Moneyball.

[DivideandMultiply]

LOL this thread is GOLD!

Who will win the title of the "Moneyball" team? I am intrigued.

No team.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I dunno, "moneyball = being smarter than your rivals" is a valid interpretation if you ignore the truistic vapidness of it all.

The whole philosophy is based upon having less player money than your competitors.

Sydney is the complete opposite.

 

[eastfreo75]

Money ball is not about a team with limited cash completing with richer clubs. Key example is in movie when the Chicago cubs used the same principles to win the World Series.

Moneyball principles can be used in valuing players like goal involvements and pressure acts that lead to turnovers or winning contested ball. Remember that all the clubs passed Barlow including Fremantle for years due to his running gate and kicking style looking "terrible". If the clubs looked at his contested ball and goal involvements then he would have been picked earlier.

Afl clubs do know stats that increase the chances of winning like if you win two out the three of contested ball, tackles and kicking efficiency gives you a 90% chance of winning.

Hawthorn drafted players who could kick and especially rated left footers. This has given them an advantage with kicking efficiency.

Sydney were great at contested ball, and tackles but not the greatest at kicking efficiency , so f
Drafted in players like jetta to help with the outside game.

Too many times draft picks are overrated and players are valued according to physical stats and how a player looks clean. Moneyball would look at performance instead of how a player looks.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Money ball is not about a team with limited cash completing with richer clubs.............. Moneyball would look at performance instead of how a player looks.

The driving force behind the philosophy is a lack of comparative funding.

 

[eastfreo75]

Red s

The driving force behind the philosophy is a lack of comparative funding.

Red Sox won the World Series, one year after using the same money ball principles as the A's.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Red s
Red Sox won the World Series, one year after using the same money ball principles as the A's.

The lack of funding was the engine that spawned the philosophy.

This does not apply to Sydney. It's pure fantasy. It's just another example of manufactured AFL romance.

 

[TheRealComptroller]

Lol, havent quite figured out how that CoL allowance works have you?

Also Mumford left because he played rnds 4-21 of 2009 for the cats and then they dropped him for the finals. He was pissed-off at this, then Sydney offered him a long-term contract the cats couldnt match due to the future negotiations for expiring contracts for selwood/chapman amongst others - also they didnt see (and neither did Sydney) that Mumford would become the powerhouse he became (and now his knee is screwed anyway so it doesnt matter). The money was hardly the factor.

...yankee selection....pft

Homeboy you crazy.

WTF would cause the Swans to offer him >150% better pay if he would have joined regardless?

Negotiations 101 - Don't offer lucrative terms when they are not required. The Swans offered a king's ransom: 4 years $1m versus AFL base pay. They would not have done this for no reason.

I don't mind him leaving. Same for GAJ. Brian Cook believes you can keep a player for 75% of a competing offer. The Cats could not come close to 75% of these deals.

Why did the Swans screw Geelong so hard on the pick? IMO Mumford 2009 was worth as much as Jolly 2004 yet Melbourne was given a much better pick. Why?

Pick was used on Dunc who was a starting flag sub and Mumford was subbed out. Wow?

If Geelong had done a "Port - Nick Stevens" would another team have drafted him? Would he still have become a Swan only slightly later? Should they have held their nerve? PSD or top 20 pick? Dunc being a gun makes this moot but the principle still stands. Football poker.

 

[Turbocat]

It helps when you get talents like Scarlett, Ablett and Hawkins at pick 600. Bartel and Selwood are both top 10 picks, too. Not taking away from the way Geelong have developed their team over the last 10 years, but it's hardly AFL Moneyball.

Mate read what I said

Far closer to Moneyball is the allocation of wealth thru draft ie a team who finishes high continually get last picks for years on end and thus becomes poor in player stock. They must attempt to find a way to beat the evening system that the draft is by finding overlooked players ie Podsiadly. So a team like Geelong can find a way to remain competitive without dropping down to gain early draft picks (wealth) then that is AFL Moneyball.

Im talking about rebuilding , staying competitive without the "wealth" of early draft piacks. If they could find a way to develop without dropping. Did they win Flags, have this era thru Moneyball. No picks in the Top5 To a degree but as we have said Moneyball comparison is not pure. We had FS , had some single figure picks.

If you want pure MoneyBall you need a club like the Dogs , a poor , non winning club to find a way to compete with the likes of Pies , WC and Adelaide. Good Luck with that.

And by the way , Pick 600 , I hardly thing the Dogs should be slinging the Father Son thing . You have done more than just alright out of it. I will argue all Father Sons bar Hawkins. With Hawkins we had a huge win , being able to get him and Selwood in the one draft due to FS cause the system to change, Unfortunately its still not perfect looking at what Melb has issues with this year.

 

[Turbocat]

Lol, havent quite figured out how that CoL allowance works have you?

Also Mumford left because he played rnds 4-21 of 2009 for the cats and then they dropped him for the finals. He was pissed-off at this, then Sydney offered him a long-term contract the cats couldnt match due to the future negotiations for expiring contracts for selwood/chapman amongst others - also they didnt see (and neither did Sydney) that Mumford would become the powerhouse he became (and now his knee is screwed anyway so it doesnt matter). The money was hardly the factor.

...yankee selection....pft

They have more money than anyone else FACT. They went got a player who was offered the chance to be the #1 ruck from next year on. But as you say not even Syd thought he was going to be as good , makes it even more obscene offering that much money over the length of a contract to a player they though 2nd /3rd ruck

Moneyball no way.

 

[Wetdog]

Can someone explain to me the difference between batting average and OBP?

 

[ausbacker]

Can someone explain to me the difference between batting average and OBP?

Batting average measures a player's hitting percentage over the course of a season. On base percentage measures the amount of times a player gets on base. That can include walks, errors, hits etc.

 

[Wetdog]

Batting average measures a player's hitting percentage over the course of a season. On base percentage measures the amount of times a player gets on base. That can include walks, errors, hits etc.

Why would you value a stat that includes errors and walks? Surely, that is down to luck and not attributable to the batsman?

 

[neroblack]

The best opportunity to get bargains in the AFL is identifying those players who wont start showing their potential until about 25 or 26, and you might be able to pick them up as a bargain either as a restricted free agent or a delisted payer through the draft. It's not really a moneyball type situation though, it's more that when the high draft picks each year are 18 or 19, a few will fall through the system when they don't deliver for their first club in the first 4 years or so.

 

[ausbacker]

Why would you value a stat that includes errors and walks? Surely, that is down to luck and not attributable to the batsman?

OBP is incredibly important. Firstly, by getting on base that's an extra out the defence needs to get. Secondly, by being on base you can score a run. Sitting in the dugout as an out, you cannot. Thirdly, patient at bats force more pitches and can drastically improve percentages as games progress.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Why would you value a stat that includes errors and walks? Surely, that is down to luck and not attributable to the batsman?

OBP does not include errors. It's hits+walks+hit by pitch

Drawing a walk is a very high batting skill. A batter who can judge pitches better and force pitchers to pitch in his strike zone. More value than a guy who swings at anything. Also by being more selective the pitcher will usually have to throw more pitches therefore tires pitcher out quicker.

 

[bombermick]

The media and some clubs like to talk about moneyball, but they're hardly practicing it - outside mature pick-ups. Those like Steinberg, Crozier and Rohan are getting picked with high picks, because of their potential - not proven ability.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Why would you value a stat that includes errors and walks? Surely, that is down to luck and not attributable to the batsman?

Because it shows a player who know when not to swing. If you don't swing at 4 balls you shouldn't have you get on base, you swing at 3 of them and you could be out.

 

[Portmanteau]

A few people in the media have grabbed ahold of this imperfect analogy from Roosy and decided that "Moneyball" sounds like a catchy word to explain the Swans' success.

It's just lazy, if you ask me.

We are talking about the footy media here, lazier than dockers.

 

[Upgrayedd]

I say Richmond are the new moneyball because they traded for guys who will fill a role insted of drafting a bunch of 17 year olds and waiting 4 years to develop into your standard middle tier players to support Cotchin/Riewoldt/Martin/Maric/Deledio/Newman ect.

Whats that? that doesn't fit the profile of moneyball, It's such an easy summary for morons who saw reviews to the movie dammit!

If teams were "Moneyballing" They would of looked at Fevola and gone "Hey look, he's involved with lots of goals and he's no athlete but he does 2 good things well so bring him in, plus he'll cost us bare minimum!" Ignoring that he's over 120 kilos, turns like a boat lazy, and tends to be a dickhead.

Also, Due to the salary cap I hope to god no team is going moneyball with drafting (we could sign Sharrod Wellingham for 300k PA, Orrr we could grab Des Headlands because he's a sweet outside player for 90k which he plays a better role at then Wellingham who is more of a inside midfielder), or else i would instruct you to burn your freaking membership because your club is not going to be going anywhere.

 

[bombermick]

Obviously you're taking the piss, but you have a good point about Fev. If clubs were really playing moneyball, there's no way Fev would have been lost to the game.

Like Barlow's duck walk, Fev's non-selection was all about how 'attractive' he looked to recruiters.

 

[Masto]

If teams were "Moneyballing" They would of looked at Fevola and gone "Hey look, he's involved with lots of goals and he's no athlete but he does 2 good things well so bring him in, plus he'll cost us bare minimum!" Ignoring that he's over 120 kilos, turns like a boat lazy, and tends to be a dickhead

Yep in baseball the moneyball players were the ones who were devalued because they had a funky throwing motion, or because they were Mexican or went to strip clubs and had gambling problems. Fevola was the perfect moneyball player. He put up goals but other clubs devalued him for non-football reasons.

People putting up Hawthorns left-footed players are also incorrect. Moneyball ignores techniques and aesthetics and looks at their pure statistical output.

 

[dmc333]

Missed a few pages, but have we figured out who knows Moneyball the most?

 

[Turbocat]

So now Kennett is calling for the Swans to be cut. So we can tell what he thinks of this Money ball charade

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...-cap-concessions/story-e6frf9jf-1226489895759

Swans 10.3 Million
Normal cap 9.4 Million 900,000 a year sure is a lot of extra cost of living

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Yep in baseball the moneyball players were the ones who were devalued because they had a funky throwing motion, or because they were Mexican or went to strip clubs and had gambling problems. Fevola was the perfect moneyball player. He put up goals but other clubs devalued him for non-football reasons.

People putting up Hawthorns left-footed players are also incorrect. Moneyball ignores techniques and aesthetics and looks at their pure statistical output.

Hawthorn didn't draft left-footers per se, they increased the % of their player's ratings on footskills, with leftfooters generally having a higher disposal efficiencey/effectiveness, this led to a raft of left-footers joining the club.

They found an area (skilled disposal, esp left-footers) currently being under-appreciated or under-utilised in the league, which is EXACTLY the principle of Moneyball.

 

[Falchoon]

Definitely Hawthorn.

re the movie, if you can't see a comparison with the A's putting Hatteberg and his limited defensive skills at first base because he gets on base, with Schoenmakers and his limited defensive skills at CHB because he's a nice kick, then you are watching a different movie.