#5 Jamie Elliott
Moderator: bbmods
- ClokingDevice
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 12:39 pm
Re: Moneyball identifies Elliott
Found him here: http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-a ... rad-crouch
Brad Crouch
#2 Adelaide Crows
Age: 18yr 5mth Games: 0 Born: January 14, 1994
Height: 184cm Weight: 83kg Position:
Last Drafted: Round 1, Pick #2 2011 Mini Draft
Brad Crouch
#2 Adelaide Crows
Age: 18yr 5mth Games: 0 Born: January 14, 1994
Height: 184cm Weight: 83kg Position:
Last Drafted: Round 1, Pick #2 2011 Mini Draft
We will feast on their bones
-
- Posts: 13521
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:29 am
Re: Moneyball identifies Elliott
I think he was picked 2nd in GWS's "mini-draft", where they took the best 17 year olds.ClokingDevice wrote:Found him here: http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pp-a ... rad-crouch
Brad Crouch
#2 Adelaide Crows
Age: 18yr 5mth Games: 0 Born: January 14, 1994
Height: 184cm Weight: 83kg Position:
Last Drafted: Round 1, Pick #2 2011 Mini Draft
Edit: or what you edited in .
Well done boys!
- mel_kay39
- Posts: 2135
- Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: www.webs.com/mel_y_kay
- What'sinaname
- Posts: 20065
- Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 10:00 pm
- Location: Living rent free
- Has liked: 4 times
- Been liked: 23 times
He will the nomination for the rising star, and don't call us Shirley.mel_kay39 wrote:Damn straight. How good was his last quarter vs WCE? Loved that mark in the dying minutes. Came out of nowhere. He's got to at least get Rising Star Nomination for Rd 13. Surely.frankiboy wrote:early days but looking like another inspired choice.
Fighting against the objectification of woman.
- Dave The Man
- Posts: 44991
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 2:04 pm
- Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
- Has liked: 1 time
- Been liked: 16 times
- Contact:
- ClokingDevice
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 12:39 pm
It's proprietary at the moment and hasn't been released but Shifter mentioned the following:Dave The Man wrote:What do they use for the Moneyball Stats Then?
Are they saying Elliot is the 2nd Best Prospect from last years Class?
Nathan Buckley's kicking test, Matthew Lloyd's clean hands test, athleticism and ball winning ability and implied other factors
And according to those stats and methodology yes they are rating Elliott #2 from last years draft
We will feast on their bones
- Jezza
- Posts: 29411
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
- Location: Ponsford End
- Has liked: 223 times
- Been liked: 312 times
I'm loving the look of Jamie Elliott. His last quarter against the Eagles was super impressive and that contested mark he took in the last quarter, I had to stand up and applaud that effort.
I've never been more excited by the youth we're developing at the club.
Thank you Derek Hine.
I've never been more excited by the youth we're developing at the club.
Thank you Derek Hine.
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 |
Re: Moneyball identifies Elliott
I'm not sure why you think someone who rates very well on measurable statistics is a moneyball thing. I think you might have missed the point of Moneyball.ClokingDevice wrote:Shifter on TAC cup Future Stars is interviewing Jamie Elliott and just showed his version of Moneyball developed by Brady Rawlings and Mick Ablett employing Nathan Buckley's kicking test and Matthew Lloyd's clean hands test, athleticism, ball winning ability etc
Only Devon Smith rated higher than Elliott
1: Devon Smith: 102.95 pick 14 (GWS)
2: Jamie Elliott: 98.83 Trade (pick 25) (Coll) *Clarke steak knives*
3: Liam Sumner: 86.40 pick 10 (GWS)
4: Brad Crouch: 92.25 pick 2 (Adel) *Mini Draft*
You can work out his worth from the above, great trade, great value, another win to Hine.. does he use Moneyball???
Moneyball focuses on 2 things. first, is that they started to analyze stats that people didnt find glamorous, like on base percentage (which measures walks vs batting average, which does not). the on base percentage is now understood better as a result (afterall, who care whether you get on base from a hit or a walk right).
More importantly, Moneyball identified a concept called "replacement value" and used it as a way to argue why it might make sense to get rid of your best player in certain circumstances (and it explains why Cloke should be paid the most at Collingwood). My Replacement value is a measure of how much better is a team with me in it vs me out out of it. The answer to that can depend upon who else we have in the team.
By way of example. Luke Ball is a great player, but his replacement value turned out to be very low because in Beams, Blair and Wellers, we have three players who can effectively play his role without any drop in the quality of our team. We maybe didnt realize it at the time, but as good a player as luke ball is, i'm not sure we are any better or worse with him in the side or not. Travis Cloke on the other hand!!!!!!! Even Chris Dawes has high replacement value because even though he isnt playing well, there is no obvious choice to replace him and no way of coming up with an easy solution for replacing him.
-
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:45 pm
- Been liked: 2 times
Re: Moneyball identifies Elliott
Actually I think you're missing the point. A common theme of that book was that when drafting players from college / high school, scouts used to completely ignore actual performance / baseball skills and just draft guys who "looked like stars". To me the most interesting thing about the book was that Billy Beane was in fact a former player who was a classic draft bust and therefore had first hand experience of just how stupid most drafting decisions were back then. Billy Beane was a great athlete and a physical specimen....who couldn't hit a baseball for crap. To me, Elliott is a perfect "Moneyball" guy. He fell through the cracks at draft time because he's a midget, but he just knows how to play football and his junior performance was great. Same with Blair. So yes, drafting someone who ranks very well in statistics that measure performance but doesn't "look like" a footballer is definitely a "Moneyball" thing.E wrote:I'm not sure why you think someone who rates very well on measurable statistics is a moneyball thing. I think you might have missed the point of Moneyball.ClokingDevice wrote:Shifter on TAC cup Future Stars is interviewing Jamie Elliott and just showed his version of Moneyball developed by Brady Rawlings and Mick Ablett employing Nathan Buckley's kicking test and Matthew Lloyd's clean hands test, athleticism, ball winning ability etc
Only Devon Smith rated higher than Elliott
1: Devon Smith: 102.95 pick 14 (GWS)
2: Jamie Elliott: 98.83 Trade (pick 25) (Coll) *Clarke steak knives*
3: Liam Sumner: 86.40 pick 10 (GWS)
4: Brad Crouch: 92.25 pick 2 (Adel) *Mini Draft*
You can work out his worth from the above, great trade, great value, another win to Hine.. does he use Moneyball???
Moneyball focuses on 2 things. first, is that they started to analyze stats that people didnt find glamorous, like on base percentage (which measures walks vs batting average, which does not). the on base percentage is now understood better as a result (afterall, who care whether you get on base from a hit or a walk right).
More importantly, Moneyball identified a concept called "replacement value" and used it as a way to argue why it might make sense to get rid of your best player in certain circumstances (and it explains why Cloke should be paid the most at Collingwood). My Replacement value is a measure of how much better is a team with me in it vs me out out of it. The answer to that can depend upon who else we have in the team.
By way of example. Luke Ball is a great player, but his replacement value turned out to be very low because in Beams, Blair and Wellers, we have three players who can effectively play his role without any drop in the quality of our team. We maybe didnt realize it at the time, but as good a player as luke ball is, i'm not sure we are any better or worse with him in the side or not. Travis Cloke on the other hand!!!!!!! Even Chris Dawes has high replacement value because even though he isnt playing well, there is no obvious choice to replace him and no way of coming up with an easy solution for replacing him.
Mind you, I'm not sure of the validity of using Bucks' kicking test and Lloyd's "hands" test to draft players. Haven't these tests only been around 2 or 3 years? It's far too early to say that doing well on these tests means anything at all, regardless of how good Elliott looks right now.
I agree with you on the concept of replacement level by position, but I'm not sure you're applying it correctly. I think Luke Ball's value is pretty high across the league, just not at Collingwood where star midfielders grow on trees. I wouldn't be using Beams and Sidebottom's excellence as evidence that Ball isn't that good. His replacement level if he played for Carlton would be much higher. But yes, key position forwards have by far the highest replacement value because there are so few genuinely good ones. I would say that Buddy Franklin is the most valuable player in the league simply because there is no one like him and the gap between him and some generic borderline AFL key position forward is immense. Midfielders like Ablett and Pendlebury might have a bigger impact on a game to game basis, but they're easier to replace than Franklin or Cloke.
"We ain't gotta dream no more"
Re: Moneyball identifies Elliott
Oh, you watched the movie. Read the book!Duff Soviet Union wrote:Actually I think you're missing the point. A common theme of that book was that when drafting players from college / high school, scouts used to completely ignore actual performance / baseball skills and just draft guys who "looked like stars". To me the most interesting thing about the book was that Billy Beane was in fact a former player who was a classic draft bust and therefore had first hand experience of just how stupid most drafting decisions were back then. Billy Beane was a great athlete and a physical specimen....who couldn't hit a baseball for crap. To me, Elliott is a perfect "Moneyball" guy. He fell through the cracks at draft time because he's a midget, but he just knows how to play football and his junior performance was great. Same with Blair. So yes, drafting someone who ranks very well in statistics that measure performance but doesn't "look like" a footballer is definitely a "Moneyball" thing.E wrote:I'm not sure why you think someone who rates very well on measurable statistics is a moneyball thing. I think you might have missed the point of Moneyball.ClokingDevice wrote:Shifter on TAC cup Future Stars is interviewing Jamie Elliott and just showed his version of Moneyball developed by Brady Rawlings and Mick Ablett employing Nathan Buckley's kicking test and Matthew Lloyd's clean hands test, athleticism, ball winning ability etc
Only Devon Smith rated higher than Elliott
1: Devon Smith: 102.95 pick 14 (GWS)
2: Jamie Elliott: 98.83 Trade (pick 25) (Coll) *Clarke steak knives*
3: Liam Sumner: 86.40 pick 10 (GWS)
4: Brad Crouch: 92.25 pick 2 (Adel) *Mini Draft*
You can work out his worth from the above, great trade, great value, another win to Hine.. does he use Moneyball???
Moneyball focuses on 2 things. first, is that they started to analyze stats that people didnt find glamorous, like on base percentage (which measures walks vs batting average, which does not). the on base percentage is now understood better as a result (afterall, who care whether you get on base from a hit or a walk right).
More importantly, Moneyball identified a concept called "replacement value" and used it as a way to argue why it might make sense to get rid of your best player in certain circumstances (and it explains why Cloke should be paid the most at Collingwood). My Replacement value is a measure of how much better is a team with me in it vs me out out of it. The answer to that can depend upon who else we have in the team.
By way of example. Luke Ball is a great player, but his replacement value turned out to be very low because in Beams, Blair and Wellers, we have three players who can effectively play his role without any drop in the quality of our team. We maybe didnt realize it at the time, but as good a player as luke ball is, i'm not sure we are any better or worse with him in the side or not. Travis Cloke on the other hand!!!!!!! Even Chris Dawes has high replacement value because even though he isnt playing well, there is no obvious choice to replace him and no way of coming up with an easy solution for replacing him.
Mind you, I'm not sure of the validity of using Bucks' kicking test and Lloyd's "hands" test to draft players. Haven't these tests only been around 2 or 3 years? It's far too early to say that doing well on these tests means anything at all, regardless of how good Elliott looks right now.
I agree with you on the concept of replacement level by position, but I'm not sure you're applying it correctly. I think Luke Ball's value is pretty high across the league, just not at Collingwood where star midfielders grow on trees. I wouldn't be using Beams and Sidebottom's excellence as evidence that Ball isn't that good. His replacement level if he played for Carlton would be much higher. But yes, key position forwards have by far the highest replacement value because there are so few genuinely good ones. I would say that Buddy Franklin is the most valuable player in the league simply because there is no one like him and the gap between him and some generic borderline AFL key position forward is immense. Midfielders like Ablett and Pendlebury might have a bigger impact on a game to game basis, but they're easier to replace than Franklin or Cloke.
Also, i didnt say that he wasnt a good player. I said that his value to collingwood at the moment is actually very low and he is the kind of guy that you should trade because he has value to others. your argument that he has value elsewhere is precisely what the As used to do every year. They used to trade star pitchers because they had great pitchers coming through and they's actually get multiple players in return.
ironically, 2 years ago, Balls value to the team (and Jolly's for that matter), were about as high as you could imagine because we desperately needed those positions.
-
- Posts: 1454
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:45 pm
- Been liked: 2 times
Re: Moneyball identifies Elliott
I've read the book. Never seen the film. And again, I think you're misunderstanding some key points. The A's didn't trade star pitchers, they traded away mediocre pitchers who were perceived to be stars but were in fact massively overrated because people evaluated them on the basis of a completely useless and outdated statistic (the save).E wrote:Oh, you watched the movie. Read the book!Duff Soviet Union wrote:Actually I think you're missing the point. A common theme of that book was that when drafting players from college / high school, scouts used to completely ignore actual performance / baseball skills and just draft guys who "looked like stars". To me the most interesting thing about the book was that Billy Beane was in fact a former player who was a classic draft bust and therefore had first hand experience of just how stupid most drafting decisions were back then. Billy Beane was a great athlete and a physical specimen....who couldn't hit a baseball for crap. To me, Elliott is a perfect "Moneyball" guy. He fell through the cracks at draft time because he's a midget, but he just knows how to play football and his junior performance was great. Same with Blair. So yes, drafting someone who ranks very well in statistics that measure performance but doesn't "look like" a footballer is definitely a "Moneyball" thing.E wrote: I'm not sure why you think someone who rates very well on measurable statistics is a moneyball thing. I think you might have missed the point of Moneyball.
Moneyball focuses on 2 things. first, is that they started to analyze stats that people didnt find glamorous, like on base percentage (which measures walks vs batting average, which does not). the on base percentage is now understood better as a result (afterall, who care whether you get on base from a hit or a walk right).
More importantly, Moneyball identified a concept called "replacement value" and used it as a way to argue why it might make sense to get rid of your best player in certain circumstances (and it explains why Cloke should be paid the most at Collingwood). My Replacement value is a measure of how much better is a team with me in it vs me out out of it. The answer to that can depend upon who else we have in the team.
By way of example. Luke Ball is a great player, but his replacement value turned out to be very low because in Beams, Blair and Wellers, we have three players who can effectively play his role without any drop in the quality of our team. We maybe didnt realize it at the time, but as good a player as luke ball is, i'm not sure we are any better or worse with him in the side or not. Travis Cloke on the other hand!!!!!!! Even Chris Dawes has high replacement value because even though he isnt playing well, there is no obvious choice to replace him and no way of coming up with an easy solution for replacing him.
Mind you, I'm not sure of the validity of using Bucks' kicking test and Lloyd's "hands" test to draft players. Haven't these tests only been around 2 or 3 years? It's far too early to say that doing well on these tests means anything at all, regardless of how good Elliott looks right now.
I agree with you on the concept of replacement level by position, but I'm not sure you're applying it correctly. I think Luke Ball's value is pretty high across the league, just not at Collingwood where star midfielders grow on trees. I wouldn't be using Beams and Sidebottom's excellence as evidence that Ball isn't that good. His replacement level if he played for Carlton would be much higher. But yes, key position forwards have by far the highest replacement value because there are so few genuinely good ones. I would say that Buddy Franklin is the most valuable player in the league simply because there is no one like him and the gap between him and some generic borderline AFL key position forward is immense. Midfielders like Ablett and Pendlebury might have a bigger impact on a game to game basis, but they're easier to replace than Franklin or Cloke.
Also, i didnt say that he wasnt a good player. I said that his value to collingwood at the moment is actually very low and he is the kind of guy that you should trade because he has value to others. your argument that he has value elsewhere is precisely what the As used to do every year. They used to trade star pitchers because they had great pitchers coming through and they's actually get multiple players in return.
ironically, 2 years ago, Balls value to the team (and Jolly's for that matter), were about as high as you could imagine because we desperately needed those positions.
I actually think Luke Ball's "trade value" is lower than his "actual value". Who's going to give up anything worthwhile for a 28 year old midfielder coming off a knee reco?
"We ain't gotta dream no more"
-
- Posts: 20842
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm
- innocent_criminal
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:58 pm
- ClokingDevice
- Posts: 2601
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 12:39 pm
Re: Moneyball identifies Elliott
Shifter's words not mine, said they were developing their own version of Moneyball and mentioned Elliott's 4 goals just before he got injured then went on to list just a few of the components.. but there was far more to it that he didn't mention so the actual formula isn't public knowledge yet.. but he called it Moneyball, not meE wrote:I'm not sure why you think someone who rates very well on measurable statistics is a moneyball thing. I think you might have missed the point of Moneyball.ClokingDevice wrote:Shifter on TAC cup Future Stars is interviewing Jamie Elliott and just showed his version of Moneyball developed by Brady Rawlings and Mick Ablett employing Nathan Buckley's kicking test and Matthew Lloyd's clean hands test, athleticism, ball winning ability etc
Only Devon Smith rated higher than Elliott
1: Devon Smith: 102.95 pick 14 (GWS)
2: Jamie Elliott: 98.83 Trade (pick 25) (Coll) *Clarke steak knives*
3: Liam Sumner: 86.40 pick 10 (GWS)
4: Brad Crouch: 92.25 pick 2 (Adel) *Mini Draft*
You can work out his worth from the above, great trade, great value, another win to Hine.. does he use Moneyball???
We will feast on their bones