Moneyball

[St.Rob8]

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.

The book was written by a world renowned author and journalist and it changed the way sports administrators think across the globe. The movie was an entertaining Hollywood story starring Brad Pitt.

However it is fair to argue that the strength of our game plan in 2009/10 (and Freo's in 2013) was also our biggest weakness. By adopting a high-pressure (and consequently low-scoring) game against GOOD teams we were often still in games even though the opposition had the better of us for large periods. The downside was that the opposition were still in games even though we had the better of them for large periods. This produced some cracking contests, especially against the Cats. This was best summed up in the 09 final series where we beat the Bulldogs in a game they should have won but lost to the Cats in a game we should have won. The difference was our accuracy (9.6 in the Prelim and 9.14 in the GF), but without the game plan we wouldn't have beaten the Dogs (or the Cats in the 2010 QF). You could also argue the Cats would have belted us in the GF without such a defensive strategy, as they revolutionised attacking football in the Naughties, and we revolutionised defensive football through frontal pressure / full court-press or whatever you want to call it. Credit MUST go to Lyon and the players who executed his strategy. I have never seen a St. Kilda team dominate like we did in 2009. Still the facts remain 9.14 lost to 12.8 when it mattered most.

[St.Rob8]

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.

It is the "approach" and not the situation that makes Moneyball so interesting and influential. The combination of statistics and re-defining how to interpet them to your advantage is what has changed sport.

[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.

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.

Yeah, I think I said that in my OP.

[markp]

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.

Yeah, I think I said that in my OP.

You said they had to implement this strategy because of a lack of money... but we didn't have to.

Wondering if the boston red sox had to immediately adopt the same strategy and with it 2 years later win their first world series since 1918?

Prolly not.

[rodgerfox]

Not sure what you mean?

[perfectionist]

...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...

Actually, according to Ross (and what I also saw), the reverse happened. He reckoned that he let the structure go too early in the last quarter in 2009, that is, we went all out attack in order to win the game. The problem was, we were in front at the time, although to be fair, they looked like they were coming. Conversely in 2010, we were behind and so had to go all out attack after half time. The result proved him right.

The reality is that with any luck we could have won both of those games. The fact that our worst two players were much worse than their two worst didn't really tell in the end in either game, although it didn't help.

[hungry for a premiership]

Thinking back to GF1 in 2010, I remember, as I sat in the forward pocket on the bottom level of the MCG, watching Goddard, rise, rise, rise, mark, kick a goal and put us in front in the dying minutes of the game. My father and I shared a look, like "this is it."

But still, something inside me told me, with utter certainty, this we still needed to kick 1 more goal to win this game of football. I thought, "attack, saints, attack with absolutely everything you've got and kick 1 more goal and the premiership is ours."

But they didn't attack, they defended the lead.

IMHO, I think this right here is the flaw in RL's gameplan. A team needs to know when to throw the kitchen sink at the opposition and attack at all costs.

I knew collwood would kick another goal, so we had to kick another ourselves.... but we didnt

[stinger]

...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...

Actually, according to Ross (and what I also saw), the reverse happened. He reckoned that he let the structure go too early in the last quarter in 2009, that is, we went all out attack in order to win the game. The problem was, we were in front at the time, although to be fair, they looked like they were coming. Conversely in 2010, we were behind and so had to go all out attack after half time. The result proved him right.

The reality is that with any luck we could have won both of those games. The fact that our worst two players were much worse than their two worst didn't really tell in the end in either game, although it didn't help.

not playing ball in the last quarter in 09 didn't help...neither did ball playing for the filth and not us in 010......both lyin's fault....

[Spinner]

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.

What a stupid thread.

Like we purposely didn't recruit superstars.

Heard of the draft? You can't go and just buy players. List turnover is a slow process.

[whiskers3614]

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.

Elephant in the room...

our "Leon Davis" choked in both GFs

[Scollop]

Playing to win is a lot easier and comes naturally to players rather than playing to defend.

In 2009 we smashed the Doggies (and nearly every other team) in home and away and yet they nearly won in the prelim. From memory we beat them twice, first time by 10 goals early in the year and also by a comfortable margin again later that year.

We were a team on a mission in 2009 and great teams loaded with stars and champion players should be allowed to do what comes naturally. As the wins kept piling up the thoughts and expectations of the long suffering fans was like a giant weight that needed to be carried by the team and the coaches.

Our ad hoc planning and 'banking the 4 points' strategy was pointless in round 17 and 18 when we had already banked a top 2 finish. Momentum was stalled... Had we peaked too early? As finals approached and the heat was on the messiah to deliver...I think he choked. I reckon some coaches - especially those with a funny walk - tend to metaphorically tighten up their sphincter instead of relaxing and letting nature take its course.

[ace]

Gee, I would rather watch our team completley devoid of flare and naural football instinct than watching an ill disciplined bunch each playing for themselves.

When Lyon implemented his strict team structures, our team won most of their games.
He took an average list and made them premiership contenders.

When Watters implemented his do whatever like approach our team lost most of their games.
He took an average list and made anyone who wanted success want to leave the club and they did.

[saintspremiers]

Lyon choked and hopefully will continue to choke and never win a flag

[plugger66]

Playing to win is a lot easier and comes naturally to players rather than playing to defend.

In 2009 we smashed the Doggies (and nearly every other team) in home and away and yet they nearly won in the prelim. From memory we beat them twice, first time by 10 goals early in the year and also by a comfortable margin again later that year.

We were a team on a mission in 2009 and great teams loaded with stars and champion players should be allowed to do what comes naturally. As the wins kept piling up the thoughts and expectations of the long suffering fans was like a giant weight that needed to be carried by the team and the coaches.

Our ad hoc planning and 'banking the 4 points' strategy was pointless in round 17 and 18 when we had already banked a top 2 finish. Momentum was stalled... Had we peaked too early? As finals approached and the heat was on the messiah to deliver...I think he choked. I reckon some coaches - especially those with a funny walk - tend to metaphorically tighten up their sphincter instead of relaxing and letting nature take its course.

Well you make complete sense. A coach with a funny work tend to choke. Im pretty sure we rested many players late in 2009. By the way which players looked tired in the GF? Geelong got within a kick in a game in 2009 and the reversed the result by a kick in the GF. Hardly an earth shattering turn around. But go with it being the coaches fault. I suppose when you think about it you could be right as SW was rated a better coach by a few on here than RL. It amazes me how RL still has a job and SW doesnt.

[saintsRrising]

So Rodge what is that we should have done instead?

Stayed with the era of gut feel recruiting? Which by the way is actually why we fell behind most clubs recruiting wise. They all went more scientific ( moneyball to some degree).

Even the cats have made some deft value pucks up like Harry who was plucked to play the key defender role.

[vacuous space]

I think it's a real stretch to compare our 09 group with the Oakland A's. We had one of the highest-paid, highest-profile players at one of the glamour positions. We had established AA level stars on every line going into that year. We had a disproportionate number of early draft picks mostly out of the Victorian junior system. If anything, we were the establishment.

As for Lyon stifling flair, or whatever he's accused of, he took over the 8th best attack and the 3rd best defence after 06. By 09 we were 4th in attack and 1st in defence by a large margin. Our two key forwards established career best totals in goals. We had even more AA players at the end of the season. I don't know what more he could have done short of kicking the goals for Milne, Schneider et al.

And of course Lyon's a fan of Moneyball. Everyone is. It literally changed the game.

[Life Long Saint]

As for Lyon stifling flair, or whatever he's accused of, he took over the 8th best attack and the 3rd best defence after 06. By 09 we were 4th in attack and 1st in defence by a large margin. Our two key forwards established career best totals in goals. We had even more AA players at the end of the season. I don't know what more he could have done short of kicking the goals for Milne, Schneider et al.

Nice work!
Some would like to blame Lyon for not winning 09/10 but I look at it in a different way.
Without him and his game plan we would never have got to the GF's. He looked at our side after 2008 and decided that things needed to change. We finished 4th after the H&A...Thanks largely to a massive win against Essendon in the final round but we were not in the same league as Geelong/Hawthorn being thrashed in both finals encounters against them.
The forward press was a stroke of genius. I used to love watching the relentless pressure that our forwards and midfield placed on the opposition defence. I see parts of it with Fremantle now and it still works.

The only knock on Lyon that I have is the well documented lack of player development. He left our list in worse shape than he found it. Only Watson from our recent crop of coaches has done that.

[rodgerfox]

So Rodge what is that we should have done instead?

Stayed with the era of gut feel recruiting? Which by the way is actually why we fell behind most clubs recruiting wise. They all went more scientific ( moneyball to some degree).

Even the cats have made some deft value pucks up like Harry who was plucked to play the key defender role.

I think my point has been missed.


I wasn't really drawing the comparison directly between our recruiting and that of Oakland's.

It was more the overall concept of playing guys with one main strength, regardless of their weaknesses.

[rodgerfox]

As for Lyon stifling flair, or whatever he's accused of, he took over the 8th best attack and the 3rd best defence after 06. By 09 we were 4th in attack and 1st in defence by a large margin. Our two key forwards established career best totals in goals. We had even more AA players at the end of the season. I don't know what more he could have done short of kicking the goals for Milne, Schneider et al.

And of course Lyon's a fan of Moneyball. Everyone is. It literally changed the game.

I think that stat is misleading.

It sounds silly, but we scored heavily in 09 because we defended so well.

Our opponents didn't get the ball, and when they did they turned it over. We ground them down, broke their spirit then we were able to score freely once they were broken.

So I don't think the stats from 09 can be used to suggest we were an attacking team.


In 09 also, no one had twigged that as per the Moneyball strategy, we had blokes who didn't kick. They won the ball, but then gave it to the designated kickers. So I don't think it was an attacking game plan at all. It was a very safe one. But it was so clever and executed so well that it made us efficient when going forward.

Obviously as opposition caught on, we found it harder and harder to score. Our defence was still awesome, but we couldn't score.

[Con Gorozidis]

Noone has mentioned the age profile of the list back then.

It is well established most players play their best footy from 23-28.
Yes u can all name a few exceptions but in 09 we had bj dal joey lenny bakes gram milne roo kosi fisher dempster schneider gilbo gwilt all in the prime time sweet spots of their careers.
This was not an average list.

You give me 13 good to very good players in their prime at that age and you are certain to be at least playing finals.(we now only have two).
If you look over at Freo you will see something similar.

No disrespect to Lyon - he then gets them playing very hard and playing as a team.
But its not like the Oakland As where the list was built from scratch and where stars were moving on for more money.
Its not like he got rid of Roo and Pav and then won games with a side full of Robert Eddys.

[St.Rob8]

I think it's a real stretch to compare our 09 group with the Oakland A's. We had one of the highest-paid, highest-profile players at one of the glamour positions. We had established AA level stars on every line going into that year. We had a disproportionate number of early draft picks mostly out of the Victorian junior system. If anything, we were the establishment.

As for Lyon stifling flair, or whatever he's accused of, he took over the 8th best attack and the 3rd best defence after 06. By 09 we were 4th in attack and 1st in defence by a large margin. Our two key forwards established career best totals in goals. We had even more AA players at the end of the season. I don't know what more he could have done short of kicking the goals for Milne, Schneider et al.

And of course Lyon's a fan of Moneyball. Everyone is. It literally changed the game.

+1

[Spinner]

I think it's a real stretch to compare our 09 group with the Oakland A's. We had one of the highest-paid, highest-profile players at one of the glamour positions. We had established AA level stars on every line going into that year. We had a disproportionate number of early draft picks mostly out of the Victorian junior system. If anything, we were the establishment.

As for Lyon stifling flair, or whatever he's accused of, he took over the 8th best attack and the 3rd best defence after 06. By 09 we were 4th in attack and 1st in defence by a large margin. Our two key forwards established career best totals in goals. We had even more AA players at the end of the season. I don't know what more he could have done short of kicking the goals for Milne, Schneider et al.

And of course Lyon's a fan of Moneyball. Everyone is. It literally changed the game.

+1

So you're saying we went from 8th to 4th in attack in 2009? Please send the OP these stats.

Wow.

I'm watching Hunger Games on Friday - I'll have a report done my Saturday morning linking in this movie to Lyon's Qualifying win with Fremantle against Geelong down in Geelong, where they had won 47 of 48 games and basically transformed a team the fans laughed at into a dominate side from WA that not only wins but wins finals interstate in less than 2 years in the job.

[70s sainter]

I watched it a year or two ago and had a twist in my stomach the whole time. The similarities terrorised me throughout the movie. The saints were a bunch of misfits in 09 with each one playing their role to a tee .
When he went down into the rooms because he couldn't bear to watch it reminded me of when I left the ground before the siren in 09 because I couldn't stand it anymore .

[Con Gorozidis]

Bj, Ball, Dal, Lenny, Roo and Kosi were all first round picks. All on big bucks.

Throw in Schneids and Dempster who were already Premiership players.

Then chuck in Gardner - (yes a misfit and outlaw) - but also still a Number 1 draft pick.

Grammy was a pick 19.

[rodgerfox]

The other thing about Moneyball and Lyon, and why I found it an interesting situation, is that I wonder how the 'Moneyball' strategy leaves your list long term in AFL footy?


Moneyball is clearly about getting in new players for the now. You need something right now, so you get it. In AFL footy, if you need something now and go and get it - you can have some pretty serious holes in a very short time.

I think this is the very reason that we found our list fall away so quickly. I think Lyon's version of Moneyball doesn't work in AFL footy in the medium-long term. Sure, you get your short term gain, but is it worth the medium-long term pain?


I guess if you wn a flag, then of course it is! But if you don't - you're in deep s*** for some time to come!


I saw Freo's drafting and the first thing I thought of was Moneyball again! He's trying to fill a need. Now. I see it as pretty much exactly the same thing as at the Saints.


It's going to be fascinating to see how this pans out.