The Great Squad Cost Thread

[Rocky]

That's the annoying thing nobody is debating that point. If I run a paper printing firm and I invest 1000 in a new machine and my rival has only invested 100 then I would rightly expect my machine to print more pieces of paper.

However if my rival firm invests 900 and another 800 then other factors can influence overall paper printed. Do the other firms have better maintenance teams, have they modified the machine to increase capacity, are any of the firms using full capacity, are their workers more efficient at loading and unloading the machine? Have the firms actually got the technical expertise to run the machines?

Even then when comparing the 1000 and 100 those factors can still be important. A new start up firm may go buy the biggest shiniest machine it can find but lack the understanding and knowledge on how best to use said machine (see City signing Robinho).

Kind of like the idea of Tony Pulis managing Manchester United. Can he make the step up from small regional company to global enterprise and all which that entails?

Well, if you take a point out of context, that can change everything and the debate gets derailed. You've spent several paragraphs there making points that I acknowledged in the first sentence of my second paragraph, which was removed from your quote.

There are many factors and isolating variables requires either a randomised controlled trial (which won't happen), or slightly more advanced statistics and a great deal of understanding of them to reach an accurate interpretation.

 

[bingobob]

@Rocky I was expanding on your points in a different context. Never felt the need to quote the whole post.

 

[Rocky]

@Rocky I was expanding on your points in a different context. Never felt the need to quote the whole post.

That's fine but I feel that is a fast route to confusion without a little more explanation. Yesterday, everything you said about the relationship between fans and football would have found agreement with me if it had been specified that it was "first tier football".

Without that extra little bit of explanation or context, it is very easy to get mixed up with differences in semantics and values.

 

[Deathstroke]

Season's over; time to put this theory to the test.

Squad Cost Correlation Theory & the Premier League, 2016-17

Claim 1: This theory by @Makingtrax states that squad cost directly correlates to final position in the table in approx. 70% of the cases.

Result: The squad costs and the respective final positions of the clubs in the table this season correlate in only 10% of the cases, 60% less than expected as per the theory.

Claim 2: Squad cost is the overriding factor in determining the position a team will finish in, rather than, for example, factors like managerial competence.

Result: Managerial competence has seen 35% of the teams finish above their expected positions. Also, 55% of the teams finished below their expected positions relative to their spending.

Results in detail:

Key:

Green: Clubs whose final position in the table is higher than their expected position in terms of spending;
Blue: Clubs whose final position in the table is the same as their expected position in terms of spending;
Scarlet: Clubs whose final position in the table is lower than their expected position in terms of spending;

ExpectedPosition-----Club ---------Amount(euros)--FinalPosition

1)--------------------------Man City-----------213m------------------#3
2)--------------------------Man Utd-----------185m------------------#6
3)--------------------------Chelsea-------------133m------------------#1
4)--------------------------Arsenal-------------113m------------------#5
5)--------------------------Crystal Palace------100m----------------#14
6)--------------------------Leicester City--------91m----------------#12
7)--------------------------Everton---------------86m-----------------#7
8)--------------------------West Ham Utd-------84m---------------#11
9)--------------------------Tottenham-----------83m-----------------#2
10)-------------------------Liverpool-------------80m----------------#4
11)-------------------------Watford---------------70m---------------#17
12)-------------------------Southampton--------69m-----------------#8
13)-------------------------Swansea--------------58m---------------#15
14)-------------------------Middlesbrough------53m---------------#19
15)-------------------------Burnley---------------46m---------------#16
16)-------------------------Bournemouth--------41m---------------#9
17)-------------------------Sunderland-----------40m--------------#20
18)-------------------------Hull City--------------40m--------------#18
19)-------------------------Stoke City-------------39m--------------#13
20)------------------------West Brom------------38m---------------#10

Data sources: https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/?saison_id=2016&s_w=&leihe=0&leihe=1&intern=0&intern=1
https://www.theguardian.com/football/premierleague/table

1) Squad Cost Correlation

Considering this season's data, the squad cost theory fails in 18 out of 20 instances; i.e. the theory is proven right in only 10% of the cases; only Everton & Hull's positions are on par with their spending, with Burnley nearly par (worse off by one place). Even if Burnley were to be included, the correlation rises to only 15%; 55% short of the number stated by the theory.

Half the clubs have underperformed; the biggest ones being Palace (5th-highest spenders, 14th in table), Leicester (6th-highest, 12th in table), Watford (11th-highest, 17th in table), Boro (14th-highest, 19th in table), Man Utd (2nd-highest, 6th in table) & Sunderland (17th-highest, 20th in table).

As far as the top 6 are concerned, apart from Man Utd, Arsenal have performed worse in spite of spending ~100m (4th-highest, 5th in table and missed out on expected CL qualification), along with Man City (highest, 3rd in table, 15 pts behind the champions).

2) Squad Cost v Managerial Competence

The importance of managerial competence in comparison to money spent is clearly seen in the case of teams like Tottenham, Liverpool, West Brom, Stoke, Bournemouth & Southampton, with Tottenham under Pochettino mounting a consistent title challenge (for the 2nd year running) despite being only the 9th-highest spenders, Liverpool finishing 4th & qualifying for the Champions League with the 10th-highest spend, while Pulis has taken WBA to 10th despite spending the least amount of money this season. In total, 7 teams have punched above their weights this season - a significant number.

Conclusion

While relegation-favourites Leicester's unexpected title win last season was explained away as a "fluke" by the theorist, the evidence of this season's data at least indicates that the theory does not hold up, with a -60% difference between the expected results and the actual outcome.

Therefore, in the case of the PL season of 2016-17, the squad cost correlation theory is hereby refuted.

 

[Makingtrax]

That's because you don't understand what a correlation is.
Claim: In over 70% of cases the team finishes at, or close to it's squad cost position.

By close to, it means within one standard deviation of the plot. Which was built into my initial analysis.

Nice try mate but this lot makes no sense. Go back and look again. And while you're at it look at the figures.

Season's over; time to put this theory to the test.

Squad Cost Correlation Theory & the Premier League, 2016-17

Claim 1: This theory by @Makingtrax states that squad cost directly correlates to final position in the table in approx. 70% of the cases.

Result: The squad costs and the respective final positions of the clubs in the table this season correlate in only 10% of the cases, 60% less than expected as per the theory.

Claim 2: Squad cost is the overriding factor in determining the position a team will finish in, rather than, for example, factors like managerial competence.

Result: Managerial competence has seen 35% of the teams finish above their expected positions. Also, 55% of the teams finished below their expected positions relative to their spending.

Results in detail:

Key:

Green: Clubs whose final position in the table is higher than their expected position in terms of spending;
Blue: Clubs whose final position in the table is the same as their expected position in terms of spending;
Scarlet: Clubs whose final position in the table is lower than their expected position in terms of spending;

ExpectedPosition-----Club ---------Amount(euros)--FinalPosition

1)--------------------------Man City-----------213m------------------#3
2)--------------------------Man Utd-----------185m------------------#6
3)--------------------------Chelsea-------------133m------------------#1
4)--------------------------Arsenal-------------113m------------------#5
5)--------------------------Crystal Palace------100m----------------#14
6)--------------------------Leicester City--------91m----------------#12
7)--------------------------Everton---------------86m-----------------#7
8)--------------------------West Ham Utd-------84m---------------#11
9)--------------------------Tottenham-----------83m-----------------#2
10)-------------------------Liverpool-------------80m----------------#4
11)-------------------------Watford---------------70m---------------#17
12)-------------------------Southampton--------69m-----------------#8
13)-------------------------Swansea--------------58m---------------#15
14)-------------------------Middlesbrough------53m---------------#19
15)-------------------------Burnley---------------46m---------------#16
16)-------------------------Bournemouth--------41m---------------#9
17)-------------------------Sunderland-----------40m--------------#20
18)-------------------------Hull City--------------40m--------------#18
19)-------------------------Stoke City-------------39m--------------#13
20)------------------------West Brom------------38m---------------#10

Data sources: https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/?saison_id=2016&s_w=&leihe=0&leihe=1&intern=0&intern=1
https://www.theguardian.com/football/premierleague/table

1) Squad Cost Correlation

Considering this season's data, the squad cost theory fails in 18 out of 20 instances; i.e. the theory is proven right in only 10% of the cases; only Everton & Hull's positions are on par with their spending, with Burnley nearly par (worse off by one place). Even if Burnley were to be included, the correlation rises to only 15%; 55% short of the number stated by the theory.

Half the clubs have underperformed; the biggest ones being Palace (5th-highest spenders, 14th in table), Leicester (6th-highest, 12th in table), Watford (11th-highest, 17th in table), Boro (14th-highest, 19th in table), Man Utd (2nd-highest, 6th in table) & Sunderland (17th-highest, 20th in table).

As far as the top 6 are concerned, apart from Man Utd, Arsenal have performed worse in spite of spending ~100m (4th-highest, 5th in table and missed out on expected CL qualification), along with Man City (highest, 3rd in table, 15 pts behind the champions).

2) Squad Cost v Managerial Competence

The importance of managerial competence in comparison to money spent is clearly seen in the case of teams like Tottenham, Liverpool, West Brom, Stoke, Bournemouth & Southampton, with Tottenham under Pochettino mounting a consistent title challenge (for the 2nd year running) despite being only the 9th-highest spenders, Liverpool finishing 4th & qualifying for the Champions League with the 10th-highest spend, while Pulis has taken WBA to 10th despite spending the least amount of money this season. In total, 7 teams have punched above their weights this season - a significant number.

Conclusion

While relegation-favourites Leicester's unexpected title win last season was explained away as a "fluke" by the theorist, the evidence of this season's data at least indicates that the theory does not hold up, with a -60% difference between the expected results and the actual outcome.

Therefore, in the case of the PL season of 2016-17, the squad cost correlation theory is hereby refuted.

 

[Deathstroke]

That's because you don't understand what a correlation is.
Claim: In over 70% of cases the team finishes at, or close to it's squad cost position.

By close to, it means within one standard deviation of the plot. Which was built into my initial analysis.

Nice try mate but this lot makes no sense. Go back and look again. And while you're at it look at the figures.

Feel free to explain what makes 'no sense', mate. It's your theory after all.

 

[FreakySami]

Feel free to explain what makes 'no sense', mate. It's your theory after all.

Deathstroke... Have you taken any statistics class at all because makingtrax explained it to you. It's not his theory, it's basic statistical analysis.
Sorry for being harsh but that's not how it works

 

[RoadrunnerReloaded]

That's because you don't understand what a correlation is.
Claim: In over 70% of cases the team finishes at, or close to it's squad cost position.

By close to, it means within one standard deviation of the plot. Which was built into my initial analysis.

Nice try mate but this lot makes no sense. Go back and look again. And while you're at it look at the figures.

Link your original work on this correlation then.

Also, did you also calculate a wages correlation and then squad cost + wages correlation to compare to solely a squad cost calculation or did you just use squad cost by itself. Also the data set matters greatly here as well.

Also did you just calculate spending position vs. table position or did you calculate absolute spending numbers vs. total points earned in the season?

What are you using as the measure of standard deviation in this case? Position in the table? Or absolute point total?

The last three seasons results of just Chelsea and Leicester alone disprove how meaningful you seem to believe this correlation is.

 

[BBF]

The theory's been debunked and dead for another year. Deary me.

 

[RoadrunnerReloaded]

Feel free to explain what makes 'no sense', mate. It's your theory after all.

What he means when he says 70% correlation is that:

There is a 70% chance that a team will finish within one standard deviation of the predicted finish.

In this case one standard deviation would be something like 1-2 positions in the table or something 3-5 points. Have to specify exactly what the standard deviation is here which I haven't seen specified.

Its really much less controversial an assertion but also not nearly as strong a claim as seems to getting assumed on the forums. To say "there is a 70% chance a team finishing within one standard deviation(however thats being defined here)" is a rather trivial proposition.

 

[BBF]

What he means when he says 70% correlation is that:

There is a 70% chance that a team will finish within one standard deviation of the predicted finish.

In this case one standard deviation would be something like 1-2 positions in the table or something 3-5 points. Have to specify exactly what the standard deviation is here which I haven't seen specified.

Its really much less controversial an assertion but also not nearly as strong a claim as seems to getting assumed on the forums. To say "there is a 70% chance a team finishing within one standard deviation(however thats being defined here)" is a rather trivial proposition.

Exactly. It's completely baseless and doesn't actually have anything to do with football being played on a pitch.

Some people clearly haven't gotten any gcse's in maths here.

 

[Makingtrax]

The theory's been debunked and dead for another year. Deary me.

Yes but only in your head.

 

[rich 1990]

This is the most embarrassing thread in the history of internet forums.

 

[Rimaal]

Pffffffffffffffffffft.

 

[rich 1990]

If football was as simplistic as people, and makingtrax, make out then nobody would ****ing watch it. The theory is ignoring so many basic things like human stupidity. Squad costs get inflated by ridiculous prices. Is Pogba worth 89 million? No. City have spent **** loads and have a quality attack and a constipated defence. Football is reliant on human elements far more than bank accounts though money does help. Point is, we're not paupers and we should be able to challenge with the right set up.

 

[Sammy1887]

STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS!!!!!

 

[Preacher]

This theory is an insult to every sports fans and to athletes themselves.

 

[Makingtrax]

Thanks for all PMs

Here's the finished chart. The money spent on each squad plotted against finishing position. According to Excel the correlation is 74%. That means that three quarters of the teams in the EPL finished within 1 standard deviation of their squad cost position. Only one quarter of teams finished away from their determined position.

This means that money is the most important factor in determining where you will finish. But of course everybody knew that anyway. Nobody ever said it's the only factor.

The teams that broke free were West Brom and Burnley who did much better than expected. The worst were Man U and Sunderland who did worse than expected.

So there you have it. Anybody who said it was rubbish @Sammy1887 and @BBF are just talking through their arses

 

[Makingtrax]

Mockers, mock . . . that's what they do, but science/maths usually wins in the end because it's objective and has no agenda.

 

[Makingtrax]

This theory is an insult to every sports fans and to athletes themselves.

This is endemic in many sports and a fact of life.

Would be interested in your theory as to why Real Madrid and Barcelona nearly always win the league. One that isn't an insult to every sports fan that is.