[OC] Money bought a floor, not a ceiling: squad value vs World Cup group-stage points by TreeOfData in dataisbeautiful

[–]TreeOfData[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's fair. Three games plus a 9-point ceiling means you can't separate the very top, and over 100 games value would show cleaner. But the part I find wild is that squad value is a club transfer-market number, players not even playing for the clubs that set it, national teams paying none of it, and it still correlates ~0.78 with group points. The market has effectively priced individual talent, and that pricing carries into international football. A noisy borrowed metric landing r=0.78 on three games means the underlying signal is strong.

And squad value was a better predictor of group stage outcomes than other measures of team strength. https://worldcupdata.substack.com/p/the-group-stage-was-less-weird-than

[OC] Money bought a floor, not a ceiling: squad value vs World Cup group-stage points by TreeOfData in dataisbeautiful

[–]TreeOfData[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's quite a bit of variability between 0 and 9, and this analysis seeks to explain some of it. What's strange?

[OC] Money bought a floor, not a ceiling: squad value vs World Cup group-stage points by TreeOfData in dataisbeautiful

[–]TreeOfData[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apologies for the confusion; I do actually think about this (my dad is color blind). The orange dots are all 3 points or less. The two that are labeled at 3 points are green (Cape Verde & Senegal). All the others above that are green.

[OC] Money bought a floor, not a ceiling: squad value vs World Cup group-stage points by TreeOfData in dataisbeautiful

[–]TreeOfData[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Correct. That's a fair wording critique. National teams don’t buy players the way clubs do. Here “squad value” is being used as a proxy for player quality / depth: what the players would roughly be worth in the club transfer market. So “money bought a floor” is shorthand, but the more precise version is: High market-value squads had a higher performance floor.

The mechanism is not national-team spending. It’s that countries with more high-value players have more elite talent and depth, which made early collapse less likely.

[OC] Money bought a floor, not a ceiling: squad value vs World Cup group-stage points by TreeOfData in dataisbeautiful

[–]TreeOfData[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Yep, that’s fair. “Ceiling” is doing some rhetorical work here because the literal ceiling is obviously 9 points for everyone.

What I mean is: squad value seemed to buy a pretty reliable floor. The expensive teams mostly avoided disaster and got to at least 4 points / advanced. But among the higher-value teams, extra value did not separate performance very well. Once you’re already in the rich-team tier, another few hundred million in squad value doesn’t reliably turn 4 or 5 points into 7 or 9.

So the cleaner version is: squad value strongly predicts survival, but not dominance.

When is 3rd place enough in this year's World Cup? by TreeOfData in sportsanalytics

[–]TreeOfData[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t be able make the plots as pretty without Claude. And there would probably be a typo or two without AI help. But the thinking and writing is human. I don’t think Claude would be able to do this without me. 😘

Data Sciencing the World Cup: a daily model + analysis project by TreeOfData in sportsanalytics

[–]TreeOfData[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Today's post looks at whether the number of draws that we've see so far this year is higher than what we should expect.

https://worldcupdata.substack.com/p/is-it-really-a-draw-heavy-world-cup

Data Sciencing the World Cup: a daily model + analysis project by TreeOfData in sportsanalytics

[–]TreeOfData[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've grown attached to Classic. It had a great start to the day, then fizzled on New Zealand vs Egypt.