So in the aftermath of the Rodgers firing, a couple of people had pointed out that English pundits were quick to say that the new man at Liverpool would need to be in charge of transfers on his own. In response, Dlew had this thought:
I didn't give it too much thought until this afternoon, when I caught a good chunk of TalkSport's evening show, Kick-Off. On it, Stan Collymore blamed "Moneyball" for a lot of Liverpool's woes, in particular, that big on-field decisions were being left to (paraphrasing) "men in suits with business degrees getting on their laptops and playing FIFA 16." His thought was that, as much as Rodgers shared in the blame, the transfer committee was total rubbish and should be done away with, and the following changes be made:
-Henry/Werner are there only to sign checks.
-Klopp runs the show. He names his scouts and most of his staff, and they'll handle all team business on the pitch, with two exceptions:
-Jamie Carragher is brought on as first team coach to bridge the gap between players and Klopp, and
-Steven Gerrard is the Global Ambassador, sent to woo the big players to join Liverpool
My instinct is to dismiss a lot of this out of hand, as Collymore has, on numerous occasions, sounded like a stodgy ex-player longing for the good old days before the oil money came in. Then he made an observation that got my attention. He said that Moneyball was borne out of a completely different economic environment in a completely different sport in a completely different country. And by and large, he's right. Had it been just the last part, I'd have dismissed it as his usual wishcasting for the days before kit sponsors, but when you think about it, the clubs that win the big leagues of Europe on a fairly consistent basis aren't really looking to exploit market weakness. Their only concern is identifying a superstar player that will makes the team better, figuring out what their rivals' highest possible bid will be, and finding out if they can beat it. Just as different, as well, are the consequences to mistakes. The Athletics, for instance, whiffed badly this offseason, particularly in the Lawrie-for-Donaldson deal. As disastrous as it was for Oakland this year, they're still in MLB, and they'll get a top-5 pick in the amateur draft for their troubles. If Crystal Palace were to make that big a mistake with their team, their modest goal of maybe qualifying for the Europa League is reduced to fighting off relegation, losing PL money, and having to compete with strong Championship clubs for one of the few spots back to the PL.
So the big question is, for bigger clubs in England (the Mancs, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham), can a Moneyball approach work, or do you just need to have the money to outbid everyone?
DLew On Roids said:
I didn't give it too much thought until this afternoon, when I caught a good chunk of TalkSport's evening show, Kick-Off. On it, Stan Collymore blamed "Moneyball" for a lot of Liverpool's woes, in particular, that big on-field decisions were being left to (paraphrasing) "men in suits with business degrees getting on their laptops and playing FIFA 16." His thought was that, as much as Rodgers shared in the blame, the transfer committee was total rubbish and should be done away with, and the following changes be made:
-Henry/Werner are there only to sign checks.
-Klopp runs the show. He names his scouts and most of his staff, and they'll handle all team business on the pitch, with two exceptions:
-Jamie Carragher is brought on as first team coach to bridge the gap between players and Klopp, and
-Steven Gerrard is the Global Ambassador, sent to woo the big players to join Liverpool
My instinct is to dismiss a lot of this out of hand, as Collymore has, on numerous occasions, sounded like a stodgy ex-player longing for the good old days before the oil money came in. Then he made an observation that got my attention. He said that Moneyball was borne out of a completely different economic environment in a completely different sport in a completely different country. And by and large, he's right. Had it been just the last part, I'd have dismissed it as his usual wishcasting for the days before kit sponsors, but when you think about it, the clubs that win the big leagues of Europe on a fairly consistent basis aren't really looking to exploit market weakness. Their only concern is identifying a superstar player that will makes the team better, figuring out what their rivals' highest possible bid will be, and finding out if they can beat it. Just as different, as well, are the consequences to mistakes. The Athletics, for instance, whiffed badly this offseason, particularly in the Lawrie-for-Donaldson deal. As disastrous as it was for Oakland this year, they're still in MLB, and they'll get a top-5 pick in the amateur draft for their troubles. If Crystal Palace were to make that big a mistake with their team, their modest goal of maybe qualifying for the Europa League is reduced to fighting off relegation, losing PL money, and having to compete with strong Championship clubs for one of the few spots back to the PL.
So the big question is, for bigger clubs in England (the Mancs, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham), can a Moneyball approach work, or do you just need to have the money to outbid everyone?
