Moneyball.

[Black Diamond]

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

Piss off idiot.

Under your point of view the only club capable of replicating Moneyball is a poor club, which is completely untrue.

 

[calyam]

I don't think a ''Moneyball" analogy can be used in a sport with a hard salary cap. Especially to a team that has more cap room to work with.

You don't think that the idea of trying to obtain players who are valued at below their ability is relevant to a sport with a hard salary cap? It's every bit as relevant when a salary cap is in place - and would probably work better with a salary cap. How would the Yankees have competed with Oakland if they had the same amount of money to spend? I'd wager badly. 'Moneyball' is simply a methodology for obtaining an advantage over another team - it can be utilised in a range of circumstances.

In my view, although 'Moneyball' itself occurred because of necessity, the concepts can be applied to any sport with credible statistical analysis and can be used by any team.

 

[Aussiemac82]

FFS Moneyball is the name of a movie.

Sabermetrics is a statistical principal.

Just like fox footy and their bullsht "recipe for success" it isn't a rule to winning but a bunch of David king type crap that isn't worth a pinch of sh!t.

If it was used in the afl, every player would be worth an X. That value would be determined by their % of scoreboard effectiveness.

Players would be more valued for scoreboard pressure. Yet we know that defense wins finals.

While all the super coach dream team junkies like to think that the statistical evidence is the be all and end all, the fact is that it is not.

As for people with their theory of their teams "Moneyball" style of drafting, I would suggest talking to any recruiter and listen to what they will tell you about how much they value stats.

If some mathematical genius can take all the variables from our game and come up with a formula to win they would be set for life.

In the mean time, anyone that thinks having read a book or watched a movie on Moneyball helped to win a GF is kidding themselves.

 

[Chewy]

Yes keep calling people stupid.... that might work for you....
Please carry on bragging i will not interrupt you anymore... there is no shame in losing to Sydney.....dont worry

Fish oil

 

[DarwinRoo]

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.

Red Sox. The Cubs will win in 2015

 

[DarwinRoo]

And if any club can be compared to the Oakland A's it's North's 2007 season

Paying less than everyone else. A flanker playing FB and FF and made the Top 4 only to break down in the finals.

 

[TheRealComptroller]

Was he valued at the Cats? He hardly got a look in when Ottens was in the team, and was behind the next two ruckman. Sydney identified him, like Jolly, Rhys Shaw, McGlynn, Kennedy, Mattner, Richards, Schwass, Ball, I could go on. Some of them were fantastic players and we traded smartly, some others were undervalued and we pretty much stole them.

Look at Goodes, he went at pick 43 in the 1997 draft and has gone on to win 2 brownlow medals.

Bottom line on Shane Mumford - Geelong did not want to lose him.

I'll give credit to the Swans for Ted Richards and Darren Jolly; ballsy deals giving up a pick in the teens for unproven, unloved players (not being offered shitloads more money to join the Swans as far as I know) that seemed crazy and worked out well.

Geelong wanted Mumford but did not want him in the Seniors in Aug/Sep 2009 because his form was shite. I'm the last person to defend Mark Blake but he was the better performing player at that time and deserved to be chosen ahead of Mumford but he was not the preferred player for the club going into the future.

Geelong would have liked to have seen the same thing that happened to Blake in 2007 happen with Mumford in 2009 with Steven King being in the GF side but then leaving the club. Reality was that nobody really wanted Blake despite being in the Premiership 22.

Mumford late 2009 was certainly a "required player" at the Cats.

----------------

Goodes at #43 was good recruiting but it is a little misleading as a comment on Sydney's drafting.

Clubs from 1996-98 were only allowed one 17 year-old so he wasn't the 43rd player taken; he was not "passed over" 42 times like a player today chosen at #43.

 

[forwardflanker]

Piss off idiot.

Under your point of view the only club capable of replicating Moneyball is a poor club, which is completely untrue.

Don't be so defensive just because someone mentions a poor club doesn't mean it's always North Melbourne. Although I have to admit this is usually the case.

 

[Super Hans]

I don't like baseball

 

[Black Diamond]

Don't be so defensive just because someone mentions a poor club doesn't mean it's always North Melbourne. Although I have to admit this is usually the case.

I didn't mean it like that. I meant it because that poster has made the same comment 10+ times in the thread. I'm defensive about Moneyball at all; I find it intriguing.

 

[MarcusP2]

The point about sabermetrics isn't 'finding undervalued players', that's the most obvious thing in the world. It's that the traditional ways of measuring player worth (in baseball's case RBIs/batting average/etc) weren't truly indicative of how good a player is and that advanced statistics are much better at identifying these players. It's more like '15 Cyril touches are worth more than 40 Boyd touches' or 'Cloke's contesting marking means he doesn't need to kick as many goals' than something like 'we should trade for a 4th string ruckman from another club'.

 

[TheBrownlowMan37]

I don't know if we're the Moneyball team of 2012, but we're definitely the premiership team of 2012.

That'll do me.

 

[Slattery_20]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/tra...-movie-moneyball/story-fna8vsun-1226192182692

I liked this quote best:

There is one area Beane and Roos have different views on: statistics.
Beane employed Sabermetrics, which loosely translates to analysing empirical evidence rather than relying on more subjective measures of how to select players.
"I'm not a stats person, I'm more a visual person who tries to find what the key stats are," Roos said.


So... other than one going ENTIRELY off stats, and the other not going off stats at all (implementation)... and one having high payroll vs low payroll (motivation)... they're exactly the same concepts.

Much like my desk and your trousers are exactly the same, other than the way they're implemented & the motivation behind them.

 

[enormohead1]

as usual people who have no clue are talking about things as if they are experts.
baseball is a numbers game, sabermetrics was invented by a math expert bill james. paul roos says he hates stats and drafted a cpl of guys noone wanted.
until someone comes up with a formula for afl it is not the same at all

 

[MiloStedman]

I've heard Sydney mentioned as the "Moneyball" team. This is nothing but complete horseshit. It's funny how in AFL circles, someone talks crap that "sounds good" so everyone else keeps repeating the same shit until it becomes fact. There is NO SIMILARITY between the Sydney Swans and Billy Beane & the Oakland A's.

Oakland made an art form of outperforming their rivals despite spending 1/3rd less than the Red Sox or Yankees on their player payments. They targeted players who had undervalued skills (a bit like Hawthorn recruiting average footballers who could kick really well on their left foot)

Hawthorn is actually a far better example of recruiting players with deficiencies because of their ability to play a certain role: Brent Guerra, David Hale, Josh Gibson, Paul Puopolo, Matthew Suckling, Stephen Gilham, Stuart Dew, etc

What Sydney has done well that gives rise to this Moneyball myth is to pick off a few decent fringe players in the trade market. Anyone who thinks this is Moneyball either hasn't read the book, or they read the book and failed to grasp it..

This reeks of GF offended

 

[MF]

I've heard Sydney mentioned as the "Moneyball" team. This is nothing but complete horseshit. It's funny how in AFL circles, someone talks crap that "sounds good" so everyone else keeps repeating the same shit until it becomes fact. There is NO SIMILARITY between the Sydney Swans and Billy Beane & the Oakland A's.

Oakland made an art form of outperforming their rivals despite spending 1/3rd less than the Red Sox or Yankees on their player payments. They targeted players who had undervalued skills (a bit like Hawthorn recruiting average footballers who could kick really well on their left foot)

Hawthorn is actually a far better example of recruiting players with deficiencies because of their ability to play a certain role: Brent Guerra, David Hale, Josh Gibson, Paul Puopolo, Matthew Suckling, Stephen Gilham, Stuart Dew, etc

What Sydney has done well that gives rise to this Moneyball myth is to pick off a few decent fringe players in the trade market. Anyone who thinks this is Moneyball either hasn't read the book, or they read the book and failed to grasp it..

I tend to agree.

Our strategy hasn't so much been based on the money ball philosophy as it has been based on exploiting other teams overrating of draft picks.

People laughed when we traded pick 19 for Ted Richards.

 

[Slattery_20]

I will say though, there's always going to be players and/or groups of players under-valued.
That's life in any sport.
It's not money-ball, it's not anything fancy, it's just being smart.

For the A's, that was high-OBP guys (some of them pretty wimpy hitters).
Sydney have done well out of re-treads that had bad names or no-one else would touch (Morton, Shaw, Davis were seen as flogs, and even though he didn't work out - Bradshaw was correctly seen as a very high risk)
Lyon keeps finding hard workers & tacklers; or sees that capability in guys who aren't known for it. Doesn't mind if a Peake can't kick; if they can run & tackle they're in.

The next club to succeed will have done something in recruiting very well; something to give them an edge.

Given the rumblings out of recruiting last off-season; there might very well be a group of players severely under-rated. I've got my suspicions a club will ignore all of that, and clean up.

 

[the_interloper]

Lots of dick measuring in this thread re posters knowledge of Moneyball and american sports, well done flogs!

 

[Tragic sainter]

Lots of dick measuring in this thread re posters knowledge of Moneyball and american sports, well done flogs!

You must have a huge dick being able to come in here and look down on everyone else. Well done flog.

 

[The_Answer3]

Loving the level of 'expert' in this thread.

 

[Aussiemac82]

Lots of dick measuring in this thread re posters knowledge of Moneyball and american sports, well done flogs!

Would say more people with a mathematical interest in sports. You remember, maths, it's that subject you failed at school.

 

[AlibiMonday]

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.

Correct.

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.

...and Correct.

You're both right. When I first saw the Moneyball thread, I thought of both Hawthorn and Sydney for these exact reasons. Hawthorn identified a key ingredient (excellent foot skills) though drafting that would product a performance synergy (ala - bats on base). Sydney identified value by undervaluing draft picks (ala - looking outside the traditional recruiting avenues and batting averages). Both are excellent strategies and have hallmarks to the Moneyball strategy (yes, I have read the book). So shake hands and buy each other a beer.

 

[Aussiemac82]

Just to clear things up for some people.

Moneyball = A movie based on a book

Sabermetrcs = Society of American Baseball Researchers (SABR Metrics)

All AFL clubs analyse champion data records. There is no name for the process it is just pure statistical analysis.

Trading for players is considered a higher % chance of success then relying on drafting. If a club is trading in a 24yr old player they have access to more data then they would an 18yr old. They are increasing their chances of getting what they want.

The people who are sprouting themselves as experts on statistical analysis (Im looking at you David King) are football players, not mathematicians. They are still trying to work it all out.

Other examples are the Ultimate footy, supercoach, dream team predictors. How accurate are they?

Our game is not as mathematical as Baseball. It is far more variable.

The one area where I would like stats to be used more is for subjective awards.

 

[AlibiMonday]

Bottom line on Shane Mumford - Geelong did not want to lose him.

I'll give credit to the Swans for Ted Richards and Darren Jolly; ballsy deals giving up a pick in the teens for unproven, unloved players (not being offered shitloads more money to join the Swans as far as I know) that seemed crazy and worked out well.

Geelong wanted Mumford but did not want him in the Seniors in Aug/Sep 2009 because his form was shite. I'm the last person to defend Mark Blake but he was the better performing player at that time and deserved to be chosen ahead of Mumford but he was not the preferred player for the club going into the future.

Geelong would have liked to have seen the same thing that happened to Blake in 2007 happen with Mumford in 2009 with Steven King being in the GF side but then leaving the club. Reality was that nobody really wanted Blake despite being in the Premiership 22.

Mumford late 2009 was certainly a "required player" at the Cats.

He was a wanted player, but not a required player. Stop rewriting history. If you wanted him, you would have played him over Blake or certainly given him better than security than Blake. Sydney liked what they saw and offered him longer term security. He was guaranteed to start in 2010.

 

[JackFlash]

He was a wanted player, but not a required player. Stop rewriting history. If you wanted him, you would have played him over Blake or certainly given him better than security than Blake. Sydney liked what they saw and offered him longer term security. He was guaranteed to start in 2010.

re·quire

   [ri-kwahyuhr] Show IPA verb, re·quired, re·quir·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to have need of; need: He requires medical care.
2.
to call on authoritatively; order or enjoin to do something: to require an agent to account for money spent.
3.
to ask for authoritatively or imperatively; demand.
4.
to impose need or occasion for; make necessary or indispensable: The work required infinite patience.
5.
to call for or exact as obligatory; ordain: The law requires annual income-tax returns.

He was very much a required player, he was with Geelong just 2 seasons, give me a break. To say he was not required is a nonsense, Ottens turned 30 in 2010 and his body was already battle scarred. Mumford was the replacement. The Swans took the punt on him out of desperation due to losing both Jolly and Hall at the same time. Geelong could not possibly match the Swans offer which was well out of Geelong's salary cap reach at the time. No way was he getting ahead of Ottens in 2009, Blake was on his last legs and Mumford was considered a developing player, but he most definitely would've been ahead of Blake come the 2010 season. He went for the money and the Swans salary cap advantages got him there. He was a required player.