News Swans Talk In The Media 2018

[Tedeski]

Sydney spent this year trying to eliminate bias from its recruiting in a bid to give the club an edge over rivals at draft time
http://afl.com.au/news/2018-11-03/how-the-swans-are-trying-to-eliminate-recruiting-bias

Bloody stats...good read though!

I like this bit.
"Sydney used data analysis to help form judgments on players during the NAB AFL Trade Period and ultimately recruited Ryan Clarke (North Melbourne) and Jackson Thurlow (Geelong). "

 

[The King!]

Sydney starting to get lost up their own a-hole at times, horse might take a few with them when he goes hopefully

 

[BloodySwan]

Sydney starting to get lost up their own a-hole at times, horse might take a few with them when he goes hopefully

If I didn't know I'd think you hate the Swans

 

[RUNVS]

Sydney spent this year trying to eliminate bias from its recruiting in a bid to give the club an edge over rivals at draft time
http://afl.com.au/news/2018-11-03/how-the-swans-are-trying-to-eliminate-recruiting-bias

Bloody stats...good read though!

So this guy has basically been hired to be the devils advocate.

 

[BloodySwan]

So this guy has basically been hired to be the devils advocate.

But with an informed opinion

 

[RUNVS]

But with an informed opinion

Oddly enough it was an official position around 500 years ago as the devil's advocate was hired to try and argue against a person becoming a saint, with the idea that in theory it would prevent people who are undeserving of being saints from actually becoming one.

 

[scaryness]

Sydney spent this year trying to eliminate bias from its recruiting in a bid to give the club an edge over rivals at draft time
http://afl.com.au/news/2018-11-03/how-the-swans-are-trying-to-eliminate-recruiting-bias

Bloody stats...good read though!

Stats are handy to find and identify sleepers but the eye test should always come first, which is referenced in the article as well:

"That's all based on numbers. A lot of times I'll spit out a few players and Kinnear will say, 'No, he can't play', which is fine, and I'll watch the tape and I'll say, 'Yeah, no, he can't play'.

 

[sataris]

Reminds me of Moneyball.

 

[sataris]

Reminds me of Moneyball.

And now I read the article

lol

 

[Big Blood]

Oddly enough it was an official position around 500 years ago as the devil's advocate was hired to try and argue against a person becoming a saint, with the idea that in theory it would prevent people who are undeserving of being saints from actually becoming one.

You mean like Hannebery? He argued against becoming a Saint.

Also posted in the media links thread: here's Ted Richards talking with our new recruiting analyst on his (Ted's) podcast. Ted very pleased that AFL website quoted his interview. It's interesting stuff - hopefully we're getting a jump on most of the other clubs.
https://www.sixpark.com.au/news/2018/the-richards-report-moneyball

 

[Tuco]

Reminds me of Moneyball.

Haha.

I read a couple of paragraphs and texted a mate the same thing.

And then I read on to see it clearly references Moneyball.

 

[caesar88]

Sydney starting to get lost up their own a-hole at times, horse might take a few with them when he goes hopefully

Does that include Beatson?

 

[RobbieK]

Stats are handy to find and identify sleepers but the eye test should always come first, which is referenced in the article as well:

"That's all based on numbers. A lot of times I'll spit out a few players and Kinnear will say, 'No, he can't play', which is fine, and I'll watch the tape and I'll say, 'Yeah, no, he can't play'.

Statistics are as only good as our ability to collect useful data and make reasonable interpretations from it, they need to be taken with a grain of salt...

But why should the "eye test" always come first?

That is the whole point of Moneyball (actual Moneyball, not the myriad misinterpretations and misrepresentations of it), that in many circumstances we are biased to preference things that we should not value so highly and discount things entirely that do matter a lot. The pitcher with the odd action but superior ERA. The guys who don't hit home runs but get on base. The guys the scouts "didnt like the look of" were often the players identified by this approach as the ones that would provide most bang for buck.

A lot of the value of the Moneyball approach was specific to baseball, where individual performance is much more directly related to team result than in football and where the absence of a salary cap meant that poor teams needed to work out ways to compete with teams who could massively outspend them, so the approach doesn't necessarily smoothly transition across to football...

But that isn't to say that we shouldn't be considering its implications in football. Take our terrible record with first round picks for so long but our better record with lower picks and rookies. That suggested that we had good systems in place for judging what kinds of player strengths were important and which limitations we could work around, but that for some reason at the top end of the draft we were not making those same judgments. Why? We can only speculate, but it is possible that human biases were leading us towards different players at those higher picks when we would have been better off making selections more in line with our lower end picks.

 

[BloodySwan]

Statistics are as only good as our ability to collect useful data and make reasonable interpretations from it, they need to be taken with a grain of salt...

But why should the "eye test" always come first?

That is the whole point of Moneyball (actual Moneyball, not the myriad misinterpretations and misrepresentations of it), that in many circumstances we are biased to preference things that we should not value so highly and discount things entirely that do matter a lot. The pitcher with the odd action but superior ERA. The guys who don't hit home runs but get on base. The guys the scouts "didnt like the look of" were often the players identified by this approach as the ones that would provide most bang for buck.

A lot of the value of the Moneyball approach was specific to baseball, where individual performance is much more directly relates to team reault than in football and where the absence of a salary cap meant that poor teams needed to work out ways to compete with teams who could massively outspend them, so the approach doesn't necessarily smoothly transition across to football...

But that isn't to say that we shouldn't be considering its implications in football. Take our terrible record with first round picks for so long but our better record with lower picks and rookies. That suggested that we had good systems in place for judging what kinds of player strengths were important and which limitations we could work around, but that for some reason at the top end of the draft we were not making those same judgments. Why? We can only speculate, but it is possible that human biases were leading us towards different players at those higher picks when we would have been better off making selections more in line with our lower end picks.

I think AFL is much harder to put down into statistical form than baseball is. Moneyball's primary statistic was to gettings runs. AFL there definitely isn't one statistic which can be used in the same way. Until that is the case the eye test will have to be number one. They said in the article, players look great on statistics but when watched are awful footballers

 

[Wolftone]

Yay!
Back to the days where our crap coaches were attacking & we were pathetic.

Yes but there were mitigating circumstances. The club was always run on the smell of an oily rag. The best players mostly went elsewhere after they got known. It is hard to get a continuum that way.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[6yearsold]

Statistics are as only good as our ability to collect useful data and make reasonable interpretations from it, they need to be taken with a grain of salt...

But why should the "eye test" always come first?

That is the whole point of Moneyball (actual Moneyball, not the myriad misinterpretations and misrepresentations of it), that in many circumstances we are biased to preference things that we should not value so highly and discount things entirely that do matter a lot. The pitcher with the odd action but superior ERA. The guys who don't hit home runs but get on base. The guys the scouts "didnt like the look of" were often the players identified by this approach as the ones that would provide most bang for buck.

A lot of the value of the Moneyball approach was specific to baseball, where individual performance is much more directly relates to team reault than in football and where the absence of a salary cap meant that poor teams needed to work out ways to compete with teams who could massively outspend them, so the approach doesn't necessarily smoothly transition across to football...

But that isn't to say that we shouldn't be considering its implications in football. Take our terrible record with first round picks for so long but our better record with lower picks and rookies. That suggested that we had good systems in place for judging what kinds of player strengths were important and which limitations we could work around, but that for some reason at the top end of the draft we were not making those same judgments. Why? We can only speculate, but it is possible that human biases were leading us towards different players at those higher picks when we would have been better off making selections more in line with our lower end picks.

On this last point, Beatson was asked in an interview if there was anything he would do differently, or something like that and. his reply was along the lines of "I should of placed more emphasis on competitiveness". That is probably where he got the johnston and vespremi picks so wrong. It seemed he was saying that he was a bit seduced by their skill and ability.

 

[Big Blood]

On this last point, Beatson was asked in an interview if there was anything he would do differently, or something like that and. his reply was along the lines of "I should of placed more emphasis on competitiveness". That is probably where he got the johnston and vespremi picks so wrong. It seemed he was saying that he was a bit seduced by their skill and ability.

He could've been referring to a lot of players. Meredith (pick 26) and D. O'Keefe (pick 15) come to mind.

He's always been pretty good at trading. In recent years he and his team have gotten a lot better with the draft.

 

[Kirkswan]

True. Hope he still develops the same durability. Blakeysnr was both tough and strong for his build.

Maybe Nick will go along the same lines or become a beast like the once similarly skinny Goodesy did.

Check out this guy called Lance Franklin on debut... tall, skinny, streak of misery with a good left foot... Lol!

 

[Kirkswan]

That's good, we used to draft the best talent available and trade for what we needed in the team. Brought us 2 premierships doing that. I'm extremely excited for next year with the list we've got

2020 for me.

Any reason we can't have both?

 

[Kirkswan]

Swans in Doha
https://outline.com/fJFzHw

Cheers, loved the story and I really love that photo of the five of them in the desert... looking good they are

 

[Number37]

Any reason we can't have both?

Clubs in turmoil. Coach isn't any good. No talent.

You know the drill Kirky.

 

[connolly]

Oddly enough it was an official position around 500 years ago as the devil's advocate was hired to try and argue against a person becoming a saint, with the idea that in theory it would prevent people who are undeserving of being saints from actually becoming one.

Obviously lost the argument with Hanners.
Sorry should have read the thread before posting. Beaten to the punch line.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

C'mon 37. Even the most critical fan is looking forward to 2019. I am hopeful Cox will be whispering in Naismith''s ear and Stevie J will be encouraging riots on a more balanced forward line. I look forward to seeing COR, Blakey, Ling and FFS more of Dawson.

I know we will get better seasons from Heeney, Mills, George, Ollie and Haybarn.

I am hoping we will move away from chippetty chippetty and Horse will have a better season as the coach. He is not as bad as I sometimes think he is, but not as omniscient as some here think. All of us whatever our doubts hope he has a blinder.

 

[connolly]

I am posting this for those who apreciate this great music. "I am Adam Goodes, And Adam should be applauded when he stood up" Briggs and the late Gurrumul. Goodes brought more honour to our club than five premierships.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Spot on Connolly.