Randy Lerner

[PeterWithesShin]

So we're doing what we and everyone else has always done but now it's moneyball because it's a phrase that gets thrown around?

Again, data analyse is sabermetrics not moneyball. They are 2 entirely different things. Moneyball is signing players on the cheap because everyone else undervalues them but they are exactly what you want. Do you think Amavi was cheap and undervalued by Nice or did we pay £9m? If Nice thought he was shit/average, were happy to get rid and we paid £1m, that could be moneyball if we valued him at a much higher price.

[Jimbo]

So, if we're using data analysis to sign players on a budget below that of bigger (or bigger spending) clubs, in order to compete with them, it's moneyball.

I genuinely don't get it. How does that differ from what pretty much every other club does?

They all use statistics to scout players. They (very nearly) all have other clubs they are competing with, who have more money than they do.

The word statistics gets used as if it is the only thing they use, ie 'his stats look good, let's get him' without actually scouting them, which I am sure won't be the case.

I've don't get it either. But the way it used to be, in simplistic terms, was: scouts scout, report back, manager decides who to buy, board either gives consent or not.

Now it appears it's: data analysis, manager is told which players are coming in.

But data doesn't take into account how certain personalities might fit into a team, how overseas players might have to find time to adjust. Only a manager can judge things like that. These are variables that can't be worked out on a computer, otherwise we wouldn't need team coaches or managers at all.

I've genuinely no idea how our system works, as nobody on here does, but if we're appointing players in this way, without the team coach making the final decision, that coach has to totally buy into the system. And Tim Sherwood only buys into Tim Sherwood.

[pauliewalnuts]

So, if we're using data analysis to sign players on a budget below that of bigger (or bigger spending) clubs, in order to compete with them, it's moneyball.

I genuinely don't get it. How does that differ from what pretty much every other club does?

They all use statistics to scout players. They (very nearly) all have other clubs they are competing with, who have more money than they do.

The word statistics gets used as if it is the only thing they use, ie 'his stats look good, let's get him' without actually scouting them, which I am sure won't be the case.

I've don't get it either. But the way it used to be, in simplistic terms, was: scouts scout, report back, manager decides who to buy, board either gives consent or not.

Now it appears it's: data analysis, manager is told which players are coming in.

That's where I think you are wrong.

Your interpretation takes the scouting out of it entirely. I don't think that's true. The scouting still goes on, only it is informed by data. That's something everyone does and has done for years now, it is big business.

There's a difference between being informed by data analysis and done by data analysis, as well.

Every club does this, they all want to find good players at decent value, and they all use data as part of the scouting process.

It has only been mooted as some sort of Moneyball approach peculiar to us this week because our dim manager has started leaking to the press that he didn't want the players.

[Dave]

Again, data analyse is sabermetrics not moneyball. They are 2 entirely different things. Moneyball is signing players on the cheap because everyone else undervalues them but they are exactly what you want. Do you think Amavi was cheap and undervalued by Nice or did we pay £9m? If Nice thought he was shit/average, were happy to get rid and we paid £1m, that could be moneyball if we valued him at a much higher price.

I guess one could argue that the likes of Lescott and Bunn (and even going back to Senderos and Cole) are examples of a Moneyball principle.

Just somebody doing it really badly.

[pauliewalnuts]

Again, data analyse is sabermetrics not moneyball. They are 2 entirely different things. Moneyball is signing players on the cheap because everyone else undervalues them but they are exactly what you want. Do you think Amavi was cheap and undervalued by Nice or did we pay £9m? If Nice thought he was shit/average, were happy to get rid and we paid £1m, that could be moneyball if we valued him at a much higher price.

I guess one could argue that the likes of Lescott and Bunn (and even going back to Senderos and Cole) are examples of a Moneyball principle.

Just somebody doing it really badly.

I'd say Cole was more of an example of someone doing speedballs and running our transfers.

[Jimbo]

So we're doing what we and everyone else has always done but now it's moneyball because it's a phrase that gets thrown around?

Again, data analyse is sabermetrics not moneyball. They are 2 entirely different things. Moneyball is signing players on the cheap because everyone else undervalues them but they are exactly what you want. Do you think Amavi was cheap and undervalued by Nice or did we pay £9m? If Nice thought he was shit/average, were happy to get rid and we paid £1m, that could be moneyball if we valued him at a much higher price.

No, the difference is we're buying Amavi from a different league, so you could say it is a form of moneyball if:

a) the board appoint him over the manager's head;
b) we've used analytical data to inform that decision;
and c) the cost of the player is less than a player of similar ability/potential who is already established in the premier league.

It's different to the original American baseball model, because it's a different sport in a different country and system, but you can see why people are using the term moneyball to describe this, if, that is, it's what we're actually doing.

[PeterWithesShin]

Again, data analyse is sabermetrics not moneyball. They are 2 entirely different things. Moneyball is signing players on the cheap because everyone else undervalues them but they are exactly what you want. Do you think Amavi was cheap and undervalued by Nice or did we pay £9m? If Nice thought he was shit/average, were happy to get rid and we paid £1m, that could be moneyball if we valued him at a much higher price.

I guess one could argue that the likes of Lescott and Bunn (and even going back to Senderos and Cole) are examples of a Moneyball principle.

Just somebody doing it really badly.

Yep. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Paul McGrath was far more moneyball than Benteke, Young, Amavi etc.

[saunders_heroes]

so if Swansea can do it in the cheap, why can't we?

So you at least accept that if Swansea can do it, it is possible?

If our only remit from the board is to do it on the cheap then God help us.

[pauliewalnuts]

so if Swansea can do it in the cheap, why can't we?

So you at least accept that if Swansea can do it, it is possible?

If our only remit from the board is to do it on the cheap then God help us.

At least it'd involve actually 'doing it' rather than mooking around like a flashier version of Wigan Athletic, which is what we're doing at the moment.

The argument about it needing more money becomes less convincing as the gap between what we achieve with the squad we have, and what that squad should achieve gets bigger.

Right now, the gap is significant.

[PeterWithesShin]

So we're doing what we and everyone else has always done but now it's moneyball because it's a phrase that gets thrown around?

Again, data analyse is sabermetrics not moneyball. They are 2 entirely different things. Moneyball is signing players on the cheap because everyone else undervalues them but they are exactly what you want. Do you think Amavi was cheap and undervalued by Nice or did we pay £9m? If Nice thought he was shit/average, were happy to get rid and we paid £1m, that could be moneyball if we valued him at a much higher price.

No, the difference is we're buying Amavi from a different league, so you could say it is a form of moneyball if:

a) the board appoint him over the manager's head;
b) we've used analytical data to inform that decision;
and c) the cost of the player is less than a player of similar ability/potential who is already established in the premier league.

It's different to the original American baseball model, because it's a different sport in a different country and system, but you can see why people are using the term moneyball to describe this, if, that is, it's what we're actually doing.

We're getting maximum value for our money by shopping abroad, we aren't buying undervalued players that no one wants. Okore wasn't moneyball, Chelsea were after him. He wasn't undervalued or unwanted by anyone. It really is that simple.

All I see is the media especially throwing the term moneyball around but don't have a clue what it actually means.

[Dave]

Your interpretation takes the scouting out of it entirely. I don't think that's true. The scouting still goes on, only it is informed by data. That's something everyone does and has done for years now, it is big business.

The biggest scouting network by a mile is the one employed by Championship Manager - they employ over 1,300 scouts worldwide. Last year they signed a deal with ProZone to provide their scouting data.

Apparently all 20 Premier League clubs now uses ProZone for data analysis of their own performances and research on upcoming opponents - and potential signings.

Obviously they will still scout them before buying them, but the original data will come from ProZone. So basically, pretty much every player signed by every club in the league nowadays has it's origins in Championship Manager.

[peter w]

The problem is that there's no point getting at Lerner about his ownership because we want him out but no-ones buying. He's not going to get any more involved because he doesn't want to. For that he's definitely got to go. Well, yes, but we know he is trying. What next? We certainly don't want to be sold off to the wrong people, and the way football ownership is going and how far the Premier League is willing to prostitute itself, there is so much potential the wrong money coming in. And I do feel that lerner is trying to sell but also making sure that it's the right money coming in and it is a genuine take-over bid. And to be fair I guess that's we all want.

As for picking the wrong management team, well we've been around here more times than a club of stability should or would, then sacking Sherwood for me guarantees nothing. If Guardiola suddenly spoke out tonight and said, "It's true I've always wanted the Villa job and I know there is a manager there and I hope he does well but of course, yes, who wouldn't want to manage the mighty Aston Villa?' I still expect to wake up and find we've poached Tony fucking Pulis. I'm not suggesting for one second that Sherwood is anything more than very lucky to be in a job but a win against Swansea is crucial. For all parties.

[Jimbo]

Paulie, in answer to your above post, without a quotathon...

Surely the key factor in all of this isn't the scouting, but the fact that recruitment is done not by the manager, but by a system which doesn't take into account all the other variables that inform whether a player will fit or not, outside of data analysis.

i.e. Player A's pass completion stats are great, but player A won't fit well with players X and Y. it takes a manager to work out the latter bit.

[Jimbo]

So we're doing what we and everyone else has always done but now it's moneyball because it's a phrase that gets thrown around?

Again, data analyse is sabermetrics not moneyball. They are 2 entirely different things. Moneyball is signing players on the cheap because everyone else undervalues them but they are exactly what you want. Do you think Amavi was cheap and undervalued by Nice or did we pay £9m? If Nice thought he was shit/average, were happy to get rid and we paid £1m, that could be moneyball if we valued him at a much higher price.

No, the difference is we're buying Amavi from a different league, so you could say it is a form of moneyball if:

a) the board appoint him over the manager's head;
b) we've used analytical data to inform that decision;
and c) the cost of the player is less than a player of similar ability/potential who is already established in the premier league.

It's different to the original American baseball model, because it's a different sport in a different country and system, but you can see why people are using the term moneyball to describe this, if, that is, it's what we're actually doing.

We're getting maximum value for our money by shopping abroad, we aren't buying undervalued players that no one wants. Okore wasn't moneyball, Chelsea were after him. He wasn't undervalued or unwanted by anyone. It really is that simple.

All I see is the media especially throwing the term moneyball around but don't have a clue what it actually means.

But we're gambling on players who haven't played in the Premier League. The likes of Chlsea are more than happy to pay us £15m f the player we bought for £8m turns out to be great in this league.

As I said, it won't be the same as the original American moneyball, but an approximation of it in this sport / league. The main factor, of course, is that it's no longer the manager buying a player, but a team of analysts and money men based on stats and value, and not whether the player fits well in the manager's vision.

[saunders_heroes]

so if Swansea can do it in the cheap, why can't we?

So you at least accept that if Swansea can do it, it is possible?

If our only remit from the board is to do it on the cheap then God help us.

At least it'd involve actually 'doing it' rather than mooking around like a flashier version of Wigan Athletic, which is what we're doing at the moment.

The argument about it needing more money becomes less convincing as the gap between what we achieve with the squad we have, and what that squad should achieve gets bigger.

Right now, the gap is significant.

The thing is though is that we've been trying the cheap option for years now and it's failed. Plus there's a hell of a lot more failures than successes down that route.