Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
With another transfer window passed and no multi-million pound signing up front, I've been trying to think a little bit deeper about our transfer policy at the moment, and thinking about it in the context of 'Moneyball', the book/film about baseball finances and the successful strategy that the Oakland A's, a small market team, used in order to compete with the big boys. You're probably familiar with it, the general idea is that the team looks for a competitive advantage by prioritising signing the types of players that are undervalued by other teams. Baseball is heavily 'statted-up', if that's a phrase, and they can calculate how many extra Wins each player has created for the team, and therefore the value of each Win. The A's were one of the first teams to get deep into this and realise they could buy wins cheaper by targeting certain types of players than others. This has been roundly adopted across the MLB and the study of the way each team pursues a competitive advantage is fascinating.
So to football, and I can't really remember anyone talking moneyball in this context, perhaps because in the Prem money is flowing so freely that all signings are effectively a bidding war and everyone is overvalued, in salary and transfer fee. Nevertheless the pursuit of cheaper overseas players, first from Europe, then from Africa, and the increase in loans are examples of moneyball in action.
Down in the championship, budgets and resources are most definitely finite. Our recruitment team has to build a full first eleven plus subs on a limited budget, and compete with richer teams, and therefore a strategy has to be developed to target these limited resources in the most effective way. I propose therefore that the reason we don't spend big on a striker, to not get involved in Hogan or McCormack or others, is a deliberate tactical decision because the value that these strikers provide relative to their cost is less in terms of points gained than a left-back or right-winger, for example, and therefore it is more prudent to assign our resources into those positions where the return per pound spent is higher. We could afford the striker that everyone craves, but it will come at a cost elsewhere in the team. Instead, we only look for bargains up front and stay away when the cost starts escalating.
Hypothesis therefore: Our relative shortage of strikers and lack of 'big' signings in this area is not by accident or failure but by design. We are deliberately not targeting strikers and leaving this as one of the weaker areas of the team because strikers are overvalued in football, and instead maximising our competitive advantage by targeting positions that are undervalued in football.
Maybe.
I'm sure it needs some work, but its a different way to look at things.
So to football, and I can't really remember anyone talking moneyball in this context, perhaps because in the Prem money is flowing so freely that all signings are effectively a bidding war and everyone is overvalued, in salary and transfer fee. Nevertheless the pursuit of cheaper overseas players, first from Europe, then from Africa, and the increase in loans are examples of moneyball in action.
Down in the championship, budgets and resources are most definitely finite. Our recruitment team has to build a full first eleven plus subs on a limited budget, and compete with richer teams, and therefore a strategy has to be developed to target these limited resources in the most effective way. I propose therefore that the reason we don't spend big on a striker, to not get involved in Hogan or McCormack or others, is a deliberate tactical decision because the value that these strikers provide relative to their cost is less in terms of points gained than a left-back or right-winger, for example, and therefore it is more prudent to assign our resources into those positions where the return per pound spent is higher. We could afford the striker that everyone craves, but it will come at a cost elsewhere in the team. Instead, we only look for bargains up front and stay away when the cost starts escalating.
Hypothesis therefore: Our relative shortage of strikers and lack of 'big' signings in this area is not by accident or failure but by design. We are deliberately not targeting strikers and leaving this as one of the weaker areas of the team because strikers are overvalued in football, and instead maximising our competitive advantage by targeting positions that are undervalued in football.
Maybe.
I'm sure it needs some work, but its a different way to look at things.
