Brighton, Strikers and Moneyball - a hypothesis

beorhthelm · Feb 1, 2017

its an interesting theory. one point to take issue with though, that forwards are "overvalued". they have a higher value because they score more and end of the day goals win games. whether or not a player is overvalued would come out of the stats analysis compared to other similar players, not against all players. though there are other factors too of course, have to consider if the player is "right" for the team or managers style. another factor is the resale value, a 33 yo has little, while a 23 yo can probably be sold to cover most the original cost even if they have a average or poor season. i think in balance, a manager and club will buy players that suit rather than represent "good value". maybe its more of a factor though than at other clubs.

Bozza · Feb 1, 2017

Kalimantan Gull said:
Well, my hypothesis above is that we DO do it, and probably by extension that most clubs do it

I believe we very much do (present tense, not past) too.

For a start, Tony Bloom's business is heavily involved in statistical analysis, as a highly detailed level, in order to find any edge possible. It would seem strange if that were not available to the Albion in any way.

MattBackHome · Feb 1, 2017

Gwylan said:
It's an approach famously taken by Brentford and, as such, has caused at least one manager to leave

Indeed. I believe that Matthew Benham has done similar at a Norwegian club with a good degree of success?

Jam The Man · Feb 1, 2017

Sir Alex Ferguson, a couple of years ago :

"I think that with a football club, because it's a result industry, it's understandable for coaches to concentrate only on the first team, because that gives them their job."

"There's a lot of this Moneyball thing happening, Brentford, Brighton, Aston Villa, a lot of them are doing this thing, and i'm not sure that's the right way ahead. I think you have to trust in your manager, that he knows what he's doing, or why give him the job in the first place?"

hoveboyslim · Feb 1, 2017

Kalimantan Gull said:
Its not just stats though, its simply targeting resources at players and positions which are undervalued and staying away from positions that are overvalued

I've read Tony Bloom's company Starlizard has a fantastic database on players, so I'm sure it is used to moneyball players. Maybe it has been refined from when we first tried it.

hoveboyslim · Feb 1, 2017

Jam The Man said:
Sir Alex Ferguson, a couple of years ago :

"I think that with a football club, because it's a result industry, it's understandable for coaches to concentrate only on the first team, because that gives them their job."

"There's a lot of this Moneyball thing happening, Brentford, Brighton, Aston Villa, a lot of them are doing this thing, and i'm not sure that's the right way ahead. I think you have to trust in your manager, that he knows what he's doing, or why give him the job in the first place?"

Well done!! I was looking for that exact quote, but couldn't find it!

dazzer6666 · Feb 1, 2017

seagully said:
Agree with this. I can't see CH signing anyone currently who doesn't fit into the team hard work ethic. Difficult to judge someone's determination, workrate etc from stats alone

Well, either that, or 'I know you've displayed an attitude problem in the past, Shane and Lewis would like a word after training just so we're all clear' :thumbsup:

hoveboyslim · Feb 1, 2017

dazzer6666 said:
I think there is a place for the stats to be considered as part of an overall recruitment strategy and approach, but football is very different from baseball which doesn't rely on teamwork and team spirit (but much more on the ability to throw or hit a ball) - which as our lot have shown can mean a team can contribute so much more than the sum of its constituent parts. The moneyball algorithms can't compute that stuff but it can make or break a season.

Luck too. Football is hugely influenced by luck.

Gwylan · Feb 1, 2017

dazzer6666 said:
baseball which doesn't rely on teamwork and team spirit (but much more on the ability to throw or hit a ball

That's not quite true. Traditional baseball statistics did look at the ability to throw or hit the ball - what Beane argued is that teams should look further. For example, traditionally teams looked at batting average (ie how well someone hit the ball), what Beane took as a more signficant statistic was on-base percentage (ie including walks as well as BA). Beane also looked at factors outside baseball itself - for example, that college students were less risky than high-school recruitment.

That's just a basic summary of the book - it does go a lot deeper than that - but it should be made clear that stats had already been a part of baseball, long before Moneyball

Stato · Feb 1, 2017

Take a look at this from last year:

https://www.whoscored.com/Regions/2...ayerStatistics/England-Championship-2015-2016

Four of the top ten went with their teams to the Premier League and James Tarkowski was signed by Burnley. Of the remaining five three are now at Brighton, one has been linked with Brighton and the other is Sol Bamba.

The thing I found most interesting about the book 'Moneyball' was the system's challenge to the received wisdom of the coaching/scouting establishment. The fact that it focused more on evidence than on the perception of recognised experts. However, the difference between baseball and football is that baseball is a series of individual match ups rather than a holistic team game. It is easier to succeed in baseball with a collection of specialists without too much need for them to work in sync with each other.

If this approach is to be adopted in football, it needs to begin with a decision about how a team should play in order to succeed and the recruitment of suitable players follows. I have a feeling that the blip that we saw under Hyppia and that Brentford saw on Warburton's departure was because, regardless of how good the stats of players are, their abilities need to be accompanied by tactics that will, more often than not, be sufficient to outscore an opponent. We were still seeing good statistical performances under Hyppia, all the time we were losing matches. Hughton has taken a collection of good players, added further good players and organised them to play in an effective way.

I suspect that Bloom and Matthew Benham at Brentford have taken this approach because they are competing against teams that can afford to buy the big striker and pay his wages because of parachute payments. In the absence of this luxury, a more scientific approach would seem to be one way of seeking to redress the balance. In football the science seems to be in its infancy and it may be to our advantage that the likes of Villa and Derby don't seem to have set much store in it so far.

Triggaaar · Feb 1, 2017

Kalimantan Gull said:
Hypothesis therefore: Our relative shortage of strikers and lack of 'big' signings in this area is not by accident or failure but by design. We are deliberately not targeting strikers and leaving this as one of the weaker areas of the team because strikers are overvalued in football, and instead maximising our competitive advantage by targeting positions that are undervalued in football.

I believe teams like us and Brentford do look to work out which players give the best point per pound value. The most obvious problem with your conclusion however, is that we did try and sign Pratchard for a large sum.

The gulf in income between the Championship and PL also means that sometimes you need to gamble. While an expensive striker now (for a team in our position) might be poor value on a points per pound basis, if they get you the last couple of points to get you over the line then they're great value.

KZNSeagull · Feb 1, 2017

Soccernomics gives the example of Lyon who used various Moneyball type principles with great success for a while 10 to 15 years ago.

It also makes a case that suggests that it is not transfer fees that determines success, but wages. It lists the best and worst managers based upon this principle (ie those that managed successful clubs without spending the biggest wages). There are some interesting names in this list. Bob Paisley comes out top. They struggle to rank Clough as Forest was not a limited company in the 70's and as such did not publish accounts. Both Salde and Micky Adams were in one of the lists of overachievers.

Diego Napier · Feb 1, 2017

Bozza said:
I believe we very much do (present tense, not past) too.

That's my understanding too although I believe we were heavily into it when Burke was here but the Hyypia era led to it being refined so that there is now far more involvement from the manager and his staff.

Diego Napier · Feb 1, 2017

Bozza said:
I believe we very much do (present tense, not past) too.

Duplicate post

hoveboyslim · Feb 1, 2017

KZNSeagull said:
Soccernomics gives the example of Lyon who used various Moneyball type principles with great success for a while 10 to 15 years ago.

It also makes a case that suggests that it is not transfer fees that determines success, but wages. It lists the best and worst managers based upon this principle (ie those that managed successful clubs without spending the biggest wages). There are some interesting names in this list. Bob Paisley comes out top. They struggle to rank Clough as Forest was not a limited company in the 70's and as such did not publish accounts. Both Salde and Micky Adams were in one of the lists of overachievers.

Alan Mullery was a notable underachiever. Not sure if that was with us when we gave a load of players massive pay rises on 10 years contracts, or elsewhere.

KZNSeagull · Feb 1, 2017

Here are the 12 secrets to the transfer market as determined by Soccernomics. I suspect that Albion use many of these, but not all:

1. A new manager wastes money on transfers: don't let them
2. Use the wisdom of crowds
3. Stars of recent World Cups etc are overvalued. Ignore them
4. Certain nationalities are overvalued
5. Older players are overvalued
6. Centre Forwards are overvalued; Goalkeepers are undervalued
7. Identify and abandon sight based prejudices (this is the theory that some scouts identify players that stand out because they are tall or blonde, or other factors not based upon skill and technique. I don't think we should discuss that further.....)
8. The best time to buy a player is when they are in their early 20's
9. Sell any player when a club offers more than they are worth
10. Replace your best players before you sell them
11. Buy players with personal problems and help them overcome them (Paddy?)
12. Help your players relocate.

KZNSeagull · Feb 1, 2017

hoveboyslim said:
Alan Mullery was a notable underachiever. Not sure if that was with us when we gave a load of players massive pay rises on 10 years contracts, or elsewhere.

Indeed. It must have been with us as we were paying the highest wages in the country for some players.

beorhthelm · Feb 1, 2017

Diego Napier said:
That's my understanding too although I believe we were heavily into it when Burke was here but the Hyypia era led to it being refined so that there is now far more involvement from the manager and his staff.

that would seem to be the really important factor, using moneyball to support the manager rather than a replacement. its not going to work if the Director of football picks a half dozen players that dont suit the team or address short comings or injuries in the squad. but if its used to filter players to look at or to decide between propsective players the manager has in mind, that would give the club a distinct advantage over those not using it.

Kalimantan Gull · Feb 1, 2017

Triggaaar said:
I believe teams like us and Brentford do look to work out which players give the best point per pound value. The most obvious problem with your conclusion however, is that we did try and sign Pratchard for a large sum.

The gulf in income between the Championship and PL also means that sometimes you need to gamble. While an expensive striker now (for a team in our position) might be poor value on a points per pound basis, if they get you the last couple of points to get you over the line then they're great value.

I was thinking about Pritchard when I wrote it, and I can only assume they determined he was the appropriate value even at that transfer fee, perhaps that his resale value was locked in and likely to rise given his age and background. I also imagine that his wages were low and controllable - indeed low enough that it was easy for Norwich to hijack the deal.

I think that wages are the key here, not transfer fees. Transfer fees are spread out over the length of the contract, and in many cases recoverable or even able to turn a profit. Wages on the other hand are pure expense. I'm also reminded of Grabban, who we balked on because of wages, and Murray six years ago.

sussex_guy2k2 · Feb 1, 2017

The reality is that this approach is standard now across most of the top leagues in professional football. Leicester won the Premier League with the same approach, signing unheralded players such as Mark Albrighton.

I'd say for us (and all clubs) there's a mixture of stats and scout feeling. Duffy, for example, is so easy to explain statistically due to the high number of headers he wins. Skalak would be another, in terms of defensive contribution in his position and output statistically in offensive positions.

Like all things though, statistics still need to be interpreted and seen in the context of the system a player is playing in. Hence why our club, and all clubs, probably use a mix of stats and what they see 90% of the time.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Brighton, Strikers and Moneyball - a hypothesis

A. Virgo, Football Genius

You can change this

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page