I thought adopted a similar strategy when FSG, proponents of the 'MoneyBall' approach, took control of the club.

I think stats are incredibly useful in this sport, but there's a lot that they can't account for.

We have been trying it and it does not work.

7th

To be fair, it will be interesting to see how you do over the next few years.

I've always thought Sturridge has huge potential, and Coutinho already looks exceptional, without meaning to speak too soon.

Get a good, young partner for Agger, a good winger, and perhaps a little more depth, and I could see Liverpool mounting a good challenge for CL places next season

I think it's more complex in football, maybe people haven't been asking the right questions in what defines a position. Anyway, i want it to be possible, i want a team of scientists to win the quadruple!

I'm interested to know more about how Liverpool adopted this approach

no

Yeah it can, but you have to use common sense aswell, 35mil for carroll is possibly one of the most rétarded things ive seen in football

Baseball is a stats game. So they take a statistical approach to finding players. Football less so, so moneyball doesn;t really come into it.

Ian Ayre's interpretation of what we are doing:

"It's a combination of old-school scouting and watching players -- and that's Brendan, his assistants, our scouts -- with statistical analysis of players across Europe and the rest of the world. By bringing those two processes together, you get a much more educated view of who you should and shouldn't be buying. And perhaps as fundamentally, how much you should be paying and the structure to those contracts.

But it's not a Moneyball strategy. It's a combination of skills and people and processes that bring us to what we're trying to achieve."

You're mainly standing still in Baseball though, which is why stats can be used to a lot greater effect. A bit like cricket.

Football is a lot more fluid than baseball. Positions are less fixed. I think you do reasonably well with that method in football, but I don't think it'd work as well.

Thanks, manfrombelmonty, maybe the less controlled and more chaotic nature of football just means the depth of field required of analysis is deeper.We have so many ways of separating the great from the good in football that a lot of times the defining characteristic is something that isn't even relevant to the role.
How many times do good strikers get aggrandized for tracking back, or defensive midfielders for setting up goals. Good things, but they don't amount to those positions being played well.
A good evaluation for a position would need to be very carefully thought out and then executed ruthlessly

What Ayre was sayign really does sound lik common sense to me. Basically, use all the tools at your disposal to assess and make the best decision.

also, don't trust Commoli.

Did it it actualy ever work in Baseball either?
You know, to create a winning side - rather than a " competitive on a budget " side.

http://www.silive.com/opinion/columns/index.ssf/2011/10/moneyball_is_filled_with_error.html


Interesting read.

Did it it actualy ever work in Baseball either?

---------------------------------

For some it did, for some it didn't. There's only one prize to be won in baseball really, so if the measure of success is winning the title then it's easy to point at say, 10 teams who used the moneyball approach, and one of them won the world series, then its easy to say 'look at those 9 teams that failed using moneyball.'

I think that was the most dreadful sentence I have tyoed, but i'm sure you get the gist.

I do, cheers
The thing about it is though - in the film a big thing was made of the Red Sox breaking the hoodoo and finally winning the World Series again by using Sabremetrics.
But the RedSox are a very wealthy team anyway. It was going to happen.
I also found the downward trajector of the Oakland A's interesting in the aftermath.
Given they already had Baseball's MVP for that particular on their staff before the intoduction of the sabremetrics and what not.

I haven't seen the movie or read the book, but I know a little seeing as i live in Boston. The thing with the red sox was that they were very poorly run for many years. FSG took over, changed the scouting approach, helped hugely increase revenues and found success. The moneyball approach was just one small piece of the puzzle, just like Ayre said it is with LFC.

Oakland on the other hand doesn't have the same financial power as the Sox, so they seem to have been more dependent on the moneyball approach. Their problem is that having one of the smallest pay rolls in baseball, once a top player's contract has run down a rich team can easily tempt them away.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Moneyball is a great film. Billy Bean's idol is Wenger