- 86% probability that he is able to contribute to the Werder Bremen overall,
- 5% probability that he is able to contribute to the attack of Werder Bremen,
- 97% probability that he is able to contribute to the defense of Werder Bremen,
- 83% probability that he is able to contribute to the build up and transitioning of Werder Bremen.

Based on the Wyscout data for the 19/20 season Werder Bremen as a team had:

- 31% probability that the team will win or draw a match,
- 30% probability that the attack will score,
- 43% probability that the defense will concede a goal (lower is better),
- 44% probability that the build up and transitioning will create an opportunity.

Based on the Wyscout data for the 19/20 season the Bundesliga has a FBM League Strength score of 123 points. (91% correlation)

Based on the Wyscout data for the 19/20 season the Eredivisie has a FBM League Strength score of 114 points. (91% correlation)

Based on the Wyscout data for the 19/20 season Ajax has:

- 87% probability that the team will win or draw a match,
- 69% probability that the attack will score,
- 28% probability that the defense will concede a goal (lower is better),
- 53% probability that the build up and transitioning will create an opportunity.

Given that the League Strength of the Eredivisie is lower and that the club probabilities of Ajax are higher, it is a realistic idea to see Klaassen play for Ajax.

Based on the above data including minutes played, difference in league strength and difference in team strength, we calculate the following probabilities for Klaassen playing for Ajax.

- 94% probability that he is able to contribute to Ajax overall,
- 12% probability that he is able to contribute to the attack of Ajax,
- 99% probability that he is able to contribute to the defense of Ajax,
- 92% probability that he is able to contribute to the build up and transitioning of Ajax.

As you can see the performance of Klaassen will be very similar for Ajax as it was in the 19/20 season for Werder Bremen.

If we were to substitute Van de Beek for Klaassen Ajax would get the following probabilities:

- 92% probability that the team will win a match (+6%),
- 70% probability that the attack will score (+1%),
- 26% probability that the defense will concede a goal (lower is better) (-2%),
- 53% probability that the build up and transitioning will create an opportunity (+0%).

This would result in 5 additional points in the table.

To conclude: Ajax is slightly better off with Klaassen.

]]>We paper trade the players as if we bought them for the valuation at data. The we sell the players when they reach the age of 25 or when the make a major transfer. That way you can see how well we do.

So far we have spent 46.900.000 euro and earned 26.000.000 euro for a loss of -20.900.000 euro. From 2021 on,players need to be born 2001 or later.

PlayedID | Date first in shadow team | Valuation at date | Transfer | Position | FBM score | Born/player | Contract/Sold |

6461 | 2-4-2018 | 1 | 26 million transfer to Rennes | RW | 8.66 | Jérémy Doku | 26M |

8044 | 22-4-2019 | 0.5 | CM | 6.84 | 2002 | 2022 | |

8739 | 8-6-2019 | 0.2 | Transfered to U19 top tier team | CB | 6.77 | 2002 | 2023 |

12614 | 15-7-2020 | 0 | CB | 6.16 | 2002 | 2023 | |

11258 | 17-9-2019 | 0.05 | CB | 6.05 | 2002 | unknown | |

12289 | 18-5-2020 | 1 | CF | 5.99 | 2002 | 2021 | |

11121 | 27-1-2020 | 0 | CM | 6.13 | 2001 | 2021 | |

12414 | 22-6-2020 | 0.8 | RW | 5.6 | 2001 | 2021 | |

12063 | 25-1-2020 | 0.1 | CM | 7.76 | 2000 | 2021 | |

8107 | 27-1-2020 | 0.75 | CF | 7.29 | 2000 | 2021 | |

10957 | 1-8-2019 | 0.4 | AM | 7.17 | 2000 | 2022 | |

11513 | 7-3-2020 | 1.1 | RB | 7.06 | 2000 | 2022 | |

11046 | 5-3-2020 | 0.4 | DM | 6.88 | 2000 | 2022 | |

11657 | 20-12-2019 | 0.1 | CB | 6.47 | 2000 | 2023 | |

7406 | 2-3-2020 | 0.7 | GK | 6.24 | 2000 | 2021 | |

8230 | 21-10-2019 | 3 | LB | 5.97 | 2000 | 2024 | |

11732 | 30-10-2019 | 2.75 | AM | 7.22 | 2001 | 2023 | |

11841 | 4-12-2019 | 0 | LB | 7.42 | 2001 | 2024 | |

12230 | 5-6-2020 | 3.5 | CF | 8.2 | 2002 | 2023 | |

12665 | 2-7-2020 | 0.4 | DM | 7.5 | 2001 | 2024 | |

12721 | 21-7-2020 | 0.1 | LW | 6.5 | 2000 | unknown | |

12749 | 22-7-2020 | 0.4 | RW | 6 | 2001 | unknown | |

12790 | 23-7-2020 | 2.5 | LW | 5.7 | 2001 | 2022 | |

12793 | 25-7-2020 | 0.3 | CF | 7 | 2001 | 2023 | |

12794 | 25-7-2020 | 0.5 | CF | 6.5 | 2002 | 2023 | |

12795 | 25-7-2020 | 0.15 | CB | 6 | 2000 | 2022 | |

12796 | 25-7-2020 | 0.8 | CB | 6 | 2001 | unknown | |

12343 | 26-7-2020 | 2.3 | AM | 6 | 2001 | 2025 | |

12804 | 26-7-2020 | 0.1 | CB | 5.8 | 2003 | 2022 | |

12810 | 26-7-2020 | 0.05 | Transfered to U18 top tier team | RW | 5.7 | 2004 | 2023 |

10093 | 28-5-2019 | 2.5 | CB | 7.4 | 2000 | 2024 | |

12855 | 1-8-2020 | 0.2 | CF | 5.9 | 2002 | 2022 | |

12856 | 2-8-2020 | 0 | CM | 5.6 | 2003 | 2021 | |

12869 | 5-8-2020 | 0 | AM | 7 | 2000 | 2022 | |

12874 | 5-8-2020 | 0.2 | LW | 6.3 | 2001 | 2023 | |

12889 | 9-8-2020 | 0.9 | CB | 6 | 2000 | 2024 | |

12902 | 10-8-2020 | 0.1 | LW | 6.6 | 2003 | unknown | |

12903 | 10-8-2020 | 0.15 | LW | 7.5 | 2003 | unknown | |

12910 | 11-8-2020 | 0.25 | CM | 8.2 | 2001 | 2022 | |

12927 | 12-8-2020 | 0.2 | CF | 5.9 | 2004 | 2022 | |

12922 | 12-8-2020 | 0.15 | CF | 7.1 | 2001 | 2021 | |

12929 | 13-8-2020 | 0.5 | RW | 6 | 2001 | 2023 | |

10340 | 12-12-2018 | 0 | RW | 8 | 2000 | 2021 | |

10352 | 19-8-2020 | 0 | LB | 6.25 | 2001 | 2024 | |

12975 | 19-8-2020 | 0 | CM | 5.5 | 2001 | 2021 | |

12983 | 22-8-2020 | 0.7 | CM | 6.12 | 2002 | 2024 | |

13025 | 26-8-2020 | 0 | AM | 6.3 | 2005 | 2023 | |

12103 | 3-3-2020 | 0.025 | Transfer to tier #1 club | CB | 7.31 | 2000 | 2022 |

8145 | 17-8-2019 | 0.5 | RB | 6.85 | 2001 | 2022 | |

7383 | 5-9-2020 | 0.5 | Transfer to #1 in same tier | LW | 7.82 | 2000 | 2021 |

13075 | 5-9-2020 | 0.3 | DM | 7.13 | 2000 | 2021 | |

5639 | 29-5-2019 | 0.2 | AM | 5.95 | 2000 | 2022 | |

13096 | 8-9-2020 | 0.2 | CB | 5.68 | 2000 | 2023 | |

8130 | 3-5-2019 | 0.1 | DM | 7.89 | 2000 | 2022 | |

8046 | 19-4-2019 | 0.25 | CM | 7.39 | 2000 | 2022 | |

12094 | 12-9-2020 | 0.05 | CM | 7.11 | 2000 | 2022 | |

13162 | 15-9-2020 | 0.4 | CB | 7.56 | 2000 | 2023 | |

13159 | 15-9-2020 | 0.05 | CB | 6.43 | 2002 | 2025 | |

13281 | 6-10-2020 | 0.05 | CB | 6.22 | 2000 | 2022 | |

13299 | 14-10-2020 | 1.2 | DM | 7.5 | 2001 | 2024 | |

13300 | 18-10-2020 | 3 | CB | 5.7 | 2003 | 2023 | |

13301 | 22-10-2020 | 0.15 | CB | 5.86 | 2000 | 2023 | |

13344 | 28-10-2020 | 3 | LW | 5.96 | 2001 | 2023 | |

13356 | 3-11-2020 | 0.1 | CM | 7.5 | 2002 | 2025 | |

13357 | 3-11-2020 | 0.1 | CF | 7 | 2002 | 2025 | |

13471 | 8-12-2020 | 1 | CF | 5.5 | 2002 | 2022 | |

13472 | 9-12-2020 | 0 | CF | 6.6 | 2001 | 2023 | |

13491 | 10-12-2020 | 0.3 | CM | 6 | 2001 | 2022 | |

13442 | 10-12-2020 | 0.2 | CM | 8 | 2000 | 2023 | |

9863 | 10-12-2020 | 0.3 | RB | 7.6 | 2000 | 2024 | |

9850 | 10-12-2020 | 0.1 | RW | 6.8 | 2000 | 2022 | |

13126 | 13-12-2020 | 0.5 | LB | 6 | 2001 | 2023 | |

11270 | 24-12-2020 | 2 | CB | 6.3 | 2002 | 2021 | |

13549 | 3-1-2021 | 1.8 | AM | 6 | 2002 | 2024 | |

13553 | 6-1-2021 | 0.725 | CF | 6 | 2001 | 2023 | |

13534 | 6-1-2021 | 0 | CM | 6 | 2004 | Unknown | |

13535 | 6-1-2021 | 0 | CM | 8 | 2005 | 2022 | |

13536 | 6-1-2021 | 0 | AM | 8 | 2005 | Unknown | |

13537 | 6-1-2021 | 0 | CF | 7 | 2005 | 2023 | |

13539 | 6-1-2021 | 0 | CF | 6 | 2004 | Unknown | |

13560 | 6-1-2021 | 0 | CF | 6 | 2004 | Unknown | |

13561 | 6-1-2021 | 0 | CF | 7 | 2004 | 2022 | |

13562 | 6-1-2021 | 0 | CF | 7 | 2004 | 2022 | |

13563 | 6-1-2021 | 0 | AM | 7 | 2005 | Unknown | |

13652 | 11-1-2021 | 0 | GK | 6.2 | 2002 | 2022 | |

13677 | 14-2-2021 | 0 | RW | 7.5 | 2002 | 2022 | |

13679 | 14-2-2021 | 0 | LW | 6.9 | 2002 | Unknown | |

13684 | 17-2-2021 | 0 | CF | 6.3 | 2002 | Unknown | |

13694 | 19-2-2021 | 0 | CF | 6.4 | 2004 | 2021 | |

13695 | 19-2-2021 | 0 | AM | 6.7 | 2004 | 2022 | |

13696 | 19-2-2021 | 0 | RW | 7 | 2004 | Unknown | |

13997 | 19-2-2021 | 0 | CF | 6 | 2004 | Unknown | |

13998 | 19-2-2021 | 0 | CF | 5.7 | 2004 | 2021 | |

13699 | 19-2-2021 | 0 | LW | 5.8 | 2004 | 2022 | |

13700 | 19-2-2021 | 0 | AM | 6.9 | 2004 | Unknown | |

13701 | 19-2-2021 | 0 | AM | 6.6 | 2004 | Unknown | |

13702 | 20-2-2021 | 0 | CF | 6.8 | 2003 | 2021 | |

13703 | 24-2-2021 | 0 | RB | 7.9 | 2002 | Unknown | |

13706 | 25-2-2021 | 0.5 | GK | 6 | 2001 | 2024 | |

13708 | 27-2-2021 | 1 | CF | 5.7 | 2003 | 2023 | |

13722 | 4-3-2021 | 0 | CM | 6 | 2002 | 2025 | |

13734 | 15-3-2021 | 0.8 | RW | 7 | 2002 | 2023 | |

13735 | 16-3-2021 | 0.7 | CF | 6 | 2001 | 2024 | |

13736 | 16-3-2021 | 0 | CM | 7.5 | 2003 | 2021 | |

13748 | 22-3-2021 | 2 | DM | 6.5 | 2002 | 2022 | |

13769 | 24-3-2021 | 3 | CB | 5.9 | 2002 | 2021 | |

13771 | 25-3-2021 | 3 | CB | 7.1 | 2001 | 2024 | |

13806 | 30-3-2021 | 0.8 | CB | 7 | 2002 | Unknown | |

13811 | 30-3-2021 | 0.1 | CB | 6.8 | 2001 | 2021 | |

13833 | 31-3-2021 | 0.5 | CM | 7 | 2003 | 2022 | |

12525 | 6-4-2021 | 1 | CF | 6 | 2002 | 2025 | |

13844 | 8-4-2021 | 0 | CM | 6.7 | 2002 | 2024 | |

13842 | 8-4-2021 | 0 | LB | 5.8 | 2002 | 2024 | |

13870 | 16-5-2021 | 3.5 | CM | 6.3 | 2003 | 2024 |

Current value is public valuation of the player by TransferMarkt in million euro. FBM score is our propietary score to rank players. Only players who score 5.5 or higher make it to the list. PlayerID is the ID of the player in our FBM database.

]]>Rank | FBM Wyscout score | |

1 | Atlanta | 73 |

2 | Los Angeles | 72 |

3 | Salt Lake | 71 |

4 | Toronto | 70 |

5 | Dallas | 67 |

6 | New York City | 65 |

7 | Columbus | 63 |

8 | Seattle | 62 |

9 | Portland | 61 |

10 | Chigago | 57 |

11 | Minnesota | 56 |

12 | San Jose | 56 |

13 | Colorado | 54 |

14 | New England | 54 |

15 | LA Galaxy | 52 |

16 | Montreal | 51 |

17 | Philadelphia | 50 |

18 | Kansas City | 48 |

19 | DC | 45 |

20 | Orlando | 42 |

21 | New York RB | 40 |

22 | Houston | 37 |

23 | Vancouver | 36 |

24 | Nashville | 35 |

25 | Cincinnati | 30 |

26 | Miami | 19 |

Here is Dorsch’ most recent FBM contribution chart:

Although Heidenheim lost and Dorsch did not play his best match, especially in the first half as can be seen from his contribution chart, he is still an exceptional player according to his FBM stats:

Yet, these are his stats for playing in the 2. Bundesliga. How would he do at Eintracht Frankfurt? We think that Dorsch is a good replacement for Hasebe at Eintracht Frankfurt. Hasebe’s most recent contribution chart shows he is not playing well at the moment:

Also his FBM stats are less than those of Dorsch:

Dorsch is slightly better than Hasebe at their highest performance, but Dorsch beats Hasebe on average performance, current performance and worst performance. Yet, Hasebe plays on a higher level. So we have to take that into account.

Taking into account minutes played, difference between both clubs and both competitions, we get the following results for Dorsch playing at Eintracht Frankfurt:

What you see in the first row, is the performance level of Eintracht Frankfurt in the 1. Bundesliga. In the second row we subtract Hasebe’s contribution to the performance of Eintracht Frankfurt. That is only a small difference because Hasebe is not contributing that much on average. In the third row we add Dorsch to the expected performance of Eintracht Frankfurt. Finally, we can see how Eintracht Frankfurt’s performance would increase or decrease in row 4. Overall performance of Eintracht Frankfurt would rise as would attack and transitioning. Defensive performance would suffer slightly.

Eintracht Frankfurt’s FBM Team Score would increase to 115 points up from 102 points. There is an 80% correlation between FBM Team Score and future ranking in the league. If other teams would not improve Eintracht Frankfurt would rise to rank 10 in the league table if they played with Dorsch rather than Hasebe.

Our model takes into account, position, highest transfer fee in the current season, record transfer fee, difference in competition, club, player age and length, international status and FBM stats. Due to the Corona crisis, it is much more uncertain how future transfer fees will develop. Our model is still based on the pre-Corona circumstances.

When we calculate what we call the replacement fee for players. This is the amount of money the current employer of the player can expect to spend on a replacement who is as good as their current player. In short: clubs should not transfer players for less than the replacement fee, nor buy players for more than the replacement fee. As the replacement fee differs from club to club, there is room for negotiations. We also calculate what the player would be worth one year later if he is able to transfer to an even better club. All assuming his FBM stats remain the same.

Here are the replacement values for Dorsch:

Replacement value for Heidenheim | £2,592,419 |

Replacement value for Eintracht Frankfurt | £3,861,435 |

Replacement value for Schalke 04 | £6,672,353 |

TransferMarkt currently values Dorsch at £4.05m. We think that Dorsch is slightly overvalued on TransferMarkt. If Eintracht Frankfurt were able to buy Dorsch for less than £3,861,435, they would have a good deal. A deal that might make them almost £2m a year later, if they would transfer Dorsch to the next club and Dorsch would perform at the level we expect him to do. As a reminder, we predicted that Dalmau would be worth 1.75m euro to Heracles and they transferred him a year later for 1.7m euro.

For us the most important thing about FBM stats, is that we calculate the probabilities that a player is able to contribute to a specific team. Here are the probabilities that Dorsch is able to contribute to Eintracht Frankfurt:

Probability that Dorsch contributes to Frankfurt | 63 |

Probability that Dorsch contributes to the attack of Frankfurt | 72 |

Probability that Dorsch contributes to the defense of Frankfurt | 25 |

Probability that Dorsch contributes to the transitioning & build up of Frankfurt | 46 |

What is the probability that player X is able to contribute to the team?

Time to define “analytics” for nba fans. At least how we do it. 1. Team Analytics – style of play that optimizes your PPP 2. Player Analytics – The probability that a player is able to contribute to maximizing the team PPP

— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) June 20, 2019

The answer is a number between 0% and 100%. This answer is never given in any of the reports or presentation scouts give. That means that the decision makers have to calculate this answer based on the report the scout has provided. Of course, they never do this consciously. Yet, our brain makes these kinds of estimations unconsciously all the time. If a scout does NOT explicitly answer this question, the brain of the decision maker is going to make the probability estimation all by himself. In almost all cases, this estimation will be lower than the players the decision maker prefers himself. That is the reason why even the most successful scouts only have contributed to a handful of transfers. Most transfers happen for other reasons than provided by the scouting team.

It really doesn’t matter whether we are talking about data, video or live scouting. If the final report fails to answer the question about the probability that a player is able to contribute to the team, the decision maker is going to answer that question and probably in a less favorable way.

So let’s look at an example. If you are using Wyscout data as a data scout, how can you then answer this most important question:

What is the probability that player X is able to contribute to the team?

First you need to build a model that transforms Wyscout data into probabilities. Bayesian networks are most suitable for this job, but there are other ways. We prefer to use Bayesian networks. Second step is to validate your model. For validation we have created a Bayesian network to transform Wyscout team data into team probabilities. We calculate the following four probabilities:

- What is the probability that a team is going to perform well?
- What is the probability that the attack of the team is going to perform well?
- What is the probability that the defense of the team is going to perform well?
- What is the probability that the passing game of the team is going to perform well?

Here are the results for the Premier League and Watford:

Validation comes from the 89% correlation (R2=80%) between the probability to perform well and the rank of the team. This is in line with this correlation in other competitions. So to be clear:

- The probability of Watford to perform well is 38%
- The probability of Watford to attack well is 37%
- The probability of Watford to defend well is 54%
- The probability of Watford to pass well is 47%

The next step is to look at the individual players of Watford. Normally we would look at all the players (except the keeper), but for this exercise we only look at the most recent starting XI:

Again, these stats answer the following four questions:

- What is the probability that a player is able to contribute to the team?
- What is the probability that a player is able to the attack of the team?
- What is the probability that a player is able to the defense of the team?
- What is the probability that a player is able to contribute to the passing game of the team?

As long as a player has at least one of these four probabilities quite high, he is an asset to the team. Of course, if it is only one category, he is a specialist rather than a generalist, unless that category is the overall category.

Taking into account minutes played we can then calculate the contribution each player has made to the team probabilities of Watford:

The contribution of these ten players is:

Here one can see that although Sarr has quite weak data in Wyscout, his contribution to the attack of Watford is on par to what is expected of him.

One can also immediately see that Pereya is the weakest link. So let’s look at a replacement for Pereya. As this is an example only, I am going to use a replacement who obviously would be better suited than Pereya. The player I am going to use is Liverpool’s Mané.

Here we use our transfer model. This gives the following results:

Let me explain this. First we start with the probabilities of Watford and Pereya we have already seen. Taking into account minutes played, we subtract Pereya from the probabilities of Watford. What this means for Watford is that the probability to perform well remains unchanged, but the probabilities to attack, defend and pass well drop a bit.

Then we look at the probabilities of Mané playing at Liverpool. As you can see, for all but defense, these probabilities are much higher than Pereya’s probabilities. But in part, Mané is playing well at Liverpool because he is playing together with other great players. That won’t be the case if he transfers to Watford. So we have to take into account that his performance will drop a bit. But how much? Fortunately, we have a Bayesian model to calculate precisely that by taking into account the relative strength of both teams and minutes played. To make it explicit:

- The probability that Mané is able to contribute to Watford is 87%.
- The probability that Mané is able to contribute to the attack of Watford is 98%.
- The probability that Mané is able to contribute to the defense Watford is 5%.
- The probability that Mané is able to contribute to the passing game of Watford is 52%.

What this would mean for Watford is that their probabilities also go up when we add Mané with his Watford probabilities to Watford as is shown in the final row. With Mané playing for Watford the new probabilities for Watford are:

- The probability of Watford to perform well is 45%
- The probability of Watford to attack well is 43%
- The probability of Watford to defend well is 46%
- The probability of Watford to pass well is 55%

GIven the correlation between overall team performance probability and rank, we can also see that Watford would rise to somewhere between rank 10 and rank 15 in the competition once Mané is playing for Watford.

Rational decision makers use these kinds of models to calculate for every player they are seriously considering hiring what the probability is that the player is able to contribute to the team and what this means for the team. Once you have ranked all players according to their probability to be able to contribute to the team, you try to hire the best player available. That is how we were able to transfer Dalmau to Heracles for instance.

This is the kind of work that we are going to teach at the Football Behavior Management summer school at the VU-university in Amsterdam in juli 2020. Due to the current circumstances this will be an online course.

]]>The Wyscout team data we use are:

- Average goals scored
- Average goals conceded
- Shots off Target
- Shots on Target
- Passes inaccurate
- Passes accurate
- Recoveries (low, medium, high)
- Losses (low, medium, high)
- Challenges failed
- Challenges won

Als please note that we use team data for these correlations that can NOT be traced back to individual players. Unlike the correlations we get with FBM probabilities that are based on stats of individual players and that can be traced back to these players.

Rank | Points | FBM Wyscout score | FBM Wyscout Attack | FBM Wyscout Passing | FBM Wyscout Defense | |

Liverpool | 1 | 99 | 84 | 70 | 74 | 54 |

ManCity | 2 | 81 | 93 | 72 | 83 | 53 |

ManUnited | 3 | 66 | 77 | 63 | 66 | 51 |

Chelsea | 4 | 66 | 76 | 54 | 74 | 51 |

Leicester | 5 | 62 | 75 | 60 | 66 | 52 |

Tottenham | 6 | 59 | 64 | 54 | 62 | 49 |

Wolves | 7 | 59 | 61 | 54 | 58 | 50 |

Arsenal | 8 | 56 | 64 | 52 | 79 | 47 |

Sheffield | 9 | 54 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 50 |

Burnley | 10 | 54 | 41 | 44 | 48 | 50 |

Southampton | 11 | 52 | 44 | 44 | 51 | 49 |

Everton | 12 | 49 | 45 | 42 | 57 | 47 |

Newcastle | 13 | 44 | 33 | 36 | 51 | 47 |

Crystal | 14 | 43 | 36 | 36 | 54 | 47 |

Brighton | 15 | 41 | 49 | 40 | 62 | 48 |

West Ham | 16 | 39 | 44 | 43 | 54 | 48 |

Aston Villa | 17 | 35 | 33 | 36 | 52 | 46 |

Bournemouth | 18 | 34 | 33 | 35 | 53 | 46 |

Watford | 19 | 34 | 31 | 33 | 51 | 47 |

Norwich | 20 | 21 | 25 | 23 | 59 | 44 |

Rank | Points | FBM Wyscout score | FBM Wyscout Attack | FBM Wyscout Passing | FBM Wyscout Defense | |

Bayern | 1 | 61 | 93 | 73 | 80 | 54 |

Dortmund | 2 | 57 | 89 | 69 | 78 | 52 |

Leipzig | 3 | 54 | 84 | 70 | 68 | 52 |

Leverkusen | 4 | 53 | 80 | 60 | 73 | 50 |

Gladbach | 5 | 52 | 69 | 60 | 61 | 49 |

Wolfsburg | 6 | 39 | 51 | 48 | 54 | 50 |

Freiburg | 7 | 37 | 50 | 45 | 57 | 49 |

Schalke | 8 | 37 | 45 | 41 | 58 | 47 |

Hoffenheim | 9 | 36 | 51 | 40 | 80 | 47 |

Koln | 10 | 34 | 44 | 43 | 54 | 48 |

Hertha | 11 | 34 | 43 | 43 | 55 | 46 |

Augsburg | 12 | 30 | 33 | 41 | 46 | 46 |

Berlin | 13 | 30 | 33 | 38 | 48 | 48 |

Frankfurt | 14 | 28 | 46 | 43 | 54 | 50 |

Mainz | 15 | 27 | 30 | 34 | 51 | 45 |

Dusseldorf | 16 | 24 | 31 | 31 | 55 | 47 |

Bremen | 17 | 21 | 31 | 30 | 57 | 44 |

Paderborn | 18 | 18 | 31 | 34 | 54 | 44 |

Rank | Points | FBM Wyscout score | FBM Wyscout Attack | FBM Wyscout Passing | FBM Wyscout Defense | |

Bielefeld | 1 | 53 | 80 | 65 | 67 | 51 |

HSV | 2 | 46 | 75 | 60 | 68 | 49 |

Stuttgart | 3 | 45 | 75 | 54 | 73 | 50 |

Heidenheim | 4 | 44 | 56 | 51 | 56 | 49 |

Darmstadt | 5 | 39 | 52 | 49 | 55 | 49 |

Aue | 6 | 38 | 46 | 49 | 51 | 47 |

Kiel | 7 | 38 | 55 | 48 | 60 | 48 |

Greuther | 8 | 37 | 51 | 50 | 54 | 47 |

Hannover | 9 | 35 | 45 | 38 | 76 | 50 |

Regensburg | 10 | 34 | 34 | 44 | 44 | 47 |

St. Pauli | 11 | 33 | 48 | 46 | 55 | 47 |

Bochum | 12 | 32 | 46 | 44 | 56 | 47 |

Osnabruck | 13 | 30 | 42 | 43 | 53 | 47 |

Sandhausen | 14 | 30 | 42 | 41 | 52 | 50 |

Nurnberg | 15 | 30 | 40 | 38 | 54 | 48 |

Karlsruher | 16 | 28 | 33 | 39 | 46 | 48 |

Wiesbaden | 17 | 28 | 33 | 39 | 47 | 48 |

Dresden | 18 | 24 | 30 | 40 | 44 | 47 |

Rank | Points | FBM Wyscout score | FBM Wyscout Attack | FBM Wyscout Passing | FBM Wyscout Defense | |

Duisburg | 1 | 51 | 64 | 54 | 61 | 50 |

Mannheim | 2 | 50 | 65 | 56 | 61 | 50 |

Bayern II | 3 | 48 | 51 | 43 | 64 | 45 |

Braunschweig | 4 | 48 | 50 | 52 | 50 | 49 |

Unterhaching | 5 | 47 | 57 | 54 | 54 | 50 |

Wurzburger Kickers | 6 | 47 | 51 | 51 | 52 | 49 |

Ingolstadt | 7 | 46 | 54 | 53 | 51 | 51 |

1860 Munchen | 8 | 46 | 52 | 51 | 53 | 49 |

Hansa Rostock | 9 | 45 | 55 | 51 | 73 | 51 |

Uerdingen | 10 | 44 | 45 | 44 | 55 | 48 |

Meppen | 11 | 43 | 51 | 52 | 52 | 48 |

Kaiserslautern | 12 | 41 | 49 | 48 | 53 | 49 |

Viktoria Koln | 13 | 38 | 52 | 44 | 63 | 46 |

Magdeburg | 14 | 37 | 56 | 51 | 54 | 52 |

Chemnitzer | 15 | 37 | 47 | 48 | 52 | 48 |

Zwickau | 16 | 36 | 36 | 48 | 42 | 47 |

Hallescher | 17 | 33 | 49 | 44 | 57 | 49 |

Munster | 18 | 33 | 38 | 43 | 50 | 46 |

Sonnenhof | 19 | 25 | 24 | 28 | 48 | 47 |

Jena | 20 | 18 | 25 | 29 | 50 | 46 |

Rank | Points | FBM Wyscout score | FBM Wyscout Attack | FBM Wyscout Passing | FBM Wyscout Defense | |

Ajax | 1 | 56 | 87 | 69 | 72 | 53 |

AZ | 2 | 56 | 88 | 70 | 76 | 51 |

Feyenoord | 3 | 50 | 75 | 60 | 68 | 50 |

PSV | 4 | 49 | 72 | 57 | 66 | 50 |

Willem II | 5 | 44 | 50 | 50 | 54 | 48 |

Urecht | 6 | 41 | 72 | 60 | 64 | 49 |

Vitesse | 7 | 41 | 60 | 53 | 59 | 49 |

Heracles | 8 | 36 | 56 | 53 | 56 | 48 |

Groningen | 9 | 35 | 54 | 47 | 74 | 52 |

Heerenveen | 10 | 33 | 54 | 46 | 61 | 48 |

Sparta | 11 | 33 | 43 | 46 | 51 | 47 |

Emmen | 12 | 32 | 47 | 39 | 62 | 47 |

VVV | 13 | 28 | 26 | 30 | 50 | 46 |

Twente | 14 | 27 | 47 | 40 | 62 | 46 |

Zwolle | 15 | 26 | 43 | 38 | 60 | 46 |

Sittard | 16 | 26 | 36 | 38 | 54 | 46 |

ADO | 17 | 19 | 26 | 31 | 50 | 46 |

RKC | 18 | 15 | 32 | 29 | 60 | 45 |

Rank | Points | FBM Wyscout score | FBM Wyscout Attack | FBM Wyscout Passing | FBM Wyscout Defense | |

Club | 1 | 70 | 74 | 61 | 63 | 53 |

Gent | 2 | 55 | 74 | 60 | 66 | 51 |

Charleroi | 3 | 54 | 63 | 64 | 50 | 51 |

Antwerp | 4 | 53 | 56 | 55 | 53 | 50 |

Standard | 5 | 49 | 59 | 53 | 58 | 49 |

Mechelen | 6 | 44 | 48 | 48 | 54 | 48 |

Genk | 7 | 44 | 52 | 44 | 61 | 47 |

Anderlecht | 8 | 43 | 74 | 59 | 68 | 49 |

Zulte | 9 | 36 | 47 | 44 | 75 | 46 |

Mouscron | 10 | 33 | 49 | 45 | 57 | 48 |

Kortrijk | 11 | 33 | 45 | 45 | 54 | 48 |

STVV | 12 | 33 | 43 | 37 | 62 | 45 |

Eupen | 13 | 30 | 33 | 33 | 54 | 47 |

Cercle | 14 | 23 | 31 | 31 | 54 | 46 |

Oostende | 15 | 22 | 24 | 32 | 46 | 45 |

Waasland | 16 | 20 | 19 | 23 | 51 | 44 |

Rank | Points | FBM Wyscout score | FBM Wyscout Attack | FBM Wyscout Passing | FBM Wyscout Defense | |

Cambuur | 1 | 66 | 81 | 71 | 62 | 52 |

Graafschap | 2 | 62 | 74 | 64 | 59 | 53 |

Volendam | 3 | 55 | 67 | 55 | 64 | 49 |

Jong Ajax | 4 | 54 | 73 | 59 | 68 | 47 |

NAC | 5 | 50 | 64 | 55 | 59 | 51 |

Go Ahead | 6 | 48 | 51 | 53 | 52 | 47 |

Excelsior | 7 | 47 | 49 | 52 | 52 | 47 |

NEC | 8 | 45 | 61 | 56 | 58 | 49 |

Almere | 9 | 44 | 50 | 49 | 71 | 51 |

Telstar | 10 | 44 | 48 | 45 | 58 | 46 |

Den Bosch | 11 | 38 | 60 | 52 | 62 | 47 |

Jong Utrecht | 12 | 38 | 45 | 50 | 50 | 46 |

Eindhoven | 13 | 34 | 40 | 41 | 54 | 46 |

Jong AZ | 14 | 28 | 48 | 40 | 65 | 44 |

MVV | 15 | 27 | 30 | 38 | 46 | 46 |

Top Oss | 16 | 25 | 33 | 32 | 56 | 46 |

Roda JC | 17 | 22 | 34 | 39 | 50 | 46 |

Jong PSV | 18 | 22 | 45 | 37 | 65 | 44 |

Dordrecht | 19 | 20 | 31 | 32 | 54 | 45 |

Helmond Sport | 20 | 17 | 20 | 25 | 48 | 45 |

- The best case.
- The most likely case.
- The worst case.
- The current form case, based on the current form of the players involved.

To calculate the probability that a player is able to contribute to a new team we look at:

- Difference between competitions.
- Difference between teams.
- Minutes played.
- FBM contribution stats.

We always look at how team A would do if they replace player X with player Y. In this showcase we look at how Sheffield United would do when they replace John Lundstram with Sander Berge.

The FBM contribution stats for John Lundstram are:

The FBM contribution stats for Sander Berge are:

At first sight one can see that Berge scores higher in almost every category. Only the probability that Berge is able to contribute to the attack in the most likely scenario (average) is significantly lower than that of Lundstram. Yet, it is important to take into account that the probabilities for Berge are with Genk playing in the Belgium competition and Lundstram’s probabilities are with Sheffield playing in the Premier League. So we have to adapt these values.

Because probabilities don’t point to a single event happening for sure, but for multiple possible events happening with a certain probability, we always look at the four different scenarios mentioned earlier. What we do in each scenario is subtract the actual contribution of Lundstram from the FBM stats for Sheffield and then add the expected contribution of Sander Berge to Sheffield. Sander Berge’s expected contribution is based on his actual contribution to Genk deflated or inflated to compensate for the differences between the competitions, teams and minutes played.

In the most likely scenario Sheffield will have a very similar overall performance. The attack of Sheffield will be a bit less strong with Berge rather than Lundstram. Defense will be the same. Transitioning & build up will be much better with Berge. The reliability of the team will remain the same. A 3 points higher FBM team score translates into one additional point in the competition for Sheffield.

In the best scenario Sheffield will not improve much. Sheffield will trade a slightly better performance overall and in attack to an even less functioning transitioning & build up. As you can see the best scenario is worse than the most likely scenario … worse for Sheffield. But with the best scenario, we look at the best performance of both players and compare those.

As you can see in the worst case, Sheffield is better off in almost every category except defense. The reason is that Sander Berge, even after compensation for a different team and a different competition, still has a higher floor in his performance than John Lundstram.

The current form scenario shows that impact that Berge can make on the play of Sheffield if he is able to keep his current form at Sheffield. Our FBM contribution stats predict that he probably performs a bit less than this as per the most likely scenario. But there is a decent chance that Berge will perform like this at Sheffield, netting Sheffield 2 extra points at the end of the season when they start with Berge instead of Lundstram.

In all scenarios Sheffield is better off with Berge than with Lundstram except in the best case scenario. When both players play at their best, it makes little difference to Sheffield who is in the starting XI. Yet, Berge is currently performing close to his top performance, while Lundstram is currently performing below his median performance. This means that in the short term, Sheffield’s performance is most likely to improve when they start with Sander Berge.

Probability that Sander Berge contributes to Sheffield | 84% |

Probability that Sander Berge contributes to the attack of Sheffield | 75% |

Probability that Sander Berge contributes to the defense of Sheffield | 84% |

Probability that Sander Berge contributes to the transitioning & build up of Sheffield | 22% |

In 2017 we analyzed 193 players born in 2002 or 2003. They played between 3 and 7 matches. All youth players get the following probabilities assigned:

Player | Score | Overall | Attack | Defense | Transition & buildup | Reliability | Number of games analyzed | |

C. de Oliveira Costa – Kakà | CF | 6.29 | 99.17 | 96.83 | 75.49 | 96.08 | 91.77 | 5 |

Score is a summation of the other five probabilities. These five probabilities are:

- Overall is the probability that a player is able to contribute to the team in general.
- Attack is the probability that a player is able to contribute to the attack.
- Defense is the probability that a player is able to contribute to the defense.
- Transition & build up is the probability that a player is able to contribute to transitioning & building up.
- Reliability is the probability that the overall, attack, defense and transitioning & buildup probabilities remain the same in the next match. Yet, it also is an indication of how reliable the player is.

Score is a number running from 0 to 10 with players approaching 10 will be the best players in the toughest competitions. So the score of 6.29 for Kakà in the Sudamericano U15 is quite good. We use a score of 2.5 to distinguish between players who are more likely to make it in pro football. Players not able to score 2.5 points are less likely to make it.

In the Sudamericano U15 of 2017 there were 93 youth players who scored 2.5 points or more. There were 100 youth players who scored less than 2.5 points. Two years later we looked at whether they played at all in 2019 and if so how many minutes they played and how valuable the team is that they play for. Here are the results (we have also included the data for the top 30 youth players):

Criterium | Top 30 youth players according to FBM player score | Youth players who scored 2.5 or higher | Youth players who scored less than 2.5 |

Players still playing | 86.67% | 77.42% | 63% |

Average value of the team the player plays for | 7.7 million | 3.6 million euro | 3 million euro |

Average minutes played in 2019 | 601 | 512 | 356 |

As you can see youth players who score well in FBM contribution statistics have a higher chance of still playing two years later. They play for more highly valued teams and they play more minutes.

The above results were achieved by only looking at the FBM player score. Basically, this means letting the computer decide who is the better player. When we actively evaluate these youth players ourselves, we look more closely at the FBM contribution statistics. We remove the attackers who scored 2.5 points or more, but who also have an attack probability of less than 50%. And we remove the defenders who scored 2.5 points or more, but also have an defense probability of less than 50%.

When we evaluate players as described we only keep 78 of the 93 youth players who scored 2.5 points or more. Their results are as follows:

Criterium | Top 30 youth players according to FBM player score | Youth players who scored 2.5 or higher | Youth players who scored less than 2.5 |

Players still playing | 90% | 83.33% | 63% |

Average value of the team the player plays for | 7.7 million | 4.3 million euro | 3 million euro |

Average minutes played in 2019 | 608 | 542 | 356 |

When you compare this second table with the first table, you can see that by not steering blindly on FBM player score, but actually looking at the underlying probabilities, allows you to select the most promising youth players even more accurately. What this means for clubs is that they can have their youth players analyzed and use FBM contribution statistics to determine which players are best to continue working with.

That is also the reason why we only look at the prediction half way through the season. Otherwise your statistic is more likely to correlate with the richness of the club, rather than the quality of the players. For rich clubs who disappoint in the first half of the season, can buy themselves better players and improve their situation.

Football Behavior Management (FBM) predicted on September 1st 2019 for the Dutch Eredivisie using only statistics of individual players. Even though the Eredivisie had quite a different season than usual, here are the correlations between our prediction and the actual points scored:

- Correlation = 80%
- R² = 64%

This establishes a strong and clear relationship between how well players do in the FBM system and how many points the clubs get that employ them. If you want more points, hire players who do well in the FBM system. That doesn’t mean that if a player does bad in the FBM system, that he is automatically a bad player. The FBM system is set up with a strong bias to underestimate players, rather than overestimate them. That means that a player who does badly according to us, could very well play better next season. But more importantly, it does mean that hiring that player increases the risk of hiring the wrong players. Whereas hiring a player who does well in the FBM system lowers this risk while at the same time increase the chance of winning more points!

Here is our original prediction and what actually happened:

Rank | Club | Prediction | Actuality | Difference | Notes |

1 | Ajax | 43 | 44 | 1 | We predicted the performance of Ajax quite well. |

2 | AZ | 29 | 41 | 12 | We predicted AZ strength, but underestimated how strong AZ was. |

3 | PSV | 35 | 34 | -1 | PSV weakness is remarkable this season and we are very happy that we predicted PSV weakness so well. |

4 | Willem II | 25 | 33 | 8 | We predicted Willem II strength, but underestimated how strong Willem II was |

5 | Feyenoord | 28 | 31 | 3 | Feyenoord weakness is remarkable this season and we are very happy that we predicted Feyenoord weakness so well |

6 | Vitesse | 26 | 30 | 4 | We predicted the performance of Vitesse quite well. |

7 | Utrecht | 29 | 29 | 0 | We predicted the performance of Vitesse quite well. |

8 | Heerenveen | 23 | 28 | 5 | We predicted the performance of Heerenveen quite well. |

9 | Heracles | 16 | 26 | 10 | Just like last year we underestimated Heracles. |

10 | Groningen | 18 | 25 | 7 | We underestimated Groningen. |

11 | Sparta | 20 | 23 | 3 | We predicted the performance of Sparta quite well. |

12 | Twente | 24 | 19 | -5 | We overestimated the performance of FC Twente. |

13 | Fortuna | 17 | 19 | 2 | We predicted the performance of Fortuna Sittard quite well. |

14 | Emmen | 20 | 18 | -2 | We predicted the performance of FC Emmen quite well. |

15 | Zwolle | 18 | 16 | -2 | We predicted the performance of PEC Zwolle quite well. |

16 | VVV | 22 | 15 | -7 | We overestimated the performance of VVV. |

17 | ADO | 20 | 13 | -7 | We overestimated the performance of ADO. |

18 | RKC | 15 | 11 | -4 | We predicted the performance of RKC quite well. |

Compared to his most recent FBM contribution chart, the only difference is that Noa Lang today has a higher transitioning & build up then two years ago:

Given Noa Lang’s high attacking contribution it comes as no surprise that Noa Lang scored a hattrick in the match FC Twente vs Ajax of December 1st 2019.