Why Are Brentford The Benchmark?

[Tinmans Love Child]

[BRISTOL86]

Who is obsessing about Brentford?

['Orns]

Who is obsessing about Brentford?

 

Not me!

 

Moneyball is of interest to me though, so I'll be keeping an eye on them over the coming years, that's for sure

 

Could take 3 years to bear fruits, could be 20, who knows

 

I agree with most of the OP though

[Tinmans Love Child]

Who is obsessing about Brentford?

I'm not going to go back through the many many pages on Andre Gray to quote names sorry

[BRISTOL86]

I'm not going to go back through the many many pages on Andre Gray to quote names sorry

My point was that just because some people would rather us gamble on cheap players that MIGHT come good rather than spend large sums on people who already have, doesn't mean they're obsessed with Brentford.

Brentford aren't the first or last team to buy unproven players and hope to sell them on for a big profit if they come good.

Personally I can't ever see Brentford achieving more than they have so far in their history. Certainly not a club I look at and think City should be like.

Swansea on the other hand...

[BCFC_Dan]

"Moneyball" is an interesting approach for sure but I'm very skeptical about how well it can be applied to football.

 

Baseball is fundamentally a much more simple game than football. There are so many fewer variables that it's easier to find the ones that succeed. Football has so many variables and so many different ways of succeeding that it would be hard to identify players who are undervalued by the market.

 

Some of the principles can obviously be adopted, such as not overpaying for certain types of player and not being sentimental about selling a player at his peak value but it's going to be very difficult for anyone to use pure statistics to find undervalued players.

 

I posted this before when it was new, and it's obviously not "real", but it is interesting:

 

http://thesetpieces.com/features/football-manager-meets-moneyball-pt-1/

[Tinmans Love Child]

"Moneyball" is an interesting approach for sure but I'm very skeptical about how well it can be applied to football.

Baseball is fundamentally a much more simple game than football. There are so many fewer variables that it's easier to find the ones that succeed. Football has so many variables and so many different ways of succeeding that it would be hard to identify players who are undervalued by the market.

Some of the principles can obviously be adopted, such as not overpaying for certain types of player and not being sentimental about selling a player at his peak value but it's going to be very difficult for anyone to use pure statistics to find undervalued players.

I posted this before when it was new, and it's obviously not "real", but it is interesting:

http://thesetpieces.com/features/football-manager-meets-moneyball-pt-1/

I agree, I think the philosophy of moneyball I.e. Using previously unused information to inform decisions, is great, but it can only go so far for me. Reading the book about football scouts at the moment 'the Nowhere Men' I think it's called, and it shows that you need to watch players over and over again in all sorts of situations to make a call on them, and that's something stats cannot tell you.

[CiderHider]

benchmark? more like no mark

[havanatopia]

I agree, I think the philosophy of moneyball I.e. Using previously unused information to inform decisions, is great, but it can only go so far for me. Reading the book about football scouts at the moment 'the Nowhere Men' I think it's called, and it shows that you need to watch players over and over again in all sorts of situations to make a call on them, and that's something stats cannot tell you.

You are reading a book but don't recall the name of it? Thats funny!!! And no, i am not trying to be funny myself... Your post was funny.

['Orns]

benchmark? more like no mark

 

Brentford? Skid mark more like

[Lrrr]

Moneyball is very unlikely to work in football due to open ended skills that are part of the game, look at how badly it failed with Liverpool. They invested heavily in Carroll, Downing and Henderson (the one success for them) because of the principle. Carroll at the time was the best converter of crosses, Downing was one of the best crossers and Henderson had one of the highest completed passes percentages in the premier league, however when they combined they actually had the lowest rate of cross to headed goal completion rate.

 

If you were to look to apply moneyball to a British sport the best option would be cricket. 

[spudski]

I agree, I think the philosophy of moneyball I.e. Using previously unused information to inform decisions, is great, but it can only go so far for me. Reading the book about football scouts at the moment 'the Nowhere Men' I think it's called, and it shows that you need to watch players over and over again in all sorts of situations to make a call on them, and that's something stats cannot tell you.

I don't think anyone is saying to follow the Brentford philosophy...it was quoted by SL as a good way to find players...as in value for money. I don't think he was referring to 'moneyball' though. Plus we don't have the Analysts or programme in place to do so. Brentfords owner used this approach in his own business and employed someone who had the programme and knew how it worked.

 

As for Scouting....Brentford do Scout...I was at a Cheltenham game recently and got speaking to him and a Southampton Scout.

 

What the programme does...is use stats to find a certain type of player. It will throw up players names...then they will Scout those players the traditional way. They don't just use emotion and eyes....they cover all bases. It cuts down on just having a 'hunch' and having to watch 100's of players.

 

So far you can't deny they have done well. The owner bought a Danish team and won the league first time out with them using 'moneyball'....plus who would have said Brentford would have been a potential Premiership team, and selling us a player for Millions a couple season ago.

 

If they get to the Prem....they will inherit Millions. So it's worth thinking outside the box a little to get their. Look at Watford, Swansea, Southampton and Brentford...all doing things slightly different to many teams that have been floundering in this division for years.

 

Brentford couldn't afford to survive doing it the 'traditional way'...so good for them for trying something different.

 

All successful clubs are using technology more and more....look at Southampton and their success....they have stats and info on 4 year olds in their data base....that's what we are up against. More and more teams are investing in technology and analysts. That's where SL needs to spend his money imho....as you can use it right down to Academy players.

 

As for us buying players....yes we can afford players of the ilk of Gayle...but we still have to be in budget ( including losses ) with wages. We still have a bottom 6 budget when it comes to that....so we can't just go out and buy players of Gayles quality willy nilly....as they have high wage demands.

[Coxy27]

Moneyball is very unlikely to work in football due to open ended skills that are part of the game, look at how badly it failed with Liverpool. They invested heavily in Carroll, Downing and Henderson (the one success for them) because of the principle. Carroll at the time was the best converter of crosses, Downing was one of the best crossers and Henderson had one of the highest completed passes percentages in the premier league, however when they combined they actually had the lowest rate of cross to headed goal completion rate.

 

If you were to look to apply moneyball to a British sport the best option would be cricket. 

 

Hahaha you think Andy Carroll was a 'Moneyball' style purchase for 35M?

 

He was bought by morons with money burning a hole in their pocket. That is all.

[Lrrr]

Hahaha you think Andy Carroll was a 'Moneyball' style purchase for 35M?

 

He was bought by morons with money burning a hole in their pocket. That is all.

 

He was actually, one of the main guys in charge of recruitment at the time at Liverpool was a fan of moneyball, they wanted Carroll badly to fit the style of play. There's been quite a few papers written on moneyball in sport and plenty of videos of conferences and the Liverpool example was given as one.

['Orns]

He was actually, one of the main guys in charge of recruitment at the time at Liverpool was a fan of moneyball, they wanted Carroll badly to fit the style of play. There's been quite a few papers written on moneyball in sport and plenty of videos of conferences and the Liverpool example was given as one.

 

Think you've got your words muddled up there:

 

'they wanted Carroll to fit the style of play badly' I believe is what you meant to say?

[Coxy27]

He was actually, one of the main guys in charge of recruitment at the time at Liverpool was a fan of moneyball, they wanted Carroll badly to fit the style of play. There's been quite a few papers written on moneyball in sport and plenty of videos of conferences and the Liverpool example was given as one.

 

I'm aware of Liverpool's owner, and his history with sabermetrics, but I am telling you now, 35M for Andy Carroll was never part of some statistically worked out plan. It was an horrific panic when they realised Torres was off.

 

Maybe he had been identified as a target before that for a much lower fee, I don't know, and it's not relevant.

[Lrrr]

I'm aware of Liverpool's owner, and his history with sabermetrics, but I am telling you now, 35M for Andy Carroll was never part of some statistically worked out plan. It was an horrific panic when they realised Torres was off.

 

Maybe he had been identified as a target before that for a much lower fee, I don't know, and it's not relevant.

 

Well yeah they were obviously held to ransom knowing about the Torres money and the time of the window, doesn't mean any less that Carroll was identified as part of that plan.

[Tinmans Love Child]

You are reading a book but don't recall the name of it? Thats funny!!! And no, i am not trying to be funny myself... Your post was funny.

I've got a kindle so I never see the cover after the first page and the book title isn't displayed on the pages so I often forget!! Definitely The Nowhere Men though! The Nowhere Men by Michael Calvin http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00CQ1DAJY/ref=cm_sw_r_udp_awd_Mji1vbSE9E5DE

[BCFC_Dan]

He was actually, one of the main guys in charge of recruitment at the time at Liverpool was a fan of moneyball, they wanted Carroll badly to fit the style of play. There's been quite a few papers written on moneyball in sport and plenty of videos of conferences and the Liverpool example was given as one.

 

Exactly right.

 

At Liverpool they looked at the players in the league who provided the most assists and came up with Downing, Henderson and Charlie Adam, and the striker who converted the most crosses into goals and settled on Carroll. In theory, getting the midfielders who cross the ball the most, and the striker who scores the most from crosses, in the same team should be a recipe for success. In practice it turned out to be a little more complicated than that.

 

There are two different things in play here, anyway, both of which get lumped together as "Moneyball". There is Sabermetrics, which is the practice of reducing a game down to pure statistics in order to identify the best players for a team, and which I am very skeptical about applying to football, and then there is "Soccernomics", as described by Simon Kuper, which is a perfectly sensible set of rules that a club seeking maximum success with minimum financial outlay should follow. This latter is more likely to be successful and is closer to what City talked about following.

 

Even then, the rules are just a guideline. They don't have to be adhered to at all costs. They state that strikers are overvalued and that English players are overvalued, but if you need a striker who is guaranteed to settle at an English club then you need to pay the premium.

[spudski]

Exactly right.

 

At Liverpool they looked at the players in the league who provided the most assists and came up with Downing, Henderson and Charlie Adam, and the striker who converted the most crosses into goals and settled on Carroll. In theory, getting the midfielders who cross the ball the most, and the striker who scores the most from crosses, in the same team should be a recipe for success. In practice it turned out to be a little more complicated than that.

 

There are two different things in play here, anyway, both of which get lumped together as "Moneyball". There is Sabermetrics, which is the practice of reducing a game down to pure statistics in order to identify the best players for a team, and which I am very skeptical about applying to football, and then there is "Soccernomics", as described by Simon Kuper, which is a perfectly sensible set of rules that a club seeking maximum success with minimum financial outlay should follow. This latter is more likely to be successful and is closer to what City talked about following.

 

Even then, the rules are just a guideline. They don't have to be adhered to at all costs. They state that strikers are overvalued and that English players are overvalued, but if you need a striker who is guaranteed to settle at an English club then you need to pay the premium.

Yerp...spot on :-)

[CiderHider]

Brentford? Skid mark more like

 

Haha clench mark