Despite Simon Kuper’s wishes to the contrary, there is single set of Sabermetric data that can be used to pinpoint why one team is great and one team is crap. Liverpool’s performance this year however is a statistician’s dream, ironic because Liverpool are supposed to be Damien Comolli’s pet Moneyball project.
The Independent, taking data from Infostrada, created this nifty chart which points out the nature of Liverpool’s problems so far this season (for larger version, click here). Cheers to Zonal Marking’s Michael Cox for Tweeting the link.
Defensively, the club rank well in goals conceded, but in attack, where football data has yet to catch up with on-field performance, their statistics are awful. Liverpool have the lowest chance conversion rate in the Premier League. And yes Thomas Dobby, Demba Ba’s conversion rate is 30.2% to Suarez’s 6.6%.
If this is some sort of ad for “Soccernomics,” I would say Liverpool have a lot of work to do. To be fair to Simon Kuper, his recommendations for English football went far beyond a sensible transfer policy, and spoke to the very nature of how most football clubs are run. Comolli is not football’s Billy Beane, particularly as figures like Jean-Michel Aulas at Lyon provide a far better example of the kind of effective transfer policy Liverpool are still miles from implementing.
Whatever the problem at the club, if some of their transfer decisions in recent seasons are indeed based on the most cutting edge data available, soccer is still in search of its WAR.
NOTE: this piece initially said Liverpool don’t rank well in goals conceded. It has since been corrected. The Whittall regrets the error.
Very interesting chart and good piece. But: “Liverpool don’t rank very well in goals conceded”. I think you misread that bit on the chart. Liverpool have conceded the second fewest number of goals in the league.
“Defensively, despite the positive performances of a few individual players, Liverpool don’t rank very well in goals conceded.” What rubbish. Liverpool have one of the best defensive records in the Premier League this season.
I think the stats are interesting but don’t necessarily tell the final story. It can tell you how many “chances” a player had but it says nothing about the quality of those chances. Being clear on net against the keeper and a glancing header while being marked out by several guys counts for the same thing…
Too much leeway within those definitions and too many thing that are difficult to qualify and measure. I think statistics will always play a role in the sport, but not in a baseball-esque type fashion like the graphic is trying to suggest.
As well it says that they don’t score per chance, but that really doesn’t matter. If one team scores 1 every 5 chances, but only gets 5 chances, then how are they better than a team scoring 1 every 15, but with 45 chances?
It certainly does matter, if one presumes (logically) you need more time to create chances. There are only ninety minutes of play in which to score goals. If you take more whacks and miss, you chew up time and give up valuable possession as well.
well I was suggesting on a per set period of time basis. I know that it plays a part, but it’s only one stat and cannot be held up on it’s own.
If Barca gets 30 chances in a game, their opponent gets 3, but Barca wins 3-1. Which team is better? Obviously Barca, despite the poor goals per chance.
I’m not saying Liverpool is Barca, nor am I suggesting that their low conversion rate is not the reason they remain out of the top 4. I’m merely saying that it’s just one stat among many, and it can play a minor role depending on the other stats.
I agree with your statement about what kind of chances these players are having but at the same time these are paid professionals and world class players we are talking about. Someone like Suarez who leads and carries teams like Uruguay or Carroll who was the clear choice for striker at Newcastle should be finishing any opportunities given to them. Both are considered marvellous strikers which is shown in the respect given by fans and the amount of money on their contracts. Suarez can individually take on a set of defenders and finish seemingly impossible chances while Carroll is a major presence, especially in the final 3rd/18 yard box; both these players have assets that allow they upper hands during finishing opportunities.
Suarez is a great player, if he just put in the back of the net the 25% of the chances he creates, we will be talking of a top 10 player of the world.
Caroll…. I cant belive they pay that amount for this guy, they could brought a better forward for that amount or less, Samuel Eto, Asamoah Gyan, Demba Ba, well even Darren Bent, and I will bet that they will have twice the goals Andy haves.
I just want my team to be more effective and hoping they will Tour NorthAmerica in this 2012 summer.
The notion of “Moneyball” has now become widely referenced within the world of football. And the primary thesis of that book (and what the Oakland A’s baseball team developed) is often misunderstood.
“Moneyball” is often considered to be functionally synonymous with statistical analysis. This isn’t an accurate understanding of the idea. Statistics were a tool in the approach but not the extent of it.
The primary argument made in Moneyball is around the competitive advantage an organization can gain by taking advantage of market inefficiencies. Statistics were a method for 1) identifying what those market inefficiencies are; 2) developing a quantitative strategy around how to leverage those market inefficiencies.
In planning their team, Liverpool may have utilized some statistical analysis (e.g. goal scoring chances created, etc). But on the whole I’m not sure whether one can say they were truly taking advantage of market inefficiencies. Or at least they weren’t effectively targeting or taking advantage of market inefficiencies.
In fact, if you look at both their purchases and game strategy one can make a real argument that in many ways Liverpool took the exact opposite approach from the one put forward in Moneyball because they focused on skill sets and tactics that generally aren’t market inefficiencies, particularly in the EPL.
This said, there are major challenges in applying the principles of Moneyball to football – it’s not nearly as direct an application as it is to a game such as baseball which is structured around discrete events, rather than continuous events such as in football.
Also, baseball is an easier sport to identify market inefficiencies in than soccer, as there’s more of a discrete nature to the statistics. You have more control over which variables to take into consideration when evaluating talent, whereas in soccer the nature of the game makes it much harder. Same’s true for hockey.
(Personally, I’d love to see someone tackle sabermetric cricket stats.)
Not to mention that the sample size for baseball – 162 games, 500+ at bats, 300 fielding chances etc. – are so much greater, giving greater confidence especially over two or more seasons.
Oh right cause it makes to judge everything after 1 year. Cool.
add the word *sense*
Breaking News: Capello Just QUIT as England Manager, the door is now open for ‘Arry!
There is no denying we’re lacking goals but the one statisic it fails to mention to the total number of chances created. That might show a better reflection of match dominace…although a couple guys with their shooting boot on would help greatly.
An interesting piece, and one that us Liverpool fans have been subjectively saying all season long; missed chances (usually via the woodwork) have undone us in many ways this year.
As for the implication AGAIN that Ba is better than Suarez, I suppose we should crown Demba Ba as the best striker in England then no? I mean he has a better conversation rate than Van Persie, so it must be true!
Said implication was, and remains to be utter nonsense.