The Truth About Moneyball

With all this talk of Moneyball, do people realise it has been happening in football for years? And to good effect?

In the aftermath of Damien Comolli’s departure last week, many articles and fans have discussed the failed project this season, which appeared to stem from the book Moneyball by Michael Lewis about the Oakland A’s, an American baseball team, and their visionary general manager Billy Beane.

New Liverpool owner John Henry believed he had a secret, something no-one else knew of, which was thought up by Billy Beane over in Oakland, over a decade ago. To understand what Liverpool have tried to accomplish, you need to understand what Oakland did.

The A’s were playing a different game than everyone else.

The Oakland A’s had been consistently so much more efficient than anyone else that they appeared to be in a different business. They won games by buying in the qualities in a baseball player that the market undervalues, and they sold the oned the market overvalues. Often because of the superficial judgement of how a player looks, his physical appearance for instance, would often mean a player being undervalued by the market.

The Oakland A’s had a strategy centrered around financial control. Most teams were spending too much money. The key for them was being successful on a tight budget. The key to Billy Beane success was that he sought to win games cheaply.

Beane firstly dismissed the views of his scouts. Why? Because Beane believed they were wrong in their judgements. He rendered decades of scouting experience meaningless; they were judging players on their own subjective opinions; Beane viewed this as ridiculous, he felt they were choosing the wrong players, because they weren’t basing their judgements on the players performance, instead it was more about how he looked or how he moved.

Beane’s vision entailed the use of performance scouting, which directly contradicted the baseball man’s view that a young player is what you can see him doing in your mind’s eye. It argues that most of what’s important about a baseball player, maybe even his personality can be found in his statistics. Billy Beane intended to rip away from the scouts the power to decide who would be a pro baseball player and who would not. A new insight into statistics would be his weapon for doing it. He believed that by analysing baseball statistics you could see through a lot of baseball nonsense. This was revolutionary. And it worked.

John Henry, the new owner of the Boston Red Sox and now owner of Liverpool had a great understanding of markets and their inefficiencies and he believed that Beane’s methods were the way forward, efficiency without spending a lot, a sustainable model of success. He wanted to overhaul his new franchises in the image of the Oakland A’s.

John Henry’s new Anfield model

Many people have used the phrase “moneyball” to explain the transfer policy at Anfield since the Fenway Sports Group came in to the club.  


By looking at their signings it would show that did try to attempt Oakland's "Performance scouting", to scout players objectively, through their statistics.The signings made by Liverpool last season indicated that statistical analysis was the key for the purchases of Suarez, Enrique, Carroll, Henderson, Downing and Adam. 

In an interview with France Football last year Comolli said of Luis Suárez: "We turn enormously toward players who don't get injured. We also took into account the number of assists, his performances against the big teams, against the smaller clubs, in the European Cup and the difference between goals scored at home and away." José Enrique was signed aftrer his  statistical figures were far more impressive than Liverpool's scouting report suggested.

Henderson and Downing created the most chances for their respective clubs the year before, and this would have been a major factor in their acquisitions. Charlie Adam’s set pieces were considered to be worth “£10 million on their own” according to Alex Ferguson after United played Blackpool. And so what Liverpool had done was bring together a group of players who had created a lot of chances from different positions on the pitch, who had a high percentage of entries into the final third, a perfect mix for strikers like Carroll and Suarez.

And yet, Liverpool failed in their approach, because they didn't get the value in the market with which Beane was so famous for. The extreme money spent on players at Anfield in the past 18 months has been staggering, and this is why Comolli has left. He took a concept and misunderstood it, he looked at the stats, sure, yet the point is to see worth in a player whose value doesn't indicate it. £20 million each for Downing and Henderson and £35 million for Carroll is not really "value for money". Regardless of their statistics. 

The French version of Billy Beane

And yet, have there been other sides in football who have used the the "Moneyball" system to good effect. Indeed there has. And it these sides which deserve a closer look.


Since 2006 the side who has the lowest net spend in the Premier League may shock you, or perhaps not. It has been Arsenal. They have spent £85 million and recouped £116 million, with a net of minus £31million. This is remarkable considering their league position has never had them finish below fourth. 

Damien Comolli worked with Wenger from 1996 and found a number of talents for Wenger. Wenger gave Comolli a lesson in scouting, in performance analysis. Wenger was doing what Billy Beane was doing it over in Oakland. He was brining in players for cheap and with little market value and finding they had talents. Wenger’s impressive scouting network unearthed some real talent, which contributed to performances on the pitch and more importantly for a side wishing to achieve sustainable growth, has improved the finances of the club, especially when a new £500 million stadium has restricted the growth of the squad in the short term, yet allowed it be stronger and sustainable in the longer term.

The profit margin on some of their players is remarkable. Arsenal realised they couldn’t spend on both the team and the stadium and so had to be very astute with their signings and importantly with their ability to sell big to other teams. Kolo Toure, Adebayor, Nasri and Clichy,  players who cost Arsenal £150k, £7m, £10m and 250k have recopued Arsenal over £80 million.

Add to this Cesc who cost nothing and was sold to Barcelona for £24 million, then the model that Arsenal has produced is the most impressive in the league. The top scorer in the league this season cost Arsenal £2.75 million. He has scored 93 goals for Arsenal in 189 games, what a return for the money spent.

Arsenal realise they cannot compete with the money spent by City and Chelsea (£500 and £250m in the past six years), what they needed to do was find a solution to this in order to keep being competitive . Arsenal's scouting network is so good because it has to be, they need to keep finding talents who will cost little, who will improve the side and who can be sold on for more. This is sustainable growth. Wenger has done such a remarkable job producing a competitive Arsenal with spending literally no money. Oakland were the same, they could not compete with sides like the Yankees, and so the players who cost the big money were not feasible. This is why they began looking to players who were not valued by the big sides. 

When you talk about Moneyball, when you consider what Billy Beane did to baseball, Wenger has done the same thing for the English Premier League. He has brought in players for little money, achieved relative success on the pitch, and more often than not, got a lot of money by selling them on for more. When John Henry considers a side who he wishes to resemble, Arsenal may just be that side.

The Toffees, continually exceeding expectations

In fact, there are other sides around England and Europe who deserve a closer look to see how they resemble Billy Beane’s Oakland A’s.

When you talk about Moneyball the key is buying players who other teams don’t consider good enough or worth the risk to play in the top levels. It is about buying cheap players who can offer more than their value shows. Everton are an excellent example of this.

David Moyes has been at Everton since 2002 and in his time he was built a stable Premier League side with almost no money. Remarkably Everton in the past five years have not finished below 8^th, many will not be surprised as many consider Everton to be a top half side. Yet, they have only spent £111 million on players since 2004. And in that time they have recouped £100 million. This means that they have a net spend of only £10 million in eight seasons.

This is impressive considering Liverpool rank 3^rd with £83 net spend, Tottenham 4^th with £73m net spent and of sides considered equal with Everton; Aston Villa, £68m net and Sunderland, £62m net. Even Bolton, Fulham, Stoke, Wolves, QPR and West Brom have all had a higher net spend than Everton since 2006. And yet, Everton have finished most of these sides for the past several years.

What has been their secret? Everton have scouted players from the lower leagues such as Cahill, Lescott and Jagielka and have found players capable of performing in the Premier League. These were players that many clubs were believed to be interested in, yet the belief that they “couldn't do it in the top flight” was a reason for their reluctance to purchase them. 


Since 2004 these are some players who have been bought in to Goodison; Tim Cahill (£1.5m), Joleon Lescott (£5m), Phil Neville (£3.5m), Mikel Arteta (£2m, Tim Howard (£3m), Phil Jagielka (£4m), Leighton Baines (£6m), Steven Pienaar (£2m), Louis Saha (Free), Sylvain Distin (£4m), Jermaine Beckford (Free), Magaye Guaye (£1m),  Apostolos Vellios (£250k),  Seamus Coleman (£150k), Darren Gibson (£2m), Nikica Jelavic (£6m). 


This is an impressive array of talent considering the money spent and shows how a Premier League side can be competitive with a tight budget. Their academy also has brought through players like Rooney, Hibbert, Osman and Barkley.

They have sought to tap into a market which was not been utilised by teams around them, they spent less and earned more from those players, on the pitch and off it too. Everton should be proud of their accomplishments and those calls for Moyes to be manager of the year each season are correct in what they say. He has done a remarkable job.


Moneyball aims to bring in players with talent who other sides don’t know about or perhaps don’t want to take a risk on. Everton have shown that taking the risks works, especially with the right manager and environment. And Billy Beane was also keen to stress that players bought cheap can benefit the finances too, Everton have shown this in their sales of Rooney (£27m), Lescott (£22m), Arteta (£10m) and Beckford (£4m).

A new change in team's approach?

Looking at some other sides, it would appear that this Moneyball mentality is spreading and bearing fruit. Newcastle have been a great example in the past two years of buying players for cheap value and achieving great results. Their new transfer policy has acquired players from around Europe who can offer more than their value represents. Cabaye (£3.5m), Tiote (£4.5m), Ben Arfa (£2.5m), Ba £0) and new signing Papiss Cisse (£10m) have all been remarkable signings for Newcastle. And I am sure that they will make a hefty profit on these players when the decide to sell them on. 

These aren’t unknown players who are hidden, but those who certain teams don’t want to risk buying. Newcastle are proving that good scouting can produce good results for less money. With the right manager at the helm they have exceeded expectations and have a realisitic chance of achieving Champions League football this season.

Newly promoted Norwich are an excellent example of sustainability and great management too. Two seasons ago they were in League 1, now they sit tenth in the Premier League. What has been their formula for success? The key has been their manager; his drive, determination and ability to get the most from players. And also his ability to buy cheap players who exceed their value. Anthony Pilkington, Steve Morrison, Bradley Johnson, Jonathon Howson and Wesley Hoolahan are players who had no previous Premier League experience. Their total value is around £10 million. And yet performances would show that they can handle the speed and pressures of the top flight. 


It shows that there is talent out there, it resides in the lower leagues and abroad and sometimes it may take a manager with a restricted budget or with a little nous to take a risk on some players there. Take Grant Holt, he has been a revelation since signing from Shrewsbury Town. He was signed for only £400k in 2009 and in his Norwich career he has played 113 games and scored 58 goals.  


Holt is the perfect example of the Moneyball philosophy. He is regarded in the media as being overweight, a drinker and someone who doesn't fit in the Premier League. It is as if people haven’t watched him play. He has scored 13 goals in the Premier League this season, after Rooney he is the top English marksman.

Holt’s biggest problem is his age. At 31 he has little upside left in his career, perhaps his arrival in the Premier League has come several years too late, it is a shame, because he really does look suited to this league and imagine if someone had taken a chance on him years ago, perhaps he could have been an England regular. The lesson from Holt is for sides to not make judgements on players, how many other Holt type forwards are in the lower leagues, is Rickie Lambert, Jordan Rhodes or Ged Evans, players capable of making the step up, I would say definitely.

A German model of Moneyball

In Europe there has been no team better at creating success with little money than Borussia Dortmund. This is a side who ten years were close to bankruptcy due to over spending, they had gone beyond their means and looked a shadow of their side they were in the late 90’s. Dortmund have become sustainable and they have been successful. What have they done to accomplish this?

Firstly, they decided that the key was to bring the right man to lead the side, they decided Jurgen Klopp was the right choice. And right they were. Klopp decided that if he had no money to spend then he had to use what he had. The key was youth. Klopp believed in developing youth players and saw the value in bringing through academy players and buying cheap players who perhaps were not valued as much as they should. Sound familiar?

On top of youth development the key for Dortmund has been their impressive use of scouting. The Dortmund scouting team work very closely with the management, they use a scouting system called Scout7 which gives information on players from all over the world. Dortmund have specific attributes for each position of which they look for, which they then search for a match on Scout7.

Effectively, they are looking for a player who fits their criteria who perhaps hasn’t been found on other top teams radar. Players like Kevin Großkreutz, Neven Subotic and Mats Hummels have all been picked up for small amounts yet have made massive contributions to the revivial of Dortmund and their success in the past couple of seasons. One of their most impressive “finds” has been Shinji Kagawa, he was found in the J-league 2nd division, and was bought for just £300,000.

Dortmund, Arsenal, Everton and Norwich have shown the merits of the football version of Moneyball, specific scouting using players statistics and attributes in order to find a player whose ability does not match his value. These sides have taught other sides how to use the market effectively, that spending millions is not always the answer, they have proven that success can had through sustainability.

A new future of sustainability

Billy Beane changed the lives of ballplayers whose hidden virtues otherwise might never have been seen. The money splashed around by teams like Man City, Chelsea, PSG and Real Madrid the game looks unsustainable and unbalanced. What the game needs is more Wenger’s, Moyes’, Klopp’s and Lambert’s, men with the willingness to take a risk, to believe in a player who others don’t and to prove those others wrong. 


Why did Damien Commoli fail? Because he didn’t do what Oakland did. Instead he brought in players for obscene amounts, this was not the model John Henry wanted implemented. If those players were too expensive, then Liverpool should have sought to find players who had similar stats and attributes yet who could did not have the same value as those they bought. Perhaps it would have given Liverpool the same results, or even better. It would have definitely being more cost effective. The problem with buying English players from the Premier League is that their value is too high compared to their actual worth. It has been a harsh lesson learnt by Liverpool’s owners.

What can Moneyball teach us? It is no surprise to me that the reluctance to open up to new ideas has held back the English game. The majority of coaches and scouts in the pro game posess an “old school thinking” philosophy which doesn’t consider how the modern game is and what is required. They holds onto an ideal of the past. The truth is, the game changes, styles change and ideas evolve and in order to achieve success ideas need to be ahead of the game.

Billy Beane gave a new approach to baseball and revolutionised the sport. It gave the seemingly accepted idea something new to think about. Are football coaches and teams willing to try new approaches to improve standards? Barcelona’s approach is revolutionary, Guardiola has been called a visionary for the work he has done; he obsesses over tactics and statistics and has put emphasis on possession and movement more than any team in last two decades at least. The game can be changed, what it needs is someone with vision, a will to convince and the ability to implement.

I appreciate any feedback you have and you can get me on Twitter at @The_W_Address