Moneyball

[PVD_Blue]

Kinda digging this up from the grave sorry but since some have seen the movie/know the concept just want to offer some context. "Moneyball" did revolutionize the sport but it's worth noting that Billy Beane is yet to make a World Series let alone win one with Oakland.

If you've seen the movie at the end* when he turns down Boston they instead hired Theo Epstein who understood the need to balance moneyball style bargain hunting with advanced stats to exploit market inefficiencies while also spending big money to obtain elite talent**. I do see Everton moving to this kind of model, it's both finding a Sandro with a rock bottom release clause while spending $40+ on Gylfi while having a U-23 team defending the PL2 title. You hear Spurs model thrown around a lot and I really think they are the best example of "moneyball" translated to football in the league recently.

* sorry if I'm spoiling a 6 year old movie based on events from like 2003.
** also doesn't hurt that signing David Ortiz basically turned into the baseball version of signing Messi on a free transfer and getting a decade of production in return.

 

[macdog]

Moneyballsup more likely.

 

[ilikecheese]

Yes/no. It's really an approach, not necessarily a defined system of rules. In baseball, which has a high concentration of luck, people realized you can game the odds in your favor in ways that everyone else had missed. You can't *really* do that in football, the outcome of which is more determined by skill/talent.

But you can focus on refining statistics to better understand cause and effect on the pitch, and to help find undervalued players/assets. And, as much as some fans don't like the idea, ALL clubs are doing this.

Baseball is luck? It's hardly luck. Hitting a baseball takes enormous skill. The thing about baseball is that it's such a difficult game that a failure rate of 70% is actually very good.

I don't think moneyball really works in any other sport than baseball. The margins are very subtle...and the examination is comprehensive. A success rate of 25% is below average. A success rate of 27.5% is above average. Success above 30% is among the best. These stats bare themselves out over an exhaustive 162 game schedule.

In a game where the difference between bad and great is 5%...and you find another nuisance statistic that helps support success, over a 162 game season there is a chance you might unlock a hidden secret.

In the case of the real Moneyball it was a focus on players who historically had a good on base percentage. A skill of being able to see a good pitch and lay off a bad pitch.

Maybe in test cricket it might be something that could work.

 

[Hibbo]

Purple people eaters.

 

[JustOpp]

Baseball is luck? It's hardly luck. Hitting a baseball takes enormous skill. The thing about baseball is that it's such a difficult game that a failure rate of 70% is actually very good.

I don't think moneyball really works in any other sport than baseball. The margins are very subtle...and the examination is comprehensive. A success rate of 25% is below average. A success rate of 27.5% is above average. Success above 30% is among the best. These stats bare themselves out over an exhaustive 162 game schedule.

In a game where the difference between bad and great is 5%...and you find another nuisance statistic that helps support success, over a 162 game season there is a chance you might unlock a hidden secret.

In the case of the real Moneyball it was a focus on players who historically had a good on base percentage. A skill of being able to see a good pitch and lay off a bad pitch.

Maybe in test cricket it might be something that could work.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and it all comes down to each sport's mechanics. We see these kinds of mini-revolutions occur on the field of play all the time, "Moneyball" just happened to be the one that also changed how we think about sports.

If any sport is crying for a revolution, it's football. There are simply too many desperate clubs without a hope for no one to come along with a better idea. But I don't think that change will happen on the pitch, I think it will have to happen in the academies and transfer dealings. Just a guess, of course.

 

[ilikecheese]

Necessity is the mother of invention, and it all comes down to each sport's mechanics. We see these kinds of mini-revolutions occur on the field of play all the time, "Moneyball" just happened to be the one that also changed how we think about sports.

If any sport is crying for a revolution, it's football. There are simply too many desperate clubs without a hope for no one to come along with a better idea. But I don't think that change will happen on the pitch, I think it will have to happen in the academies and transfer dealings. Just a guess, of course.

I mostly took issue about baseball being built on luck. The volumes of stats over a 162 game schedule is actual data which might be exploited by those who crunch numbers.