Ok so I read a lot of complaints about our recruitment and retention strategy and the word, Moneyball gets thrown around a lot. But what exactly is Moneyball?
A quick Google definition suggests that Moneyball "is a term used to describe a data-driven approach to recruitment and team decisions on the transfer market - leading to improved on-field results."
Every club uses analysis these days. Des Hasler apparently can't get enough of stats and analysis. I'm sure BA also uses analysis but anyone critical of his 'chasing the collision' game plan surely can't accuse BA of being overly analytical.
The movie, Moneyball shows the Oakland A's assembling a roster for many millions cheaper than the big baseball clubs, focusing exclusively on metrics and stats in order to compete. Given that every NRL club spends (allegedly) the exact same amount of money on their roster I can't see how the Eels can be accused of playing Moneyball???
Every NRL club is trying to extract as much value as possible out of its $9.6m cap. Unlike baseball, where the term was first used, no NRL club is trying to build a cheap roster and still compete with the big clubs. That's not even legal under the NRL rules. Getting the very biggest bang for your buck is not Moneyball. It's the unavoidable reality we work in. Thankfully we also now have young players emerging who are ready to step up (finally).
Now don't misunderstand me. The Eels have made some recruiting errors. Reed being by far the biggest and most unexpected loss. However every player we have lost has gone for much bigger dollars elsewhere. It an environment of higher demand (17th team) all clubs are vulnerable to losing experienced players. And that's exactly what is happening not merely at the Eels but every Top 8 club.
So definitely feel free to criticise recruitment and retention decisions but the term Moneyball simply doesn't make sense.
Replies
Fcuk you still missed it. Your opinions are subjective......you know like arseholes.....everyone has one!
....But not everyone is one, poopa.
Handlicker, you know as well as anyone that your amongst the 40 in the asylum......you see I am not calling Raptor an arsehole but pointing out the subjectiveness of opinions being no different to....but you can twist the words to make a story.....most people do on here.
Billy Beane might be seen as successful, and somewhat changed the way sports teams are managed... but he's also stuck with a record and fact of having never won a title.
Moneyball can be effective over a season, but they found filling the team with these misfits that had significant value only got them to the playoffs and were never effective against teams with better talent in the finals.
It's exactly the pattern and trap we've fallen into by adopting this methodology. We shouldn't be content to just make the finals, we want to win premierships.
Again you're missing the point. Beane filled a roster with cheap misfits. The result was a playing roster worth tens of millions less than the big clubs yet still it was competitive. The Eels roster is worth 9.6 million just like everyone else. You seem to be advocating to just sign every player we like on whatever coin they ask for and never lose any good juniors or miss out on any elite talent that becomes available. We're not the 2009 Melbourne Storm mate.
https://www.1eyedeel.com/forum/topics/what-are-we-doing-here-it-s-n...
I get your point and I agree with it, you try to get the best value you can with the money you have.
The point I'm trying to make (that may not have been clear) is that I don't think we have the right balance and probably have too many outside project players in the side that can't take us all the way. So it's not a model that can be solely relied on. But, I do believe it's BA's strongest capability.
I think it was Robbo that said in an interview that when the Roosters brought a lot of fringe outside players in this way, they lacked a little identity and commitment to the jersey and went back to investing in their junior players.
Penrith's success over the last 2 years is evidence this method works.
I'm not saying Moneyball won't work, I'm just saying it can't be the only tool in the shed to win a premiership.
RCG is a money-ball gift that keeps giving.
That guy is playing for unders and is playing at nie on SoO type level of play.
And we have had 3 years and looking like another 3 yrs of a discount.
These are the types of deals the club can maximise value if they can find them like some of thee others mentioned.
So why don't we have the money at our disposal to stop our emerging juniors and quality backrowers signing deals with other clubs? We have several players on 'unders' or on 'moneyball' deals (as you rightly point out). That should give us the flexibility to keep players like Mahoney and Pappalii. But somehow it doesn't?
I agree with you, but feel it's more to do with what the club / board has valued those players at as opposed to 'having the money'.
The Eels must've had the money to keep at least one of those players, however, they'd decided their value pre-negotiations and weren't willing to budge on what they felt those players were worth.
One thing that has been mentioned on here, they have all the information at hand to make those valuations, whereas we really don't. Fingers crossed they've made the right call, but it's hard to understand all those decisions from the outside.
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
of 21 Next