CONFIMRED - Charlie Adam

[stealthpapes]

Again, that he's been shit recently - and he really has been - makes no difference to it being a Moneyball signing or not.

For someone who claims to be all over this, it seems a fundamental point to be stumbling on.

definition of word argument...

'Moneyball' process was to identify metrics that actually contribute to winning games rather than traditional methods. On-base percentage and slugging were considered the key metrics iirc...so they recruited players who could do this i.e. had really fcuking good stats in these key areas relative to the amount they would cost

The football equivalent has seen stats like xG, xAssists etc. (the shizzle posted above) Charlie Adam is spectacularly shit at all of these

Anti Moneyball was recruiting old players based on former reputation. However, if you can identify the key metrics that CA possesses that make him a moneyball signing I'll STFU

p.s. it's not "I reckz he can Hollywood pass from the halfway line in the last twenty mins"

Yeah, the bit in bold exactly. I think it is efficiently summarised as "finding value where there is perceived none"

First, the football equivalent goes further than just xG etc as I think you well know - SCIAG nails one possible aspect.

Second, it takes into account circumstances - picking players who are undervalued in their current situation or for cosmetic reasons (in the OG book, you can have Chad Bradford, Scott Hatteburg and Kevin Youkilis as example.). Adam's stats and output have been poor - really, really poor - recently. If our scouting has revealed to our satisfaction that's due to circumstance - mismatch of role in team, only playing in certain match situations, injuries ( ) - then he's possibly undervalued.

The one big aspect that worries me is he was never mobile at his peak and that's only getting worse.

Anyway, for example, that tweet's killer argument was that he's been objectively shit recently.

But that's not a Moneyball argument, is it?

[BR0B0T]

Again, that he's been shit recently - and he really has been - makes no difference to it being a Moneyball signing or not.

For someone who claims to be all over this, it seems a fundamental point to be stumbling on.

definition of word argument...

'Moneyball' process was to identify metrics that actually contribute to winning games rather than traditional methods. On-base percentage and slugging were considered the key metrics iirc...so they recruited players who could do this i.e. had really fcuking good stats in these key areas relative to the amount they would cost

The football equivalent has seen stats like xG, xAssists etc. (the shizzle posted above) Charlie Adam is spectacularly shit at all of these

Anti Moneyball was recruiting old players based on former reputation. However, if you can identify the key metrics that CA possesses that make him a moneyball signing I'll STFU

p.s. it's not "I reckz he can Hollywood pass from the halfway line in the last twenty mins"

Second, it takes into account circumstances - picking players who are undervalued in their current situation or for cosmetic reasons (in the OG book, you can have Chad Bradford, Scott Hatteburg and Kevin Youkilis as example.). Adam's stats and output have been poor - really, really poor - recently. If our scouting has revealed to our satisfaction that's due to circumstance - mismatch of role in team, only playing in certain match situations, injuries ( ) - then he's possibly undervalued.

how can scouting identify the things you outlined

"he was shit but if he had played in role/match circumstances we didn't see him play in he would be good"

[stealthpapes]

That's precisely what scouting is there to unearth.

[NewCorkSeth]

Be honest. Did you go back to that season as it the most recent one hes been any good?

[BR0B0T]

That's precisely what scouting is there to unearth.

how the fcuk can a scout watch someone play badly in multiple games and then with no evidence say he'd be good playing in another role

...and then you go "That's Moneyball!!!!!!"

[stealthpapes]

That's clearly not my argument, BR0BOT.

[BR0B0T]

That's clearly not my argument, BR0BOT.

tell me how they do it then

[NewCorkSeth]

Our set pieces have been shite for years but under Gones we had a brief spell of looking decent. Corners is our issue I think. Swift is a mixed bag at free kicks, they are either sublime or soft.

Both Barrow and Swift are pretty poor at corners but also our set up for attacking corners is often shite. Blackett, for one, never seems to be targeted or even in decent positions. Hes a big guy..

I also hate short corners so there is that too.

[stealthpapes]

In the general case or in the specific?

In the general case, a players' form and performance is also a function of external factors - which is part of modern football scouting (as an example, the number of expensive flops in English football has dropped markedly in the last 10-15 years, this is due to clubs doing more thorough scouting and checking of personality as well as better 'after care' when they've been signed) - and exactly what they're being asked to do on in the pitch and the circumstances around it. There's enough examples from recent football history - and its not always a tactical choice, players having to cover due to injuries might be an explanation - to suggest its not a ridiculous answer. Stranded's post hints at it, but I'm sure you can think of plenty of players struggling in roles to which they're unaccustomed. That's why teams still have scouting departments and also why its far, far more technical and technological than it was 10-15 years ago.

In the specific, I'd suggest that Stranded's post is as good a place to go as any. I also rather like Brain Traysers post, mostly because it tallies with this second strand.

Going back to the original point:

Second, it takes into account circumstances - picking players who are undervalued in their current situation or for cosmetic reasons (in the OG book, you can have Chad Bradford, Scott Hatteburg and Kevin Youkilis as example.). Adam's stats and output have been poor - really, really poor - recently. If our scouting has revealed to our satisfaction that's due to circumstance - mismatch of role in team, only playing in certain match situations, injuries ( ) - then he's possibly undervalued.

The key bit is finding value where there is none.

He's clearly underperformed for the last two years - I am not disagreeing with that, he's clearly got some specific skillsets which we don't really have ("Our set pieces have been shite for years"). Until he plays, its still a 'meh' signing, but I am prepared to think our club has done some due diligence on why he's underperformed recently and made their decision accordingly.

[stealthpapes]

Cutting to the chase, is there even a broad strokes testable hypothesis?

[BR0B0T]

Cutting to the chase, is there even a broad strokes testable hypothesis?

lols I wrote exactly the same thing several posts ago and then deleted it

must be the heat!!!

[BR0B0T]

fcuk just realised this is the Team Board...thought I was on GF

Have RFC actually bought Adam?

[Pepe the Horseman]

If we're being generous, I think the "Moneyball" aspect with Adam is perhaps that he's a set-piece specialist. At least at his peak, he was a Sigurdsson/Harte level threat and set piece skills don't really seem to diminish in the same way as other skills. Set pieces remain an under-exploited area of the game and consequently a club lacking resources can focus on them to overperform.

Signing a player who looks shit on paper because he might give us an extra ~20 goals a season (either directly or through his delivery), is a form of Sabermetrics. In the wider world of football it's considered a stupid idea, but it might not be - again look at Harte or Rory Delap.

yeah...could buy the free-kick idea. The Danish side (owned by the Brentford owner) actually employed this idea. Again iirc they scored about a third of their goals from set-pieces so dedic8d a third of resources to it and won the league

Well let's fcuking do this then!

[stealthpapes]

fcuk just realised this is the Team Board...thought I was on GF

[BR0B0T]

fcuk just realised this is the Team Board...thought I was on GF

I'd genuinely really like to fight Ramsey

[BR0B0T]

If we're being generous, I think the "Moneyball" aspect with Adam is perhaps that he's a set-piece specialist. At least at his peak, he was a Sigurdsson/Harte level threat and set piece skills don't really seem to diminish in the same way as other skills. Set pieces remain an under-exploited area of the game and consequently a club lacking resources can focus on them to overperform.

Signing a player who looks shit on paper because he might give us an extra ~20 goals a season (either directly or through his delivery), is a form of Sabermetrics. In the wider world of football it's considered a stupid idea, but it might not be - again look at Harte or Rory Delap.

yeah...could buy the free-kick idea. The Danish side (owned by the Brentford owner) actually employed this idea. Again iirc they scored about a third of their goals from set-pieces so dedic8d a third of resources to it and won the league

Well let's fcuking do this then!

It was actually half their goals from set-pieces (maybe still a third from freekicks not sure)

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... hew-benham

[BR0B0T]

[Nameless]

yeah...could buy the free-kick idea. The Danish side (owned by the Brentford owner) actually employed this idea. Again iirc they scored about a third of their goals from set-pieces so dedic8d a third of resources to it and won the league

Well let's fcuking do this then!

It was actually half their goals from set-pieces (maybe still a third from freekicks not sure)

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... hew-benham

Didn’t Rotherham have a similar stat last season ?

[SCIAG]

Second, it takes into account circumstances - picking players who are undervalued in their current situation or for cosmetic reasons (in the OG book, you can have Chad Bradford, Scott Hatteburg and Kevin Youkilis as example.). Adam's stats and output have been poor - really, really poor - recently. If our scouting has revealed to our satisfaction that's due to circumstance - mismatch of role in team, only playing in certain match situations, injuries ( ) - then he's possibly undervalued.

how can scouting identify the things you outlined

"he was shit but if he had played in role/match circumstances we didn't see him play in he would be good"

The OG example is a player who has quite "poor" stats because he's playing somewhere where the local conditions make it difficult to succeed in his role. Cricket and now baseball are very alert to this but in football we don't talk about it so much.

I guess if you put Xavi on a really bad pitch, he'd probably have worse pass completion than most top-level midfielders, but still the best pass completion in his team. A good scout would see that his poor stats compared to the league aren't reflective of his ability. Or the opposite - Ibrahima Sonko keeps giving away goals because he's being asked to play out of the back, but your team doesn't play from the back so you sign him anyway and he stops giving away goals. Or you go to scout Bobby Convey because his dribbling stats are really good and your manager thinks he might be able to convert him to play behind the striker... but then you realise Reading use the full width of a wide pitch and Convey doesn't leave the flank because he can only see out of one eye.

[Brain Traysers]

Be honest. Did you go back to that season as it the most recent one hes been any good?

Assuming this is based on the understat viz I posted?

Genuinely no - its the best data source for this kind of profile, and I preferred the sample of 1500 older mins to 400 mins (that same chart for the following season looks very similar, but with 0 A90 or G90 as he didn't directly score or make any goals). Generally I would hope our coaching staff are forming opinions based on more than 5 games worth of evidence, although in some cases a sample of 400 mins might be adequate (Meyler).

I don't often have strong opinions on signings deemed worthy of sharing, and when I do they tend to be quite negative. Sometimes I am right (Baldock), sometimes I am wrong (Gomes). Its entirely possible this move will turn out better than expectations, since those expectations seem generally very low.