Home   >   Opinion   >   Can moneyball work in football?

Can moneyball work in football?

By on April 3, 2012

Si Steers takes a look at whether Moneyball can work in football; and where Liverpool need to learn that statistics are only part of the answer.

LFC owner John W. Henry used the moneyball approach successfully in baseball

LOGIC would suggest that football cannot be won by number crunching. In a game where you can come back from 3-0 down through sheer heart and determination statistics can be misleading. They can indicate where a player’s strengths lie: but they do not take into account form, fitness, confidence, and tactics.

The planning process in football is an inexact science. The past has told us that even by spending vast amounts of money bringing together the best players in the world; it still does not guarantee success. Games can be won by individuals, but titles are won by the best team. The best team isn’t always the most expensive one.

When Ronaldo left United for £80m a lot of observers genuinely thought he would be irreplaceable. But taking a fraction of that fee to bring in Antonio Valencia has given United similar strengths; albeit with less flair. Football is never about the individual; it is about the sum of all parts. It is about having a tactical blueprint and sourcing the right players to come in and fill those positions.

Sometimes those players can be expensive; other times not. Take a look at Newcastle this season; they have scouted sensationally well. They have got the right players in at little cost; and it has worked for them. Pardew was the only manager that took a gamble on Ba; and he has been repaid in emphatic style. It isn’t always about spending big money, it is just about finding the right fit.

FSG believe that moneyball principles can help Liverpool to bridge the financial and quality gap

If you look at Wenger’s strategy over the years he has consistently competed in the top 4; whilst Arsenal haven’t won a trophy for a few seasons they are always competitive. That is in spite of selling the likes of Overmars, Petit, Anelka, Henry, and more recently Fabregas and Nasri for huge profits. Wenger is a master at sourcing a player and knowing exactly the right time to sell.

The maximum amount Wenger has ever spent on a player is £15.8m when he signed Nasri. That is an incredible stat when you think that Liverpool has spent over that on 8 players (Carroll, Suarez, Torres, Downing, Keane, Auqalini, Mascherano, and Henderson) and we have only finished above Arsenal once in recent years.

Swapping Ronaldo for Valencia, what Newcastle have done this season, and the approach that Wegner follows could all be classified as footballing versions of ‘moneyball’. In each case they have identified the strengths they have needed; and recruited players that fit that model. Value has been achieved through effective scouting.

LFC director of football Damien Comolli - an advocate of the 'moneyball' approach

That is exactly what Liverpool tried to do last summer. The elephant in the room for us is the amount of money we spent. Moneyball was initially developed to bridge the quality gap created by lack of resources. But within that concept; you allocate the resources you have available to your requirements.

People will rightly question Liverpool’s approach in the transfer market last summer. But there is a lack of appreciation at outside factors that will have influenced our strategy. The lack of CL football prevented us from even sitting down with Ashley Young and Phil Jones who both decided to go to United: the same with Juan Mata.

Despite the failure to impress so far each of our new signings had solid Premier League experience and good seasons previously. If you look at the statistics for Downing and Henderson they both excelled in chance creation. Both are intelligent footballers; and both have strengths that are important to the functioning of our side.

Perhaps the issue with our summer signings is as much down to team structure and formation as anything. It is no surprise that since the loss of Lucas; our tactical plan has faltered. Within our team structure, the defensive midfield role is absolutely critical: and what Lucas gives us is outstanding protection and sensible passing. We have had to absorb his loss into the side, and we have lost direction as a result.

The fact remains that FSG believe that moneyball principles can help Liverpool to bridge the financial and quality gap; I don’t believe our strategy is based entirely on moneyball. But statistics and attributes are a key part of what we are looking for when recruiting players.

I would expect us to broaden our search this summer; British players do have excellent attributes as footballers, but they do lack the technical ability of Latin players. Despite statistics and data analysis being useful recruitment tools: they cannot be used to understand a player’s mentality, and they shouldn’t be a barrier to that sprinkling of flair, creativity, and doing the unexpected which separates the best from the rest at the top of the game.

I think the basic principles of moneyball can work in football if applied to the game: it is about getting the balance right. I am not sure we quite achieved that last summer in our recruitment policy; but this is a learning curve for the Club. We do have good people with good intentions running the Club; to bridge the quality gap (with financial constraints and no CL football) it will need some trial and error.

We have spent money, but if you look at it in context it is nowhere near the £100m people talk about. Our net spend is closer to £40m, and we have also reduced wages at the Club and reduced the average age in the squad. It isn’t just about the players we have signed; it is also about the players we have been able to ship out.

Despite a poor league campaign it is still too early to judge Dalglish, Comolli, FSG and the signings we have made. The return of Lucas next season and further acquisitions this summer will make the team better. They will bring better performances out of individual players.

What we are doing at the moment is searching for the right formula that will give us the best opportunity to bridge the gap in quality and resources. Despite being frustrated at our league form, I am appreciative that the Club is trying to be progressive in direction.



About Si Steers

Professional communicator and fanatical Liverpool fan. I write for This is Anfield and for Paul Tomkins (The Tomkins Times). Find me on Twitter: @sisteers.

  • Gano1

    Sign poor players and you get a poor team, harsh but true!!!!………………..can we blame luck or anything else?.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X5CX25AU3ROVDAHOAWU2IX7DHI yahoo-X5CX25AU3ROVDAHOAWU2IX7DHI

    I repeat what I said when it became known of the US interest prior to buying. NO! moneyball cannot work in football. Football is a world-wide phenomena that simply cannot be compared to a small pool game like baseball. The world of football is awash with talent and most of it does not have “statistics” that glow! Only recently look at the absolutely splendid buys of NUFC at less than we wasted on 1 player! We had already qualified for the “homegrown” requirement with our team and Academy recruits. There was no sane reason to splurge on third rate English/Scottish duffers. They will be the death of us to be sure.

  • Lion Heart

    Everybody thought that spending 35m on Carroll was crazy, everybody thought that 20m on Downing and 16m on Henderson was waste of money and everyone have been proven right. Management team made massive blunders in signing players who were clearly not good enough. Maybe they have learnt their lessons and won’t repeat similar mistakes next season, Kenny and Commolli have no room for any error in transfer market anymore and if they don’t get it right they should be kicked out.

  • nyclfc

    How easily do people forget that spending massive amounts of money didn’t work right away for Man City either. Remember Robinho???

  • howhardgerrard

    As you stated with Arsenal and Newcastle one side of moneyball not only can work but does work.  The problem with the buy cheap and sell expensive side of moneyball in this modern age of instant success is it is a long term proposition.  As Wenger has proven given enough time you can bring in young cheap players bring them to their peak and them ship them on for a vast profit.  What Liverpool has done this year is to try and provide a quick fix to a problem, we bought expensive to try and get some instant success and depending on your view that has worked – we won a trophy and are visiting Wembley for the second time this year.  I do believe the expectation of top 4 will raise significant doubts in FSG minds but that is another debate.
    The other side of moneyball is to buy players who do not fit the conventional mould (but can complete a specific task very well) and are therefore cheaper. Although he wasn’t cheap Henderson was bought because he was the second highest player whose crosses were converted into goals last year.  If you have Andy Carroll in mind this should have been a good fit, it is just a shame we haven’t played them this way!!?  It isn’t just about looking for a goal scorer it is about looking at how they score their goals and whether that would fit into the way we create chances.  If most of our chances are inside the box then who is a leading poacher?  If we used Downing and Hendo correctly do we look at another striker with a high heading %? 

    This does work and is working but it does need time and is not perfect, as long as we begin to accept that our future signing will not be global superstars but future prospects all will be fine.

  • Paul C

    The moneyball concept is more about finding what are the skills/tools/types of player that are effective yet undervalued. Bill James spent years studying Baseball and worked out what really made players effective and then provided statistical information on how individual players rated against these criteria. It took years for Bill James to perfect’his model to a level that it became usefull. I am not aware that anyone has done this spade work for footballers and so I doubt that Moneyball concept has relevence to Football.

    • howhardgerrard

      Sorry but that doesn’t make sense.  Just because someone hasn’t done the spade work it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have relevance, just that the work is yet to be done.  I would also question how much work has been done.  Prozone has been active for a number of years now and OPTA put out some great stats.  The question is are they the right stats; the whole Bill James angle was that he looked at the conventional wisdom, disagreed with it and wrote his own, hopefully we are starting to do that now. The key is you then need the manager to understand why the player is there and use them accordingly otherwise the fans sit there and wonder why the club has spent its money on a bunch of useless idiots – see Lion Hearts comments ;0)

  • Alanmslevin

    I’ve defended Andy Carroll for quite a while but my patience is wearing thin, especially after his antics at the weekend.
    Back to the topic at hand.
    Liverpools biggest problem is that a lot of people expected a little bit too much too quickly when we signed all these players. It was going to take more than two transfer windows to get rid of the mess that Hicks and Gillett created, My estimates were at the time was four transfer windows.
    Liverpool are currently like the 1970/1971 side. Functional but pretty ordinary. They needed a spark and Bill Shankly signed that spark when he signed a 19 year old from Doncaster called Joseph ”Kevin” Keegan.
    I reckon the current Liverpool side needs a spark, it may take three players to ingite it. We all know where those areas are. We must give the management the time to eliminate our current problems. Lets get one thing straight. They were never going to be solved over-night.
    I agree with the article writer, the London/Manchester United media when it comes to us suffer from amnesia. They seem to ”forget” about the £76 million we recieved in sales.
    When you take away the £76 million from the £111.5 we did spend, its not really a lot.
    According to the media. Net spend only applies to Manchester United.
    Which is no nonsense.

  • Dave

    Yawn.

    PR Professional? Spin doctor you mean. Are you employed by LFC? Take off the rose tinted glasses.

  • abhishekhbisram

    we should stop making all sorts of excuses and face facts.  Liverpool FC no longer a top team. Take a look at Everton, the have not spent much over the past years and yet they are doing well. Everybody should take responsability. starting from the manager to the playesr and ofcourse the owner. I would vote for Bring Rafa!!!!!!

  • FustratedFAN YWNA

    If you a true liverpool supporter, shut up and get behind the boys rather than complaining! yes its fustrating, our complaints wont help, am bloody tired of reading comments of fans.. kk or commolli wouldnot have seen into the future that the players would flop infact no one would, give everyone a chance to improve!  lucas who we all miss now, 3/4 yrs back would you have missed him ???  and to all articles being written.. stop looking for excuses and reasons too much, we just accept the fact that we have had a bad league season and enjoy the cup season!  at the end of the day we are better of with a trophy than filling space in the CL (cause apart from LFC and Mancs) no english team will lift the  CL trophy. last question say we sack kk does that guarrante any of us that we will win the trophy? no it wont! so give everyone a chance.. thats all am asking!!

  • Jim Fox

    Spending vast amounts never worked in hockey either……the tight knit TEAM will always be difficult to beat, think Liverpool under Shankly, players come and went but the team always remained strong and consistent.  Bob Paisley carried on the tradition.  The Liverpool system did not fit well when the huge influx of foriegn players happened and they took their eyes off the developing players and simply bought one to fill a spot instantly.  No wonder TEAM spirit suffered.

  • Killa_cam1983

    It takes time to get back to the champions league. But with the new players and new management , this season is just a warm up to great things and achievements the new owners have in mind. Rome is NOT build in one day, same goes to great footballing teams. Be patient and things would eventually work out for the team. YNWA

  • Chico

    Our system on the pitch is what really needs a shakeup the 442 or 451 have been disastrous. I would play with wingbacks not wingers and have a 3 prong attack when assisted by the wingbacks gives us players in the box and chances to score. How many times have i seen our beloved team with 1 or 2 in the box. we need 3- 4 or 5.

    ———————-Reina——————-
    ———–Skrtel–Agger–Coates——–
    Johnson–Spearing————–Enrique
    —————————Gerrard————
    ———–Suarez———Kyut————–
    ——————–Carroll———————

  • http://twitter.com/SoccerSatire Soccer Football

    wqwdq

  • Oliver

    Moneyball might work in cricket since both the games are of a similar nature. If you want to know what works in football, just take a look at Barcelona or Real Madrid. I’ll bet they wouldn’t even know what the word means.

  • eskimo

    moneyball is not a name for buying cheap and selling expensive. if that were the case then the title of your article makes no sense at all. moneyball means determining player value using stats that others don’t use, therefore giving yourself the advantage over them. the problems when using moneyball in football as opposed to baseball is that in baseball you have a lot of simple one on one battles (pitcher vs hitter) were it is very clear how the outcome influences the outcome of the game. this is not the case in football so it is harder to come up with statistics that give a reliable view of the impact somebody had on the final result, that’s the real problem

  • dk41

    the initial idea of moneyball (started by bill james and then developed and advocated further by billy beane) was to cut through all the hugely irrelevant crap people think is important: fitness, form, pace, potential (especially in teenagers), physique, nationality, age; and exploit an area people so often overlook: simply at the raw achievements of a player (i.e. the objective rather than the subjective). people thought billy beane and paul depodesta were a mixture of desperate (because of their low budget) and crazy for choosing players who had been rejected by 99% of club scouts, had physical idiosyncracies and were not considered ‘stars’, but all this was irrelevant when considering what the ‘nobodies’ were needed to do in their role. it can work in football but it will need to be tweaked and will forever change football if it is successful. especially given the financial power of clubs likes man city, man utd, psg, real madrid, etc. we have to learn to be smarter and start questioning the methods we already have in place by asking ourselves whether they are efficient in serving their purpose, and whether they can be improved upon.