The Tim Sherwood Thread

[Stevo985]

On the moneyball thing, isn't that based on a closed economy with a wage cap and draft system?

In the world of actual football it's more a fancy name for buying cheap and selling with profit imo, teams have been doing that for ages

No

[sne]

On the moneyball thing, isn't that based on a closed economy with a wage cap and draft system?

In the world of actual football it's more a fancy name for buying cheap and selling with profit imo, teams have been doing that for ages

No

Ok, always willing to learn

Care to elaborate?

[useless]

Despite me saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. i think that my post above that was pretty much spot on.

[StefanAVFC]

It isn't just about buying cheap.

It's buying players who are outstanding in one attribute which is why they're not expensive and training up their other attributes to make them more complete.

It isn't just hoping that a cheap player will come good. It's heavily scouted.

An example would be Amavi, You'd look at his tackles and interceptions; assume he has those attributes because he has the ability to be a complete defender, you train up the attributes he's lacking in and you get a complete player. The alternative would be to target a more complete, polished player but the price will obviously be higher.

[Rob182]

“We might be 50 grand short of getting someone like Gus (Poyet).

“It is nice to have big names linked and I’m sure Gus will probably be sitting at home and smiling.

“You go down the list and you see names like Brendan Rodgers and Tim Sherwood, who is a friend of mine.

“You can only dream of people like that coming to manage the football club.

“They are just coming out of the Premier League, they aren’t going to drop down to League One and you wouldn’t be able to afford them if you could.

“We’ll be looking at the market that is relative for us and someone that can work within the philosophy of what we’re trying to achieve at the football club.”

Link

Their chairman made these comments a few days ago. I doubt he has any inside info, just a minor slip of the tongue.

I heard that interview on Talksport and he also said something about Sherwood not getting the targets he was after, like we saw reports of last week.

 

So TBAR might be referring to something more than those quotes above.

[useless]

Which has probably been going on in football for a long time. Calling it 'moneyball' is just a fad, a trend.

Edited October 21, 2015 by useless

[kayarcee]

On the moneyball thing, isn't that based on a closed economy with a wage cap and draft system?

In the world of actual football it's more a fancy name for buying cheap and selling with profit imo, teams have been doing that for ages

Not quite. While there is a draft in major league baseball, those players aren't expected to immediately contribute, and are often assigned to farm teams for a year or two. Imagine if Villa owned Walsall, Tamworth and Coventry, and then could distribute players as it saw fit amongst those four entities. That's how baseball is structured, and has been since around the 30s (before that, it was a series of regional leagues with a similar transfer system to world football). There is no salary cap. 

The actual Moneyball philosophy istlef is based on "market inefficiencies," i.e. players that are valued lowly by the rest of the league, but have an attribute that in the right environment could be maximized while the team has them under employ. For example, signing multiple doubles hitters while the league prefers to chase guys with high home run and RBI numbers. 

To an extent, I suppose that's what the emphasis on Ligue 1/2 players was all about this Summer - the French league is becoming "flatter" (i.e. the power structure of L'OL/L'OM/PSG/Monaco is eroding), and so the players across the league there are more competitive, and more likely to quickly cohere than if we had purchased a "world XI" of similar players. That said, Sherwood probably should have piped up that buying a whole new squad in one go didn't work when Spurs sold their big money player, and that we'd be better using that money for a small handful of players that could drastically improve our situation. But he didn't, and so here we are. 

[useless]

I imagine it's a lot easier to implement in US sports too. Where there's a smaller pool of talent to scout.

[kayarcee]

I imagine it's a lot easier to implement in US sports too. Where there's a smaller pool of talent to scout.

Considering that for baseball, there are 30 major league teams with 25-man squads, plus 5 or 6 farm teams of the same, plus American universities and high schools, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Japan and Korea, the talent pool isn't that much smaller. 

Edited October 21, 2015 by kayarcee

[useless]

There's plenty to chose from but compared to football it's pretty small.

[sexbelowsound]

It isn't just about buying cheap.

It's buying players who are outstanding in one attribute which is why they're not expensive and training up their other attributes to make them more complete.

It isn't just hoping that a cheap player will come good. It's heavily scouted.

An example would be Amavi, You'd look at his tackles and interceptions; assume he has those attributes because he has the ability to be a complete defender, you train up the attributes he's lacking in and you get a complete player. The alternative would be to target a more complete, polished player but the price will obviously be higher.

I think it needs to be acknowledged that the reason the Oakland A's had to shop in the cheaper end of the market was because they had one of the lowest budgets in MLB. Their annual budget of $40 million was the 3rd lowest in the league whilst the New York Yankees had the highest budget at $140 million.

Finding value in players who were overlooked because of outdated scouting methods was essentially the approach taken. Nothing about re-sale value but simply about buying runs instead of buying players and placing an emphasis on looking at stats that weren't looked at by other teams.

Eventually teams with bigger budgets cottoned onto what the Oakland A's were doing and adopted a similar strategy but with far higher budgets and essentially destroyed the advantage that the A's had because once again the playing field was no longer equal.

Edited October 23, 2015 by sexbelowsound

[Stevo985]

There's plenty to chose from but compared to football it's pretty small.

I think you're underestimating how many people play baseball.

It's less than football, but it's still a HELL of a lot.

[troon_villan]

On the moneyball thing, isn't that based on a closed economy with a wage cap and draft system?

In the world of actual football it's more a fancy name for buying cheap and selling with profit imo, teams have been doing that for ages

No

Ok, always willing to learn

Care to elaborate?

NOOOOO!!!

[sexbelowsound]

There's plenty to chose from but compared to football it's pretty small.

I think you're underestimating how many people play baseball.

It's less than football, but it's still a HELL of a lot.

30,000 players to choose from was mentioned in the film.

[TrinityRoadSteps]

It isn't just about buying cheap.

It's buying players who are outstanding in one attribute which is why they're not expensive and training up their other attributes to make them more complete.

It isn't just hoping that a cheap player will come good. It's heavily scouted.

An example would be Amavi, You'd look at his tackles and interceptions; assume he has those attributes because he has the ability to be a complete defender, you train up the attributes he's lacking in and you get a complete player. The alternative would be to target a more complete, polished player but the price will obviously be higher.

I think it needs to be acknowledged that the reason the Oakland A's had to shop in the cheaper end of the market was because they had one of the lowest budgets in MLB. Their annual budget of $40 million was the 3rd lowest in the league whilst the New York Yankees had the highest budget at $140 million.

Finding value in players who were overlooked because of outdated scouting methods was essentially the approach taken. Nothing about re-sale value but simply about buying runs instead of buying player and placing an emphasis on looking at stats that weren't looked at by other teams.

Eventually teams with bigger budgets cottoned onto what the Oakland A's were doing and adopted a similar strategy but with far higher budgets and essentially destroyed the approach that the A's had because once again the playing field was no longer equal.

At last. Someone who understands the original meaning of Moneyball

[useless]

Apparently there 265M professional football players, some of those are female.

[StefanAVFC]

It isn't just about buying cheap.

It's buying players who are outstanding in one attribute which is why they're not expensive and training up their other attributes to make them more complete.

It isn't just hoping that a cheap player will come good. It's heavily scouted.

An example would be Amavi, You'd look at his tackles and interceptions; assume he has those attributes because he has the ability to be a complete defender, you train up the attributes he's lacking in and you get a complete player. The alternative would be to target a more complete, polished player but the price will obviously be higher.

I think it needs to be acknowledged that the reason the Oakland A's had to shop in the cheaper end of the market was because they had one of the lowest budgets in MLB. Their annual budget of $40 million was the 3rd lowest in the league whilst the New York Yankees had the highest budget at $140 million.

Finding value in players who were overlooked because of outdated scouting methods was essentially the approach taken. Nothing about re-sale value but simply about buying runs instead of buying player and placing an emphasis on looking at stats that weren't looked at by other teams.

Eventually teams with bigger budgets cottoned onto what the Oakland A's were doing and adopted a similar strategy but with far higher budgets and essentially destroyed the approach that the A's had because once again the playing field was no longer equal.

At last. Someone who understands the original meaning of Moneyball

Thanks

[TrinityRoadSteps]

Sorry. That wasn't a knock at your post. 

[useless]

Basically we're signing players for cheap and hoping that they improve so that we can sell them on for a profit. But that's what pretty much every team is doing anyway. I don't think it's anything new. And it's what we'll be doing with or without Reilly and Almstadt.

Edited October 21, 2015 by useless

[StanBalaban]

Oh bread puns!! 

 

He'd be toast before the season was out. Our defence would be far too easy to roll over, we'd baguette a couple of wins before the fans got a cob on over a few naan-sensical results. 

 

That's a wrap. 

/bread

No mention of recalling Baker? Oh Eames, I am disappointed.