• Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.

2018-2019 Prem / Farewell Stoke Threade - who ate all the pies?

GatorTD

Male
Mod Alumni
Its impossible to compare you to the Oakland A's because they had to work around a literal lack of cash.

Arsenal being cheap as fuck isnt 'moneyball'. Its not 'sabermetrically inclined'. Its just being cheap compared to other clubs.

The 'moneyball' method is Leicester.
 

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
Is that supposed to be an insult?

No, not at all. I think Americans are driven by stats in their sports. I think it's a part of your DNA. Europeans are the opposite in general. I think most soccer fans in Europe see it as more of an art, to be judged as such, by it's human aspect and not statistics, hence the tag of "the beautiful game". The more a sport becomes broken down into stats, the more our market is put off it, hence how difficult it has been to sell American sports in Europe. No surprise that the most logical bunch, the Germans, have always been the best market for American sports.

Your post was a collision of cultures.
 

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
Its impossible to compare you to the Oakland A's because they had to work around a literal lack of cash.

Arsenal being cheap as fuck isnt 'moneyball'. Its not 'sabermetrically inclined'. Its just being cheap compared to other clubs.

The 'moneyball' method is Leicester.

Well Gazidis has already come out this year and said, Verbatim, "We're following the Leicester model". So I'll have to disagree there.
 

GatorTD

Male
Mod Alumni
So they are basically going to continue to be cheap as fuck then.

Leicester won the championship despite their financial limitations, just like the A's had success despite limitations in a league that has no salary cap and little penalty for spending.

Best of luck with your cheapness passed off as 'analytical'.
 

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
So they are basically going to continue to be cheap as fuck then.

Leicester won the championship despite their financial limitations, just like the A's had success despite limitations in a league that has no salary cap and little penalty for spending.

Best of luck with your cheapness passed off as 'analytical'.

You're saying this as if I'm proud of it...??
 

GatorTD

Male
Mod Alumni
No, not at all. I think Americans are driven by stats in their sports. I think it's a part of your DNA. Europeans are the opposite in general. I think most soccer fans in Europe see it as more of an art, to be judged as such, by it's human aspect and not statistics, hence the tag of "the beautiful game". The more a sport becomes broken down into stats, the more our market is put off it, hence how difficult it has been to sell American sports in Europe. No surprise that the most logical bunch, the Germans, have always been the best market for American sports.

Your post was a collision of cultures.
So should clubs get rid of any stats or analytics?
 

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
So should clubs get rid of any stats or analytics?

Absolutely not. I think you were the one that said yourself there's not much more to it than assists, goals and a few other stats. It's actually pretty simple to quantify the basics of whether a player is good. Then I think it's far more important to use human judgement. There really is no statistic that can identify the things that Zidane, Maradona et all could do.
 

bruin

Well-Known Member
Aguero with the 3 match ban. Ironically he was probably going to miss two matches with his injury.
 

GatorTD

Male
Mod Alumni
Absolutely not. I think you were the one that said yourself there's not much more to it than assists, goals and a few other stats. It's actually pretty simple to quantify the basics of whether a player is good. Then I think it's far more important to use human judgement. There really is no statistic that can identify the things that Zidane, Maradona et all could do.
Well heres the thing. Human judgement only takes you so far. Human judgement is clouded in bias and generalizations and has a fairly limited scope on how to group individuals.


If you can create stats and metrics to determine the actual talent and value of a player, then youre going to be much better off than the guy whos just eyeballing talent in the stands or on the TV screen. It may be easy to spot if Player X or Player Y is good, but how do you quantify HOW much better Player X is, and in relation how many more squiggles should you pay for him rather than the other guy?

Soccer is much more in the realm of hockey, which is much more a fluid game and therefore harder to quantify, but I'm sure it can be done at some level.
 

NML

Well-Known Member
There's quite a few new statistics being tested and developed to quantify a player's ability.

One of the more interesting stats that I read about recently is the number of players taken out of the play each pass. So, for example, if a defender completes a pass to the holding mid and puts both strikers on the wrong side of the ball, that's much more valuable than one who plays a horizontal ball across to another defender. The correlation to that stat and the players it spit out as "good" was excellent.

Moneyball is a weird term and it's basically come to mean anyone using stats to judge players.
 

NML

Well-Known Member
That stat was just one example, there's a bunch more that are - for the most part - being publicly tested and debated. I reference that one because a pass that takes a line out is massive and isn't a easily kept statistic.

I have referenced expected goals a lot. It has a long ways to go but it's a much better predictor of future performance than past results.
 

kella

Low IQ fat ass with depression and anxiety
Staff member
Administrator
Operations
If you really want to Americanize it, use the most worthless stats ever that don't even mean anything. Like this October some baseball team is gonna make the playoffs and some idiot (probably Joe Buck) will go "This is their first time in the playoffs since 2014" as if that was aeons ago
 

DeadMan

aka spiker or DeadMong
No, not at all. I think Americans are driven by stats in their sports. I think it's a part of your DNA. Europeans are the opposite in general. I think most soccer fans in Europe see it as more of an art, to be judged as such, by it's human aspect and not statistics, hence the tag of "the beautiful game". The more a sport becomes broken down into stats, the more our market is put off it, hence how difficult it has been to sell American sports in Europe. No surprise that the most logical bunch, the Germans, have always been the best market for American sports.

Your post was a collision of cultures.

I don't give a single shit about any of that. Arsenal should be doing everything they can to be winning, which includes exploring advanced stats. I don't get how anyone can be upset about that. You don't have to use the stats at all.
 

NML

Well-Known Member
I'm sure the anger comes from them seemingly using "money ball" as a term to hide behind as to why they are unnecessarily cheap.

And, to be fair to Moneyball, the Red Sox adapted the approach shortly after a won a World Series. I also don't know off the top of my head, but I'm sure the A's lead the league in cost efficiency, which is the end game of "Moneyball."
 

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
I'm sure the anger comes from them seemingly using "money ball" as a term to hide behind as to why they are unnecessarily cheap.

And, to be fair to Moneyball, the Red Sox adapted the approach shortly after a won a World Series. I also don't know off the top of my head, but I'm sure the A's lead the league in cost efficiency, which is the end game of "Moneyball."

I don't know why I found it so hard to articulate, but THIS.
 

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
Yeah, that's why I said the problem is that they are cheap from the beginning.

The point I was trying to make in the beginning is that Kroenke is taking cheapness to the next level. It's not about gaining an advantage to win anything for him, it's about gaining an advantage to maximise profit, and to use as an excuse not to spend big.

Do you not think that Kroenke is the problem with Arsenal?
 

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
I'm sure the anger comes from them seemingly using "money ball" as a term to hide behind as to why they are unnecessarily cheap.

And, to be fair to Moneyball, the Red Sox adapted the approach shortly after a won a World Series. I also don't know off the top of my head, but I'm sure the A's lead the league in cost efficiency, which is the end game of "Moneyball."
The the difference between the Red Sox and the A's was the Red Sox could afford good players haha.
 

GatorTD

Male
Mod Alumni
I'm sure the anger comes from them seemingly using "money ball" as a term to hide behind as to why they are unnecessarily cheap.

And, to be fair to Moneyball, the Red Sox adapted the approach shortly after a won a World Series. I also don't know off the top of my head, but I'm sure the A's lead the league in cost efficiency, which is the end game of "Moneyball."
The A's led the league in cost efficiency but it also had alot to do with the fact they had 3 of the games best pitchers all on cheap deals due to the salary/arbitration rules.

Shocked, SHOCKED they went to shit for a good while once the trio left.
 

Orlando

Well-Known Member
Utopia Moderator
Plus one of the league's best 3B, but home grown talent is a huge part of the strategy. Filling out the roster with a cheap and productive group is the accomplishment.
 

DeadMan

aka spiker or DeadMong
The point I was trying to make in the beginning is that Kroenke is taking cheapness to the next level. It's not about gaining an advantage to win anything for him, it's about gaining an advantage to maximise profit, and to use as an excuse not to spend big.

Do you not think that Kroenke is the problem with Arsenal?

I think Kroenke is a problem with Arsenal, but I don't think we know enough to be certain that he's the main problem. Because, honestly, Wenger is a problem, too. We don't know if the cheapness is coming from Wenger, who was cheap well before Kroenke bought the club, or Kroenke himself. It's possible a different manager would spend more.

I do think Kroenke is a problem in that he's more committed to making money than winning. But I don't necessarily know if he's cheap, because you can spend a lot of money and still make money. No doubt, there is something rotten at Arsenal. I just don't know enough to say who caused it.
 

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
Wenger isn't cheap. If you look at some of the dates on our top 25 transfers, it shows that when David Dein was around, he was more than willing to spend : http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/fc-arsenal/transferrekorde/verein/11

I think Wenger is adaptable, especially at a price, and I don't doubt he's absolutely in love with the club. I think it might be time for him to go, but I find it absolutely laughable that anyone thinks our problems will become fewer when he leaves.
 

DeadMan

aka spiker or DeadMong
Although that may not be a bad thing with Francis Jeffers 14th on that list :laughing: :laughing:

My personal take is that things will likely get worse without Wenger, but I don't know that for sure. I do think there's a chance with the right manager that Arsenal would be in a lot better position. The odds are definitely greater that we get our own David Moyes and struggle for a while. But, I've been frustrated with Wenger's lack of spending since I started following Arsenal in 2006/07. And I've been frustrated with him as a tactician/manager since about 2009.
 

chibob

Well-Known Member
So they are basically going to continue to be cheap as fuck then.

Leicester won the championship despite their financial limitations, just like the A's had success despite limitations in a league that has no salary cap and little penalty for spending.

Best of luck with your cheapness passed off as 'analytical'.

Just want to point out that Leceister arent a poor club. They havent been for years. Their only limitation was in not being able to attract top level elite players. If it wasn't for financial fair play rules on capex opex spending Leceister could go out and buy an £80 million plus player. Their owners are richer than John Henry.

They werent going to lose Mahrez, Kante and Vardy due to money, it was more likely due to their chances of playing for teams with better reputations.
 

chibob

Well-Known Member
There's quite a few new statistics being tested and developed to quantify a player's ability.

One of the more interesting stats that I read about recently is the number of players taken out of the play each pass. So, for example, if a defender completes a pass to the holding mid and puts both strikers on the wrong side of the ball, that's much more valuable than one who plays a horizontal ball across to another defender. The correlation to that stat and the players it spit out as "good" was excellent.

Moneyball is a weird term and it's basically come to mean anyone using stats to judge players.

Carrick would be fucked then
 

tab10

Well-Known Member
@hayvis What grade do you give Arsenal in the transfer window? And what 3 players (realistic options) would you have liked Arsenal to sign this transfer window?
 

hayvis

Will-Gnome Member
@hayvis What grade do you give Arsenal in the transfer window? And what 3 players (realistic options) would you have liked Arsenal to sign this transfer window?

I'd give them a C. We filled two positions up the centre of the pitch well, but the Mustafi signing was ludicrously ill handled, and only happened because of the defensive disaster against Liverpool. If we'd have played adequately there's no way that Arsenal would have paid that price. Arguably the most pressing of needs has been filled by a completely unproven 28 year old who we previously passed on. Even if he does well, Lucas Perez was a panic signing and can't be classed as good business, because he's a crap shot.

It's hard to say who I would have bought in the transfer window, as our problems have not been caused by this years activity, but by years of mistakes. There weren't a lot of good available strikers this year, but it's because we've botched previous windows that firstly it's this urgent, and secondly that everybody knows how much we need one. We missed, I think legitimate chances to sign Higuain, Benzema, and others because of being cheap. Lacazette's price was inflated, because they knew we were desperate, and he probably wasn't worth it.

I think I would have signed two centre forwards in the hope that one worked out. I don't have a problem with the Lucas Perez signing as he's relatively cheap, but I would have doubled down on someone else too. Maybe gone in for Bony on a loan with an option to buy if he worked out. I know he's not at first glance the ideal fit, but I see no problem with chancing it for the money. If I couldn't find two strikers, I would probably have risked the 60 million on Lacazette, and sacrificed the Xhaka signing (good but not essential).

It's just INSANE that our biggest position of need seems to be the one that we've put the least money and time into.
 

chibob

Well-Known Member
Getting played off the park. Havent even seen about five of our players get a touch. Pep is master classing Jose right now.
 

bruin

Well-Known Member
take away the massive blunder from Bravo, it's total domination.

De Bruyne man among boys.
 

tab10

Well-Known Member
Sweet bicycle kick goal by Koscielny.

It looked like Alexis wanted to take the ball away from Santi before the penalty.

I'd like to see more of xhaka paired with cazorla, but I imagine he was rested with PSG on Tuesday.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Travis7401

Douglass Tagg
Community Liaison
Dying at the MONEYBALL argument, lol. I've had this with @Gooksta so many times.... The overall organizational philosophy of adopting a contrarian edge as a small budget team and the specific strategy used to gain that edge should not be conflated.


To me, I think the issue lies in conflating the term MONEYBALL with Saber-metrics/analytics. Moneyball is any contrarian approach that allows a small budget team to compete. The specific strategy they use doesn't really matter, it just needs to be contrarian or currently undervalued by the rest of the league. Often times this is short-lived because the small budget or little sister of the poor team having success with this moneyball approach causes that specific strategy to be adopted by big budget or big market teams, and then it no longer provides a contrarian edge for the little guy. The Contrarian edge is Moneyball, the specific strategy is not. In the book MONEYBALL, the Oakland A's utilized Saber-metrics/advanced statistics as the specific strategy to identify market inefficiencies that allowed them to be competitive on a limited budget. It doesn't matter what specific strategy, the MONEYBALL part of the discussion lies in the advantage gained by taking a contrarian approach (Saber-metrics was the strategy in this case). When the Boston Red Sox (and the rest of the league) adapted to the A's success and started using more advanced statistics, it wasn't MONEYBALL (even though they were utilizing a similar strategy) because they weren't gaining a contrarian edge (they didn't need one). The Red Sox weren't looking for market inefficiencies and players who slipped through the cracks, they were looking to utilize advanced statistics to identify the very best players. The Red Sox recognized the merits/value of advanced statistics and started to utilize them from a big market perspective. That's different from MONEYBALL.

In short, Arsenal are embracing an advanced statistics strategic approach, but their organizational philosophy is to be cheap/thrifty with their immense potential budget. That organizational philosophy is quite the opposite of a money ball approach, which would be to spend every last dime of a limited budget.

Lets give a college footbaw example:
In the 1990s and early 2000s, spread offenses were one of the major areas where a small school could snag a contrarian advantage. There were still relatively few spread offenses and these small or mid level schools were able to get recruits that fit their systems because the big schools were overlooking them. This was a money ball approach for a small school. By the mid 2000s and the end of the 2000s the spread offense had gained so much following that it was now actually the predominate offense at the college level, and was being embraced by even the largest schools. Still a great offense, but now it no longer provided much of a contrarian edge because the small schools were competing with the big schools in the same game for the same recruits who fit this offense. This is no longer a money ball approach because the contrarian edge is no longer there. Then up-tempo no huddle became the contrarian edge for a few years until everyone copied it and it once again lost the contrarian edge. Right now, if a small or medium sized team wants a true contrarian edge, they'd be best served going right back to a pro style offense with a fullback and multiple TEs, since those really good TEs and FBs and pro QBs are probably under recruited now, lol. Leagues adapt and what was a MONEYBALL/CONTRARIAN strategy last year will be the mainstream strategy next year.

Lets give a WBL example:
In the years 2049 and 2050 the North Dakota riggers had one of the lowest budgets in the WBL so they had to identify cheap players with undervalued skillsets (these were not complete players). The riggers identified defense and high control/movement pitching as a strategy that fit their park and should give them a contrarian edge to compete against teams with better overall players. I was able to bring in a lot of terrible shitheads who were cheap and good at only defense and movement/control and finding that contrarian edge was a "money ball approach."

In the year 2059 I now have one of the highest budgets in the WBL. I still choose the same strategy of good defense and high movement/control players, but I'm no longer using a moneyball approach to eek out a contrarian edge. I'm buying the very BEST defensive players who also have complete bats and are good base runners. I still value high movement/control pitchers but now I can afford them to have good stuff too! So many other teams have learned to prioritize defense in the league that it really wouldn't provide much of a contrarian edge for a small market team at this point (because they'd have to compete with at least 2-3 major market teams in the same niche). My strategy of valuing defense and high movement/control pitching never changed, but it is certainly not a MONEYBALL strategy anymore, as I can afford to buy the very best complete players who also fit my strategy. The small market teams now have to identify their own contrarian edge and buy the overlooked players that fit their strategy. (Or they can be copycats and be doomed to failure)


tl;dr - MONEYBALL = finding contrarian edge as a small market/underdog team, the specific strategy employed to find that edge isn't "Moneyball." A huge budget team therefore cannot really be "MONEYBALL" by defintion because it would be stupid for them to attempt to eek tiny/marginal value or limit themselves financially when they can afford to just have the best complete players in whatever system/strategy they want. Any self-imposed financial constraints means that team is just being cheap, and that's certainly a non optimal strategy.
 
Last edited:
Top