2018 Football World Cup
-
-
@chris-b True, but they're not paid for their football skill. They're paid because they sell jerseys and people will come to watch them.
There must be room for a real moneyball strategy, where you buy actually by player value. But I doubt many owners would wear it. The Glazers maybe.
-
For those that are interested, here are the ref appointments for the QFs. I am surprised an Argie gets a game involving Uruguay.
Uruguay – France
Referee: Nestor Pitana (ARG)
Assistant Referee 1: Hernan Maidana (ARG)
Assistant Referee 2: Juan Belatti (ARG)Brazil – Belgium
Referee: Milorad Mažić (SRB)
Assistant Referee 1: Milovan Ristić (SRB)
Assistant Referee 2: Dalibor Djurdjević (SRB)Sweden – England
Referee: Björn Kuipers (NED)
Assistant Referee 1: Sander van Roekel (NED)
Assistant Referee 2: Erwin Zeinstra (NED)Russia – Croatia
Referee: Sandro Ricci (BRA)
Assistant Referee 1: Emerson de Carvalho (BRA)
Assistant Referee 2: Marcello Van Gasse (BRA) -
-
Did I hear in their commentary that Sweden were 250 to 1 outsiders?
If so WTF? How can any European team, even Iceland, be 250 to 1? Soccer is so open to upset, or even draws, that a competitive team with pro-players from the best leagues will be more than good enough to force results.
I seem to recall back in 1982 NZ were 500 to 1. In my mind that doesn't seem a lot different to 250 to 1 and the All Whites had no hope of getting out of their group let alone win a knock out game.
Which brings me to my next random thought about that 82 WC that pools seemed to have two distinct favourites to advance and two minnows. Much like the RWC still seems to be.
IIRC (at least it was the first time I heard it applied) the term "Group of Death" was in the 86 FIFA WC.*
Suggesting that then and before the top two seeds in each group were expected to advance.
Nowadays I'm not sure it's quite so clear cut.
Although as I type this I'm looking at the pools and you'd pick most of those that didn't advance (... with the exception of Germany.)
-
- Close. Wiki says it was "popularised" in 86
-
-
Ok.
We're starting a new phase, so from those who are left in
-
Who do you think is going to win?
-
Who do you want to win?
In answer:
-
Belgium (remembering I know nothing of soccer)
-
Sweden. I developed a soft spot for them back during some previous WC where they did really well. Can't remember which one.
If not them then England. They seem a likable team, especially Southgate
-
-
- Brazil. I hate Neymar but they play with great flair and their defence is solid this time around
- England. They, like their rugby counterparts, play a prehistoric brand of football and their players don't have the skill set to play a more creative way. But I have a sentimental attachment back to my childhood, and they seem a relatively decent bunch
-
@chester-draws said in 2018 Football World Cup:
@chris-b True, but they're not paid for their football skill. They're paid because they sell jerseys and people will come to watch them.
There must be room for a real moneyball strategy, where you buy actually by player value. But I doubt many owners would wear it. The Glazers maybe.
Shahid Khan owner of Fulham (& Jacksonville Jaguars) and erstwhile purchaser of Wembley is a fan of Moneyball and appointed a Transfer Manager to oversee a strategy that incorporated Moneyball but wasn't exclusively based upon it.
Given the only change to the Fulham squad since the end of season has to be lose one of the guys they would have wanted to keep I don't know they have a strategy now. Hopefully once WC is over Khan will dip into his 5.5 Bill of funds and strengthen the squad. Would not want him to buy success like Chelski or Citeh though - it wouldn't be Fulham if we weren't flirting with disaster
Fulham have just been promoted to Premiership ......
.....but only after they sacked the Transfer supremo and adopted a more traditional strategy i.e. ask the Manager what he needed to win promotion and then go for it
-
@dogmeat But the point of Moneyball is not to win promotion. The point is to make more money.
If you are top of the Championship and dragging in good crowds with a cheap team, then promotion is a double-edged sword. Especially if it means big time transfers.
As I say, people won't wear it! They think it is about how to win cheaply.
-
@chester-draws said in 2018 Football World Cup:
@dogmeat But the point of Moneyball is not to win promotion. The point is to make more money.
If you are top of the Championship and dragging in good crowds with a cheap team, then promotion is a double-edged sword. Especially if it means big time transfers.
As I say, people won't wear it! They think it is about how to win cheaply.
Daniel Levy is the moneyball master by that metric
-
@chester-draws Have you read Moneyball? Making money has nothing to do with it. Unless there is another Moneyball out there?
-
@nepia said in 2018 Football World Cup:
@chester-draws Have you read Moneyball? Making money has nothing to do with it. Unless there is another Moneyball out there?
I thought it was about sabremetrics?
-
@canefan yeah, but only to buy cheap players who, for whatever reason, are undervalued.
Sabremetrics will tell you who are the best players. The top will all be well paid superstars. Moneyball is about buying the guys on that list who aren't priced highly enough, not the top ones.
And about playing a game plan that emphasises winning over style.
So a rugby version might emphasise props, goal kickers and backs that can tackle. Then playing ten man rugby when needed. You'd pick Ritchie Mounga, because he's cheap and solid, not Beauden Barrett who'd top any Sabremetrics. You'd buy Buckman over Israel Dagg. You'd buy cheap Tongan props over the Franks.
-
@booboo said in 2018 Football World Cup:
Ok.
We're starting a new phase, so from those who are left in
- Who do you think is going to win?
Belgium. I'm picking Brazil don't make the final.
- Who do you want to win?
Belgium or Croatia. New winners.
In answer:
-
Belgium (remembering I know nothing of soccer)
-
Sweden. I developed a soft spot for them back during some previous WC where they did really well.
The longer they stay in the tournament the better, as long as the local cameramen do their job.
-
France will edge Uruguay unless Cavani fully fit.
Sweden to take out England 1-0 or 1-1 on penalties.
Croatia to dispatch Russia.
Heart says Belgium head says Brazil.
-
@chester-draws said in 2018 Football World Cup:
@canefan yeah, but only to buy cheap players who, for whatever reason, are undervalued.
Sabremetrics will tell you who are the best players. The top will all be well paid superstars. Moneyball is about buying the guys on that list who aren't priced highly enough, not the top ones.
And about playing a game plan that emphasises winning over style.
So a rugby version might emphasise props, goal kickers and backs that can tackle. Then playing ten man rugby when needed. You'd pick Ritchie Mounga, because he's cheap and solid, not Beauden Barrett who'd top any Sabremetrics. You'd buy Buckman over Israel Dagg. You'd buy cheap Tongan props over the Franks.
More precisely it was identifying that traditional statistics were less reliable predictors of performance than most people realised. I think in baseball it was batting average that was traditionally regarded as the best marker for quality (and therefore price), but on base percentage that was the more reliable indicator of performance. So you'd find guys with relatively poor averages and great on base percentages.
I don't see how you can break football down in that same way. Sure there will be undervalued players (Leicester had a bunch of them) but they're not likely to be easily identified through statistical analysis as in baseball. So a 'moneyball' approach really just becomes a 'we're going to get a scouting guru' approach.
The playing style thing was the same. Turns our stealing bases is net-negative to your chances to win - so stop doing it. But how do you break down football like that? That might be more possible (e.g. chances created by fullbacks coming forward vs counter attacks creating chances following a fullback coming forward), but still has many more variables thanks to the more open, flowing nature of football. In fact I'd say football (and rugby) are probably the two hardest sports to apply moneyball principles to thanks to the nature of the game.
The other thing is the season length - there's what; 100 odd games per baseball season? If you playing a style that you know will be more successful in the long run then you can be confident that any blips (e.g. when your opponents have an improbable run of successful base stealing attempts) will smooth out over the season. Whereas in shorter seasons those two games you lost because a high risk strategy from the opponent got lucky might be the difference. Even the Oakland Athletics, although being wildly more successful than their budget should have allowed, never won a world series (post moneyball).
-
@cyclops I agree with the point that football and rugby aren't easily broken statistically by player. But there are some -- penalties vs turnovers for flankers, lineout percent for bookers.
But I reckon that they can be broken by play and playing style. Some look flashy but don't work well, whereas lineout drives should be your first option every single attacking lineout (I've seen a quite ordinary team win a championship with just that).
I would for example pick the props that give away the least penalties, not the ones that look good or dead lift the most. I would value scrum push for locks far more than most (and hence rate Bird higher). There is room for such arbitrage.
