Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Leicester City Football Club

Status
Not open for further replies.
ijjysmith said:
Having had a night to think on it @bizzaro 's claim that this was like the Oakland A's 'moneyball approach' seems incorrect.

The whole concept of Billy Beane's idea was to get players in with high stats for getting on base and being a good slugger. So in essesnce players who were good at something. But maybe @mezzrow , @SerenityNigh , @barneygumble or some of the other baseball lads could clear that up?

Comparing that to Leicester who seemingly have a squad who almost to a man have never ever done anything of interest in football doesn't seem to tally. Even Ranieri was sacked from his last 5 jobs.

Leicester's success comes from hard work, finding a system that suits them down to the ground, and having no fear.

So pretty much nothing like Moneyball.

Soz Damo.
Click to expand...

Major League?
 
ijjysmith said:
Having had a night to think on it @bizzaro 's claim that this was like the Oakland A's 'moneyball approach' seems incorrect.

The whole concept of Billy Beane's idea was to get players in with high stats for getting on base and being a good slugger. So in essesnce players who were good at something. But maybe @mezzrow , @SerenityNigh , @barneygumble or some of the other baseball lads could clear that up?

Comparing that to Leicester who seemingly have a squad who almost to a man have never ever done anything of interest in football doesn't seem to tally. Even Ranieri was sacked from his last 5 jobs.

Leicester's success comes from hard work, finding a system that suits them down to the ground, and having no fear.

So pretty much nothing like Moneyball.

Soz Damo.
Click to expand...

It's a stretch calling Leicester's success a Moneyball story. Some argue that Moneyball can't exist in the PL because there are no wage caps--because Moneyball exploits other teams' poor choices in player selection and buys good, undervalued players, but this advantage is reduced (or non-existant) when the other teams can simply overspend. Surely Leicester have bought good, undervalued players (who can argue this?), but I don't think this can be construed as a Moneyball strategy (and it may simply be survivorship bias).

If any story fits, it's Rudy, with maybe with a bit of Cinderella mixed in as well. If there is any Moneyball element at play, it will be obvious in the next 3-4 years--who do they buy, sell, and what's their league position then? I think Leicester is an amazing mix of hard work and luck, but I'd be unimpressed with anyone claiming they planned out these events and foresaw them winning the league, and a reinterpretation of history to fit Moneyball doesn't seem to cut it.
 

SerenityNigh said:
It's a stretch calling Leicester's success a Moneyball story. Some argue that Moneyball can't exist in the PL because there are no wage caps--because Moneyball exploits other teams' poor choices in player selection and buys good, undervalued players, but this advantage is reduced (or non-existant) when the other teams can simply overspend. Surely Leicester have bought good, undervalued players (who can argue this?), but I don't think this can be construed as a Moneyball strategy (and it may simply be survivorship bias).

If any story fits, it's Rudy, with maybe with a bit of Cinderella mixed in as well. If there is any Moneyball element at play, it will be obvious in the next 3-4 years--who do they buy, sell, and what's their league position then? I think Leicester is an amazing mix of hard work and luck, but I'd be unimpressed with anyone claiming they planned out these events and foresaw them winning the league, and a reinterpretation of history to fit Moneyball doesn't seem to cut it.
Click to expand...

I think even that is a stretch. Would anyone have wanted Danny Simpson, Wes Morgan or Marc Albrighton at Everton?

I highly doubt it.
 
Lifelong baseball fan here. I wouldn't equate Leicester with the Moneyball approach as I just don't see their signings following any particular trend in finding undervalued talent. I suspect the one commonality between those Oakland A's teams and Leicester, though, is the use of PEDs. The A's two most prominent hitters were proven to have used them throughout their time in Oakland and went from being marginal players to perennial All-Stars. Fitness levels and recovery rates at LCFC are intriguing
 
ijjysmith said:
Having had a night to think on it @bizzaro 's claim that this was like the Oakland A's 'moneyball approach' seems incorrect.

The whole concept of Billy Beane's idea was to get players in with high stats for getting on base and being a good slugger. So in essesnce players who were good at something. But maybe @mezzrow , @SerenityNigh , @barneygumble or some of the other baseball lads could clear that up?

Comparing that to Leicester who seemingly have a squad who almost to a man have never ever done anything of interest in football doesn't seem to tally. Even Ranieri was sacked from his last 5 jobs.

Leicester's success comes from hard work, finding a system that suits them down to the ground, and having no fear.

So pretty much nothing like Moneyball.

Soz Damo.
Click to expand...

Yes, Moneyball utilizes America's love of endless statistics and tracking everything to analyze from a different perspective. Your basic analysis is correct. A guy who hits .300 costs a lot of money. You can find a guy who hits .250, but draws a lot of walks - i.e. gets on base equally well if not better - for significantly less.

And while the A's won their division regularly (they also benefited from having three "Ross Barkley" caliber pitchers come up through their minor league system), they never won it all.

Meanwhile the Boston Red Sox employed a lot of the concepts of Moneyball, mixed with their own massive budget to build a team with superstar pitchers, a perennial all-star slugger (Manny Ramirez), and a bunch of solid, hardworking "dirt dogs" to great success, breaking an 86 year drought to win the World Series in 2004 and again in 2007.

It also helps that one of the players they bought for little learned plate discipline from the coaches and other players and developed into one of the most feared hitters in the league in David "Big Papi" Ortiz.

Not sure how you could "Moneyball" football... i guess outside of finding players who aren't the primary goalscorers or set-up men, but finding those who best operate a step or two before that. The guy who best wins the ball and threads it to the guy who assists the goal. Under the radar, of course. That's as close as I think you could do it.

Although the A's, those aforementioned Red Sox teams and Leicester also did have great team chemistry and seemingly loved showing up for "work".
 

ijjysmith said:
I think even that is a stretch. Would anyone have wanted Danny Simpson, Wes Morgan or Marc Albrighton at Everton?

I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...
Well, what @Steve0 said here.

But also - Danny Simpson and Wes Morgan - defenders first, nothing more, nothing less. Albrighton has pace, Kante has a fantastic engine, Vardy has pace and finishing, Okazaki has pace, determination and energy... etc.

No, I personally won't have them at Everton, but Ranieri seems to have fit his team around player's strengths and avoiding their weaknesses at all costs (remember Danny Simpson being caught out further up the pitch?), which is, in my opinion, quite amazing. That and they've performed to their 100% in every game...

I'm gonna get laughed at for the analogy, but - it's similar to what SAF used to do. Get decent players, at best, to win titles all over the place, just because they played to their absolute best in their roles, and weren't really asked to do anything more. Think the only one he failed at this with is probably Rooney, as he's played in just about every position there is except keeper... The fact he did it was exposed when Moyes took over and the same world-beating title winning players looked average, at best. Man management, organisation and playing to strength's at its absolute best.
 
ijjysmith said:
I think even that is a stretch. Would anyone have wanted Danny Simpson, Wes Morgan or Marc Albrighton at Everton?

I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...

Well, there's Mahrez, and I figure at least one more could count here. I'm not convinced Vardy fits into all systems of play, but to win Player of the Year he should probably count as well. And that makes 2.

And I doubt anyone would have wanted Wes Morgan at Everton before the season, but by March the mood had changed on defenders.
 
wm02 said:
Lifelong baseball fan here. I wouldn't equate Leicester with the Moneyball approach as I just don't see their signings following any particular trend in finding undervalued talent. I suspect the one commonality between those Oakland A's teams and Leicester, though, is the use of PEDs. The A's two most prominent hitters were proven to have used them throughout their time in Oakland and went from being marginal players to perennial All-Stars. Fitness levels and recovery rates at LCFC are intriguing
Click to expand...

They also benefit from having a short schedule. Out in both cups at first opportunity? Only a 40-fixture season?
 
obc said:
Yes, Moneyball utilizes America's love of endless statistics and tracking everything to analyze from a different perspective. Your basic analysis is correct. A guy who hits .300 costs a lot of money. You can find a guy who hits .250, but draws a lot of walks - i.e. gets on base equally well if not better - for significantly less.

And while the A's won their division regularly (they also benefited from having three "Ross Barkley" caliber pitchers come up through their minor league system), they never won it all.

Meanwhile the Boston Red Sox employed a lot of the concepts of Moneyball, mixed with their own massive budget to build a team with superstar pitchers, a perennial all-star slugger (Manny Ramirez), and a bunch of solid, hardworking "dirt dogs" to great success, breaking an 86 year drought to win the World Series in 2004 and again in 2007.

It also helps that one of the players they bought for little learned plate discipline from the coaches and other players and developed into one of the most feared hitters in the league in David "Big Papi" Ortiz.

Not sure how you could "Moneyball" football... i guess outside of finding players who aren't the primary goalscorers or set-up men, but finding those who best operate a step or two before that. The guy who best wins the ball and threads it to the guy who assists the goal. Under the radar, of course. That's as close as I think you could do it.

Although the A's, those aforementioned Red Sox teams and Leicester also did have great team chemistry and seemingly loved showing up for "work".
Click to expand...
Yup. With Mulder/Zito/Hudson they had a once-in-a-generation starting rotation. While Beane can be given credit for some of this (he tended to avoid high-school pitchers), there is some luck in play as well. With this type of rotation, you are given some real leeway with the rest of the squad. Today you can see this with the young Mets rotation as they can carry a fairly unbalanced team.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top