Moneyball.

[Slattery_20]

That's really my point. Those picks are the closest to it, but really, there is no moneyball team (because it is not required like in the ridiculously uneven US baseball comp).

Many times a club has dined out, by exploring/exploiting a recruiting option that was undervalued -
ie Cats went heavily into the draft in 99, before a lot of clubs were taking it that seriously.

WCE's guys who could just run their **** off all day every day even if they couldn't do much else. Collingwood going after forwards who tackle more than anything else. North going after 10-year rule players in the 70s, when most of the other clubs didn't like the rule & thus ignored it. Sheedy going after indigenous players in the late 80s/early 90s when a lot of clubs (not all, but most) weren't taking them that seriously.
etc etc

Game's in a constant state of invention & re-invention. Picking those under-valued guys is the key.

As I said previously, I have a feeling there's one group of players who might be a bit under-valued right now, based on not much to do with themselves, let alone their footy. If some of the rumours are right, anyway.

 

[JackFlash]

Sydney saw more in him than Geelong did. End. Of. Story.

Hey, you got a gun in Duncan instead. Give it up and move on.

Sydney took the punt and took the advantage that is the real story, Geelong were hamstrung with the offer Sydney made to Mumford. Are you saying Geelong should've retired Ottens off at the end of 2009 to give Mumford his chance? He was always going to get his chance come 2010 ahead of Blake, but the Swans offer was too good to refuse and unmatchable by Geelong. I've even heard Paul Roos say this On The Couch, that's why they targeted Mumford.
Geelong lost Egan permanently at the end of 2007 and recruited Mumford in 2008 with the view to replacing Ottens and knowing Blake wasn't quite up to being an A grade first ruckman. Duncan is not a ruckman! Good big men are hard to find and those that have them win Premierships.

 

[calyam]

From my POV, AFL's version of moneyball selection comes more out of older rookie selections from the state comps that provides instant impact in a role where the team has a deficiency or a hole, for little money and no loss of picks etc. I'm thinking guys like Pods who for little money and no kiddie picks filled the big man up front hole left by Mooney and friends; Callinan is doing the same in the pocket at Adelaide; we took Barlow from Werribee and he was ahead in the Brownlow voting in his first year until that uncoordinated idiot Palmer broke his leg; and there are a number more. Fill a bunch of your holes with these kind of guys (oh that sounds bad) and you will have a moneball team. Cheap, instant impact, noone else wanted them, no loss of draft picks. Most teams do it a bit, none do it a lot. Therefore, because of the eveness of the drafting and salary cap, AFL doesn't need and therefore doesn't have a moneyball team.

This is essentially what 'Moneyball' is about. It'd be the equivalent of finding a starting baseball player in the minor leagues and paying him the minimum even though he might be as productive as a more expensive alternative. Getting players from the state competitions identifies and exploits a bias in AFL recruiting - they have historically been reluctant to look at players over 21 years old that couldn't get drafted at 18. Unfortunately, it's not possible to do a lot of this because there is a minimum that each team must spend on their salary cap. Nevertheless, there are likely other opportunities to find players in the AFL who are undervalued for one reason or another.

Moving beyond the book and movie, 'Moneyball' at its core is simply finding players that you can sign for less than what they are worth, in an attempt to maximise the output of the team per dollar. It's relatively simple - hell there are two major fantasy football competitions (Dreamteam and SuperCoach) which are designed around this very idea.

 

[doppleganger]

That statement is a fallacy.

Champion Data supplies an abundance of information that is used to measure progress. Almost every players game is analysed post match.

An example with Geelong;
We were getting smashed in clearances and contested possessions at the start of the year. The coaches acknowledged the stat and weren't as concerned with the numbers as the media were.

What they were concentrating on was Clearances to advantage.

So long as a higher % of our clearances led to an I50 our chances of a resulting score was increased.

You have just done the same thing.
Who actually has determined if inside 50s have any relevance, they were a measure solely introduced as they could be recorded easily with the line markings. Is a more important measure inside 25s, or the proportion of inside 70s converted to inside 50s etc?

Point is the sabermetrics in baseball exploded when a different approach to traditional statistics was used, not simply using the standard measures.

Is the arbitrary effective classification really this leap forward? Most clubs have internal DI measures, do these translate to wins?? As mentioned is field equity being used??

Moneyball was about allowing statistics to take a revolutionary look at the game and actually usurp all of the pre-conceived notions about the game.

 

[nineteen eighty]

How is that relevant to anything?

Sainter - you obviously haven't been around BF long enough to understand how it works around here. When someone has either been proven wrong or shown up in one of their posts, the norm is for that person to then post a sledge against that other persons team that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual thread.

You'll get the hang of it soon enough mate.

 

[Ceebee]

Brad Pitt was awesome in that movie.

 

[Aussiemac82]

You have just done the same thing.
Who actually has determined if inside 50s have any relevance, they were a measure solely introduced as they could be recorded easily with the line markings. Is a more important measure inside 25s, or the proportion of inside 70s converted to inside 50s etc?

Inside 50's was used due to the kicking distance of our forward line.

I'll change it. %CCL to Marks I50 . Measures midfielders ability to get the ball to a forward target cleanly.

If each player knows the kicking distance and angles from which each forward is more likely to kick a goal, it increases the likely hood of a goal.

That's why the emphasis on decision making when recruiting players is becoming more and more important.

I don't know how many times I've heard " You've got to play the percentages"

Each coach has their own philosophy on how to win games, but the final outcome is always the same, kick more goals than the other team.

By first understanding how the ball ends up in the fwd line, I would like to think that the players have the knowledge and decision making to kick it to the higher % play; eg SJ on an angle instead of Motlop from outside 50m

 

[The Smith Revolution]

Moneyball has no relevance even in baseball now. Having read the book many times (it is just a brilliant book - filled with great humour - an Aussie - Warren Hughes even gets a mention) we all just have to get over ourselves. Michael Lewis wrote a classic. It should be read by everyone of you sports lovers out there. The Oakland A's 2002 team came about because of a perfect storm of Billy Beane, gross inefficiency in the market and the internet/increase in data processing powers amongst other things.

I am glad people enjoyed the movie. It was ok/good. The book is so much greater.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Then don't claim high ground , moral superiority about how clever they are about using Moneyball. Say that we use Swanball. Whats Swanball?

Swanball - the ability to rip fringe players from other clubs because we have more money.Sure use clever teqniques to pick which player to target , but still few have gone there for less money.
Swanball - the ability to recruit big name players because we are an AFL love child and have ...you guessed it extra money.

Swans culture is just so fantastic and we are successful because of it. Well prove it. 900,000 sure is a lot of culture. Take it away and keep the culture , keep the players if you can , keep your Swanball ..err Moneyball ..lets just see it work on an even playing field.

Not sure what happens when a mod is called a sook but it sure sounds like you're having a sook mate. It's fine having an argument around what is / isn't Moneyball. A lot of posters had different interpretations and there was no right or wrong...just differences of opinion. You were one of those posters but you've crossed the line IMO with the above post. You're not arguing anything here...just attacking the Swans and how you feel they won the flag.

P.S: this thread is exactly what the main board should be about (well a lot of this thread)...good debate across diverse opinions. It's taken a while for one of these threads to come back to the main board.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

One of the most Boring films ever made.

So you didn't understand it then?

 

[Aussiemac82]

Footymetrics (A word I am stealing from some englishman with a domain name)

A collection of formulas used to value and compare a players and/or teams % plays.

The primary objective is for the mother of all stats to be used as a finishing move for all of Bigfooty player vs player and team verses team arguments.

Champion Data, pull your finger out and make it so.

 

[Turbocat]

Not sure what happens when a mod is called a sook but it sure sounds like you're having a sook mate. It's fine having an argument around what is / isn't Moneyball. A lot of posters had different interpretations and there was no right or wrong...just differences of opinion. You were one of those posters but you've crossed the line IMO with the above post. You're not arguing anything here...just attacking the Swans and how you feel they won the flag.

P.S: this thread is exactly what the main board should be about (well a lot of this thread)...good debate across diverse opinions. It's taken a while for one of these threads to come back to the main board.

Personally commentary aside , lets just be honest here. Im angry at their platitudes about how they have used "Moneyball". Treating all the other clubs as cannon fodder , then telling us how clever they are. Really! I don't believe that money is for anything other than giving them a continuous advantage. This never ending dribble about bloods culture , but do they say that the extra money has allowed them to win. If the money is for living expenses , lets document where this money is spent , and if it helping Rookies survive on 35,000 a year in NSW , no one would have any issue with it. But if its allowing an extra player or two on around 450,000 a year then the system is not Moneyball , its Swanball.

By the way I was quite happy that they won the Flag but to win and then recruit a 1M$ per year just doesn't sit well with me or a lot of others.

 

[doppleganger]

Inside 50's was used due to the kicking distance of our forward line.

My point is that inside 50s is an irrelevant stat, that is used simply because of the painted line on the ground....ie it was a simple stat to record and now is accepted as an indicator of good performance.

Exactly the same as RBIs in baseball, an easy stat to record, so it became an accepted indicator of the best players...only until new people came along to challenge create a better way of actually measuring the batters impact on the game.

What are the KEY success factors to outscoring your opponent in AFL football?
Contested Possessions, tackles, clearances, inside 50s, a myriad of DIs, time in possession....or is it something completely different?

I'll change it. %CCL to Marks I50 . Measures midfielders ability to get the ball to a forward target cleanly.

An improvement, but you are still using the inside 50 qualifier. Need to push further.

Use concepts like field equity, ball tracking enables all plays to be tracked and evaluated, and an end result, after significant modelling work, being that an expected value can be given to different plays at different points on the ground.

In a simplistic approach,

a center clearance that combines run a bounce and a hit up to a leading player 25m out dead in front....
a centre clearance that results in a mark 45m out, on a 45 degree angle....

both are CCL with marks inside 50, but the first results in the forward with a much higher chance of kicking the goal....under your scenario no differentiation is given.

And then you need to compare players with averages within team and within league to get adjustment.

Similar to DE stats, who cares if you chip the ball across the HBline...actually losing ground but getting credited with a DE. Need to add a concept of ground gained to increase validity...but then even that doesn't go far enough...kicking the ball 25m along the line in the D50 aint the same as moving the ball from 65m out to 40m out...etc etc

If each player knows the kicking distance and angles from which each forward is more likely to kick a goal, it increases the likely hood of a goal.

Absolutely, heat maps etc are now entering the game for this type of stuff....comparing set shots to in play scenarios etc

I don't know how many times I've heard " You've got to play the percentages"

Do they know the percentages....a player receives a free kick 70m out from goal on the forward flank

Does he - play on and quickly kick the ball in long to a contest on the top of the goal square...if it comes off and a team mate wins the ball, very high chance of a score but often a rush snap may only result in a behind. Small chance of a contested mark, which leads to high prob of a goal.
Does he - chip the ball 20m across the ground to a bloke closer to the middle...safe play, should get that pass off every time, but then the next player is only in a marginally better position....if you stuff it up very easily hurt on rebound
Does he - try and hit up a short pass to a leading target within 35m of goal....tougher kick to make, but if pulls it off result in a set shot on goal.

Have clubs analysed the different scenario's, to work out an expected value for each play...and then compared each players strengths to that?

That is what 'sabermetrics' is about the search for knowledge, about evaluating which player attributed most to a team's performance.

Each coach has their own philosophy on how to win games, but the final outcome is always the same, kick more goals than the other team.

Absolutely...point is sabermetrics attempts to identify the key phases in a game that result in scoring, and then can pin point which players excel.

The concept is moving from baseball, through to fluid invasion sports like ice-hockey, soccer and will continue to have a bigger impact in AFL in the future too.

 

[SydneyGoose]

Do they know the percentages....a player receives a free kick 70m out from goal on the forward flank

Does he - play on and quickly kick the ball in long to a contest on the top of the goal square...if it comes off and a team mate wins the ball, very high chance of a score but often a rush snap may only result in a behind. Small chance of a contested mark, which leads to high prob of a goal.
Does he - chip the ball 20m across the ground to a bloke closer to the middle...safe play, should get that pass off every time, but then the next player is only in a marginally better position....if you stuff it up very easily hurt on rebound
Does he - try and hit up a short pass to a leading target within 35m of goal....tougher kick to make, but if pulls it off result in a set shot on goal.

Have clubs analysed the different scenario's, to work out an expected value for each play...and then compared each players strengths to that?

I would argue that each club would have analysed their options in these scenarios and determined best play based on the talents of their side. If you have the number one contested mark in the comp you go for the contested mark. If you have Stevie J then you hit his lead and the tighter the angle the more likely he is to kick it. The percentages change depending on the cattle you have on the paddock.

One of the things that I don't remember being addressed in MB is this; On-Base Average alone can't win you a game.Yyou need to convert on-bases to runs. The A's strategy works even better if you can follow up all those on bases with a decent power hitter who can clear the fence and turn what might have been a one run innings into three or four run innings. I haven't read the book yet, I have it but haven't got to it, but I would assume that this was part of the strategy that just didn't make it into the Brad Pitt Dumbed Down version.

 

[doppleganger]

I would argue that each club would have analysed their options in these scenarios and determined best play based on the talents of their side. If you have the number one contested mark in the comp you go for the contested mark. If you have Stevie J then you hit his lead and the tighter the angle the more likely he is to kick it. The percentages change depending on the cattle you have on the paddock.

Absolutely, which is why I said everything needs to be related back to league and team averages. That is how you determine a players relative value.

 

[.Shotties.]

By the way I was quite happy that they won the Flag but to win and then recruit a 1M$ per year just doesn't sit well with me or a lot of others.

Sydney has cash now because they had to cover a massive loss of quality a few years ago and they've culled three decent contracts so far. Andrew Ireland has stated we had to front end every contract possible to cover the departures in 2009 (O'Loughlin, Hall, Jolly, Buchanan, Crouch, Barry), next year Bradshaw worth ~300k won't be on the books, neither will Seaby at 200 odd, nor Jessie White with his insanely overvalued contract that was supposed to keep the GC away. Add to that the fact that Tippett's contract will be front loaded, the new veterans rules are coming into effect, and the fact that Tippett's contract isn't worth 1m a year probably covers it.

But it's probably easier for it not to sit right with you because that's easier than thinking.

 

[Turbocat]

Sydney has cash now because they had to cover a massive loss of quality a few years ago and they've culled three decent contracts so far. Andrew Ireland has stated we had to front end every contract possible to cover the departures in 2009 (O'Loughlin, Hall, Jolly, Buchanan, Crouch, Barry), next year Bradshaw worth ~300k won't be on the books, neither will Seaby at 200 odd, nor Jessie White with his insanely overvalued contract that was supposed to keep the GC away. Add to that the fact that Tippett's contract will be front loaded, the new veterans rules are coming into effect, and the fact that Tippett's contract isn't worth 1m a year probably covers it.

But it's probably easier for it not to sit right with you because that's easier than thinking.

No I'm happy enough for the reasonable argument you have posted. Now take the over bearing COL into account , remove it from the top money earners. There is no way to do it. Its like having 2 extra top line players each year. Now I do agree that is rather fluid , Lake has show how much a player will drop to play at winning club. Its a competitive advantage , they should just admit it. More than anything its their "claim" on Moneyball that has irked me , not that they need extra money to ensure success.
The AFL do not need or want a Swans side at the bottom of the ladder.Been there done that. Just don't lather the soap up and shave me about Moneyball , and have the mouthpiece X Coach say FA is bad for the game. Big time Hypocrisy

 

[.Shotties.]

More than anything its their "claim" on Moneyball that has irked me ,

Tough gig. Hope you're okay.

 

[Truetiger]

So you didn't understand it then?

Understand yes. Just did not find it at all interesting

 

[nineteen eighty]

Personally commentary aside , lets just be honest here. Im angry at their platitudes about how they have used "Moneyball". Treating all the other clubs as cannon fodder , then telling us how clever they are. Really! I don't believe that money is for anything other than giving them a continuous advantage. This never ending dribble about bloods culture , but do they say that the extra money has allowed them to win. If the money is for living expenses , lets document where this money is spent , and if it helping Rookies survive on 35,000 a year in NSW , no one would have any issue with it. But if its allowing an extra player or two on around 450,000 a year then the system is not Moneyball , its Swanball.

By the way I was quite happy that they won the Flag but to win and then recruit a 1M$ per year just doesn't sit well with me or a lot of others.

They haven't treated other clubs like cannon fodder. They have drafted sensibly and with respect and where they have had to trade, they have given up decent picks. The Swans have always been one of the more respectful clubs to deal with during trade week as opposed to others that some clubs now refuse to deal with.

In fact, I would go so far as to say your cannon fodder comment is complete and utter bullsht! It was ok when the Swans were getting pillaged of players...no-one said a thing. Now that they go out and in almost all cases, pick up players that are not getting senior games at their clubs or are seen as backup players AND win a premiership, blokes are out there whining and moaning about the extra cap they have. THEY DO NOT HAVE AN EXTRA CAP. How many times does that have to be said.

I do agree with you though that the CoL allowance needs to be documented to ensure that they are not using inappropriately. If they are, I'm with everyone else in taking it from them immediately. If not, then let's move on.