Moneyball

[rodgerfox]

For those firmly entrenched in the 'move on' camp - you need not read on.....


If there's already been a thread on this, my apologies, but I watched Moneyball for the first time last night. And it made me feel sick!

I found the parallels to the Saints of 2009 alarming in so many ways.


I'd heard that Ross Lyon was a 'believer' in the Billy Beanes strategy that the movie was based on, and it clearly makes sense.

Basically, it was all about building a team with guys playing a role. About building a team based on average players with clear deficiencies but whom at the same time had a strength or an attribute that the team needed. Put all these strengths together, and hide the flaws, and hey presto! You have a winning team.

They started poorly and took time to adjust, but when they did they were unbeatable. Won 20 in a row.

Sounds familiar yeah?

But all the while, the doubters still felt that when push came to shove at the pointy end of the season, you need that 'x factor' or natural flair that superstars bring to the table to get you over the line. Match winners if you will.

Sound familiar?

But they defied the odds, and just kept winning.

Sound familiar?

But then, at the pointy end of the season, they fell over. The critics said 'I told you so'. That when it gets down to it, averages go out the window. When it gets down to the crunch moments of the season, it's human acts that win games and premierships - not roles or numbers.

Sound familiar?



The reason it made me sick, is clearly that I don't get over things very easily and the missed opportunity of 09 came flooding back. It was almost like watching a Hollywood take on our 09 season!


And lastly, and clearly this will divide opinions - but the Oakland A's had to implement this strategy. They were forced to with their lack of money, to find a different way to compete.

But we didn't have to. Assuming that Lyon was basing his ideals on the Moneyball strategy (and this is clearly just an assumption) I think he clearly took it too far unnecessarily. We clearly took the good bits and built an amazing backline with some average players. However I think we took it too far and actually took away some of our strengths in the process.

I always felt that we were removing the flare and natural football instinct of the whole team. This was great for the Jason Blake's of the world - but not for the upper echelon of the list.

When it came down to it, we had sterilised our game so much that although we had players capable of it - we had lost the ability to win a game. We were great at making our opponents play poorly and make mistakes - but we couldn't go out and win a game when it really counted.

[markp]

Yep, that's why we lost by a toe poke... and again the following year by the bounce of the ball.

[Life Long Saint]

Yep, that's why we lost by a toe poke... and again the following year by the bounce of the ball.

If you analyse the games in their entirety, we didn't lose 2009 by a toe poke.
The toe poke should have made no difference at all. We kicked ourselves out the premiership. 0.7 scoring difference at 3/4 time! If that had been 5.2, 4.3 or even 3.4, I doubt we'd have lost.
In 2010, our second quarter was pathetic. Collingwood should have been in front by a lot bigger margin at half time. They kicked 3.6 to 1.0. We were hanging on for dear life and half time couldn't come quick enough. We played out of our skins in the third quarter to get back into the game. But just like in 2008 and 2009, if one team had kicked straight they'd have won!

Not sure whether the Moneyball approach meant that we didn't have the x-factor to win...Geez we had Roo, Dal, BJ, Milne, Schneider and Kosi. There was enough x-factor there. But we had some lesser lights play important roles in those games.

[St.Rob8]

If you liked the movie, read the book. It is far more informative on the methodology rather than just the Hollywood story.

Paul Roos and the Swans have been credited as the first AFL team to successfully follow a Moneyball type model, and they have evolved and adapted this model for the past 10 years or so better than any other club. Clearly Ross Lyon was a convert from his time at The Swans. It is now no secret, and the rise in mature aged rookies across all clubs is an example of how this thinking has been adopted.

Pelchan is said to be big on number crunching (the basis of the Moneyball theory is to rely on statistics rather than opinions) and has probably been influenced by this thinking also. The recruitment of Milera and Saad last year, and our dealings at the draft table this year point to left-field thinking along Moneyball lines. Based on his past successes and Geelong's strong endorsement of Pelchan in our recent review, Pelchan clearly has a methodology of list development and in this respect is our "Billy Bean". Whether or not his methodology is the winning formula is the ride St. Kilda is currently on. Having a clear list management strategy and executing it has to be an improvement on the "live for the now" policy that has seen us come close but crash while clubs like Geelong, Collingwood and Sydney have been able to regenerate without crashing to the bottom of the ladder.

I personally think that the club took a big step forward in professionalism in the Butterss-Thomas years. We stopped being a hand-to mouth club and started to shape our destiny. The strategy of "Live for Now" used to be the accepted model followed by successful clubs (Adelaide and North in the 90's are great examples where they consistently traded out of the draft to deliver short term success at the expense of the future), but Sydney and Geelong appear to have evolved to a model of more sustainable success. The challenge for the current leadership is to adopt similar structures. The signs coming out of the club are much better than the Caroline Wilson / David Koch "Club in Crisis" headline grabbers, but like all things St Kilda, seeing the job through is not guaranteed.

[spert]

I don't subscribe to the toe-poke, wrong-bounce theories..we lost because we were just not quite good enough in the end, and Lyon's style created a disciplined, predictable winning unit under most conditions, but suppressed individuality and risk taking which is the "X-factor" in a cut-throat situation such as a grand final.

[saintspremiers]

Yep, that's why we lost by a toe poke... and again the following year by the bounce of the ball.

If you analyse the games in their entirety, we didn't lose 2009 by a toe poke.
The toe poke should have made no difference at all. We kicked ourselves out the premiership. 0.7 scoring difference at 3/4 time! If that had been 5.2, 4.3 or even 3.4, I doubt we'd have lost.
In 2010, our second quarter was pathetic. Collingwood should have been in front by a lot bigger margin at half time. They kicked 3.6 to 1.0. We were hanging on for dear life and half time couldn't come quick enough. We played out of our skins in the third quarter to get back into the game. But just like in 2008 and 2009, if one team had kicked straight they'd have won!

Not sure whether the Moneyball approach meant that we didn't have the x-factor to win...Geez we had Roo, Dal, BJ, Milne, Schneider and Kosi. There was enough x-factor there. But we had some lesser lights play important roles in those games.

Perhaps the most accurate post re 09/10 I've ever read. Please forward this onto the media geniuses.

[thejiggingsaint]

I loved the film "Moneyball" an excellent production. Does the philosophy upon which the movie is based have any bearing in our 2009/10 seasons? An interesting theory, but I'm of the same opinion as Life Long Saint (EXCELLENT post incidentally LLS! ) IF Schneider, Mini, or Milney had kicked those "gimmes" (at the stage of the game when the chances presented themselves) the theory would be academic...and we would have been premiers.
IF Collingwood had kicked accurately in the second stanza of the (drawn) 2010 GF the theory would be academic. BUT an interesting point of view Rodger.

[Con Gorozidis]

Im sure every game and every team has missed bounces missed shots and toe poke moments. We hold on to these as a myth to explain or soothe these losses. We werent quite good enough.

I agree with the OP on this
Lyon took it too far back then eg he invented a role called 'filling space' for Robert Eddy. Now noone before this or after has ever had this supposed 'role'. It was invented nonsense. I also reckon hes learnt his lesson . No 'space fillers' at Freo and he didnt waste a draft pick chasing a role player this year.

Usually the side with more good players wins. And that is that. Finding them and developing them is the hard part.

There are very few shortcuts.

[saintsRrising]

Lots of Moneyball Threads some time back....

Basically, it was all about building a team with guys playing a role. About building a team based on average players with clear deficiencies but whom at the same time had a strength or an attribute that the team needed. Put all these strengths together, and hide the flaws, and hey presto! You have a winning team.
.

No not at all.

The essence of the strategy is like many things in life to buy good value cheaply. They key however was to use a different method to assess what good value was.

In the US Baseball World where a team like Beane's could not match it with the more financial teams in buying the best players, he instead devised a way of "buying smarter" . Make no mistake Beane would have loved to have had a team of "All-stars". But he just new that his club could never fund that compared to bigger spending teams, and so he looked for a different way.

Beane also by analysing the players differently was able to indentify players that could out-perform.

HOWEVER THE DRAFTININF / TRADING / SALARY CAP RULES IN THE AFL ARE DIFFERENT TO BASEBALL.

You cannot just mimic Moneyball in Auastralia. But you can think laterally, and look for value more broadly and in different places.

There are many ways to execute this. ie look at the Hawks with their preference for left-footers.

When Lyon joined the Saints, it was in a period (which included GT's last few years) where the saints were amongst the very worst recruiters in the league. So it was no wonder that both Lyon and GT were heavy traders, rather than solely relying on draft pics.

Pelchen in the last few drafts has used a window of opportunity to manipulate picks in multiple players.

Most clubs in recent years have expanded their search beyond the kiddie draft pool. Internationals. JPod etc etc...


PS. There is no "Hey Presto about it. If you do not do everything else correctly you will still go knowhere.

[markp]

Im sure every game and every team has missed bounces missed shots and toe poke moments. We hold on to these as a myth to explain or soothe these losses. We werent quite good enough.

I agree with the OP on this
Lyon took it too far back then eg he invented a role called 'filling space' for Robert Eddy. Now noone before this or after has ever had this supposed 'role'. It was invented nonsense. I also reckon hes learnt his lesson . No 'space fillers' at Freo and he didnt waste a draft pick chasing a role player this year.

Usually the side with more good players wins. And that is that. Finding them and developing them is the hard part.

There are very few shortcuts.

LOL

Because it highlights the FACT that we lost those two games by a poofteenth, and that's not a myth.

It's the OP that's the myth.

In games so close you can obviously 'blame' anything, that's (obviously) my point. Maybe even if the coin tosses had gone a different way....

It's just laughably ironic to blame the things that drove us to getting us within a kick 2 years in a row.

And doubly laughably ironic that it's usually from the same folk who'll tell you how 'unlucky' GT was not to win us a flag.

[rodgerfox]

I think that our inability to win the 09 flag was the problem.

Regardless of what happend up until that point, half way throuigh the final quarter, we were still in that game.

But we just didn't have it in us to manufacture a goal. We stuck to our structures, stuck to our plans - but they'd ran out of steam and our plans and structures couldn't find just one more goal. It's times like those that you need a guy to do something to drag you across the line. You need someone to take a risk, to do something special that wins the game. Structures, plans, and averages will get you so far - but they need flexibility. And I don't think we had that.

Interestingly, we saw in the 2nd half of 2010 that Lyon (or someone in the box) shook things up and switched everything around. And it nearly pinched the flag fo us!

But the very next week, at the opening bounce, what did we see? A total revert to the same old structures that had failed us on the big stage before. Why? I don't know.


It's food for thought, but did Milne not run at the ball because he was playing the percentages in 2010 in the goal square? Had he been so drilled to play safe and work the percentages, that he chose protect the point, rather than rolling the dice and trying to win the game?

[Sainternist]

I watched Moneyball for the first time last night. And it made me feel sick!

Read the book!

[thejiggingsaint]

WOW! now that is an interesting take Rodger. VERY interesting. (re: Milney !) That situation (with Milne) reminded me of a similar situation in the 2004 PF when Brent Guerra hit that "airy" in the dying seconds at AAMI stadium. I was sitting not far away from that pocket and it sure was a heartbreaker! Though I'm sure "goo" was in no way trying to play the "percentages" in the circumstances.

[markp]

Huh?

We were still in 2009 with minutes to go, not just halfway through the last.

And Lyon said he spoke to Milne after the game and he told him he couldn't have reached the ball, and that's is why he propped.

Nice day for some fishing, I guess.

[Sainternist]

P.S. Wish Billy Beane would come to our club to manage our list. He got the Oakland A's another pennant this year. Anyone who can do that would be a good shot at getting us that elusive premiership.

[thejiggingsaint]

But who'd be on first?

[rodgerfox]

Huh?

We were still in 2009 with minutes to go, not just halfway through the last.

So poor kicking didn't cost us the game.

Our inability to kick a goal late in the game, or for much of the second half did.

And Lyon said he spoke to Milne after the game and he told him he couldn't have reached the ball, and that's is why he propped.

Of course he couldn't have reached it. But he, for whatever reason, chose to run non-goal side of the bouncing ball. As we know, the ball bounced goal-side. The low risk, or the percentage play was to do what Milne did. The other option was to roll the dice and run goal-side. If he did, we'd have won.

Not blaming Milne as such, just posing the question that maybe, just maybe he was so entrenched in the 'low risk, high percentage' mantra that he subconsciously played it safe.

[rodgerfox]

I think that our inability to win the 09 flag was the problem. Brad Pitt made a comment in the movie last night, that I reckon Ross Lyon would have posted on his bedroom wall. "When your enemy's making mistakes, don't interrupt him."

The premise is that you pressure your opponent into losing the game. I think that was always Ross Lyon's theory. Still is. The problem is, that sometimes they don't. And that means you need to find a way to win it yourself.

[markp]

I'd just about put my house on Milne playing on pure Milne instinct at that point... and I'll say again, to blame a mantra or philosophy for losing you 2 grand finals in consecutive years, each effectively by a kick, when they're fundamental to how got you there, is laughable.

But hey, fish on.

[rodgerfox]

to blame a mantra or philosophy for losing you 2 grand finals in consecutive years, each effectively by a kick, when they're fundamental to how got you there, is laughable.

But that was a big part of the movie.

The strategy got them 20 wins in a row and got them to a certain point - but that same strategy also was a key reason they weren't able to go further than that. So it was a strategy that delivered consistency and in turn, wins. But at the pointy end, it isn't consistency that wins the big games.

Obviously you disagree, but that was a big premise of the film. And also, one of the main reasons I saw such parallels between us and the team in the movie.

[Moods]

I'd bet that without the philosophy that RF blames for losing us two premierships, we wouldn't have come close to even playing off in a GF in those years, let alone lose them by small margins.

The improvement in the team from previous years was staggering. We had some serious talent b/w 04-06, but didn't have the footy program/professionalism/hard edge to go the whole way. In 09/10 our talent didn't run as deep, but the way we approached everything was far more llike a top club does things. ie blokes weren't falling over with injuries every other week.

[markp]

but that same strategy also was a key reason they weren't able to go further than that.

Yep true.

Not the fact that they were only able to afford to pay their players 30%-50% what many other clubs, and the ultimate victors were.

It was the mantra and philosophy that held them back in the end.

[Con Gorozidis]

I'd bet that without the philosophy that RF blames for losing us two premierships, we wouldn't have come close to even playing off in a GF in those years, let alone lose them by small margins.

The improvement in the team from previous years was staggering. We had some serious talent b/w 04-06, but didn't have the footy program/professionalism/hard edge to go the whole way. In 09/10 our talent didn't run as deep, but the way we approached everything was far more llike a top club does things. ie blokes weren't falling over with injuries every other week.

We would have come close regardless of the 'philosophy'
We had about 12 very good players at the peak of their career in the 23-28yo age bracket back then.
We were primed. If you go back and watch the whole season/s - many games we won despite having a a few duds and often a crap game plan(remember we would always let teams back in the game and werent great at finishing them off?) Milney had a poor track record in big games in finals and against good sides.
Most big games we won back then were on the back of heroic efforts from 6 of our big guns. Not some mystery philosophy. The fact we were even in the GFs was from heroic individual efforts from our big guns. I think it was Roo who saved our bacon against the Dogs to even make the 09 play off.

[saintsRrising]

to blame a mantra or philosophy for losing you 2 grand finals in consecutive years, each effectively by a kick, when they're fundamental to how got you there, is laughable.

But that was a big part of the movie.

The strategy got them 20 wins in a row and got them to a certain point - but that same strategy also was a key reason they weren't able to go further than that. So it was a strategy that delivered consistency and in turn, wins. But at the pointy end, it isn't consistency that wins the big games.

Obviously you disagree, but that was a big premise of the film. And also, one of the main reasons I saw such parallels between us and the team in the movie.

As has been pointed out you are not considering all the facts.

They had a lot less payrole, and so Beanes strategy worked very well with the little $$ available.

[plugger66]

Wasnt moneyball about a side who couldnt afford to get the stars so in that case we did use the moneyball approach. The difference being we had stars in our side and RL wanted to keep them so we paid good money for them to stay. This left us short when trying to get good players from other clubs so we got the second and third raters which did include Schneider, MG, King and Dempster ad well us others that didnt work. Considering how poorly we drafted over that period who could blame him for that stratergy.