Are we a Moneyball club?

Mark_GT

Mark_GT

Well-known member
Given Simon S's firm grounding in analysis of what is the best commercial decision to take, who thinks we might be increasingly using this approach - or at least some of it? Every player now wears a wired up sports bra, feeding data for analysts to pore over. XG is a thing. Is this us? Does it explain a few things about our player sales and acquisitions? Or is it all so much hot air?

I watched this video which explains the Brentford approach and liked some of what I saw. Not all of it I must say. See what you think.

 
Mark_GT said:
Given Simon S's firm grounding in analysis of what is the best commercial decision to take, who thinks we might be increasingly using this approach - or at least some of it? Every player now wears a wired up sports bra, feeding data for analysts to pore over. XG is a thing. Is this us? Does it explain a few things about our player sales and acquisitions? Or is it all so much hot air?

I watched this video which explains the Brentford approach and liked some of what I saw. Not all of it I must say. See what you think.

Click to expand...
No
 
Don't think we'll do things exactly the same as Brentford, but to an extent, yes we are.

The big idea of Brentford's success is that they had an owner who didn't have the money to fund their push to the Premier League, so instead of splashing the cash on big name signings, they invested in younger, hungry players from the divisions below as well as players who were traditionally overlooked for significantly cheaper than those big name signings all while being fully ok with selling those players off for big fees.

Through the span of about a decade, they were able to fund a new ground and make the Premier League, all while not having to go into massive debt.

They are exactly the model that we should be aiming for.
 
100% Yes. The background of the Brentford owner is a betting firm, Simon is a hedgefund owner. Both of those businesses are basically trying to find ineffeciencies and signals in the markets, basically finding value where can't see it, to do this you have to be massively data driven. The Brentford owner actually worked in financial markets before he moved over to sports betting.

You see this with what Brentford did, using data people weren't looking at, to identify players who were potentially undervalued. Signing them on, then selling them on for massive profit. Whilst I'm massively over simplifying here, they're essentially applying financial market techniques to the players market.

We've been following a similar strategy since Critch came in. None of our signings have been massive, usually from the league below, and are nearly all worth much more than what we got them for. You have a few duds, for sure, but that's the risk you take, and you can actually afford to have several duds for just one success in this model. I'd wager we've had more successes than failures which is good going.

I was pretty sure we were copying this model last year, but I was 100% certain of it when we signed Keogh. At first I didn't get why we signed him, he didnt' fit the usual profile of players we go for, then I learned that Brentford did the same thing. They would go for players in lower leagues, often young which they believed were undervalued, but they also signed a few older more experienced heads. In paticular at CB. That for me was the most telling sign we're trying to do what they do.

Also worth remembering that Simon was quite open that he had some at his hedge fund running the numbers before aquiring the club. He clearly is not averse to utilising the analyticial capabilities of his firm to the benefit of the club. I think it also explains why we don't end up buying people like Brannigan even though he was our number one target. We clearly thought there was value to having him but not as much as Oxford wanted us to pay. Which is why we end up haggling quite agressively, and were prepared to walk away. I also think Simon was burned in his first January window, where we spent a lot of money for several signings who didn't work out. If that didn't motivate him to pick up the Brentford model, not much else will.
 
A big part of their strategy was disbanding the youth academy which is very expensive to run for a small club, especially when you have all of the best prospects taken for next to nothing by prem clubs to rot in their under 23s. They started a B team instead and picked up players released by Prem academies and also scouted overseas to pick up players that were undervalued based on their statistics.

As much as I'd love to see us bring through one of our own every now and then who is local, I think the Brentford model makes a lot more sense for a club like us.
 
Moneyball signings are based on data without any emotion or subjective opinion. Many of our signings appear to be based on Critch knowing the player in a role (eg. Liverpool).
 
Glenrowan said:
Many of our signings appear to be based on Critch knowing the player in a role (eg. Liverpool).
Click to expand...
For me, the signings are based on "coachability", wich for me suit us right given that Critch specializes in developing players. Our Moneyball strategy is not to buy undervalued players who are good enough, play them and sell them. Ours is to find under-coached players who have the right attributes and attitude, and develop them into first teamers for sale.
 
WonderPool said:
For me, the signings are based on "coachability", wich for me suit us right given that Critch specializes in developing players. Our Moneyball strategy is not to buy undervalued players who are good enough, play them and sell them. Ours is to find under-coached players who have the right attributes and attitude, and develop them into first teamers for sale.
Click to expand...
This is largely how I see it, though I reckon someone will also be running the numbers behind the scenes. It's probably part of the coaching set up Critchley would have been grounded in at Liverpool in any case.

With a nod to the video in the OP the recruitment of Keogh makes more sense with every match. Someone with genuine experience, not just of the footballing kind, to pass on.

The issue of the pros and cons of funding an academy set up is a thorny one. Simon S made it clear when he bought the club that this was a big priority - I think he even attributed that statement of intent to his wife. Academies are definitely one for the long long term. Not a place for quick and easy gains.
 
Glenrowan said:
Moneyball signings are based on data without any emotion or subjective opinion. Many of our signings appear to be based on Critch knowing the player in a role (eg. Liverpool).
Click to expand...

Some are but not as many as you would think - Yates, Keshi, Dougall, Keogh, Gabriel, Ekpiteta, Carey, Stewart, Hamilton, Beesley, Lavery, Grettersson (know he's gone but he was a Critch signing), Bowler, James, Connolly, Casey, Grimshaw. All don't fit in that box, vs Dale, Wintle and Kirk. Though it wouldn't surprise me if Critch knew of Lavery and Bowler from Liverpool considering they were at Everton.
 
Mark_GT said:
Academies are definitely one for the long long term
Click to expand...
Forgot to write it but when I said "coachability" i was also thinking of the boys (apter, holmes, bange, antwi, trusty, the u18), who will be thrown into the leagues we are scouting to give them the oportunity of regular football. The scouts go to see our boys and can unearth a gem or 2 in the process
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top