Training 2024 training updates.

[Apex36]

Moneyball was coined from a specific club doing a specific thing in a specific league.
So changing it for a different sport is actually not Moneyball at all.

So if you want to say “we’re doing Moneyball”….then pick a stat that we base our recruiting around. Markov is absolutely the closest.

But as a single stat, it absolutely doesn’t fit AFL.

Again, Moneyball is not about a specific player and the fact we got him “cheap”.

But, if I had to apply Moneyball to the us, it would be 1v1 wins.
I can’t see another single metric that would apply.

If you’re going to be stubborn enough to keep the Moneyball definition based purely on the way it was used in baseball, have at it. But to me, Moneyball is a principle rather than a hard and fast rule, and therefore being able to alter it from pure stats to traits is a simple and logical way of applying said principle in a different sport. Open your mind, brother.

 

[Apex36]

Marty Clarke on return had a disease that greatly affected him..

I think the implication was that Clarke was nowhere near as good as Tippa based on how they played before they left.

 

[petrie pie]

Marty Clarke was a very good player for us 1st go around it never worked out bringing him back,Tippa was a dynamic player at times and their fans love him but he was inconsistent.

I would not have thought there was much between them when at their respective best,s but Tippa could things not many could.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

He's a tall defender. Solid. Reliable. Strong. Does what needs to be done. Nothing flashy required.

Who on our list would have surpassed him? Particularly as he's yet to debut in the seniors.

My point simply was that training reports barely suggest more than an adequacy about his performances whereas Eyre, for instance, is getting a lot of positive feedback. On that basis alone, Eyre seems the more likely starter in defence if a KPD is required.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

Moneyball was coined from a specific club doing a specific thing in a specific league.
So changing it for a different sport is actually not Moneyball at all.

So if you want to say “we’re doing Moneyball”….then pick a stat that we base our recruiting around. Markov is absolutely the closest.

But as a single stat, it absolutely doesn’t fit AFL.

Again, Moneyball is not about a specific player and the fact we got him “cheap”.

But, if I had to apply Moneyball to the us, it would be 1v1 wins.
I can’t see another single metric that would apply.

For me moneyball was about loosing league wide, highly rated players who wanted big money and replacing then with lowly rated players who didnt need big money and not losing any performance output. The major factor in baseball was could the new lowly rated player "get on base" better or as well as the highly rated players? If so it was a moneyball selection.
Can it be applied to AFL? Not quite in the same way, however people will always say that it was a moneyball selection if the replacement player = the old players output for less cash and I personally dont mind it.

Eg Bobby Hill (moneyball) = replaced Jayden Stephenson (more cash)
Tom Mitchell (moneyball) = Adam Treloar or Taylor Adams (more money)

At the same time it is hard to work out who earns what in AFL sometimes.

 

[PieBeast]

My point simply was that training reports barely suggest more than an adequacy about his performs whereas Eyre, for instance, is getting a lot of positive feedback. On that basis alone, Eyre seems the more likely starter in defence if a KPD is required.

Or maybe someone is simply obsessed with Eyre and that's why we hear about him non-stop.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

If you’re going to be stubborn enough to keep the Moneyball definition based purely on the way it was used in baseball, have at it. But to me, Moneyball is a principle rather than a hard and fast rule, and therefore being able to alter it from pure stats to traits is a simple and logical way of applying said principle in a different sport. Open your mind, brother.

I dunno about this one Apex. I think the essence of Moneyball was to subvert old-school thinking about scouting/recruiting and replace it with objective data regarding what statistics were correlated with winning games of baseball.

Switch it to “traits” and we’re steering back in the direction of subjectivity.

I’m willing to concede that to apply it to AFL you have to overlook the fact that AFL stats are eminently more interdependent than baseball stats, and the play of your teammates strongly influences your own stats… but to make the conversation about traits and we’re not far at all from the “five tools” that Billy Beane abhorred in his day.

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Or maybe someone is simply obsessed with Eyre and that's why we hear about him non-stop.

Like Lipinski?

 

[Jen2310]

My point simply was that training reports barely suggest more than an adequacy about his performances whereas Eyre, for instance, is getting a lot of positive feedback. On that basis alone, Eyre seems the more likely starter in defence if a KPD is required.

I probably should mention dean more often. He is starting to show the qualities which he was touted for before we got him in the rookie draft. He is playing more of a second or third tall though. I don't actually see him as a FB, but more of an interceptor which is the role he is playing now. On the flank.
Maybe he just blends in that its easily to forget he is out there. Where most of us who attend training are looking at the SSP's in general, given they are fighting to get on the list and so who is impressing

 

[BillyElliott]

My point simply was that training reports barely suggest more than an adequacy about his performances whereas Eyre, for instance, is getting a lot of positive feedback. On that basis alone, Eyre seems the more likely starter in defence if a KPD is required.

I'd suggest there's more focus on Eyre because he's one of the SSP's...

He's not even our list as yet, let alone a likely starter in defence

 

[sr36]

If you’re going to be stubborn enough to keep the Moneyball definition based purely on the way it was used in baseball, have at it. But to me, Moneyball is a principle rather than a hard and fast rule, and therefore being able to alter it from pure stats to traits is a simple and logical way of applying said principle in a different sport. Open your mind, brother.

And ultimately it's about trying to work out what is undervalued versus what is overvalued. If us going cheaper on kpfs is intentional rather than circumstantial then it would very much fit a Moneyball description.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

And ultimately it's about trying to work out what is undervalued versus what is overvalued. If us going cheaper on kpfs is intentional rather than circumstantial then it would very much fit a Moneyball description.

Getting rid of Grundy and bringing in Mitchell was very much in the moneyball theme.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Interesting how so many bang on about needing a really tall forward..I always assumed Curnow was taller than that.

As for the weight, who cares, hey? We don't even know if that's accurate for either player.

Let's hope Dan's unfortunate injury provides us with a silver lining, giving Reef & Ash the opportunity to shine.

We are talking about one of the best marks in the game in Curnow. Reef isn't even close to that. We can't draw parallels just because they are the same cm in height...

 

[Apex36]

I dunno about this one Apex. I think the essence of Moneyball was to subvert old-school thinking about scouting/recruiting and replace it with objective data regarding what statistics were correlated with winning games of baseball.

Switch it to “traits” and we’re steering back in the direction of subjectivity.

I’m willing to concede that to apply it to AFL you have to overlook the fact that AFL stats are eminently more interdependent than baseball stats, and the play of your teammates strongly influences your own stats… but to make the conversation about traits and we’re not far at all from the “five tools” that Billy Beane abhorred in his day.

Sort of, but not really. The stats based moneyball in baseball focused on players being brought in to do one job, in one role which they excelled in. I mean, if you really want to put numbers to it instead of just saying “run and carry” or “rebound from defence”, you could probably focus on meters gained as a pure stat. Either way it’s essentially the same thing in regards to Markov falling in the moneyball category.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Sort of, but not really. The stats based moneyball in baseball focused on players being brought in to do one job, in one role which they excelled in. I mean, if you really want to put numbers to it instead of just saying “run and carry” or “rebound from defence”, you could probably focus on meters gained as a pure stat. Either way it’s essentially the same thing in regards to Markov falling in the moneyball category.

Yeah I don’t think that “metres gained” was undervalued by the league, judging by contracts earned by the likes of Saad, Williams, Whitfield, Dawson etc.

I’d be interested to hear what measures we used to quantify McStay’s ability to halve contests rather than get outmarked, however. Or conversely how how Grundy’s possessions were overvalued by our previous administration, and subsequently opposition clubs etc.

 

[Copeland]

Essendon’s loss (stupid sentimentality), Collingwood’s gain.
To be fair, it was deemed a good list move to get Beams back.

It did get us Crispy though

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

I probably should mention dean more often. He is starting to show the qualities which he was touted for before we got him in the rookie draft. He is playing more of a second or third tall though. I don't actually see him as a FB, but more of an interceptor which is the role he is playing now. On the flank.
Maybe he just blends in that its easily to forget he is out there. Where most of us who attend training are looking at the SSP's in general, given they are fighting to get on the list and so who is impressing

I wasn't just referring to your training reports but also those posted by others. The SSP explanation re Eyre makes sense, particularly given that there is not much mention of how many players are performing in match simulations - e.g. Moore, Howe, Murphy, Maynard, Sidebottom, Mitchell - I could name others.

 

[sr36]

I dunno about this one Apex. I think the essence of Moneyball was to subvert old-school thinking about scouting/recruiting and replace it with objective data regarding what statistics were correlated with winning games of baseball.

Switch it to “traits” and we’re steering back in the direction of subjectivity.

I’m willing to concede that to apply it to AFL you have to overlook the fact that AFL stats are eminently more interdependent than baseball stats, and the play of your teammates strongly influences your own stats… but to make the conversation about traits and we’re not far at all from the “five tools” that Billy Beane abhorred in his day.

It's a bit of both. Moneyball used stats to re-evaluate skillsets and attributes. So you can focus on the stats or you can focus on the re-evaluation as being the heart of Moneyball.

In AFL, clubs don't share their recruiting criteria let alone whether it was stats or theory that was used to devise the criteria.

With that in mind, I'm happy for people to describe it as Moneyball when they're talking about re-evaluation of attributes or skillsets. It's only when they say cheap player equals Moneyball that I bristle.

 

[SchuPie]

I wasn't just referring to your training reports but also those posted by others. The SSP explanation re Eyre makes sense, particularly given that there is not much mention of how many players are performing in match simulations - e.g. Moore, Howe, Murphy, Maynard, Sidebottom, Mitchell - I could name others.

Yep - when I go I mostly watch SSPs, draftees and my faves
Boys all look sharp at the moment

 

[Jelly Bean]

Whilst I agree with your post (it’s exactly what we do)….im going to call out the Moneyball reference.

It’s NOT moneyball if you have guys that do a job and a game plan to suit.

It IS money all if you have traded them in on the back of a single stat that the Pies value over all other stats.
Key point is “a single stat”.

Moneyball is always thrown around for people traded in on the cheap. The premise of it is seemingly always misunderstood.
(High horse rant over! )

I am with you. I hate it when people mis-reference the aquisition of cheap players as 'moneyball' moves.

The only real AFL moneyball example is that of the Hawks. They figured out that kicking efficiency was the main defining stat of successful teams, and that left footers generally had a higher KE than right footers. So they loaded up with left footers as much as they could and the rest is history.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Moneyball was coined from a specific club doing a specific thing in a specific league.
So changing it for a different sport is actually not Moneyball at all.

So if you want to say “we’re doing Moneyball”….then pick a stat that we base our recruiting around. Markov is absolutely the closest.

But as a single stat, it absolutely doesn’t fit AFL.

Again, Moneyball is not about a specific player and the fact we got him “cheap”.

But, if I had to apply Moneyball to the us, it would be 1v1 wins.
I can’t see another single metric that would apply.

Yep, exactly. See my post above.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Since the release of the film I thought it was a reference to using evidence as opposed to reputation.

Well this is where the success of it came from. The stat that drove actual success (in the book it was on base percentage, but it has since been revised to be OPS, which is on base plus slugging percentage, for those who have any interest in baseball) was different to what anyone else in the league saw, and therefore player valuations were different.

 

[Jelly Bean]

For me moneyball was about loosing league wide, highly rated players who wanted big money and replacing then with lowly rated players who didnt need big money and not losing any performance output. The major factor in baseball was could the new lowly rated player "get on base" better or as well as the highly rated players? If so it was a moneyball selection.
Can it be applied to AFL? Not quite in the same way, however people will always say that it was a moneyball selection if the replacement player = the old players output for less cash and I personally dont mind it.

Eg Bobby Hill (moneyball) = replaced Jayden Stephenson (more cash)
Tom Mitchell (moneyball) = Adam Treloar or Taylor Adams (more money)

At the same time it is hard to work out who earns what in AFL sometimes.

No, this isn't what moneyball is about though. It isn't about losing expensive players, and just replacing them with cheap players.

As has been mentioned, it is about finding a more accurate way to assess the contribution players make to wins, and since no one else values them that way, their market value is much lower. The Athletics held onto some very high priced players because they also flagged as strong in their evaluation criteria - they didn't just let all the high priced players go and pick up cheapies.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

If you’re going to be stubborn enough to keep the Moneyball definition based purely on the way it was used in baseball, have at it. But to me, Moneyball is a principle rather than a hard and fast rule, and therefore being able to alter it from pure stats to traits is a simple and logical way of applying said principle in a different sport. Open your mind, brother.

Yeah I know I’m being stubborn!!

And I do agree with you.
It’s just that “Moneyball” was coined based on a very specific scenario.
….it gets used way to often for what it actually was/is.
Just my opinion.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Well this is where the success of it came from. The stat that drove actual success (in the book it was on base percentage, but it has since been revised to be OPS, which is on base plus slugging percentage, for those who have any interest in baseball) was different to what anyone else in the league saw, and therefore player valuations were different.

Yes, and ability to take pitches, as I recall. Not being a baseball fan specifically I’m not sure how this is captured.