Put Leicester City in Context

[digamma]

I wanted to pull something out of the soccer thread because I think it's an interesting discussion.

A lot of the focus on Leicester City's surprise win of the Premiere League is on their 5000-1 odds at the beginning of the season, and based on that it being a once in a lifetime thing.

The odds are compelling for sure, but I'm struggling to place it in context because it is a season long affair. It isn't Buster Douglas knocking out Mike Tyson on his one good night. It isn't Villanova shooting 67% to beat Georgetown. Or the Giants beating the Patriots.

When we think of great upsets, they're usually single event affairs, which we can blame on the variance of outcomes with a one time thing. But the Premiere League is 38 games (36 of which have been played) and Leicester City has lost 3 times. While it's obviously still a small sample size, it's not a single event anymore. When you read about how the team was put together, it reads like something just short of The Replacements, with Keanu stepping in to score the winning goal after a pint at the pub with his long lost uncle.

The season that popped into my head was the 1991 baseball season where the Twins and Braves both went from worst to first and played a fantastic world series. No idea what the odds were there, and maybe the odds shouldn't be the focus.

So, discuss. In what context can you place Leicester City?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by digamma

I wanted to pull something out of the soccer thread because I think it's an interesting discussion.

A lot of the focus on Leicester City's surprise win of the Premiere League is on their 5000-1 odds at the beginning of the season, and based on that it being a once in a lifetime thing.

The odds are compelling for sure, but I'm struggling to place it in context because it is a season long affair. It isn't Buster Douglas knocking out Mike Tyson on his one good night. It isn't Villanova shooting 67% to beat Georgetown. Or the Giants beating the Patriots.

When we think of great upsets, they're usually single event affairs, which we can blame on the variance of outcomes with a one time thing. But the Premiere League is 38 games (36 of which have been played) and Leicester City has lost 3 times. While it's obviously still a small sample size, it's not a single event anymore. When you read about how the team was put together, it reads like something just short of The Replacements, with Keanu stepping in to score the winning goal after a pint at the pub with his long lost uncle.

The season that popped into my head was the 1991 baseball season where the Twins and Braves both went from worst to first and played a fantastic world series. No idea what the odds were there, and maybe the odds shouldn't be the focus.

So, discuss. In what context can you place Leicester City?

Closest to 3000-1 with actual odds (stolen from an ESPN insider article)...

2013 Auburn Football (1000-1) Didn't win not sure why in article. I guess because they were less than a minute from winning?
2011 St. Louis Cardinals (999-1) This was late in the season when they were 4.5 games out of the wild card with 15 games left
1987 Twins (500-1) Highest actual opening odds.

[Butter]

VCU was something like 820-1 to reach the Final Four in 2011 according to Nate Silver... and that was at the beginning of the tournament, not before the season started.

Villanova also would've been about 800-1 to win the '85 title before the tournament itself started.

[MIJB#19]

1.FC Kaiserslautern won the 1.Bundesliga in the 1997/1998 season, a season after promotion back to the top level in German soccer. Although the context is slightly different, as Kaiserslautern finished 4th just three season earlier and won the DFB Pokal two seasons earlier. Their relegation in the 1996/1997 season was basically the oddity in that timeframe.

Coincidentally also in the 1997/1998 season, RC Lens won their first and so far only French soccer championship, a season after a 13th place finish.

In the 2011/2012 Ligue 1, Montpelier HSC won their first and so far only French soccer championship. This came a season after finishing 14th, just 3 points above the relegation zone.

[digamma]

Thanks MIJB. Yeah, I'm less interested in comparing the odds to other situations, but maybe that is our only objective marker. I'm more interested in the story here.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm not sure you can put it in context with American sports. I posted this in the soccer thread back in February:

In the Premier League era (1992+), the following teams have won the league: Manchester United, Blackburn Rovers, Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City.

Also in that time frame, the following teams have finished 2nd or 3rd (if not listed above): Aston Villa, Norwich City, Nottingham Forest, Liverpool, Newcastle United, Leeds United.


In the OMG MONEY era (following Abramovich's purchase of Chelsea in 2003), the following teams have won the league: Arsenal, Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea.

Also in that time frame, the following teams have finished 2nd or 3rd (if not listed above): Liverpool


Of the basically 5 consistently realistic contenders (being generous to Liverpool here), 2 have mogul owners and 1 is a commercial juggernaut.

The NFL, NHL and NBA have salary caps and league setups designed to create parity, so they're a world away from the free market that is European soccer. In theory the MLB's free market would be closest and we could offer the example of, say, the Oakland A's winning a World Series when surrounded by financial juggernauts like the Yankees, Red Sox, etc....

But there have been 11 separate WS winners since 1992 (see above). Plus, the playoff system to win throws off the analogy.

If you changed the metric to most wins in a season, then since 1992 it looks like 10 MLB teams have "won the league" (note: I may have miscounted by 1 or 2). It's kind of closer, but not really.


The thing is that unlike American sports, it's absolutely possible to buy success, especially league success in Europe's "Big Five" leagues. You can buy league success through a combination of a) having better players at most/every system with a true global star or two sprinkled in and b) buying sufficient depth to make it through the season without dipping substantially in form.

It's this way that the system is stacked against teams without those resources (and let's be clear, Leicester spent 100M to assemble their squad, but even that amount is dwarfed by the "usual suspects"). If Jamie Vardy breaks his leg in December and is out for the rest of the year, Leicester don't win the league. If Sergio Aguero breaks his leg in December, Man City could, if they wished, go out in January and buy a direct replacement for 50M.

[The Jackal]

I don't think there is a comparable. This is unprecedented.

[Easy Mac]

Just for major league baseball, since 1992 (the start of the premier league) every major league team has finished among the top 4 at the end of the season (based on my counting, it finally happened last year thanks to the cubs and royals)

[MIJB#19]

Understood, digamma. No desire to derail the discussion. Looking around and digging in memory, these oddities are happening more often than the odds that were given. 5000-1 is still a bit too steep for my liking. Bookmakers should know better based on past events. They must have forgotten Nottingham Forest and it's unique results between 1977 and 1979, going from newly promoted to league champions, to European Cup winners.

We also need to look at the bigger picture in the English Premier League. The favorites going into the season all struggled during the season. Manchester City, Chelsea and Manchester United were all playing below their standards of recent seasons.

Right now, the Leicester City fairy tale has the likelihood of continuing as the Lens and Montpellier stories. This could be just one freak season for this team/club. Chances are the key players will be snatched away by the big money clubs, or the players will collapse next season with the additional attention, Champions' League pressure, etc. I hope not, Cinderella stories are great, but the odds are not in their favor.

[nol]

Is there a good 'explainer' type of article for this season? Team construction, history, tactics, development, whatever - just looking for something less dry than Wikipedia.

[Easy Mac]

*fixing my math, since Mon/Was are really the same. Further inspection shows the Rockies have not finished in the top 4, so they are the worst team over the past 25 years.

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Just for major league baseball, since 1992 (the start of the premier league) every major league team has finished among the top 4 at the end of the season (based on my counting, it finally happened last year thanks to the cubs and royals)

Just to expand on my work:

1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015
atl	atl	mon	cle	cle	atl	nyy	atl	sf	sea	nyy	nyy	stl	stl	nym	bos	laa	nyy	phi	phi	was	bos	laa	stl
pit	sf	nyy	atl	atl	bal	atl	ari	chw	oak	oak	atl	nyy	chw	nyy	cle	chc	laa	tb	nyy	cin	stl	bal	pit
tor	phi	atl	bos	nyy	nyy	hou	nyy	atl	nyy	atl	sf	bos	laa	min	laa	tb	lad	nyy	tex	nyy	atl	was	chc
oak	tor	chw	cin	sd	fla	sd	hou	stl	hou	laa	oak	atl	nyy	det	nyy	bos	bos	min	mil	sf	oak	lad	kc
																							
	win	top4																					
ari	0	1																					
atl	4	13																					
bal	0	2																					
bos	2	6																					
chc	0	2																					
chw	0	3																					
cin	0	2																					
cle	2	3																					
det	0	1																					
fla	0	1																					
hou	0	3																					
kc	0	1																					
laa	2	6																					
lad	0	2																					
mil	0	1																					
min	0	2																					
mon	1	1																					
nym	1	1																					
nyy	4	16																					
oak	0	5																					
phi	2	3																					
pit	0	2																					
sd	0	2																					
sea	1	1																					
sf	1	4																					
stl	3	5																					
tb	0	2																					
tex	0	1																					
tor	0	2																					
was	1(2)	2(3)																					

So the closest MLB has to Leicester City right now is the 2001 Seattle Mariners or 2006 Mets. The Braves and the Yankees are essentially Man U and Chelsea, with the Angles, Red Sox and Cardinals Man City, Arsenal and I guess Liverpool.

[bhlloy]

I was thinking about this last night, and the only US major league comparable I could come up with would be an expansion team winning it all in their first season in the NBA/NHL. I don't know if that's a great comparison but it's the best I could come up with.

Other than that, I would guess from the odds it is somewhat comparable to a not particularly fancied team from a minor conference winning the NCAA tourney

[JPhillips]

North Vietnam over USA?

[rowech]

It's a AAA baseball team winning the World Series in its second major league season.

[digamma]

So, I think pre-wild card MLB is probably the closest comparison we have in the US.

And I go back to the 1991 season. The Twins in 1990 were maybe an aberration. They had won the World Series in 1987 and been a decent team throughout the 80s.

The Braves on the other hand were cellar dwellers since 1984, with horrible, horrible teams. And the offseason acquisitions were Terry Pendleton, Otis Nixon and Sid Bream. Not exactly earth shattering. Who knew Pendleton would be the rock of the team and have an MVP season? There were glimmers of hope in the pitching staff. Glavine had been ok on bad teams, but I don't think anyone thought they would really gel like the did.

And to MIJB's point, this was really the launching pad for what became the Braves dynasty of the 90s. No one knew that going in. I mean, heck, the Braves were about .500 and 9 games back at the All Star break.

Of course, the Twins edged them out in the end, but maybe that's the closest thing we have in terms of a story. Core group of unproven youngsters supplemented by a random group of role players who somehow came together over the course of a season to be a really good team.

[General Mike]

1991 Braves are the team that jumped out to me when I read the original post. They had lost 402 games over the previous 4 seasons, so it wasn't like they were a team who had come back from a down year. They got a career year from Terry Pendleton. Young pitching came to the forefront.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by digamma

So, I think pre-wild card MLB is probably the closest comparison we have in the US.

And I go back to the 1991 season. The Twins in 1990 were maybe an aberration. They had won the World Series in 1987 and been a decent team throughout the 80s.

The Braves on the other hand were cellar dwellers since 1984, with horrible, horrible teams. And the offseason acquisitions were Terry Pendleton, Otis Nixon and Sid Bream. Not exactly earth shattering. Who knew Pendleton would be the rock of the team and have an MVP season? There were glimmers of hope in the pitching staff. Glavine had been ok on bad teams, but I don't think anyone thought they would really gel like the did.

And to MIJB's point, this was really the launching pad for what became the Braves dynasty of the 90s. No one knew that going in. I mean, heck, the Braves were about .500 and 9 games back at the All Star break.

Of course, the Twins edged them out in the end, but maybe that's the closest thing we have in terms of a story. Core group of unproven youngsters supplemented by a random group of role players who somehow came together over the course of a season to be a really good team.

Yeah, the Twins had some building blocks for sure, but it was still a remarkable season. The team won 74 games the year before and their top 2 off season signings were both reclamation projects. (Jack Morris and Chili Davis)

The '87 Twins team was incredibly lucky to have even been in the playoffs. The '91 version was a terrific team and deserved their success. The Braves were the bigger story.

The amazing thing is that the World Series that year was two teams who finished in last place playing for it all.

I can't think of an American story similar to Leicester. Single game stuff? Nah.

The absolute closest thing I can come up with will actually be a surprise to most of you.

The 2001 New England Patriots. The 2000 Patriots finished 5-11. In 2001 they started off 0-2 and their franchise QB was drilled in game two with the offense being handed over to a 6th round draft choice from the year before. They go 12-4 and upset the Rams in the Super Bowl to start their dynasty.

Nobody expected that team to win the title. Nobody figured that QB or that team would follow it up with 6 more Super Bowls in the next 15 years.

[MIJB#19]

If you're looking for an NFL equivalent, without knowing what is (or then was) to come, I think the 1999 St. Louis Rams qualify as similar, going from 4-12 (and 9 seasons without playoffs) to winning the Super Bowl or the 1981 San Francisco 49ers, that went from 6-10 (and 8 seasons without playoffs) to winning the Super Bowl. The biggest difference is that these NFL franchises had a bit more success before, unlike Leicester City. But in return, the competition in the NFL is different, with more teams on the same level of competition (31 and 28 top level teams with these two teams), yet there are no minor leagues to promote from in previous seasons.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by TroyF

The absolute closest thing I can come up with will actually be a surprise to most of you.

The 2001 New England Patriots. The 2000 Patriots finished 5-11. In 2001 they started off 0-2 and their franchise QB was drilled in game two with the offense being handed over to a 6th round draft choice from the year before. They go 12-4 and upset the Rams in the Super Bowl to start their dynasty.

Nobody expected that team to win the title. Nobody figured that QB or that team would follow it up with 6 more Super Bowls in the next 15 years.

I too thought of the Patriots, but in comparison the two I mentioned above, they were just 2 seasons without the playoffs and did reach the Super Bowl only 5 seasons earlier.

[Young Drachma]

There's just no American context that makes as much sense. Leicester won League One in 2009 and seven years later won the ENTIRE PREMIER LEAGUE.

Their leading scorer was several years ago playing semi-pro.

It's a fucking movie or basically every dynasty I've ever written where I take over an underdog and then win a title and it feels unrealistic.

But my parallel are the 1995 New Jersey Devils.

[The Jackal]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I was thinking about this last night, and the only US major league comparable I could come up with would be an expansion team winning it all in their first season in the NBA/NHL. I don't know if that's a great comparison but it's the best I could come up with.

This is actually one of the better examples I've heard.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm somewhat amazed (no pun intended) that the 1969 Mets haven't been mentioned. Expansion team in 1962 and absolutely horrible until 1969 when they incredibly won the NL and then the World Series over the heavily favored Baltimore Orioles.

[Buccaneer]

Like bhlloy, I don't think there is an American equivalent. I told my son that I believe it would be like a college football team playing in Division II. A few years ago (e.g., northwest mo state) winning the FBS playoffs.

[AlexB]

Although I'm not entirely objective on the matter, I don't think there is an equivalent in the sports I know a bit about (which in the US is only football, so i may not know examples in the MLB/NBA/NHL, although I would guess MLB might have a closest example given the different salary cap?)

To put it into context, one of the UK bookies was on the radio today saying that they had never paid out a single 5000-1 bet until this one in any field, not just sport. I think it is unprecedented in the modern era.

The only example I know that is comparable is Nottingham Forest in 1978 winning the league in their first season after winning the old Division 2 (back when the leagues were named properly!). But the whole football system was very different then, much more even financially and on the field, and there were regularly 'surprise' second place finishers and below.

What Forest went on to do by winning two European Cups afterwards will also never be repeated, again partly because the current CL format makes it nigh on impossible. But that three year cycle for Forest was outstanding.

Other examples mooted such as Buster Douglas, John Daly, Greece, even Boris Becker at Wimbledon were all amazing, but over much shorter cycles and more understandable.

Leicester's title win was over nine months, and in fact the form has held over 13 months, which is not supposed to happen.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

There's just no American context that makes as much sense. Leicester won League One in 2009 and seven years later won the ENTIRE PREMIER LEAGUE.

Their leading scorer was several years ago playing semi-pro.

It's a fucking movie or basically every dynasty I've ever written where I take over an underdog and then win a title and it feels unrealistic.

But my parallel are the 1995 New Jersey Devils.

BTW there has been a Jamie Vardy movie in devlopment for six months or so now - apparently nearly finalised the script and beginning to think about casting!

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

There's just no American context that makes as much sense. Leicester won League One in 2009 and seven years later won the ENTIRE PREMIER LEAGUE.

Their leading scorer was several years ago playing semi-pro.

It's a fucking movie or basically every dynasty I've ever written where I take over an underdog and then win a title and it feels unrealistic.

But my parallel are the 1995 New Jersey Devils.

Devils losing in double OT of game 7 of the conference finals earlier in the year pretty much eliminates them from the conversation.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by digamma

So, discuss. In what context can you place Leicester City?

Maybe the closest I can think of is the 65-66 Texas Western winning the national title. They were an unranked INDY team who went 16-9 the year before and went 29-1 beating powerhouses Kansas and Kentucky along the way.

Both teams did something different from the rest of the teams they were playing (Western with it's "radical" starting lineup and Leicester with it's formation/strategy). Both did something that other teams didn't do and it resulted in a title for both. Leicester isn't a great statistical team (think 19th out of 20 in possession and 20th in passing) but built their team on fitness, using the same lineup each game and the most vanilla 4-4-2 formation.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by nol

Is there a good 'explainer' type of article for this season? Team construction, history, tactics, development, whatever - just looking for something less dry than Wikipedia.

The soccer writing at The Guardian is usually excellent for this stuff. If you click through right now there's a whole bunch of great articles explaining what happened, and why it's so unprecedented.

[Arles]

I posted this on facebook. Hampton was a #16 seed in the NCAA tourney and lost to #1 Virginia by 36 points. No #16 had ever won a game (yet alone the tournament), yet Hampton winning it all (1000-1) had 5 times better odds than Leicester City winning the EPL.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

There's just no American context that makes as much sense. Leicester won League One in 2009 and seven years later won the ENTIRE PREMIER LEAGUE.

Their leading scorer was several years ago playing semi-pro.

It's a fucking movie or basically every dynasty I've ever written where I take over an underdog and then win a title and it feels unrealistic.

But my parallel are the 1995 New Jersey Devils.

Excellent illustration.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'd have thought this is the closest US sport equivalent? ..

Mighty Ducks movie

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Arles

I posted this on facebook. Hampton was a #16 seed in the NCAA tourney and lost to #1 Virginia by 36 points. No #16 had ever won a game (yet alone the tournament), yet Hampton winning it all (1000-1) had 5 times better odds than Leicester City winning the EPL.

That makes me wonder how a book distinguishes between offering odds at 1000-1 or 5000-1.

[OldGiants]

Here's a good article about the 5000 to 1 business.

The 5,000-1 payouts on Leicester only tell part of Premier League betting story | Greg Wood | Football | The Guardian

Essentially there were 12 bets of the "fiver" nature made at those odds, and most were cashed in early. No one is talking about Tom Hanks any more, either, so I conclude the 5000 to 1 was a teaser/sucker bet that paid off.

[Logan]

Even at long odds I'd still be surprised if they lost out with all those much larger, much more frequent bets on the presumed favorites.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Logan

That makes me wonder how a book distinguishes between offering odds at 1000-1 or 5000-1.

Many of them have a model and simulate a game/season out many thousands of times, so in all likelihood they are able to be more granular with low odds than even that, but 5200-1 or 4500-1 aren't as eye-catching as the round number.

I think the "5 times more unlikely than Hampton winning the NCAA tournament" is a bit out of wack because for that, the vast majority of people putting money on Hampton will be alums who don't care what the odds specifically are, whereas there are certainly more avenues for sports betting in England. So maybe Hampton is "really" a 5,000 or 10,000-to-1 long shot but books have found that it doesn't really affect the bottom line while obviously providing more coverage for events such as this.

[Senator]

Not what digamma was looking for but when I was a kid this was considered the craziest thing that ever happened.

https://youtu.be/D_YdxrPD04g

[Comey]

This is pretty good, in terms of comparing it to English history:

Leicester Premier League title the top achievement in history

[Toddzilla]

I think the 5000-1 odds, while the actuall odds placed on the event, were wildly overstated and not really accurate - duh. However, if someone had run an FM 2016 sim and Leicester won, people would relentlessly bash the FM engine.

I'll agree that you simply can't properly put this in the context of American sports since promotion/relegation are absent and teams in professional leagues - for the most part - make similar revenue.

I would liken this to the expansion Marlins or Rockies winning the World Series, because those are the longest odds I can think of.

I'd also guess that the worst of FBS teams would have much longer odds of winning the National Championship - because it's very nearly impossible - but that would seem right to me.

[murrayyyyy]

According to the Superbook @ Westgate: we had 1 $5 ticket at 2000/1, and 1 $10 ticket and 1 $5 ticket at 1000/1 purchased

[EagleFan]

I think a comparable would be any Cleveland franchise winning a title...?

[RainMaker]

What would the 1980 US Hockey team have been?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What would the 1980 US Hockey team have been?

I think this is actually a very good comparison

[nol]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I think this is actually a very good comparison

No way, not when it's a single game. The Uconn women are probably 5,000-1 favorites against a 16 seed, and the US men were at least one of the top 5 or so teams on a consistent basis. Even if it's the odds of winning the tournament, I doubt they were underdogs to make it out of group play.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by nol

No way, not when it's a single game. The Uconn women are probably 5,000-1 favorites against a 16 seed, and the US men were at least one of the top 5 or so teams on a consistent basis. Even if it's the odds of winning the tournament, I doubt they were underdogs to make it out of group play.

I make the reference only based on the fact that they never really threatened the big 3 before this.

A good Baseball comparison is the 1914 Boston Braves. In last place in July they rallied to take the NL pennant and then upset the heavily favored Philadelphia A's in the series and really did come from nowhere.

In the 5 season prior they were 45-108, 53-100, 44-107, 52-101 and 69-82, finishing 5th once and dead last the other 4 seasons. In addition they had had just one winning season since the turn of the century and had finished 7th or 8th in 8 of those seasons.

[Ned Doolittle]

Daniel Larusso winning a karate tournament with less than a year of informal training and an injured leg in the final match.

[flere-imsaho]

Thread over.