Moyesieball

[davek]

That's a stretch.

The film is about using a new system to stretch the establishment. And the Oakland A's came 1 series away from doing exactly that in 2002, with a joke of a stadium, a joke of resources, and a locale in the Bay Area that is downtrodden. The team is a farm team essentially, and the success they had that year was MIND BOGGLING.

The point that Jonah's character makes at the end of the movie that making it to the divisional series and that being a success is something to take away.

In order to win the Champions League, you have to qualify first.

Second, I've argued this before, but the use of stats in the film is another major takeaway. I'm glad Everton is on the cutting edge of that.

P.S. And the way Liverpool spent - there is no way they are using Moneyball methods...yet.

Many, many years ago (probably when Billy Beane was failing as a fledgeling baseball player) a club called Notts Forest pioneered this system without all the razzamataz of declaring the finding of a revolutionary way of using sports science. They picked up odds and sods from all over the place and moulded them into a team that lifted two European Cups along their glorious way.

It could be done back then in this country. Now, those players who Taylor and Clough reinvented and brought through would have been cherry picked in the blink of an eye and no dynasty would emerge to threaten the big boys.

If it's being suggested Everton (or any other non-elite club ) could make the great leap forward with this system: that's a cruel fallacy.

 

[Nails]

It is no given that the RS will adopt moneyball considering the Red Sox don't follow moneyball at all any longer. The movie ends quite a few years back.

I thought it was certain that the RS were using some form of moneyball. Thus why they bought Downing, Carroll, and Henderson.

Anyway, Red Sox might not use moneyball anymore, but they're different to the RS. Henry still needs to do more than spending to win the league because the RS can't pick up the best midfielders and strikers based on money alone.

 

[Kay20]

If it's being suggested Everton (or any other non-elite club ) could make the great leap forward with this system: that's a cruel fallacy.

For me it's not about the system, it's about the learnings and the reliance on stats. We need to find a way to compete with the big boys. If this helps, it's a plus.

I find it sad that article leaves you cold. To me it's fascinating, a step forward, and necessary.

 

[Kay20]

Remarkably I am qualified in "Quantitative and Qualitative Statistical Analysis" among other things.

Perhaps you are as well, why not try reading and comprehension next to avoid the "chip on your shoulder" point you've manufactured.

1) I wasn't referring to just you, don't take it so personal.
2) There are people that read a stats thread awhile ago (discussing a predecessor to the article that davek pointed to) that would understand that reference as there was an argument there referring to "American stats."
3) My reading and comprehension skills that I developed at grad school are just fine, but thanks for asking.

 

[Kay20]

It is no given that the RS will adopt moneyball considering the Red Sox don't follow moneyball at all any longer. The movie ends quite a few years back. They did indeed adopt some of the strategies (and finally win a world series) but on the back of that success they turned into Man City. They have started just spending as much money as possible and ignoring the principals of moneyball. Last year they had the most epic collapse in the history of baseball (if not all sports ever) and lost their playoff spot to a team that spends a tiny amount compared with them. If you want a team playing moneyball (or at least a modified version) then you want to look at the Tampa Bay Rays. They have almost no money and compete with the Yankees and Red Sox:

2011 (opening day) Payrolls: Boston $161.4m (they ended up with 90 wins) Tampa Bay $41.9m (had 91 wins)

Boston learned nothing from that experience and their payroll is even higher for 2012. They are in last place in their division -- Tampa (who did spend a little more this year to make a push but still nowhere near Boston) is in first (although it's insanely early in the season because they play a preposterous amount of games every year).

Boston has one of the highest payrolls in the league -- they are not doing anything close to moneyball and I wouldn't expect the RS to do anything close to moneyball. Henry just throws money at things -- there is actually no small irony in the fact that he is linked to moneyball from that hire because they are pretty much the opposite of moneyball these days.

Soccernomics is a good read if you're into this line of thinking.

Was a good movie though.

Meanwhile, the Oakland A's keep trucking along as a slightly above average team. Moneyball policy still exists there I believe - I follow the other team across the bay so I'm not fully sure.

For me this stuff is fascinating - Soccernomics is on my list of books to read.

 

[njligernj]

I thought it was certain that the RS were using some form of moneyball. Thus why they bought Downing, Carroll, and Henderson.

Not sure if serious. Downing was 20m, Carroll 35m, Henderson 20m. They were young(ish) as a group but definitely not undervalued players. They paid market (if not above market) for those players and almost certainly above value (although who knows how they will turn out). Moneyball could also involve selling players at a peak -- it will be very hard to get their money back on Carroll given his age (let alone his performance).

Moneyball isn't directly applicable to football of course; I posted a thread a year or so ago about how strategies suggested in Soccernomics suggested we should have paid Pienaar his money rather than sell him. Reasonably sure that one has been proved out.

 

[NJToffee]

Meanwhile, the Oakland A's keep trucking along as a slightly above average team. Moneyball policy still exists there I believe - I follow the other team across the bay so I'm not fully sure.

For me this stuff is fascinating - Soccernomics is on my list of books to read.

The Moneyball philosophy was built upon identifying an undervalued skill and using it to your advantage. In the Oakland A's case, they identified the ability to get on base as an undervalued skills. They targeted cheap players with these skills and were able to compete within the restraints of their budget. That said, baseball - along with many other sports - has a copycat mentality. Other teams saw what the A's were doing and then started targeting players with the ability to get on base - essentially pricing the A's out of the market. That forced the A's to try to come up with another undervalued skill. In recent years, they've tried building a team based on defense, but have had limited success. It's all about trying to find an edge - especially if you're fiscally challenged.

 

[Nails]

Not sure if serious. Downing was 20m, Carroll 35m, Henderson 20m. They were young(ish) as a group but definitely not undervalued players. They paid market (if not above market) for those players and almost certainly above value (although who knows how they will turn out). Moneyball could also involve selling players at a peak -- it will be very hard to get their money back on Carroll given his age (let alone his performance).

Of course, their pricing isn't an economical version of moneyball. I was more talking the "more crosses + more shots = victory" philosophy that those particular players were bought on.

But, if you read what I wrote correctly: it was "money + moneyball" that Henry has tried to impress upon the RS. It's not an OA's/Billy Beane specific mentality, but that was the point of the film. Did BB want to believe in something, or did he just want to succeed?

 

[njligernj]

it was "money + moneyball" that Henry has tried to impress upon the RS. It's not an OA's/Billy Beane specific mentality, but that was the point of the film. Did BB want to believe in something, or did he just want to succeed?

Fair enough. I think as the Sox are demonstrating in the past few years that just doesn't work but I do see your point as to what they are trying to do. It's funny because soccernomics (and some other people) have found when you apply this kind of analysis to football you come up with some different strategies than you would find in moneyball (for instance as I mentioned earlier how soccernomics said we should have paid Pienaar because if you find a player who fits your team it's "cheaper" to keep them, even at a high wage, than try to replace them). In baseball you "only" waste a salary on a poor signing -- in football you can waste salary + transfer fee. Poor signings are way more damaging -- therefore trying for a relatively minor upgrade on a position (you have a good player but want a great one) carries a large amount of risk (as you sacrifice a known good player for a player who could be poor ... and it costs you a bunch of money).

 

[willymitch]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/jen_chang/04/29/performance.analytics/index.html

Loving the thread...and that article especially. The Everton/Oakland A's comparison was one the "sports guy" made a few years back when selecting an EPL club to support. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/060719 This guy Simmons is not my favorite, but it's an interesting take on the football-ignorant Yank trying to figure out what's what in Britain based mostly on hearsay.

As others have said, the A's strategy has not proven to be successful long-term. The end game is still developing young talent and spending wisely for good value when you get the chance (Jelavic?)(my Texas Rangers). The stats connection is tough to make b/c football is so fluid and form-driven, while baseball is so not. Good movie, better book. Any Michael Lewis, really.

Can I get some more football book recommendations? Soccernomics is now definitely on the list...

 

[Nails]

It's funny because soccernomics (and some other people) have found when you apply this kind of analysis to football you come up with some different strategies than you would find in moneyball (for instance as I mentioned earlier how soccernomics said we should have paid Pienaar because if you find a player who fits your team it's "cheaper" to keep them, even at a high wage, than try to replace them). In baseball you "only" waste a salary on a poor signing -- in football you can waste salary + transfer fee. Poor signings are way more damaging -- therefore trying for a relatively minor upgrade on a position (you have a good player but want a great one) carries a large amount of risk (as you sacrifice a known good player for a player who could be poor ... and it costs you a bunch of money).

This point just makes me sad. And we have somehow made it even more expensive to keep the player. What a bit of bad business that was. But to be honest, Pienaar has come back a better player IMO. Nothing to do with Spurs, the experience just matured him me thinks.