Moneyball identifies Elliott

[TradeDraft]

Got this Post from Nicks:

Shifter on TAC cup Future Stars is interviewing Jamie Elliott and just showed his version of Moneyball developed by Brady Rawlings and Mick Ablett employing Nathan Buckley's kicking test and Matthew Lloyd's clean hands test, athleticism, ball winning ability etc

Only Devon Smith rated higher than Elliott


1: Devon Smith: 102.95 pick 14 (GWS)
2: Jamie Elliott: 98.83 Trade (pick 25) (Coll) *Clarke steak knives*
3: Liam Sumner: 86.40 pick 10 (GWS)
4: Brad Crouch: 92.25 pick 2 (Adel) *Mini Draft*


You can work out his worth from the above, great trade, great value, another win to Hine.. does he use Moneyball???

Just wondering does anyone know how that is Worked out and does that Mean Elliot is the 2nd Best Prospect from Last Seasons Draft?

www.bigfooty.com/forum/forums/collingwood.7/create-thread

 

[Bay Pie]

Not sure about how it is rated but It isn't about prospect ranking or he would have been taken by GWS.

The posters who continually bemoaned the club for trading away our 1st round draft picks for the past 3 years, clearly lost the concept of a premiership, Jon Ceglar and Elliott. Ceglar and Elliott were obviously rated not far off what we traded to get them according to Hine and picked up Krakouer and IMO Clarke as the steak knife.

 

[SwanBet]

don't really rate the concept, showed 2010 moneyball as well, Fasolo was rated 7th. Its mainly based on testing results, so guys like patten and cameron wouldn't feature even though they are the 2 best young prospects in the league.

I was under the impression that clarke was the 'steak knives' for the elliott deal. But either way, they are both at collingwood.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I don't think these people get the idea of Moneyball, the more I hear people babbling on about it. Moneyball was a way of looking at recruiting which targeted specific attributes and almost ignored "upside". The Moneyball approach basically says that you are as a junior player/amateur what you will be as a senior/pro, therefore maybe you could hypothesize Blair might have been a #1 pick but so would, say Cale Morton (undeserving Larke medallist).

It's a flawed system, but it worked to an extent because baseball recruiters at the time had gone too far the opposite way, into projecting what a player could be and ignoring what they were then and there. More importantly perhaps, a great deal of emphasis was being placed on attributes which were statistically almost irrelevant, like bases stolen and fielding. In Moneyball they could be ahead of the curve in targeting the players that displayed the relevant attributes and get them on the cheap.

AFL football is a much, much more complicated game than baseball though, making it infinitely harder to quantify what attributes are most important. Baseball is an individual sport masquerading as a team sport. There's not a lot about baseball that translates to our game.

 

[Matz]

I recorded this earlier .....not great quality but still ok for those who didnt see it.

 

[Markfs]

I don't think these people get the idea of Moneyball, the more I hear people babbling on about it. Moneyball was a way of looking at recruiting which targeted specific attributes and almost ignored "upside". The Moneyball approach basically says that you are as a junior player/amateur what you will be as a senior/pro, therefore maybe you could hypothesize Blair might have been a #1 pick but so would, say Cale Morton (undeserving Larke medallist).

It's a flawed system, but it worked to an extent because baseball recruiters at the time had gone too far the opposite way, into projecting what a player could be and ignoring what they were then and there. More importantly perhaps, a great deal of emphasis was being placed on attributes which were statistically almost irrelevant, like bases stolen and fielding. In Moneyball they could be ahead of the curve in targeting the players that displayed the relevant attributes and get them on the cheap.

AFL football is a much, much more complicated game than baseball though, making it infinitely harder to quantify what attributes are most important. Baseball is an individual sport masquerading as a team sport. There's not a lot about baseball that translates to our game.

I agree to some degree with you take on moneyball....but I think that the traditional baseball recruitment put a large focus on getting good "team players" and guys with good characters etc. The guy who used the moneyball system focussed on getting players who were delivering good figures in the key statistics - hits to base, runs batted in, even if they were unstable self-obsessed players. In AFl, recruiters do rely on getting draftees from "good families" but they also try to get players who have delivered good stats. Under a "traditional" recruitment process, Elliot might be less likely to get drafted because he is so small. However, when you look at the stats that he delivers (moneyball), then is more likely to be drafted.

 

[speedytiger]

The posters who continually bemoaned the club for trading away our 1st round draft picks for the past 3 years, clearly lost the concept of a premiership, Jon Ceglar and Elliott. Ceglar and Elliott were obviously rated not far off what we traded to get them according to Hine and picked up Krakouer and IMO Clarke as the steak knife.

I was one who didn't like us trading away our first round draft picks. Thankfully Hine has that job and not me!

 

[4#Didak#4]

Agree with TRS & Markfs on the Moneyball comments. Certainly there is not much comparison between the sports of bsaseball & AFL. However the concept does definitely apply.

In AFL our version of Moneyball is almost reverse to that of baseball. In baseball the big, rich successful clubs are able to throw money around and get big name, big rated players almost at will. So poor clubs rely on the draft, but as soon as they get & develop a good kid they are stolen away (in return for more draft picks) by a rich club keeping them perpetually poor & unsuccessful. Basically the poor clubs become feeder/development teams for the rich clubs.

In Moneyball the baseball club in question looked outside the square to break this trend. They still picked the best kids they could with their high draft picks, but when it came to trading and later draft picks they identified guys that were maligned (mostly unfairly) for different reasons and get them as bargains. These guys could all play & fill a role in the way the club was playing. Inevitably they got some beauties for next to nothing as the rich clubs were eager to scoop their highly rated kids. Then when these recycled players started performing great again they then traded them back up to the rich clubs for more picks & players. So they started to use the rich clubs weakness for buying success against them and quickly build a strong list from basically nothing & no money.

AFL is the other way around because of the salary cap. The rich clubs struggle to hold their lists together and the lower clubs can rebuild & catch up. The system is designed that way. So if you are rich you cannot buy players in to keep successful, in fact you will lose players to lower clubs who have cap space & can pay more. So if you want to stay at the top you have to think outside the square. This is what we seem to be doing, guys like Blair were probably ignored based on height, which at the end of the day doesn't matter much if everything else is good. Guys like Krak, Fas & Marley Williams, Jack Darling (one for the coasters) were guys that other sides may not have wanted to risk much on due to other issues & perceived attitude problems, but when you look past this you see they tick all other boxes.

There is one piece in the Moneyball equation at AFL level that is missing and something that by the end of the year we will confront head on. By building such a great list we have great list riches and become the target of other clubs. In AFL we take this as a horrible situation, having players poached away is awful when you want them to stay. Unfortunately its a reality and we either let it hurt us or we take a baseball line & make it work for us & make us stronger. Use our list strength as leverage to get what we want & need. This means treating players as commodities which in AFL land a hard thing to swallow. It potentially destabilises the club and as such is a line most are reluctant to cross. Fortunately AFL is more a team game than baseball so players seem happy to take less than they are worth for team success - this is the only thing preventing a money driven player turnover in AFL.

The decision we have to make is if we can't hold on to all these guys (only so many can take pay cuts) who can we trade for picks or players we like that ease the cap pressure, so we can keep the players we want & need? The trades like in moneyball will need to be for draft picks or players that are undervalued at other clubs but fit into what we need (holes) on our list.

An example of this would be someone like Goldsack who has gone up in everyones estimations. Other clubs will pay more for him than we can (perhaps over the odds). He is not a vital part of our list, although he is very very handy. We could trade him for a decent pick & someone like a Leigh Brown who went from struggling in the Nth reserves to a key member of a premiership team. This sort of trade would have everyone howling for blood (a little like when we got Elliot), but in the end it advances our cause.

 

[Knightmare]

Got this Post from Nicks:




Just wondering does anyone know how that is Worked out and does that Mean Elliot is the 2nd Best Prospect from Last Seasons Draft?

www.bigfooty.com/forum/forums/collingwood.7/create-thread

That is what is implied - that Elliott is the 2nd best prospect from last seasons draft.

Not sure what TAC Cup future stars are thinking with their ratings but I wouldn't put too much weight on what is discovered in draft combine testing.
If you were to get Gary Ablett to compete in a beep test would score lower than Will Hoskin-Elliott of GWS. Yet if you were to watch one game of each play Hoskin-Elliott might only get 7/8 touches at senior level while Ablett might get 40 and cover more ground in a game. So while the testing can give you some insight into the players athletic attributes the best thing to take out of it is to use it as a way to explain what they are doing out on the field and why the can/can't do particular things.

I tend to agree with many of the thoughts of TRS. He and a number of others here seem to have a good handle on Moneyball and the value of statistics.

What makes AFL harder than baseball to evaluate is that in baseball you get to see the numbers of these players for a number of years before they are drafted and what they are doing beyond the ages of 18, whereas we are in the AFL evaluating 16 and 17 year olds and hoping we correctly evaluate what they are doing now and whether they will have more development to come. But without that same level of stats (only going back 2-3 years tops) and with many players still developing beyond the age of 18 it is much less precise.

The AFL with key statistics has more variables and really the areas of specialty differ by position. For inside mids you are looking for your hardball gets, clearances, inside 50s. Key forwards your marks inside 50, contested marks, goals and so on. And you can look into which players specialise in these areas that you consider of high importance and then you can scout players who play a game style appropriate to what you currently play to see whether they could fit into your system and style of play. Then do your personality testing and look back at their numbers to see whether their numbers are on the rise from year to year or much of a muchness to give some idea of upside.

 

[thecig]

Goldsack = moneyball..
heehee!

I'm just glad we have put such a big emphasis on drafting and development.
Apparently this year is a "super draft", you guys think we'll definitely be holding on to our first round pick this year?

 

[Knightmare]

Goldsack = moneyball..
heehee!

I'm just glad we have put such a big emphasis on drafting and development.
Apparently this year is a "super draft", you guys think we'll definitely be holding on to our first round pick this year?

Will be a solid draft. Wouldn't describe it as a super draft.

The top end prospects are quality and there are more KPP options than in recent years. But as with most years the quality does taper off after around pick 30.

I expect our selections will be retained.

 

[loki04]

I don't think these people get the idea of Moneyball, the more I hear people babbling on about it. Moneyball was a way of looking at recruiting which targeted specific attributes and almost ignored "upside". The Moneyball approach basically says that you are as a junior player/amateur what you will be as a senior/pro, therefore maybe you could hypothesize Blair might have been a #1 pick but so would, say Cale Morton (undeserving Larke medallist).

It's a flawed system, but it worked to an extent because baseball recruiters at the time had gone too far the opposite way, into projecting what a player could be and ignoring what they were then and there. More importantly perhaps, a great deal of emphasis was being placed on attributes which were statistically almost irrelevant, like bases stolen and fielding. In Moneyball they could be ahead of the curve in targeting the players that displayed the relevant attributes and get them on the cheap.

AFL football is a much, much more complicated game than baseball though, making it infinitely harder to quantify what attributes are most important. Baseball is an individual sport masquerading as a team sport. There's not a lot about baseball that translates to our game.

A bit like the current system most top picks are all based on what they may develope into, AFL scouts are big on potential and sometimes over look players who are performing better but they see no 'up side' in.


Also money ball identified players who were very strong at a certain thing and had weakness at others the premise being if all roles were fielded by people strong at that role then they didn't need to be strong at other parts of the game.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Not sure what TAC Cup future stars are thinking with their ratings but I wouldn't put too much weight on what is discovered in draft combine testing.
If you were to get Gary Ablett to compete in a beep test would score lower than Will Hoskin-Elliott of GWS. Yet if you were to watch one game of each play Hoskin-Elliott might only get 7/8 touches at senior level while Ablett might get 40 and cover more ground in a game.

This is true. Another problem is that you're not even sure if getting 40 possessions is a good thing in AFL. Sure, it's not a bad thing, but unlike in baseball where Moneyball stems from, it's possible to do something in AFL that is good for your stats as an individual but bad for your team. In baseball, like I mentioned earlier, it's essentially an individual sport masquerading as a team sport. There is very little you can do in baseball to "pad your stats" that actually harms your team. If you get on base, that's good for you and your team. If you bat in a runner, ditto. If you're a pitcher and you strike out a batter, ditto. If you make an error in the field, it's bad for both you and the team. This means that stats are very applicable to baseball, if you can only capture the data.

Here is a fantastic article on the problem of using stats to determine player values in a game like AFL in this regard; namely basketball.

In AFL getting a contested possession might be considered a good thing, but if you were meant to be positioned outside the contest waiting for your inside midfielder to win the ball and pass it out to you, and you got sucked into the contest, you may have harmed your team's chances of an effective inside 50 entry and a score.

You might be a very effective spoiler in defence, but if some of those spoils were double-fisted and you were floating across the pack, you may be of less value to your team in that situation than someone who simply takes the mark.

You might be a very effective long kick, but if you are a poor decision maker then that long kick to the boundary might be of less value than someone who simply hands off to a runner in a position to receive the ball and gain territory themselves through the corridor.... I could go on but you get the idea.

So while stats are revealing and our methods in compiling them constantly evolving, determining an AFL player's value by the use of stats is already fraught with danger. Going down the "Moneyball" path for AFL would probably send you to the depths of the ladder. Using such information only in combination with quality scouting, interviewing and athletic testing is the way to go.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

A bit like the current system most top picks are all based on what they may develope into, AFL scouts are big on potential and sometimes over look players who are performing better but they see no 'up side' in.

Sometimes they do overlook those players, no doubt. But I don't agree that most top picks are all based on what players may develop into. And recruiting departments who simply take a balanced view will outperform those who take a purely Moneyball approach IMHO. There were howls from the draftniks here after Fremantle took Stephen Hill over Daniel Rich, after Rich was dominant in junior footy; but I know who I'd rather have on my list.

 

[Tbone McGraw]

Will be a solid draft. Wouldn't describe it as a super draft.

The top end prospects are quality and there are more KPP options than in recent years. But as with most years the quality does taper off after around pick 30.

I expect our selections will be retained.

Didn't Matt rendall say it was the best draft he had ever seen, or words to that effect?

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Didn't Matt rendall say it was the best draft he had ever seen, or words to that effect?

He said what you said he said, but emotionally in that interview, Rendall's heart was an organ on a mission, so there may have been some padding built into his assessment. Other knowledgeable footy folk have praised the quality of the draft so there is evidently still some life left in Matt's claim.