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?
