• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Victimpool FC - Klopp leaving, grown men crying

NewYorkSpurs said:
Moneyball concept with football, interesting. Not really parallels with baseball since baseball is basically 1-one-1 and very very statistic oriented. But yeah, the one comparison is develop young talent and sell them off for a high high price. I don't think Spurs have done that, ever. All of the A's incredible talent was developed in their minor league system (equivalent of an academy).
Click to expand...

I agree, it is far easier to identify undervalued players in a sport where you specialise in one or two things. Moneyball in football doesn't and won't work. If that really is FSG's plan then Liverpool are heading for disaster and Rodgers is going to have some pony players to work with.
 
braineclipse said:
I have not, have read a bit about it and haven't bothered reading the book so far. What is the essence of moneyball then?
Click to expand...

The gist is, baseball is very statistic based and because you have a pitcher and a batter, hitting is always a series of 1-on-1 events. Therefore, you can develop trends about players and what they do well consistently and what they don't do well. There's literally hundreds of different algorithms, formulas and statistics analyzing baseball players. Billy Beane, the general manager of the A's, outsmarted everyone by deciding that the most important thing for hitters wasn't home runs, or hits, it was on-base percentage. If they get on base more, they score more runs, your team wins more games. Sounds simple, and it is to an extent (but there are far more complicated stats). You simply can't do that with football, at least not in my mind, but I'm not a mathemetician. There's not enough 1-on-1 activity to really develop player trends.
 
It seems silly to me to think that Henry and the Boston group are going to try and implement a moneyball type of schematic for football, but if anyone could figure it out, it would be them. They have the best mathematicians and statisticians from Harvard and MIT working for them on this brick, I kid you not. They may be a mess for a few years, but Henry is incredibly shrewd as an owner. He will turn them around.
 
milo said:
A statistical analysis of players to identify ones who are under-valued in the market.
Click to expand...

then im not sure if Levy had read it when he signed the likes of Bent and Bentley

so Saudi Sportswashing Machine, with Carr and Pardew working in tandem, seem to be following the Moneyball model to a tee?
 
indianspur said:
then im not sure if Levy had read it when he signed the likes of Bent and Bentley

so Saudi Sportswashing Machine, with Carr and Pardew working in tandem, seem to be following the Moneyball model to a tee?
Click to expand...

Again, not sure how moneyball applies at all to football, but Saudi Sportswashing Machine seem to be the best at buying undervalued talent and likely turning it around for huge profit. Beane certainly did that, so I guess you could say they're doing the same there too.
 
indianspur said:
then im not sure if Levy had read it when he signed the likes of Bent and Bentley

so Saudi Sportswashing Machine, with Carr and Pardew working in tandem, seem to be following the Moneyball model to a tee?
Click to expand...

Bent and Bentley are text book examples of paying top price for a player at the peak of their form and who can only head in one direction.

I don't think that Saudi Sportswashing Machine are following Moneyball either. I just think that they are taking a punt on players that their peers won't and everything went their way this season.
 
NewYorkSpurs said:
The gist is, baseball is very statistic based and because you have a pitcher and a batter, hitting is always a series of 1-on-1 events. Therefore, you can develop trends about players and what they do well consistently and what they don't do well. There's literally hundreds of different algorithms, formulas and statistics analyzing baseball players. Billy Beane, the general manager of the A's, outsmarted everyone by deciding that the most important thing for hitters wasn't home runs, or hits, it was on-base percentage. If they get on base more, they score more runs, your team wins more games. Sounds simple, and it is to an extent (but there are far more complicated stats). You simply can't do that with football, at least not in my mind, but I'm not a mathemetician. There's not enough 1-on-1 activity to really develop player trends.
Click to expand...

milo said:
A statistical analysis of players to identify ones who are under-valued in the market.
Click to expand...

This I understand.

To me at least the stats seem to be only a tool to be able to do better transfers than your opponents, also known as shrewd business.

You can't base a football approach on stats in a similar way, although some stats are obviously useful. However, the basic idea of outsmarting your opposition by signing players that are better value seems to me to very much transferable, although obvious and the underlying plan, although different tools must be used to identify those players that are underrated.
 
braineclipse said:
This I understand.

To me at least the stats seem to be only a tool to be able to do better transfers than your opponents, also known as shrewd business.

You can't base a football approach on stats in a similar way, although some stats are obviously useful. However, the basic idea of outsmarting your opposition by signing players that are better value seems to me to very much transferable, although obvious and the underlying plan, although different tools must be used to identify those players that are underrated.
Click to expand...
With football it seems to me not so much about being shrewd in recognizing talent (since it's all subjective when not based on stats), but being willing to venture outside your comfort zone. Lots of managers will only sign English, or will only take guys from established teams who play for good national teams. Why didn't bigger clubs go for Cisse? Surely he's going to be playing for a top club in a matter of years. There's so much talent, you just need to go to places you're not used to going to.
 
NewYorkSpurs said:
It seems silly to me to think that Henry and the Boston group are going to try and implement a moneyball type of schematic for football, but if anyone could figure it out, it would be them. They have the best mathematicians and statisticians from Harvard and MIT working for them on this brick, I kid you not. They may be a mess for a few years, but Henry is incredibly shrewd as an owner. He will turn them around.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that and especially that it cannot apply to an open, flowing game like football.
 
braineclipse said:
This I understand.

To me at least the stats seem to be only a tool to be able to do better transfers than your opponents, also known as shrewd business.

You can't base a football approach on stats in a similar way, although some stats are obviously useful. However, the basic idea of outsmarting your opposition by signing players that are better value seems to me to very much transferable, although obvious and the underlying plan, although different tools must be used to identify those players that are underrated.
Click to expand...

Owners and managers have been trying to out smart their opponents and snatch a bargain since football went professional, it doesn't make it moneyball.
 
NewYorkSpurs said:
It seems silly to me to think that Henry and the Boston group are going to try and implement a moneyball type of schematic for football, but if anyone could figure it out, it would be them. They have the best mathematicians and statisticians from Harvard and MIT working for them on this brick, I kid you not. They may be a mess for a few years, but Henry is incredibly shrewd as an owner. He will turn them around.
Click to expand...

Baseball doesnt have relegation, doesnt have the equivalent of CL qualification and the difference that can make to finances of those who qualify and those who dont. The transfer market is completely different, the mentalities of people involved in both sports are different.....Im not sure having the best mathematicians and statisticians is going to help FSG to that great an extent
 
NewYorkSpurs said:
With football it seems to me not so much about being shrewd in recognizing talent (since it's all subjective when not based on stats), but being willing to venture outside your comfort zone. Lots of managers will only sign English, or will only take guys from established teams who play for good national teams. Why didn't bigger clubs go for Cisse? Surely he's going to be playing for a top club in a matter of years. There's so much talent, you just need to go to places you're not used to going to.
Click to expand...

Just because it's not based on stats doesn't make it all subjective.

I don't think it's only venturing outside your comfort zone either, it's about meticulous work by talented professionals.

milo said:
Owners and managers have been trying to out smart their opponents and snatch a bargain since football went professional, it doesn't make it moneyball.
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested in an argument of definition and I have no problems accepting your definition as better than mine.

I do think their statistical analysis was just a tool for them to complete their objectives and that the approach is more important than the tools being used, or rather that the development of the tools comes as a result of the approach.
 
I can't see the owners wanting to put any more money in after what has been spent (wasted) since they took over. If Rodgers has to generate funds from sales then he is in trouble because the only player that I think he could sell at a profit is Suarez. I suppose he might also be able to make a profit on Adam but it would be peanuts.
 
braineclipse said:
I do think their statistical analysis was just a tool for them to complete their objectives and that the approach is more important than the tools being used, or rather that the development of the tools comes as a result of the approach.
Click to expand...

It's not. It is all about using stats to identify and sign players.
 
everything ive seen from FSG so far shows me that they are way out of their depth.....they make Gillete and Hicks look stable and inspired
 
milo said:
I can't see the owners wanting to put any more money in after what has been spent (wasted) since they took over. If Rodgers has to generate funds from sales then he is in trouble because the only player that I think he could sell at a profit is Suarez. I suppose he might also be able to make a profit on Adam but it would be peanuts.
Click to expand...

nobody can predict what these owners are going to do...because they dont seem to have any idea what they are doing from one day to the next

you may be right, they might tighten the purse strings, but would you be that shocked if they decided to hand Rodgers 60-70 mill to go out and shop? I wouldnt be surprised by either variant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back