It's a numbers game

[robbieBB]

And how many of us believe that you pay a premium to sign a home grown player as opposed to a foreign import? "There's better value abroad" is a constant theme on here. But is it true?

soccerbythenumbers Friday November 30th 2012

[OK, I've given this blog enough of a puff now. Hope some have found it interesting]

 

[Kent canary]

Lots of the epl index articles are good:

THis one suggests that Ruddy is better than Cech:

 

[carrabuh]

I affordable quality is the prime reason for going abroad.

The absolute top players seem expensive wherever they play.

 

[robbieBB]

I affordable quality is the prime reason for going abroad.

The absolute top players seem expensive wherever they play.

If their analysis is correct and equivalent foreign players actually cost more than their home-grown counterparts, the main reason to look abroad is simply because the pool of players of that quality is much larger. Also, wages are generally lower abroad.

 

[robbieBB]

And how many of us believe that you pay a premium to sign a home grown player as opposed to a foreign import? "There's better value abroad" is a constant theme on here. But is it true?

soccerbythenumbers Friday November 30th 2012

My post is a salutary example of a misleading portrayal of the conclusion of a bit of analysis! The article compares the valuations of home-grown and foreign players on transfermarkt, not the actual fees paid to secure the services of the players. This is like the difference between an auctioneer's guide price and what the item actually brings at auction. The article concludes that home-grown player valuations are lower than those of foreign players, but it may still be the case that a club has to pay more to secure the services of a home-grown player of the same quality.

 

[Norfolkbhoy]

Firstly just have to say what an interesting thread this is and particulary thank VC for his excellent and interesting contribution. Regarding the political use of statistics it is true that a significant proprtion of statistics are collected to support someone's argument or agenda from tobacco companies funding "research" showing that cigarettes are not really that bad for you to fast food companies illustrating the health benefits of their products to political parties both using statistics gathered on the same subject to support diametrically opposing views. That said it is not just statistics which are used in this way - it is easy for people to use tired old arguments to manufacture support or opposition to almost any subject. Take for example the influx of phillipino nurses and eastern european doctors at our very own Norfolk and Norwich - are they a proud addition to a modern hospital cherry-picking the best staff from around the world or filling the county will unwelcome immigrants? The stats will show how many and from where but it is down to the individual to interpret or skew them to their own agenda.

I think that whilst the hard sciences are undoubtedly resposible for a significant proportiion of the great leaps made since the Enlightenment we should be careful about absolute relience on what is regarded as conventional scientific wisdom today as history has shown us that today's certainties are tomorrows falsehoods. At one time the greatest minds on the planet did not accept a heliocentric solar system and thought the world was flat, believed in body humours etc etc. Even people we consider (rightly so) geniuses are being shown to be incorrect - nobody considers a Newtonian universe a complete explannation and there are holes being picked in Einsteins work.

Science provides us with a methodology to explore the truths of our universe but it is the imagination of the individual scientist who applies those tools which is the key to discovery, for me a mix of VC's vision and the cold reality of the scientists among us.

 

[JKCanary]

I agree with you, if it ain't science, don't try and pretend it is (on which theme I notice you use the phrase "social studies" not "social sciences"

Probably O/T but I just noticed this. Correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure you all will), but does the word 'science' not mean 'the organisation of knowledge'?

 

[robbieBB]

...... we should be careful about absolute relience on what is regarded as conventional scientific wisdom today as history has shown us that today's certainties are tomorrows falsehoods ......

Indeed, but this is another example of the misuse/misunderstanding of the essence of scientific method, the core of which is that there are no certainties; all is hypothesis subject to constant re-evaluation as new evidence, new problems, and new insights emerge. The fact that some scientists betray the methodology they claim to espouse is regrettable but understandable, they are human beings after all. Also regrettable is that non-scientists often pontificate on the shortcomings of science without having a clue about what science is. I agree absolutely about the role of the imagination. It always amuses me when non-scientists portray scientists as colourless data gatherers and number crunchers with barely a mind between them, compared to artists, writers etc. who apparently have a monopoly on the human imagination. In reality, most of the great creative feats of the human intellect in the last 500 years have been in science! And there's surely nothing "cold" about the reality of the scientists. It's exactly the same reality that all of us experience. Their "coldness" amounts to no more than their employment of a methodology the use of which is constantly being vindicated by results.

Oh well, back to the truly important things in life -- football and NCFC

 

[robbieBB]

Probably O/T but I just noticed this. Correct me if I'm wrong (which I'm sure you all will), but does the word 'science' not mean 'the organisation of knowledge'?

There is indeed a historic use of the word "science" to refer to an organised body of knowledge. But the primary use is to refer to an activity, the purpose of which is the acquisition of knowledge through application of a particular methodology. Vietnamcanary's reference to "social studies" rather than "social sciences" implied that much of what is often called "social science" does not in fact deserve the name "science", since it does not involve following the methodology of science, a sentiment with which I agree. But if we carry on with this the intellectual heavens are likely to fall in upon us, and things will become so heated that the worst of our arguments hitherto on this board will appear gentle tiffs in comparison, so I propose to get into my bomb-proof shelter without waiting for hostilities to begin!

[After all, I merely suggested a sticky thread devoted to football analytics! ]

 

[JKCanary]

....if we carry on with this the intellectual heavens are likely to fall in upon us...

I have to say, I was somewhat afraid of this too!

 

[robbieBB]

I have to say, I was somewhat afraid of this too!

There's room for one more in my shelter JK!

 

[Norfolkbhoy]

Indeed, but this is another example of the misuse/misunderstanding of the essence of scientific method, the core of which is that there are no certainties; all is hypothesis subject to constant re-evaluation as new evidence, new problems, and new insights emerge. The fact that some scientists betray the methodology they claim to espouse is regrettable but understandable, they are human beings after all. Also regrettable is that non-scientists often pontificate on the shortcomings of science without having a clue about what science is. I agree absolutely about the role of the imagination. It always amuses me when non-scientists portray scientists as colourless data gatherers and number crunchers with barely a mind between them, compared to artists, writers etc. who apparently have a monopoly on the human imagination. In reality, most of the great creative feats of the human intellect in the last 500 years have been in science! And there's surely nothing "cold" about the reality of the scientists. It's exactly the same reality that all of us experience. Their "coldness" amounts to no more than their employment of a methodology the use of which is constantly being vindicated by results.

Oh well, back to the truly important things in life -- football and NCFC

My point is really the difference between what is generally perceived as unswerving fact and the reality that virtually anything we hold to be true today is merely our perception of truth at this point in time and that it is highly probable that history will show a lot of what we believe to be cast-iron truths are in fact merely our interpretations based on our current lack of knowledge. (This is probably a long-winded way of saying that I agree that the scientific method is constant re-appraisal!)

Completely agree about the general perception that scientists are boffins stuck in labs devoid of imagination or creativity being laughably off the mark - one only has to look at the works of people like Newton, Tesla or indeed Einstien to see what creative minds they must have had to have made such huge leaps and trodden intellectual paths nobody else had seen.

 

[Norfolkbhoy]

There's room for one more in my shelter JK!

Surely we can all agree that there is only a 43.89% chance of this thread ending up in all out war between the scientists and the artists and the probability of someone getting the hump and leaving the board over a philisophical point is a mere 12.63%.

 

[JKCanary]

There's room for one more in my shelter JK!

Surely we can all agree that there is only a 43.89% chance of this thread ending up in all out war between the scientists and the artists and the probability of someone getting the hump and leaving the board over a philisophical point is a mere 12.63%.

As long as there's 100% chance of a healthy supply of Colman's in the shelter, count me in.

 

[Norfolkbhoy]

As long as there's 100% chance of a healthy supply of Colman's in the shelter, count me in.

God yes. No other mustard cuts the er...mustarrd.

 

[Cruyff's Turn]

It may surprise some of you to know that originally my background was in the arts,I trained as a teacher of English and History and stats is just a weird hobby of mine.I can't accept that they have some sort of Machiavellian role to play,leading us towards a pre-destined conclusion,they are only a means to an end,not an end in themselves. Nevertheless Vietnam does make some valid points 36-7 points is indeed one of the most likely outcomes for 18th place,albeit with all the other possibilities not an especially likely one,maybe about 15%,so I am quite prepared to accept that it was a lucky shot,rather like flicking an elastic band at a wasp.

I would also accept the other comment about plotting the progress of 18th spot.Last season was pretty much a textbook example with QPR and Reading so comprehensively adrift for most of the time that it was really only Wigan or one of the sides immediately above them that was going to occupy that spot.So I would ask you to accept that I was interested in the hypothesis rather than bragging about the outcome.I will leave that until next May if I manage to repeat it.Of course then it will be said,(Quite correctly) that it doesn't prove anything it's just another lucky shot.

 

[robbieBB]

@Cruyff's Turn
No harm at all in being interested in the hypothesis, and if you do get it right again this season, it may not "prove" anything but anyone who says it is "just another lucky shot" will have a little less reason than last time and a little more reason to say "maybe there's something in it after all"!

That said, while I appreciate the interest in trying to predict the points tally for safety, I'd much rather it remained a purely theoretical issue as far as we are concerned. Let's just get to 44 points as quickly as we can!

 

[DHCanary]

Just had a look through this thread, the 'moneyball' idea is an interesting one, but I'm not sure how well it would work in football. Baseball is a lot more structured, so it's easier to pick people based on statistics relevant to a position, but I don't see that working so well in football. Take a LB for example, do you look for someone (for example) with 80% tackle completion, "7/10 pace" and with an average of 3 assists a season? It'd certainly be something interesting to run through the Football Manager database, which if it's accurate enough for Everton to scout from it, is probably accurate enough for a test like this.

 

[Norfolkbhoy]

Personally I feel that stats are far more relevant to sports where reliance is on the individual rather than their team. The obvious example of this is cricket v football. I would think that a batter's average is largely uninfluenced by the team he plays for with the obvious exeception of him not having to face the bowlers of his own team. If Cook played for Australia rather than England one would presume that all other things being equal his batting average would be broadly the same whereas I suspect that had Van Persie played for us last season his goals and assists tally would not be as high as it was playing for Man U as in football players have far more inter-dependancy than in cricket which makes the stats less relevant.

The other factor in cricket is the pitch and weather - historically batters fare worse and bowlers better at some grounds (classically Headingly) and the reverse is true of other grounds (The Oval for example) so a Surrey bowler taking 50 wickets at 25 is probably more of a feat than a Yorkie managing 75 at 20. Similarly batters at Surrey/Somerset/Hampshire with an average of 60 are probably not doing as well as a Yorkie/durham batter averaging 50. Just shows that there are lies, damn lies and statistics and that the usefullness of them is relient upon the information held by the person interpreting them.

I do feel that the batting averages of the great Aussie side of the 90's were made to look better than their English compatriots as they did not have to face Warne/McGrath but a far less taltented English attack. Similarly our current batters don't have to face our attack which has been consistently good for several years.

Similarly I think that the likes of Holty two seasons ago and Ricky Lambert have perhaps not been given the credit they deserved for their results (although obviously RL is about to be capped) playing in weaker sides.

 

[robbieBB]

Personally I feel that stats are far more relevant to sports where reliance is on the individual rather than their team. The obvious example of this is cricket v football. I would think that a batter's average is largely uninfluenced by the team he plays for with the obvious exeception of him not having to face the bowlers of his own team. If Cook played for Australia rather than England one would presume that all other things being equal his batting average would be broadly the same whereas I suspect that had Van Persie played for us last season his goals and assists tally would not be as high as it was playing for Man U as in football players have far more inter-dependancy than in cricket which makes the stats less relevant.

The other factor in cricket is the pitch and weather - historically batters fare worse and bowlers better at some grounds (classically Headingly) and the reverse is true of other grounds (The Oval for example) so a Surrey bowler taking 50 wickets at 25 is probably more of a feat than a Yorkie managing 75 at 20. Similarly batters at Surrey/Somerset/Hampshire with an average of 60 are probably not doing as well as a Yorkie/durham batter averaging 50. Just shows that there are lies, damn lies and statistics and that the usefullness of them is relient upon the information held by the person interpreting them.

I do feel that the batting averages of the great Aussie side of the 90's were made to look better than their English compatriots as they did not have to face Warne/McGrath but a far less taltented English attack. Similarly our current batters don't have to face our attack which has been consistently good for several years.

Similarly I think that the likes of Holty two seasons ago and Ricky Lambert have perhaps not been given the credit they deserved for their results (although obviously RL is about to be capped) playing in weaker sides.

Crikey, don't know where to begin on this one, so just a comment or two off the top of my head. (1) statistics in sport aren't just about individuals; (2) you seem to forget that county cricketers play at other people's grounds, and that international cricket is not just a succession of Ashes series.