Analysis Moneyball

[manboob]

Apparently we are the moneyball star of the AFL.

http://www.andrewleigh.com/who_s_the_moneyball_star_of_the_afl_herald_sun


But how does Moneyball apply to the AFL? Money allows teams to buy better players (up to the salary cap), to hire better coaches and to buy experts like physiotherapists, masseurs and even statisticians. But do some AFL teams spend their cash more wisely than others?

To see the effect of money on team outcomes, I added up the total amount each AFL club spent on its football programs (player salaries and other team expenses). Then, I sum the amount teams spent over the five-year period 2008–2012, and then look at how this compared with the number of games the team won over the same period (I excluded Gold Coast and the GWS Giants since they were not part of the competition for the full five years).

The first thing you notice is that there is generally a positive relationship between spending and wins. In the period 2008 to 2012, there were seven teams that spent less than $90 million: Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne, Richmond, Port Adelaide, Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane. All of them won fewer than 60 games in the five-year period, an average of fewer than 12 games in a 22-game season. At the other end of the spectrum, the biggest spending team was Collingwood, whose $103 million spend saw them win a total of 80 AFL games. On average, teams win one more game for every additional $1.1 million they spend.

But the second thing you notice is that while some teams— like Sydney and Carlton—get about as many wins as their spending would predict, others win a whole lot more or fewer. Money accounts for about one-fifth of the variation between teams, but that leaves four-fifths to be explained by other factors. Geelong and Fremantle both spent about $62 million, but Geelong won 90 matches, while Fremantle won 47 games. St Kilda and Essendon both spent about $90 million, but St Kilda won 71 games, while Essendon won only 47 games.

Relative to their spending, the AFL teams that did best were Geelong (which won 28 more games than their expenditure would predict), St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs (both with 16 more games than their spending would predict). Those who under-performed their expenditure were Fremantle (who won 16 fewer games than their spending would predict), West Coast (18 fewer) and Melbourne (23 fewer).
​

 

[Rainfall]

That's fake but I expected it because we always get sold short. We didn't win 90 games in that time we won 99 which means we won 37 more than our expenditure as I wrote in the other thread.

 

[allrighty]

I scanned the article, saw the numbers as Dom has pointed out above, looked at the author, then thought meh. However it again does reinforce how great we have been. Bored again.

 

[allrighty]

I scanned the article, saw the numbers as Dom has pointed out above, looked at the author, then thought meh. However it again does reinforce how great we have been. Bored again.

FYI Manboob reference for boredom: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/boring-geelong-break-another-record.1071285/page-7

 

[Teriyakicat]

I scanned the article, saw the numbers as Dom has pointed out above, looked at the author, then thought meh. However it again does reinforce how great we have been. Bored again.

Time to start another thread about how bored you are, allrighty?

 

[thejester]

It's interesting in that he establishes a rough relationship between spend and wins. But it's a pretty thin treatment of how a team could spend more effectively than others.

 

[vinum coupe]

That's fake but I expected it because we always get sold short. We didn't win 90 games in that time we won 99 which means we won 37 more than our expenditure as I wrote in the other thread.

It is correct.
It's based on home and away only. Otherwise it's not a level playing field.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

I'm not sure the author of that piece really understands what "moneyball" is quite frankly.

 

[bulletproof]

I like Andrew Leigh but I don't think football is his area of expertise, frankly.

 

[catempire]

I like Andrew Leigh but I don't think football is his area of expertise, frankly.

The premise of his book is applying economics to a range of things he's no expert on.

I'm a bit over torturing and misrepresenting the moneyball concept but he manages to do it fairly well or at least not stuff it up completely like most do.

 

[Lana]

The premise of his book is applying economics to a range of things he's no expert on.

I'm a bit over torturing and misrepresenting the moneyball concept but he manages to do it fairly well or at least not stuff it up completely like most do.

I am no expert on the subject but from what I do know the guy has completely got the wrong focus, Moneyball wasn't about total football department spending, it was about finding players who undervalued compared to their output. In an AFL and Baseball context , the undervaluing wouldn't be in dollars spent on the football department but rather draft picks and player salaries which until they added the luxury tax was the most scarce and restricted resources at a club.

An example would be drafting talented but short players under 180 cm who generally slide and undersized key position players, kids who are unathletic but good footballers. Others would be bringing International rookies, Category B rookies like Blicavs and most mature age rookies. Poaching underappriciated younger players with upside from top teams can count but is has greater costs if it backfires.

From reading this article he just used a well known name "moneyball", and just did a linear regression which probably had a weak trend anyway.

 

[Pivo]

It is actually getting to the point that I feel I'd be better served going out and getting the book (or downloading it as the case may be) just so I can form my own opinion on the matter.

Gets bandied around a lot, time to take my head outta the sand.

 

[catempire]

I am no expert on the subject but from what I do know the guy has completely got the wrong focus, Moneyball wasn't about total football department spending, it was about finding players who undervalued compared to their output. In an AFL and Baseball context , the undervaluing wouldn't be in dollars spent on the football department but rather draft picks and player salaries which until they added the luxury tax was the most scarce and restricted resources at a club.

An example would be drafting talented but short players under 180 cm who generally slide and undersized key position players, kids who are unathletic but good footballers. Others would be bringing International rookies, Category B rookies like Blicavs and most mature age rookies. Poaching underappriciated younger players with upside from top teams can count but is has greater costs if it backfires.

From reading this article he just used a well known name "moneyball", and just did a linear regression which probably had a weak trend anyway.

Moneyball was about total team spending because that was the constraint that led Bean to have to take a different approach to choosing players. You are right in how you describe that player selection process. But at its core, moneyball is about being competitive as a team by spending a fraction of well-resourced rivals.

In that sense, Leigh's analysis, although superficial and not focused on how teams spent their money, is fine.

 

[catempire]

It is actually getting to the point that I feel I'd be better served going out and getting the book (or downloading it as the case may be) just so I can form my own opinion on the matter.

Gets bandied around a lot, time to take my head outta the sand.

Do it. You won't regret it.

 

[Lana]

Moneyball was about total team spending because that was the constraint that led Bean to have to take a different approach to choosing players. You are right in how you describe that player selection process. But at its core, moneyball is about being competitive as a team by spending a fraction of well-resourced rivals.

In that sense, Leigh's analysis, although superficial and not focused on how teams spent their money, is fine.

Leigh's analysis was about off field spending while Moneyball was about differences in the salaries budget to spent on players between the Oakland Athletics and the Top teams.

 

[catempire]

Leigh's analysis was about off field spending while Moneyball was about differences in the salaries budget to spent on players between the Oakland Athletics and the Top teams.

Leigh's analysis was footy dept spend, inc salaries.

 

[Lana]

Leigh's analysis was footy dept spend, inc salaries.

But all clubs in the AFL have a relatively similar player payment budget.
For example

Lets assume that Sydney are receiving 10% COLA and pay 100% of the cap while Melbourne pay 95% of the cap which is the smallest that they are allowed to pay players. The Salary cap for this year was $10.071 million. Sydney Players are being paid $11.08M while Melbourne's players are being paid $9.57M a difference of 15.8%.

In contrast in 2002 the Oakland A's had paid there players $40M and the Yankees paid there players $120M. Being out spent 3 to 1. Moneyball was an attempt to overcome there huge gulf in player wages.

In the AFL competition the salary cap prevents a club from outspending in the player department. The consequence of this is that the richer AFL clubs can use there wealth to outspend in the off field spending(this might change with the soft tax being introduced on non-player footy department spending)

I am rambling a bit, so I'll try to summarise what I am trying to say,

There is a relatively small difference between what teams can pay their players compared to the range between the off field spending between rich clubs and poor clubs. When Leigh does his analysis on the difference between clubs football spending department , most of the difference is caused by a subset of football department spending which is the off field spending which is not what Moneyball is about.

 

[catempire]

But all clubs in the AFL have a relatively similar player payment budget.
For example

Lets assume that Sydney are receiving 10% COLA and pay 100% of the cap while Melbourne pay 95% of the cap which is the smallest that they are allowed to pay players. The Salary cap for this year was $10.071 million. Sydney Players are being paid $11.08M while Melbourne's players are being paid $9.57M a difference of 15.8%.

In contrast in 2002 the Oakland A's had paid there players $40M and the Yankees paid there players $120M. Being out spent 3 to 1. Moneyball was an attempt to overcome there huge gulf in player wages.

In the AFL competition the salary cap prevents a club from outspending in the player department. The consequence of this is that the richer AFL clubs can use there wealth to outspend in the off field spending(this might change with the soft tax being introduced on non-player footy department spending)

I am rambling a bit, so I'll try to summarise what I am trying to say,

There is a relatively small difference between what teams can pay their players compared to the range between the off field spending between rich clubs and poor clubs. When Leigh does his analysis on the difference between clubs football spending department , most of the difference is caused by a subset of football department spending which is the off field spending which is not what Moneyball is about.

I agree with what you say here. I don't agree that Leigh got it "completely wrong" as you said earlier. Analysis of AFL in a pure moneyball way is - because of the salary cap - pointless. He was very open about what it was he was comparing - "To see the effect of money on team outcomes, I added up the total amount each AFL club spent on its football programs (player salaries and other team expenses)."

He called it moneyball yet anyone familiar with the book knows it's not exactly that. But it's also not altogether different. His point is that some teams can do well spending less which is a simplified but fundamental moneyball message.

 

[hamG]

It is actually getting to the point that I feel I'd be better served going out and getting the book (or downloading it as the case may be) just so I can form my own opinion on the matter.

Gets bandied around a lot, time to take my head outta the sand.

It's a great book, I read the whole thing in one go.

 

[Pivo]

Looks like I've got my next book then.

 

[manboob]

I'm not sure the author of that piece really understands what "moneyball" is quite frankly.

I think it's basically become vernacular for "good deal".

 

[manboob]

Given all the analysis that takes place as regards AFL - I'm almost surprised that the AFL equivalent of Sabermetrics hasn't really taken off.

I'm sure all the clubs do it - especially Stevie W. I guess the main reason it isn't talked about is cause literally all of the AFL journalists are too ****ing stupid to understand it.

I think it's probably harder to utilise these metric in under 18's comps, than say in baseball where there would be heaps of players floating around club-less.

 

[thejester]

It's definitely happening - every year in the Prospectus CD stats guys talk about their latest effort to isolate the value of taggers, or teams scoring efficiency, or whatever. But they also stress that CD is a business and that as a result this analysis remains confidential so it retains value. I doubt journos get a look at it. Most amateur analytics in US and European sport also relies on freely available data that is a lot more sophisticated than what we get here.

It's coincidental to this article but its interesting that a number of the most prominent amateur analytics guys in North American hockey have been hired this offseason by NHL clubs. Just as in Moneyball (arguably more so) there's been a pretty overt war of words between traditionalists and stats guys in the NHL and the hiring of a bunch of bloggers is seen as vindication of the bloggers. But really, they already won - they've kept it quiet, but dominant teams of late like the Kings and Blackhawks pretty clearly spend big money on their own analytics.

That said (while Im rambling) I also reckon the debate in hockey shows why you have to be careful of getting carried away with stats in and of themselves. The debate in hockey boiled down to an argument over whether or not possessing the puck is important. The answer is pretty obviously yes - the team that is better able to hold onto the puck will shoot more and score more goals over the course of a season. In much the same way, on-base percentage is a pretty simple, logical idea - you can't win without getting players on base. They're easy ideas, but because they challenged a comfortable status quo they've been resisted by a generation of columnists and ex-players whose income rests on being able to blow dog whistles (in the US) or spew cliches that their audience understands. So the debate is really about evidence vs assumptions, not 'stats' as such. I have a slightly hard time believing that Wells loves stats, because his success predates their current level of usage and I doubt accurate data is generated for the lower levels of junior footy he watches. But by the same token I think he clearly doesn't get caught up in the buzzword hype that surrounds a lot of players. He watches what they do on the field, talks to them (which I think he's said is the most important part of the process?) and looks for characteristics he views as critical.

 

[manboob]

It's definitely happening - every year in the Prospectus CD stats guys talk about their latest effort to isolate the value of taggers, or teams scoring efficiency, or whatever. But they also stress that CD is a business and that as a result this analysis remains confidential so it retains value. I doubt journos get a look at it. Most amateur analytics in US and European sport also relies on freely available data that is a lot more sophisticated than what we get here.

Yeah of course everyone is using it it just doesn't seen as pervasive here as OS. I'm surprise the HUN with all it's links to CD via SC haven't made more use of it.

I also reckon the debate in hockey shows why you have to be careful of getting carried away with stats in and of themselves.

Richmond is the perfect example of a club that has gone down this road and ****ed up big time I'm sure.

 

[Turbocat]

I am no expert on the subject but from what I do know the guy has completely got the wrong focus, Moneyball wasn't about total football department spending, it was about finding players who undervalued compared to their output. In an AFL and Baseball context , the undervaluing wouldn't be in dollars spent on the football department but rather draft picks and player salaries which until they added the luxury tax was the most scarce and restricted resources at a club.

An example would be drafting talented but short players under 180 cm who generally slide and undersized key position players, kids who are unathletic but good footballers. Others would be bringing International rookies, Category B rookies like Blicavs and most mature age rookies. Poaching underappriciated younger players with upside from top teams can count but is has greater costs if it backfires.

From reading this article he just used a well known name "moneyball", and just did a linear regression which probably had a weak trend anyway.

Excellent example. I was thinking older guys who become good solid players rather than young kids , not long drafted which get people all hot and sticky. I made an example in regards to Frawley when some rated the comp as over the top.... Draft Picks , most of the time under deliver compared to a know commodity.
Im watching Chappy kick a goal right now. He costs Ess nothing gives them 15+ games , compare that to so many kids which take for ever and give little.
Its no wonder the bigger , smarter clubs can not ignore FA.

On you point of the shorter player , it will be interesting who calls Daniel out on Draft Day.