Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016/2017

~Rebel~

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

So, Moneyball, was it a disaster or did it succeed in helping us bag Klopp as manager and will bear fruits in the next few years?

I think 'Moneyball' only really took hold for one window, if you're looking at it in terms of "under-appreciated statistical values", when 6 years ago we went all out for "chances created", and brought in Stewie Downing, Charlie Adam, Henderson etc.

Beyond that one season, we've not really had one particular transfer style, other than just avoiding super-transfers. We've brought in some younger players with room to grow, and we've paid big on established premier league veterans.

The media loved the term, so it's become attached to us but, beyond that one window, I don't think it's any more applicable to us than it is to anyone else.

BorneTobyWilde

Only 11 more days

martyos121

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I think 'Moneyball' only really took hold for one window, if you're looking at it in terms of "under-appreciated statistical values", when 6 years ago we went all out for "chances created", and brought in Stewie Downing, Charlie Adam, Henderson etc.

Beyond that one season, we've not really had one particular transfer style, other than just avoiding super-transfers. We've brought in some younger players with room to grow, and we've paid big on established premier league veterans.

The media loved the term, so it's become attached to us but, beyond that one window, I don't think it's any more applicable to us than it is to anyone else.

Course we're still using Moneyball. It's loosely defined as buying what's undervalued and selling what's overvalued, and it's mostly what we've done under FSG, certainly from the summer of 2012 onwards.

Nearly every player we sign adheres to the strategy, but in particular Matip, Milner, Karius, Ings, Balotelli (even for how he turned out), Kolo, Sakho, Sturridge and Coutinho stood out in terms of proper "moneyball" deals, as most of them had external factors that lowered their value (end of contract for some of them, unwanted by their club for others etc.)

I'd call it a success so far, but it's going to take a lot more time to really show the benefits of the system, and keeping Klopp around for a long time is crucial to making it work.

mosstin

~Rebel~ wrote: »

If we're looking for a speedy centre forward to get in behind and score goals, it really should be Lacazette. He's about the only one out there that's not already at a big club, still young and improving, but already bangs in lots of goals, and falls into the 'unproven at the highest level' bracket.

If, on the other hand we're looking for someone to work very hard, shut own defenders, and still take their chances, i'd love Cavani.

:eek: He gets among the goals but, holy ****, he misses a tonne of them too.

5starpool

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Only 11 more days

Unless of course Leicester draw on Saturday, in which case it'll be 16 days.

Buford T. Justice XIX

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Only 11 more days

I always pictured you as a brunette, Toby.

Go figure.

~Rebel~

martyos121 wrote: »

Course we're still using Moneyball. It's loosely defined as buying what's undervalued and selling what's overvalued, and it's mostly what we've done under FSG, certainly from the summer of 2012 onwards.

Nearly every player we sign adheres to the strategy, but in particular Matip, Milner, Karius, Ings, Balotelli (even for how he turned out), Kolo, Sakho, Sturridge and Coutinho stood out in terms of proper "moneyball" deals, as most of them had external factors that lowered their value (end of contract for some of them, unwanted by their club for others etc.)

I'd call it a success so far, but it's going to take a lot more time to really show the benefits of the system, and keeping Klopp around for a long time is crucial to making it work.

That 'loose' definition of Moneyball is basically how every club approaches transfers. Or, well, anything with a fluctuating value, like stocks etc. May as well just equate it to "buy low, sell high" in that case.

The way Moneyball was always talked about at the time (based on the book) was specifically about finding statistics which were far more valuable than was commonly realized at the time, giving you an edge - particularly on base %

The version you talk about is just 'make financially smart transfers'.

~Rebel~

mosstin wrote: »

:eek: He gets among the goals but, holy ****, he misses a tonne of them too.

He does miss some clangers alright, but still has better than a goal a game this season. His workrate makes up for so much though, would really fit our system very well.

martyos121

~Rebel~ wrote: »

That 'loose' definition of Moneyball is basically how every club approaches transfers. Or, well, anything with a fluctuating value, like stocks etc. May as well just equate it to "buy low, sell high" in that case.

The way Moneyball was always talked about at the time (based on the book) was specifically about finding statistics which were far more valuable than was commonly realized at the time, giving you an edge - particularly on base %

The version you talk about is just 'make financially smart transfers'.

But that's exactly what moneyball is!

Also, it absolutely is not how every club approaches transfers. You can look at clubs like United and Real who will meet any asking price whether the footballing value is good or not, but it happens on a smaller scale too. Clubs like QPR, Sunderland, Leeds and countless others consistently bought the wrong type of players with poor value.

The part about statisictics and base percentage in particular is 100% true, for baseball. Moneyball in football is not the same as the stats in the sport are much more deceptive. I'm certain we incorporate good stats into it, but when you look at some of our signings, you can tell it isn't the priority like it is in baseball. Either that, or the stats FSG are looking for are very, very specific that they simply aren't noticed by the media and fans.

Your last line is odd though, because it really has nothing to do with individual transfer strategies. When a club signs a player, potential resale value is just one monetary factor (it's our main one, hence "moneyball"), there are so many others like marketability, wage demands, wage potential (how high a player's salary is likely to rise), revenue earned through football (prize money), merchandising and so on. Unless a transfer is instantly appealing in value and in footballing terms, (and sometimes when it isn't like on deadline days) a club would conduct a full cost-benefit analysis on a player to determine their value and if meeting an asking price is a good idea or not.

You've only made a small mistake in mixing up transfer strategies and "making financially smart transfers", but they are different concepts. There's overlap of course, in that transfer strategies takes scouting into account and other little footballing factors, but "financially smart transfers" are purely a financial concern. Not all of this is relevant to the discussion but business in football is a big interest of mine and I'd certainly recommend reading some articles about it, especially from the likes of Gabriel Marcotti and some non-football financial journalists too, it's fascinating stuff if you like to know the body of work involved in the running of a club.

OwaynOTT

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I always pictured you as a brunette, Toby.

Go figure.

But does the carpet match the drapes?

Knex*

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I think 'Moneyball' only really took hold for one window, if you're looking at it in terms of "under-appreciated statistical values", when 6 years ago we went all out for "chances created", and brought in Stewie Downing, Charlie Adam, Henderson etc.

Beyond that one season, we've not really had one particular transfer style, other than just avoiding super-transfers. We've brought in some younger players with room to grow, and we've paid big on established premier league veterans.

The media loved the term, so it's become attached to us but, beyond that one window, I don't think it's any more applicable to us than it is to anyone else.

Even Enrique was one of those stat driven signings. I remember stats floating around showing the % of crosses allowed by opposition winger, and how he was among the best in the league the year before, and stuff like that.

Mr.H

Moneyball is about the stats to cost ratio.

It is nothing to do with buying low and selling high.

It's barely anything to do with money

Buford T. Justice XIX

OwaynOTT wrote: »

But does the carpet match the drapes?

I'll leave you check that, I'm busy for the next few months:P

Cartman78

***SKY SPORTS BREAKING NEWS***

Daniel Sturridge to return home from Spain due to a virus.

No pics yet but presumably we'll see him collecting a prescription at some stage later today

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

Moneyball is about the stats to cost ratio.

It is nothing to do with buying low and selling high.

It's barely anything to do with money

really?

Harry Palmr

Cartman78 wrote: »

***SKY SPORTS BREAKING NEWS***

Daniel Sturridge to return home from Spain due to a virus.

No pics yet but presumably we'll see him collecting a prescription at some stage later today

I actually thought you were taking the piss, Sturridge can pick up a virus but not a crisp pass

Cartman78

Harry Palmr wrote: »

I actually thought you were taking the piss, Sturridge can pick up a virus but not a crisp pass

Makes sense to send him home if he's infectious...although he's normally so greedy he probably wouldn't pass it on anyway

8-10

Moneyball is about winning games. How can you win more games in a season with a smaller budget than other teams with a higher budget win.

It has nothing to do with resale value. If a player is 40 years old and can help the team win this year, it's a good investment. Wins Above Replacement is a decent statistical measure for this. If the incoming player has a higher WAR than who he's replacing then it's a relatively good move (plenty of other factors but it's one)

There is definitely a misconception that doing it right means your player's value rises between you signing him and selling him. That is not it. His value to the team is the number of games more that you will win with him above the number you would win with who he replaces or an average output for his position.

This is over-simplified but resale value is not a consideration here at all

brevity

I liked the movie Moneyball.

NukaCola

8-10 wrote: »

WAR

What is it good for?

Mr.H

I really hate when people start talking about signing players on the cheap being moneyball.

Looking at stats like Enrique Adam and downing where all in the top 7 for crossing assists the season before we bought them was a moneyball decision. Regardless of their cost.

Buying coutinho for 8 million was nothing to do with moneyball.

I mean if you really want then watch he movie but either way stop talking about something if you clearly don't know what it is. Most bloody pundits that talk about it don't even know what it is.

The only way it is related to money is.... if two players provide an average of 15 assists a season. One player is valued at 10 Million more due to his age. That is the only time when money is considered for the stats to cost ratio.

martyos121

martyos121 wrote: »

Course we're still using Moneyball. It's loosely defined as buying what's undervalued and selling what's overvalued, and it's mostly what we've done under FSG, certainly from the summer of 2012 onwards.

Nearly every player we sign adheres to the strategy, but in particular Matip, Milner, Karius, Ings, Balotelli (even for how he turned out), Kolo, Sakho, Sturridge and Coutinho stood out in terms of proper "moneyball" deals, as most of them had external factors that lowered their value (end of contract for some of them, unwanted by their club for others etc.)

I'd call it a success so far, but it's going to take a lot more time to really show the benefits of the system, and keeping Klopp around for a long time is crucial to making it work.

martyos121 wrote: »

But that's exactly what moneyball is!

Also, it absolutely is not how every club approaches transfers. You can look at clubs like United and Real who will meet any asking price whether the footballing value is good or not, but it happens on a smaller scale too. Clubs like QPR, Sunderland, Leeds and countless others consistently bought the wrong type of players with poor value.

The part about statisictics and base percentage in particular is 100% true, for baseball. Moneyball in football is not the same as the stats in the sport are much more deceptive. I'm certain we incorporate good stats into it, but when you look at some of our signings, you can tell it isn't the priority like it is in baseball. Either that, or the stats FSG are looking for are very, very specific that they simply aren't noticed by the media and fans.

Your last line is odd though, because it really has nothing to do with individual transfer strategies. When a club signs a player, potential resale value is just one monetary factor (it's our main one, hence "moneyball"), there are so many others like marketability, wage demands, wage potential (how high a player's salary is likely to rise), revenue earned through football (prize money), merchandising and so on. Unless a transfer is instantly appealing in value and in footballing terms, (and sometimes when it isn't like on deadline days) a club would conduct a full cost-benefit analysis on a player to determine their value and if meeting an asking price is a good idea or not.

You've only made a small mistake in mixing up transfer strategies and "making financially smart transfers", but they are different concepts. There's overlap of course, in that transfer strategies takes scouting into account and other little footballing factors, but "financially smart transfers" are purely a financial concern. Not all of this is relevant to the discussion but business in football is a big interest of mine and I'd certainly recommend reading some articles about it, especially from the likes of Gabriel Marcotti and some non-football financial journalists too, it's fascinating stuff if you like to know the body of work involved in the running of a club.

Mr.H wrote: »

I really hate when people start talking about signing players on the cheap being moneyball.

Looking at stats like Enrique Adam and downing where all in the top 7 for crossing assists the season before we bought them was a moneyball decision. Regardless of their cost.

Buying coutinho for 8 million was nothing to do with moneyball.

I mean if you really want then watch he movie but either way stop talking about something if you clearly don't know what it is. Most bloody pundits that talk about it don't even know what it is.

The only way it is related to money is.... if two players provide an average of 15 assists a season. One player is valued at 10 Million more due to his age. That is the only time when money is considered for the stats to cost ratio.

Interesting to see too completely differing views and both parties convinced they are correct

Milkers

It's not that interesting. One is presenting facts, one is presenting their vague impression of what they thought moneyball was about based on the words "money" and "ball" and obviously don't know the first thing about sabermetrics. Post-truth era indeed.

D0NNELLY

Milkers wrote: »

post-truth era indeed.

I must Google that someday..

Sappy404

I'm not sure if I'd call it Moneyball, but LFC's transfer policy is basically that guy from the Simpsons who saves by eating plankton so he can spend his savings going on a cruise with a bunch of trannies on a boat that smells of cat piss.

Buford T. Justice XIX

NukaCola wrote: »

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing.

Potential Underachiever

I reckon Sturridge being the absolute bastard that he is drank a copious amount of Spanish tap water and induced the Virus on to himself all so he could go home and chill and listen to Missy Elliott, we don't need his poor attitude effecting the squad anyway....

gimli2112

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Absolutely nothing.

That's that song stuck in my head for the rest of the afternoon, thanks.

Agent Coulson

Jaysus the NHS in England must be glad Sturridge is a millionaire footballer who has football clubs and the FA paying his medical bills otherwise he alone might bankrupt them.

Buford T. Justice XIX

gimli2112 wrote: »

That's that song stuck in my head for the rest of the afternoon, thanks.

Sharing is caring:D

Buford T. Justice XIX

Liverpools pre season tour will involve a short trip to Asia to play 2 games in the Asia Trophy in a 6 day trip and then a week in Europe, probably based in Germany.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-pre-season-china-tour-12616440

Harry Palmr

Good, well better than traipsing about the far east or the USA for three weeks.

Francie Barrett

Can you imagine Gerrard or Carragher leaving a training camp because of a virus. Bonkers.

gafferino

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Can you imagine Gerrard or Carragher leaving a training camp because of a virus. Bonkers.

Why? You wouldnt want the rest of the team getting it. The lad is sick its not an injury like.

Sappy404

It's such a shame we don't do South American tours. Imagine the next generation of Messis, Suarezes and Agueros growing up wanting to play for Liverpool instead of just Real and Barca. Feck it, just do a tour of Belgium.

noodler

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Can you imagine Gerrard or Carragher leaving a training camp because of a virus. Bonkers.

?

Francie Barrett

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Can you imagine Gerrard or Carragher leaving a training camp because of a virus. Bonkers.

Would the medical team not send them home?

Francie Barrett

gafferino wrote: »

Why? You wouldnt want the rest of the team getting it. The lad is sick its not an injury like.

There is always something wrong with him, there is always an excuse.

Francie Barrett

Augeo wrote: »

Would the medical team not send them home?

It's a five day training camp. Maybe a virus would take him off his feet for a day or two, but maybe he would be fine and non-contagious after that?

I'd say Sturridge is about 90% certain to be gone by the start of next season anyway, so I guess it hardly matters and maybe Klopp has already given up on him.

Francie Barrett

Francie Barrett wrote: »

There is always something wrong with him, there is always an excuse.

Of late he's available but not getting games as you know.

The always speel in response to the lad having a virus is looney.

Francie Barrett wrote: »

It's a five day training camp. Maybe a virus would take him off his feet for a day or two, but maybe he would be fine and non-contagious after that? ..........

He was unwell when traveling but to your train of thought it was considered worth travelling. They than assessed it gain after a day or so.
Presumably you are aware that "a virus would take him off his feet for a day or two" isn't applicable to all viruses. And lets face it, you are not a doctor old chap.

marklazarcovic

Lads,it's God's will he cannot take part, discussion over.











Right😅😅😅

Potential Underachiever

Francie likes his men to be real men am I right? They just don't make em like they used to.

Osmosis Jones

Who cares really? Regardless of ability Sturridge is about as important to the club as Conor Randall right now.

Potential Underachiever

It's well for the lads anyway, their reward for getting dicked out of two cup competitions is a jolly boys outing to Spain! Tough life.

mormank

Augeo wrote: »

Of late he's available but not getting games as you know.

The always speel in response to the lad having a virus is looney.



He was unwell when traveling but to your train of thought it was considered worth travelling. They than assessed it gain after a day or so.
Presumably you are aware that "a virus would take him off his feet for a day or two" isn't applicable to all viruses. And lets face it, you are not a doctor old chap.

That's a very vague description of his availability. "Of late he's available", well actually I seem to remember a few games when Mane was gone to AFCON, where you would have thought that was Sturridge's chance to show his value and sure enough he was out injured again. He did end up playing some minutes while Mane was away tho, and showed almost no desire to collaborate with this team.

Osmosis Jones

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

It's well for the lads anyway, their reward for getting dicked out of two cup competitions is a jolly boys outing to Spain! Tough life.

What are you so bitter about?

mormank

mormank wrote: »

That's a very vague description of his availability. "Of late he's available", well actually I seem to remember a few games when Mane was gone to AFCON, where you would have thought that was Sturridge's chance to show his value and sure enough he was out injured again. He did end up playing some minutes while Mane was away tho, and showed almost no desire to collaborate with this team.

If he was showing no desire to collaborate in training I'm sure he wouldn't be picked by Klopp.

The team as a unit was playing horrible stuff with and without Sturridge in the period you meniton.

Mane was missed, when Sturridge plays he's the problem though in many peoples view.

Harry Palmr

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

What are you so bitter about?

Not being able to purchase and wear a 50/50 Liverpool-Man Utd scarf to the League Cup final with pride that what! :pac:

BorneTobyWilde

Looks like we will play on 25th of Feb if Leicester Draw.
Saturday 12.30 , instead of Monday 27th 8.00

Iused2likebusts

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Looks like we will play on 25th of Feb if Leicester Draw.
Saturday 12.30 , instead of Monday 27th 8.00

That would be great as they have sevilla 3 days before. Hopefully they draw at the weekend.