One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Phil Mrakov on May 08, 2014, 10:02:32 PM
-
Has Moneyball backfired for the Tigers?
By Maddy Friend
Big things were expected from Richmond this season. It was widely accepted in the football world that the Tigers would continue their excellent form from last year.
That form saw them finish in fifth at the end of the regular season, and qualify for their first finals appearance in decades.
Despite losing that final to Carlton, the signs were there that perhaps the Tigers had finally arrived as a genuine finals contender after so many years in the football wilderness.
However, the improvement has not continued, and many are beginning to question just where the Tigers are at in their development.
Having won just two games so far this season, the Tigers’ lack of run, basic skill errors and over-reliance on key players has led to questions over not just the team’s short-term form, but its overall recruitment philosophy. Ultimately, it would appear that the recruitment approach favoured by the Tigers has not set them up for the ultimate success.
Columnist Michael Gleeson wrote an article in The Age earlier in the week questioning Richmond’s recent recruiting strategy.
His article contends that the ‘Moneyball’ policy pursued by the Tigers, where the team has focused on recruiting proven players to fill gaps and identified needs in the team at the expense of drafting top young talent, has backfired this season.
Gleeson cites the Tigers’ over-reliance on players such as defender Alex Rance, ruckman Ivan Maric, and star midfielder-cum-defender Brett Deledio, as exposing ‘the gulf between the better players and the plethora of battlers’.
It was this group of unfashionable, recycled players who arguably made the difference for Richmond last season.
Experienced heads Shaun Grigg and Bachar Houli were brought in from Carlton and Essendon respectively, and made immediate contributions to the team. Small defender Steve Morris, recruited from the state leagues, brought a hard edge to his role as a shutdown small defender.
At the end of 2013, Richmond enticed Port Adelaide defender Troy Chaplin to the club, thereby filling their need for a developed, experienced key back. On the results of previous seasons, it seemed that the Tigers’ recruiting strategy had borne fruit.
However, with the team’s poor form this season, that view has shifted. Perhaps the most recent example of this was the decision to use pick 28 in last year’s draft on much-maligned Carlton ruckman Shaun Hampson. The decision originally looked fortuitous when Maric went down with injury at the beginning of this season.
However, since the opening round, Hampson’s form has been less than impressive – a statistical example is his seven marks in five games. This raises the question over whether the decision to recruit him at the expense of young talent has been worth it.
This brings us to the central argument: does Richmond’s decline in form point to the death of the ‘Moneyball’ principle as a recruiting strategy?
First coined in US baseball’s major league by the Oakland A’s in 2002, the strategy was devised to allow an under-resourced team to compete with its bigger, richer rivals by recruiting players undervalued by the rest of the baseball world.
These players lacked star quality, but had proven abilities in certain areas. The strategy was a success for Oakland, taking them to the playoffs in 2002 and 2003, and has since been the blueprint for competitiveness for smaller sporting teams around the world.
Richmond has been the greatest exponent of this within the AFL. Rather than use their early draft picks to select talented, but untried, youngsters, many of whom would require years of development, the club chose to bring in mature players from other teams or state leagues. Houli, Grigg, Hampson, Morris, Chaplin and a number of others were all identified by Richmond chief recruiters Blair Hartley and Francis Jackson as being able to fill a need for their team.
These players have performed admirably over the past few years, and their presence has arguably allowed Richmond’s brigade of young players to develop and hone their skills. Richmond’s top draftees from the past few years – Brandon Ellis, Reece Conca and Nick Vlaustin – have all benefited from having mature, more experienced heads around them as they have embarked on their football careers.
However, the development of these younger players has stalled this year, and the more mature heads are not performing to the expected standard. Hence the Tigers’ slide down the ladder.
It appears then, that ‘Moneyball’ as a strategy, can work in the short-term, but may not be a guarantor of long-term success. Too much depends on the performance of mature players week-in, week-out, while the younger players who do come in are often found to be out of their depth.
Contrast this approach to the one taken by Geelong, regarded has having the best list management strategy of the past 10 years.
Despite having had few low draft selections due to their high ladder finishes in recent times, Geelong has managed to blend experience with youth to great effect. Chief recruiter Stephen Wells has a knack of unearthing high-calibre players with late draft picks, Allen Christensen and Matthew Stokes being two recent examples. They top up with players from other clubs only when they fill an immediate need, or when the club does not have any quality youngsters pressing for a spot in that position.
The club has backed its young players to the hilt, not being afraid to throw them into high-pressure situations and give them positions of responsibility. The players have been all the better for it – young defender Cam Guthrie is one such example. In the absence of stalwart defenders Joel Corey (retirement) and Corey Enright (injury), Guthrie has stepped into their shoes with seamless aplomb, often curtailing one of the opposition’s most dangerous small forwards.
It would appear then that the success of ‘Moneyball’ as a recruiting strategy depends on the culture of the club in question, and the quality of the players already there.
For a team such as Geelong, with superstar experienced players such as Joel Selwood, Jimmy Bartel and Steve Johnson, topped up with players from other clubs, it merely helps to cement this culture of success.
However, for a team such as Richmond, which boasts a number of star players, but many more ‘battlers’, recruiting mature-aged players over future stars serves to make the team solid, but lacking in the star power needed to win games.
In order to achieve the success they so desire in the next few years, the Tigers would be better served conserving their draft picks to use on young, talented players.
With the right development, these players could add the star factor the team needs to be a finals contender in the coming years.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/05/08/has-moneyball-backfired-for-the-tigers/
-
Poo article. It implies that's we've given up a bunch of good draft picks for these players which isn't the case. Hamspud was the only one that really cost us anything.
-
Richmond vs Geelong.
It's not a mere recruitment or development strategy that seperates these teams.
The philosophy of both teams are polls apart & this is why there is the massive chasm of success that separates these two teams.
Geelong is a well oiled machine. The demands are high and everyone that becomes involved within its organization know too well the level that's required to acheive success.
Excellence is obviously adhered to in the strictest fashion. Players with obvious abilities at junior level are taught very quickly the non-negotiables in terms of what is required to stay a part of the organization.
Nothing within its walls manifests anything other than the standards previously accepted.
As an outcome there isn't any element of individualism but a complete portrayal of team first mentality. Leaders are nurtured & revered as they become an extension of the overall team philosophy on the field.
Richmond in contracts have "no soul". There is no "built in filter" to resist the hype, frenzy and over exuberant emotion that propels the expectations & creates an environment of prima donnas, even though the team has achieved nothing & haven't maintained a sustained successful era.
Culture is the underlying problem at Richmond. Until this is addressed the cycle if mediocrity will forever be repeated despite the so called strategy that may be implemented.
In a good culture, strategies such as money-ball or youth development will achieve success as in each case success is built on a strong foundation of values that are adhered too regardless of the development timeframe in which the club finds itself.
Culture is the key component that either drives a winning philosophy and a positive cycle of sustained success or it's forever trapped in the cycle of mediocrity constantly breaking the hearts of supporters over & over again doomed to the hope of another successful rebuild.
-
Well said Tigs couldn't agree more and Willy your wrong
It implies instead of hunting young kids we used those afl spots on monkeyball recruits
The decision to recruit graham, thomas and that A Edwards tosser, combined with the loss of the elim final confirmed to me we were going backwards. How the hell is Thomas better than Tuck.
Other clubs are nailing nat fyfe and grundy at pick 18 we are not
Our recruiting has been laughable at best after the first round. They should all be sacked but knowing the RFC they will most likely be knighted
-
I found it funny when she said we gave up all of our first round picks for recycled players
-
I found it funny when she said we gave up all of our first round picks for recycled players
the basic premise that moneyball has failed is correct
-
reckon value adding i dont get this calling it moneyball crap has served a very good purpose for us.
it took us from fitzroyesque type proportions in 09 10 to a very competetive outfit in 2012. can people actually remember all the bitching about age gaps and inexperience in the list. ffs there was a very big need to take mature players.
we have gone wrong because we have continued to take too many mature players when the need was no longer there. we have gone wrong because we continue to target mature players who can improve us immediately but have glaring deficiencies in their games and will have to be replaced themselves. where is the quality.
there is a very real place and need for our club to take mture players but the criteria and needs have changed.
where we have taken mature players has largely been faultless, late nd rookie draft f/a. we have in the main last yr aside used our 1st 2nd and 3rd rounders on kids. that is as it should be.
what does annoy is we needed a ruckman we got hampson who was a risk imo and 32 pick should never have been traded not for a player who had 7 yrs and had struggled. but we did it because the need was great what we failed to do was say to ourselves. well hampson is a bit of a risk based on certain criteria we dont have a crash bash ruckman outside of ivan and we need to get one into our system even in taking hampson. where is the junior ruckman of this type.
sam lloyd 24yo at pick 66 decent get but again where is the junior to be developed and replace lloyd in two yrs time. we do this right across the board. money ball should buy you time enable you to compete while you develop quality kids to replace em.
finally so called moneyball is not the real problem or all of the problem imo the lack of long term list managment is as much to blame if not more so. taking such deficient players in moneyball also is part of it.
3 or 4 sliding door moments. we take goddard and chapman instead who we did. we take barlow instead the gimp we probably took and oney ball looks like a game you want to play. taking mature players is not the problem taking the right ones is.
-
the loss of the elim final confirmed to me we were going backwards.
Let's forget the fact we made a final for the first time in years which shows we went forward but lets focus that we lost it which obviously means we went backwards ::)
-
the loss of the elim final confirmed to me we were going backwards.
Let's forget the fact we made a final for the first time in years which shows we went forward but lets focus that we lost it which obviously means we went backwards ::)
That would be accepting or acknowledging mediocrity, something i'm not in the business of doing.
That was putrid last year and any good they had done in the year was effectively wiped out in 120 minutes of footy, resulting in a loss to a 9th placed side.
-
That would be accepting or acknowledging mediocrity, something i'm not in the business of doing.
That was putrid last year and any good they had done in the year was effectively wiped out in 120 50 minutes of footy, resulting in a loss to a 9th placed side.
Edited for accuracy
First half was great 10 minutes into the 2nd half was where it all fell apart ;D
ED: BTW don't agree with last year being a complete waste but the loss certainly took a fair bit away from the overall result of the year
-
the loss of the elim final confirmed to me we were going backwards.
Let's forget the fact we made a final for the first time in years which shows we went forward but lets focus that we lost it which obviously means we went backwards ::)
That would be accepting or acknowledging mediocrity, something i'm not in the business of doing.
That was putrid last year and any good they had done in the year was effectively wiped out in 120 minutes of footy, resulting in a loss to a 9th placed side.
Well given you've been supporting the Tigers for the past however many years, you are in the business's of supporting mediocrity so what's the difference? :lol
-
Well said Tigs couldn't agree more and Willy your wrong
No, I'm right.
Statements like this one "the team has focused on recruiting proven players...at the expense of drafting top young talent" are sloppy and misleading. Most of the money ball guys cost us SFA and a few are rookies. Hammer being the obvious mistake, Maric being a massive bargain. Some of the older players we got were far from 'proven' either.
I'm not defending 'money ball' or whatever you want to call it, but this article is uninformed and cheap. This poo has been done death in the media anyway. Author needs to get with the stuffing program. Actually, he needs to quit.
-
moneyball will really start to kill us as a result of playing these guys ahead of bedding in players who need games under there belts. perhaps we are starting to see that this year or perhaps we wont pay the price until another couple of years
-
Trying to put it in context.
Going back to 2007, well before Hartley arrived, we seem to show some trends of taking older, refried players but only recently at the expense of younger talent.
2007 we took Cotchin, Rance firstly but traded away picks 19 (McMahon) and 35 (Morton) before taking Putt and then taking Gourdis, Collard, Sylvester, Cartledge and Howat as late picks ie PSD onwards.
2008 we took Vickery and Post first but then took Hislop, Thomson, Cousins, Nahas and Gourdis before rookie picks Browne and Gilligan.
2009 we took Martin, Griffiths, Astbury, Dea (for the Raines trade) and Taylor before taking Webberley, Nason and Farmer. Note that Farmer and Nason were trades for Schulz. We then took Grimes, Hicks, Contin, Roberts and Westoff before rookying Polak as the final pick.
2010 we took Conca, Batchelor, Helbig, McDonald before Derrickx and Gourdis as older players. Grigg was traded for Collins and Houli came as a PSD. The rookies were all older types in Jakobi, Miller and Hislop.
2011 we took Ellis, Elton then traded 37 for Maric before picking Arnot and O'Hanlon. Morris was very close to no cost by trading 14 for 15. We chose the delisted A Maric as our first rookie before going for Darrou, Vernier, Turner, Wright and Heslin.
2012 we took Vlastuin, McIntosh, McBean and McDonough before trading pick 76 for A Edwards. Knights and Chaplin were Free Agency pickups. We rookied Petterd, Lonergan and Stephenson as delisted players and finshed with Williams as a junior.
2013 we only took Lennon before trading 33 for Hampson and then choosing Gordon, Lloyd, Banfield, Miles and Thomas as mature players, all bar Lloyd delisted.
So in summary we used only the first couple of picks on juniors in 2007 and 2008. 2009 and 2010 were pretty balanced, but a trend to older late picks was showing. 2011 was mainly juniors with the exceptions of the Marics. 2012 returned to the '09 and '10 style with early juniors and late seniors. Most of these years could be in line with the "moneyball" concept but really 2013 is an outrider with only Lennon as a junior.
-
Well said Tigs couldn't agree more and Willy your wrong
It implies instead of hunting young kids we used those afl spots on monkeyball recruits
The decision to recruit graham, thomas and that A Edwards tosser, combined with the loss of the elim final confirmed to me we were going backwards. How the hell is Thomas better than Tuck.
Other clubs are nailing nat fyfe and grundy at pick 18 we are not
Our recruiting has been laughable at best after the first round. They should all be sacked but knowing the RFC they will most likely be knighted
Plus what sickens me is tom derickx getting a go at the swans and doing ok. We baby these guys for years and discard them only to have another club utilise and grow them. Once again it points to something wrong with RFC player selection and philosophy. Matty white is also anothe prime example. I am disgusted and disappointed over the whole debacle
-
Good post Redan. Balanced and logical. :thumbsup
-
Very true Mint. Tom DX looks a shadow of the bloke who was given 4, half quarters for us.
He is actually playing a more accomplished brand of football than that Angus Graham we have in our starting 22
It's an issue that we can argue till the cows come home but we would have one of the poorest development systems than most clubs
Look at what we are doing to Batch Dea and Griffiths. I wound say 90% of people screamed for griffiths to get a chance after the RD1, 2013 showing but let him sink in the VFL where IMO the rot starts at our footy club
We have had no genuine players post RD1 develop into A graders it can't be due to poor recruiting all the time.
-
Plus what sickens me is tom derickx getting a go at the swans and doing ok.
Define ok. I watched his game vs hawthorn and he was absolute tripe, and checking his stats for this season doesn't suggest he's been much more than that in any others. He's only getting a game because the Swans stuffed up getting rid of Mumford and Pyke not being good enough to ruck each game on his own.
-
Plus what sickens me is tom derickx getting a go at the swans and doing ok.
Define ok. I watched his game vs hawthorn and he was absolute tripe, and checking his stats for this season doesn't suggest he's been much more than that in any others. He's only getting a game because the Swans stuffed up getting rid of Mumford and Pyke not being good enough to ruck each game on his own.
Agree...but he's still noticably better than Hamspud around the ground ...so in essence had we kept him we'd have a slightly less crap ruckman on a lot less pay as well as a second round kid.
-
Plus what sickens me is tom derickx getting a go at the swans and doing ok.
Define ok. I watched his game vs hawthorn and he was absolute tripe, and checking his stats for this season doesn't suggest he's been much more than that in any others. He's only getting a game because the Swans stuffed up getting rid of Mumford and Pyke not being good enough to ruck each game on his own.
Agree...but he's still noticably better than Hamspud around the ground ...so in essence had we kept him we'd have a slightly less crap ruckman on a lot less pay as well as a second round kid.
im hoping we are looking at ruckmen darcy cameron and josh miller hopefully both will be available in the rookie draft. but both may not be. should have rookied cameron last yr imo.
if pace and skill is what is badly needed we could possibly go jarrod pickett not sure he is worth a top 10 pick though and that is what we will have to use to get him i reckon. wont last to the 2nd round imo.
whoops rambling again. on topic, big tom is a dud. and imo nowhere near the player hamspud is, now thats saying something.
-
No worries. Are you the one who said A Edwards was a good pick up?
Give it up. TDX is marginally ahead of Graham, actually a lot ahead from what I've seen.
-
No worries. Are you the one who said A Edwards was a good pick up?
Give it up. TDX is marginally ahead of Graham, actually a lot ahead from what I've seen.
yep a edwards was a good pick up for pick 1000 in the nd. we had just brett ohanlon on the list who is of a similar type. short term fix at very little cost giving ohanlon time to develop and hopefully play a game one day.
mate derickx is total crap and as far as ruck contests go hamspud is a country mile in front of him.
im no hampson fan and was pretty loud in voicing my displeasure at useing pick 32 on him i didnt want him at the club i still dont want him but ffs hes a far better option than derickx.
-
No worries. Are you the one who said A Edwards was a good pick up?
Give it up. TDX is marginally ahead of Graham, actually a lot ahead from what I've seen.
yep a edwards was a good pick up for pick 1000 in the nd. we had just brett ohanlon on the list who is of a similar type. short term fix at very little cost giving ohanlon time to develop and hopefully play a game one day.
mate derickx is total crap and as far as ruck contests go hamspud is a country mile in front of him.
im no hampson fan and was pretty loud in voicing my displeasure at useing pick 32 on him i didnt want him at the club i still dont want him but ffs hes a far better option than derickx.
You really believe that.
Where are we this year and where is TDX. Hows Graham's marking going?
Graham is garbage always has been and always will be and for pick 32 was trade suicide.
As for your mate Edwards, think you are missing the point pal. That was one of the worst decisions to recruit in recent times. Stop looking at the where he was selected look at whose spot he has taken up. Another promising youngster, another VFL player perhaps. We do it time and time again, perhaps we could have found someone in the VFL who hasn't been given a go.
Graham, Edwards and that Shaun Higgins Knights fella to a lesser extent only due to his age, are some of the biggest cock ups we have made in recent times. Start investing and trusting in some of the guys at VFL and see what happens. Griffiths was a hack last year by some of you, played i think 1 game against the blues, dropped, and look at him in 2014. Who knows maybe Elton or O'hanlon might be that person and if not delist them.
Edwards is finished come seasons end and with good reason.
-
Plus what sickens me is tom derickx getting a go at the swans and doing ok.
Define ok. I watched his game vs hawthorn and he was absolute tripe, and checking his stats for this season doesn't suggest he's been much more than that in any others. He's only getting a game because the Swans stuffed up getting rid of Mumford and Pyke not being good enough to ruck each game on his own.
I'm with Smokey on this. He is showing why we got rid of him. Can't take a mark, Easily gets bumped out of contests, looks like a 1970's Tennis player, in one ruck contest the ball actually hit him on the top of his head and even Sam Reid went into the ruck and did a better job. If Pike was in he would have done the majority of the ruck work no question about it.
-
Derrickx is a spud.
-
No worries. Are you the one who said A Edwards was a good pick up?
Give it up. TDX is marginally ahead of Graham, actually a lot ahead from what I've seen.
yep a edwards was a good pick up for pick 1000 in the nd. we had just brett ohanlon on the list who is of a similar type. short term fix at very little cost giving ohanlon time to develop and hopefully play a game one day.
mate derickx is total crap and as far as ruck contests go hamspud is a country mile in front of him.
im no hampson fan and was pretty loud in voicing my displeasure at useing pick 32 on him i didnt want him at the club i still dont want him but ffs hes a far better option than derickx.
You really believe that.
Where are we this year and where is TDX. Hows Graham's marking going?
Graham is garbage always has been and always will be and for pick 32 was trade suicide.
As for your mate Edwards, think you are missing the point pal. That was one of the worst decisions to recruit in recent times. Stop looking at the where he was selected look at whose spot he has taken up. Another promising youngster, another VFL player perhaps. We do it time and time again, perhaps we could have found someone in the VFL who hasn't been given a go.
Graham, Edwards and that Shaun Higgins Knights fella to a lesser extent only due to his age, are some of the biggest cock ups we have made in recent times. Start investing and trusting in some of the guys at VFL and see what happens. Griffiths was a hack last year by some of you, played i think 1 game against the blues, dropped, and look at him in 2014. Who knows maybe Elton or O'hanlon might be that person and if not delist them.
Edwards is finished come seasons end and with good reason.
where are we?? . we are 2 and 7 and about 14th. i suppose thats all down to a edwards whos played one game. and had injury.
cmon read peoples posts your basically a parrot ive already said hampson is a spud was not worth pick 32. and i said it well before we traded for him. we agree .
what we dont agree on is how good tom derickx is. bud hes a dud.
you should be asking hows derickx marking going along with hamspuds, its every bit as bad as hampson thats for sure. derickx has taken 1 c/m all yr and just 8 all up. hampson at the least has gone fairly well in the ruck contests you cant say that about derickx. simply put and it has been said numerous times from before the draft to now both are duds i will say derickx is at least having a dip in most areas cant sat that about hampson.
i aint defending hampson i was pretty loud about what hes done to date 7yrs, and where we took him. i dont seem to recall you or too many others complaining about us taking him before and during trade time. or where we took him.
but hey where we take players has nothing to with anything. ::)
why wouldnt you look at where we take players. and no you miss the point in a big way. edwards was very much a short term fix you do understand what that is. there is a place for them on all clubs lists.
he hasnt taken games of anyone for the simple reason we didnt have any players of his type bar one 19 yo in ohanlon, who quite frankly has performed worse than derickx and was nowhere near it last yr. for that matter hes nowhere near it this yr either.
please tell, outside of ohanlon who will imo probably be delisted who are these juniors of similar type a edwards has kept out of the side.
you think griffiths has arrived. ffs hes up to standard the bare minimum nothing more. and its not a edwards whos keept griffiths out of games its vickery.
last yr griffiths couldnt get a kick in a footy factory and was damn liucky to survive the cut. timid clueless and almost possesionless, fair dinkum he could not get any worse and there was no way you could give him games.
finally tell us something we didnt already know. of course edwards is gone come seasons end we got him as a short term fix.it was always going to be this yr or next.
he may be 30 odd but hes a better player than vickery ohanlon petterd gordon to date and most other fwds we have tried. what does that say about our fwds.hes only played one game this yr so hes hardly keeping anyone out of the side. last yr there was a need for him and i reckon theres a need for him this yr unless the likes of petterd or ohanlon can start performing.
to finiosh id happily take a mature kpd mature kpf mature sml fwd and a few mature mids as long as we take our quota of kids as well.
we disagree on just one basic principal, i think there is a place for mature recruits to fill list needs and fill holes in the team. im happy to do this only if we take our quota of kids and ensure we have a kid coming thru for each type needed.
you it seems just want kids and nothing else.
ive already said on threads on this site i reckon we could cut 8 to 12 players lets say 10. id be happy to take 6 or 7 juniors 18 to 21 and id back em up with 3 or 4 mature players if we can value add with them.
-
Rivers is pretty shyte
Non Geelong like