Moneyball Theory

[dimelb]

Ahh, fair enough dosser, all I remember about jetta's draft pick was that a lot of people on here were very excited about him, with good reason too it seems, wasn't aware of the dons interest, they got the wrong jetta it seems

Just like the commentators!

[Swanno]

Welcome to the site Swanno. Terrific post and an interesting read. Our trading record is quite amazing isn't it.

It is amazing the regularity of the caliber of players we pick up and produce We have got to have some of the best recruiters and coaches in the league, long may it continue

[ShockOfHair]

Good first post, Swanno. The odd thing is that the Swans have been taking this approach for years but it took a Hollywood movie for it to get recognised.

One of the main reasons it's worked so well is that no-one else has been doing it. Sure - in the last few years clubs have started picking the eyes out of the state leagues (which makes you wonder how many J-Pods and Barlows have been left languishing over the years.)

But for those clubs seeking quality players looking for a new change, it's been a buyers' market: just us. But it's a pretty high percentage call. For players with a few years in the system you have a chance to assess their abilities, character, potential, ability to work in a team. Much better than punting on a 17yo who's still growing and doesn't know what's required to be a a footballer. The Tammy and Paul Roos analysis in 2002 figured that after pick 15 the draft is a lottery. Armed with that, the 'Moneyball' approach is a no-brainer and it's staggering that so many clubs put so much faith in the main draft.

[Beerman]

My knowledge of the "Moneyball" strategy is strictly limited to having watched the movie and reading the Doc's post in this thread and based on that I don't think it is a strategy that is or could be used by any AFL team.

In AFL, the situations that lead to scoring outcome are not as clear-cut and not as easily modelled mathematically as they are in baseball. (For a start, remember that baseball is very stats-heavy. Think more like cricket stats than AFL stats). Also, the role of an individual player in creating a score is much harder to quantify. The "many vs many" nature of AFL is quite different to the "one vs many" nature of baseball. For example, how do you capture the fact that a forward knows when to stand off the contest and keep his opponent out of it and let his team-mate contest one-on-one? It's not enough for a forward to achieve on one or two stats (Eg. contested marking & goal-kicking), they also have to be able to exert forward defensive pressure.

Sure, all teams look at the need for certain attributes; speed, hard-ball winners, contested marking etc. But I think it's a bit of a stretch to call this "Moneyball".

Remember also that some of our recruits we have got through a "hardball" strategy rather than "moneyball". Geelong fought hard to keep Mumford, but in a team of stars it was just too hard. Hawthorn were reluctant to let go of Kennedy and we only just got Tommy Walsh from St Kilda. It's not like we're the only team to recognise the value of these players.

Also, don't neglect the role of our coaching staff. The bloke sitting behind me in the round 1 game would have traded Jetta to GWS for a packet of chips, and I wouldn't have blamed him after his previous couple of years efforts. It is only this year that he has finally come good, which is more of a credit to the coaching & fitness staff than the recruiters.

[bondy]

I think the most 'moneyball' approach we make is between the ears of our players. Time and time again we get blokes that seem like genuinely good guys. Sure, there are good blokes that play in other teams but we seem to have a whole team of good blokes.

Where it comes into play is our typical brand of footy - the hardness and accountability that demands bodies around the ball at all times in the midfield and absolute trust shown by our backmen. We seem to be able to do that better than most, and i think it is because of the personality / character of the players selected as much as it is their football ability.

[Jewels]

I think the most 'moneyball' approach we make is between the ears of our players. Time and time again we get blokes that seem like genuinely good guys. Sure, there are good blokes that play in other teams but we seem to have a whole team of good blokes.

Where it comes into play is our typical brand of footy - the hardness and accountability that demands bodies around the ball at all times in the midfield and absolute trust shown by our backmen. We seem to be able to do that better than most, and i think it is because of the personality / character of the players selected as much as it is their football ability.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here Bondy.
Our recruiters are wonderful at picking out who we need to fulfill our needs, but the players themselves have to really WANT to show that they can do it. Teddy, Joshua P, Benny Mac, Mummy and now (so far anyway), Mitch M all came here wanting and needing to prove a point. They all knew they could do it, they just needed the chance to shine.
Shine on boys!

[Rod_]

The Swans seem to target the player they want and go after them..

Mummy was most likely to be a very good player for the cats (in say 2 years... + after we drafted him) we offered him a carrot, long term contract and he took it. Most likely he wasn't going to break into the cats for while.. good common sense when he took the offering..

Craig Bolton - similar trend - wasn't getting a game in Brisbane and became a key player for the Swans..

If you work through the list of gains, we have successfully collected players that will fill a role and they have enjoyed success along the way.

Yes I believe there is a Swans moneyball theory. And every club tries it with less success than what the Swans get. Well done by us!

We all ask at the end of the year, what are our needs for the nest 2-5 years. We tend to target that style of player.. Go for a young one in the draft, a tried one in player exchange and any other way we can fill the need, hopefully one will come off... and we play the best fit...


Seaby and Mummy... (Pyke as a swing maybe) were the replacements for Jolly. In reality all 3 have been successful.. With the best 2 are playing at the moment...

well that is my 2c to our money ball theory..!

Rod_