Jump to content

Transfer Speculation (Summer 2013)


Recommended Posts

any chance of focusing this topic back onto whats most important?

 

sorting our sh ite first team out, were sorted for RB :)

 

 

I'd sell everyone who is to the left of the black line at the end of the season. 1 point per game is 38 points per season.

 

1.22 (Bannan) is 46.4 points over a season, which would make us comfortably mid-table.

 

I'd keep everyone at 1 point per game though, because these players would play better in a team with better players who were not bringing down their averages.

 

6g90z7.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even know what to say anymore. He's better than Lahm? Even forgetting all of the other RB's I mentioned, saying that is mind-boggling. You sound like an UT fanatic who is only obsessed with pace.

 

Agreed Andy, this circus has run its course.

 

Lahm is untested in the Premier League. I really like him as a player and captain but would buy Walker anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting chart, although id still ship out bannan as well, surely we, aston villa, can find and buy a better midfielder than a short ar se scottish alcoholic?

 

For the wages he is astonishing value for money. I doubt we can. He is also very effective at what he does - view signature line.

 

He is not the only short player in his position and as for the alcoholic jibe... how many footballers are teetotal? 

 

Some yes, but they're probably the minority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we have too many first team players on the book to be concerned about wages, ship out the likes of delph, ireland and bannan, with petrov set to leave as well, with them combined wages, we could find better, someone who wont get bullied easy either, surely size plays a major factor in this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

we have too many first team players on the book to be concerned about wages, ship out the likes of delph, ireland and bannan, with petrov set to leave as well, with them combined wages, we could find better, someone who wont get bullied easy either, surely size plays a major factor in this?

 

How large are Rosicky, Arteta, Nasri, Cleverley...? don't get rid of them all. Keep the ones with talent. I agree we need some size in midfield. Gardner was probably slated for that option at the start of the season. We need another Gardner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i hate it when my posts are requoted lol

 

i see where youre coming from, its not always about size (no jokes please) ive always felt that for centre mid, you need some big strong lads to bully the opposition instead of being bullied, an old fashioned kind of way of looking at it i guess

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

we have too many first team players on the book to be concerned about wages, ship out the likes of delph, ireland and bannan, with petrov set to leave as well, with them combined wages, we could find better, someone who wont get bullied easy either, surely size plays a major factor in this?

 

How large are Rosicky, Arteta, Nasri, Cleverley...? don't get rid of them all. Keep the ones with talent. I agree we need some size in midfield. Gardner was probably slated for that option at the start of the season. We need another Gardner.

 

 

Difference is they all play with better players with better midfield protection/support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter

 

any chance of focusing this topic back onto whats most important?

 

sorting our sh ite first team out, were sorted for RB :)

 

 

I'd sell everyone who is to the left of the black line at the end of the season. 1 point per game is 38 points per season.

 

1.22 (Bannan) is 46.4 points over a season, which would make us comfortably mid-table.

 

I'd keep everyone at 1 point per game though, because these players would play better in a team with better players who were not bringing down their averages.

 

6g90z7.png

 

This isn't moneyball.

 

You can't make these kinds of decision based on stats alone. It's absolute madness.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just stop arguing with Con.

 

He's completely inflexible when it comes to his stats. He just sees a number and is wholly convinced by it no matter what the circumstances.

 

My favorite sport is baseball, a game where almost everything can be decided on stats. What Con is doing is laughable in terms of trying to make an analysis with these numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats really are a load of rubbish though and not a way to analyse football. granted shots and fouls etc. are helpful stats but some of the stuff Con comes out with has no relevance at all

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • VT Supporter

 

any chance of focusing this topic back onto whats most important?

 

sorting our sh ite first team out, were sorted for RB :)

 

 

I'd sell everyone who is to the left of the black line at the end of the season. 1 point per game is 38 points per season.

 

1.22 (Bannan) is 46.4 points over a season, which would make us comfortably mid-table.

 

I'd keep everyone at 1 point per game though, because these players would play better in a team with better players who were not bringing down their averages.

 

6g90z7.png

 

 

You've churned out some shite on here Con, but this tops the lot. Unbelievable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

any chance of focusing this topic back onto whats most important?

 

sorting our sh ite first team out, were sorted for RB :)

 

 

I'd sell everyone who is to the left of the black line at the end of the season. 1 point per game is 38 points per season.

 

1.22 (Bannan) is 46.4 points over a season, which would make us comfortably mid-table.

 

I'd keep everyone at 1 point per game though, because these players would play better in a team with better players who were not bringing down their averages.

 

6g90z7.png

 

 

I've seen some ridiculous things posted in my 5 years on VT but this is a clear winner.

 

I just can't believe this is a serious opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have read Moneyball at least 10 times. Fantastic book, there are a lot of messages/principles in there, it's unfair to boil the them of the book down to one or two principles. 

 

I have to agree this Bannan discussion has become ridiculous though. Points per player, even if you were to postulate a stable relationship (which is a ridiculous hypothesis in football anyway), you would need a big sample size to have any confidence in the data. 

 

It would be naive to think that stats can't be used in relation to better player analysis in football, it needs to be big samples of data though. Points per player is ridiculously crude and on the verge of offensive to someone who has even a basic understanding of research methods and statistical analysis. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just stop arguing with Con.

He's completely inflexible when it comes to his stats. He just sees a number and is wholly convinced by it no matter what the circumstances.

My favorite sport is baseball, a game where almost everything can be decided on stats. What Con is doing is laughable in terms of trying to make an analysis with these numbers.

I do think some Saber ideas will make their way into football, but points per game is so opposite anything advanced metrics related it is not even funny. Advanced metrics are useful for analyzing individuals performance. There are so many things that go into winning or drawing a game, and to think a players points per game over 32 games is even close to relevant is to not understand what advanced metrics are about.

To extend the conversation, the problem with Saber ideas is football is the subjective nature of any useful stat. Con's favorite "key passes" stat, for instance, relies on a person deciding which passes are key and which are not. In baseball, however, you have either gotten on base or not. No subjectivity needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that saber ideas will make it into football eventually (though I've had my fair share of discussions about how difficult it would be given the subjective nature of the sport). We've already gone leaps and bounds of what we've seen prior.

But anything that tries to determine things at a micro level to the player are incredibly broad brush strokes at best. There's just not enough objective statistics to determine the underlying metrics.

The best example I could give is Con looking at a pitcher's ERA or a hitter's AVG and concluding their worth based only on that and nothing else.

It's naive at best

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel Finkelstein does some interesting articles in the Times on a Saturday which involve statistical analysis for anyone that is interested. 

 

 

The thing people have to understand is that supplementing opinions with statistics is generally a good thing, done largely by intelligent people. It should be encouraged. 

 

Using statistics to test and postulate relationships is a significant step further though and without an understanding of research methods and statistical analysis you will make yourself look very foolish which is what has happened on this thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

any chance of focusing this topic back onto whats most important?

 

sorting our sh ite first team out, were sorted for RB :)

 

 

I'd sell everyone who is to the left of the black line at the end of the season. 1 point per game is 38 points per season.

 

1.22 (Bannan) is 46.4 points over a season, which would make us comfortably mid-table.

 

I'd keep everyone at 1 point per game though, because these players would play better in a team with better players who were not bringing down their averages.

 

6g90z7.png

guzan , lowton and Benteke just not even wanted then as they aren't in your chart. I can't take your posts seriously.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â