. the record, much like the Razorbacks, inconsequential.
Inconsequential? If they win out, and they have a decent shot at it, they will likely find themselves in the Cotton Bowl, one of the more noteworthy non-BCS bowls. Either way, it's been a tough year having both 'Bama and the Gators on the schedule.
maybe next year.
With all of the young studs returning, Arkansas should contend for the SEC West crown and then some next year.
anyway, aren't you SAU, not a hog?
Hey, they're one of only two D1 schools in the state and ASU is the epitome of "inconsequential." So we really just have one. Growing up in Arkansas, there was only one team to root for, no matter where you may have gone to college.
@MR
Just yankin' your chain. I'm a big SEC guy and I like what UA is doing. Mallette has a gun and you guys should definitely improve next year. And for us, it's gonna be really strange not having Timmy terrific. But hey, we got 2 nat champs in 3 years and gunnin' for another, so it's great to be a Gator, today!
Let the record show this thread has turned to college football!
Shocking! :)
carry on
Mule Rider said...
10 states in financial hot water
1. California - BLUE
2. Arizona - RED
3. Rhode Island - BLUE
4. Michigan - BLUE
5. Oregon - BLUE
6. Nevada - LEANING BLUE
7. Florida - PURPLE
8. New Jersey - BLUE
9. Illinois - BLUE
10. Wisconsin - BLUE
Presidential politics =/= state politics. half of those states have republican governors.
I think that the performance of the players should be taken into account- and that exactly is the problem.
Especially the "team sport" assumption is unfortunately completely wrong.
Let's say that most English teams have quite mediocre English players, but very good and expensive foreign players. England is the strongest league of the world, but not even the English would claim that from this follows, that England has the best players.
Now, everyone of them gets a good grade according to your player-based rating, just for their teams.
This explains for example, why England is rated so high in your list.
The result of this is that the national teams with a lot of mediocre players, especially if they play in the top league teams, will be rated very high.
Thus, there is a lot of room for improvement in your list...
I still have to digest you methodology, but a question remains. It seems in reading, that a strong team in a weak confederation is somewhat disadvantaged as opposed to a weak team in a strong confederation.
In addition, a general rule of soccer thinking is that home field advantages are larger in weak confederations than strong confederations. Or are these assumptions not correct?
I do not think the Confederations Cup deserves the coefficient rating given, two of the eight slots are non-competitive selection (providing you believe that winning a World Cup in the previous year is not the same as winning a tournament) meaning that some team selections may not embrace a level of importance that a WC qualifier would have. In addition it means that two confederations would have an extra team; Europe,: Italy and Spain and Africa: Egypt and South Africa.Whuich means that these confeserations would score additional points, thus elevating thier confederation higher?
Just a thought!
Good Work
I have no problem with the top 2. England is ranked to high, and so are Portugal, the United States, Chile, Uruguay, Ivory Coast and especially France. Italy should be in the top 5.
Soccer is not baseball, statistics mean very little.
In sum, all efforts to capture soccer rankings, which are largely based on intangibles, are entirely futile.
This is a really interesting project, and I'll be intrigued to see the rankings in action as time goes on.
But here's the really weird thing (possibly boring personal story ahead): A couple of weeks ago I was driving home from work and caught you (Nate) on Hugh Hewitt's radio show (yeah, I know; don't ask; though he obviously was a respectful fan of yours).
I was en route home to settle into a lazy night at the TV for a few hours of soccer watching, including talk shows and other stuff that feed my obsession. And I remember getting into an extensive, disconcerting mental conversation with myself in the car: Hmm, you know, I'll bet this Nate Silver guy doesn't waste away his hours caring about stuff like this. Succesful people advance in life precisely because they DON'T spend lots of their time with stuff like sports. Maybe I need to rethink my life priorities.
It one of those (discomfiting) revelatory-life-moment sorts of moments, which is why it still stands out.
And then here I find out you're actually a big soccer follower, and are now devoting your passions to it in a completely obsessive way.
So yeah -- a really weird turn of events, and oddly reassuring for me on some basic existential level. So, thanks very much, haha...
And then here I find out you're actually a big soccer follower, and are now devoting your passions to it in a completely obsessive way.
I don't know if Nate's a big soccer fan. He's a big baseball fan - that's how he first got known for his statistical predicting prowess.
You're not the only one to be surprised that Nate's a sports guy, though. I remember he was on Keith Olbermann last year during the election (I don't watch him, saw it on Youtube), and mentioned the Phillies, who had just won the World Series, three or four times in the space of five minutes. Olbermann, clearly taken aback, ends the interview with something like, "Nate Silver... he's apparently into baseball..."
(Which says something about Keith Olbermann's background research as much as it does about Nate... but that's not the point. :P)
> Anyway, I wonder what the
> chances are of the MLS becoming
> a major football league in
> coming decades to rival Europe's
> big four.
It seems the chances are surprisingly remote right now at least... True, MLS enjoys decent fan support and is currently expanding into soccer hotbeds such as Seattle. But apart from David Beckham, the league seems unwilling to spend serious money on top players. As a result, most of the top Americans are playing overseas. I can understand why somebody like Tim Howard would prefer Everton or AC Milan to the MLS but most of the U.S. exiles go to small semi pro teams in Scandinavia, Holland or the lower divisions of England, Germany and France. That's bad for "Major League" Soccer, I think ... MLS should at least try to compete with the top leagues of Mexico, Argentina and Brazil which should not prove too difficult. This would mean keeping virtually all U.S. and Canadian internationals in North America as well as having each team sign four experienced foreigners a la Ljungberg/Angel/Blanco. Maybe increased cooperation (e.g. player loans) with top European and Mexican clubs would be the answer?
MARCU$
I watched almost all of Copa America 2007 and there is no way that that tournament should be weighted .25 compared to 1.00 for the European Championship. Brazil and Argentina had about 2 dozen players from your top 4 leagues between them and all the other teams were playing to win. Only the US brought a B-side because US Soccer is run by greedy candy asses who want to beat Canada and collect gate receipts in the Gold Cup.
I also think you have may be covering too long of a time frame with old performances. It might be better to allow for the performances of a nation across other age brackets (U-20, U-17) in a shorter time frame than to go back 8 years to look at old New Zealand scores.
And how do you explain England being so highly ranked and Emile Heskey not being able to get a match for his club? Feed that into your computer and watch it smoke.
But it's all good stuff! Best of luck with the new venture.
Nate,
This is amazing. Thanks so much for your great work. Now can you go one step further and show us the formula for predicting future results? :)
Hmpf, I'm tempted to quibble with many of the individual weighings and other decisions you made in the ranking, which leave teams from the western hemisphere so overrated. But I don't want to express those quibbles here.
What I would really love is for ESPN to include visitor-adjustable sliders that will recalculate the ranking based on different weighings. Basically, for the six most significant "gut" decisions you made, I'd like to be able to set different parameters in case I would make those decisions differently. Please bug ESPN to add this feature, reminding them that people will spend endless hours on their website if they expose the internals of the rankings, especially as WC2010 nears.
thrilled to see you sinking your teeth into football a little bit.
while it's absolutely true that there is a lot more art and many, many immeasurables at play in football (vs a sport like baseball), that also means it's prime territory for new applications of numerical analysis. more power to you, Nate.
As far as the rankings go: it's tough to swallow the "so you're saying _____ would beat _____ (on a neutral ground)" test for quite a few of these, but i'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt for a while and see what happens. i'm sure it will only get more and more accurate after comparing with actual results for an extended period of time.
Is there any point in pointing out perceived weirdness in the system? If it is, then I'd like to blow the whistle on the following Competitiveness Coefficient:
Qualifying -- European Championship 0.47
This makes no sense to me. Every single national team in Europe take these games seriously - I can't imagine why anyone would turn up to the Euro qualifying games with anything less than the best squad you can piece together. All national leagues are suspended on match days (and for a few days before).
I can't really see why the European Championship itself would be less competitive than the World Cup (really, the EC is a BIG even here), but I CERTAINLY cannot see why the qualifying games would be only slightly more than half as competitive as World Cup qualifiers and Confederations Cup games (which nobody here really cares about).
Nate,
Great work, but why is it so hard to find the SPI when I go onto ESPN Soccernet. I have to google it to get there but can't find it on the actual site. Any way for ESPN to remedy this, or am I just missing it on the Soccernet page?
Sorry, Nate, the club play form carryover assumption doesn't hold *unless* the national team features a lot of club teammates (this would favor Spain -- Xavi and Iniesta in midfield). If Samuel Eto scores a goal for Inter, it's because somebody at Inter is there to provide service. Not necessarily true for Cameroon (though I'm sure they have good midfielders too). Messi's struggles for Argentina clearly demonstrate my point. Germany provides a contrary example of several players who underperform for club but overperform for country. Having said this, I don't mean to vilify your effort in putting together another rating system. Let's see how it all pans out in the WC.
I cant see this beating the other computers. I am a fan of the German aggregated world ranking list. Every computer but Fifa has Italy behind England.That covers the known bias against England for not being in euro 2008 and Italy clutching in 2006. With this, you have the same end and virtually the same ending to the first round as you would with either the oddschecker or that aggregate. you should add your work to those of others by deleting the fifa from the german aggregate and add your own!I first thought it was a strategic vision job where you take the oddschecker, delete one of their picks to add the usa(no suprise there)then delete their last 2 and then make sure the others you add arent on the aggregated list, to claim originality. Other computers had Uruguay at number nine so you picked at 8!
the German computer aggregate beat the odds in 2008
1 they got the final result at the outset and the odds were on germany(no bracket knowledge).
2 not knowing Austria was home had them on the third place team as the underdog in the Austria pool.
3 they didnt switch to Portugal over Germany in the later round.
4 they didnt pick Turkey as well for their only loss.
There will be as little in it this time. I like the idea that computers were performing better than even before espn wasted a lot of money keeping idiots like me curious.
Disclosure is that i live across the river from NY 23. I was the only canadian who cared. we all were bombarded with Dede, Bill and Doug ads for a month and i am still detoxing.Congrats for hedging in the result prediction. Paul Keating sayed that politics is like a pond. The dems were the water in NY 23. The water marker is above the line.Dems have to dump in huge rocks. The first rock was the special election itself. Second, Dede quits and goes to Bill. You cant poll accurately when a rock has just been thrown.
Afghanistan (rock) I didnt hear adressed.Our boys go to NY 23 to get trained.Check the correlation between the casualties and popularity for this war. Those countries who can accuse America of shirking in afghanistan are Canada, Britain and Holland who have lost people at percapita rates far above the Americans. Noone supports it!
Nate
Just by way of I told you so, Russia just bit the dust.
If the US gets any kind of decent first round group they could make round of 16, even *gasp* quarters.
Post a Comment