Moneyball.

[DivideandMultiply]

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

No. This is you trying to fit what certain players do well, to a certain method.

You don't know the exact reasons why they were drafted. It is not about what one player does well, it is about a cost effective ranking and recruitment of players based on a single undervalued statistical measure.

How to achieve the best price/performance ratio as a means of mitigating financial disadvantage.

 

[Maddhew]

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.

are we too simplistic or is our game more complicated?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

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.

The open nature of the game simply does not allow it anyway.

 

[Arwib]

Agree with both of you. There's bound to be more sophisticated statistical analysis that could be done with American level resources, but even then I think we'd struggle for a formula. Individuals are relatively less important than in baseball, too.

 

[Rocco_S]

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

Yes I understand your point, but what I'm saying is that those players are successful at the Swans for different reasons. The Oakland A's only bought in batters with high OBP. I think all of those players have fantastic stories, but that is not the Moneyball theory or principal. It would be like me saying Richmond are a Moneyball team, we recruited Grigg who gathers a high amount of possessions, Houli who has a high disposal efficiency and Maric who has a high hitout rate. But the reality is, is that Richmond identified a bunch of guys who were not getting the chances they wanted at an original club, and with a change in surroundings and a new coaching staff, they were able to offer something at AFL level. Fantastic story, yes, Moneyball, no.

 

[Maddhew]

No. This is you trying to fit what certain players do well, to a certain method.

You don't know the exact reasons why they were drafted. It is not about what one player does well, it is about a cost effective ranking and recruitment of players based on a single undervalued statistical measure.

How to achieve the best price/performance ratio as a means of mitigating financial disadvantage.

A major aspect of the theory was also that older/mature/proven etc... players had a much higher chance of making at MLB level than high school draftees. The players and stats i mentioned above were mostly already proven.

Those concentrating on the "one base" statistic missed a good part of the book.

 

[Maddhew]

Agree with both of you. There's bound to be more sophisticated statistical analysis that could be done with American level resources, but even then I think we'd struggle for a formula. Individuals are relatively less important than in baseball, too.

Champion Data do a fair job in my opinion and they are innovative.

 

[Arwib]

Oh, certainly, but imagine they had a shitload more money and some competitors.

 

[Chewy]

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

I think you're stating the obvious - of course clubs will poach players and seek trades to address their weaknesses. Of course they will target clubs with a surplus of these types of players. I can't believe you act as though this is some bold, revolutionary strategy by the Swans. All clubs have been doing this for years. It's as though you only have eyes for Sydney.

I don't dispute Sydney have been smarter than their rivals in the trade market. I just don't see where Moneyball fits into it. I think people have failed to understand what Michael Lewis was driving at, or they didn't read the book and only saw the (simplistic) movie. They've stolen his catchy title and are applying it to other things simply because it sounds cool.

This thread is moneyball. I was feeling a bit tired, but now I'm moneyball, so I'm off to bed.

 

[Arwib]

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

 

[Chewy]

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

Okay, that's the dumbed down Brad Pitt version of Moneyball

 

[Maddhew]

I think you're stating the obvious - of course clubs will poach players and seek trades to address their weaknesses. Of course they will target clubs with a surplus of these types of players. I can't believe you act as though this is some bold, revolutionary strategy by the Swans. All clubs have been doing this for years. It's as though you've been following the AFL for only three years.

I don't dispute Sydney have been smarter than their rivals in the trade market. I just don't see where Moneyball fits into it. I think people have failed to understand what Michael Lewis was driving at, or they didn't read the book and only saw the (simplistic) movie. They've stolen his catchy title and are applying it to other things simply because it sounds cool.

This thread is moneyball. BigFooty is moneyball. I'm feeling a bit moneyball, so I'm off to bed.

Name me one other team with 11 "recycled' players who got a game in their premiership season? Add in Mike Pyke. They have obviously concentrated on a non traditional list management strategy, where they have foregone draft picks (inc 1st rounder) to build a premiership list.

This is not moneyball in the strict sense (as i have mentioned numerous times) but the similarities as to not seeing the draft as panacea for success cannot be ignored.

 

[Pera]

There is no way a Moneyball technique can be used in AFL. Sure, recruiting and buying players cheap from analysing statistics is all well and good, but people are missing the point. The Oakland A's had to replace 'star' players with fringe players they could afford. Like Beane says "you can't find another Giambi".

In AFL terms, that is like Adelaide this year having to replace Kurt Tippett, but finding a player around the 100K salary a year to find the same output. That would be them finding someone to kick 39 goals, have 160 disposals and 7 hitouts a game. In baseball, it's different. Like someone else said, its either you get on base, or you dont. No in betweens. Far too many variables in AFL, with hitouts to advantage and kicking efficiency. If you get on base, you get on base.

Also, statistics weren't only used for players. They used formula's and other guide to determine how many wins they would need to make the playoffs, then breaking down averages to meet the outcome to these formulas. Something you absolutely cannot apply to AFL. It cant be done.

So continue to have this mindless fight over absolutely nothing. There can be no correlation from baseball to AFL, and I can't believe people are arguing about this on a Saturday night. Go out and have a drink for christ sakes.

 

[Tzatziki_Man]

I love how Chewy gets offended that another team is known as something and demands all of our opinions change and now instead of calling Sydney the Moneyball team - we call Hawthorn the Moneyball team.

All hail our Moneyball overlords.

 

[My Red Card Account]

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.

LOL.

...as I said, tell us more about hawthorn being more-moneyball than sydney....especially with those 11 Top20 draft picks....

...you're the one fappn buddy.

...got a hot gf btw

much love xx

 

[Maddhew]

There is no way a Moneyball technique can be used in AFL. Sure, recruiting and buying players cheap from analysing statistics is all well and good, but people are missing the point. The Oakland A's had to replace 'star' players with fringe players they could afford. Like Beane says "you can't find another Giambi".

In AFL terms, that is like Adelaide this year having to replace Kurt Tippett, but finding a player around the 100K salary a year to find the same output. That would be them finding someone to kick 39 goals, have 160 disposals and 7 hitouts a game. In baseball, it's different. Like someone else said, its either you get on base, or you dont. No in betweens. Far too many variables in AFL, with hitouts to advantage and kicking efficiency. If you get on base, you get on base.

Also, statistics weren't only used for players. They used formula's and other guide to determine how many wins they would need to make the playoffs, then breaking down averages to meet the outcome to these formulas. Something you absolutely cannot apply to AFL. It cant be done.

So continue to have this mindless fight over absolutely nothing. There can be no correlation from baseball to AFL, and I can't believe people are arguing about this on a Saturday night. Go out and have a drink for christ sakes.

I'm waiting to pick my Mrs up from a Hens night, then I'll go to bed.

 

[Maddhew]

Okay, that's the dumbed down Brad Pitt version of Moneyball

We get it, you read the book.

 

[Chewy]

Name me one other team with 11 "recycled' players who got a game in their premiership season? Add in Mike Pyke. They have obviously concentrated on a non traditional list management strategy, where they have foregone draft picks (inc 1st rounder) to build a premiership list.

This is not moneyball in the strict sense (as i have mentioned numerous times) but the similarities as to not seeing the draft as panacea for success cannot be ignored.

Oakland used the draft more than anyone. They lost all their star players and acquired a stack of draft picks as compensation.

Moneyball gives a blow by blow account of Billy Beane tearing it to shreds on draft day. Probably the best chapter in the book. One of their drafting strategies was to ignore the overrated high school players - the 17/18 year olds whom everyone else coveted and concentrate solely on the productive prospects from the college system - the 21/22 year olds that fitted their "eccentric" requirements. Some of their top picks were so unknown and unheralded, Oakland was able to negotiate with these players and avoid paying the expensive "sign on" bonuses normally given to the 1st and 2nd round talent. They were saving themselves cash as well as mining the draft for undervalued talent.

The folly of investing in 17yos is one area of Moneyball that obviously struck a chord with Paul Roos. It's why he compares it to Sydney who traded a few of their first round draft picks in favour of older established players who were ready to produce. They had a better gauge on the players' talent and they didn't need to wait 4-5 years for a return on their investment. Nothing wrong with this. I agree with Roosy's thinking, but he is not Robinson Crusoe. Other clubs have placed less emphasis on the Teal Cup and TAC Cup and focused more on drafting older players from the WAFL, SANFL and VFL.

In one of my previous posts, I also posted a lengthy list of Swans players who were drafted as teenagers. This is completely at odds with Roosy's Moneyball comparison. It sounds good, but it fails to stand up to scrutiny. It's not really a wholistic system of Sydney's, but merely a handful draft picks. Whoopee doo!

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.

 

[mike14]

are we too simplistic or is our game more complicated?

It's not simplistic v complicated, there's just too many variables. Baseball boils down to pitcher v batter with a limited number of ways the batter can swing at the the ball and x amount of pitches able to be thrown, over a known distance: thus you can use statistics to (reasonably) accurately determine outcomes.

Football, like many other sports, allows too many different scenarios at anyone point to allow the same statistical modelling to occur, so you can't draft a guy who ""will hit a target 82% of the time" because the situations where he's kicking the ball change to much between each possession.

Also, as noticed, the A's never won anything and they also used two very high draft picks to draft the best pitchers in an era when it really was a pitching duel.

Interesting book, pretty good movie and it changed the way baseball managers looked at the game, but not very useful for Aussie Rules IMO.

 

[My Red Card Account]

Oakland used the draft more than anyone. They lost all their star players and acquired a stack of draft picks as compensation.

Moneyball gives a blow by blow account of Billy Beane tearing it to shreds on draft day. Probably the best chapter in the book. One of their drafting strategies was to ignore the overrated high school players (17/18 year olds) that everyone else coveted and concentrate solely on the productive prospects from the college system (21/22 year olds) that fitted their "eccentric" requirements. Some of their top picks were so unknown and unheralded, Oakland was able to negotiate with these players and avoid paying the expensive "sign on" bonuses normally expected by the 1st and 2nd round talent. They were saving themselves cash as well as mining the draft for undervalued talent.

The folly of investing in 17yos is the one area of Moneyball that struck a chord with Paul Roos. It's why he compares it to Sydney trading their first round draft pick in favour of older established players who were ready to produce. The club has a better guage of a players' talent and doesn't need to wait 4-5 years for a return on their investment. I agree with Roosy's thinking, but he is not alone. Other clubs have placed less emphasis on the Teal Cup and TAC Cup and focused more in drafting older players in their twenties from the WAFL, SANFL and VFL.

In one of my previous posts, I also posted a lengthy list of Swans players who were drafted as teenagers. So this flies completely in the face of Roosy's Moneyball comparison. It sounds good, but it fails to stand up to scrutiny. A few people in the media have grabbed ahold of this one 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.

GOOD POAST!

 

[Maddhew]

Oakland used the draft more than anyone. They lost all their star players and acquired a stack of draft picks as compensation.

Moneyball gives a blow by blow account of Billy Beane tearing it to shreds on draft day. Probably the best chapter in the book. One of their drafting strategies was to ignore the overrated high school players - the 17/18 year olds whom everyone else coveted and concentrate solely on the productive prospects from the college system - the 21/22 year olds that fitted their "eccentric" requirements. Some of their top picks were so unknown and unheralded, Oakland was able to negotiate with these players and avoid paying the expensive "sign on" bonuses normally expected by the 1st and 2nd round talent. They were saving themselves cash as well as mining the draft for undervalued talent.

The folly of investing in 17yos is the one area of Moneyball that struck a chord with Paul Roos. It's why he compares it to Sydney trading their first round draft pick in favour of older established players who were ready to produce. They have a better gauge on a players' talent. They don't need to wait 4-5 years for a return on their investment. I agree with Roosy's thinking, but he is not alone. Other clubs have placed less emphasis on the Teal Cup and TAC Cup and focused more on drafting older players from the WAFL, SANFL and VFL.

In one of my previous posts, I also posted a lengthy list of Swans players who were drafted as teenagers. This is completely at odds with Roosy's Moneyball comparison. It sounds good, but it fails to stand up to scrutiny. It's not really a system of Sydney, but only a handful draft picks. Whoopee! 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.

Of course we have teenage draft picks, you cant build a whole team on mature age proven players. The point is we have significantly more than the norm and they were integral to our success.

Anyway F''''k it. You dont have to call it "moneyball" but you cannot argue that the swans haven't defied convention in their list management. You cannot deny they have been successful in doing so. And you cannot deny they have rebuilt a premiership squad in 7 years using unconventional methods, whereas teams such as Essendon, Richmond, Carlton, Melbourne have failed relying on the draft.

 

[My Red Card Account]

Of course we have teenage draft picks, you cant build a whole team on mature age proven players. The point is we have significantly more than the norm and they were integral to our success.

This.

...which is the only general comparision I think most people would make between an AFL team and Moneyball - and the fact sydney focussed on the draft less and took to chasing fringe players to suit certain roles to a greater extent than other teams, is why SOME people associate Sydney with Moneyball. Its a bit of a stretch, but many would see as a reasonable correlation to refer to however minor it may be.

 

[wc_morty]

IF you were to choose a Moneyball team from the current rosters what would it look like? How would you structure it? For example if every player was available for a team built solely of statistics what would it look like?

Full Back - Average spoils, contested marks, rebound 50s & kicks
Ruck Rover - Average tackles, clearances, contested possession
Ruck - Average hit outs, goals, contested marks
Full Forward - Average goals, un/contested marks, clangers

if there was an actual formula for success, I would definitely be intrigued.

 

[Maddhew]

This.

...which is the only general comparision I think most people would make between an AFL team and Moneyball - and the fact sydney focussed on the draft less and took to chasing fringe players to suit certain roles to a greater extent than other teams, is why SOME people associate Sydney with Moneyball. Its a bit of a stretch, but many would see as a reasonable correlation to refer to however minor it may be.

My point exactly, but i would add when picking mature age players, you can be more sure of what they may bring to the team statistically,and plug gaps accordingly.

 

[Tigerbob]

LOL this thread is GOLD!

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