Moneyball.

[Chewy]

this is your story re hawthorn/moneyball, not ours

No it's not, fool.

People are comparing Sydney to Moneyball. I've seen and heard a number of commentators use this line.

I posted ONE example of something Hawthorn has done and said THIS was more like Moneyball. Not Sydney's method of picking up a handful players with good trades.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I thought the same until I saw Josh Kennedy start dominating. Wasn't everyones perception was that he was too slow to ever be an out and out gun?

No.

Everyones perception was that Hawthorn made a monumental blunder.

 

[Morris Major]

It's been mentioned a few times that we've adopted the 'Moneyball' policy.

Makes more sense to me than Sydney, Hawthorn or Geelong. Richmond haven't recruited star players from other clubs, just players who do what they need.

 

[My Red Card Account]

Same goes for you too, mate

Instead of taking shit, how about you explain the similarities between the Sydney Swans and the Oakland A's

Please let me know why you think Sydney should be regarded as the Moneyball team.

No need to backtrack, either explain yourself or go quietly into the night and have another cry/wank re the premmy that wasn't to be.

You made the comparrison to hawthorn/sydney/moneyball, not me.

All I said was "Bollocks. Hawthorn had 11 Top20 draft picks in the GF, Sydney had 3."

If it's between Hawthorn and Sydney re 'looking for value in certain roles' and making comparisons to moneyball (which almost every major sport with salary caps follows the basic principles of), I'd be surprised if the VAST majority of Bigfooty didnt choose Sydney.

But please, continue, explain how hawthorn are more moneyball-like.

 

[chunkylover53]

Have you actually read Moneyball?

If so, please list all the similarities between Sydney and Oakland

I'd be really interested to hear it.

Yes I have read Moneyball mate.


I won't list all the similarities because that would take a while. A similarity between Sydney and Oakland isn't the money. Oakland didn't have the funds to compete with the big teams, so they adopted the moneyball theory. Sydney have plenty of money, however, they do not want to bottom-out and go to the bottom of the ladder as they can't afford to become irrelevant due to the competitiveness for popularity with rugby in NSW, so rather than risk bottoming out, they went and adopted the Moneyball theory to attract players that struggle to maintain a spot in big teams (ie Hawthorn, Kennedy), to play a role in their team. They haven't got so much money that they can buy themselves a spot in the 8 every year.

Clearly the standout for me is Josh Kennedy. Failed to make a significant impact at Hawthorn, was seen by many as too slow, as in this day and age you need to be quick in every position, especially as a midfield. Sydney have seen him and thought; tall, big body, midfielder that can find the footy, but slow. They have gotten him playing a sole in-and-under role, in which he has blossomed and become one of the best mids in the competition.

Another is obviously Mitch Morton, been to 2 previous clubs and was sent packing from both. Sydney saw a big bodied small forward who could keep a running defender busy and pop up for a goal or 2 in a game.

There are recycled players in Sydneys team such as Morton that would not have been picked up by another AFL club and would probably be out of the system. Hawthorn who you mentioned, the players they picked up, you know the brilliant left-footers and the best kicks in the league, I'm pretty sure they would have gotten picked up if Hawthorn didn't.

 

[Chewy]

No need to backtrack, either explain yourself or go quietly into the night and have another cry/wank re the premmy that wasn't to be.

You made the comparrison to hawthorn/sydney/moneyball, not me.

All I said was "Bollocks. Hawthorn had 11 Top20 draft picks in the GF, Sydney had 3."

If it's between Hawthorn and Sydney re 'looking for value in certain roles' and making comparisons to moneyball (which almost every major sport with salary caps follows the basic principles of), I'd be surprised if the VAST majority of Bigfooty didnt choose Sydney.

But please, continue, explain how hawthorn are more moneyball-like.

Good onya mate.

I hope that was fun for you.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Great movie currently on Foxtel about building a baseball side through F.A.

Premise of the recruiting premise is seeking undervalued talent around the league and building 'an island of misfits'.

Know Sydney have gone close to this premise but is a rare ideal in AFL football. ?, could you go around the league and build a side of players outside a clubs best 22 and build a side that could contend?

Collingwood apparently didn't have any A grade players or any stars in the side around 2009 if Bigfooty is a good indication to measure lists with.

 

[Mixed Results]

The team with the higher salary cap that avoided bottoming out by taking players from other clubs was the yankees

 

[Pessimistic]

Priscilla, Queen of the desert.

Here we have a similarity

 

[Chewy]

Yes I have read Moneyball mate.

Good for you. I don't know what to say.

You missed the point of it completely.

 

[My Red Card Account]

Good for you. I don't know what to say.

You missed the point of it completely.

No he actually made more sense than you did.

Find a dark corner for that, we dont wanna see it.

 

[Tragic sainter]

No he actually made more sense than you did.

Find a dark corner for that, we dont wanna see it.

Disagree. I think you don't really understand what moneyball actually means. It's not just about recruiting fringe players. It's about recruiting "stats" hence why chewy brought up hawthorns left footers.

 

[My Red Card Account]

Disagree. I think you don't really understand what moneyball actually means. It's not just about recruiting fringe players. It's about recruiting "stats" hence why chewy brought up hawthorns left footers.

Stats is only one part of it, which all teams do constantly.

 

[Two Eyes]

I don't know which story is the most tiresome. Sydney's moneyball genius or the Hawks left footer strategy.

 

[J_Moore]

Yo, the Oakland A's didn't end up winning shit, so all this "Nah, we're the real moneyball side!" dick measuring is a bit silly.

 

[Tragic sainter]

Stats is only one part of it, which all teams do constantly.

No with moneyball stats is ALL of it. You have a minimum number of stats you have to recruit to complete the moneyball formula. They can be expensive or cheap as long as they fill the stat requirement. You really don't understand moneyball. Anyway it's irrelevant as it doesn't apply to afl, to many variables.

 

[chunkylover53]

Disagree. I think you don't really understand what moneyball actually means. It's not just about recruiting fringe players. It's about recruiting "stats" hence why chewy brought up hawthorns left footers.

Correct, however as someone said earlier it is hard to abide by the sabermetrics approach in AFL, I see Sydney using the Moneyball system as much as one can in this sport.

 

[WAguru]

Yo, the Oakland A's didn't end up winning shit, so all this "Nah, we're the real moneyball side!" dick measuring is a bit silly.

Hawthornesque.

 

[J_Moore]

Hawthornesque.

Reminds me of

 

[Upgrayedd]

Seems like quite a few people have been reading the Wikipedia summary of Moneyball.

 

[Chewy]

No he actually made more sense than you did.

Find a dark corner for that, we dont wanna see it.

What type of loser trolls an internet forum at 11:00 on a Saturday night and posts repeatedly about masturbation?

How sad.

Think of all the hot girls you could be banging right now, if only you had a life.

Never mind. Maybe in the next life.

 

[Tragic sainter]

Reminds me of

How is that relevant to anything?

 

[Parquet Court]

i understand moneyball better that you....i spend more time following american sports than you....no my team does moneyball, we picked a guy who can use the ball at 95% effiency when kicking 35 metres

 

[offtherails9]

Find it funny that Sydney and Adelaide supporters hold a grudge on Hawthorn for some reason lol. Especially Adelaide posters, seems they tend to have the opposite opinion on everything at every given opportunity.

 

[TigerGlory]

Yo, the Oakland A's didn't end up winning shit, so all this "Nah, we're the real moneyball side!" dick measuring is a bit silly.

That I think is something that was overlooked. You could adapt Moneyball to AFL in terms of teams that tried to top up their list with blokes not good enough to get a game at other clubs (or else delisted for other reasons) attempting to chase a flag vs the clubs that went on an all out rebuild.

Richmond post 2001 were absolutely guilty of doing this. Picking up the Justin Blumfields and the like (who Essendon no longer had any use for) and attempting to put them all together to chase a flag. A more recent example is the trading policy that Michael Voss used in his first year as coach (when he picked up Fevola, Staker, Raines and Buchanan among others).

Ultimately what ended up happening was that those teams played a handful of good games, could look like world beaters against the lower sides but didnt have the quality to stand up to the eventual top sides. In Moneyball we saw the Oakland As go on an awesome winning streak and really pound some teams, but come the business end, they didnt have the quality to compete with the top teams and ultimately lost.

Im not a baseball fan but the post-movie text said that Billy was still chasing that elusive championship win, so that suggests to me that the Moneyball tactic probably wont result in a premiership in whatever sport you try and adopt it in.