I don't think moneyball would work quite as well in the NFL. Stats aren't as much of an indicator in the sport as they are in the NBA and MLB (for example- Matt Schaub led the league in passing last year, but he's not viewed as the best QB in the league, or even top 5, by a longshot). I think the best way to find cheap, unknown talent in the NFL is probably to watch a lot of tape on a lot of players and pick up on small tendencies and habits that could translate over. You can pretty much tell who's good by watching the tape. No need to over analyze stats. That, and their just aren't a lot of advanced statistics you can pull from football.
I see your point, but there are more meaningful stats to judge a QB, such as rating and yards per attempt, in which Schaub was 7th and 5th, respectively. I think thats a pretty good measure of where he is amongst the QBs. Also, in basketball, there arent many stats that show how good a player plays defense...steals arent necessarily an indication of good defense...so you still have to look at other means to judge and analyze a player. I agree that football requires maybe some more scouting through game tape, but I think you can most definitely judge skill positions such as QB, WR, and RB through statistics.
Huh!? The NE Patriots is the very definition of a Moneyball team. Moneyball is not about using stats, but finding undervalued players. The Cat keeps harping on the fact that you don't get good players through free agency. Yet the Patriots get them all the time. They also make savvy trades like with Moss, getting him at his lowest value when everyone else shied away. There are plenty of NFL teams who find diamonds in the rough quite a lot. And they don't fill up their cap with bad FA signings. It's just that the teams in Texas don't usually do this, so we're more familiar with overpaid FAs than dirt cheap ones.
I wouldnt call them moneyball team, but they do have a philosophy of not overpaying players. The point is that moneyball involves detailed statistical analysis and that's not as readily available or effective when analyzing football. It does help to get FA on the cheap when a team is a perrennial superbowl contender.
Unfortunately, the biggest misconception about Moneyball. Ironically, the Pats made their wholesale of awesome FA signings when they were mediocrity. It's what propelled them to their first SB win.
Maybe for QB, but WR and RB are so dependent on other things (having a good line, having another good WR to divert attention, good passer, etc) that trying to find undervalued players primarily by statistics would be tough. I doubt that their is a team in the league that looks at statistics over tape when it comes to free agents.
how is it a misconception? The underlying principle is statistical analysis. which FA signings are you referring to?
actually the underlying principle is to avoid what's overvalued and emphasize what's undervalued. stats are just a tool to help you determine that.
I see your point and agree for the most part. That tool, however, just isnt as readily available in football
It seems you still have trouble understanding the concept. See, it really doesn't matter what tool you use to gain your competitive advantage. As long as you have something that allows you to get productive players on the cheap. To give an example, almost every team had believed that Rodney Harrison was washed up and can't play. They all had scouts, tapes of games, stats, etc. and came to that conclusion. Harrison had almost zero value on the free market. And the Patriots signed him for dirt cheap. Whatever method the Patriots used, whether they secretly have supercomputers in their basements or they have an awesome magic 8 ball, they found value in a place where everyone else ignored. Finding that value is the true sense of what what Moneyball is about. In actuality, the thought process outlined by Billy Beane isn't really revolutionary or rocket science. It's very much common sense no matter the field. The reason why it worked so well in sports is because sports is because sports are steeped in old traditions and set ways of doing things. And that people in charge of don't look for new ideas to give themselves a competitive advantage. They stick to what has been considered tried and true for the past decades, rather than evolving with new technology and science. Hence, when a few people realized this problem, they can take advantage by evolving their own ability to judge talent.Whether it be through new stats, new scouting methods, new exercise regimens, new plays, or anything else. You just need to achieve the result where you get, say, a Wes Welker-type for like $3 mil/yr rather than Todd Wade-type production for $5 mil/yr.
^^^^ Adding to the above. Even a lot of things Morey has done which are definitely considered "moneyball" aren't really about stats. For example, Morey has said that for whatever reason, teams care less about college players as keep playing. Patterson was a top 10 pick two years ago. Budinger was a lottery candidate if he had left in his 1st or 2nd year. But NBA scouts generally stop caring about upperclassmen for whatever reason. And their value drop even when their play do not suggest it. This has nothing to do with stats, but simply how scouts value prospects.
i understand the value part but people always tried to get value, that's nothing new. It is how value was determined. I guess the term does change as it translates into other sports.
One theory is that the longer a non-superstar type of player stays in college, the more he tends to average the same sort of stats, thus they think he has already peaked and there is no upside.
