Moneyball and GT Football

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,880
The Oakland Athletics in the postseason since 2001. Oakland's payroll in 2022 was $32MM. The Dodgers were $277MM. Oakland had the second lowest payroll in MLB. In 2020, when they went to the League Division Series, they had the fifth lowest payroll in MLB. They're regularly in the bottom 5 payrolls. But they make the playoffs.

How many teams would kill to make the playoffs this often?
SEASONROUNDOPPONENT
SERIES RESULT​
2020League Divisional SeriesHouston Astros
L 1-3​
2019Wild Card GameTampa Bay Rays
L 0-1​
2018Wild Card GameNew York Yankees
L 0-1​
2014Wild Card GameKansas City Royals
L 0-1​
2013League Divisional SeriesDetroit Tigers
L 2-3​
2012League Divisional SeriesDetroit Tigers
L 2-3​
2006League Championship SeriesDetroit Tigers
L 0-4​
2006League Divisional SeriesMinnesota Twins
W 3-0​
2003League Divisional SeriesBoston Red Sox
L 2-3​
2002League Divisional SeriesMinnesota Twins
L 2-3​
2001League Divisional SeriesNew York Yankees
L 2-3​
One thing to remember here is that, like Bean says in the book and the movie, his thing doesn't help in the post-season. The number of games is too small and the teams too well matched for any kind of metric to work except bum luck. The whole Moneyball thing is using metrics to get to the playoffs with a low payroll. There it has proven its worth, over and again.

Teams with high payrolls tend not to look as carefully at the metrics during the season; they figure that they have the players and that should be enough. The Braves in 2021 are a good example. When the lineup went South, Snitker began to finally pay attention to what his analysts were telling him. The results were, shall we say, inspiring and apparently convinced the whole clubhouse.

Tech has played Moneyball for decades: Dodd's razzle-dazzle, Fridge's multiple O, Tenuta's aggressive D, Paul's spread option. All had their "gimmicks" that allowed Tech to win with players other teams weren't looking at carefully. Let's hope Key has similar ideas.
 

gville_jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
743
Isn't moneyball getting more wins per payroll dollar than other teams?

I read it several half lives of retained knowledge ago. Don't remember.
Not necessarily. The concept was more about looking at more in depth analytics to to dictate decisions instead “eye tests” or human evaluations or feelings. Doing this in combination with looking at team output instead of individual output. That’s really moneyball. The Red Sox and Cubs both won a WS using data analytics and massive payroll. The A’s used it to gain an edge where they didn’t have the payroll and had to rely on the data to be competitive. This just doesn’t make sense to “use moneyball on coaches” and even more difficult in football. Football everyone has a very specific role in any play. Baseball, everyone gets an at bat and has to hit, has to play the field, so much easier to mix and match strengths and weaknesses.
 

gville_jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
743
Additionally if you only look at wins per payroll dollar, take a look at the pirates. They actually do well in this. Low wins but even lower payroll.
 

JacketFan137

Banned
Messages
2,536
Not necessarily. The concept was more about looking at more in depth analytics to to dictate decisions instead “eye tests” or human evaluations or feelings. Doing this in combination with looking at team output instead of individual output. That’s really moneyball. The Red Sox and Cubs both won a WS using data analytics and massive payroll. The A’s used it to gain an edge where they didn’t have the payroll and had to rely on the data to be competitive. This just doesn’t make sense to “use moneyball on coaches” and even more difficult in football. Football everyone has a very specific role in any play. Baseball, everyone gets an at bat and has to hit, has to play the field, so much easier to mix and match strengths and weaknesses.
baseball is also less of a team sport and largely dictated on individual matchups. the analytics seem way more predictive to me than football where a guy could switch systems and suddenly be way more valuable. a good hitter will hit in any ball park, while a qb like tim tebow will only succeed in certain offenses.

i think too many are romanticizing moneyball cause they dream of tech overcoming the talent and money gap without doing it “the way everyone else does”
 

gville_jacket

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
743
baseball is also less of a team sport and largely dictated on individual matchups. the analytics seem way more predictive to me than football where a guy could switch systems and suddenly be way more valuable. a good hitter will hit in any ball park, while a qb like tim tebow will only succeed in certain offenses.

i think too many are romanticizing moneyball cause they dream of tech overcoming the talent and money gap without doing it “the way everyone else does”
Exactly. It’s not just spend less money intentionally and somehow win more.
 

leatherneckjacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,769
Location
Atlanta, GA
I agree with this. Moneyball was aimed at finding undervalued players. It was also aimed at trying to make some of your good players appear overvalued (e.g., by letting your 3rd and 4th best relievers get saves that would normally go to your best reliever).
Exactly! It is about both roster and payroll management. When the market over values assets with specific set of skills, physical dimensions or based on outdated metrics, then participants within the market tend to overspend to collect assets with those skills or that perform well above average in those metrics. Teams were overpaying for players who looked and played a certain way. They also overpaid for wins in pitchers and for batting average and RBIs for hitters. Moneyball was about finding undervalued assets whose skill set was underappreciated or who did not perform well in the classic metrics, but actually were delivering as much value based on the new metrics (ERA+, WHIP, OBP, Slugging, OPS).

Now, even though everyone is using the same metrics, Moneyball still exists, but it has evolved. Tampa Bay is really good at the current version. It is not just about finding the players no one wants, but rather diversifying your strengths and weaknesses to create a team whose parts are greater than the sum of the parts. Rather than fixate on a single set of skills or metric, they look for players with varying skills to create a more complex lineup and pitching staff. As another example, the Yankees are one of the worst at this. Their players seem to have the same exact strengths as well as the same weaknesses. So while the Yankees were loading up with right handed players with high exit velocity and barrel percentage, but also high strikeout rates, Tampa was looking for players that gave them roster flexibility who could create greater diversity within their lineup. As such, it was easy for teams to get past the Yankees lineup, but Tampa was able to make a world series using a lineup that cost half as much as what the Yankees paid just one of their players (Stanton).

A major element to their strategy is to trade high value assets right as they become arbitration eligible for multiple high profile prospects or flawed prospects at the peak of their value. By trading them away with 3-4+ years of control, they are maximizing what they ask for in return. This helps keep their costs down, but also allows them greater flexibility to bring up and send down players who still have options. Again, the Yankees are the worst at this. They held onto Miguel Andujar too long and then just released him. They held onto Jackson Frazier too long and then just released him. They held onto Greg Bird too long and then just released him. They held onto Gary Sanchez too long and then made a horrid trade to get rid of him by picking up IKF and Josh Donaldson. They have held onto Estevan Florial and Deivy Garcia way too long and now they are well beyond their peak value but both are out of options even though neither has a full year of service in the majors. The Rays know when to move on from a top prospect or player to maximize the number of assets in their system. The Yankees do not.
 
Last edited:

JacketOff

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,818
Isn't moneyball getting more wins per payroll dollar than other teams?

I read it several half lives of retained knowledge ago. Don't remember.
Moneyball is about finding value in players that were/are traditionally cast aside, and building a team around the things they do very well. That’s where the, “he gets on base” scene comes from. They don’t care about his average, how many home runs he hits, how many runs he produces, it’s all about getting on base. It’s not necessarily about saving the money, that’s just a byproduct of the strategy. However, every team in the league is aware of the strategy now, and use it to their own advantages. So even teams with the largest payrolls: Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, etc. are still using the basic concepts that build the foundation of “Moneyball,” they’re just doing it with more highly sought after players. So instead of finding a guy with a .350 OBP who hits 15 homers a year like the A’s, they go after the guy with a .350 OBP who hits 35 homers a year.

The premise of Moneyball for the A’s was to find players who didn’t fit the traditional superstar mold that most contending teams were going after, but still had their own niche value the A’s could exploit. Because the other teams didn’t see any value in those guys, the A’s were able to field competitive teams without trying to outspend the bigger market teams.

I’m not sure it’s possible to play “Moneyball” in football the same way it is in baseball. There are way more moving parts on any given play, and the fundamentals of football involve much more physical demands. In order for Moneyball to work in football you’d have to devise a unique strategy and “scheme” that doesn’t require the best, strongest, or fastest athletes to be successful. Hmmm, I wonder if that’s ever been done before. The service academies could probably utilize a system like them. Somebody get in touch with them.
 

kg01

Get-Bak! Coach
Featured Member
Messages
14,332
Location
Atlanta
More talent than our current Get-Bak coach. You need better assistance

Accept Tv Land GIF by YoungerTV
 

7979

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
299
Location
Nashville
Hmmm, I wonder if that’s ever been done before
"...Hmmm, I wonder if that’s ever been done before..."
LOL...I see what you did here.....and we all know who you are "wondering" about......
3 years ago, maybe even 2 years ago, Paul might have returned to the Naval Academy.... He's too old, too rich, too happy to try it now...
 

GT33

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,704
Back in the Billy Bean days, analytics were a geeky fad only a few paid any attention to. Now it's more mainstream, but those with $$ beileve they can buy ther way past the analytics, a lazy man's apporach to roster management.

Today we have AI. Nobody know what to do with it. Who should be adapting AI to football....... GT, that's who. I'm not sure anyone knows how to leverage AI to win more games, but damnit if there's a school anywhere that has AI by the balls it should be GT. Give Alabama, etc enough time and they'll buy the talent to do it, but we got the talent on campus already. Just need the desire to aim them at the target and tell them to get it done.
 

JacketFan137

Banned
Messages
2,536
Exactly. It’s not just spend less money intentionally and somehow win more.
yeah i don’t think it makes as much sense in football, especially college. with the talent gaps that a team like us has vs a bama/uga/clemson/ohio state i don’t see how we magically overcome that with analytics alone
 

ibeattetris

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,545
Back in the Billy Bean days, analytics were a geeky fad only a few paid any attention to. Now it's more mainstream, but those with $$ beileve they can buy ther way past the analytics, a lazy man's apporach to roster management.

Today we have AI. Nobody know what to do with it. Who should be adapting AI to football....... GT, that's who. I'm not sure anyone knows how to leverage AI to win more games, but damnit if there's a school anywhere that has AI by the balls it should be GT. Give Alabama, etc enough time and they'll buy the talent to do it, but we got the talent on campus already. Just need the desire to aim them at the target and tell them to get it done.
I want to begin with saying I agree with you. I do want to raise legitimate counter points though.

If you look at the recent trends of coaches like Lane Kiffin going for it a lot on fourth down, the coaches are publicly ridiculed when not going with the conventional “put points on the board”. Some very advanced machine learning services have developed with good accuracy the appropriate time to kick, punt, go for it, but breaking away from conventions can get you fired. It’s the same reason why no one beside GT took a shot at a CPJ style OC despite proven success at GT.

GT current wears those chest straps (I forget what they are called) which is supposed to be able to help keep track of player max throughput and when they need to rest. If we added other wearable devices like oura rings or whoop bands and they could start guaging readiness levels in the weight room. I think these sorts of things are why we need some sport/health/technology based engineering major as these devices become more prevalent.

As for other uses of AI, I think the main problem you will run into at the coaching level is there aren’t enough plays in games to build big enough data sets. Add in how much changes within season, and it becomes hard to even train data sets. You can maybe try to develop tendencies for a play caller over the course of their career, but again, different personnel and lack of data may make it challenging (still probably worth pursuing). I also assume there is already work in this space (and possibly even available already).
 

cpf2001

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
778
Another big issue in college sports is also that you don’t have the same level of roster control. No draft, no long team-friendly entry contracts (especially now), no trades. If you find a star you can’t flip them for future picks to help constantly rebuild.
 

ibeattetris

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,545
Another big issue in college sports is also that you don’t have the same level of roster control. No draft, no long team-friendly entry contracts (especially now), no trades. If you find a star you can’t flip them for future picks to help constantly rebuild.
And using any sort of metrics at the high school level is going to be high variance. A lot easier for MLB teams to scout farm systems.
 

GT33

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,704
As for other uses of AI, I think the main problem you will run into at the coaching level is there aren’t enough plays in games to build big enough data sets. Add in how much changes within season, and it becomes hard to even train data sets. You can maybe try to develop tendencies for a play caller over the course of their career, but again, different personnel and lack of data may make it challenging (still probably worth pursuing). I also assume there is already work in this space (and possibly even available already).
A long long time ago I used to think the same way.

We have about 3800 nuclear warheads in our arsenal. We certainly have not performed 3800 nuclear detonations, but we believe nearly 100% of the any future deployments of weapons we have in our arsenal will work nearly 100% of the time.

There's plenty of data available. We just need to mine it effectively. Who better to do it than GT?

What we got is a bunch of snobbish, myopic nerds telling us we should focus on "important" things like curing cancer. Well, I believe we can develop AI technology in sports, learn leasson where the price of failure is lower, then apply those lesson to solving "important" things once we've mastered the science behind the powerful tools we're developing. Maybe it's concurrent, maybe there's already research going on we can leverage? I'm no expert, but I am an exert at this- GT has unequaled advantages that are not being exploited. All we need is desire & leadership.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,119
Yankees have not been to a world series since 2009. The Phillies have not won since 2008. Dodgers have won once since 1988. The Mets have not won the World series since 1986. Those are your four top spending teams last year. A decade ago the top four spending teams were the Yankees, Phillies, Red Sox and Angels. Those four teams have combined two Championships in the last decade and only three World Series Appearances.

If you look at the world series teams since 2012, there has been only two years where the highest paid team won the world series, only three years where the highest paid team even made the WS, and only one year where the highest paid team in each league both made the WS. In fact, that is the only year where both teams were both in the top 7 of spending. While spending does improve your chances of making and winning the WS, it is not the end all be all. The are plenty of examples of low payroll clubs outperforming the richer counterparts. In that regard, Moneyball is still alive and well.

By year since 2012:

2012: #8 payroll beat #5
2013: #4 beat #11
2014: #7 beat #19
2015: #17 beat #20
2016: #6 beat #23
2017: #17 beat #1
2018: #1 beat #3
2019: #7 beat #8
2020: #1 beat #28
2021: #10 beat #5
2022: #8 beat #4
It's not MoneyBall, it's Baseball.

If you look at the success of teams who have the best regular season record, it probably looks much the same as your tracking of high spending teams. baseball is a sport where the "better team" (team with better overall record) wins less often than any other major sport in a given game (or short series). Post season success is merely a crap shoot in baseball. Good management, whether it is high spending or Moneyball or whatever, gets you into the post-season. But once there,I think all baseball execs know it's a roll of the dice.
 
Top