We are second in the Price per Point table

[InOffMeLeftShin]

it does give a worthwhile basic indicator, none-the-less, IMHO.

A basic indicator of what exactly?

 

[Ionman34]

Nothing to do with Moyes at all is it? Kenwright bought the club for £20m back in 2004 and has invested nothing else. His £20m initial payment has been divided by the 415 points won in that time span, resulting in £48,192.77 per point.

I disagree. When you consider that Kenwright hasn't put a great deal more into the club since he bought it, that surely reflects favourably on Moyes that he has been able to amass the points total he has on a, comparative, shoestring.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Sorry fellas, the article appeared in the Sunday Times paper, but I could not find it online at all to link. This was the exact wording:

Research suggests David Moyes is the most cost-effective manager in the Premier League. Since Bill kenwright became chairman at Goodison in 2004, Everton under Moyes, amassed 415 EPL points up to the end of 2010-11 seasonal the rate of £48,192.77 a point. Statistics are based on total spending by the top ten clubs in the 2010-11 campaign and show how much each point cost from the time each club was bought until the end of that season.

I assumed they meant total spend from the time the current club regime came in up to the end of 2010-11 season, otherwise it would make even less sense.

I have no idea how they have in fact calculated this.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I've put it into a table that should make it easier to read.

How did you do that Nicdic ?

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

I disagree. When you consider that Kenwright hasn't put a great deal more into the club since he bought it, that surely reflects favourably on Moyes that he has been able to amass the points total he has on a, comparative, shoestring.

I agree that Moyes has done great but it has nothing to do with this table. Our figure will go through the roof when the new stadium is built, will that be a reflection on villas boas?

 

[nicdic]

How did you do that Nicdic ?

I already had Numbers (think Excel but for Mac) open, so I just stuck it in a table quickly, took a screen shot uploaded it to imageshack, and whacked it up as an img.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I already had Numbers (think Excel but for Mac) open, so I just stuck it in a table quickly, took a screen shot uploaded it to imageshack, and whacked it up as an img.

I'll never remember all that but thanks anyway.

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

Sorry fellas, the article appeared in the Sunday Times paper, but I could not find it online at all to link. This was the exact wording:

Research suggests David Moyes is the most cost-effective manager in the Premier League. Since Bill kenwright became chairman at Goodison in 2004, Everton under Moyes, amassed 415 EPL points up to the end of 2010-11 seasonal the rate of £48,192.77 a point. Statistics are based on total spending by the top ten clubs in the 2010-11 campaign and show how much each point cost from the time each club was bought until the end of that season.

I assumed they meant total spend from the time the current club regime came in up to the end of 2010-11 season, otherwise it would make even less sense.

I have no idea how they have in fact calculated this.

Wouldn't have expected this from the times. 'research suggests' that it's a horribly poor article.

 

[StartingPrice]

A basic indicator of what exactly?

Er...that we are second in the price per points table.

As I said, there are many caveats and much criteria missing, I could think of a few myself. But with some of the objections, like that it advantages teams who spent a while ago over those who have spent only recently, you can cancel the objection out, to a certain extent, by pointing out that players bought 10 years ago are not that likely to still be part of the team and still playing, and will need to have been replaced.

And, after all of that, it is still a flawed and interesting way of looking at spending value in the EPL. It may be more valuable and more accurate to construct the table factoring as much detail in as possible, but I'm not going to do that, are you?

 

[InOffMeLeftShin]

Er...that we are second in the price per points table.

As I said, there are many caveats and much criteria missing, I could think of a few myself. But with some of the objections, like that it advantages teams who spent a while ago over those who have spent only recently, you can cancel the objection out, to a certain extent, by pointing out that players bought 10 years ago are not that likely to still be part of the team and still playing, and will need to have been replaced.

And, after all of that, it is still a flawed and interesting way of looking at spending value in the EPL. It may be more valuable and more accurate to construct the table factoring as much detail in as possible, but I'm not going to do that, are you?

But the money in the table has nothing to do with money spent on players unless you think arsenal have spent £700m in that time on players. The money can only be the investment of the owner including the purchase of the club.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Wouldn't have expected this from the times. 'research suggests' that it's a horribly poor article.

It was a tiny little piece underneath the Everton v Newcastle preview. I didn't spend any time trying to figure it out, just posted it as is. It caught my eye because it was something I was wondering a couple of weeks back.

I have no idea how the have arrived at the figures they have. Make of it what you will. (clearly bollocks in your case).

 

[StartingPrice]

But the money in the table has nothing to do with money spent on players unless you think arsenal have spent £700m in that time on players. The money can only be the investment of the owner including the purchase of the club.

But, I repeat, I never said it was massively accurate, or free from flaws - I said it was an interesting way to look at it - is all!

 

[Ionman34]

I agree that Moyes has done great but it has nothing to do with this table. Our figure will go through the roof when the new stadium is built, will that be a reflection on villas boas?

Fair point IOMLS, but then I wasn't really using the data to compare him to other managers, more to highlight his attributes in isolation.
The fact that he has been there so long, with so little backing financially and still amassed such a respectable points tally for so little expenditure, says to me that the assertion that he is the most 'economical' manager in the Prem is pretty close to the mark.
It appears that wages and income haven't been factored in to the equation, which would probably move a few of the teams up and down, but I still believe that, even with those variables considered, Everton would still be top and mostly due to the efforts of Moyes.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

This was the thread where we were discussing it:

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/index.php?threads/transfer-stat-help-required.90346/#post-2995142

 

[SNAFU_Clarke]

Reading soccernomics at the moment, they say the real price per point table that should be used is payer wages.

Wow! Really? Player wages drives player performance rather than the amount spent to buy out their contract from their ex-clubs? Who'd have thunk it?

Sorry, don't mean to be a prick but this is not news.

 

[yanno]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Clearly, Murdoch's pernicious influence is taking its toll with the quality of Sunday Times research and journalism.

Back in the real world, some clubs have undoubtedly paid stupid money per point. Yank owners love their "Moneyball" stats, and I'm sure Liverpool's "Moneyball" owners (Fenway who own the Boston Red Sox) had their own analysis which made the sacking of Comolli absolutely inevitable.

The ridiculous price Comolli paid for journeymen players like Adam, Henderson, Downing and Carroll means Liverpool must be paying the highest price per point of any English club. According to the Liverpool ITK that posts here on SC, Fenway's new version of "Moneyball" is the reason that Liverpool wouldn't meet Fulham's price for Dempsey...

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Clearly, Murdoch's pernicious influence is taking its toll with the quality of Sunday Times research and journalism.

Back in the real world, some clubs have undoubtedly paid stupid money per point. Yank owners love their "Moneyball" stats, and I'm sure Liverpool's "Moneyball" owners (Fenway who own the Boston Red Sox) had their own analysis which made the sacking of Comolli absolutely inevitable.

The ridiculous price Comolli paid for journeymen players like Adam, Henderson, Downing and Carroll means Liverpool must be paying the highest price per point of any English club. According to the Liverpool ITK that posts here on SC, Fenway's new version of "Moneyball" is the reason that Liverpool wouldn't meet Fulham's price for Dempsey...

There is a discussion on this very topic in general football:

http://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/index.php?threads/football-stats.90503/