One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on April 16, 2014, 10:41:32 PM
-
Fox Footy expert David King runs the rule over Richmond’s recycled list looking to contend in 2014
Herald-Sun
April 16, 2014 9:00PM
LIST management and recruiting are inexact sciences. Both are full of opinions and philosophies, successes and failures.
It’s largely about blending the elite picks with the speculative and getting the balance right at a time when the opportunity for the ultimate success is nigh.
The Richmond Football Club’s blend and balance has ventured down the “Moneyball” path over the past 3-4 years. It is an initiative not uncommon in the AFL, but to this extent it is unprecedented.
The Tigers have acquired previously exposed talent from rival clubs for minimal cost — both financially and late draft picks — where the returns are low percentage.
These players are available for a reason; they weren’t considered good enough.
Rarely, if ever, would these players become A Grade and are most likely destined to be role players or solid B or C Graders at best.
The theory that the “Moneyballers” are better than the unsighted kids is, again only opinion. But considering the volume of games spent and time invested, the question must be asked: Are those games wasted?
These B or C Graders rarely alter momentum in games and when contests are sliding away like we’ve witnessed over the recent couple of seasons, have they had the mental strength and application to stifle the oppositions run? Particularly late in games?
Shaun Grigg and Bachar Houli are the poster boys for the Moneyball theory. Richmond would state that they paid only a small price for these types, but the reality is that it’s another list position. Another youngster.
Would the Tigers faithful prefer to witness Liam McBean possibly fail, but learn for the next five to 10 weeks, rather than ride the Aaron Edwards roller-coaster for what will be either his last or second last season?
Which is the better investment? Young players continue to surprise and at times disappoint, but they’re the future.
Richmond’s recruiting department has nailed their first-round picks over the last seven to eight years, generally selecting the best available midfielders, including Trent Cotchin, Dustin Martin, Reece Conca, Brandon Ellis and Nick Vlastuin.
The core of the Tigers’ list is elite or trending that way. Jack Riewoldt and Alex Rance will remain the bookends to build around. There is an impatience regarding Richmond’s next top four or premiership tilt, of which I have been guilty, but maybe they simply aren’t there yet.
Hawthorn’s strategic list management decisions involve the releasing of elite picks for elite talent and therefore, maximum returns. Brian Lake, Shaun Burgoyne and Jack Gunston were effectively traded for picks 9, 21 and 24 over the past four seasons.
Lake won the Norm Smith medal, while Gunston challenged with four goals, but they wouldn’t have got there at all without the three-goal preliminary final heroics of Burgoyne, who put the Hawks in front late.
You get what you pay for. They are all big-game performers who cost, but delivered.
What is the success rate of the Moneyballers in big games and big moments?
This season at Punt Rd will bring those times and those moments and the football world waits to see whether they rise to that challenge or not. If they fail then surely the Moneyball program must be shelved.
Sydney has historically owned this second club revitalisation method, but look to have significantly changed their philosophy — Kurt Tippet and Lance Franklin are a far cry from Mitch Morton and Marty Mattner.
Geelong has built almost exclusively with draft picks, but in recent years Hamish McIntosh, Jared Rivers and Josh Caddy have been added after the failed tilt at Travis Boak.
How many of these flawed Moneyball types is too many? How many before your blend and your team is diluted? Is there a tipping point? Damien Hardwick must wonder why his list is more diluted than any other team.
There isn’t a correct or incorrect answer to list composition. There’s no manual or how-to guide. Feedback comes in the form of wins and losses. That is the harsh reality of the win-only industry that is the AFL.
Knowing what stage you’re at is the single most important assessment at AFL clubs. All decisions are streamlined around the differing phases from rebuild to premiership launch. Richmond faces some very interesting and confronting decisions at seasons end, because under Hardwick they’ve steadily improved from six wins in 2010, to eight in 2011, to 10 in 2012 and to 15 last year.
A step backwards without the promotion of youth would be a significant setback.
Is this Moneyball approach allowing Richmond to become a genuine contender or just a finals aspirant? Are they recruiting for mediocrity and if so what’s the point?
Time will be the judge, jury and executioner.
SECOND-HAND TIGERS
Todd Banfield (Brisbane Lions)
Troy Chaplin (Port Adelaide)
Aaron Edwards (North Melbourne)
Nathan Gordon (Sydney)
Shaun Grigg (Carlton)
Shaun Hampson (Carlton)
Bachar Houli (Essendon)
Chris Knights (Adelaide)
Ivan Maric (Adelaide)
Anthony Miles (GWS)
Ricky Petterd (Melbourne)
Orren Stephenson (Geelong)
Matt Thomas (Port Adelaide)
— No. of players on your clubs list who started elsewhere:
Richmond 13
Carlton 12
St Kilda 12
Collingwood 11
GWS Giants 11
Hawthorn 11
Melbourne 11
Port Adelaide 10
West Coast Eagles 9
Brisbane 9
Sydney Swans 9
Adelaide 8
Fremantle 8
Gold Coast Suns 8
North Melbourne 6
Essendon 5
Western Bulldogs 5
Geelong 3
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/fox-footy-expert-david-king-runs-the-rule-over-richmonds-recycled-list-looking-to-contend-in-2014/story-fndv7pj3-1226886785519?from=trendinglinks
-
4 of ours are rookie listed , ::)
-
Miles should have been elevated.
-
right.....footy media is just so damn fickle...
last year when we were going real well, everyone was applauding our recruitment and blair hartley for his work in moneyball
now that we haven't been playing so well...all of a sudden is that we topped up..
and as bojangles said.....4 of them were rookie listed...so how was it that we compromised our drafting.....go figure
-
King's right but he's also a bandwagoning flog who's only changed his tune on the back of results.....had us finishing Top 4 in his pre-season predictions so he can't have been that sceptical of our recruiting strategy. Some of us were concerned about this "moneyball" crap long before now.
-
right.....footy media is just so damn fickle...
last year when we were going real well, everyone was applauding our recruitment and blair hartley for his work in moneyball
now that we haven't been playing so well...all of a sudden is that we topped up..
and as bojangles said.....4 of them were rookie listed...so how was it that we compromised our drafting.....go figure
Well said.
-
Steve morris?
-
Steve morris?
SANFL
-
Was pre listed to gws though. Not sure if that counts.
-
Fluff article , hawthorns loaded up too, we have 4 on rookie list that eclipses them, on list proper , we have less ::)
-
Most on the moneyball list have or will be serviceable however you still need x-factor players to win premierships, unfortunately we don't have any, these are players that make something from nothing and change the momentum in games, until we recruit at least a couple of these types of players then we seriously won't be winning premiership any time soon.
-
Poo top ups
-
Most on the moneyball list have or will be serviceable however you still need x-factor players to win premierships, unfortunately we don't have any, these are players that make something from nothing and change the momentum in games, until we recruit at least a couple of these types of players then we seriously won't be winning premiership any time soon.
People forget how bad the list was. Even if King is right we still have improved the standard of the overall list and we have seconds players who can come in and do a role.
The next step is to add the x-factor and upgrade these "moneyball" types
-
Fluff article , hawthorns loaded up too, we have 4 on rookie list that eclipses them, on list proper , we have less ::)
You are surely not comparing the quality of the Hawks guys to ours? The thing is our moneyball approach looked good for awhile. Now we've just gone completely overboard. We had I think I counted 12 C-graders play last week and I counted Vickery as a B (played like an F) Now we had Petterd and we have 13. That is just horrible.
-
Agree that this guy is a bandwagoning flog.
However reality is that after the last draft most of us were questioning only taking one kid with all the rest being recycled players.
I really reckon that the RFC have taken it too far and got carried away with past "success in Houli and Grigg"
-
Yeah Nah
-
Moneyball doesnt work
-
Hawthorn?
-
Hawthorn?
Read the article. Hawthorn have taken the strategy of trading high picks for gun players. It's not "moneyball".
-
my guess is most people have little or no understanding of what moneyball actually is
-
Yes it seems Hawthorn have taken the strategy of 'being a good club', whereas we have gone down the 'lets continue to wallow in poo' path. Be interesting to see who wins out.
-
Here's Hartley implementing his moneyball strategy last trade period.
Always hard for him to contain his excitement at that time of the year.
(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/fremonttribune.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/45/a4588c77-7bc5-5660-8c21-294462e63958/51657c6950641.preview-620.jpg)
-
Yes it seems Hawthorn have taken the strategy of 'being a good club', whereas we have gone down the 'lets continue to wallow in poo' path. Be interesting to see who wins out.
:lol
-
Hawthorn?
Are you autistic?
my guess is most people have little or no understanding of what moneyball actually is
An irrelevent seppo concept that was applied to the non-conact sport of Baseball in a league with no salary cap by a team that's still yet to actually win anything from it and adapted to the full-body contact sport of Australian Rules Football in a league with a salary cap by a team that's still yet to win anything from it and now looks to be going backwards largely due to it.
-
on that i rest my case
-
on that i rest my case
You need to actually have one first.
-
Moneyball doesnt work
It kinda works in baseball. It gets teams to the playoffs and increases revenues from games, but it's questionable whether it can deliver championships.
As a drafting strategy, out of the A's top 20 picks in the 2002 draft, there are only 3 players who had successful careers - Nick Swisher, Joe Blanton and John Baker.
That's a 15% success rate.
-
on that i rest my case
You need to actually have one first.
oh?
you're saying that most people actually do understand moneyball? - it's underlying principle, how and why it came about, why it was actually sucessfull for the Athletics (in that they outperformed many clubs with a bigger budget, but ultimately couldnt compete with those that had basically endless money pits) and what aspects may or may not be relevant to AFL?
do tell........
-
Moneyball is no good for clubs in AFL Footy and its also for clubs who want to be stingy with money so they go and get average C grade players on cheap salaries and at a cheap cost and hope for the best. Richmonds next Premiership will be 174 years away at this rate. Its a stuffen joke. The supporters and sponsors plough $50 million a year into the club and all we get is crap in return.
-
exhibit b
-
exhibit b
DIDNT know you were an exhibit Alfred. Dont be an apologist for a failed theory Alfreds. In AFL terms Moneyball sucks and deep down in your guts you know it and you know it because our club which is supposed to be the Moneyball Master of the AFL is on its knees at the moment and our finals hopes are going down the peehole. That my friend is Exhibit A and the only conclusive proof that is around at the moment.
MONEYBALL DOESNT WORK IN AFL FOOTY!
-
Hawthorn?
Read the article.
no way
-
exhibit b
DIDNT know you were an exhibit Alfred. Dont be an apologist for a failed theory Alfreds. In AFL terms Moneyball sucks and deep down in your guts you know it and you know it because our club which is supposed to be the Moneyball Master of the AFL is on its knees at the moment and our finals hopes are going down the peehole. That my friend is Exhibit A and the only conclusive proof that is around at the moment.
MONEYBALL DOESNT WORK IN AFL FOOTY!
not being an apologist, just saying that most people have no idea what it actually is, but that doesnt stop them from making shallow staements as if they were definitive, while not really knowing what the are talking about.
how can you scream at me that money ball doesnt work in AFL, when you dont know any more about it than that what you have seen in a hollywood movie?
under Roos, Sydney used moneyball principles to have great success, but i suppose that was good luck rather good management.
stuff me, you coul pick anything richmond are doing at the moment, including even turning up to play, and say that is conclusive proof it doesnt work.
-
exhibit b
DIDNT know you were an exhibit Alfred. Dont be an apologist for a failed theory Alfreds. In AFL terms Moneyball sucks and deep down in your guts you know it and you know it because our club which is supposed to be the Moneyball Master of the AFL is on its knees at the moment and our finals hopes are going down the peehole. That my friend is Exhibit A and the only conclusive proof that is around at the moment.
MONEYBALL DOESNT WORK IN AFL FOOTY!
not being an apologist, just saying that most people have no idea what it actually is, but that doesnt stop them from making shallow staements as if they were definitive, while not really knowing what the are talking about.
how can you scream at me that money ball doesnt work in AFL, when you dont know any more about it than that what you have seen in a hollywood movie?
under Roos, Sydney used moneyball principles to have great success, but i suppose that was good luck rather good management.
stuff me, you coul pick anything richmond are doing at the moment, including even turning up to play, and say that is conclusive proof it doesnt work.
to be honest the way we are playing Id rather we went for a forfeit by not showing up ;D
-
Agree that this guy is a bandwagoning flog.
However reality is that after the last draft most of us were questioning only taking one kid with all the rest being recycled players.
I really reckon that the RFC have taken it too far and got carried away with past "success in Houli and Grigg"
most of you geez thats a new take on things. most of you were as usual defending the club and its methods at all costs.
-
Agree that this guy is a bandwagoning flog.
However reality is that after the last draft most of us were questioning only taking one kid with all the rest being recycled players.
I really reckon that the RFC have taken it too far and got carried away with past "success in Houli and Grigg"
most of you geez thats a new take on things. most of you were as usual defending the club and its methods at all costs.
Not this little duck
-
Fox Footy expert David King runs the rule over Richmond’s recycled list looking to contend in 2014
Herald-Sun
April 16, 2014 9:00PM
LIST management and recruiting are inexact sciences.
Knowing what stage you’re at is the single most important assessment at AFL clubs. All decisions are streamlined around the differing phases from rebuild to premiership launch. Richmond faces some very interesting and confronting decisions at seasons end, because under Hardwick they’ve steadily improved from six wins in 2010, to eight in 2011, to 10 in 2012 and to 15 last year.
A step backwards without the promotion of youth would be a significant setback.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/fox-footy-expert-david-king-runs-the-rule-over-richmonds-recycled-list-looking-to-contend-in-2014/story-fndv7pj3-1226886785519?from=trendinglinks
damn right knowing what stage your list is at is the be all end all in these things. but as has been argued the win loss ledger is not the be all end all barometer in judging where your list is at. some of us have labelled the list a middling list yet we we ignored the long term.
no list managment is not an inexact science hes wrong in this . recruiting can be inexact but there are many ways to minimise the risk.
the types of players we have taken have in the main failed at other clubs and come with pretty general weaknesses. we arent targeting these blokes for their quality but to perform a role and fill a gap in the list immediately.
in taking these types you should have a junior already in your system or draft one to take care of the long term needs of the list. we take these mature retreads knowing damn well we may have to upgrade on them as well down the track.
the most obvious example of filling a need in the short term but failing to look after the long term is with our ruckmen maric then orren now hampson and not one junior even on the rookie list.
there is no way in the world that we have got list management right but its not so much to do with the retreads, its the failure to always keep the longer term in mind and what it takes to build.
not enogh kpp and tall numbers knowing we are shallow. not enough genuine mids it goes on on and on.
once again the media are coming around to exactly what a few of us have been saying.
wht annoys though there is a place and we have had a need to take mature players and we will in the future. its about balance and cost and value adding but its also about giving yourself a chance to get quality players or even just plain good long term players as well.
just to finish we had a chance to target quality players for next to nothing in terms of picks and have chosen not to. imo we have a better chance taking state league players than delisted players straight of someone elses list.
for me no matter where you take the player they all should meet some basic criteria and tick enough boxes i cant say we have done this.
-
It doesn't matter what flog name you give it, when you recruit exposed hacks from other clubs like Edwards, Hampson, Stephenson and Petterd then you are poohouse at recruiting.
-
Al, if you're the expert on money ball and we are all too stupid to carry your AFL record then why don't u explain moneyball for us all...
'Moneyball' term is used here to define our gutless strategy of replacing (x) amount of D Grade players and replacing them with already failed and unwanted C Grade players with little effort or stress - thus improving the list bit by bit. The theory by Michael Lewis for baseball with no salay cap can't be compared to AFL. The term is used because of its similarities.
Nevertheless I'm interested in your expertise in it since we all have no idea.
-
Al, if you're the expert on money ball and we are all too stupid to carry your AFL record then why don't u explain moneyball for us all...
'Moneyball' term is used here to define our gutless strategy of replacing (x) amount of D Grade players and replacing them with already failed and unwanted C Grade players with little effort or stress - thus improving the list bit by bit. The theory by Michael Lewis for baseball with no salay cap can't be compared to AFL. The term is used because of its similarities.
Nevertheless I'm interested in your expertise in it since we all have no idea.
simple pope
read the book and then we can attempt a mature discussion.
why should i wast my time trying to educate those that have no interest in knowledge?
i never claim to be an expert, the only reason i understand what moneyball is, how it works, and why it worked for the Athletics is because i read the actual book.
before that i was ignorant as the rest, i just didn't try to make out i knew anything about it.
There's nothing special about not not wishing to remain ignorant, id have thought.
the only aspect that actually requires any brain power is working out which parts could actually apply to other sports and the limitations, but first you need an understanding of what, how and why.
i never said or hinted people were too stupid,either, just ignorant, there's a big difference. In saying that, forming strong opinions on something you have no knowledge about is closer to stupid than smart, but don't let that worry you, it seems to be pretty common.
-
Agree that this guy is a bandwagoning flog.
However reality is that after the last draft most of us were questioning only taking one kid with all the rest being recycled players.
I really reckon that the RFC have taken it too far and got carried away with past "success in Houli and Grigg"
most of you geez thats a new take on things. most of you were as usual defending the club and its methods at all costs.
Probably because the club said they'd just be back-ups. Instead they became walk-up starts. :banghead :banghead
-
Al, the purpose of a forum is to discuss. If you're going to clock up post numbers by calling out that people are ignorant without basing it on an opinion or fact than you're wasting everyone's time.
Nobody needs to read the book, the internet was invented long ago with plenty of information for anyone not up to Al's standard.
For the purpose of discussion, the recruiting theory our club has followed over the past 3-4 years has come to a 'mid table' head of recycled players not going beyond a certain point of development. Whether it is defined as 'Moneyball', 'Sloppyseconds', 'Topping Up' it doesn't matter. By all means discuss and have an opinion on that instead of nick picking definition of terms.
-
Spot on Pope
We best go find that book to further our knowledge
-
Al pologist knows more because read a book once.....funny stuff....
If you can't see how moneyball has failed and why it doesn't translate to Australian Rules you're a fool. The "good players but injury -prone" part of the theory should be enough on it's own to tell you why. How many senior games you really think Chris Knights will actually end up playing for us? Then there's the "exotic locations" part of the theory (don't believe that was in the movie). How many countries play baseball to a high level compared to Australian Football? (to be fair we haven't used that aspect - yet- but that's what the international rookie list, which falls outside the cap and has been around for years, is for)) there's the salary cap. Even taking the expansion team concessions into account how many AFL clubs can actually spend 10-20 x on their playing list as smaller clubs like the New York Yankees & Boston Red Sox can compared to the Oakland A's & Minnesota Twins in the MLB? None because they're not allowed and can only spend the same. That's just three examples without even trying.
...and Sydney never officially used "moneyball"....they've been taking recycled players for most of their existence, long before it suddenly became a cool "cutting edge" thing because yanks did it, gave it a snappy name, wrote a book & Hollywood made a crappy movie about it.
-
David king is a malaka.
Had us finishing 6th in 2012 the week we beaten Hawthorn by 10 goals.
-
Moneyball doesnt work
Hawthorn and sydney say hello :lol
-
Moneyball doesnt work
Hawthorn and sydney say hello :lol
Except Sydney have been recruiting other club's players & rejects for 30 years, long before "moneyball". Hawthorn were already successful, already had a strong list and mostly targeted good players who were valued by their previous clubs and cost relatively high picks, not fringe players & rejects on the cheap to supposedly back up a thin list like we did.
-
Moneyball doesnt work
Hawthorn and sydney say hello :lol
Gunston
Lake
Burgoyn
MceVoy
U see in this world u get what u pay for
We paid peanuts and we got monkey ball
-
Hawthorn are far from the AFL version of 'moneyball'. They give up elite picks and received elite players, that isn't even close to any version of moneyball.
Sydney would be the closest comparison but if you would relate their success to drafting the likes of Mattner, McGlynn and Mattner then you'd be mistaken as they weren't overly effective players, they were good depth players. Sydney have consistently gambled with recycled players and backed their culture every time. Has worked up until recently with Tippett and Franklin looking like they are too much for the Sydney bowl.
-
Al pologist knows more because read a book once.....funny stuff....
If you can't see how moneyball has failed and why it doesn't translate to Australian Rules you're a fool. The "good players but injury -prone" part of the theory should be enough on it's own to tell you why. How many senior games you really think Chris Knights will actually end up playing for us? Then there's the "exotic locations" part of the theory (don't believe that was in the movie). How many countries play baseball to a high level compared to Australian Football? (to be fair we haven't used that aspect - yet- but that's what the international rookie list, which falls outside the cap and has been around for years, is for)) there's the salary cap. Even taking the expansion team concessions into account how many AFL clubs can actually spend 10-20 x on their playing list as smaller clubs like the New York Yankees & Boston Red Sox can compared to the Oakland A's & Minnesota Twins in the MLB? None because they're not allowed and can only spend the same. That's just three examples without even trying.
...and Sydney never officially used "moneyball"....they've been taking recycled players for most of their existence, long before it suddenly became a cool "cutting edge" thing because yanks did it, gave it a snappy name, wrote a book & Hollywood made a crappy movie about it.
i love the way you have to resort to the apologist line just because my opinion is different to yours, as if that somehow make my view less relevent.
and yeah, if you have actually read about something you normally do have more knowledge of the subject than someone that hasnt (personal experience aside, naturally), unless they developed some supernatural physic powers. The concept that you dont need knowledge of a subject to know the subject... now that's the funny stuff.
none of your three "arguments: have any real substance at all
There is no "good players but injury -prone" policy of moneyball. Billy bean did take a small number of players with injury issues, but they bought something else, in a game that is not that athletically based, that more than made up for it. Quite simply, there was no such policy, and even IF there was, anyone with half a brain would be able to work out that it wouldnt transfer to AFL, as with many aspects of moneyball used by the the As
Exotic Locations? WTF? There was no such policy at all, it just happened that Bean was able to trade some players he thought were the right price were from outside the states, something that is hardly revolutionary in MLB
And the salary cap. it's funny that you are so well versed in the moneyball theory but dont recognise the important part that does translate, what is in fact the core of moneyball
While the MLB does not have a salary, most clubs do have a self imposed salary cap. The A's in particular after their owner died and the new owners cut spending. Beane had a budget to work with each year, the only difference is that it was not set by the League, but by the owners.
This is in fact the whole essesnce of moneyball. To have any hope of competing with the large wealthy clubs, the smaller ones have to spend less money for each run scored,than their wealthy counterparts
To equate that to AFL, in simplistic terms, the more goals you can score (while resticting the enemy, naturally) for each dollar spent, the better off you will be. The salary cap and therefore relatively level playing field (in terms of player spending) makes this even more relevant.
Naturally there are many aspects of what Billy Beane did with the oaklands that will not transfer across, but anyone that has a understanding of what moneyball actually is, and a semblance of an ability for analytical thinking will see that there are aspects that do.
As for sydney. well im not too sure how something like this can be official, but Roos has stated he based his recruiting philosophy on moneyball, that after reading it and doing some research into the numbers associated with our draft he applied the principles that were appropriate.
It was reading this that inspired me to find out more about what moneyball actually is.
Someone may be able to articulate what appears to be a good argument against something, along with a quasi derogatory label or two, but if they dont know what they are talking about , they dont know what they are talking about. you may be able to BS those that dont know any better, but not those with some understanding.
you actally raise an interesting point with Sydney and their 180 turn on recruiting policy, one i am watching with interest.
Just out curiosity, when people talk about applying moneyball principles to AFL, do you really think they are talking about the whole box and dice rather than actually giving some thought to what may transfer and what may not?
surely you are not that simple?
You do understand that you can take other peoples ideas, pick out the parts that are relevent to you and adapt them to your own situation?
-
And we continue to play like poo.E week in week out using these players from other clubs. Well done to us :lol
-
Ted richards
-
Hawthorn are far from the AFL version of 'moneyball'. They give up elite picks and received elite players, that isn't even close to any version of moneyball.
Sydney would be the closest comparison but if you would relate their success to drafting the likes of Mattner, McGlynn and Mattner then you'd be mistaken as they weren't overly effective players, they were good depth players. Sydney have consistently gambled with recycled players and backed their culture every time. Has worked up until recently with Tippett and Franklin looking like they are too much for the Sydney bowl.
Bang on target Pope again
-
Awesome that you read a book and are now the final authority on the matter....still.....years later.....in the age of the internet........where shall I start? The bit where you conveniently downplayed the injury prone good players element and said we didn't try to adapt that to AFL despite Hardwick saying as much in regards to Knights? Your casual dismissal of the "exoctic locale" element that shows that whilst you may have read the book years ago, you clearly haven't bothered to follow up on any later developments in the proceeding years?
No for me it was the glorious spin you envoked in trying to say how the whims of private owners in the MLB meant there effectively was a kind of salary cap before going on to move the goalposts again by trying to say that moneyball is actually more important within a salary cap....comedy gold right there. You at least score points for sheer audacity.
-
The AFL isn't the MLB, so to expect that an AFL moneyball reference must be exact same to the MLB moneyball to be relevant is a bit over the top. If you look too much into it the MLB moneyball is impossible to replica in the AFL, simple being that the 2 sports aren't the same.
The reference many people on here have made and the media have made is that RFC have traded in players who they believe have the key indicators that win you games but because of other deficiencies aren't in the best 22 at their clubs. They have traded these players in, on the cheap in belief they have the correct mix to win games. That's reasonably close to the MLB moneyball theory without being exact, hence the reference.
We've traded in cheap buys for very little. Low risk for a hope of high reward. Similar to Beans theory of low risk of financial loss in hope that statistically they will produce wins. Unfortunately AFL isn't based around 1 major stat like MLB (home runs) and there are so many indicators that need to be ticked to be successful. So the theory of drafting in recycled players on the cheap was bound to fail as there deficiencies are glaringly obvious in a game of AFL. A player like Grigg might be great in the key stat of quantity of possession but lacks in contested ball and effiicnecy. Example being, whilst we have upgraded Collins to Grigg for cheap and with high upside in 1 particular stat (Moneyball reference) his weaknesses are exposed at AFL level. All recycled players have glaring weaknesses and are exposed every week and cost us in key 1 on 1 battles in cruicial stages of the game.
Thomas has great contested ability but lacks serious pace.
Houli has great half back run, but defensive ability and ability to run both ways are poor.
Chaplin has body size and OK defensive side, but serious lacks in pace and kicking efficiency
Petterd has a dip but kicking efficiency and decision making is Melbourne esque.
I could go on but the moneyball theory is used cause the players we have picked up for cheap have an upside along with a downside, hence being 'recycled' and deemed not good enough by a previous AFL club. The low risk, possible high return theory is moneyball like. Hence the reference. Just like the A's with moneyball, they reached a certain point where they were outclassed by the top teams at the business end of the season.
Richmond's theory has reached the same point.
-
The notion of clubs needing to manage talent within a tight budget isn't new - just because a movie was made it doesn't mean the concept was invented.
I always admired Fitzroy for managing their talent in the late 80s and early 90s despite having no money.
Whichever you look at it, however clever the list management strategy, on field performance makes all the difference.
Rampster posts a whole pile of steaming s,hi,te which is premised on a Derryn Hinch like posting style to attract an emotional response from other posters but still gets (and trades) on the point that whatever you do, results matter.
i guess the sun will even shine on a black dogs ars once a while.
-
Awesome that you read a book and are now the final authority on the matter....still.....years later.....in the age of the internet........where shall I start? The bit where you conveniently downplayed the injury prone good players element and said we didn't try to adapt that to AFL despite Hardwick saying as much in regards to Knights? Your casual dismissal of the "exoctic locale" element that shows that whilst you may have read the book years ago, you clearly haven't bothered to follow up on any later developments in the proceeding years?
No for me it was the glorious spin you envoked in trying to say how the whims of private owners in the MLB meant there effectively was a kind of salary cap before going on to move the goalposts again by trying to say that moneyball is actually more important within a salary cap....comedy gold right there. You at least score points for sheer audacity.
Oh ok so please explain how having a set speding limit by your owners is different from having a spending limit set by the league?
doesnt it mean the same thing, that you have a limit to your spending?
I never claimed to be an authority, but once again we have the digital thinking. (in the same vein as thinking that you have to take the whole box and dice,and not being able to take the relevant bits)
I originally said that many people dont understand what money ball is. There is nothing wrong with that, we all have things we have limited or no knowledge of, just generally dont try to make out otherwise.
.......or try to belittle someone because they have a inkling of the subject and have the audacity to call someone on their BS.
now, if there are some worthy articles on the internet that you have read on the subject, i would be quite happy, and appreciative, to have a look at them, including the ones you got the info from about the policies of targeting injured players and exotic locations.
-
These long posts do my head in, surely 8 posts are enough on a field
-
The notion of clubs needing to manage talent within a tight budget isn't new - just because a movie was made it doesn't mean the concept was invented.
I always admired Fitzroy for managing their talent in the late 80s and early 90s despite having no money.
Whichever you look at it, however clever the list management strategy, on field performance makes all the difference.
Rampster posts a whole pile of steaming s,hi,te which is premised on a Derryn Hinch like posting style to attract an emotional response from other posters but still gets (and trades) on the point that whatever you do, results matter.
i guess the sun will even shine on a black dogs ars once a while.
:lol
Youre living in your own fantasy filled world where Richmond is a powerhouse and we are decimating other clubs using rejects from other clubs. Reality is we are shi.te and we will struggle to make the eight. As for posting a pile of steaming poo.e compared to the poo.e you post the rest of us are all amateurs lol. Your just an apologist for failure, the type of person who has kept Richmond back for decades, accepting of crap performances from Players and Administrators alike. Give it up HRT the fact is we have been poo.e for 34 years. Any chance you can start to live in reality big fella? ;D
-
As Bruce would say "Delicious".
You claim to be a member for 34 years, you want the club to send you a letter to renew and then you spend all the time on this forum bagging the club.
What a sad life :-[
-
As Bruce would say "Delicious".
You claim to be a member for 34 years, you want the club to send you a letter to renew and then you spend all the time on this forum bagging the club.
What a sad life :-[
And then you spend your whole life responding to my posts :lol
-
Rampster I am your father
-
Rampster I am your father
:lol :rollin
-
:lol
-
Rampster I am your father
:lol :rollin
Are you proud of me? :lol
Oh and when you kick the bucket you old bludger dont forget to put me in your will. Ill be spending your money on good looking women and having a good time. So do me a favor and kick the bucket you old bastard ;D