Brazil has been FiveThirtyEight’s frontrunner to win the World Cup since the beginning of the tournament. But A Seleção will have to do it without its star, Neymar, who is out of the tournament after fracturing a vertebra in Brazil’s quarterfinal win against Colombia. In the semifinal against Germany on Tuesday, Brazil will also be without defender Thiago Silva, who was suspended after accumulating two yellow cards (Silva will return if Brazil reaches the final).Our forecast, which gives Brazil a 54 percent chance of treating its home fans to a title, doesn’t account for these player absences. This article will attempt to measure their impact and recalculate the numbers.We have some reasonably good news for Brazil. Even without Neymar and Silva, the team remains the leading contender to win the World Cup in our estimation. You may or may not agree with the math, but the intuition behind it is this: Soccer is a team sport, and Brazil is a very deep team. Whether Brazil is better than Germany without Neymar and Silva is up for debate. However, Brazil will play at home, where the national team hasn’t lost a competitive match since 1975.Our rating systemOur World Cup forecasts are based on ESPN’s Soccer Power Index (SPI). SPI is essentially two ratings systems rolled into one. It measures a national team’s performance, placing more weight on its most competitive matches, and evaluates the talent on its roster based on players’ performance in national and club matches.The player ratings work by means of a plus-minus system that assigns or subtracts points from players based on goals scored and allowed at the time they’re on the pitch. They include data from national team matches, along with the top-flight club leagues in Spain, England, Italy, Germany and France, and matches from the Champions League.In principle, the system operates something like this. The average English Premier League team scores and allows about 1.4 goals per game. But let’s say Arsenal wins a game 3-1 instead against an average EPL opponent. Its three goals scored are 1.6 goals above the league average, so we have 1.6 goals worth of extra credit to apportion out to the players who were on the pitch at the time. Arsenal also allowed 0.4 goals less than average, so there’s 0.4 goals worth of defensive credit to split up, too.In theory, this allows us to estimate the impact of any one player. But the plus-minus works better for some players than others. The statistics it accounts for are goals scored, bookings and the starting lineups and substitutions of a match, along with the players’ positions. This works fine for strikers like Neymar, whose main objective is to score goals and set them up, but it isn’t as helpful for defenders like Silva.1Soccer statistics are rapidly improving — and we hope to be able to account for things like time of possession, passes completed and tackles in future versions of the system. SPI will give about the right overall amount of credit to the back line and midfielders on a team — for instance, to Silva’s Paris Saint-Germain after an impressive victory. But if Silva is better than the other defenders, it will give him too little credit and his teammates too much.So we’ll use the SPI method to account for Neymar’s absence, and then an alternative method that might more accurately measure the loss of Silva.The impact of Neymar’s absenceFor forwards and strikers, the SPI plus-minus ratings line up reasonably well with subjective perceptions. The following chart compares SPI plus-minus ratings for forwards, measured as the number of additional goals they help score and prevent per 90 minutes of play, as compared to The Guardian’s consensus list of the top 100 footballers in the world.The correlation isn’t perfect, but it’s reasonably good. The amazing Lionel Messi, along with Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo, rate as the best forwards in the world by far in both systems.Based on data from his FC Barcelona games over the past two years, along with his recent play for Argentina, for instance, we estimate that Messi contributes about 0.65 goals per game relative to an average international footballer. (Almost all of that impact comes from Messi helping his team get more goals — only a little bit is defense or goal prevention.)How big is that impact? The SPI match predictor estimates that if you put Messi on an average team, it would go from winning 50 percent of its games (assuming a knockout-style format with no draws) to around 65 percent instead. That’s impressive — not far from the effect you might see by replacing an average NBA player with LeBron James. But James plays a 5-on-5 game, while Messi and Ronaldo play one with 11 players to a side.Neymar isn’t quite at Messi’s or Ronaldo’s level — nor is anyone else. Instead, SPI estimates his impact at about 0.4 goals per 90 minutes. Almost all of this (0.37 goals) comes from increasing his team’s scoring, while just a fraction (0.03 goals) comes from improving its goal prevention.These player ratings can be carried forward to the team level. For instance, if you removed Neymar from the pitch and replaced him with an average international footballer, Brazil’s scoring would drop by 0.37 goals per 90 minutes, we estimate. Brazil would also allow an additional 0.03 goals per 90 minutes of play.But the players replacing Neymar are going to be well above average. An average international soccer player, according to SPI, is something like a starter on Israel or Libya or Uzbekistan. A player on Brazil’s second or third string would be a star on one of those sides.It’s not clear exactly who will replace Neymar. In fact, it may wind up being a combination of players, given that his injury will have knockoff effects on Brazil’s depth. But Neymar’s playing time will likely be distributed principally among three players: the forwards Bernard and Jo, and the winger Willian.Of the three, we have the best data on Willian, since he plays his club football for Chelsea in the EPL — one of the leagues we track. SPI estimates he’s worth about 0.2 goals per 90 minutes relative to an average footballer. If Neymar is worth about 0.4 goals per 90 minutes, Willian is 0.2 goals per 90 minutes worse. (Some numbers in the tables below may look slightly off due to rounding.)For Bernard, who plays for Shakhtar Donetsk in Ukraine, we have data only from his performance with Brazil, plus a smattering of Champions League matches. And for Jo, who plays for Atlético in Brazil, we have the national team data only. But they rate similarly to Willian, at about +0.2 goals per 90 minutes.Certainly these players lack Neymar’s explosiveness and creativity. But this isn’t a total disaster for Brazil. Ratings in the range of +0.2 goals per 90 minutes imply that Willian, Bernard and Jo would belong somewhere in the top 200 or 250 footballers in the world, and would start for most of the teams that made the World Cup.The impact of Silva’s absenceBrazil will also be without Thiago Silva for the Germany match, and coach Luiz Felipe Scolari has a number of options to replace him. Brazil played Dani Alves in its first four World Cup matches, then replaced him with Maicon for its game against Colombia. Scolari could choose to play them both instead, though Brazil would need to rotate its formation, as they both typically play right back rather than center. Scolari could also go with Dante, who plays center defense for Bayern Munich and who has the advantage of being familiar with some of Germany’s stars. Henrique, who plays as a center back or defensive midfielder, would be another option.The SPI plus-minus ratings suggest that there’s hardly any difference between Silva and some of these options — and what impact it does find comes on offense, such as on set pieces.But this conclusion may be misguided. As I mentioned, the SPI ratings are a crude tool for evaluating defensive players. They do get us somewhere: SPI knows that Silva plays for Brazil and Paris Saint-Germain, two excellent teams, and gives him credit for being in those lineups. But it will have trouble distinguishing truly world-class defensive players from merely very good ones.There’s a more aggressive way to approach the problem, however, which is to approximate Silva’s defensive value by using his position on The Guardian’s top 100 ranking. Silva was No. 17 on that list.As I mentioned, the SPI plus-minus should be pretty solid for forwards and strikers. So we can calibrate the value of Silva by estimating how much a striker rated as the No. 17 player in the world would be worth. This value turns out to be about 0.37 goals per 90 minutes based on the regression line I drew in the chart above. By comparison, the raw SPI numbers put Silva’s impact at 0.19 goals per 90 minutes, considering both offensive and defensive contributions.So let’s assume that The Guardian’s panelists have it right and that Silva is in fact worth 0.37 goals per match. We’ll further assume that SPI is missing Silva’s defense but that it gauges his offensive contributions about right. That implies having Silva on the pitch reduces an opponent’s goal-scoring by about 0.28 goals per 90 minutes relative to an average player, while he adds 0.09 goals per match with his offense.If we make this fix for Silva, however, we should do so for Dante and Dani Alves, who also rank in The Guardian’s top 100. (We won’t make any adjustment for Henrique and Maicon, who are outside the top 100.)Averaging the figures for Silva’s potential replacements yields a combination of players that rate at +0.22 goals per 90 minutes. That’s about 0.15 goals per match worse than Silva. More precisely, we estimate Brazil’s goal-scoring to decline by 0.03 goals per 90 minutes without Silva, and for it to allow an additional 0.11 goals in that time.The change to Brazil’s oddsThe next step is to see what impact this has on Brazil’s overall chances of victory. Brazil, at full strength, has an SPI offensive rating of 3.12 (placing it No. 1 in the world) and an SPI defensive rating of 0.50 (putting it at No. 3 — at the team level, lower defensive ratings are better).Without Neymar and Silva, Brazil’s offensive rating declines to 2.90 while its defensive rating worsens to 0.61. Both ratings are almost identical to Germany’s, which checks in with a 2.92 offensive rating and a 0.63 defensive rating.But Brazil still has the home-country advantage. If we run the new numbers through the SPI match predictor, we come up with a 65 percent chance of Brazil prevailing against Germany. This is as opposed to a 73 percent chance of doing so with Silva and Neymar in the lineup.Let me pause here to ruminate on the nature of home-country advantage in soccer. Brazil has developed a reputation for “winning ugly” so far in this World Cup. The team was helped by a dubious penalty in its opening match against Croatia. It needed a penalty shootout to get by Chile. And Brazil’s match against Colombia was marred by rough play, including the foul that knocked Neymar out.But winning ugly is part of what home-field advantage is all about. Home teams benefit significantly from officiating decisions — it’s much harder for most referees to hand out a red card or to award a penalty against the home team’s hero. Home teams may also have some advantage in shootouts. Since 2005 — and counting Brazil’s win against Chile — home teams are 7-0 in penalty shootouts in major international competitions. That’s not to say that Brazil has been in its best form (in fact, its SPI rating has declined slightly over the course of the World Cup). But in Brazil, being in pretty good form may be good enough.Should Brazil make it to the final — with Silva returning but still without Neymar — we estimate that it would have a 67 percent chance of beating Argentina (down from 72 percent with Neymar in the lineup). Almost all of that comes from home-field advantage — the teams would be almost level at a neutral site. Brazil would have a 73 percent chance against the Netherlands without Neymar, we estimate, down from 77 percent with him.We can recalculate Brazil’s overall odds of winning the World Cup as well: They’re 45 percent, as opposed to 54 percent with the team at full strength. The other teams benefit from Brazil’s limitations: Argentina’s odds of winning the World Cup rise to 23 percent from 20 percent; Germany’s to 18 percent from 14 percent. The Netherlands gets the least help and goes to 14 percent from 12.5 percent.Betting markets see things a bit differently. The odds available as of early Sunday afternoon have Germany, Brazil and Argentina as co-favorites, each with about a 27 percent chance of winning the World Cup, and the Netherlands just slightly behind at 20 percent.It could be that the markets see a greater impact from the losses of Neymar and Silva than the ones we’ve estimated here. But I suspect that’s only part of the issue — from the start of the tournament, betting markets have consistently been lower on Brazil than SPI and another computer rating system, Elo, have.So far, SPI and Elo have performed well compared to the betting markets. In general, markets are fairly tough to beat, so this could just reflect good luck. International football is particularly hard to rate, whether using subjective or objective methods. The main problems are that the teams don’t play very many competitive matches against one another, and that the composition of the rosters is always changing. SPI tries to address some of those problems, but it isn’t perfect.But there could also be a pro-European bias in the markets. Even though Europe has performed rather poorly in this World Cup, it has the highest-profile club leagues, and it has a higher concentration of wealthy people who can afford to bet on soccer. FIFA’s ranking of international teams, with methodological flaws that may result in overrating European teams, also has some currency in shaping perceptions about international soccer. That may help to explain why betting markets give the European teams a 47 percent chance of winning the World Cup when SPI gives them a 32 percent chance (even after accounting for Brazil’s player absences). It may also help to explain why Brazil’s ugly wins against Colombia and Chile are given less credit than if they had come against, say, Portugal and France.In a sense, the World Cup has come full circle. At the start of the tournament, SPI’s major contentions were that South America was underrated as compared with Europe — and that Brazil’s home-field advantage shouldn’t be overlooked. Brazil still has those things working in its favor, even without Neymar.
It was one of the biggest moments in Cleveland sports history. (Seriously!) LeBron James’ first game back as a member of the Cavaliers, wearing that familiar No. 23 jersey. James returned with great fanfare Thursday night, leading his new teammates onto the floor against the New York Knicks. Those same Knicks were fresh off being routed by the Chicago Bulls in their 2014-15 season debut, and the Cavaliers — expected to be the best team in the Eastern Conference (not just by us, either) — were at home, in front of one of the most fired-up crowds imaginable.Piece of cake for the Cavs, right?Not quite. After a hot start (they led the Knicks by 11 early in the second quarter), Cleveland struggled to make shots and to keep New York from doing the same, eventually losing 95-90 in a game they were favored to win by 13.It’s only one game, the first of 82 in what is effectively the longest regular-season in sports. But it’s fair to ask what went wrong, and what it means for the Cavs.In the game, Cleveland had an offensive rating (points scored per 100 possessions) of 108.3 and a defensive rating (points allowed per 100 possessions) of 114.3. Just as a point of comparison, last season’s Knicks scored 109.3 points per 100 possessions and allowed 110.6, but the Real Plus Minus (RPM) ratings of New York’s roster this season would imply a decline of 2 points per 100 possessions on offense from last season, and a decline of 1.5 points/100 on defense. In essence, an average team would have scored around 112 points/100 and allowed 107 points/100 against the Knicks, giving the Cavaliers a ratings shortfall of 4 points on offense and 7 points on defense.Cleveland was expected to be an offensive juggernaut going into the season, so in a sense its performance at that end was the big disappointment. But it’s difficult to imagine a LeBron James-led team not being an offensive powerhouse; a James-led team hasn’t ranked outside the NBA’s Top 8 in offensive rating since 2007-08. (And that’s not even considering the teammates he now has in Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving, among others.) The bigger concern is that Cleveland’s defensive struggles against New York give credence to the most reasonable fears people had about the Cavaliers over the offseason — that their defense would not be up to par.Anderson Varejao is an elite defender by plus/minus metrics, and he logged starter’s minutes for the Cavaliers last night. But although James has a strong defensive reputation as well — he’s made the NBA’s All-Defensive squad in some form (first or second team) every year since 2008-09 — his RPM defense ranked just 24th among small forwards a year ago. Meanwhile, scouts for years have questioned Love’s defense, even though his defensive RPM is surprisingly positive. And Cleveland’s other top minute-earners Thursday night — Irving, Dion Waiters, and Tristan Thompson — are defensive disasters whether you look at the numbers or just watch the games.If ever there was an area where Cleveland’s new super team would struggle, it would be on defense, and Thursday night’s outing against the Knicks only reinforces that fear.Cavaliers coach David Blatt is new to the NBA, and his defensive system is still a work in progress. Two of his team’s biggest issues Thursday night were transition defense and defending spot-up shooters, both areas that can be improved with better defensive cohesion, communication and awareness.It’s unlikely the Cavaliers will play as badly on defense all season as they did against New York. But in a Bayesian sense, it does give us one new data point to reinforce doubts about the defensive quality of the group Cleveland has assembled.
Two days after Thanksgiving, the Miami Hurricanes closed out another mediocre regular season with what the Miami Herald called a “dismal downer” of a game. They never led Pitt in the 35-23 defeat, and many UM faithful streamed out of Sun Life Stadium with almost an entire quarter left to play. Miami will appear in a postseason game this month because it has a just technically bowl-eligible 6-6 record (and it’s a well-known university). But the Duck Commander Independence Bowl in Shreveport, Louisiana, is not exactly a destination befitting a program that was once college football royalty.Cycles of boom and bust, however, are nothing new in Coral Gables. This Saturday, ESPN is airing “The U Part 2,” a “30 for 30” by director Billy Corben that follows up on his 2009 documentary about the Hurricanes’ dominant, lawless football program of the 1980s. The sequel explores the process that rebuilt the scandal-ridden team into what would become, statistically, the most talented — if not quite the most dominant — team in college football history.Before the Hurricanes came back from the brink, they were as low as they are now. Miami’s mid-to-late 1990s deterioration reached its nadir at the end of 1997, the program’s first losing season in 18 years. When the final whistle blew on that campaign, Miami had a +3.8 Elo rating,1According to an Elo-like modification of ESPN’s Football Power Index (FPI) developed by FiveThirtyEight’s editor in chief, Nate Silver. which means Miami would have been favored by just 3.8 points against an average FBS team on a neutral field. To use 2014 teams as a comparison, Miami was the equivalent of this year’s Colorado State or Navy teams — a far cry from their dominant squads of the 1980s and early 1990s. (Although this year’s team is even worse, with a rating of +2.0.)This is what happens when a program transgresses enough NCAA rules to deserve its own documentary. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Hurricanes’ violations ranged from a pay-for-play scandal to a UM academic adviser helping players defraud the federal government of Pell Grant money. When the NCAA was finished handing down its penalties, the Hurricanes had been banned from the postseason for a year and stripped of 31 scholarships from 1995 to 1997.For college football teams, scholarships are currency. There’s a clear relationship between a team’s recruiting success and its on-field performance, and in the wake of the sanctions, Miami was unable to recruit as effectively as it had during the early 1990s.2Although it bears mentioning that, even in a relatively “down” recruiting year like 1996, the Hurricanes still hauled in four of the nation’s 100 best recruits.But under Butch Davis, the Hurricanes had figured out how to rebuild. From creative accounting to get around the scholarship limits — Davis persuaded wide receiver Santana Moss (among others) to run track on scholarship for UM while walking onto the football team — to rummaging through the recruiting bin for undervalued prospects, Davis amassed a talent collection better than college football has ever seen before or since. If we judge the players by where they were drafted in the NFL, tally the expected future approximate value for players picked in that slot, add it up for each school by each historical draft class, and assign a weighted sum of the previous four years to each college team-season,3The weights, in this case, are 4-3-2-1, derived from what combination best predicts a team’s FPI rating for the season in question. So, for instance, Miami players accumulated 103 points of AV in the 2002 draft, 86 points in the 2003 draft, 115 points in the 2004 draft and 46 points in the 2005 draft. That means the weighted sum for the 2001 Hurricanes squad is 4 times 103, plus 3 times 86, plus 2 times 115, plus 46 — which equals 946 points, the highest total any college team posted since the first NFL/AFL common draft in 1967. the Miami teams built by Davis and eventually coached by his successor, Larry Coker, are in a universe unto themselves.The single most talented college roster of the past 48 years, according to this measure, was the fabled 2001 Miami Hurricanes, who went 12-0 and won the BCS title while posting one of the best point differentials (+395) of any national champion. Davis-built Miami teams in 2000 and 2002 also rank third and fourth, respectively.The Hurricanes turned their unprecedented collection of talent into a one-loss 2000 team (which media-poll voters thought should have played undefeated Oklahoma for the national championship instead of Florida State, whom Miami had beaten earlier in the season); a historically dominant, unbeaten national champion in 2001; and a 2002 squad whose sole loss came in double overtime of the BCS title game.“You could have taken that 2001 [Hurricanes] team and put them in the NFL,” former Hurricanes safety Antrel Rolle told Corben, “and without a doubt they would have made the playoffs.”It’s probably the closest such a sentiment has ever come to actually being true. Then again, as stacked as the Davis/Coker Hurricanes were in terms of skilled athletes, and as impressive as their 34-game winning streak4Which stretched between Sept. 23, 2000, and Jan. 3, 2003. was, it’s difficult to argue they would have torn up the pros when they barely cracked the top 10 in terms of the highest modified FPI ratings by college teams in the past three decades.Under Davis, the Hurricanes’ Elo rating peaked at +24.3 after they beat Florida, the AP Poll’s No. 7, 37-20 in the 2001 Sugar Bowl — Davis’s last game as UM’s coach before leaving for the NFL’s Cleveland Browns. After Coker took the reins, Miami’s rating would grow to +29.0 after thumping Nebraska 37-14 in the 2002 Rose Bowl, and crested at +30.2 before the 2003 Fiesta Bowl against Ohio State.That mark represents the 10th-highest rating achieved by any team since 1982, but it trails entries from some of college football’s other most celebrated dynasties — including the 1990s Nebraska Cornhuskers, the 2000s USC Trojans, the 2008 Florida Gators, the 2012 Alabama Crimson Tide and even the 1988 Miami Hurricanes.There’s also the tricky matter of how the Hurricanes’ second golden era ended, marred by yet another scandal. While the program was ultimately assessed lighter penalties than it had received in the mid-1990s, in some ways that was due as much to the NCAA’s botched investigation as it was an absolution of Miami’s violations.And now the Hurricanes are back in the muck. But if there’s good news for Miami, Corben’s documentary underscores just how volatile this program has been over the past three decades. Of the top 18 FBS programs (by Elo rating) since 1982, Miami has by far the widest distribution of end-of-year Elo ratings.5In stats parlance, it has the largest standard deviation — 9.5 Elo points.In other words, the team tends to seesaw between greatness and mediocrity. And while life at “The U” has its peaks and valleys, if the story of Corben’s second Miami film is any indication, the next Hurricane dynasty might be just around the corner, no matter how bad things seem in the present.
Welcome to the latest episode of Hot Takedown, FiveThirtyEight’s sports podcast. This week’s show (March 11, 2016) was recorded in front of a live audience at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. Neil Paine donned his Stat Man cape once again to lead a lesson about whether box score statistics in the NBA are outdated. Shane Battier, former NBA player and Duke legend, stopped by to talk about March Madness, how he picks a bracket, and why Duke players weren’t obsessed over what seed the team was assigned in the tournament when he was in school. Then we talked to Daryl Morey, the general manager of the Houston Rockets, about whether the Rockets’ struggles this season have pushed him to re-evaluate his team-building strategy. Plus, a significant digit on 17-year-old Mallory Pugh, who is emerging as a star for the U.S. Women’s National Team.Stream the episode by clicking the play button above, or subscribe using one of the podcast clients we’ve linked to. Hot Takedown More: Apple Podcasts | ESPN App | RSS If you’re a fan of our podcasts, be sure to subscribe on Apple Podcasts and leave a rating/review. That helps spread the word to other listeners. And get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments. Tell us what you think, send us hot takes to discuss and tell us why we’re wrong.
Florida Gators linebacker Antonio Morrison was arrested yet again, this time for allegedly harassing a police dog and resisting arrest.The police report states that Morrison was harassing a police dog, which qualifies as a second-degree misdemeanor according to Florida law. Morrison was suspended from the team and will miss at least the first two games of the season.“I’m extremely disappointed in Antonio Morrison’s decision making,” Florida coach Will Muschamp said in a statement. “He has been suspended from the team and will miss at least two games to begin the season.”The 6-foot-1, 230-pound sophomore told the officers he barked at the dog because the dog barked at him first.