Hine......a very revealing interview

[Snoop Dog]

Just wondered what others thought of the Derek Hine interview. I just watched it and personally i thought it was incredibly interesting as he made some points that suggested there are a few problem areas they want to fix / change;


1. Tackling. The expectation Elliott will play next year. He referenced the correlation of player stats to CFC style of play. This was interesting because it suggests the book "moneyball" has found its way into the thinking of AFL clubs (which I knew it hadnt ever really heard someone talk in depth about how the recruiting process had a significant stat element to it). For those that havent read it you should as it is a true story about a US baseball team and how they recruit based on stats of the playing style they want and only recruiting blokes who fit that mould (ie they dont care about who they think is good - they do it soley based on statistical evidence). Why it was interesting for Elliott was he referenced DI's which i would think are Defensive 1%' ers such as tackle pressure etc. For me that was a gaping hole this year and whilst Leon was average last year people didnt acknowledge the fact he was the #1 tackler in the fwd 50 for the comp. When you play the style we do those fwd 50 tackles are important and they dropped off this year. So it sounded to me that element of Elliotts game was really important in their decision and that he might be immediately ahead of Ugle. Also suggested the issues with BD's shoulders means they havent got conviction in his tackling for 20 odd rounds of footy. It also suggests to me Alan Didak would want to have a good year given his contract is up at the end of 2012. As an aside its why I am not understanding the potential delisting of Caf. The first qtr of last years GF I thought he was the best player. I know its a qtr but his defensive and tackle pressure are excellent and to do that on the big stage would suggest to me you wouldnt want to get rid of him....but maybe something else at play.

2. Kicking....Clarke and Yagmoor. The recruiting of them is largely based on CFC view they are elite kicks. Suggests that Buckley is a huge investor in kicking which I dont think Mick has been to the same extent in the past. I know he developed the kicking test but he is clearly backing it up via his recruiting. FWIW I reckon Elliott is an elite kick as well based on what I have seen of him. Also suggests to me that whilst I didnt think Sinclair would be a potential delisting that he may well be one 'in the gun' and the McCarthy will definately be out bc I dont think you could rate his kicking anywhere near elite.

3. Leigh Brown replacement. Witts to play fwd more than ruck next year which suggests to me he is the long term Leigh Brown replacement in the side and he might just get a go next year. I was thinking Keefe might be remodelled a bit but I now think Witts (and remember he is 19) might get a go quicker than i originally thought.

4. Irish lads. they are clearly pretty keen on Mooney. I havent known the club to talk up players but geez the kid Mooney they seem to be a rap on. Interesting to hear he would have broken agility, sprint and i think there was a third one as well. Also interesting they will play him fwd and that Clarke may go fwd as well given thats where he played in ireland. If he could tackle he would be a great HF.

5. Remaining recruits - I think they will go KPF with one selection but the rest I suspect will be best available.

 

[Swooper18]

Didak signed a three-year deal in 2010. He has completed one year of his current contract and will not be up until 2013.

 

[Snoop Dog]

ok - i thought he was done at end of next year which frankly would have suited us more. Suspect they would have done 2 yrs with benefit of hindsight.

 

[TradeDraft]

The Baseball Team was Oakland Athletics

 

[Tippy78]

I would love to be a fly on the wall at the club around this time, and I suppose the preceding months.

To my mind, a great team needs to all be heading towards the same goal, but there needs to be a strong leader, and one that has the final say once the team has had their input.

When it comes to the makeup of the pies squad, who is that leader? Hine's interview appeared to me that he has complete buy in on each of the players recruited. So, what part does Bucks play in the lead up to the trading period and then the draft?

Does Bucks say to Hine - "these are the players I want in the team next year, go and find them"? OR does Bucks just say to Hine "Go and find me the best players you can find?"

 

[Markfs]

Our forward defence was better in 2010 than it was this year. Buckley was the forwards' coach in 2010 and I think he had a massive influence over our forward pressure. In 2011, Bucks moved to other duties and the pressure went down a little.

Now Bucks is back as Senior Coach, I think he is going to make sure that there will be enough forwards who love to lay tackles...

 

[Old Spice]

An outstanding thread topic.

I'm not sure what moneyball is, but i'm presuming it relates to value for money and role playing based on key team KPIs. The other element which is interesting and important is the game style and how that relates to list management.

So, if you have a game plan which elevates kicking efficiency and defensive pressure, you would recruit with an eye to kicking skill and the ability to execute roles.

So for example, Yagmoor would seem to have been recruited for his kicking prowess (equal 2nd in draft combine) with a view to the clubs conditioning staff lifting his aerobic capacity so he can find space all the better to maximise his delivery, while an Elliot is recruited for his adherence in the fwd 50 in defensive measures (avg 5.8 tackles per game) combined with his ability to hit the scoreboard from minimal chances.

What the KPI / stats focus means is that besides playing the odds, you expect to keep turning over the list when players drop off in those areas. In a cold blooded sense, you keep your core elite players while churning through the 2nd tier players.

It means the role players become cheaper because they are not expected to become elite all-round players, but elite at fulfilling their roles.

I wouldn't be particularly excited at that trend as a fringe player, but that's the way things are heading. I guess the under 4 year game life of players is testament to that fact.

 

[TradeDraft]

Hine did that targeting simmlar type players in the 2005 and 2006 when in 2005 he went Mid and 2006 he went KPP

 

[Daicos Mullets]

Why it was interesting for Elliott was he referenced DI's which i would think are Defensive 1%' ers such as tackle pressure etc.

I think the official term at Collingwood is Desire Indicators, but yes, my understanding is that they're the 1%ers; tackles, chases, spoils, shepherds, blocks, etc.

they are clearly pretty keen on Mooney. I havent known the club to talk up players but geez the kid Mooney they seem to be a rap on. Interesting to hear he would have broken agility, sprint and i think there was a third one as well.

I'm pretty sure the third category was vertical leap.


Edit: just re-watched the Hine interview.

At the recent draft camp ..... he (Mooney) would have broken the all-time records for speed, agility and vertical jumps.

 

[Knightmare]

Quality review Snoop. Think you are spot on on most points.

Mooney as a forward is interesting since he is an Irishman. Irish take longer to learn tackle and most of them just don't seem to get it. I suspect this will be a big part of his development. Maybe he develops long term into a wingman but if he can develop into that real tackling forward, will be very interesting. Certainly has the speed for it anyway.

Took many of the same things out of the talk about Witts. Also suspect Ceglar will be going for that no.2 ruck position next year. Still would like both to spend more time at VFL level before thrown into the AFL side - club doesn't value building the durability of these rucks early as I do. But if they think they can have an influence from next year, will be interesting.

Yagmoor to be used as a back flank and possibly wing (BJ+Leon replacement).

Elliot I have the same expectations of. Ready to play next year and on performance is good enough. But don't expect him to be a regular. Will play mainly forward but can go midfield as Hine said.

 

[standingroomonly]

You know the problem with Moneyball, the A's still never won anything.

If you applied their success to AFL they'd be the Footscray of 2006-2010, good team with no cash but never quite got there.

 

[TradeDraft]

You know the problem with Moneyball, the A's still never won anything.

If you applied their success to AFL they'd be the Footscray of 2006-2010, good team with no cash but never quite got there.

A's Won there Division quite a Few Times but could never get past the Big Spending Yankees in the Playoffs

 

[larrikan]

Deserves it's own thread..it's been touched on in other threads.

I thought the Hine interview was great and very revealing.

I think what many supporters haven't come to grips with yet is the football department is now run like a division of a company. It's not just the coach anymore making the decisions. MM gave us an insight that he may speak to the players once a week even though they are at the football club everyday. It is the line coaches and fitness staff working on a daily basis. It is a collective group that brings together a common theme.

In a recent interview, Bucks said he has been working on this for 2 years. This year especially he and Hine and others would have been targeting "players for Bucks".

It's not like Bucks was "opposition assistant coach" and now has the senior role. He has been a coach in waiting working with the staff for 2 years. Last years recruiting would have Bucks stamp of approval on it.

Alls good at the Pies. Brilliant recruiting. AND I have to say it, wasn't it great that the enemy sat on their hands and did nothing during trade week...hahaha

 

[lgarth80]

I thought the Hine interview was great and very revealing.

Alls good at the Pies. Brilliant recruiting. AND I have to say it, wasn't it great that the enemy sat on their hands and did nothing during trade week...hahaha

Highlight of the interview..."In Hine we Trust....giggle"

On Carlton, it's not hard to understand why they did nothing when all they were doing was offer around O'hAilpin and Bower to the highest bidders.

But certainly the approaches of Geelong (2 for 1 trade down) and Collingwood (use GWS and GC prelists) appear on the surface to be cutting edge in this regard. The only advantage for the Blues in their trading was at least they weren't ripped off with a dodgy trade. (The disadvantage is that all of their required improvement on last season's 5th needs to come from within.)

 

[Dundalis]

A's Won there Division quite a Few Times but could never get past the Big Spending Yankees in the Playoffs

The whole point of moneyball was to be able to get past big spenders by using a statistical methodology of analysing and targeting players which was supposedly superior to simply going out and getting the best players. It was the epitome of stats vs real scouting.

The thing is all the talk about moneyball and how it transformed the A's, the fact of the matter is, while it may have helped some, they won during that period mainly due to the luck of having a couple ace pitchers. That was the real difference. Great pitching can carry baseball teams a long way, even if they are deficient in other areas.

For me the whole concept is flawed and has it backwards. You use statistics as a supplement to live scouting, not as the primary method of scouting. Very few MLB teams use that moneyball method anymore, or they have taken the concept and adapted it so much it doesn't really resemble the original method.

 

[1eye]

To me the interview revealed that he did his best considering the picks at his disposal. Imagine a couple of sub 10 picks in this guys hands, eg 2005.

 

[Al Scorcho]

The whole point of moneyball was to be able to get past big spenders by using a statistical methodology of analysing and targeting players which was supposedly superior to simply going out and getting the best players. It was the epitome of stats vs real scouting.

The thing is all the talk about moneyball and how it transformed the A's, the fact of the matter is, while it may have helped some, they won during that period mainly due to the luck of having a couple ace pitchers. That was the real difference. Great pitching can carry baseball teams a long way, even if they are deficient in other areas.

For me the whole concept is flawed and has it backwards. You use statistics as a supplement to live scouting, not as the primary method of scouting. Very few MLB teams use that moneyball method anymore, or they have taken the concept and adapted it so much it doesn't really resemble the original method.

Judging a player without ever actually seeing them play is dangerous with all the various leagues around...just ask Richmond and the disaster that was Oakley-Nicholls

from recollection they drafted him purely on things they 'heard' cos they couldn't afford a recruiter to go watch him regularly, that could be myth though

 

[regpies]

Judging a player without ever actually seeing them play is dangerous with all the various leagues around...just ask Richmond and the disaster that was Oakley-Nicholls

from recollection they drafted him purely on things they 'heard' cos they couldn't afford a recruiter to go watch him regularly, that could be myth though

Ha, Richmond are bad but surely they couldn't be so bad as to not actually see a kid play before drafting him.

I'm glad Buck's will focus on kicking, that would explain why Macaffer and Toovey were the last ones to be signed.

 

[Rohan25]

Say whatever you want about the Moneyball theory, but it sure is a fascinating read.

 

[si tacuisses]

Ha, Richmond are bad but surely they couldn't be so bad as to not actually see a kid play before drafting him.

I like to believe that they're exactly that bad.

 

[si tacuisses]

For me the whole concept is flawed and has it backwards. You use statistics as a supplement to live scouting, not as the primary method of scouting. Very few MLB teams use that moneyball method anymore, or they have taken the concept and adapted it so much it doesn't really resemble the original method.

I agree. Sidebottom is a great example. Not rated as high by many other clubs, but we took him with our first pick: mostly, as I understand, because of the way he rose to the occasion in the TAC cup grand final. Statistics don't tell you about when and how someone gets their stats, at least not the full picture. If stats alone ruled, we wouldn't need someone with Hine's (apparently magical ) abilities.

 

[TradeDraft]

I agree. Sidebottom is a great example. Not rated as high by many other clubs, but we took him with our first pick: mostly, as I understand, because of the way he rose to the occasion in the TAC cup grand final. Statistics don't tell you about when and how someone gets their stats, at least not the full picture. If stats alone ruled, we wouldn't need someone with Hine's (apparently magical ) abilities.

Essendon nearly took Steele at 5 in that Draft in 08

 

[vjknight]

The only advantage for the Blues in their trading was at least they weren't ripped off with a dodgy trade. (The disadvantage is that all of their required improvement on last season's 5th needs to come from within.)

like the discussion in another thread, maybe they are preparing for an assault in the free agency trading next year, making sure they have enough room in the cap (what cap say carlton lol)

 

[Snoop Dog]

The whole point of moneyball was to be able to get past big spenders by using a statistical methodology of analysing and targeting players which was supposedly superior to simply going out and getting the best players. It was the epitome of stats vs real scouting.

The thing is all the talk about moneyball and how it transformed the A's, the fact of the matter is, while it may have helped some, they won during that period mainly due to the luck of having a couple ace pitchers. That was the real difference. Great pitching can carry baseball teams a long way, even if they are deficient in other areas.

For me the whole concept is flawed and has it backwards. You use statistics as a supplement to live scouting, not as the primary method of scouting. Very few MLB teams use that moneyball method anymore, or they have taken the concept and adapted it so much it doesn't really resemble the original method.

They got those pitchers because of the statistical analysis. I think the guys name was Young (not 100% sure) but they picked him out of the amatuer leagues (which v few players come from or at least did then) and were then able to pay him only $200-300k as opposed to the millions the 1st rounders etc were getting. A key difference between our system and theirs is they were compelled to do something different bc of the non existence of a salary cap. They needed an advantage and this was theirs. For mine it was incredibly clever - particularly given it came from a player who was considered a great prospect when he came into Baseball but quickly realised the folly of why the scouts picked him. When he then became the Team Manager he knew that wasnt the way for them to compete bc of the lack of $$$ but also it wasnt a smart way.

Agree with you on the evolution of it though. I actually saw Billy Bean speak once and he acknowledges that it had to evolve bc everyone caught on. Its a bit like a game plan it always keeps evolving bc opposition catchup. From what I recollect the grad guy who he employed as his stats bloke went on to become one of the LA team managers and had good success there. I am no expert but to me the most sensible approach has to be a blend.

Whoever mentioned it above is right though. The club started looking at stat analysis at least back in 07 and 08 because they wanted to mirror their list to the composition of a premiership list (height, weight, players etc) and I guess what I saw from the Hine video is the statistical element is becoming increasingly important part of the talent identification and recruiting process.

 

[lgarth80]

A key difference between our system and theirs is they were compelled to do something different bc of the non existence of a salary cap.

That's the key isn't it Snoop?

Fact is even if there was a draft, if there were no salary cap, teams like Carlton (and us of course) would just wait and get the best players later whatever the cost. Sure we'd get a few guns via the draft, but we'd also top up with cold hard cash when needed. I can understand why Carlton were successful during the period of 60-80s with this tactic, topping up their zones with interstate champs. McHale's concept of team first unfortunately was outdated, and led to some real bad management decisions by the Pies even from the 1940s. But I digress...

For a team to punch above their weight, sort of like the Premier League in soccer, you can be a side that develops or a side that buys. The As aimed to develop players, and then from the profits (and/or results) of that development get a crack at the big time. They weren't far off.

But yeah, regarding the first point....bring on free agency. Not ideal for us now (due to us being at the very pointy end) but has the potential to be fantastic for us going forward.