The Great Squad Cost Thread

[Makingtrax]

Find me a quote where I said that verbatim. Not surprised you'd believe a fabrication like that.

Everyone knows what you mean. But things like tactical mistakes have nothing to do with money.

There's lots of factors that have nothing to do with money, manager decisions, injuries, ref mistakes etc etc. But when you consider that Man City were nowhere, and then they get a massive injection of cash and their season finishes become 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 2nd . . you realise that the other things are minor.

 

[Makingtrax]

he should be sacked if we lose to united, thats 4 defeats in less than 10 games

You can't be serious, 3 of those games involved much richer squads.

Why does nobody understand football on here. Honestly, everybody who comes on AM ought to go straight to the lobby and be forced to watch Moneyball and read 'The Numbers Game'.

 

[Rex Stone]

You can't be serious, 3 of those games involved much richer squads.

Why does nobody understand football on here. Honestly, everybody who comes on AM ought to go straight to the lobby and be forced to watch Moneyball and read 'The Numbers Game'.

One of my favourite films but you know it’s complete fiction right?

Both book and film are based on a lie.

 

[Makingtrax]

One of my favourite films but you know it’s complete fiction right?

Both book and film are based on a lie.

Bit early to be drinking bro.

 

[Rex Stone]

Bit early to be drinking bro.

The book almost completely ignores the three MVP level pitchers they had on the roster who were consensus high draft picks that had been analysed via traditional scouting methods from the time before Beane took over.

Also their batting line up had two huge stars who were holdovers from a previous era in Chavez and Tejada during that season who both didn’t excel at Beane’s chosen metrics. They were big time sluggers who drove in almost a third of Oakland’s runs that season and Tejada was crowned MVP that year.

Finally, there’s the huge looming spectre of steroid abuse hanging over the A’s from that period. Tejada and Jason Giambi who features heavily in the book and film were both taking steroids at the time and have admitted it since.

A reserve player later confessed to dealing steroids to multiple A’s players and it seems improbable that Beane who was a former player and by his own admission took a high level of interaction for a GM with the players had no idea it was going on at all in the clubhouse.

The film is superbly made, it’s one of my favourites with a real life applicable message that I myself have found inspiring but it is a very distorted view of what happened.

 

[Makingtrax]

The book almost completely ignores the three MVP level pitchers they had on the roster who were consensus high draft picks that had been analysed via traditional scouting methods from the time before Beane took over.

Also their batting line up had two huge stars who were holdovers from a previous era in Chavez and Tejada during that season who both didn’t excel at Beane’s chosen metrics. They were big time sluggers who drove in almost a third of Oakland’s runs that season and Tejada was crowned MVP that year.

Finally, there’s the huge looming spectre of steroid abuse hanging over the A’s from that period. Tejada and Jason Giambi who features heavily in the book and film were both taking steroids at the time and have admitted it since.

A reserve player later confessed to dealing steroids to multiple A’s players and it seems improbable that Beane who was a former player and by his own admission took a high level of interaction for a GM with the players had no idea it was going on at all in the clubhouse.

The film is superbly made, it’s one of my favourites with a real life applicable message that I myself have found inspiring but it is a very distorted view of what happened.

The book was based on a real team, real personnel and real results. It was about a club who realised that money buys the best players. "It's an unfair game". With help from a young kid from Yale they try a different method of selecting players, looking at stats in a different way. Yet even though they go on a winning streak, they don't get any further than the previous year.

The moral is that however you try and beat the money, in the long run however good your manager is, and Billy is good, its a lost cause.

The book and film is very much based on the 'truth' and has real messages for football in Europe. Wenger and Gazidis tried their version of moneyball with statDNA and got no further.

You're second post about some of the details is of course correct, Hollywood has run with the idea and embellished and omitted for effect, but you're earlier post is 100% wrong and a ridiculous thing to say.

One of my favourite films but you know it’s complete fiction right?

Both book and film are based on a lie.

 

[Rex Stone]

The book was based on a real team, real personnel and real results. It was about a club who realised that money buys the best players. "It's an unfair game". With help from a young kid from Yale they try a different method of selecting players, looking at stats in a different way. Yet even though they go on a winning streak, they don't get any further than the previous year.

The moral is that however you try and beat the money, in the long run however good your manager is, and Billy is good, its a lost cause.

The book and film is very much based on the 'truth' and has real messages for football in Europe. Wenger and Gazidis tried their version of moneyball with statDNA and got no further.

You're second post about some of the details is of course correct, Hollywood has run with the idea and embellished and omitted for effect, but you're earlier post is 100% wrong and a ridiculous thing to say.

Well yes obviously the events happened but the book and film are so far removed from those events they’re portraying an almost alternate reality which is why I said they’re lying in the next sentence.

Also got to disagree with the “unfair game” but. It is something the A’s have milked for years without necessarily being true either. Measuring on payroll is an imperfect standard for many reasons but if we go with it, it doesn’t even hold true.

Since 2002 the A’s have won two playoff series, but in that time four teams with payrolls in the bottom five and all coincidentally lower than Oakland’s have made it to the World Series and in the case of Miami, actually won it all with the 26th highest payroll at the time.

Yes it’s a lot easier to win if you’re one of the biggest earners but since Moneyball, more teams outside the top 10 earners have won than the actual top 10.

 

[Makingtrax]

Well yes obviously the events happened but the book and film are so far removed from those events they’re portraying an almost alternate reality which is why I said they’re lying in the next sentence.

Also got to disagree with the “unfair game” but. It is something the A’s have milked for years without necessarily being true either. Measuring on payroll is an imperfect standard for many reasons but if we go with it, it doesn’t even hold true.

Since 2002 the A’s have won two playoff series, but in that time four teams with payrolls in the bottom five and all coincidentally lower than Oakland’s have made it to the World Series and in the case of Miami, actually won it all with the 26th highest payroll at the time.

Yes it’s a lot easier to win if you’re one of the biggest earners but since Moneyball, more teams outside the top 10 earners have won than the actual top 10.

They weren't lying that's nonsense. And no one can disagree with it's an unfair game apart from you and your mate @Trilly who automatically puts a like on your posts when your in a discussion with me. Probably doesn't even read what your saying lol.

One team has won the MLB World Series in the last 23 years with a below average payroll, what does that tell you about the affect of money on baseball success. One team. For a reference, if all teams were evenly talented, the odds of a below average salaried club winning only 1 of 23 World Series is about 1 in 365,000, or roughly 3 times less likely than being struck by lightening.

And as for the As since 2002, you compare their average wins to a rich team like the Yankees and see the difference.

Having money is about increasing your odds, no one's ever going to say that poor team will never win anything, of course they can. But a lot less frequently. It's an unfair game, just like football. And that's why people on here having a go a Wenger or Arteta for not winning the league or even getting in the top 4 when we're investing 5th don't really understand the game. They have to buck the odds, which is not easy. One day you'll agree with me and then I'll put the flags out.

 

[Trilly]

They weren't lying that's nonsense. And no one can disagree it's an unfair game apart from you and your mate @Trilly who automatically puts a like on your posts when your in a discussion with me. Probably doesn't even read what your saying lol.

you're*

 

[Makingtrax]

you're*

Just noticing the pattern bro

 

[HairSprayGooners]

Death. Taxes. @Makingtrax harping on about spend.

Liverpool's best 11 squad cost - £330M
Chelsea's best 11 squad cost - £370M
Sp**s best 11 squad cost - £260M
United best 11 squad cost - £455M
City best 11 squad cost - £545M
Arsenal best 11 squad cost - £365M

Your point is so odd and it really isn't consistent. @Makingtrax

Going by your logic Liverpool will finish 5th, Sp**s 6th and United 2nd. City apparently winning the title with your logic actually.

 

[Makingtrax]

Death. Taxes. @Makingtrax harping on about spend.

Liverpool's best 11 squad cost - £330M
Chelsea's best 11 squad cost - £370M
Sp**s best 11 squad cost - £260M
United best 11 squad cost - £455M
City best 11 squad cost - £545M
Arsenal best 11 squad cost - £365M

Your point is so odd and it really isn't consistent. @Makingtrax

Going by your logic Liverpool will finish 5th, Sp**s 6th and United 2nd. City apparently winning the title with your logic actually.

Hang on, who's best 11 is that, yours or their managers?

 

[HairSprayGooners]

Hang on, who's best 11 is that, yours or their managers?

I based it off these starting 11's -

Alisson
Trent - Gomez - VVD - Robbo
Hendo - Fabinho - Gini/Thiago (same price)
Salah - Firmino - Mane

Mendy
James - Thiago - Zouma - Chilwell
Kante - Kovacic
Ziyech - Havertz - Pulisic
Werner

Lloris
Aurier - Sanchez - Toby - Reguillon
Ndombelly - Sissoko - Hojbjerg
Moura (cost more than Bale) - Kane - Son

De Gea
AWB - Lindelof - Maguire - Shaw
Pogba - Matic
Greenwood - Bruno - Rashford
Martial

Ederson
Walker - Dias - Laporte - Mendy
Rodri
Gundo - KDB
Mahrez/Bernardo - Aguero - Sterling

And I even added Mustafi/Saliba value for Arsenal's 11.

Leno
Bellerin - Saliba/Mustafi - Gabriel - Tierney
Partey - Xhaka - Saka
Pepe - Laca - Auba
​

Can't really argue with any of the above and for your sake I've even added the most expensive players...

 

[Makingtrax]

I based it off these starting 11's -

Alisson
Trent - Gomez - VVD - Robbo
Hendo - Fabinho - Gini/Thiago (same price)
Salah - Firmino - Mane

Mendy
James - Thiago - Zouma - Chilwell
Kante - Kovacic
Ziyech - Havertz - Pulisic
Werner

Lloris
Aurier - Sanchez - Toby - Reguillon
Ndombelly - Sissoko - Hojbjerg
Moura (cost more than Bale) - Kane - Son

De Gea
AWB - Lindelof - Maguire - Shaw
Pogba - Matic
Greenwood - Bruno - Rashford
Martial

Ederson
Walker - Dias - Laporte - Mendy
Rodri
Gundo - KDB
Mahrez/Bernardo - Aguero - Sterling

And I even added Mustafi/Saliba value for Arsenal's 11.

Leno
Bellerin - Saliba/Mustafi - Gabriel - Tierney
Partey - Xhaka - Saka
Pepe - Laca - Auba
​

Can't really argue with any of the above and for your sake I've even added the most expensive players...

1) Does your cost model allow for no super subs, no squad rotation and no replacement for injuries?
2) Sp**s best 11 in your model is not that different to Chelsea's best 11, which presumably means there player quality is similar. So explain how Chelsea's finishes in the last decade is so much better than theirs?

 

[HairSprayGooners]

1) Does your cost model allow for no super subs, no squad rotation and no replacement for injuries?
2) Sp**s best 11 in your model is not that different to Chelsea's best 11, which presumably means there player quality is similar. So explain how Chelsea's finishes in the last decade is so much better than theirs?

Going straight to your second point why would you look back over the last decade when Chelsea's 11 now doesn't have a single player who played through Chelsea's most successful periods except Kante...

This is where your point doesn't make any sense, its all well and good looking at squad cost, but there's a lot of variables. Different managers, players coming and going etc etc.

United have spent the most out of anyone in recent times yet they've had poor finishes in the league for the past 7 or 8 years...

What you're saying really doesn't make much sense.

 

[Makingtrax]

Going straight to your second point why would you look back over the last decade when Chelsea's 11 now doesn't have a single player who played through Chelsea's most successful periods except Kante...

This is where your point doesn't make any sense, its all well and good looking at squad cost, but there's a lot of variables. Different managers, players coming and going etc etc.

United have spent the most out of anyone in recent times yet they've had poor finishes in the league for the past 7 or 8 years...

What you're saying really doesn't make much sense.

What happened to my first point?

 

[Makingtrax]

Going straight to your second point why would you look back over the last decade when Chelsea's 11 now doesn't have a single player who played through Chelsea's most successful periods except Kante...

This is where your point doesn't make any sense, its all well and good looking at squad cost, but there's a lot of variables. Different managers, players coming and going etc etc.

United have spent the most out of anyone in recent times yet they've had poor finishes in the league for the past 7 or 8 years...

What you're saying really doesn't make much sense.

I'm not sure how else to explain it.

Here are the top 4 spending teams in the league over the last decade. Look at their finishes.

1. City 3,1,2,1,2,4,3,1,1,2 Av = 2
2. United 1,2,1,7,4,5,6,2,6,3 Av = 3.7
3. Chelsea, 2,6,3,3,1,10, 1,5,3,4 = 3.8
4. Liverpool 6,8,7,2,6,8,4,4,2,1 = Av = 4.8

If all players across the league were equal the odds of this happening would be billions to 1. But they're not, wealthier teams can afford better players. The small variations you see in the seasons are due to injuries, managers, poor buys, club problems. The overall driving force that keeps them near the top is their investment.

 

[Rex Stone]

They weren't lying that's nonsense. And no one can disagree with it's an unfair game apart from you and your mate @Trilly who automatically puts a like on your posts when your in a discussion with me. Probably doesn't even read what your saying lol.

One team has won the MLB World Series in the last 23 years with a below average payroll, what does that tell you about the affect of money on baseball success. One team. For a reference, if all teams were evenly talented, the odds of a below average salaried club winning only 1 of 23 World Series is about 1 in 365,000, or roughly 3 times less likely than being struck by lightening.

And as for the As since 2002, you compare their average wins to a rich team like the Yankees and see the difference.

Having money is about increasing your odds, no one's ever going to say that poor team will never win anything, of course they can. But a lot less frequently. It's an unfair game, just like football. And that's why people on here having a go a Wenger or Arteta for not winning the league or even getting in the top 4 when we're investing 5th don't really understand the game. They have to buck the odds, which is not easy. One day you'll agree with me and then I'll put the flags out.

What’s average payroll? If we take the median figure of each MLB season there’s actually been more than one. The Royals made it to the World Series in 2014 with the 16th highest payroll and then went back and won it the next year.

Coincidentally they’re an even smaller team than Oakland, they probably have the smallest TV market of all MLB teams with one of the cheapest owners.

So we have almost ten teams with below average payroll who’ve made the World Series and 2 who’ve won it.

Interesting you mention the Yankees, do you know how many times since 2002 they’ve won it all? Once. Same goes for the Dodgers who are the other huge spenders.

The book paints Oakland as perennial underdogs when 10 years before they won the World Series and won it three years in a row in the 70s.

Obviously money helps to keep you contending but it’s just a flat out mistruth to paint the major leagues as a closed shop to all but 5 or 6 teams. The best ran teams are usually the ones who contend year on year.

 

[HairSprayGooners]

I'm not sure how else to explain it.

Here are the top 4 spending teams in the league over the last decade. Look at their finishes.

1. City 3,1,2,1,2,4,3,1,1,2 Av = 2
2. United 1,2,1,7,4,5,6,2,6,3 Av = 3.7
3. Chelsea, 2,6,3,3,1,10, 1,5,3,4 = 3.8
4. Liverpool 6,8,7,2,6,8,4,4,2,1 = Av = 4.8

If all players across the league were equal the odds of this happening would be billions to 1. But they're not, wealthier teams can afford better players. The small variations you see in the seasons are due to injuries, managers, poor buys, club problems. The overall driving force that keeps them near the top is their investment.

I don't care whats happened in the last decade. Klopps spend is quite small compared to United or City, look at when Klopp came in. The past 5 years would be a much better gauge for something like this rather than the past 10 years.

 

[Trilly]

Just noticing the pattern bro

I like any post that shows squad cost isn't the be all and end all.

I also respect your logic that wanting Arteta to get top four is expecting him to go against the odds but sport shows that it is possible and it's not as rare as you make it sound. I just want us to push for the top four.