Topic: Moneyball, Soccernomics and Liverpool's transfer policy

[JackWard33]

I know that. Just me wish-thinking.

How much do you think we will get in budget this summer?

Be surprised if it wasn't 30-35 million as that's the rough profit the club can expect to make in the year (not a million miles off last years budget)
Don't expect the owners will invest beyond that unfortunately

[Blade]

Well, it seems that the Moneyball principles are finally being implemented in our transfer policy. In the past couple of days, we have been linked by some respectable sources with a couple of strikers that perfectly fit the Moneyball theory: Matias Suarez (Anderlecht) and Jackson Martinez (Jaguares - Mexico). Both of them at a good age (24/25), both of them with only 1 year remaining on their contract, both of them prolific in recent seasons, and both of them still playing in some relatively smaller leagues.

[AlexanderKruseBerg]

Be surprised if it wasn't 30-35 million as that's the rough profit the club can expect to make in the year (not a million miles off last years budget)
Don't expect the owners will invest beyond that unfortunately

Is this included the money we will earn from selling players?

Kuyt £5 million (?)
Cole £5 million (?)
Aquilani £5 million
Pacheco £1-2 million (?)
Maxi £? million
Aurelio £? million

[decky]

It has some, and will have more as stat-gathering in football matures and becomes more sophisticated. For example, people look at 'assist' figures for wingers or creative midfielders - but the assist figure depends on a striker doing his bit to qualify. So the newer, more sophisticated stat is 'chance creation' - passes which lead to shots on goal, regardless of whether they end in a goal or not. As mentioned a million times on RAWK, Downing, Adam and Henderson all figured very highly in 'chance creation' stats last season - Downing is 5th in 'chance creation' over the last 7 years, behind only Gerrard, Lampard, Fabregas and Giggs.

The thing is these stats aren't matching up between the smaller clubs and Liverpool. How many free kicks has Adam scored this season? How many goals do we have from his corners? How many goals has Downing scored etc etc. I think these players were bought almost purely on their stats, none of these players we've bought in the summer seem to have the right mentality to play at a club like Liverpool and they lack game intelligence too. The only one I have any hope for is Henderson as he has shown glimpses of game intelligence and application.

I get the feeling Carroll's days must be numbered as Kenny just doesn't seem to want to pick him. It would be better surely to either play him now until the end of the season and see how he goes. Otherwise we may as well just sell him and cut our losses

[Blade]

I get the feeling Carroll's days must be numbered as Kenny just doesn't seem to want to pick him. It would be better surely to either play him now until the end of the season and see how he goes. Otherwise we may as well just sell him and cut our losses

If Kenny really has any intention of selling Carroll in the summer, he would play him regularly in order to put him in the shop window. After all, we have been winning regularly when Andy is starting. Or alternatively, Kenny knows that Andy is a young player and still has 4 years remaining on his LFC contract, so there is no need to force things. Anyway, I am expecting us to sign another striker in the summer to complement Suarez and Carroll, but any talk of Cavani and the likes is a complete waste of time. Prepare yourselves for a Moneyball signing.

[Alan_X]

Ok - can people stop posting lists of players they want and formations. Unless of course it's actually backed up by the formulas you're using and the metrics that are being fed into those formulas.

The article in the OP is meaningless and as nothing to do with Moneyball as described in the book. 

[DanA]

I don't see why we have to break the bank for players like Hazard, Cavani & Martinez. All have long contracts and seem to have every team and their billionare after them.  There are less fashionable options out there that we should consider.  God forbid none English ones. The whole idea is to find players undervalued and I just don't see the value in these players.

An unknown in Europe like Jackson Martinez or some what forgotten player like Afellay or Graneiro. Maybe someone with little time left on their contract at a club in financial trouble (Banega). I think it's a suckers game to be chasing after the flavour of the month signings. Guys like Cavani or Hazard don't really have any upside in their price. The best you can hope for is they justify the price rather than exceed it.

[Alan_X]

Well, it seems that the Moneyball principles are finally being implemented in our transfer policy. In the past couple of days, we have been linked by some respectable sources with a couple of strikers that perfectly fit the Moneyball theory: Matias Suarez (Anderlecht) and Jackson Martinez (Jaguares - Mexico). Both of them at a good age (24/25), both of them with only 1 year remaining on their contract, both of them prolific in recent seasons, and both of them still playing in some relatively smaller leagues.

Sorry, I'm catching up with the thread but in what way does a players age, length of contract and being prolific have to do with anything Bill James, Paul Podesta or any of the others were doing? 

That's just basic economics - buy youngish players cheap. What are the measurable equivalents to say, getting on base in baseball that have been measured in the case of these players and been shown to be essential to the make up of a winning team?

One of the fundamental points made early in the book, was that most of the measures traditionally sed in baseball were meaningless. And that was primarily because they were introduced by an Englshmn used to recording cricket. Bill Jame et al spent their time questioning at every turn, what the relevant metrics should be. As someone new to this thread and hoping it's not just a session of Football Manager 2012, can anyone tell me what the metrics are for buying players in each position?

These guys treated baseball statistics as a science, and followed the scientific method. When someone came up with a theory the first thing you do is try and tear it down, disprove it, offer it to others for peer review.

Another thing. Most of what I've read about Moneyball principles suggests that ability and importantly attitude, is innate. The whole point about Billy Bean was that he had all the skills but never had the temperament. Players need to have that mental thing that men's they don't fuck up under pressure. Bellamy has it in spades for example.

And another thing. Beware of conventional wisdom. The lure of the fast ball over the freakish underarm delivery (that gets more outs and gives up less home runs and doubles)...

Anyway, it's getting late. I'll be back.

[Alan_X]

I don't see why we have to break the bank for players like Hazard, Cavani & Martinez. All have long contracts and seem to have every team and their billionare after them.  There are less fashionable options out there that we should consider.  God forbid none English ones. The whole idea is to find players undervalued and I just don't see the value in these players.

An unknown in Europe like Jackson Martinez or some what forgotten player like Afellay or Graneiro. Maybe someone with little time left on their contract at a club in financial trouble (Banega). I think it's a suckers game to be chasing after the flavour of the month signings. Guys like Cavani or Hazard don't really have any upside in their price. The best you can hope for is they justify the price rather than exceed it.

Ok I'm going to keep on at this until people give me some answers. How are you in a position to judge a players value? what are the measurable qualities and their importance to the team.

If the extent of the discussion is just that 'he's a good player and we might get him cheap' then we can delete the Moneyball bit from the thread title and call it the summer transfer thread.

[iamrobk]

Ok I'm going to keep on at this until people give me some answers. How are you in a position to judge a players value? what are the measurable qualities and their importance to the team.

If the extent of the discussion is just that 'he's a good player and we might get him cheap' then we can delete the Moneyball bit from the thread title and call it the summer transfer thread.

I posted this earlier in this topic, which are some quotes from someone I know who works for an MLS team.  I think it's pretty interesting.

"No, % of passes completed is a trash stat. Almost everything available in the public domain is a trash stat."
"Every single event that happens on the field has a specific, unknown (right now) value. We're trying to figure out those values. Our goal is to eventually include every single field even as inputs, whereas right now, it's just goals and cards, essentially. From this, we can have some sort of objective, if imperfect, evaluation of a player."
"I guess I should explain why passing % if a bad stat. It's essentially equivalent to batting average in baseball. You know at what frequency a successful event happens, but you don't know what value that successful event has, or if it should be considered 'successful' at all. It's the equivalent of having 4 quarters and 3 dimes and telling people you have 7 coins, rather than saying that you have $1.30"

[Alan_X]

I posted this earlier in this topic, which are some quotes from someone I know who works for an MLS team.  I think it's pretty interesting.

"No, % of passes completed is a trash stat. Almost everything available in the public domain is a trash stat."
"Every single event that happens on the field has a specific, unknown (right now) value. We're trying to figure out those values. Our goal is to eventually include every single field even as inputs, whereas right now, it's just goals and cards, essentially. From this, we can have some sort of objective, if imperfect, evaluation of a player."
"I guess I should explain why passing % if a bad stat. It's essentially equivalent to batting average in baseball. You know at what frequency a successful event happens, but you don't know what value that successful event has, or if it should be considered 'successful' at all. It's the equivalent of having 4 quarters and 3 dimes and telling people you have 7 coins, rather than saying that you have $1.30"

Great, thanks. That's the sort of thing we should be talking about in here.

[DanA]

Ok I'm going to keep on at this until people give me some answers. How are you in a position to judge a players value? what are the measurable qualities and their importance to the team.

If the extent of the discussion is just that 'he's a good player and we might get him cheap' then we can delete the Moneyball bit from the thread title and call it the summer transfer thread.

I'm not in a position too judge the specifics I was just using example on the sorts of players we should buy. As for the overpriced ones. It doesn't take a genius to see someone like Hazard is going to be overpriced just as it wasn't difficult to figure out the dot com's were overpriced in 2000. It just takes a level headed reasonably sceptical person.

[kennedy81]

Ok I'm going to keep on at this until people give me some answers. How are you in a position to judge a players value? what are the measurable qualities and their importance to the team.

If the extent of the discussion is just that 'he's a good player and we might get him cheap' then we can delete the Moneyball bit from the thread title and call it the summer transfer thread.

that's the thing though, isn't it?
how do you quantify say, character, in a stat?
if signing someone like Balotelli, you've got to consider if his abilities outweigh his temperament issues.

[IndianaRed]

that's the thing though, isn't it?
how do you quantify say, character, in a stat?
if signing someone like Balotelli, you've got to consider if his abilities outweigh his temperament issues.

I think FSG would typically go after a nutter who is a good player if being a nutter is what makes most other clubs pass over him.  i'm not sure quantifying character in a stat is the point - it's the other relevant metrics (whatever those are) which matter, but the 'defect', if you will, in his character will make him a risky purchase for most clubs.  i think FSG would have no problem buying players who have 'defects' like that which put off other clubs, as long as his other statistical contributions are strong.  it's hard to know what those other stat categories are though. 

it seems like assists or "chance creation" (which doesn't necessarily have to be direct assists) was the relevant stat behind last summer's purchases, with Downing and Henderson being near the top of the "chance creation" tables... but that's just a guess.  we'll know in time i guess... i imagine FSG are still figuring it out, and learning from every purchase.  i would be surprised if their approach in the next couple transfer windows isn't adjusted a bit from what we've seen so far.

[subroc]

I think FSG would typically go after a nutter who is a good player if being a nutter is what makes most other clubs pass over him.  i'm not sure quantifying character in a stat is the point - it's the other relevant metrics (whatever those are) which matter, but the 'defect', if you will, in his character will make him a risky purchase for most clubs.  i think FSG would have no problem buying players who have 'defects' like that which put off other clubs, as long as his other statistical contributions are strong.  it's hard to know what those other stat categories are though. 

it seems like assists or "chance creation" (which doesn't necessarily have to be direct assists) was the relevant stat behind last summer's purchases, with Downing and Henderson being near the top of the "chance creation" tables... but that's just a guess.  we'll know in time i guess... i imagine FSG are still figuring it out, and learning from every purchase.  i would be surprised if their approach in the next couple transfer windows isn't adjusted a bit from what we've seen so far.

Suarez would be a good example of the kind of "nutter" who fits within this kind of policy and woukdbe a good risk to take. IMHO Suarez is a good kind of risk because despite his controversy on the pitch, he has always been a leader, a popular character and a positive force for unity within his own team. Somebody like Balotelli on the other hand, is a lot more dicey because he has been disruptive within his own team.

[IndianaRed]

Suarez would be a good example of the kind of "nutter" who fits within this kind of policy and woukdbe a good risk to take. IMHO Suarez is a good kind of risk because despite his controversy on the pitch, he has always been a leader, a popular character and a positive force for unity within his own team. Somebody like Balotelli on the other hand, is a lot more dicey because he has been disruptive within his own team.

i think most clubs who have the money would take their chance on a player like suarez though.  i just think FSG would even be attracted to a player as risky as Tevez if they were confident the club could somehow keep him from having tantrums, and if the deal to get him was right (and if he was willing to come here, obviously).  having said that, i think Balotelli would certainly be a risk that would attract them if the option ever came up.  i think maybe Bellamy is a bit of a 'defect' type of player, with perhaps a character issue at times, along with his knee issues.  he's obviously a very good player but if you want to sign him you have to know his knees control how much he plays. that's just a fact of life for him, so that can be considered a bit of a risk.. but if you're ok with the risk, he can be a very good player for your club.  he was free so he was a great deal for us, but i think FSG would have been happy to pay a couple million for him if the situation required it, and he has probably proved he would have been worth a fee despite the risk associated with him.

that said, FSG themselves probably didn't have much to do with the Bellamy deal in the end (nor any of the actual player transfer discussions), but their "moneyball" strategy did have a lot to do with it which they have probably discussed with Comolli a lot and Kenny perhaps to a lesser extent... and i think that deal is one that aligns with their strategy very greatly.  job well done on that particular one, Comolli and Kenny.

[subroc]

i think most clubs who have the money would take their chance on a player like suarez though.  i just think FSG would even be attracted to a player as risky as Tevez if they were confident the club could somehow keep him from having tantrums, and if the deal to get him was right (and if he was willing to come here, obviously).  having said that, i think Balotelli would certainly be a risk that would attract them if the option ever came up.  i think maybe Bellamy is a bit of a 'defect' type of player, with perhaps a character issue at times, along with his knee issues.  he's obviously a very good player but if you want to sign him you have to know his knees control how much he plays. that's just a fact of life for him, so that can be considered a bit of a risk.. but if you're ok with the risk, he can be a very good player for your club.  he was free so he was a great deal for us, but i think FSG would have been happy to pay a couple million for him if the situation required it, and he has probably proved he would have been worth a fee despite the risk associated with him.

I agree (though i think the club would not have signed bellamy at his age and with his knees had he cost 2M in transfer fees) with mosto  fwhat you said. I would think there would probably be a sliding scale of "enfant terrible"ness - one one end of the spectrum you have a character like Suarez would is positive within the club and has no off field problems but prone to controversies with opponents on the pitch. He is of the least risk where it concerns difficult players. Players like Di Canio probably fall within this end as well. Tevez represents the other end of the scale because he created huge problems with his own club in mutinying with them and has a record of instigating moves every few years. Balotelli is somewhere in between where his problems are less intentional and more as a result of immaturity and bad company, much like Anelka in his earlier years.

[IndianaRed]

I agree (though i think the club would not have signed bellamy at his age and with his knees had he cost 2M in transfer fees) with mosto  fwhat you said. I would think there would probably be a sliding scale of "enfant terrible"ness - one one end of the spectrum you have a character like Suarez would is positive within the club and has no off field problems but prone to controversies with opponents on the pitch. He is of the least risk where it concerns difficult players. Players like Di Canio probably fall within this end as well. Tevez represents the other end of the scale because he created huge problems with his own club in mutinying with them and has a record of instigating moves every few years. Balotelli is somewhere in between where his problems are less intentional and more as a result of immaturity and bad company, much like Anelka in his earlier years.

agreed with much of this.

[Alan_X]

that's the thing though, isn't it?
how do you quantify say, character, in a stat?
if signing someone like Balotelli, you've got to consider if his abilities outweigh his temperament issues.

Using scientific methodology. Remove variables that have no direct impact and look for a control situation. If a player has a chance conversion say of 50% in training and reserve matches and only 25% in competitive games that gives you a measure of their ability to score when it matters. I'd also look at chance conversion at different periods of the game and in different situations.

If a player's chance conversion goes down as the game goes on or when the team is behind they aren't deling with pressure. Conversely, a player who's chance conversion improves when the team's behind seems like a good thing but it would suggest they aren't performing in the mundane games.

[Zeb]

You'd think that's the kind of thing which is being done.

The measure used by the publicly available stuff on the latest faddy stat 'chance creation' essentially boils a chance down to 'taking a punt in the general direction of the goal'. There's no filter there for quality of chance - Mash having a pop from 30 yards is the same as Rosenthal rattling the crossbar. It's a nonsense stat.

From what I recall from chatting to someone who does this kind of thing (he works for one of those computer games...), he was highlighting that a one-on-one with the keeper is to most people the very definition of a good chance. When in reality, it's actually a situation which heavily favours the goalkeeper when they go through the statistics. He then went on about how the context can change that (coming in on a non-acute angle helped redress some of the favour back to the forward - which then led into inverted wingers and the sudden explosion of teams playing their most valued attackers in that role). So if you can establish a rough 'norm' and then can find sufficient evidence where a player exceeds or falls short of that norm, then it should be possible to use that to help inform a decision on the player.

Most of the stuff publicly available is based on data gathered 20 years ago. The odd snippet can find its way out (eg that Fat Sam in some way considers explosive sprinting key for victory), but usually tends to be so shorn of context that it's effectively meaningless. Wilson did a piece in the Guardian the other day on Sunderland and stats, and caveated it so heavily for the limits of the statistics, he might have called it 'words I wrote which mean nothing but for which I got paid'. So I guess really without someone doing this for a living/research giving some indications of where things are at in 2012 as opposed to 1995, we're really pissing in the wind as to what people like Comolli or Ford are looking for and measuring.

[nocturnalvin]

Benitez notes the differences throughout various teams, leagues and compares both their schemes and the numbers. "The main thing for me is passes per game, passing accuracy and in particular final third passing accuracy." It's here that he points out that MLS is far below the other leagues (only a 58.7percent final third passing accuracy compared to 64-65 percent in England, Italy and Spain and with a higher propensity for longer passes, 15.8 percent compared to figures in the 13-14 percent range for top European leagues).

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20120322/rafa-benitez/#ixzz1qOOwtDpy

[NeilR]

I don't see why we have to break the bank for players like Hazard, Cavani & Martinez. All have long contracts and seem to have every team and their billionare after them.  There are less fashionable options out there that we should consider.  God forbid none English ones. The whole idea is to find players undervalued and I just don't see the value in these players.

An unknown in Europe like Jackson Martinez or some what forgotten player like Afellay or Graneiro. Maybe someone with little time left on their contract at a club in financial trouble (Banega). I think it's a suckers game to be chasing after the flavour of the month signings. Guys like Cavani or Hazard don't really have any upside in their price. The best you can hope for is they justify the price rather than exceed it.

I think you have hit the nail on the head with the way our transfers will go this summer. We'd all love the former list of names you gave, but the latter type list is more likely and shows there is still good value for money out there. Signing a Banega or an Affelay type you would imagine would be doable and should leave a decent chunk still available for a very good goal poacher as well. Very moneyball and would make sense to me.

[Kochevnik]

I remember Benitez being particularly hung up on the "final third passing percentage" as a stat he really valued when looking at players.  He mentioned it over and over again, so obviously it was important to him.  Unfortunately we have little more than those kind of clues when trying to figure out what the statisticians are really doing; none of them are going to put their theories in public as it's a big part of the competitive advantage they're trying to build.

I've been pondering over a stat, myself, and wondering about what it might tell us about a player.  Call it "2nd pass percentage" or "2nd pass chance creation."  Basically, it would be a stat not of the player's completed pass percentage, but the percentage of passes completed AFTER their pass.  Or, alternately, and perhaps more instructive, the percentage of their passes that led to the next pass creating a chance.  Or possibly the percentage of their completed passes that led to a chance in that possession.

Many times this might be useless, as Player A passes to Player B, who then gives the ball away attempting to play Player C in.  Why should Player A's statistics suffer for a mistake by Player B?  However, I think that in the aggregate, you might eventually see some interesting things with these two measures.  How often does a player's pass put the player receiving the ball in a good position to make the next pass?  Sometimes a midfielder will fizz a ball through a gap to a forward, but just a half-step behind him or too high or something, leading to the forward getting the ball but almost immediately losing it to an opposing defender.  When that happens, we need a statistic that will show that the midfielder was partially to blame for the pass selection, even though he completed the pass.

The statistic of "2nd pass chance creation" might be even more instructive; how often does a player's pass lead to a chance?  You could measure this either as how often the next pass is a chance created, or how often that possession leads to a chance created.  It would be much more instructive than a pass percentage to see how often that pass leads to the creation of a chance at goal.

I'm sure that the professional statisticians that we're employing to analyse the game have thought of these and many more, and are trying to work out which of these stats are being undervalued and how we can improve the most important number, the number of points.  However, it seems clear that as of right now, we have not quite worked out all the kinks, as we're creating chances hand over fist, and still losing and drawing a lot of games.  I would guess that our results this season will cause something of a rethink about which statistics we should value most highly in the pursuit of wins.

[nocturnalvin]

If i am some mad mathematician, i would spend my time exploring correlations between various inputs. Have always think that a particular stat in itself is meaningless.

Say Downing's chances created. Putting the ball into the six yard is a chance created. Is that a true reflection, probably not. There could have been nobody in the box. Or how many were in the box ? Or are stats sophisticated enough to actually determine a chance created as being X feet within a team mate in the box ? Or what is it. THere would be so many variables to play with.
Did he create the most chances from the left, and % of those from the left converted. Does that mean he's better playing in a certain position.

Would probably go mad.

[robgomm]

I posted this earlier in this topic, which are some quotes from someone I know who works for an MLS team.  I think it's pretty interesting.

"No, % of passes completed is a trash stat. Almost everything available in the public domain is a trash stat."
"Every single event that happens on the field has a specific, unknown (right now) value. We're trying to figure out those values. Our goal is to eventually include every single field even as inputs, whereas right now, it's just goals and cards, essentially. From this, we can have some sort of objective, if imperfect, evaluation of a player."
"I guess I should explain why passing % if a bad stat. It's essentially equivalent to batting average in baseball. You know at what frequency a successful event happens, but you don't know what value that successful event has, or if it should be considered 'successful' at all. It's the equivalent of having 4 quarters and 3 dimes and telling people you have 7 coins, rather than saying that you have $1.30"

Interesting, very characteristically American approach. The point on passing stats is almost trivial in a way, though. If you remove all context and simply look at stats, the point has worth. But when someone mentions the passing stats of Xavi it is wrapped up in the context of his being a part of a very successful team in which he plays a crucial part. His passing stats add statisical colour to our perception of him, they seem to back up our intuitive view of how well he keeps the ball moving. It is not as if we go on bare stats by saying that someone with a 95% pass completion stat is always better than someone with an 85% pass completion number.

Certainly I'd say a more sophisticated statistical approach would be of benefit but ultimately stats are a representation of what happens on the pitch and one of a number of tools we can use to see just what is happening (our eyes are a pretty good one too).

[IndianaRed]

The measure used by the publicly available stuff on the latest faddy stat 'chance creation' essentially boils a chance down to 'taking a punt in the general direction of the goal'. There's no filter there for quality of chance - Mash having a pop from 30 yards is the same as Rosenthal rattling the crossbar. It's a nonsense stat.

To me "chance creation" means any of: a direct assist, a final pass whose pairing goal wasn't scored (but should have been), or a key pass which put someone else in position to make a clear assist (whether the goal at the end of it is scored or not).  i wouldn't really consider shooting on goal, or even goals scored as "chance creation".  i don't associate shooting on goal with the creation of chances at all. 

what about players like Suarez who create their own goal scoring chances without anyone really providing him an assist or anyone putting someone in a position to give him an assist?  they twist and turn and dribble around -- that type of chance creation i think has to be measured separately, and that would be whether he scores on that chance or assists someone else at the end of it.  it's getting complicated though... i dunno.  now i have myself wondering what exactly qualifies as one of those chances?  two dribbles in/around the box leading to an assist or goal?  three dribbles?  you just know one when you see one i guess.

[IndianaRed]

If i am some mad mathematician, i would spend my time exploring correlations between various inputs. Have always think that a particular stat in itself is meaningless.

Say Downing's chances created. Putting the ball into the six yard is a chance created. Is that a true reflection, probably not. There could have been nobody in the box. Or how many were in the box ? Or are stats sophisticated enough to actually determine a chance created as being X feet within a team mate in the box ? Or what is it. THere would be so many variables to play with.
Did he create the most chances from the left, and % of those from the left converted. Does that mean he's better playing in a certain position.

Would probably go mad.

in my opinion, Downing putting a ball into the box only becomes a chance once a teammate touches the ball in a meaningful way (headed on or off target, headed across goal or down to another teammate, volleyed on or off target, controlled and shot on or off target, that sort of thing).  otherwise it should just be considered a cross, not a chance.

[scatman]

Benitez notes the differences throughout various teams, leagues and compares both their schemes and the numbers. "The main thing for me is passes per game, passing accuracy and in particular final third passing accuracy." It's here that he points out that MLS is far below the other leagues (only a 58.7percent final third passing accuracy compared to 64-65 percent in England, Italy and Spain and with a higher propensity for longer passes, 15.8 percent compared to figures in the 13-14 percent range for top European leagues).

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20120322/rafa-benitez/#ixzz1qOOwtDpy

The full post is on his website, he explains how these stats could be used to view what the styles of play are in different leagues.

[Sangria]

Interesting, very characteristically American approach. The point on passing stats is almost trivial in a way, though. If you remove all context and simply look at stats, the point has worth. But when someone mentions the passing stats of Xavi it is wrapped up in the context of his being a part of a very successful team in which he plays a crucial part. His passing stats add statisical colour to our perception of him, they seem to back up our intuitive view of how well he keeps the ball moving. It is not as if we go on bare stats by saying that someone with a 95% pass completion stat is always better than someone with an 85% pass completion number.

Certainly I'd say a more sophisticated statistical approach would be of benefit but ultimately stats are a representation of what happens on the pitch and one of a number of tools we can use to see just what is happening (our eyes are a pretty good one too).

My preference is to decide on the type of player I want, then looking at stats and other information to find the best and best value fit. I want another holding CM, and I'd like him to be a prolific tackler, have played as a more attacking type at a fairly high level, be known for hard work and high levels of energy, and be tactically disciplined. For the last 2 groups of attributes, any Korean or American player should offer good value, as those qualities are embedded in their national game. So a Korean or American former attacker turned defensive midfielder, with high tackling stats. Which points to Stuart Holden in the PL. When I looked for a Carroll-type striker as a plan B to Torres, I looked for a target man type, in his late 20s as these players tend to take longer to develop, with a decent recent scoring record, and as the English game tends to produce loads of these players, preferably lower division as it would drastically lower the demanded price without too much of a drop in quality. The name I came up with was Grant Holt, from Championship club Norwich.

[Blade]

Sorry, I'm catching up with the thread but in what way does a players age, length of contract and being prolific have to do with anything Bill James, Paul Podesta or any of the others were doing? 

That's just basic economics - buy youngish players cheap.

When discussing the principles of Moneyball, people often forget the actual title of the book: "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game". Of course it is about basic economics. By the way, it is more like "buy youngish quality players (that will be effective in your system) on the cheap".

[Vinay]

I remember Benitez being particularly hung up on the "final third passing percentage" as a stat he really valued when looking at players.  He mentioned it over and over again, so obviously it was important to him.  Unfortunately we have little more than those kind of clues when trying to figure out what the statisticians are really doing; none of them are going to put their theories in public as it's a big part of the competitive advantage they're trying to build.

I've been pondering over a stat, myself, and wondering about what it might tell us about a player.  Call it "2nd pass percentage" or "2nd pass chance creation."  Basically, it would be a stat not of the player's completed pass percentage, but the percentage of passes completed AFTER their pass.  Or, alternately, and perhaps more instructive, the percentage of their passes that led to the next pass creating a chance.  Or possibly the percentage of their completed passes that led to a chance in that possession.

Many times this might be useless, as Player A passes to Player B, who then gives the ball away attempting to play Player C in.  Why should Player A's statistics suffer for a mistake by Player B?  However, I think that in the aggregate, you might eventually see some interesting things with these two measures.  How often does a player's pass put the player receiving the ball in a good position to make the next pass?  Sometimes a midfielder will fizz a ball through a gap to a forward, but just a half-step behind him or too high or something, leading to the forward getting the ball but almost immediately losing it to an opposing defender.  When that happens, we need a statistic that will show that the midfielder was partially to blame for the pass selection, even though he completed the pass.

The statistic of "2nd pass chance creation" might be even more instructive; how often does a player's pass lead to a chance?  You could measure this either as how often the next pass is a chance created, or how often that possession leads to a chance created.  It would be much more instructive than a pass percentage to see how often that pass leads to the creation of a chance at goal.

I'm sure that the professional statisticians that we're employing to analyse the game have thought of these and many more, and are trying to work out which of these stats are being undervalued and how we can improve the most important number, the number of points.  However, it seems clear that as of right now, we have not quite worked out all the kinks, as we're creating chances hand over fist, and still losing and drawing a lot of games.  I would guess that our results this season will cause something of a rethink about which statistics we should value most highly in the pursuit of wins.

Chess?

[tax_man]

By the way, it is more like "buy youngish quality players (that will be effective in your system) on the cheap".

Why does this now have the tag 'Moneyball'? Surely what you just described is what 99% of clubs have been trying to do since the year dot. The word 'moneyball' is starting to annoy me. Especially since whenever anyone talks about it, it seems exactly the opposite of what we've done so far. As far as I am aware, moneyball, in football, is just buy good players on the cheap. Thank god we've got a director of football who's seen the film eh?

[Blade]

Why does this now have the tag 'Moneyball'? Surely what you just described is what 99% of clubs have been trying to do since the year dot. The word 'moneyball' is starting to annoy me. Especially since whenever anyone talks about it, it seems exactly the opposite of what we've done so far. As far as I am aware, moneyball, in football, is just buy good players on the cheap. Thank god we've got a director of football who's seen the film eh?

Look, the Americans have this tendency of over-using the stats and over-analyzing the players. However, they are forced to do it, mostly because of the draft system and the salary cap/luxury tax limitations. You don't have the chance to draft a high pick, or sign a player on a lucrative long-term contract every year. If you get this wrong, your team will be crippled for years. Also, most American sports teams are created from few star players and a big majority of team players. If you get your (effective) team players on the cheap, you can pay the star players more than other clubs, and therefore, you attract the best star players. The principles of Moneyball have existed in American sports for decades before Billy Beane has entered the scene.

[JackWard33]

When discussing the principles of Moneyball, people often forget the actual title of the book: "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game". Of course it is about basic economics. By the way, it is more like "buy youngish quality players (that will be effective in your system) on the cheap".

The other thing people forget is that the Oakland As had 3 of the best pitchers in baseball  which they lucked into (nothing to do with their transfer policy) - these were the main reason they had success and the effect of their "transfer policy" has always been massively exaggerated thanks to a very well written book

[IndianaRed]

Why does this now have the tag 'Moneyball'? Surely what you just described is what 99% of clubs have been trying to do since the year dot. The word 'moneyball' is starting to annoy me. Especially since whenever anyone talks about it, it seems exactly the opposite of what we've done so far. As far as I am aware, moneyball, in football, is just buy good players on the cheap. Thank god we've got a director of football who's seen the film eh?

that description of moneyball is inaccurate, and it's been perpetuated wrongly over and over.  what he described has indeed always been done by most clubs.  that's nothing new.  it's more of an objective, statistical look at players who are traditionally overlooked because there is some kind of risk (or traditional bias) associated with them.  in football, that would be something like when people say "he's too small to play in the premier league," or "he's extremely one-footed" or "he gets too many red cards" or "he only scored that many because he plays in a shitty league" or "he hasn't done it at a big club" or "he's too old now" or "he's too slow for the Premier League" or "he gets in trouble off the pitch a lot" or "he's a nutter" or anything like that where there's a subjective bias - some predetermined, traditional reason some player won't be a good signing.  the player will have good stats in all the relevant categories, but because "he's too small" or whatever, there's a risk that is normally associated with signing him.  moneyball looks to take advantage of that and sign those "risky" players who are normally overlooked by other clubs because the players are otherwise good players.  because they have a "defect" or a risk/bias going against them, clubs will practice "risk aversion" and sign a player who doesn't have a bias going against him, but he would cost more.  in baseball that used to mean you could sign a 'defected' player cheaply because the bias says they shouldn't be worth much.  in football that may be the case still if you can get to those players early enough.

[drpepe]

which suggest moneyball is nowhere near our transfer strategy.

None of our signings have a subjective bias hanging over them: adam and carroll were  lauded by media and fans alike last season, whilst henderson and downing were statistcially way up the charts for their performances.

All 4 cost big bucks (or at least , were not 'discount' players)

[bobadicious]

which suggest moneyball is nowhere near our transfer strategy.

None of our signings have a subjective bias hanging over them: adam and carroll were  lauded by media and fans alike last season, whilst henderson and downing were statistcially way up the charts for their performances.

All 4 cost big bucks (or at least , were not 'discount' players)

Could you say Rafas policy was more like that by signing lots of players who either had percieved biases against them or had hit a low point in their career and thus were undervalued at the time of signing then sold on at higher value eg Mascherano, Bellamy, Pennant, Crouch.

Or by signing a few high cost quality star players along with lots of low cost low risk players. If the low risk players are crap so what as all it takes is one or two to be a success to reap the rewards of such an approach.

So was Rafas transfer policy Moneyball or some variation of it?

[Blade]

So was Rafas transfer policy Moneyball or some variation of it?

Rafa's transfer policy at LFC has had some significant Moneyball elements.

[drpepe]

Could you say Rafas policy was more like that by signing lots of players who either had percieved biases against them or had hit a low point in their career and thus were undervalued at the time of signing then sold on at higher value eg Mascherano, Bellamy, Pennant, Crouch.

Or by signing a few high cost quality star players along with lots of low cost low risk players. If the low risk players are crap so what as all it takes is one or two to be a success to reap the rewards of such an approach.

So was Rafas transfer policy Moneyball or some variation of it?

good points about the players you listed - it seems to match some of the properties of moneyball more than our current policy 

and rafa certainly has a love for player stats and mentality

[IndianaRed]

which suggest moneyball is nowhere near our transfer strategy.

None of our signings have a subjective bias hanging over them: adam and carroll were  lauded by media and fans alike last season, whilst henderson and downing were statistcially way up the charts for their performances.

All 4 cost big bucks (or at least , were not 'discount' players)

it would seem that way, but some things were said and an argument can be made: 

andy carroll: "he's only played in the premier league for half a season"; before we signed him i saw a few people saying "he's a nutter" due to his multiple court appearances for assault and for twatting steven taylor; after we signed him, "he drinks too much" and i saw stories about that before we signed him

charlie adam:  "one good season in the premier league"; "he's a big fish in a small pond [at blackpool] and he won't be as good at a bigger club"; "he's overweight"; "he's too slow"

Henderson and Downing I don't really have a defense for.  they don't seem to have had defects other than "they're from midtable clubs".  I suspect FSG are still learning when it comes to football transfers (and I include Comolli when i say FSG, because he's presumably picking players using their model or whatever), so I'd expect our transfers to get better soon.  they'll have refined their approach, and figured out ways to identify what metrics are important but maybe not obvious.  in baseball it's easy to do, but football has so few stoppages between events that it's hard to see the value (or 'influence on the game') of everything a player does aside from goals and assists and crosses and whatnot.  perhaps they haven't really tried to use moneyball at all yet.  who knows.  but to me, Charlie Adam was a very moneyball-type of player whom kenny also really wanted to sign.  As I wrote above in a previous post, Craig Bellamy was an enormous moneyball transfer regardless of the fact he was free (his defects being possible temperament issues and knee problems which dictate how much he plays), and i believe they'd have liked him a lot even if he cost a couple million.  as it turns out FSG themselves probably didn't have anything to do with identifying him as a target or anything like that, but Damien, as a man who is presumably trained/being trained in the ways of moneyball, probably saw him as a perfect moneyball transfer: take on and manage the risks, get a magnificent player for a bargain.  i'm sure kenny is familiar with moneyball by now, but that probably wasn't on his mind much when he told damien "yes, go get him"