Moneyball and GT Football

[Jim Prather]

Interesting premise. Play Moneyball with the coaches rather than with the players... don't know if it is true, but still an interesting concept

 

[takethepoints]

Interesting premise. Play Moneyball with the coaches rather than with the players... don't know if it is true, but still an interesting concept

I htink Billy Bean proved that you can't have one without the other.

 

[Novajacket]

Moneyball is a nice story, and at the time it did make a difference, however once the big guys are doing the same thing, it doesn't magically still give you an advantage. As you can tell by the A's since others with bigger pockets started doing the same thing. At this point, we should be using metrics just because if we are not we won't even be average. The other side of this is we only have so much data or tools to get data, not enough sample size and the variance in factors around it can cause a lot of confusion. My biggest issue, is that it leads to this mentality that there is one way that is the perfect way to do things, thinking. It's like the guys that say you should always go for it on 4th down past the 20. I understand on avg that makes sense, however is my team good a converting 4th down? how is the other team in stopping it? Are there any injuries, what is the distance, there are a lot of factors that go into that decision.

At this point, we need to get back to stability and doing the right things the right way first. Nothing we decide this year is permanent, if CBF improves our execution of offense enough and our defense improves from this year, we should be in a bowl next year. From there I trust J Batt/Key and team will keep making improvements.

 

[cpf2001]

I wouldn’t really call it a moneyball thing since the big programs seem to be doing it already but more about breadth vs depth (in terms of how much you rely on a single coach), as it were. GT had a good run of at-least-decent coaching, and then fell into a ditch disastrously with a bad one. How do you build a system and culture that is more resilient to a single person leaving and less likely to fall for a huckster?

Of course, that assumes we’re saving money to get a bigger support staff. More scarily, we could potentially just be in a situation where increasing how much we can pay still isn’t enough to poach proven commodity coaches. :/

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Moneyball is a nice story, and at the time it did make a difference, however once the big guys are doing the same thing, it doesn't magically still give you an advantage. As you can tell by the A's since others with bigger pockets started doing the same thing. At this point, we should be using metrics just because if we are not we won't even be average. The other side of this is we only have so much data or tools to get data, not enough sample size and the variance in factors around it can cause a lot of confusion. My biggest issue, is that it leads to this mentality that there is one way that is the perfect way to do things, thinking. It's like the guys that say you should always go for it on 4th down past the 20. I understand on avg that makes sense, however is my team good a converting 4th down? how is the other team in stopping it? Are there any injuries, what is the distance, there are a lot of factors that go into that decision.

At this point, we need to get back to stability and doing the right things the right way first. Nothing we decide this year is permanent, if CBF improves our execution of offense enough and our defense improves from this year, we should be in a bowl next year. From there I trust J Batt/Key and team will keep making improvements.

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

 

[orientalnc]

Moneyball is a nice story, and at the time it did make a difference, however once the big guys are doing the same thing, it doesn't magically still give you an advantage. As you can tell by the A's since others with bigger pockets started doing the same thing. At this point, we should be using metrics just because if we are not we won't even be average. The other side of this is we only have so much data or tools to get data, not enough sample size and the variance in factors around it can cause a lot of confusion. My biggest issue, is that it leads to this mentality that there is one way that is the perfect way to do things, thinking. It's like the guys that say you should always go for it on 4th down past the 20. I understand on avg that makes sense, however is my team good a converting 4th down? how is the other team in stopping it? Are there any injuries, what is the distance, there are a lot of factors that go into that decision.

At this point, we need to get back to stability and doing the right things the right way first. Nothing we decide this year is permanent, if CBF improves our execution of offense enough and our defense improves from this year, we should be in a bowl next year. From there I trust J Batt/Key and team will keep making improvements.

There was a one hour Moneyball feature story on the Freakonomics show on NPR today. The podcast is not yet available, but worth looking for.

 

[slugboy]

Moneyball is a nice story, and at the time it did make a difference, however once the big guys are doing the same thing, it doesn't magically still give you an advantage. As you can tell by the A's since others with bigger pockets started doing the same thing. At this point, we should be using metrics just because if we are not we won't even be average. The other side of this is we only have so much data or tools to get data, not enough sample size and the variance in factors around it can cause a lot of confusion. My biggest issue, is that it leads to this mentality that there is one way that is the perfect way to do things, thinking. It's like the guys that say you should always go for it on 4th down past the 20. I understand on avg that makes sense, however is my team good a converting 4th down? how is the other team in stopping it? Are there any injuries, what is the distance, there are a lot of factors that go into that decision.

At this point, we need to get back to stability and doing the right things the right way first. Nothing we decide this year is permanent, if CBF improves our execution of offense enough and our defense improves from this year, we should be in a bowl next year. From there I trust J Batt/Key and team will keep making improvements.

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?

SEASON	ROUND	OPPONENT	SERIES RESULT​
2020	League Divisional Series	Houston Astros	L 1-3​
2019	Wild Card Game	Tampa Bay Rays	L 0-1​
2018	Wild Card Game	New York Yankees	L 0-1​
2014	Wild Card Game	Kansas City Royals	L 0-1​
2013	League Divisional Series	Detroit Tigers	L 2-3​
2012	League Divisional Series	Detroit Tigers	L 2-3​
2006	League Championship Series	Detroit Tigers	L 0-4​
2006	League Divisional Series	Minnesota Twins	W 3-0​
2003	League Divisional Series	Boston Red Sox	L 2-3​
2002	League Divisional Series	Minnesota Twins	L 2-3​
2001	League Divisional Series	New York Yankees	L 2-3​

 

[cpf2001]

Another way of looking at that list of World Series results is: only 4 out of 11 years didn’t have at least one of the top 5 spenders make it that far. Only one of those years didn’t have at least one top 10 spender. And only 3 out of 22 spots were taking by 20th-or-lower payroll teams.

Of course, one of the things that changed in baseball is that the Dodgers are arguably as “moneyball” as anyone. They’re just also loaded. (And it’s not hard to find people blaming their lack of WS wins vs regular season success on that moneyball orientation, for that matter, but that’s another argument… too much three true outcomes on the roster, too frequently pulling pitchers who were doing well, too “un-clutch,” stuff like that).

But if you *aren’t* a big spender, their player development and use of analytics is still probably a better model for you than the Yankees… that’s where GT is. What’s the right approach to try to take to building a program?

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Another way of looking at that list of World Series results is: only 4 out of 11 years didn’t have at least one of the top 5 spenders make it that far. Only one of those years didn’t have at least one top 10 spender. And only 3 out of 22 spots were taking by 20th-or-lower payroll teams.

Of course, one of the things that changed in baseball is that the Dodgers are arguably as “moneyball” as anyone. They’re just also loaded. (And it’s not hard to find people blaming their lack of WS wins vs regular season success on that moneyball orientation, for that matter, but that’s another argument… too much three true outcomes on the roster, too frequently pulling pitchers who were doing well, too “un-clutch,” stuff like that)

If you think Dodgers are Moneyball, then I am not sure you understand what it is. They consistently have one of the top payrolls.

Tampa Bay is Moneyball and doing it very well.

By the way, in 2022 the #11 team spent nearly $100M less then the #1 team and the #20 team spent nearly $150M less. Heck, even the #5 spent $50M less than the #1 team. There is a huge drop off from the top #1 and #5 teams, let alone everyone else. The fact any team outside the top 5 can not only compete but also win 8 out of 11 World Series is a testament to how you do not need to spend the most money to win. Yes, it improves your probability of success, but not in winning championships. So, I would say your spin on the WS results is kinda pointless.

 

[cpf2001]

Andrew Friedman was in Tampa and then was told “keep up all the smart work, but now have a giant bag of cash to play with”.

Whether or not you want to say analytics + smarts stops being “moneyball” if you add in money, or if it’s the “smart” part that makes it moneyball, eh, I don’t care that much. We can just call the Dodgers “smart money” if you prefer.

But overall you’re conflating randomness with the need (or lack there of) for resources. Improving your probability of success is all you can do. Especially in baseball where a 75% win rate is record setting vs “fairly normal” like in football. To improve it as much as possible you need both resources and approach - that’s why the Dodgers have outclassed the Yankees over the last decade. They have the approach too.

 

[orientalnc]

If you think Dodgers are Moneyball, then I am not sure you understand what it is. They consistently have one of the top payrolls.

Tampa Bay is Moneyball and doing it very well.

By the way, in 2022 the #11 team spent nearly $100M less then the #1 team and the #20 team spent nearly $150M less. Heck, even the #5 spent $50M less than the #1 team. There is a huge drop off from the top #1 and #5 teams, let alone everyone else. The fact any team outside the top 5 can not only compete but also win 8 out of 11 World Series is a testament to how you do not need to spend the most money to win. Yes, it improves your probability of success, but not in winning championships. So, I would say your spin on the WS results is kinda pointless.

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).

 

[ibeattetris]

Another way of looking at that list of World Series results is: only 4 out of 11 years didn’t have at least one of the top 5 spenders make it that far. Only one of those years didn’t have at least one top 10 spender. And only 3 out of 22 spots were taking by 20th-or-lower payroll teams.

Of course, one of the things that changed in baseball is that the Dodgers are arguably as “moneyball” as anyone. They’re just also loaded. (And it’s not hard to find people blaming their lack of WS wins vs regular season success on that moneyball orientation, for that matter, but that’s another argument… too much three true outcomes on the roster, too frequently pulling pitchers who were doing well, too “un-clutch,” stuff like that).

But if you *aren’t* a big spender, their player development and use of analytics is still probably a better model for you than the Yankees… that’s where GT is. What’s the right approach to try to take to building a program?

You are pretty spot on. What I think people also misunderstand is moneyball helps teams over the course of a season (or even multiple seasons), it isn’t really meant for 5 and 7 game series. At some point, you have to get lucky (or not get unlucky). Even if you are 60% to win each game (which in the playoffs is not likely) your chance of losing the series is pretty high. If you win 60% of your 162 games though, you’re doing well (97 wins).

And to those saying the dodgers aren’t using “moneyball”, yes, they certainly are. They are just capable of scaling it beyond what small markets are capable of. That’s why the super low market teams aren’t competitive, since everyone is not playing the same sabermetric game.

 

[UgaBlows]

Moneyball for us should be doing to smaller programs the same thing the SEC is doing to us, take their stars away. Find their overperforming players that were overlooked in recruiting out of HS or physically developed late etc. and recruit them to transfer to Tech. We got K. White from Old Dominion and he worked out very well, lets find some more hidden gems.

 

[kg01]

Sonofa.... you clowns even got a mod in on this derail?

That takes talent.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Andrew Friedman was in Tampa and then was told “keep up all the smart work, but now have a giant bag of cash to play with”.

Whether or not you want to say analytics + smarts stops being “moneyball” if you add in money, or if it’s the “smart” part that makes it moneyball, eh, I don’t care that much. We can just call the Dodgers “smart money” if you prefer.

But overall you’re conflating randomness with the need (or lack there of) for resources. Improving your probability of success is all you can do. Especially in baseball where a 75% win rate is record setting vs “fairly normal” like in football. To improve it as much as possible you need both resources and approach - that’s why the Dodgers have outclassed the Yankees over the last decade. They have the approach too.

Yes, it stops being moneyball when they not only trade / sign the best available players (Betts, Freeman), but also retain their best players when they become free agents (Kershaw). Just because they are not only extremely good at both evaluating and developing talent but also smart when to resign vs. let go of free agents, does not mean they are moneyball. Being better than the Yankees at managing your roster at the top of payroll is not Moneyball. It is just being better than the Yankees, which is pretty easy (I hate to say as a Yankee fan).

At the end of the day, they never have to make the tough choices like Tampa Bay to sell high value assets at their peak in order to bring in a new crop of prospects.

 

[slugboy]

Sonofa.... you clowns even got a mod in on this derail?

That takes talent.

I think we're down to one coach (maybe two) left to hire, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[cpf2001]

It’s not derailed, we’re just using the Dodgers to represent Alabama, the Yankees to represent Auburn, and debating which of those programs to try to model ourselves after. Yep. Definitely that. The whole time.

 

[Squints]

Moneyball has to be one of the most misunderstood and misapplied sports books in history at this point and you can see it all over this thread. Yeesh.

 

[g0lftime]

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).

On base percentage rather than averages or home runs.

 

[slugboy]

It is probably worth having a Moneyball FAQ and splitting off the Moneyball conversations.