Mighty Mighty Blackpool And A Host Of Other Mugs - The Other Teams Thread

Well, the price index is not unique to his book, he has used it for some time before.

As I have not read it, I leave it open that he may have refined it from what I have seen him use before. I am going to look for how to get it in English here. I will probably have to get it digitally.

And it is not a strawman. His method, as I know it, makes a lot of assumptions - for example, that he even knows how much a player was sold for or that the average quality of players sold in each window is constant. I don't those things are true.

 

As a maths man myself, statistics and maths are not the same. This is a modelling with assumptions and the insights may be superior, but they are in no way logically sound, which is the prerequisite for this whole shindig to be actual math. If you can't write a formal proof of it, then you can't prove it, and it ain't math, and it certainly isn't guaranteed to work in the future as it has in the past.

 

Haha, most unis combine them into one department for obvious reasons.

As for this, Terp rightly points out that modelling is risky damn business because in the real world theres 1000 variables that actually influence human decisions. That said, there's a definite use to modelling and I think it will help.

 

Data is about insights, but those insights are only as valuable and valid as the data they are based on. For example, those insights won't mean anything if the actual data entered is just wrong - as it very well might be considering that the data record on transfer values is very incomplete.

Second, for his work to have actual value for analysis over time, the average player must be of constant value. If that quality isn't constant, then the analysis is fundamentally wrong.

One of his ultimate goals is to show "true profit and loss" in transfer dealings. This has meaning within the idea that what actually matters isn't how much you get back in absolute terms but what that amount now equates to within the current market (ie, buying a replacement player). If the average quality of players sold does not remain constant, then the average transfer price is not wed to any point of quality, and thus you get no mathematical connection of how much x quality costs now in this market. Without that, what is the point?

For example, if I bought a player for 3 million pounds when the average price was 1.5, and then sold him for 3 million when the average price was 3, Tomkins would argue that I actually did not break even on the deal, I lost money because now a replacement player is more expensive. It may very well be true that the replacement player costs more money now and the market inflated. But if the quality sold does not stay relatively constant, you can't know that. It could be that a number of higher-quality players were sold in that sale year, warranting higher prices, raising the average. With relatively few data points in each summer in the Premier League, it is easier for this average to be warped. In such a case, you might be able to buy a replacement player for the same amount, and thus you didn't lose out, as Tomkins would argue.

 

Even if the quality remained constant, I do think it would still be flawed. Being flawed doesn't mean it is worthless or not superior to existing analysis.

How would it account for Affelay going for 3 million because there is a contract expiration issue? Or for Berlusconi agreeing to sell Boriello to Roma for 5 million euros cheaper than his actual value because he has a friend on the Roma board? So many little things impact individual transfer deals. And there aren't enough ho-hum transfers to silence out all that noise.

As well, our understanding of deals is that there is just this flat fee and a check is written and the deal is done, but we know that in fact some deals are structured over time (Boriello will be bought by Roma, for example, with no payment this year, then small payments over 3-4 years afterwards). Some include bonuses, some include sell-on payments (essentially meaning you aren't buying 100% of the player), etc. All of these things impact the actual value of a transfer.

 

You can model whatever you want, it doesn't mean it will produce anything accurate or meaningful.

Tomkins uses an average transfer price for each year. If the average quality does not remain relatively constant, then all he has is "this is what a transfer costs on average these days." That really doesn't mean much of anything.

The whole point of measuring the market in this way, rather than the fees relative to rising revenue or some such measure, is connecting the fee with the quality of the player. But that only works if the quality remains relatively constant.

 

Sunderland up 1-0 at half time. Hope they can keep this till the end.

 

Chelsea as usual will be f***cking terrible for the rest of the game but will get 2 garbage goals and win.

 

and then they with **** their friends wife and pick up a bag a Charley from their dad.

 

To me, that makes no sense.

If the quality isn't normalized, then the price is just a number. In a world in which not every item available for sale is sold and there are many different levels of quality, but few actual transfers in a given year, that number doesn't relate with anything very meaningful.

If Rafa sells a player for x amount, that amount versus the average cost of a transfer tells him very little. What that means all depends on the quality of the players making up that average transfer. If it was a relatively poor group that year, or a relatively good group that year, they mean different things for what the real value of his new money is in the market that year. And what is Tomkins trying to tell us? The real value of that money.

 

does this work on italian women?

 

get in!!!!
GYAN!

 

Chelsea have no depth at CB... im stunned

 

Epic

 

Wow. Did not see Chelsea struggling @ home today. Not a great weekend for Italian managers in the Prem.

 

Yesssssssssssssssssss! Gyannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn! Hahahahahahaha. Please let the score hold.

 

terp/jitty

this really is the most boring discussion ever

 

predictable result given the side chelsea put out. weak midfield, crap backline.