The Great Squad Cost Thread

[Beksl]

OK, so let's hear your theory which explains why Chelsea, City and United have won the league every year but one since 2004 when the oligarchs first arrived, and why Sp**s, Liverpool and Arsenal haven't.

Similar pattern in Spain with Real and Barca winning every year but one.

If squad cost is nonsense (as you keep saying) and it's not to do with buying expensive ready made quality players, . . . what is it to do with?

Just hoping you don't quiet now it's your turn to say something positive instead of your usual mocking sh*t.

Apart from ''looking back through the years (only to the 2004 ) and see the pattern'' you haven't provided any statistical proof of your statements.

And now you want others to prove you wrong with their theory, ffs...

 

[Makingtrax]

That wasn't the original argument. The original argument was that your squad cost is proportionate to your league position which gets debunked every season. The goal posts constantly get moved every month.

@Fallout showed it was roughly proportional with his graphs and you supported him saying it was nice analysis.

It's you who keeps changing your tune.

Nobody ever said it was a 100% correlation, or even close. It just means 'the more you spend the better your chances'. The evidence for that is pretty much overwhelming.

 

[Makingtrax]

Apart from ''looking back through the years (only to the 2004 ) and see the pattern'' you haven't provided any statistical proof of your statements.

And now you want others to prove you wrong with their theory, ffs...

You try finding data before 2004 and let me know where it is?

 

[BBF]

@Fallout showed it was roughly proportional with his graphs and you supported him saying it was nice analysis.

It's you who keeps changing your tune.

Nobody ever said it was a 100% correlation, or even close. It just means 'the more you spend the better your chances'. The evidence for that is pretty much overwhelming.

Yes you did, why are you chatting ****? You used a declarative every time you said it.

Secondly, @Fallout posted good analysis with factual and sourced information which you weren't able to do. It doesn't mean I agree with it, and he didn't declare that the cost of your squad directly reflects your position in the league.

 

[Mark Tobias]

@Makingtrax have you ever considered that it isn't the theory itself but the way in which you argue it that has so many posters arguing against you? What I mean by that is that it seems a good few posters here think that you don't believe in other factors...
I myself have come to realise that you and I agree on many things but these concurrences get lost in the heat of debate and the need to prove a single point.. Anyway, just a though.

 

[Beksl]

You try finding data before 2004 and let me know where it is?

How did you do your sampling, which correlation coefficients did you use in your analysis? What did the analysis of influential points or outliers showed?

 

[Makingtrax]

@Makingtrax have you ever considered that it isn't the theory itself but the way in which you argue it that has so many posters arguing against you? What I mean by that is that it seems a good few posters here think that you don't believe in other factors...
I myself have come to realise that you and I agree on many things but these concurrences get lost in the heat of debate and the need to prove a single point.. Anyway, just a though.

Squad cost debate brings out two types of posters:

-Those who can't stand anything that might detract from Wenger being clueless, because it reduces manager responsibility . . . as if the final placing are ordained before the season starts.

-Those who consider themselves statistics experts and want to poke holes in any correlations as one upmanship in an academic exercise.

I've repeatedly said that it boils down to money increasing your probality of finishing higher up the league and there are other factors like injuries, luck and yes manager organisation . . . but nobody ever sees those

 

[Makingtrax]

How did you do your sampling, which correlation coefficients did you use in your analysis? What did the analysis of influential points or outliers showed?

Look mate, I'm not a statistician and made that clear at the outset, my background is in scientific research.

I believe the evidence is overwhelming that the more money you spend on quality players the better your chances of finishing higher up the league, both here and in other countries.

The CIES give accurate squad costs each year (recently) and the league results are for all to see. If you think the graphs you've seen and the explanations are piss poor than do some stats of your own. Perhaps you can shed some light on why the richer teams always finish higher up the league, and just how rough the correlation is.

 

[Beksl]

@Makingtrax

The problem for me is your passive/aggresive stance. On the one hand you're eager to rub in our faces this so called squad theory when you try to make excuses for poor results/management but then when you're confronted you quickly point out how this is just a rough guide how there's no 100% correlation (in older posts I saw a figure of 70% but I'm not sure if it was mean sarcastically...)

Basically you like to use squad cost when it suit your agenda and when it doesn't (usually when you can't provide any factual arguments to support it) you diminish its value to a rough guide, etc.

 

[Beksl]

The CIES give accurate squad costs each year (recently) and the league results are for all to see. If you think the graphs you've seen and the explanations are piss poor than do some stats of your own. Perhaps you can shed some light on why the richer teams always finish higher up the league, and just how rough the correlation is.

I'll try to do it when I'll have time. I'll even PM you if you're interested

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

How did you do your sampling, which correlation coefficients did you use in your analysis? What did the analysis of influential points or outliers showed?

You can check out my linear regression model I did for fun in R for this thread starting at page 5. If I remember correctly the null-hypothesis was rejected so there was significant connection between how much teams cost and where they end in the table.

Looking forward to see your analysis on what ever data you use!

 

[RoadrunnerReloaded]

@Makingtrax

The problem for me is your passive/aggresive stance. On the one hand you're eager to rub in our faces this so called squad theory when you try to make excuses for poor results/management but then when you're confronted you quickly point out how this is just a rough guide how there's no 100% correlation (in older posts I saw a figure of 70% but I'm not sure if it was mean sarcastically...)

Basically you like to use squad cost when it suit your agenda and when it doesn't (usually when you can't provide any factual arguments to support it) you diminish its value to a rough guide, etc.

Here is some of the information that was actually posted by fallout. The key graphs show that once you reach a certain level of wealth (top 6) there is not really a strong correlation between spending more and achieving higher in the table.

as we can see, for both squad cost and squad wage, teams at the bottom generally stay close to the line, but the league's richest teams are all over the place. there appears to be some threshold level of wealth where the relationship between winning and wealth just disappears.
and this is true for previous seasons as well.

with the exception of the 14/15 season, it's hard to draw any line that relates winning and wealth for the league's richest teams. the lines for 16/17 and 15/16 are going in the wrong direction! and even though the line for 13/14 is in the right direction, teams don't conform to it in a meaningful way.

i think the explanation here is that, once you reach a certain level of wealth, spending additional money to improve the squad yields diminishing returns.

Also important to note that no has tried using European competitions where you consistently see well managed teams like Atletico, Dortmund, Monaco heck even Juventus outperform their squad cost.

 

[BBF]

@Makingtrax

The problem for me is your passive/aggresive stance. On the one hand you're eager to rub in our faces this so called squad theory when you try to make excuses for poor results/management but then when you're confronted you quickly point out how this is just a rough guide how there's no 100% correlation (in older posts I saw a figure of 70% but I'm not sure if it was mean sarcastically...)

Basically you like to use squad cost when it suit your agenda and when it doesn't (usually when you can't provide any factual arguments to support it) you diminish its value to a rough guide, etc.

Good memory. He said it was 70%, and when you add up the data he provided the actual percentage was less than 50% the previous season.

 

[Makingtrax]

@Makingtrax

The problem for me is your passive/aggresive stance. On the one hand you're eager to rub in our faces this so called squad theory when you try to make excuses for poor results/management but then when you're confronted you quickly point out how this is just a rough guide how there's no 100% correlation (in older posts I saw a figure of 70% but I'm not sure if it was mean sarcastically...)

Basically you like to use squad cost when it suit your agenda and when it doesn't (usually when you can't provide any factual arguments to support it) you diminish its value to a rough guide, etc.

I'm not sure posting you're ideas on a correlation is rubbing someone's faces in it . Of course the correlation is rough, there are plenty of other variables, but in my view none as strong as this.

Squad cost has never 'not suited my agenda', I believe in it because the evidence is overwhelming.

Have a look at @hydrofluoric acid 's work. He extended the analysis further and did some excellent work.

If your a statistician then your input would be welcome. Instead of trying to catch people out why not support the idea, as others have done and see if you can add something meaningful.

Not all football posting has to be a confrontation and not all work on squad cost is excusing Wenger's mistakes. There's plenty of other variables he can get right, like Poch, who is clearly working above his squad cost.

 

[Makingtrax]

Here is some of the information that was actually posted by fallout. The key graphs show that once you reach a certain level of wealth (top 6) there is not really a strong correlation between spending more and achieving higher in the table.

Also important to note that no has tried using European competitions where you consistently see well managed teams like Atletico, Dortmund, Monaco heck even Juventus outperform their squad cost.

Athletico have only beaten the two rich teams in their league once to the title since 2004. That hardly shows a trend.

Juventus is the richest team in Italy and they've won the league 7 years on the trot.

Bayern is the richest team in Germany and have won the league 9 times since 2004, Dortmund only twice.

Teams like Athletico and Dortmund may be well managed but they still can't break the trend.

Competitions across leagues don't apply in my view, for a number of reasons, like the home grown rule for one.

 

[Makingtrax]

Good memory. He said it was 70%, and when you add up the data he provided the actual percentage was less than 50% the previous season.

 

[RoadrunnerReloaded]

Athletico have only beaten the two rich teams in their league once to the title since 2004. That hardly shows a trend.

Juventus is the richest team in Italy and they've won the league 7 years on the trot.

Bayern is the richest team in Germany and have won the league 9 times since 2004, Dortmund only twice.

Teams like Athletico and Dortmund may be well managed but they still can't break the trend.

Competitions across leagues don't apply in my view, for a number of reasons, like the home grown rule for one.

Homegrown rule is a UEFA rule so your reasoning on completing ignoring European competitions makes no sense. Fact is many clubs have outperformed their squad cost in relation to European places. We have not.

And its Atletico Madrid not Athletico FFS

 

[Slartibartfast]

I believe the evidence is overwhelming that the more money you spend on quality players the better your chances of finishing higher up the league, both here and in other countries.

I haven't read any other page of this thread so I don't really know what the debate is, but this would seem to be simple common sense. No statistical analysis required. Money buys you the best players. And even if you make mistakes, money can buy your way out of it. Not sure how anybody could make a reasonable argument otherwise. You can be competitive by being creative, but money makes it easy.

 

[Makingtrax]

Homegrown rule is a UEFA rule so your reasoning on completing ignoring European competitions makes no sense. Fact is many clubs have outperformed their squad cost in relation to European places. We have not.

And its Atletico Madrid not Athletico FFS

People who correct your typos are jerks, according this study
http://uk.businessinsider.com/people-who-correct-typos-may-be-jerks-study-finds-2016-3?r=US&IR=T

 

[Makingtrax]

I haven't read any other page of this thread so I don't really know what the debate is, but this would seem to be simple common sense. No statistical analysis required. Money buys you the best players. And even if you make mistakes, money can buy your way out of it. Not sure how anybody could make a reasonable argument otherwise. You can be competitive by being creative, but money makes it easy.

You've forgotten that people think it gives Wenger something of a get out clause for not winning the league, which causes the usual suspects to get a bit angry . . . and as you can see from @RoadrunnerReloaded 's post a great deal arrogance to boot.