|
|
Post by nltdiego on Apr 2, 2015 20:17:41 GMT -6
Coaches,
I watched the movie money ball over the weekend about the Oakland A's. I'm in the Bay Area so I know they compete each year with low level talent. I'm curious what the money ball type of scheme is for football?
How do you compete with average athletes?
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Apr 2, 2015 20:23:37 GMT -6
Coaches, I watched the movie money ball over the weekend about the Oakland A's. I'm in the Bay Area so I know they compete each year with low level talent. I'm curious what the money ball type of scheme is for football? How do you compete with average athletes? Fundamentals. Wt room Make sure you prepare as coaches and prepare the players. Coach to get the most from your players. After all that is checked off I think there are various ways to equalize. Got speed? Veer stuff is good. Spread can be good. But also seen plenty of bad with both those schemes too. |
|
mhs99
Junior Member
Posts: 250
|
Post by mhs99 on Apr 2, 2015 20:25:15 GMT -6
See New England Patriots the past 15 years.
With the exception of Brady, how many Hall of Fame guys were on some of those teams.
They are all about value and do not waste money on hype or become too attached to guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 2, 2015 21:03:30 GMT -6
Coaches, I watched the movie money ball over the weekend about the Oakland A's. I'm in the Bay Area so I know they compete each year with low level talent. I'm curious what the money ball type of scheme is for football? How do you compete with average athletes? Moneyball--the book, then the movie, was the story about identifying undervalued aspects of the game, and therefore finding undervalued assets (players) that could perform those aspects. There was a lengthy thread about this a while back : coachhuey.com/thread/67826/moneyball-which-stats-most-gamesInteresting side note-- In the 26 seasons BEFORE Beane became general manager of the A's in 1998, Oakland was the biggest winner in baseball, with six pennants and four World Series victories. So, it wasn't as if Beane was some type of savior, the team has been less successful WITH him than they were before he was there. Also interesting is the fact that the "Moneyball" year, the A's relied on 3 STUD pitchers : Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson, and Barry Zito. All three wee early-round draft picks, highly scouted, and well regarded—Mulder and Zito were selected in the top ten of their respective drafts. Hardly "sabermetic" guys. They were talent. That didn't fit the story that Michael Lewis was trying to tell however. |
|
|
|
Post by holmesbend on Apr 2, 2015 21:58:40 GMT -6
...agree with all the above & the only thing I might add? Make the game as short as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachwilliams2 on Apr 3, 2015 8:03:03 GMT -6
1. Stay on schedule towards getting first downs
2. Shorten the game
3. Create turnovers on defense
4. Don't give up big plays (make THEM beat you)
5. Eliminate Negative Plays
6. Do not, under any circumstances, ever turn the football over.
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Apr 3, 2015 8:15:36 GMT -6
The Moneyball/Billy Beane hype is just that. Hype. Have they even won a single playoff series with him? It's not like he resurrected the 80s Cleveland Indians or anything. Oakland's always been a good franchise, even in a small market. As coachd said above, they're actually worse with him in charge.
I think, if you want to find a MLB franchise to model yourself on, as far as consistency and winning and competing at a high level every year without paying out the nose for it, model yourself after the Cardinals. Every year they go out, win their division, compete for the WS all with a middle of the pack payroll. And this is coming from a White Sox fan.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2015 8:56:28 GMT -6
The Moneyball/Billy Beane hype is just that. Hype. Have they even won a single playoff series with him? It's not like he resurrected the 80s Cleveland Indians or anything. Oakland's always been a good franchise, even in a small market. As coachd said above, they're actually worse with him in charge. I think, if you want to find a MLB franchise to model yourself on, as far as consistency and winning and competing at a high level every year without paying out the nose for it, model yourself after the Cardinals. Every year they go out, win their division, compete for the WS all with a middle of the pack payroll. And this is coming from a White Sox fan. Not only was it just hype, it also "hollywoodizes" the true story, because Brad Pitt's character has to look like the hero. Therefore, the manager who led them to that success had to be the antagonist. The guy who led them to two 100 win seasons and two division titles is portrayed as a boob, so that Pitt's portrayal can look heroic. Getting back to the original intent of this thread, I don't think there is a need to have a "moneyball" approach to HS football. Again, the entire billy beane concept originated because of a problem that 99.9% of HS football teams don't face : watching the talent that they identified and they developed get poached by teams with bigger payroll capabilities. If as a HS team has less talent than the competition, the first thing to ask is WHY? I see this so often here on huey, I am actually going to make another thread about it rather than piggie-back on this one. |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Apr 3, 2015 9:09:23 GMT -6
I think Moneyball is a phenomenon because it gives statheads something to point to and say "Look, we were right!" when in reality, They aren't anymore right than anyone else. Sabermetrics is big right now because it's cutting edge and people feel smarter when they can throw around fancy numbers and equations they just came up with- WAR, WAR+, etc- but in the end it comes down to who has more talent. Especially in football.
Now, if your talent is in the same ballpark, there are things you can do to win games you probably shouldn't- limit turnovers, limit your opponent's possessions, etc, but ultimately, my HS kids can't beat Alabama and Alabama can't beat the Patriots.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachstepp on Apr 3, 2015 12:20:13 GMT -6
I think we see it a lot - the system is more important than the players. I've seen it at the high school level and we see it every year in college and the NFL. Of course, there is some talent needed. The Patriots would not be the Patriots without Tom Brady - but, look at the guys around him.
|
|
|
|
Post by mariner42 on Apr 3, 2015 14:11:18 GMT -6
I've said this a couple times, baseball produces these ridiculously fine-tuned stats because everything in baseball happens in a statistical vacuum that you really can quantify. Football cannot do that. You can't evaluate a linebacker when his DT is getting double teamed into his lap every play. Baseball has stats that account for other people failing to do their job, football doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachphillip on Apr 3, 2015 14:13:36 GMT -6
"Smith has a pretty decent average when at the plate vs a left hander on the second Tuesday of every March after playing Detroit going all the way back to 1954."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 15:19:28 GMT -6
As others have pointed out, the "Moneyball" approach doesn't apply to HS football for numerous reasons. Sometimes people will take NFL or BCS college stats and try to make projections based on those, but it's still never an apples to apples comparison. "Zone is more efficient than Power," "It's all about the QBR or YPA," etc. are observations I've seen that just don't necessarily translate.
Winning with average talent requires a lot of common sense, work ethic, getting kids to be enthusiastic, preparation, focusing on the fundamentals that matter most, and some luck. If you think about it, it's nothing you won't figure out on your own if you sit and think about what it takes to win for a few minutes.
Then again, a lot of it is simply not beating yourselves by trying to get too cute. I see coaches doing tht all the time. They think they don't have the talent to compete unless they do something really special or fancy as coaches (like trying to get super into Sabermetrics as a HS team) and it typically just blows up in their faces.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Apr 3, 2015 15:32:40 GMT -6
As others have pointed out, the "Moneyball" approach doesn't apply to HS football for numerous reasons. Sometimes people will take NFL or BCS college stats and try to make projections based on those, but it's still never an apples to apples comparison. "Zone is more efficient than Power," "It's all about the QBR or YPA," etc. are observations I've seen that just don't necessarily translate. Winning with average talent requires a lot of common sense, work ethic, getting kids to be enthusiastic, preparation, focusing on the fundamentals that matter most, and some luck. If you think about it, it's nothing you won't figure out on your own if you sit and think about what it takes to win for a few minutes. Then again, a lot of it is simply not beating yourselves by trying to get too cute. I see coaches doing tht all the time. They think they don't have the talent to compete unless they do something really special or fancy as coaches (like trying to get super into Sabermetrics as a HS team) and it typically just blows up in their faces. The thing is--"Moneyball" was about PERSONNEL. HS football has no dealings in that aspect, other than player development. There may be some of the thought processes due to draft, free agency and salary cap, but I don't know if those discussions are driven by any magic metric. |
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Apr 3, 2015 15:36:57 GMT -6
I like to think about it but haven't nailed much down.
As some have said, it may very well just be focusing on small things in the process not necessarily stats. The only other thing may be not overlooking the average player that produces at an average clip over the athletic player that produces an amazing play but is inconsistent, at some point the average becomes far more valuable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2015 15:44:00 GMT -6
As others have pointed out, the "Moneyball" approach doesn't apply to HS football for numerous reasons. Sometimes people will take NFL or BCS college stats and try to make projections based on those, but it's still never an apples to apples comparison. "Zone is more efficient than Power," "It's all about the QBR or YPA," etc. are observations I've seen that just don't necessarily translate. Winning with average talent requires a lot of common sense, work ethic, getting kids to be enthusiastic, preparation, focusing on the fundamentals that matter most, and some luck. If you think about it, it's nothing you won't figure out on your own if you sit and think about what it takes to win for a few minutes. Then again, a lot of it is simply not beating yourselves by trying to get too cute. I see coaches doing tht all the time. They think they don't have the talent to compete unless they do something really special or fancy as coaches (like trying to get super into Sabermetrics as a HS team) and it typically just blows up in their faces. The thing is--"Moneyball" was about PERSONNEL. HS football has no dealings in that aspect, other than player development. There may be some of the thought processes due to draft, free agency and salary cap, but I don't know if those discussions are driven by any magic metric. Exactly. That's why I said "the 'Moneyball' approach doesn't apply to HS football for numerous reasons." That's the primary one. People often use "Moneyball" as a synonym for analytics, which isn't exactly the same thing. Even most analytic studies of football that I've seen don't really translate to the HS game very well because of the wide disparities in talent, coaching, ,etc. The NFL has such parity that they can reasonably project how much a particular play or decision will affect the odds of winning the game in real time. In HS football, that's unthinkable. |
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Apr 3, 2015 18:17:32 GMT -6
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
Applying any of this statisticts to HS football is about pointless if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Apr 6, 2015 8:41:29 GMT -6
Moneyball doesn't relate to high school football because all the players cost the same.
This boils down to economics.
The Patriots have been mentioned several times in this thread.....where do they spend most of their money? As far as I can tell, it is at QB (Brady) and DT (Wilfork, who I know just got cut, but who for over the last decade anchored that defense) and OL.
Basically, the two positions where talent is scarce.
Where do they not spend money? WR, Defensive back 7....places where talent is abundant and guys are easily replaced.
The usefulness of this conversation as it pertains to the high school level boils down to how do you make your team more economical?
The difference is we are no concerned with efficiency of money, but rather efficiency of time.
Everything else,
|
|
