Moneyball

Remove this Banner Ad

My name geoff said:
Perhaps you should email sos to let him know he should trade back Charlie Curnow, Mckay, Cuningham, Marchbank, Pickett, Kennedy, DeKoning, O’Brien, Lamb, Phillips and Plowman for Gibbs, henderson, Yarran, Bell, Menzel and Tuohy
Click to expand...
Funny though if you traded back Henderson Gibbs Garlett Betts Waite Then you win more than the 2 games this year.
Getting Mitch McGovern is a start, but you need more senior bodies to develop the kids
 

Log in to remove this ad.

gangsta deluxe said:
That's a Bango

bango-logo_tcm1310-511846_1_w280.png
Click to expand...
 
My name geoff said:
Perhaps you should email sos to let him know he should trade back Charlie Curnow, Mckay, Cuningham, Marchbank, Pickett, Kennedy, DeKoning, O’Brien, Lamb, Phillips and Plowman for Gibbs, henderson, Yarran, Bell, Menzel and Tuohy
Click to expand...
I love how Carlton people rattle of kids they have who have done nothing as draft success.

Honestly i would almost take the group he traded out over the names you have rattled off.
 
Last edited:
10571z said:
I love how Carlton people rattle of kids they have who have done nothing as draft success.

Honestly i would almost take the group he traded out over the names you have rattled off.
Click to expand...

Let me lay this out for you in simple terms as I understand this is a requirement in your neck of the woods..


Henderson, Tuohy, Gibbs

Vs

McKay, Curnow, Cuningham, Marchbank, Kennedy, O’Brien, Pickett,
DeKoning, Plowman, Philips, Lamb

SOS is a master and soon you will all be crying about it.
 
My name geoff said:
Let me lay this out for you in simple terms as I understand this is a requirement in your neck of the woods..


Henderson, Tuohy, Gibbs

Vs

McKay, Curnow, Cuningham, Marchbank, Kennedy, O’Brien, Pickett,
DeKoning, Plowman, Philips, Lamb

SOS is a master and soon you will all be crying about it.
Click to expand...
Delusion
 
I can't see much about Carlton that even remotely resembles moneyball. If anything a team like Hawthorn that is trading in quality players and then drafting with low picks aiming for value with their draft resources would be closer. Hawthorn also have had a strong priority on good kicking skills as a measurable stat that they value for a long time.

Carlton's strategy revolves around getting lots of talented kids in through having lots of high draft picks, which is extremely resource intensive and doesn't seem in line with the philosophy of moneyball. Maybe some of their value trades are more in the spirit but overall no I wouldn't agree with the comparison. There is no evidence that they are using statistical metrics which are beyond what other clubs are doing to identify value propositions.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Closest thing to moneyball in an AFL context was Richmond's flag.

Offensive gameplan was rather simple; Matthew Knights/Brett Ratten playbook, switch to the open side, run the ball hell for leather down the other end of the field, using their elite talent to possess the ball as they gave it to advantage. They even used Jack Riewoldt as the most threatening dummy full forward in history in 2017, using him to draw the player just before he tapped it to a small's advantage in a dangerous position.

What they valued in their draftees and trade ins was tackling pressure, high endurance, medium/fast speed. This enabled their second tier to bring absurd amounts of pressure every week, and to cause turnover hacked kicks for their backline of interceptors to mark and switch, and then on to feed the talented ball users. Note how the 'moneyball' aspect was a single facet of a complex gameplan/list management scenario, because AFL is not a game that can be completely reduced down numerically.

There is a reason why people still don't rate Tom Mitchell, or Scott West, despite their overwhelming numerical dominance. There's a reason why people think Carey was a better player than Lockett. You can't moneyball a game of footy in its entirety; you can tweak at the margins, to produce more stoppages, more tackles, better pressure, more running bounces, better entries etc, but you cannot make a team of 22 behave exactly how you want them to in isolation, let alone when there's 22 blokes trying to stop them.
 
Moneyball is the usuage of sabermetrics or statistical analysis (developed in the 60’s) of certain key areas. For Billy Beane this was on base and slugging percentage as opposed to comon recruiting measures at that time stolen bases, runs batted and batting ave. Which usually identified players who were going to to be first round selections in the draft. By using sabermetrics Beane believed he could obtain better value in the draft by using different metrics to value a players output to an organisation. In fact what Carlton are doing is totally the opposite to moneyball they are taking first round picks who May have not been selected in the first round using sabermetrics. What gets lost when people talk about moneyball is that none of the players selected in the 2002 draft actually made it in MLB except for swisher who was traded in 2007 to the white sox Swisher was actually taken outside the sabermetrics principle so even this could be deemed a failure of sorts. What is also overlooked at that present time the A’s had Zitto, Hudson, Mulder, Giambi, Tejada and Chavez on that team on minimal contracts that lead the team to its success during that period. They were all traded when they were able to receive higher valued contracts than during the moneyball period. Sometimes it pays to read the book (moneyball: the art of winning an unfair game) and not just watch a movie to gain an understanding as many have said before Moneyball in terms of the A’s essentially was a flawed system that was disguised by the talent already on the Oakland roster at the time. But if you a looking for success stories the Redsox, Cardinals and Giants all won World Series using a form of Sabermetrical analysis. From a lifelong A’s fan.
 
Last edited:
Carlton's doing the only plan that was really available to them. A complete turn around of a list. They are still 2-3 years away from competing in finals. Will they be good enough ? Who knows. But they have no real alternative but to go into the draft for like 5 + years.
 
markr said:
I've always thought some of the Hawks' list building leading up to 2008 had moneyball overtones, where we rated kicking skill more highly than other clubs. We built a list of good kicks, then had tactics around that ability to retain the ball through kicking. I don't know enough about Richmond's list, but did they jump on valuing pace earlier than other clubs? "Kicking skill" or "Being fast" is much similar that the stats involved in moneyball, but I think seeing value in something that isn't rated, even if the player has other flaws, is a big part of it.

Already mentioned, but I do think our willingness to trade out our first rounder is similar, although again not really moneyball. I still think draft picks are enormously overvalued by AFL clubs. And think a big part of it is just not wanting to be the club that traded out a pick that is used to draft a star, even though over multiple drafts you are almost certainly going to be well ahead.

Posters on the Hawks board still complain about us giving pick 19 (or whatever it was) for O'Rourke, but look at who was picked in say the 10 picks after that in the draft (to get an idea of who we might have liked), it's a long shot we would have done better taking it to the draft.
Click to expand...

What played out as Hawthorn's obsession with left footers was moneyball 101. Whilst the rest of the comp was chasing contested ball winners and athletes before footballers the Hawks prioritised disposal.

Closest the O.P's examples come to moneyball is in the following quote "Would you have drafted me in the first round? I would have picked you in the 9th round"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PieLebo87
Collingwood’s Moneyball
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
4K
owen87
owen87

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top