Moved Thread Sydney v Oakland A's, a tale of two contrasts

[Bunk Moreland]

some would be aware of Michael Lewis' Moneyball, on the Oakland A's. I had read his blog prior to that, i think he was an Art History grad from Brown who then worked for JPMorgan or Credit Suisse in London as an analyst, before working for Economist as a journo.

His book, on the Oakland A's font office full of Harvard MBAs who did a scientific analysis and KPIs over the game, to workout how they could compete with the Yankees, WhiteSox and Dodgers from the big markets and bigger budgets.

a few points. Collingwood were better taking the 350k per year, for Leon Davis, and paying Martie Clarke 180k, and using the money to redistribute to Swan and Cloke and Pendles. Running back pockets are a dime a dozen, even if they are AA, and he was never gonna win them a premiership, even if he could perform on the final Saturday.

Now the money the Swans have spent, have tied them into a team structure for the interim when Tippett is still on the list *caveat, is Clarkson's ability to change a Franklin less reliant team structure. And a pending retirement of Goodes.

Seems alot of money to entrench an unwieldy tactic/strategy for the next ~6 years.

great for marketing for a new team like GC or GWS. But Sydney dont need marketing. marketing dont buy flags eh

RussellEbertHandball

Sydney definitely, definitely need marketing.

A few years down the ladder (which they will have eventually) will impact them severely.

If they're without at least one big name and recognisable face it would be all the more worse. Goodes is nearly done.

They've just been able to manufacture success for so long now I think people forget how tough they still have it in Sydney in terms of getting eyes on them.

This deal for Buddy is about locking in an invaluable marketing commodity for the long term.

Sydney still have a tough gig. GWS's is next to impossible.

 

[calyam]

The essence of Moneyball is that if you are a small club and their isn't a salary cap then you have to be more efficient and effective to compete with the big clubs.

As a tactic it works better in a salary cap environment and even better again in a non-salary cap environment when you are a big spender. Essentially it is just the notion that you try to maximise output for a given level of salary expenditure. Oakland's advantages declined when other - bigger spending - teams began to use the same techniques.

Michael Lewis' motif on Oakland, was all about devising a front office scheme, in harmony with the MLB economic market, and how they could reconcile the game day strategy on the diamond.

AFL is all Mark Neeld. I am at Collingwood and done my apprenticeship under Mick Malthouse, so I will just export the Malthouse schema.

that is about as much greymatter you get in AFL. They think Will Minson and Bob Murphy are profound.

A little like Denis Rodman in the NBA in the 90s. Sleeping with Madonna and having nose rings and tattoos made him one out of the box, nonetheless he was branding himself as alternative and individual. All Rodman was doing, was mark to market, in pop-culture not accounting standards. He was just as an automaton of other sheep, because he let their behaviour rule him.

In betting parlance, Unders does not necessarily have to be a market or economic definition. It is just spotting soft spots, or sweet spots. And it will be unique to the culture of the team/club. That is where Neeld goes wrong.

Yeah, the AFL is a long way behind at the moment and lacking in sophistication in a number of areas. Drafting in the AFL is still at that level where, in the Moneyball movie, the scouts are asking whether a player has a hot girlfriend because if he doesn't then he lacks confidence. I am sure they are using statistics and trying to be sophisticated in their recruiting but it remains at a superficial level at the moment.

We have had two recent clear-cut examples where 'Moneyball' type techniques could and should have been used. The first was Brendon Fevola, who was our of favour for personality reasons but was still an extremely productive player. He had an elite skill - goalkicking - which was as good as anyone else in the league. He was prepared to play for anyone and at the minimum salary. His likely output would exceed that salary many times over and some teams would have been paying five to ten times as much for a similar level of output.

The second was Dayle Garlett, a problem child, who was ranking in the top echelon of talents going into last years draft but ended up going undrafted. The likelihood of him exceeding the output of the later draft picks is exceeding high but no club would touch him. He went on to kick 48 goals and finish tenth in the Sandover Medal in the WAFL and remains vastly superior to many players on an AFL list. But again factors beyond production were considered more important.

Fans are very similar if the drafts and trading threads across the board are any indication. We are hopelessly fixated on the notion that younger is always better, we prefer to overpay for brand names rather than for players who are cheaper and successful fill a need, and we are largely ignorant of statistical measures that provide an indication of a players production relative to their peers.

The Dennis Rodman example you touched on is a pertinent one. Somebody with a personality like Rodman would not even be considered by an AFL club, despite the existence of an elite skill. If the Chicago Bulls had a similar mentality to AFL clubs they likely would have missed out on three championships. It highlights what a huge decision it is to focus on something intangible like culture that cannot in any way be measured and I cannot help but feel that most clubs are getting it wrong.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

As a tactic it works better in a salary cap environment and even better again in a non-salary cap environment when you are a big spender. Essentially it is just the notion that you try to maximise output for a given level of salary expenditure. Oakland's advantages declined when other - bigger spending - teams began to use the same techniques.

There are only 2 environments - a salary cap league or a non cap league. Not sure how it works better in one and even better in another.

Yeah, the AFL is a long way behind at the moment and lacking in sophistication in a number of areas. Drafting in the AFL is still at that level where, in the Moneyball movie, the scouts are asking whether a player has a hot girlfriend because if he doesn't then he lacks confidence. I am sure they are using statistics and trying to be sophisticated in their recruiting but it remains at a superficial level at the moment.

AFL draft 18 year olds. The US sports draft 22-24 year olds. It makes a difference. Image drafting players after they played 4 years in the local state leagues against men. There would be a completely new data set to analysis.

The second was Dayle Garlett, a problem child, who was ranking in the top echelon of talents going into last years draft but ended up going undrafted. The likelihood of him exceeding the output of the later draft picks is exceeding high but no club would touch him. He went on to kick 48 goals and finish tenth in the Sandover Medal in the WAFL and remains vastly superior to many players on an AFL list. But again factors beyond production were considered more important.

....

The Dennis Rodman example you touched on is a pertinent one. Somebody with a personality like Rodman would not even be considered by an AFL club, despite the existence of an elite skill. If the Chicago Bulls had a similar mentality to AFL clubs they likely would have missed out on three championships. It highlights what a huge decision it is to focus on something intangible like culture that cannot in any way be measured and I cannot help but feel that most clubs are getting it wrong.

Big difference is that in US sports contracts can be torn up and players can be traded away mid season and even at end of season and players don't have a say in where they are going it varies from dport to sport. The AFL clubs don't have this flexibility.

 

[calyam]

There are only 2 environments - a salary cap league or a non cap league. Not sure how it works better in one and even better in another.

I specifically stated that it works better in a non-salary cap environment when you are a big spending team. Clearly that situation is a subset of the non-salary cap environment. That is why Oakland's advantage eventually disappeared. To think of it a different way, you could say that the more money you have relative to your opponents the more successful you will be utilising a 'Moneyball' type technique.

AFL draft 18 year olds. The US sports draft 22-24 year olds. It makes a difference. Image drafting players after they played 4 years in the local state leagues against men. There would be a completely new data set to analysis.

That seems to be largely the problem of the clubs. They choose whether to draft 18 year olds or whether to draft 20 year olds. If there were no restrictions they would be drafting 16 and 17 year olds. I can understand that for the most highly regarded talent but recruiters could easily make better decisions in the third round onwards. They choose not to.

In addition, the age of draftees differs across the sports, until recently you could draft basketballers out of high school but now they have to complete one year of college or play internationally for a season to gain eligibility.

Big difference is that in US sports contracts can be torn up and players can be traded away mid season and even at end of season and players don't have a say in where they are going it varies from dport to sport. The AFL clubs don't have this flexibility.

Not the case in all US sports. In the NBA, contracts are generally guaranteed and this does cause problems.

Nevertheless, their is a tendency for more risk-taking than has traditionally been the case in the AFL. For most teams in the AFL they are more concerned about being good five years from now, rather than getting better in the short-term; however, given most teams are incompetent off-field you end up with rebuilding after rebuilding after rebuilding.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I specifically stated that it works better in a non-salary cap environment when you are a big spending team. Clearly that situation is a subset of the non-salary cap environment. That is why Oakland's advantage eventually disappeared. To think of it a different way, you could say that the more money you have relative to your opponents the more successful you will be utilising a 'Moneyball' type technique.

Re read what you wrote - I will quote it for you

"As a tactic it works better in a salary cap environment and even better again in a non-salary cap environment when you are a big spender. Essentially it is just the notion that you try to maximise output for a given level of salary expenditure. Oakland's advantages declined when other - bigger spending - teams began to use the same techniques.

"As a tactic it works better in a salary cap environment" - better than what??

You either use it when you are in a salary cap or non salary cap environment. What is the 3rd option. You either used poor grammar or reckon there is a 3rd option. If it's not grammar what is the 3rd option?

 

[blackcat]

only positive side of ledger

harvard MBA would measure the liability side of ledger, not just goals.
you quote Fevola, but like Carey, if you ruin a fabric of the team, you hurt the performance of the team. It is a measurement, that will change according to the culture. A 1980's football culture, without a spotlight and fishbowl, Fevola might still be on a Carlton list. But you damage others, and hurt others performances on Saturday/
Your RBI average, is also determinant of your entire roster. Man is not a world unto himself.The may be some think indicators, to make you think, an RBI number, will go up, or go down, if you put one in that batting lineup. But this is not measurable.

 

[blackcat]

You either use it when you are in a salary cap or non salary cap environment. What is the 3rd option. You either used poor grammar or reckon there is a 3rd option. If it's not grammar what is the 3rd option?

it is a spectrum.

austere-rigid-strict salary cap... ...---> salary cap clauses ... .... -> no salary cap

 

[calyam]

Re read what you wrote - I will quote it for you

"As a tactic it works better in a salary cap environment and even better again in a non-salary cap environment when you are a big spender. Essentially it is just the notion that you try to maximise output for a given level of salary expenditure. Oakland's advantages declined when other - bigger spending - teams began to use the same techniques.

"As a tactic it works better in a salary cap environment" - better than what??

You either use it when you are in a salary cap or non salary cap environment. What is the 3rd option. You either used poor grammar or reckon there is a 3rd option. If it's not grammar what is the 3rd option?

Given what I was initially replying to, it should be clear that my intention was to say that the tactic works better in a salary cap environment than in the environment faced by Oakland. However, the tactic will naturally work even better if a team is in a no salary cap environment (that faced by Oakland) but is instead a big spender.

The reason for that is, as I stated in my second post:

"To think of it a different way, you could say that the more money you have relative to your opponents the more successful you will be utilising a 'Moneyball' type technique."

 

[blackcat]

"To think of it a different way, you could say that the more money you have relative to your opponents the more successful you will be utilising a 'Moneyball' type technique."

RussEb its about the market that exists. And finding the soft spot in the existing market. The market is malleable, when other front office MBAs from other teams besides Oakland, are given a heads up to their metrics and formula, there is a NEW EQUILIBRIUM in the market. Like they often say with the stockmarket, dont go with the herd. The most successful funds managers over the long term, and multiple bust-boon business cycles, where you can neutralise the business cycle, will have a culture and strategy that is unique, and not marked to market or the ASX100 formula. They go where the sweet spot value resides.

and Cal, Collingwood can make All Australians out of rookies.

Rookies, who out of pure will, they have willed themselves onto club lists, and then first 18, and then All Australian. Doping has aided players on the periphary, create the physical characteristics, to create a 6 million dollar man player.

i love hayden ballantine, but he is one of the athletes i can see would be a VFL player.

It is very difficult to measure will. You need to see the athletes on the training track, and in the fourth quarter of games in August when everyone is tired.

 

[The_Reaper]

RussEb its about the market that exists. And finding the soft spot in the existing market. The market is malleable, when other front office MBAs from other teams besides Oakland, are given a heads up to their metrics and formula, there is a NEW EQUILIBRIUM in the market. Like they often say with the stockmarket, dont go with the herd. The most successful funds managers over the long term, and multiple bust-boon business cycles, where you can neutralise the business cycle, will have a culture and strategy that is unique, and not marked to market or the ASX100 formula. They go where the sweet spot value resides.

and Cal, Collingwood can make All Australians out of rookies.

Rookies, who out of pure will, they have willed themselves onto club lists, and then first 18, and then All Australian. Doping has aided players on the periphary, create the physical characteristics, to create a 6 million dollar man player.

i love hayden ballantine, but he is one of the athletes i can see would be a VFL player.

It is very difficult to measure will. You need to see the athletes on the training track, and in the fourth quarter of games in August when everyone is tired.

And Ballas of course is a player who missed out on the 18 year old drafts and had to play a few years in the WAFL and only got drafted after winning the Sandover.

Priddis is in the same boat and he's someone who is a bit slow for his position in the AFL.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It is very difficult to measure will. You need to see the athletes on the training track, and in the fourth quarter of games in August when everyone is tired.

Excellent example of will and heart and scouts missing it was Tom Brady in the NFL draft taken pick no.199 and the 7th quarterback taken in the draft despite time and again winning games from a long way back for Michigan. As they say in the doco its not always about the numbers and statistical analysis.

We have an on going Nature v Nurture thread on the Port Board. In the following post last year I looked at the ESPN doco on Brady and broke it down as the doco was on You Tube in 6 parts but those parts have been removed by the NFL. Luckily someone has put up the full doco on You Tube and its still there. Here is a cut and paste of what I wrote in January last year.


http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/natural-ability-vs-hard-work.899341/page-3#post-23206408

All thru 2011 ESPN have been running the Year of the Quarterback doco's...... Monday nights program was called The Brady 6 - about Tom Brady who was taken pick no. 199 by the New England Patriots in the sixth round of the 2000 draft and six quarterbacks who were taken before Brady was picked.

Brady grew up 20 minutes from Candle Stick Park….Montana was exactly who Tom Brady wanted to be.

Tom Brady Snr: “We used to be died in the wool 49ers fans. We loved Jo Montana.”

Steve Mariucci 49ers Head coach 1997-2002.
“We knew all about Tom…Tom’s from Sarah High School right up the street here… At the Combine… you saw this tall gangly looking kid. Ran a 5.2 something ( for 40 yards) one of the slowest quarterbacks in the Combine. Does he wow you throwing the ball –No. ..had just an Ok arm. Did his coaches at Michigan really stand on the table and say this is the greatest quarterback since Joe Montana – No – Not even close. They had to decide if it was him or Drew Henson.

We even had a local Combine in San Francisco where kids from the local colleges or local high schools can come and have a work out. Tom was there and Bill (Walsh) was there. And Tom to be quiet honest did nothing that would say – hey we need to draft this guy.”

NFL analyst – “his 40 (yard) time and the vertical jump in 32 years of doing this, we’re talking about 576 quarterbacks, he was number 576.”

Brady – “It’s not really what my skill set is. But fortunately for me that’s not what quarterbacking is about either.”

....

Greg Harden Michigan Assistant Athletics director - “He was skinny, slow (laughs). Too pretty to be a football player, but he was smarter than everybody. And he studied night and day, day and night..”

Lloyd Carr – coach at Michigan – “ Nobody works harder than Tom Brady.”

...

In 2010, 3 time super bowl champion Tom Brady became the first unanimous MVP in NFL history.

Steve Mariucci – 49ers coach 1997-2002.
“He was right in our backyard and he probably always wanted to be a 49er, and that would have been great. In fact if we had drafted him I probably would still be coach here………

His poor scouting report is repeated.

Brady Snr “They missed the most important part – heart. They didn’t understand what drives somebody.

Mariucci – ‘We didn’t open up his chest and look at his heart.. We didn’t look at that. I don’t know if anybody did. And what kind of spine he has and reliancecy, and all the things that are making him really great right now.

Lloyd Carr – coach at Michigan. –“This game is a struggle. Tom Brady embraces that struggle more than anybody I’ve ever known.


Marc Bulger one of the Brady 6. “ It’s no accident he got to where he is and once he had a super bowl, two super bowls, three super bowls,…. he’s still working just as hard.

Narrator – A decade into his career, the man taken with pick 199 has achieved it all, but still fees plenty to prove.

Brady – “It’s not really a chip on my shoulder. It’s just the feeling that man maybe nobody wants ya. When I watch myself play, at times I still don’t think I’m very good. Man you’re still not very fast. You gotta a decent arm. You know I made some pretty bad reads on that day. That’s what gets me up and motivates me. I always want to feel like I’m the best quarterback for this team. I want to earn it every single day”

 

[blackcat]

And Ballas of course is a player who missed out on the 18 year old drafts and had to play a few years in the WAFL and only got drafted after winning the Sandover.

Priddis is in the same boat and he's someone who is a bit slow for his position in the AFL.

priddis, i dont see the Lance Armstrong side like HB. but i give him a wide berth, i luv the critter