Moneyball
Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 2:09 pmMoneyball
I’ve read the book, but haven’t seen the film yet, but the statistical analysis inevitably leads you to wonder if its principles can be translated to Aussie Rules. Our system will only partly allow it to be effectively used for trading or drafting players, but it led me to look at football’s statistical analysis and wonder which stats are more meaningful than others.
One that immediately springs to mind is an old hobby-horse that isn't ignored by statistical gurus, but generally is by coaches and players: goalkicking accuracy. Teams fluctuate between about 45% to 65% in this area, the low and high points being extremes. Coaches are well aware of this and generally react by trying to construct a game plan that optimizes this percentage by having the ball delivered to a more favourable spot to kick goals – in front rather than on acute angles. As supporters, we all know which players in our team we’d rather have kicking for goal.
Imagine two effects of scoring a goal rather than a point. One is the obvious scoreboard pressure, the other the psychological lift the team gains against the mental letdown of missing.
Goalkicking is the main unconquered mental block in our game.
Let’s say a team scores approximately 300 goals in a season, at an accuracy rate of 50%; ie 300 goals, 300 behinds. Improve that to 65% and it becomes 390 goals, 210 behinds. Impossible, you say, but surely worthwhile investigating, a difference of nearly 4 goals a game. How many losses does that turn into wins?
Attend any football training session and I’ll guarantee that goalkicking is the least practised of the football skills. I’ve always wondered why. After all, accuracy only gives you 6 times the reward of inaccuracy.
If we delve further into footy statistics, one 2011 game comes to mind immediately. West ventured to Prospect twice and came away with two wins, but it was the second that I want to concentrate on. I, along with every other West supporter, thought Steve Morris was best on ground by a long way. He’d had 28 possessions off a half-back flank in West’s 6 goal win and many of those possessions were interceptions turned into attack with inspiring and courageous runs. As it happened, Steve was later reported and the 3 Magarey votes went to James Allan with nearly 40 possessions in a team well beaten. I watched the game live and didn’t really notice James. I watched it again on video and saw that he’d worked very hard to get to the contest, but a majority of his possessions were deep in defence, many unearned. This isn’t about James Allan, who no doubt would have had games where he should have got votes but didn’t and who is a deserved Medal winner and elite player, but more about the equal value placed on a ‘possession’.
Just as Moneyball attempts to place a different value on different statistics in baseball, there seems to be plenty of room in our game for a different look at statistical analysis.
One of these is obviously the success and failure rate of players changing clubs.
A fertile field for future analysis, perhaps.
I’ve read the book, but haven’t seen the film yet, but the statistical analysis inevitably leads you to wonder if its principles can be translated to Aussie Rules. Our system will only partly allow it to be effectively used for trading or drafting players, but it led me to look at football’s statistical analysis and wonder which stats are more meaningful than others.
One that immediately springs to mind is an old hobby-horse that isn't ignored by statistical gurus, but generally is by coaches and players: goalkicking accuracy. Teams fluctuate between about 45% to 65% in this area, the low and high points being extremes. Coaches are well aware of this and generally react by trying to construct a game plan that optimizes this percentage by having the ball delivered to a more favourable spot to kick goals – in front rather than on acute angles. As supporters, we all know which players in our team we’d rather have kicking for goal.
Imagine two effects of scoring a goal rather than a point. One is the obvious scoreboard pressure, the other the psychological lift the team gains against the mental letdown of missing.
Goalkicking is the main unconquered mental block in our game.
Let’s say a team scores approximately 300 goals in a season, at an accuracy rate of 50%; ie 300 goals, 300 behinds. Improve that to 65% and it becomes 390 goals, 210 behinds. Impossible, you say, but surely worthwhile investigating, a difference of nearly 4 goals a game. How many losses does that turn into wins?
Attend any football training session and I’ll guarantee that goalkicking is the least practised of the football skills. I’ve always wondered why. After all, accuracy only gives you 6 times the reward of inaccuracy.
If we delve further into footy statistics, one 2011 game comes to mind immediately. West ventured to Prospect twice and came away with two wins, but it was the second that I want to concentrate on. I, along with every other West supporter, thought Steve Morris was best on ground by a long way. He’d had 28 possessions off a half-back flank in West’s 6 goal win and many of those possessions were interceptions turned into attack with inspiring and courageous runs. As it happened, Steve was later reported and the 3 Magarey votes went to James Allan with nearly 40 possessions in a team well beaten. I watched the game live and didn’t really notice James. I watched it again on video and saw that he’d worked very hard to get to the contest, but a majority of his possessions were deep in defence, many unearned. This isn’t about James Allan, who no doubt would have had games where he should have got votes but didn’t and who is a deserved Medal winner and elite player, but more about the equal value placed on a ‘possession’.
Just as Moneyball attempts to place a different value on different statistics in baseball, there seems to be plenty of room in our game for a different look at statistical analysis.
One of these is obviously the success and failure rate of players changing clubs.
A fertile field for future analysis, perhaps.
