Soccer popular in the US? The (lack of) numbers don't lie

“Bill Belichick gave his team the best chance to win by going for it on fourth and two against the Colts.”

“Mariano Rivera is the best reliever in postseason history.”

“Will Ferrell is more overpaid than Shia Labeouf.”

These statements all reek of opinion, but all can be proven with the right statistics.

Belichick’s stroke of macho, or arrogance, gave his Patriots a 1% better chance to win than punting based on Brady’s fourth down conversion rate, his punter’s average punt distance, and Manning’s mastery of the two-minute offense.

Mariano has the lowest ERA, best win percentage, fewest walks and hits per innings pitched, most saves, most strikeouts, and the most innings pitched of any reliever in postseason history.

For every dollar Ferrell is paid, his films earn $3.29 while every dollar Labeouf earns, nets the studio $160.

But stats can’t quantify crowd noise, player emotion or the disrespect the Colts’ D felt on that fourth and two play.

Mariano’s body of work is beyond compare, but Goose Gossage in 1981 faced 54 postseason batters and yielded no runs. Rivera has never had a streak like that but his 14 postseason berths and 29 playoff series’ trumps Gossage’s four berths and eight series’. How would the Goose’s numbers compare if he had all the opportunities Rivera had?

And while Lebeouf is the more bankable actor, how much more enjoyable was Anchorman or Step Brothers than either of the Transformers movies? How much more do Ferrell’s movies gross in total?

But that’s the point. Americans are argumentative debaters always looking for that perfect statistic to render the other’s point of view with more holes than Swiss cheese. And that’s why sports are so much fun.

Armed with advanced fielding metrics, value over replacement figures, quarterback efficiency ratings, +/- totals, and PER ratings, we sports fans are equipped to handle any water cooler debate or talk show radio “expert.” But not if you’re a soccer fan.

If you are a fan of “the beautiful game,” you only have goals and assists as statistical measures. So for 2008 in the MLS, David Beckham recorded eight assists while some guy named Guillermo Barros Schelotto accounted for 20 assists.

So is Schelotto better? Did Beckham make some great passes but his forwards blew the opportunities? Are Schelotto’s teammates amazing?

Who knows? Simple goals and assists stats do not reveal anything about the inner workings of soccer. I want shot power measured in miles per hour, pass accuracy percentage, times offside recorded, goalkeepers measured with baseball’s fielding metrics, the advantages of a four or five man wall, header efficiency, defenders juked, slide tackle efficiency, preferred shot targets in penalty kicks, and stats for or against short corner kicks.  

We really do not know why some soccer players play and some sit on the bench. We do know why Jim Thome sits on the bench when a nasty lefty is on the mound (460 homers against righties, 104 against lefties; .294 batting average against righties, .238 against lefties and so on).

The American viewer is drowned with stupid television programming with Jon and Kate Plus Eight or Celebrity Apprentice but we like our sports with a little strategy and statistics. We like seeing our football coaches yammering on their headsets or baseball managers checking matchup cards in the ninth inning. But soccer coaches all too often look like Ralph Lauren models with slicked hair and pursed lips watching the match without uttering a word.

The simplicity of soccer is a major turn-off for the American viewer. Sure the long halves without commercial breaks damage the sports’ advertising ability and the lack of scoring or the celebration of a near miss is perplexing to Americans used to cheering for touchdowns and grand slams. It’s not just soccer; simple sports such as boxing and hockey are struggling to attract new viewers because there just isn’t that much to them.

We don’t understand soccer’s attraction and for that reason, the sport will never be included among America’s pantheon of major sports. It’s not because soccer is too complex. Cricket is complex. Judging gymnastics is complex. Soccer is putting the ball in the goal. We get it. Too well.

It’s not the talent. This past summer, the American squad had Brazil on the ropes before losing in the final minutes. That would be as huge of an upset as the US hockey team defeating Russia in 1980. America is no longer a pushover in international competition and is actually doing a lot of the pushing.

Foreign soccer spectators roar at the sight of a special move an attacker puts on a defender or scream when the ball narrowly misses the goal. This is like American fans applauding a basketball player’s missed dunk or a hard-hit fly ball that’s caught 15 feet short of the warning track.

We like scoring and scoring is a function of stats. We know Juan Pierre has seasons where his grounders go for hits (2009 Dodgers – he hit .308 with a .392 slugging percentage) and seasons when a lot are fielded (2006 Cubs – he hit .292 with a .388 slugging percentage).

We know the Ohio State Buckeyes’ conservative approach dominates the Big 10 but is routinely eviscerated when matched with SEC or Big 12 competition (Jim Tressel has won six Big 10 titles but is 3-4 in non-conference bowl games; the victory against Notre Dame in the 2006 Fiesta Bowl doesn’t count because the Fightin’ Irish are Big 10 sluggish).

And we have the numbers to prove all of this.

Before the internet and modern scouting, the simple eyeball test sufficed when comparing athletes of yesteryear. But because my eyes tell me Christiano Ronaldo plays better than Lionel Messi is simply not good enough. I need in-depth stats to tell me so.

As Americans, we’re in the minority when it comes to ignoring soccer. About six billion sets of eyes have no problem judging the artistry on a soccer pitch, but the statistical analysis and complexity will always draw the 300 million pairs of American eyes toward the diamond, grid iron or court.