Moneyball.

[WAguru]

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.

What's your excuse?

 

[Tragic sainter]

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.

Moneyball isn't about picking fringe players, it's about picking up the stats they bring. It just so happened to be that the Oakland a's picked up fringe players because they were cheaper. The goal wasn't to pick up fringe players though, the goal was to pick up the cheapest players with the necessary stats.

 

[Maddhew]

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

You missed the point of it completely.

I think you have missed the point. The Theory cannot strictly apply to a competition governed by a salary cap that all participating teams can afford. The competitive differentiator in AFL is not the coffers of a team (Football departments aside) but their ability to build a successful team within the confines of their salary cap, and the draft system.

Teams traditionally look to the draft to strengthen their team with new players. This is purely speculative as early identified talent does not necessarily eventuate. (Main premise of the moneyball theory).

Draftees are cheap and dont have a big effect on cap space. The moneyball theory suggests the successful draftees will be poached by richer clubs before they have the chance to have a positive influence on the teams success. Due to salary cap and limited free agency this isn't an issue in the AFL. The downside on relying on draftees in the AFL is that history suggests it is a "stab in the dark" approach at injecting talent into a side.

Where the theory can be applied is by identifying established players from opposition clubs that potentially provide more worth to your club and can be added to your list for minimal effect on the salary cap. Players that can fill a role where your club may have a deficit where there current club has a surplus.

This flies in the face of traditional methods of strengthening a falling team by using high draft picks. The Swans have no doubt led the way in this area, which is evidenced in the number of players in their squad from other teams. Most of these players were traded for draft picks (some early).

One of the main aspects of the Moneyball theory is challenging traditional statistical analysis and looking for players that can provide strength in other areas. Without doubt none of the Swans "recycled" players were superstars at their previous clubs. Most had been in the system for a number of years and weren't getting regular game time or were considered fringe players and thus expendable for trade. The swans have covered areas where they were deficient with players like Jolly, Hall, Mattner, Richards, Mumford, McGlynn, Kennedy, Seaby, Armstrong.

The Swans have been able to evolve their list and stay competitive by challenging convention. There are other teams that have traded players, but this year's premiership is testament to the fact the Swans have done it successfully.

Regardless of whether this is strictly the Moneyball theory, there are massive similarities and in my opinion the Swans methods will change the way opposition Football departments view list management.

 

[Maddhew]

Moneyball isn't about picking fringe players, it's about picking up the stats they bring. It just so happened to be that the Oakland a's picked up fringe players because they were cheaper. The goal wasn't to pick up fringe players though, the goal was to pick up the cheapest players with the necessary stats.

Cheap/Fringe = Same Same

And fringe players are more readily available.

 

[beta_condition]

Cheap/Fringe = Same Same

And fringe players are more readily available.

But you're missing the point entirely its not about fringe players.

 

[Tragic sainter]

Cheap/Fringe = Same Same

And fringe players are more readily available.

I think your missing the point I'm trying to make. The money ball theory isn't picking cheap players. It is recruiting stats. You can't get just any combination of cheap players you have to get the combination of players that meets the minimum stat requirement.

 

[Maddhew]

I think your missing the point I'm trying to make. The money ball theory isn't picking cheap players. It is recruiting stats. You can't get just any combination of cheap players you have to get the combination of players that meets the minimum stat requirement.

I agree, but it is about recruiting cheap fringe players where the stats will have a positive influence on team success.

You cant argue that "cheap" and "fringe" are not important to the theory. They are the reason for its conception.

 

[MaddAdam]

Won't work in AFL because the physical requirements to play the game limit the numbers of people playing the highest level to a number that every club is able to keep a handle on.

I've re-read this sentence a number of times now, and I'm still not entirely sure what it means.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

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.

This isn't a similarity at all.

It didn't just matter that the players were recycled, or that they came good, the "method" was how the player was located and it was determined he could come good/was undervalued.

This was done by looking at certain key statistical indicators and prioritising them over subjective opinion. Then players were differentiated based on value (as determined by cost).

No AFL team has successfully applied the Moneyball method, simply because landscape is different.

A game of AFL football cannot be accurately reduced into a neat statistical summary like a baseball box score (though we try), likewise there is greater variation of individual statistics due to the less regimented rules/style of play. Baseball truly is a game of numbers.

Likewise, all teams have a cap with minimum and maximum spends which is completely at odds with how baseball teams operate. The idea was not purely quality of selection, but the numerical efficiency of a selection.

Those two fundamentals are the core of the Moneyball method, where the circumstances in AFL football are almost the complete opposite.

 

[Latro]

I've re-read this sentence a number of times now, and I'm still not entirely sure what it means.

Dont you know anybody can throw a cutter, slider or 100 mph fastball.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

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.

Simply and nicely explained.

The Moneyball method is a coping strategy, designed to fit a particular environment.

It is not about the ultimate path to success, it is about value. The lowest cost way of meeting x outcomes.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Regardless of whether this is strictly the Moneyball theory, there are massive similarities and in my opinion the Swans methods will change the way opposition Football departments view list management.

Incorrect.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

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.

A good reason A's have never won a championship is that they operate with one of the lowest payrolls in baseball. This year was $55m. By comparison Yankees was $200m and A's divisional rival Texas was $120m.

With moneyball, Beane focused on areas/stats that sabrematricians like Bill James said were undervalued, like on-base percentage(OBP) for example. Beane didn't care about popular stats batting average as much or RBIs. So he and his assistant scoured minor leagues for guys wth high OBP (amongst other stats) because these guys were the ones that got on base a lot. He was trying to find the stats that resulted in wins.

So basically trying to find undervalued players.also ordered his batters not to swing at everything, just get on base.

So I can see where the Hawks guys on here are on about. My understanding was that Chris Pelchen tried to find what was the key to success. He placed an emphasis on field passing, noticed left footers were more efficient and focused his recruiting oin this. No idea if this was true.

Think what the A's achieved this year was way more impressive effort.

 

[Bluelegs]

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.

You realise that the red sox adopted the strategy and won their first world series since 1918

 

[Probitas_]

this is really catching on

Well Sydney are guilty of winning a premiership, so enjoy that from all the simpletons for an entire year.

 

[Maddhew]

Incorrect.

compelling

 

[DivideandMultiply]

A good reason A's have never won a championship is that they operate with one of the lowest payrolls in baseball. This year was $55m. By comparison Yankees was $200m and A's divisional rival Texas was $120m.

With moneyball, Beane focused on areas/stats that sabrematricians like Bill James said were undervalued, like on-base percentage(OBP) for example. Beane didn't care about popular stats batting average as much or RBIs. So he and his assistant scoured minor leagues for guys wth high OBP (amongst other stats) because these guys were the ones that got on base a lot. He was trying to find the stats that resulted in wins.

So basically trying to find undervalued players.also ordered his batters not to swing at everything, just get on base.

So I can see where the Hawks guys on here are on about. My understanding was that Chris Pelchen tried to find what was the key to success. He placed an emphasis on field passing, noticed left footers were more efficient and focused his recruiting oin this. No idea if this was true.

Think what the A's achieved this year was way more impressive effort.

Yes.

As far as I know, there is no AFL equivalent to Sabermetrics. I guess a loose theoretical equivalent to the Monayball method would be recruiting players based on say metres gained, or maybe score involvements (imagining these are a mythical undervalued stat for success) and who when assessing the value of their contracts would provide the best price/performance ratio.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

compelling

Read my expanded post.

Circumstances are too dissimilar between the both sports/leagues for there to ever be a genuine corollary.

Likewise, the recruiting strategy and cap advantage that the Swans have is fundamentally different to Oakland A's circumstances within the context of the MLB (or its two predecessors).

To put it perhaps more broadly, one is looking for the ultimate path to success, the other for the most efficient means to compete.

 

[Rocco_S]

It's obvious who's actually read and understood the book, and who hasn't. The 'scrapheap' principal is only a small element of the whole 'Moneyball' philosophy, however the movie does do a fantastic job of telling this side of the story.

The point is, that if the Oakland A's could have afforded to spend more dollars on payroll, they would have. They would've traded for bigger names and contracts, and they would've signed higher profile free agents to bigger contracts. The whole idea is that the A's were only after players who showed strengths in certain stats, or to generalise, 1 main stat (on base percentage, so hits + walks) and the players who usually lead this category are elite, big-name players. The reality was though, was that the A's couldn't afford to bring in the stat leaders in this category due to their payroll limitations, so they were forced to bring in new players from the 'scrapheap,' or players they could trade in that would be cheap.

They only brought in players who had success in this area. They did not necessarily target players who were lowly rated at their original club, or specifically struggled to play regular games, or even players they knew they could get for next to nothing. All players that the A's brought in to their organisation needed to fit a profile, and that was that the player needed to be proficient in obtaining a high OBP. The A's built their batting lineup around this specific stat.

Yes, the Swans have had numerous success stories of recycled players, but perhaps this is due to development, or coaching, or surroundings, or talent identification, or whatever. If say, the Swans ONLY recruited players from other clubs who hypothetically had, proficient specific results in the beep test, or vertical leap, or a high disposal efficiency or whatever stat they thought was crucial, then I guess they would be following the Moneyball principal. But finding success through recycled players is not the Moneyball principal.

 

[Maddhew]

Read my expanded post.

Circumstances are too dissimilar between the both sports/leagues for there to ever be a genuine corollary.

Likewise, the recruiting strategy and cap advantage that the Swans have is fundamentally different to Oakland A's circumstances within the context of the MLB (or its two predecessors).

More broadly even one is looking for the ultimate path to success, the other for the most efficient means to compete.

Yes, baseball and AFL are different sports

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Yes, baseball and AFL are different sports

Compelling.

 

[Chewy]

I think you have missed the point. The Theory cannot strictly apply to a competition governed by a salary cap that all participating teams can afford. The competitive differentiator in AFL is not the coffers of a team (Football departments aside) but their ability to build a successful team within the confines of their salary cap, and the draft system.

Teams traditionally look to the draft to strengthen their team with new players. This is purely speculative as early identified talent does not necessarily eventuate. (Main premise of the moneyball theory).

Draftees are cheap and dont have a big effect on cap space. The moneyball theory suggests the successful draftees will be poached by richer clubs before they have the chance to have a positive influence on the teams success. Due to salary cap and limited free agency this isn't an issue in the AFL. The downside on relying on draftees in the AFL is that history suggests it is a "stab in the dark" approach at injecting talent into a side.

Where the theory can be applied is by identifying established players from opposition clubs that potentially provide more worth to your club and can be added to your list for minimal effect on the salary cap. Players that can fill a role where your club may have a deficit where there current club has a surplus.

This flies in the face of traditional methods of strengthening a falling team by using high draft picks. The Swans have no doubt led the way in this area, which is evidenced in the number of players in their squad from other teams. Most of these players were traded for draft picks (some early).

One of the main aspects of the Moneyball theory is challenging traditional statistical analysis and looking for players that can provide strength in other areas. Without doubt none of the Swans "recycled" players were superstars at their previous clubs. Most had been in the system for a number of years and weren't getting regular game time or were considered fringe players and thus expendable for trade. The swans have covered areas where they were deficient with players like Jolly, Hall, Mattner, Richards, Mumford, McGlynn, Kennedy, Seaby, Armstrong.

The Swans have been able to evolve their list and stay competitive by challenging convention. There are other teams that have traded players, but this year's premiership is testament to the fact the Swans have done it successfully.

Regardless of whether this is strictly the Moneyball theory, there are massive similarities and in my opinion the Swans methods will change the way opposition Football departments view list management.

No, I think you have missed the point.

You've decided that Moneyball was all about canny drafting and trading. It wasn't. It was about eliminating the emotion, myths and accepted truisms from these decisions. It was about reducing the sport down to a series of events that had a statistical currency and finding the undervalued players who could deliver in these areas.

Nobody denies that Sydney have made good decisions with regard to their list management, but it's bollocks to compare this to Moneyball. That's all I'm saying. I gave the example of Hawthorn placing a premium value on kicking skills. Not because I think Hawthorn are the Moneyballingest team in the Universe, but because it is one example of the type of "football economics" that underpinned the Oakland A's strategy. ie. determine your key indicators for winning and recruit the undervalued players that provide these particular "cheap" undervalued skills. Find the 'soft spots' in the player market.

Oakland overlooked the likely prospects that everyone else chased after. They drafted fat guys, slow guys, small guys, guys who could't hit, couldn't throw, couldn't field, etc. They decided on-base percentage was the all-important stat for scoring runs and for winning a high percentage of games. They recognised it was under-valued by other teams and it was something that couldn't be taught. Bad habits tended to stay with a player throughout his career.

Hawthorn decided good kicking skills were one of the attributes they were most concerned with. Clarkson decided if they could use foot skills with a higher efficiency than their rivals and eliminate costly turnovers, they would increase their chances of winning games. They recruited players that other teams didn't want, purely because they were good kicks. This is much closer to principles found in Moneyball than Sydney doing well out of the Kennedy trade.

There is nothing particularly "Moneyball" about a club targeting a young player from a rival club and getting him for a 3rd round draft pick or whatever. The Kennedy trade was a big win for Sydney, but it wasn't Moneyball. It was a f&%$in good trade. Every club has their wins and losses during trade week. Sydney paid a high price for most of their older recruits - they gave up 1st round draft picks for many of them. Some have paid dividends and some haven't.

Anyway, for some reason, people have decided to get into me for using Hawthorn as my example. All I did was point out the fallacy of equating Moneyball with good drafting/trading. I simply said there was more to it than that.

 

[Maddhew]

It's obvious who's actually read and understood the book, and who hasn't. The 'scrapheap' principal is only a small element of the whole 'Moneyball' philosophy, however the movie does do a fantastic job of telling this side of the story.

The point is, that if the Oakland A's could have afforded to spend more dollars on payroll, they would have. They would've traded for bigger names and contracts, and they would've signed higher profile free agents to bigger contracts. The whole idea is that the A's were only after players who showed strengths in certain stats, or to generalise, 1 main stat (on base percentage, so hits + walks) and the players who usually lead this category are elite, big-name players. The reality was though, was that the A's couldn't afford to bring in the stat leaders in this category due to their payroll limitations, so they were forced to bring in new players from the 'scrapheap,' or players they could trade in that would be cheap.

They only brought in players who had success in this area. They did not necessarily target players who were lowly rated at their original club, or specifically struggled to play regular games, or even players they knew they could get for next to nothing. All players that the A's brought in to their organisation needed to fit a profile, and that was that the player needed to be proficient in obtaining a high OBP. The A's built their batting lineup around this specific stat.

Yes, the Swans have had numerous success stories of recycled players, but perhaps this is due to development, or coaching, or surroundings, or talent identification, or whatever. If say, the Swans ONLY recruited players from other clubs who hypothetically had, proficient specific results in the beep test, or vertical leap, or a high disposal efficiency or whatever stat they thought was crucial, then I guess they would be following the Moneyball principal. But finding success through recycled players is not the Moneyball principal.

Rhyce Shaw - Running bounces off halfback
Mumford - contested possessions for a ruckman
Jetta (overlooked 07) - uncontested possessions, outside run
Richards - effective spoils
Mattner - versatile defender
Morton - score involvements
Kennedy - contested possessions/clearances

 

[Maddhew]

No, I think you have missed the point.

You've decided that Moneyball was all about canny drafting and trading. It wasn't. It was about eliminating the emotion, myths and accepted truisms from these decisions. It was about reducing the sport down to a series of events that had a statistical currency and finding the undervalued players who could deliver in these areas.

Nobody denies that Sydney have made good decisions with regard to their list management, but it's bollocks to compare this to Moneyball. That's all I'm saying. I gave the example of Hawthorn placing a premium value on kicking skills. Not because I think Hawthorn are the Moneyballingest team in the Universe, but because it is one example of the type of "football economics" that underpinned the Oakland A's strategy. ie. determine your key indicators for winning and recruit the undervalued players that provide these particular "cheap" undervalued skills. Find the 'soft spots' in the player market.

Oakland overlooked the likely prospects that everyone else chased after. They drafted fat guys, slow guys, small guys, guys who could't hit, couldn't throw, couldn't field, etc. They decided on-base percentage was the all-important stat for scoring runs and for winning a high percentage of games. They recognised it was under-valued by other teams and it was something that couldn't be taught. Bad habits tended to stay with a player throughout his career.

Hawthorn decided good kicking skills were one of the attributes they were most concerned with. Clarkson decided if they could use foot skills with a higher efficiency than their rivals and eliminate costly turnovers, they would increase their chances of winning games. They recruited players that other teams didn't want, purely because they were good kicks. This is much closer to principles found in Moneyball than Sydney doing well out of the Kennedy trade.

There is nothing particularly "Moneyball" about a club targeting a young player from a rival club and getting him for a 3rd round draft pick or whatever. The Kennedy trade was a big win for Sydney, but it wasn't Moneyball. It was a f&%$in good trade. Every club has their wins and losses during trade week. Sydney paid a high price for most of their older recruits - they gave up 1st round draft picks for many of them. Some have paid dividends and some haven't.

Anyway, for some reason, people have decided to get into me for using Hawthorn as my example. All I did was point out the fallacy of equating Moneyball with good drafting/trading. I simply said there was more to it than that.

I was drawing comparisons between the catalyst for Sydney's list management strategy, and the moneyball theory, read my post.

 

[Arwib]

I don't think that Australian rules football has a sophisticated or precise enough set of statistics associated with it to meaningfully beat the odds based on statistical analysis. Compared to some of what they come up with in baseball, we're still pretty simplistic in this country with our football stats.

In the case of Sydney, I think our insight about a decade ago was to recruit on character more than raw talent, which strikes me as qualitative and very far removed from statistical analysis.