Judging a manager
About 8 years ago some fellow Evertonians were moaning about Moyes and how he was "lowering our expectations". People seemed really upset that he had said (before beating Manchester City) that it was like "taking a knife to a gun fight" when, having gone 18 months without a first team signing, he faced a team that had just spent £150m in one transfer window.
I set out to look at how you might go about working out how good a manager was.
It wasn't easy then, and it has got a lot more difficult.
My method back then was to look at wage bills and divide them by points to work out the "expected points" a wage bill would get you.
I worked out the average points finish was around 48 points for a team with Everton's budget and he was averaging about 58 points. Therefore Moyes was worth 10 points a season to Everton.
Now with Moyes it was quite a simple calculation, he has been at Everton around 10 years, he had full control over the team and signings. Where the calculation fell down was applying it at a wider level.
If Everton were averaging 1 point for every million spent on wages, and Sunderland were spending the same but averaging 0.6 of a point you can clearly see Everton and Moyes is a better combination that Sunderland and their managers.
However, if Ferguson's Manchester United are averaging 80 points a season with a £180m wage bill then was he a worse manager than Moyes? Does it follow that Moyes+Manchester United or Moyes+Sunderland will work out.....
But is there any measurement you can do that fairly reflects a manager's value? Short answer, almost certainly not.
Long answer.....
Moyes was at Everton for 10+ years. The team was his, within the financial constraints he operated under.
The average length of a managerial appointment is around 1.5 years across English football.
There is no way that a manager at any club can actually for that length of time can be said to be managing "his" squad.
The wage bill will be a consequence of decisions made in the previous 5 years.
Judging Marco Silva on the Everton wage bill would be ludicrously unfair.
So we should go by how good the squad he has is, and what he gets out of them? Perhaps some sort of xG measurement.
Maybe this is fairer. But if I take over at Barcelona and Messi gets injured then my team xG will surely fall. That isn't a reflection on me as a manager.
Teams generally change managers because something is going wrong. It might just be luck in which case the new manager may benefit from a reversion to the mean.
It could be an unstoppable decline in which case taking the job now could be reputation ruining.
The disparity in budget and wages can also have an impact. Give two identical managers identical squads. One manager has £150m to sign new players and another has to raise £150m to survive and play youth team prospects. How do you decide who has done a better job if one finishes 6th and the other 16th?
How do you even know who to attribute success and blame on? Imagine two managers with identical skills and personality working with two wildly different recruitment managers. One recruiter finds 5 world class players prepared to work for free, the other buys post peak mediocre players for thrice their value. Identical managers, very different outcomes.
Win percentages, trophies, expected goal difference, squad values, FIFA ratings(!) are all utterly meaningless without the context.
I know, I know, things like manager rankings are a bit of fun. Which is, as ever, fine, but don't come to me telling me your stats prove manager X is better than manager Y unless you have some nice context to go with it.
I set out to look at how you might go about working out how good a manager was.
It wasn't easy then, and it has got a lot more difficult.
My method back then was to look at wage bills and divide them by points to work out the "expected points" a wage bill would get you.
I worked out the average points finish was around 48 points for a team with Everton's budget and he was averaging about 58 points. Therefore Moyes was worth 10 points a season to Everton.
Now with Moyes it was quite a simple calculation, he has been at Everton around 10 years, he had full control over the team and signings. Where the calculation fell down was applying it at a wider level.
If Everton were averaging 1 point for every million spent on wages, and Sunderland were spending the same but averaging 0.6 of a point you can clearly see Everton and Moyes is a better combination that Sunderland and their managers.
However, if Ferguson's Manchester United are averaging 80 points a season with a £180m wage bill then was he a worse manager than Moyes? Does it follow that Moyes+Manchester United or Moyes+Sunderland will work out.....
But is there any measurement you can do that fairly reflects a manager's value? Short answer, almost certainly not.
Long answer.....
Moyes was at Everton for 10+ years. The team was his, within the financial constraints he operated under.
The average length of a managerial appointment is around 1.5 years across English football.
There is no way that a manager at any club can actually for that length of time can be said to be managing "his" squad.
The wage bill will be a consequence of decisions made in the previous 5 years.
Judging Marco Silva on the Everton wage bill would be ludicrously unfair.
So we should go by how good the squad he has is, and what he gets out of them? Perhaps some sort of xG measurement.
Maybe this is fairer. But if I take over at Barcelona and Messi gets injured then my team xG will surely fall. That isn't a reflection on me as a manager.
Teams generally change managers because something is going wrong. It might just be luck in which case the new manager may benefit from a reversion to the mean.
It could be an unstoppable decline in which case taking the job now could be reputation ruining.
The disparity in budget and wages can also have an impact. Give two identical managers identical squads. One manager has £150m to sign new players and another has to raise £150m to survive and play youth team prospects. How do you decide who has done a better job if one finishes 6th and the other 16th?
How do you even know who to attribute success and blame on? Imagine two managers with identical skills and personality working with two wildly different recruitment managers. One recruiter finds 5 world class players prepared to work for free, the other buys post peak mediocre players for thrice their value. Identical managers, very different outcomes.
Win percentages, trophies, expected goal difference, squad values, FIFA ratings(!) are all utterly meaningless without the context.
I know, I know, things like manager rankings are a bit of fun. Which is, as ever, fine, but don't come to me telling me your stats prove manager X is better than manager Y unless you have some nice context to go with it.
Comments
Post a Comment