"Moneyball" for the MFC will entail drafting delisted duds and battlers who can't get games at current clubs then crossing fingers and hoping that they will improve at our club.

No it wouldn't.

Again, Cuban exile given $9m a year by an organisation that struggles to pay 5 times that to EVERBODY. The Yankees will pay about $200m in payroll this season.

You pay to your means - which with the salary cap is WHAT EVERYONE DOES, but it is more about WHERE you find your players. And, occasionally, paying them a significant amount because the value still says it is a good idea.

The last ten years the best teams have been built through the draft. The way Moneyball applies to the AFL is when we say we are going to try and a good team through trades and drafting of pros from other clubs and state leagues.

Podsiadly - Moneyball recruitment

Clark - Moneyball recruitment AND wage packet.

Barlow - MB recruitment

Mitchell - MB recruitment

Jolly and Ball - MB recruitment

And it's a pretty wishy-washy application of Moneyball as it is.

Nothing against Pods but I'd like to have seen how he'd have gone if he'd been picked by a rubbish team instead of a star studded perennial premiership contender.

Mind you not that any pox team would have picked him at that age because everyone's scared about 'keeping the kids' out etc.. etc.. Which is ok to a degree, but surely sometimes for a specialised position like a key forward you could go out and get a 28/29 year old to keep the spot warm while somebody else develops, to mentor 'the kids' and to help the rest of the side learn how to play to a forward's strengths.

moneyball, isnt it a movie?

Podsiadly - Moneyball recruitment

Clark - Moneyball recruitment AND wage packet.

Barlow - MB recruitment

Mitchell - MB recruitment

Jolly and Ball - MB recruitment

clasisic! Thats just a list of recruits that have done well over the last few years that werent picked straight from the under 18 carnival!

I reckon the Sydney Swans are the closest to being the Oakland A's in the money ball era. They've been able to assemble a list with a lot of discarded AFL players who have increased their stature as players at their second home. They've also been able to keep a competative list throughout the years through recruiting well in the draft. Might not be a direct comparison to money ball, but they're the trend setters in all of this from an AFL perspective IMO

clasisic! Thats just a list of recruits that have done well over the last few years that werent picked straight from the under 18 carnival!

I reckon the Sydney Swans are the closest to being the Oakland A's in the money ball era. They've been able to assemble a list with a lot of discarded AFL players who have increased their stature as players at their second home. They've also been able to keep a competative list throughout the years through recruiting well in the draft. Might not be a direct comparison to money ball, but they're the trend setters in all of this from an AFL perspective IMO

You're right.

What Sydney has done is more relevant to our sport than what a Baseball team has done with different rules and means of recruitment.

Funny that...

Moneyball in AFL is just annoying to hear as it doesn't translate at all well.

It wasn't if you don't understand the environment that Billy Beane is working under.

Clark was a proven pro playing behind bigger names and wasn't given the chance to 'own' a forward line.

You're telling me what I know ? I haven't read the book, or seen the movie and won't be doing either. So in that regard I'm at a disadvantage and won't argue a case with which I'm unfamiliar. But ...

Clark ended up at Melbourne because of opportunity. He was going home, but struggling to get a deal done. We entered the game because we thought he was a talented key forward option and we might be able to satisfy him and Brisbane.

As for not having an opportunity to "own" a forward-line. He played forward last year at Brisbane with only rare stints in the ruck. He kicked a goal in every one of his first 16 games before getting injured in round 17. He averaged only 4 hitouts per game, which was a stark contrast to the year in which he played in the ruck and averaged 22. Brown got injured in round 1 and missed the next 6 weeks. Clark was the main man in Brown's absence and an alternative key forward in his presence.

As I said, I won't waste much time on a concept with which I'm not overly familiar, but I'd be very surprised if the club considered Clark a moneyball signing.

You're telling me what I know ? I haven't read the book, or seen the movie and won't be doing either. So in that regard I'm at a disadvantage and won't argue a case with which I'm unfamiliar. But ...

As I said, I won't waste much time on a concept with which I'm not overly familiar, but I'd be very surprised if the club considered Clark a moneyball signing.

lol

This is why I cringe when ever someone brings up Moneyball. You readily admit to not knowing what Moneyball is yet you are defensive when I point out that that you don't know what Moneyball is.

Moneyball in AFL doesn't relate well and people should just not bother trying to tie it to our game. In esence, Moneyball is about using proven measurements to find value in players and using means to recruit players that are barely used.

AFL teams rarely trade IN their best or second best player and that is what we did.

Happy to stop talking about Moneyball - it doesn't relate to our game well.

How refreshingly positive you are - not!!!

How many "delisted duds and battlers who can't get games at current clubs" have we traded for in the Neeld era? Clark??? Yeah - a dud because he broke his foot!

Even the much maligned Sellar has shown some positives later in the season, as a depth player.

Being negative / positive is irrelevant to where the club is headed and hope is not a strategy as far as I'm concerned. I'm going on measurable results and this year we have been the worst side (outside the 2 clubs who field 15 year olds) that I have ever seen. I see absolutely no evidence to suggest we don't have a least another 5 years of watching this slop either.

Our moneyball approach is simply a fancy way of saying we are going to recycle players, these recycled players are probably going to be better than half the players on our list right now but that isn't exactly saying much is it. I never said Clark was a dud either. In fact he stood out like dog's nads when he was playing as he showed more passion and heart than 90% of his team mates. That's the reason he is already an instant fan favourite. If you're using Sellar as an example of Moneyball then we are totally stuffed, might as well close the doors now. You've said it yourself Sellar "has shown some positives later in the season, as a depth Player" this ain't gonna get it done by a long stretch.

Try being refreshingly honest with yourself about the current position of the club. The rose coloured glasses era is over now.

lol

This is why I cringe when ever someone brings up Moneyball. You readily admit to not knowing what Moneyball is yet you are defensive when I point out that that you don't know what Moneyball is.

Moneyball in AFL doesn't relate well and people should just not bother trying to tie it to our game. In esence, Moneyball is about using proven measurements to find value in players and using means to recruit players that are barely used.

AFL teams rarely trade IN their best or second best player and that is what we did.

Happy to stop talking about Moneyball - it doesn't relate to our game well.

You're easily excitable if you laugh out loud at me questioning whether Clark is a moneyball signing, but that's your prerogative. You're one of many that giggle over little.

Where did you point out that I didn't know what moneyball is ? I was the one that told you that I hadn't seen the movie, or read the book. I've read and heard discussions about it, but it holds little interest for me. And I wasn't "defensive" and I'm still not, I just don't see that Clark is a moneyball signing - not withstanding my unfamiliarity.

You talk about an opportunity of "owning" a forward-line. Every club would prefer two big key forwards, as opposed to one individual "owning" a forward-line. But it's not easy to get two and some don't have one. So I have an issue with your "owning" concept. Also, I've already pointed out that Clark played forward all of last year, as a two pronged key forward attack with Brown. You're insinuating that Melbourne privately came up with the idea that he could be a key forward when he was already playing that role for his current team - if not all that successfully. Fremantle were also looking at him as a key forward to complement Pavlich. Yes, another case of moneyball no doubt.

Just like (IBIT) Scully.

LOL

Moneyball in AFL doesn't relate well and people should just not bother trying to tie it to our game. In esence, Moneyball is about using proven measurements to find value in players and using means to recruit players that are barely used.

Correct, but not entirely. The key concept behind moneyball is the purchasing of wins, or more spefically the purchasing of runs. Enough runs to win enough games to obtain a playoff berth. The trick is not paying to much for those wins. Working backwards this means:

If I have $100,000 and I need 100 wins to make the playoffs that means I can spend no more than $1000 per win.

Hence the drafting technique introduced in Moneyball is all about this concept. Spend money on players that deliver runs/wins but don't pay more than a specific $ value for each of those runs/wins.

In football terms this could be loosely related to the purchasing of goals or maybe winning quarters. I.e. maximise your spending on players that provide you the best opportunity to win quarters of football. Broken down I would think this would mean:

- players that are on the park week in week out

- players that win their position more often than not

- players that impact the scoreboard

Obviously it's a complex concept and probably can't be described perfectly in a single forum post but I do believe that as a concept it has some merit in football and doesn't necessarily need to mean onlu obtaining cheap players from state leagues and bottom ends of opposing team lists.

You're easily excitable if you laugh out loud at me questioning whether Clark is a moneyball signing, but that's your prerogative. You're one of many that giggle over little.

You can't know whether Clark is a moneyball signing until you know what he's paid. If the figures quoted last year when he joined are accurate he was anything but a moneyball signing IMO.

But to truly know you'd have to know what measurements were used to evaluate him. We don't so any argument is pretty meaningless.

Moneyball is a way of evaluating players and getting "value for money". The most relevant area in AFL footy is to look at role players.

I reckon you're on the money BH and have a better handle on it than RPFC.

You're easily excitable if you laugh out loud at me questioning whether Clark is a moneyball signing, but that's your prerogative. You're one of many that giggle over little.

Where did you point out that I didn't know what moneyball is ? I was the one that told you that I hadn't seen the movie, or read the book. I've read and heard discussions about it, but it holds little interest for me. And I wasn't "defensive" and I'm still not, I just don't see that Clark is a moneyball signing - not withstanding my unfamiliarity.

You talk about an opportunity of "owning" a forward-line. Every club would prefer two big key forwards, as opposed to one individual "owning" a forward-line. But it's not easy to get two and some don't have one. So I have an issue with your "owning" concept. Also, I've already pointed out that Clark played forward all of last year, as a two pronged key forward attack with Brown. You're insinuating that Melbourne privately came up with the idea that he could be a key forward when he was already playing that role for his current team - if not all that successfully. Fremantle were also looking at him as a key forward to complement Pavlich. Yes, another case of moneyball no doubt.

Just like (IBIT) Scully.

LOL

Unfortnately there is not an acronym or popular motif for rolling one's eyes combined with a dismissive snigger.

You are unfamilar with a subject, at your own admission and I am trying to inform you on said subject.

Namely, the idea of recruiting our FF and best player (in my view) from another AFL club - whose best year came as a ruckman - by trading him IN.

That doesn't happen often (you can challenge me on that if you would like).

Pretty much the ethos of the Oakland As and the premise of Moneyball. Recruit losers from Boston (Reddick, Moss, Crisp), journeymen for important roles (Balfour, Colon), long time one club pros (Inge), and a Cuban defector (Cespedes).

That doesn't happen often. It's even rarer when it is at one ball club.

As for HWFUA - I wouldn't say it was a Moneyball recruit as he was recruited on the word that Bill James would just hate - "potential."

And yes I did want to take the word of a 20 year old Demon.

I was wrong to trust the simple son of an ethically challenged man, but thankyou for taking an interest in my posts.

IWUAEHIIUE.

aren't we still trying to play like Geelong?? or was that last season....

Correct, but not entirely. The key concept behind moneyball is the purchasing of wins, or more spefically the purchasing of runs. Enough runs to win enough games to obtain a playoff berth. The trick is not paying to much for those wins. Working backwards this means:

Obviously it's a complex concept and probably can't be described perfectly in a single forum post but I do believe that as a concept it has some merit in football and doesn't necessarily need to mean onlu obtaining cheap players from state leagues and bottom ends of opposing team lists.

I agree with what you say, and since you are talking about runs and 100 wins, I take it that you are a baseball fan.

Now we can discuss WAR rating and every other new measurement that has been devised but it doesn't translate well as footy is a team sport relying on other players for individuals to succeed/not succeed. Baseball is a team sport played indivdually. One batter against one pitcher. It is a lot more messy when trying to place measurements on footy players - and you are going to need them if you are going to talk about measuring a 'win.'

I don't think it translates well at all.

Baseball is a team sport played indivdually. One batter against one pitcher. It is a lot more messy when trying to place measurements on footy players

This is the key point.

An article the Age ran last year looking at how Moneyball has been applied in the AFL. Interesting reading:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/moneyball-afl-clubs-search-for-hidden-gems-20111125-1nzbq.html#ixzz1fKS9sfCZ

Agree, RP. It does translate but not directly. Hence my use of loosely as a descriptor.

That said though, there are statistics that coaches use to determine impact on a game. Things such as pressure acts, disposal efficiency, spoils, meters gained and tackles are stats outside of the common kicks, marks, handballs, goals.

A very simplistic example.

Player A

Kicks - 10

Meters gained - 1000

DE - 75%

Player B

Kicks - 25

Meters gained 600

DE - 70%

Based on those statistics in isolation player A is more valuable to the team in terms what impact they may actually have on the result. However in general terms the 25 kick Dane Swan is generally more highly regarded than the 10 kick Cyril Rioli.

The best example of a team who's found success through a 'Moneyball'(i hate that term) plan is Richmond.

They pciked up Grigg and Houli who are killing it for them now. That is the way to do it, go after a side who has s surplus

of a certain position as they will be willing to give one up.

The best example of a team who's found success through a 'Moneyball'(i hate that term) plan is Richmond.

They pciked up Grigg and Houli who are killing it for them now. That is the way to do it, go after a side who has s surplus

of a certain position as they will be willing to give one up.

Morris as well. That guy bleeds for richmond

Agree, RP. It does translate but not directly. Hence my use of loosely as a descriptor.

That said though, there are statistics that coaches use to determine impact on a game. Things such as pressure acts, disposal efficiency, spoils, meters gained and tackles are stats outside of the common kicks, marks, handballs, goals.

A very simplistic example.

Player A

Kicks - 10

Meters gained - 1000

DE - 75%

Player B

Kicks - 25

Meters gained 600

DE - 70%

Based on those statistics in isolation player A is more valuable to the team in terms what impact they may actually have on the result. However in general terms the 25 kick Dane Swan is generally more highly regarded than the 10 kick Cyril Rioli.

Yes, and what if I measured Selwoods outputs with Bartel, Ling, Corey, and Ablett around him.

Would they be affected, positively or negatively, if he played for Melbourne instead?

Measurements are so difficult to compare as to be rendered useless unless you are measuring like-for-like - premier midfielders in two even midfields, that have finished near on the ladder.

I think we can come up with them but I don't think they are very useful. SABRmetrics are just not helpful to the AFL. The only side of Moneyball that might be worthwhile is the use of untapped avenues for recruiting players. And even then it is very structured in the AFL.

In the MLB there are players from Europe leagues, South American leagues, high schools, colleges, AAA, other MLB clubs and defected Cubans!

I understand how it can work for looking at existing AFL players for trades or even for evaluating your own players - throw together a whole bunch of stats in the computer and eventually you can drill it down to ones that correlate with winning and then isolate those players. It's certainly a much harder exercise than in baseball where the numbers are easier to calculate but eventually you could get there. Fox footy has its own money ball criteria with disposal efficiency, contested ball and possessions or whatever it is. However I struggle to see how it really will help with under 18's because its such a difficult age to work out who will progress to AFL level. For example, if you drill it down that contested ball winning and disposal efficiency are the 2 most important stats how do you then apply that to a group of players who play in different competitions and have different athletic ability.

Take the top SA under 18 who's been playing SANFL and a few games in the Under 18 carnival compared to a guy playing TAC and then plays most of his minutes against NT or Queensland in the under 18 carnival because he's injured against WA and SA.

If i was a recruiter I'd come back to the 4 following points over and over again - ball winning, disposal, basic athletic ability and character. Whenever we recruit guys I look for them to be proven in winning the ball at the highest level they've played, I don't see any point recruiting the guy who barely got a kick in the TAC cup. I think look at whether they can use the ball by foot and whether they are making good choices. I then see if we've got a guy who will eventually have the fitness/speed/strength/height to compete at AFL level and I hope the club has picked someone who will do the work required.

You can't know whether Clark is a moneyball signing until you know what he's paid. If the figures quoted last year when he joined are accurate he was anything but a moneyball signing IMO.

But to truly know you'd have to know what measurements were used to evaluate him. We don't so any argument is pretty meaningless.

Moneyball is a way of evaluating players and getting "value for money". The most relevant area in AFL footy is to look at role players.

I reckon you're on the money BH and have a better handle on it than RPFC.

Thanks Fan. That makes sense with my limited understanding. Contract status, top 10 draft pick, highly sought after, and selection in the AA squad gave me gut instincts that he wasn't a 'typical' moneyball signing.

Your thoughts Dee*ceiving ?

Thanks Fan. That makes sense with my limited understanding. Contract status, top 10 draft pick, highly sought, and a showing in the AA squad gave me gut instincts that he wasn't a 'typical' moneyball signing. In fact, not at all.

As has been covered off neumerous times, you're never going to get an exact Moneyball trade or recruit because AFL isnt similar enough to baseball to make a clear cut comparison.

You can argue the toss each way. Money ball recruiting also had a bit to do with filling roles and needs in the squad. Clark could be considered a money ball signing becasue he was recruited with a exact role in mind due to his specific attributes. We went out an recruited the best available tall marking forward. IMO he wasnt recruited becasue he was mitch clark the top 10 draft pick, i think we went after him because he was tall, could take a grab, has good skills, and is a competitor, and was the best of this type of player that we could get

Money ball recruiting also had a bit to do with filling roles and needs in the squad. Clark could be considered a money ball signing becasue he was recruited with a exact role in mind due to his specific attributes.

By your definition every player you trade for is a moneyball signing. Because I'd never trade for any player without a role in mind.

Thanks, I think I've got it.

Well, maybe not.

The actual premise of Moneyball was Bean didnt go down the old track of observing or paying much credence to the conventional givens of player stats. That is the ones most were accustomed to using such as bases stolen, runs hit,and batting averages etc. They were seen as flawed.

Bean used things like slugging average which looks at the number of bases gained per at-at. He also looked at on base averages which in laymans terms is how often a player got to a base by their merit and not a stuff up of the opposing team ( its probably a bit more to it but thats kinda close ) .

So as i see it if converted to AFL then we dispose of those pesky meaningless stats that arent qualified such as handball and kicks. You instead would be looking to the results of those possesions and if they were used to advantage. You migh thave a pos-kick average say. Where you divide the number of plus-team advantage outcomes by the number of kicks used. This way its not just about collecting possessons for players. And I imagine you could go on and on into other areas.

You then look around at players ( who may or maynot become avail ) to see who has merit when gauged by these 'new' attributes.

You also assign a value ( monetary ) to these variables and look for players that can provide adequate return on investment. They may not be superstars but they may have good consistency in playing certain roles. You then see if you can match remunerations to their expected efforts. You gradually build up a team by combining the expected returns on the field from your assembled group.

edit...only just saw the efforts of Dee'ceiving and RPFC ... ..could use that sort of thing as well.