Last night I watched the film Moneyball starring Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill. For those unaware of the film here is a brief synopsis from IMDB. Oakland A's GM Billy Beane is handicapped with the lowest salary constraint in baseball. If he ever wants to win the World Series, Billy must find a competitive advantage. Billy is about to turn baseball on its ear when he uses statistical data to analyze and place value on the players he picks for the team. I also did a brief double-take towards the end of the film when a character referred to as 'John' or 'Mr. Henry' is introduced who appears to be a calm, collected, cool head amongst a sport dominated by dinosaurs and old-timers refusing to change and adapt. It was interesting to see (albeit in a typical Hollywood exaggerated style) just why John Henry wanted to employ this system with Liverpool, and in all honesty you can't blame him for trying given the success it had in the States. But what really stood out for me is how determined Henry must have been to utilise this radical new way of thinking in the face of much adversity, and that has really filled me with a new sense of optimism regarding the future of Liverpool Football Club. The Moneyball tactic may have produced a couple of stand-out flops in Carroll and Downing (who I am sure would not have been counted as flops if sensible fees were paid) however I still believe that Henry is the man to lead Liverpool forward, he clearly has his own philosophy on how a team should be run and how new ideas should always be greeted with curiosity and openness rather than mistrust, which can only be a good thing for us (remember the rubbish the papers used to spout regarding Rafa's rotation and zonal marking policies?). I'd encourage all fans of sport to watch the film, not just because it is a brilliant film about overcoming adversity and supporting the underdog, but also for the possible implications that arise from John Henry's (albeit brief) part to play in the story.
Good film. Watched whilst off work with a snapped arm last year. Unfortunately, I can't recall the character your referring to.
The film is entertaining, but if you really want to understand the concept you're better off reading the book. Haven't read it myself, but apparently the book is quite a lot less sensational than the film and gets a lot more of the facts right. Specifically, the As didn't have the lowest salary cap that season, and ended up going out of the World Series to the Minnesota Twins, who had the same salary cap and were using the 'old fashioned' system of choosing players.
Not sure if sarcasm... I assumed some of the story was embellished a little bit, I mean it is a film after all. It's a shame that it was a little less sensational a story than it was made out to be but I suppose my original point still stands in that John Henry seems like the sort of owner who is willing to be courageous and take a few well-reasoned risks at his own cost - huge improvement on previous owners.
it's a system that is never suited to soccer. Baseball has so many 1 v 1 situations and averages mean a lot more too and there's less injuries and no referees to totally mess things up so often as well as the myriad other factors in soccer that baseball doesn't have. In baseball you can get rid of a player batting 6.0 average and get in 3 2.somethings, those 3 batters can all play in one game too and hit that 6.0, but can you get rid of a 30 goal a season striker and get in 3 10 goal a season men? can they all play in one game? all of the time? No It would never work and was never tried with Liverpool, not in a million years. Carroll was not a money ball buy 35mil?
But it's been said that the joint purchase of Carroll and Downing (albeit in separate windows) was justified by Downing's crossing statistics to be way above average and Carroll's obvious aerial abilities to match it. I also assume our brief attempt at Moneyball was less hindered by finances than the Oakland A's as we are actually still a wealthy club despite what the journos would have you believe. I do believe there is a lot of logic in using statistics to evaluate players, but only to a certain extent otherwise it would be just as hazardous as trying to judge a player purely on Youtube videos.
In which case the character I'm referring to is John Henry (played by an actor) who appears late in the film to approach Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) about becoming general manager of the Redsox and employing the Moneyball philosophy that brought moderate success to the Oakland A's.
I really enjoyed the film but I agree with Sisu that it simply cannot be applied to football as there are lot more variables involved. But I also agree with Crumpet in that the owners aren't afraid to try new things in their quest for success. Not sure if reality was similiar to the film, but the film shows how a stubborn manager who was unwilling to try the new players which created a tense atmosphere and ultimately failed. Once he was forced to use the new players, the team started to find success. The message is that everyone needs to pull together in the same direction and believe in the philosophy.
Yeah, I knew who you meant but can't remember how he was portrayed. Doesn't help that I was on tramodel when I watched it
Stats are funny things. Those without them claim they tell you nothing but if you have a contention worth two flying flips, you shouldn't have a problem finding stats to back it up. One stat can't tell you much, other than that further statistical analysis might be a good idea, such as when muppets claimed Lucas only ever passed backwards and sideways, or when they cite Carroll's price tag without mentioning that of Torres. So I'm all for stats used rigourously. What I found odd was that Billy Beane himself advised Mr Henry to hire Commoli, whom they sacked a year later. So who's advising them now? Also jettisoned was their love of young managers, when they fired Sox manager, Terry Francona (53), for Bobby Valentine (62). So I'm not sure they're as convinced about their methods as they once were.
But isn't it better that they quickly realised they should change their methods rather than persevering with a fundamentally broken model? Also interesting that Billy Beane advised Henry on Commoli, I was not aware of that at all.
I think potentially it could be... but it would take a lot bigger formula to determine worth and it would be a lot more complicated and easier to get wrong. Personally, I think it might be a good idea to narrow down larger lists...but nothing beats old fashioned scouting to fine tune those lists.
Football has been using this for quite a long time, Carling Opta (as it was called) was selling data since the early 1990s.
