Does New England's Success Add Up?

Roughly a fifth the way through the MLS season, the New England Revolution sit atop the MLS table for the first time. This makes me giddy. Granted, the teams sitting just below, Kansas City and New York, have a game in hand. Given the team's stellar run of results since the opener, it's tough to argue the case the team is not in MLS's elite. The team hasn't gotten off to this good of a start since 2005, the only year in the team's existence anyone could make the claim the Revs were "great". It's tough not to get elated with the Revs winning three out of four, with a tie on the road to a desperate team mixed in. However, this raises the question whether a team in MLS, a single entity league designed for parity, can even be considered great. (click title to read more)

The vibe going into the 2005 and 2007 seasons were very similar for the Revs. Both teams hadn't made any proven additions. Both teams didn't make any proven additions. Pre-season predictions often had both teams in the middle of the pack because nothing left gave the pundits any reason to be high on them. Both teams needed at least one rookie to become a full-time starter. In 2005, our defense looked very weak going in, but Micheal Parkhurst exceeded everyone's expectations and has been one of the best central defenders right out of the gate. This year, the Revs needed a competent strike partner for Taylor Twellman while Pat Noonan healed, and have got it from fourth round draft choice Adam Cristman.

Relying on players from the draft is risky. Just look at the picks from 2006. Not many are left, and Willie Sims is at best the team's fourth best striker. However, the Revolution have built their team almost entirely through the draft. This would give credence to the theory that Steve Nicol and Paul Mainer have an eye for talent, that they have made the required additions through the draft to make New England a superior MLS side. This would be the easy way to look at it:

(Revolution) - (Dempsey) + (Thompson + Cristman) = small point loss

If this is true, so is this:

(Real Salt Lake) + (Freddy Adu) + (Chris Seitz) = playoff team

This approach treats players like they are commodities who's value relies on where they play and who they play with. It doesn't take into account that players, especially young ones, are developing all the time. How much they progress depends heavily on good coaching. That is where the Revs have had an edge. They have a very good coaching staff that has taken a multi-year approach towards it's players.

Let's revisit those math equations. We'll give Nicol's staff a variable of 1.2 because their coaching helps the team, and Real Salt Lake's staff a 0.8 because John Ellinger was a twat and Jason Kreis is unproven. We'll also say that the original equations gave New England a schedule length adjusted 42 points and Salt Lake 40 points to make the playoffs (many preseason predictions went that way):

1.2[(Revolution) - (Dempsey) + (Thompson + Cristman)] = 50 points

Now, look at the change for RSL:

0.8[(Real Salt Lake) + (Freddy Adu) + (Chris Seitz)] = 32 points

That wouldn't be a bad prediction at this stage of the season, huh?

Although far from scientific, the coaching variable needs to be part of the equation. It's far more mathematically sound than the simple commodity method most people use in their preseason analysis. It's also better than the standard "we need time to gel" line that is often spouted off when a team gets off to a bad start. While often true, who do you think is responsible for getting the players to gel? That's right, the coach.

So the coaching is largely responsible for continual improvement of our home team despite no real proven acquisitions. However, there's one other major factor to take into account, and that's the quality of the league.

Going back to 2005, many of the teams were going backwards. There were also two expansion sides that had dreadful first seasons. It's hard to argue that DC, New York, Columbus, Chicago, and Kansas City started the 2005 season in better shape than their 2004 counterparts. In fact, many of those teams made offseason trades that destroyed their chemistry. The Revs finished 2004 strong, and built on the success of their young nucleus. You could say that Noonan, Twellman, and Dempsey all made the jump from "promising young talent" to legitimate allstars that year. The way the league is set up for parity, all it takes is a slight rise in quality coinciding with other teams taking a step back to propel you to the top. That's what I attribute the team's remarkable rise in form during the first half of 2005 to.

However, success in a league where everyone is somewhat equal makes you a target. From the summer of 2005 all the way through the start of the 2006 season, teams stepped it up when playing the Revs. They figured out that you could stack the box and play the counterattack with success. Just ask DC United about this. They had one of the best starts ever in 2006, but their record has been mediocre ever since.

So that brings us back to this season. Just how good is this team? Several years of playing together has yielded a cohesive unit. A few rookies have stepped up to contribute. Khano Smith entered the season on time without a broken leg and has solidified his starting position. Taylor Twellman is happy and has scored six goals in seven games. These are some of the reasons that make the Revs better than last year. However, the league is also much better, especially compared to 2005. Given that, the improvements the team have made aren't enough to consider them "great".

Looking forward, the Revs do have the most promising group of youngsters in their short history. With the coaching strengths I mentioned above, that will reap dividends in seasons to come. The current first team is in the upper echelon, but it's tough to say they are tops in MLS. We'll just have to wait and see.