#5 Jamie Elliott

[ClokingDevice]

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

[AN_Inkling]

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

I think he was picked 2nd in GWS's "mini-draft", where they took the best 17 year olds.

Edit: or what you edited in .

[mel_kay39]

early days but looking like another inspired choice.

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.

[What'sinaname]

early days but looking like another inspired choice.

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.

He will the nomination for the rising star, and don't call us Shirley.

[Dave The Man]

What do they use for the Moneyball Stats Then?

Are they saying Elliot is the 2nd Best Prospect from last years Class?

[ClokingDevice]

What do they use for the Moneyball Stats Then?

Are they saying Elliot is the 2nd Best Prospect from last years Class?

It's proprietary at the moment and hasn't been released but Shifter mentioned the following:

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

[Jezza]

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.

[E]

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???

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.

[Duff Soviet Union]

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???

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.

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.

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.

[E]

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???

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.

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.

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.

Oh, you watched the movie. Read the book!

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.

[HAL]

Why specifically didn't we realize it at the time but as good a player as luke ball is he or she'm not sure we a a better or worse with him in the side or not are?

[Duff Soviet Union]

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.

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.

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.

Oh, you watched the movie. Read the book!

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'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).

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?

[watt price tully]

We all agree however Elliott is a damn fine pick up & has a bright future.

[innocent_criminal]

Now we have that sorted....

next topic: Blueballs value

[ClokingDevice]

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???

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.

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 me