Downing IS Moneyball...

[RolandG]

With these stats, can we get our money back?

 

[juniormember]

Did Moyes make a difference to Everton? Would any old manager have taken them into the top half of the table consistently over the last 10 years?

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

I think a lot of people disagree with this bit Gerry:

"I think most fans with any sense already realise that if you put Alex Ferguson in charge of Hull City, they still wouldn’t win the league given the disparity in resources between Hull and Manchester United. Managers might be lionised, but everyone knows the reason David Moyes won’t win the title with Everton has little to do with his abilities. Common sense has told us this already."

I'm not sure that they would disagree. Most people know that a manager can only do so much, if other teams are buying players that are a huge level above, the best manager in the world won't consistently beat those teams.

For me there are two types of manager that stand out from the crowd. One that builds squads, helps identifies young talent and integrates them into the team, and another that can identify short term solutions and use this to his advantage. Both methods involve significant investment and support to make them successful, and without that, the managers can not be succesful, expect with a high "luck" factor, which I think is what you are trying to say.

But for me(and I think for you too) the manager DOES make a difference, just not as much difference as some people like to think. The difference is probably a couple of percent, as this article is saying, but that percent can be the difference between winning a trophy and not. The percent difference a manager makes is probably less than the percentage difference "luck" makes. But I don't think it's been proven how much this percent is, so to unequivocally say it's meaningless, at this stage in our knowledge, is wrong. But then again, I haven't read the research that you might have done.

I think it's correct that some of the statistics we look at are not the correct ones, but I'm still waiting to see which ones are the correct ones. Some possibilities are, shot conversion rates for strikers, chance creation(but how to define this, and differentiate between genuine goal chances and outside chances, is the problem), regaining the ball and keeping it for more than X seconds, time running at full speed, interceptions made(I think this should have distance run correlated in some way, as in the distance run to make an interception should be low, indicating positioning is good). And I'm sure there's more too.

The point of Farks post was for you to share some of the statistics that you've learned are more important, some of the ones I've mentioned probably aren't as effective as I think at present, but I'd(we'd all) like to hear which ones you do think are better.

 

[themn]

Lol@juniormember !

 

[Mamma Mia]

matrix bullet dodge

The first one was kinda funny, but this could be an actual interesting thread.

 

[Rosco]

I'm not sure that they would disagree. Most people know that a manager can only do so much, if other teams are buying players that are a huge level above, the best manager in the world won't consistently beat those teams.

For me there are two types of manager that stand out from the crowd. One that builds squads, helps identifies young talent and integrates them into the team, and another that can identify short term solutions and use this to his advantage. Both methods involve significant investment and support to make them successful, and without that, the managers can not be succesful, expect with a high "luck" factor, which I think is what you are trying to say.

But for me(and I think for you too) the manager DOES make a difference, just not as much difference as some people like to think. The difference is probably a couple of percent, as this article is saying, but that percent can be the difference between winning a trophy and not. The percent difference a manager makes is probably less than the percentage difference "luck" makes. But I don't think it's been proven how much this percent is, so to unequivocally say it's meaningless, at this stage in our knowledge, is wrong. But then again, I haven't read the research that you might have done.

I think it's correct that some of the statistics we look at are not the correct ones, but I'm still waiting to see which ones are the correct ones. Some possibilities are, shot conversion rates for strikers, chance creation(but how to define this, and differentiate between genuine goal chances and outside chances, is the problem), regaining the ball and keeping it for more than X seconds, time running at full speed, interceptions made(I think this should have distance run correlated in some way, as in the distance run to make an interception should be low, indicating positioning is good). And I'm sure there's more too.

The point of Farks post was for you to share some of the statistics that you've learned are more important, some of the ones I've mentioned probably aren't as effective as I think at present, but I'd(we'd all) like to hear which ones you do think are better.

I'll reply fully later, I'm in lectures today

.

Did Moyes make a difference to Everton? Would any old manager have taken them into the top half of the table consistently over the last 10 years?

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest it was Moyes that made a difference. If you want to show me some fair enough.

 

[Ryan]

I think this...

"...and all the other moneyball meets mattress salesman aphorisms."

Is my favourite line ever.