# Least improved - LA 2007 Boys Teams - So Far... (as of 1/13/20)



## Kante (Jan 14, 2020)

Here's the least improved LA 2007 teams so far this year... (Am doing this a little differently due to some constraints w/ the new bbs platform and there will be a separate thread w/ the most improved LA 07 teams here - https://www.socalsoccer.com/threads/most-improved-la-2007-boys-teams-so-far-as-of-1-13-20.18425/)

*Here's the background (skip down if you've read this already):*
Usually, families and coaches will have some intuitive sense of how things are trending but it's hard to be concrete. The goal of this (long) post is to provide some objective data for evaluating DA team performance/development so far this season.

Will leave it to the clubs, coaches and families to interpret on whether or not the improvements or declines were due to development over time (i.e. good or bad coaching) or other reasons such as adding new players, a key player was injured for a bit etc.

If your team is not listed below or in the other most improved thread but you are interested in how they’re doing, send a DM note and will send over the requested team chart(s).

The short version on the methodology for comparing teams is that the same algo being used to predict match results can also be used to track team progress relative to their peer group over time. This progress tracking is calculated as:

the % of goals scored vs average goals allowed by each opponent (i.e. goal scoring effectiveness % per game)
minus

the % of goals allowed vs average goals scored by each opponent (i.e. goals defending % per game)
equals

goal differential % per game, which can be charted for each game to show improvement or decline trends over time.
If there’s a need for/interest in more detail or other questions, just ping over or reply to this post.

*Least Improved #1: LA Surf*
For 2019-20 so far, the u13 LA Surf team is the least improved squad in the LA Group.

LA Surf started strong w/ a 3-1 win over LA Galaxy, a 2-0 win against Real SoCal and a 5-1 win TFA, but it's been a fairly consistent decline since. Offensively, LA Surf's two highlights so far have been the 5-1 TFA win at the end of September, and a 2-1 win against FC Golden State in mid November. Putting aside those two results, LA Surf was about 75% worse offensively than at the beginning of the season w/ a significant dependency on #22 JCA, who has scored almost half their goals so far.

Defensively, it's been worse. After averaging .67 goals allowed per game in their first three matches, LA Surf have given up 2.67 goals per match since with the best defensive performance in that period being the 2-1 win against FCG.

The one caveat for LA Surf is that after they've had only home games in their last nine matches, and, at this age, the negative away game affect is usually significant. Hopefully, they can find some answers to get things turned around in the new year.

Here's the LA goal differential % chart:


Here's the LA Surf goals scored % chart:


Here's the LA Surf goals allowed % chart:


*Least Improved #2: LAUFA*
LAUFA is fun to watch, full stop. This year the LAUFA u13's seem to be committed to playing a wide open style and are looking to get results by straight up outscoring their opponents.

Despite being listed as the #2 least improved team so far, the LAUFA u13s have some solid things going for them

So Far, LAUFA has the third highest scoring offense in SoCal with the only hiccups being a set of two single goal games against TFA and the Ventura Fusion that happened on either side of the showcase. Not sure what happened with those two matches, but LAUFA seemed to have gotten back on track after the Ventura game.

LAUFA's offense has two keys 1) Thirteen players have scored, which usually means a team has good ball movement 2) #3 DR has more than 1/3 of LAUFA's goals and is averaging 1.14 goals per match (16 goals in 14 matches) so far this year.

Defensively, alas, a different story. While LAUFA's offense is close to tops in SoCal, their defense is the 5th worst in SoCal. Some of this is the focus on goal scoring and some of it, well, not exactly sure. Their defensive highlights include a 5-1 win against Ventura at the beginning of the season and a 5-0 win against Santa Barbara in mid-October and that's about it.

Here's the LAUFA's goal differential % chart:


Here's the LAUFA's goals scored % chart:


Here's the LAUFA's goals allowed % chart:


*Least Improved #3: FC Golden State*

FC Golden State is interesting. They had a very strong start to the season, and, for a bit, it even looked like FCG were going to give LAFC a run for their money, w/ a, by most accounts, very competitive 1-2 loss to LAFc at the end of September. That match was followed by a much improved performance against Santa Barbara (first match against Santa Barbara was a 2-1 win, and the second match was a 5-0 win). But something changed dramatically changed after the first week of October, and FCG took a big step down in quality and their improvement trend line stopped.

Here's FCG's goal differential % chart:


Digging into the data, the change affected both sides of the ball, with drop-offs in performance both offensively and defensively.

Here's FCG's goals scored % chart:


Here's FCG's goals allowed % chart:


Couple of things jump out. 

One, FCG has larger than average # of players rostered. They started doing this last year, and seem to have continued it this year across age groups. USSDA has a strong recommendation that every rostered player start at least 25% of the games. Not sure what FCG scholarship situation is like at u13, but cynical minds might point that FCG is rostering players who may be step down in quality from their core for financial reasons, and they have to start these players at some point. Honestly, not sure that this is the case though.

Two, FCG may be giving opportunities to a number of players to see who rises to the occasion. They have a good baseline for comparison w/ the performance through the first five games of the season, and maybe FCG is seeing how some of the other players do. At this age, any prediction of which DA player will pan out is almost always mostly guesswork. There will be a small handful of players that everybody will say, "oh yeah, him", and then all the other players where coaches just don't know for sure.

So, net net, not sure what's up w/ FCG. Would love to hear additional insights or input, either posted here or send a DM.


----------



## SoccerJones (Jan 16, 2020)

What jumps out at me is that you're publicly telling people that a 12-13 year old boys club is garbage.  Least improved by your numbers does not tell the tale of the tape.  Where were these kids at the start of the season in comparison to where they are now?  you're just looking at pure numbers/statistics and have no concept of development, flow, or the game.  you have a lot of time on your hands....


----------



## RedDevilDad (Jan 16, 2020)

SoccerJones said:


> What jumps out at me is that you're publicly telling people that a 12-13 year old boys club is garbage.  Least improved by your numbers does not tell the tale of the tape.  Where were these kids at the start of the season in comparison to where they are now?  you're just looking at pure numbers/statistics and have no concept of development, flow, or the game.  you have a lot of time on your hands....


It's just stats.  I don't think there is a soul out there who would believe stats tell the whole story.  I'm thankful Kante has the ability to make the algorithms and punch through the data.  It's helpful as a parent to try and get a neutral or black and white look at a super emotionally charged arena of our lives.  It's hard not to feel like the coach you can laugh with is an expert and the coach that failed to return 47 phone calls is an idiot.. when that may or may not be true.  None of us care enough to objectively watch other clubs play enough games to have a clear opinion and we all have some intrinsic parental bias towards our own club's performance. 
It's just stats... and it's all relative.  To be a least or most improved DA plus $2.65 will buy you a cup of coffee. Even if a team isn't up to the same standard as the rest of the DA...  these players are in theory among the top in the nation/area. That's commendable.


----------



## focomoso (Jan 17, 2020)

SoccerJones said:


> What jumps out at me is that you're publicly telling people that a 12-13 year old boys club is garbage.


No. He's really not.


----------



## SoccerJones (Jan 17, 2020)

RedDevilDad said:


> It's just stats.  I don't think there is a soul out there who would believe stats tell the whole story.  I'm thankful Kante has the ability to make the algorithms and punch through the data.  It's helpful as a parent to try and get a neutral or black and white look at a super emotionally charged arena of our lives.  It's hard not to feel like the coach you can laugh with is an expert and the coach that failed to return 47 phone calls is an idiot.. when that may or may not be true.  None of us care enough to objectively watch other clubs play enough games to have a clear opinion and we all have some intrinsic parental bias towards our own club's performance.
> It's just stats... and it's all relative.  To be a least or most improved DA plus $2.65 will buy you a cup of coffee. Even if a team isn't up to the same standard as the rest of the DA...  these players are in theory among the top in the nation/area. That's commendable.


you're right.  I overacted...my bad.  plus i need a PhD to read it.


----------



## RedDevilDad (Jan 17, 2020)

SoccerJones said:


> you're right.  I overacted...my bad.  plus i need a PhD to read it.


Respect for owning it.  All been there.  I've deleted 2 Facebook comments I made today alone. lol


----------

