Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Chris Ballard’s Moneyball (BallardBall)


BlueShoe

Recommended Posts

I have somewhat joked about Moneyball this year in several threads. Last year, many of us saw similarities in Chris Ballard’s approach to free agency and the movie Moneyball. Some of us had a lot of fun with that. 

 

I am not saying this is what’s happening, and by the time I submit this thread, I could be proven completely wrong by some big splash free agent signing. I will entertain the thought, because what else do we have going on?

 

For those who have not seen the movie, I will summarize. The movie Moneyball is based on true events in Major League Baseball, but as with any movie there are exaggerations. The premise is to use a statistical system that will predict players who (when given more opportunity) will outplay their valued contract. 

 

This type of system is designed to find diamonds in the rough. Instead of buying well-known commodity players, the idea is to purchase players off the middle-shelf. The more times you can pay a middle-shelf player and get the production of a well-known commodity… that’s the ultimate end game. 

 

Some of us have joked around about Chris Ballard having this type of mindset. So, you may ask how this system could translate to the NFL. We would need a rating system devised of advanced stats, such as PFF. It doesn’t have to be PFF stats, but something like it would make sense. 

 

Let’s pretend our budget in free agency this offseason is 50 million. Keep in mind this is not our free cap space. This is our budget, and we need to understand those are always 2 separate things. Money is allocated from our budget to each position of need. Instead of spending the 50 million on 4 players (12.5 million each), we spend it on 10 players (5 million each).

 

We don’t strike on the first day or necessarily the first weekend. Instead, we wait patiently until the big money is given out from other teams. Once the initial free agency frenzy is over, the players who are left realize they are not the top dollar players and it becomes easier to negotiate with them.

 

From here we use our "PFF type of" grading system to find players who are trending upwards and if given more opportunity, they could become contributing players. Ballard seems to like players who have just completed their rookie deal and haven’t been full-time starters but have shown production in limited opportunity. Which is why we joke about the Moneyball stuff. 

 

This could be far-fetched, but I think it makes the most sense right now. Ballard did the same thing last year. It is possible that this is who he is. Until we must start paying our own players to stay, this could be how free agency goes for us. 

 

Chris Ballard playing Moneyball is my best guess right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

I have somewhat joked about Moneyball this year in several threads. Last year, many of us saw similarities in Chris Ballard’s approach to free agency and the movie Moneyball. Some of us had a lot of fun with that. 

 

I am not saying this is what’s happening, and by the time I submit thread, I could be proved completely wrong by some big splash free agent signing. I will entertain the thought, because what else do we have going on?

 

For those who have not seen the movie, I will summarize. The movie Moneyball is based on true events in Major League Baseball, but as with any movie there are exaggerations. The premise is to use a statistical system that will predict players who (when given more opportunity) will outplay their valued contract. 

 

This type of system is designed to find diamonds in the rough. Instead of buying well-known commodity players, the idea is to purchase players off the middle-shelf. The more times you can pay a middle-shelf player and get the production of a well-known commodity… that’s the ultimate end game. 

 

Some of us have joked around about Chris Ballard having this type of mindset. So, you may ask how this system could translate to the NFL. We would need a rating system devised of stats. Football stats are a lot different than baseball, so we would need advanced stats, such as PFF. It doesn’t have to be PFF stats, but something like it would make sense. 

 

Let’s pretend our budget in free agency this offseason is 50 million. Keep in mind this is not our free cap space. This is our budget, and we need to understand those are always 2 separate things. Money is allocated from our budget to each position of need. Instead of spending the 50 million on 4 players (12.5 million each), we spend it on 10 players (5 million each).

 

We don’t strike on the first day or necessarily the first weekend. Instead, we wait patiently until the big money is given out from other teams. Once the initial free agency frenzy is over, the players who are left realize they are not the top dollar players and it becomes easier to negotiate with them.

 

From here we use our "PFF type of" grading system to find players who are trending upwards and if given more opportunity, they could become contributing players. Ballard seems to like players who have just completed their rookie deal and haven’t been full-time starters but have shown production in limited opportunity. Which is why we joke about the Moneyball stuff. 

 

This could be far-fetched, but I think it makes the most sense right now. Ballard did the same thing last year. It is possible that this is who he is. Until we must start paying our own players to stay, this could be how free agency goes for us. 

 

Chris Ballard playing Moneyball is my guess right now. 

In general I think this is pretty accurate 

 

id say its more a hybrid money ball approach. 

 

I think CB sets limits to what he will pay guys and then doesn’t go over it. If he loses a guy then oh well

 

he is the opposite of what the giants did. They bid big on Norwell. Didn’t get him. Then went and made solder the highest paid OL in the league. It was basically “oh crap we didn’t get our first choice. We better not lose this next guy. Do whatever it takes. Even if overspending. “

 

CB said “oh well we lost Norwell. Who are other guys we like and at what price? Oh they want more? Ok next guy...”

 

if if we end up w 6-10 middle tier guys w upside by the end of the off-season then we have a better chance to hit on a few. So I do agree he’s taking that money ball stance for sure. 

 

And he he also will get his best deals on guys the longer they linger on the market and get more desperate and we are a popular destination due to remaining cap space and opportunity. Just means it won’t be the big name well known guys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every team is trying to find mid level talent nowadays. The obvious Tier 1 signings are obvious, but once the dust settles its the next group of guys that are often the meat of the team where your scouts and player personnel guys are getting their checks.

 

I can see the approach and I'm fine with it s long as he's hitting on guys, but you'd better believe all 32 teams are playing their own versions of Moneyball to unearth those Tier 2/3 difference makers. It's not unknown territory at this point about trying to find those mid level difference makers for value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Baseball Billy Beane invented moneyball because small market teams couldn't compete financially with big market teams. The Oakland A's don't generate the revenue the Yankees do.

 

In the NFL all revenue is shared equally between the 32 teams. A small market team like Indy, Green Bay have just as much money to spend on players as NY Jets, Giants etc... Plus there's a salary cap enforcing no team has a advantage over another by way outspending their counterparts.

 

The way I see it there's no reason for moneyball in football.

If I missed something please explain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't realize, his moves are about bringing up the talent of our team, tier by tier. With the terrible roster of a team that we have had recently, it is going to take a lot more than just a couple 13+ million/yr players to get us back on track. On the other hand, you target guys like Simon, Sheard, Autry, Hankins, Woods who are mid-to-upper tier players (but NOT superstar status) but who you can get reasonably for 4-8 million a year. You grab many of these players, who are high upside and often have personal drive to excel in a full-time role. Then you slowly raise the talent level of the entire team.

 

That is how you build a dynasty. You need to have a solid, relatively cheap base that performs a base-level and then you supplement with superstars (whether through free-agency or high draft picks) to get to the championship level for a few seasons. We will be fine. As long as he comes out of the draft with atleast some Simon Sheard type players, we are good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

In Baseball Billy Beane invented moneyball because small market teams couldn't compete financially with big market teams. The Oakland A's don't generate the revenue the Yankees do.

 

In the NFL all revenue is shared equally between the 32 teams. A small market team like Indy, Green Bay have just as much money to spend on players as NY Jets, Giants etc... Plus there's a salary cap enforcing no team has a advantage over another by way outspending their counterparts.

 

The way I see it there's no reason for moneyball in football.

If I missed something please explain.

 

It wasn’t only used by small market teams. The Red Sox won a couple of World Series with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, TomDiggs said:

In general I think this is pretty accurate 

 

id say its more a hybrid money ball approach. 

 

I think CB sets limits to what he will pay guys and then doesn’t go over it. If he loses a guy then oh well

 

he is the opposite of what the giants did. They bid big on Norwell. Didn’t get him. Then went and made solder the highest paid OL in the league. It was basically “oh crap we didn’t get our first choice. We better not lose this next guy. Do whatever it takes. Even if overspending. “

 

CB said “oh well we lost Norwell. Who are other guys we like and at what price? Oh they want more? Ok next guy...”

 

if if we end up w 6-10 middle tier guys w upside by the end of the off-season then we have a better chance to hit on a few. So I do agree he’s taking that money ball stance for sure. 

 

And he he also will get his best deals on guys the longer they linger on the market and get more desperate and we are a popular destination due to remaining cap space and opportunity. Just means it won’t be the big name well known guys. 

 

Solder?   We made an offer to Nate Solder?    If so, I didn't see a thread or a single post that said that.

 

Personally I doubt it.  We're paying AC 8 figures annually.   I can't imagine we were going to give Dolder that kind of money?  Who plays LT and who us on the right side?

 

Also...  Ballard and his team have been preparing for this for months.   Can't imagine there was an "Oh crap!"  moment.  

The team has to have a series of backup plans if the first choice doesn't work out.   I don't see an ounce of panic in Ballard or his team.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure it's intentional.  Over the past two years, we've been rumored to be interested in higher priced players.  They just signed elsewhere.  We tried to pay Poe.  

 

Also, Ballard has spoken often of the need for game changers and difference makers.  If he believes this, it's unlikely he would be bargain shopping only.

 

We're interested.  Unfortunately they're signing elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Solder?   We made an offer to Nate Solder?    If so, I didn't see a thread or a single post that said that.

 

Personally I doubt it.  We're paying AC 8 figures annually.   I can't imagine we were going to give Dolder that kind of money?  Who plays LT and who us on the right side?

 

Also...  Ballard and his team have been preparing for this for months.   Can't imagine there was an "Oh crap!"  moment.  

The team has to have a series of backup plans if the first choice doesn't work out.   I don't see an ounce of panic in Ballard or his team.  

You definitely missed my point buddy. I said we are not the giants and the giants took that approach w Solder. Not us lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

In Baseball Billy Beane invented moneyball because small market teams couldn't compete financially with big market teams. The Oakland A's don't generate the revenue the Yankees do.

 

In the NFL all revenue is shared equally between the 32 teams. A small market team like Indy, Green Bay have just as much money to spend on players as NY Jets, Giants etc... Plus there's a salary cap enforcing no team has a advantage over another by way outspending their counterparts.

 

The way I see it there's no reason for moneyball in football.

If I missed something please explain.

Theres EVERY reason for it.

salary cap or not, you HAVE to use this approach.  Its common sense.  Obviously.  The salary cap is not infinite:

more savings everywhere, means more spending everywhere.

if you do your homework and tind guys that, for whatever reason were underutilized , used incorrectly, or (my favoite) "hidden" or un-noticed behind a strong positional group (think simon last year).  

Too often i find thes "big splash"!guys have trouble transitioning to a new team, scheme, players beside them, etc.  plus, you spent 10% of your TOTAL budget for the year.  It BETTER work out.

builing a solid team has been and always will be grounded in good scouting, good drafting, good teaching and development of YOUR OWN players.  Its just your best, most consistent and reliable way to build a solid consistent winner.  IMO, of course.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

In Baseball Billy Beane invented moneyball because small market teams couldn't compete financially with big market teams. The Oakland A's don't generate the revenue the Yankees do.

 

In the NFL all revenue is shared equally between the 32 teams. A small market team like Indy, Green Bay have just as much money to spend on players as NY Jets, Giants etc... Plus there's a salary cap enforcing no team has a advantage over another by way outspending their counterparts.

 

The way I see it there's no reason for moneyball in football.

If I missed something please explain.

You didn’t miss anything but anyone trying to draw parallels to baseball and the A’s obviously missed a lot. There is no comparison, as you noted. It will be fascinating to see how Ballard plans to allocate all of that cap room. I suspect Luck’s tenuous situation is really hurting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TomDiggs said:

 

he is the opposite of what the giants did. They bid big on Norwell. Didn’t get him. Then went and made solder the highest paid OL in the league. It was basically “oh crap we didn’t get our first choice. We better not lose this next guy. Do whatever it takes. Even if overspending. “

 

CB said “oh well we lost Norwell. Who are other guys we like and at what price? Oh they want more? Ok next guy...”

 

Giants definitely panicked with missing out on Norwell, but don’t be so sure Ballard doesn’t panic either. If we sign Jensen to $11M per year then that’s a sign CB panicked too. He’s a slightly above average lineman and doesn’t deserve to be the highest paid center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Luck 4 president said:

Giants definitely panicked with missing out on Norwell, but don’t be so sure Ballard doesn’t panic either. If we sign Jensen to $11M per year then that’s a sign CB panicked too. He’s a slightly above average lineman and doesn’t deserve to be the highest paid center.

 

I wouldn't call it panick if that happens. I would rather not run out and pay him $11.0M, but I will say this:

 

I got to see and hear a lot of Jensen over this past year since I live in Maryland and in Ravens territory. He is on the rise and far better than many people know of he gets credit for.

 

He is very easily on the cusp of being a top-10 Center if he isn't already. And that isn't even his position of most experience either.

 

The average of the top-10 Centers in the NFL annually is currently $8.98M. So we'll call it $9M

 

The average of the top-10 Guards in the NFL annually is currently $10.6M. So we'll call it $10.5M

 

The average of the top-20 Guards in the NFL annually is currently $9.16M. So we'll call it $9M

 

That means to me that if we think Jensen can be a top-20 Guard and/or a Top-10 Center then he slots in between $9M and $10.5M annually.

 

I would rather have Jensen than Richburg and Richburg got $9.5M. Granted he is being paid to play Center. If we grab Jensen it is likely we are paying him to play Guard with maybe a chance to fill in at Center unless this staff really truly wants to have competition everywhere and will let him challenge Kelly for the starting Center spot.

 

Anyhow, after my long darn rant here, I am essentially saying that I do not think it is panicking at all if we sign Jensen for anywhere from $9M-$10.5M annually.

 

I would be comfortable w him at $9M. I would get a little hesitant as he creeps past $10M.

 

I agree with you that if we get to $11M it is too much and more of a panic induced mood.

 

But that will also depend on how it is structured. If it is artificially inflated to meet that and we front load it or pay out all the guarantees in the first 3 years, then again it may not be so bad either.

 

At this point i will just be happy to address a need on the offensive line w a solid player who is ascending at this point in his career.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn’t unreasonable at all @BlueShoe 

I actually agree with you, that Ballard will not overspend in guys, in Moneyball fashion, but with more of a forethought to the draft than FA. 

 

He he wants to build that way, but I bet he’s thinking getting young, good players from any source is a win. FA signings were a success in his first year, as he replaced basically the entire defense with high motor guys who made plays. Woods, Hankins, Simon, and Sheard all stick out, even Bostic was a +. All made huge plays, tfl, INT, sack ending a game vs division opponent. 

 

Ballards FA approach is basically a less risky, more payoff the more you sign type mindset. Each young player he signs increases the odds of one of them being a winner; like a lottery ticket, you only buy in if you make money for each ticket you buy.

 

Lets just keep our eye on the upcoming draft and some low key free agents. Don’t expect a huge splash (unless it’s Tyrann Mathieu, in which case I will be stoked).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Luck 4 president said:

Giants definitely panicked with missing out on Norwell, but don’t be so sure Ballard doesn’t panic either. If we sign Jensen to $11M per year then that’s a sign CB panicked too. He’s a slightly above average lineman and doesn’t deserve to be the highest paid center.

Maybe not, but Jenson is a darn good football player and the Colts need him. His ceiling is likely $10m per year. At this point sign him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ColtsBlitz said:

This isn’t unreasonable at all @BlueShoe 

I actually agree with you, that Ballard will not overspend in guys, in Moneyball fashion, but with more of a forethought to the draft than FA. 

 

He he wants to build that way, but I bet he’s thinking getting young, good players from any source is a win. FA signings were a success in his first year, as he replaced basically the entire defense with high motor guys who made plays. Woods, Hankins, Simon, and Sheard all stick out, even Bostic was a +. All made huge plays, tfl, INT, sack ending a game vs division opponent. 

 

Ballards FA approach is basically a less risky, more payoff the more you sign type mindset. Each young player he signs increases the odds of one of them being a winner; like a lottery ticket, you only buy in if you make money for each ticket you buy.

 

Lets just keep our eye on the upcoming draft and some low key free agents. Don’t expect a huge splash (unless it’s Tyrann Mathieu, in which case I will be stoked).  

Agree on Mathieu. I wished we had drafted him, but he’s kind of like Bob Sanders. Short stature and gets hurt a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Cubs played Moneyball for 5 years = WS Champions! Now batting MVP Kris Bryant!

Tanking is the way of life in all major sports these days!  NBA, MLB & the NFL.  You really think the Colts 9 2nd half collapses were due to an incompetent coaching staff?  MONEYBALL!  How else do you go from dominating a half to not Being able to pick up one first down in 2 qtrs?  So obvious not even funny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BlueShoe said:

I have somewhat joked about Moneyball this year in several threads. Last year, many of us saw similarities in Chris Ballard’s approach to free agency and the movie Moneyball. Some of us had a lot of fun with that. 

 

I am not saying this is what’s happening, and by the time I submit this thread, I could be proven completely wrong by some big splash free agent signing. I will entertain the thought, because what else do we have going on?

 

For those who have not seen the movie, I will summarize. The movie Moneyball is based on true events in Major League Baseball, but as with any movie there are exaggerations. The premise is to use a statistical system that will predict players who (when given more opportunity) will outplay their valued contract. 

 

This type of system is designed to find diamonds in the rough. Instead of buying well-known commodity players, the idea is to purchase players off the middle-shelf. The more times you can pay a middle-shelf player and get the production of a well-known commodity… that’s the ultimate end game. 

 

Some of us have joked around about Chris Ballard having this type of mindset. So, you may ask how this system could translate to the NFL. We would need a rating system devised of advanced stats, such as PFF. It doesn’t have to be PFF stats, but something like it would make sense. 

 

Let’s pretend our budget in free agency this offseason is 50 million. Keep in mind this is not our free cap space. This is our budget, and we need to understand those are always 2 separate things. Money is allocated from our budget to each position of need. Instead of spending the 50 million on 4 players (12.5 million each), we spend it on 10 players (5 million each).

 

We don’t strike on the first day or necessarily the first weekend. Instead, we wait patiently until the big money is given out from other teams. Once the initial free agency frenzy is over, the players who are left realize they are not the top dollar players and it becomes easier to negotiate with them.

 

From here we use our "PFF type of" grading system to find players who are trending upwards and if given more opportunity, they could become contributing players. Ballard seems to like players who have just completed their rookie deal and haven’t been full-time starters but have shown production in limited opportunity. Which is why we joke about the Moneyball stuff. 

 

This could be far-fetched, but I think it makes the most sense right now. Ballard did the same thing last year. It is possible that this is who he is. Until we must start paying our own players to stay, this could be how free agency goes for us. 

 

Chris Ballard playing Moneyball is my best guess right now. 

Let’s hope we go on an amazing streak like the A’s did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Solder?   We made an offer to Nate Solder?    If so, I didn't see a thread or a single post that said that.

 

Personally I doubt it.  We're paying AC 8 figures annually.   I can't imagine we were going to give Dolder that kind of money?  Who plays LT and who us on the right side?

 

Also...  Ballard and his team have been preparing for this for months.   Can't imagine there was an "Oh crap!"  moment.  

The team has to have a series of backup plans if the first choice doesn't work out.   I don't see an ounce of panic in Ballard or his team.  

You apparently didn't read that very well he was talking about New York not the Colts with Solder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BlueShoe said:

I have somewhat joked about Moneyball this year in several threads. Last year, many of us saw similarities in Chris Ballard’s approach to free agency and the movie Moneyball. Some of us had a lot of fun with that. 

 

I am not saying this is what’s happening, and by the time I submit this thread, I could be proven completely wrong by some big splash free agent signing. I will entertain the thought, because what else do we have going on?

 

For those who have not seen the movie, I will summarize. The movie Moneyball is based on true events in Major League Baseball, but as with any movie there are exaggerations. The premise is to use a statistical system that will predict players who (when given more opportunity) will outplay their valued contract. 

 

This type of system is designed to find diamonds in the rough. Instead of buying well-known commodity players, the idea is to purchase players off the middle-shelf. The more times you can pay a middle-shelf player and get the production of a well-known commodity… that’s the ultimate end game. 

 

Some of us have joked around about Chris Ballard having this type of mindset. So, you may ask how this system could translate to the NFL. We would need a rating system devised of advanced stats, such as PFF. It doesn’t have to be PFF stats, but something like it would make sense. 

 

Let’s pretend our budget in free agency this offseason is 50 million. Keep in mind this is not our free cap space. This is our budget, and we need to understand those are always 2 separate things. Money is allocated from our budget to each position of need. Instead of spending the 50 million on 4 players (12.5 million each), we spend it on 10 players (5 million each).

 

We don’t strike on the first day or necessarily the first weekend. Instead, we wait patiently until the big money is given out from other teams. Once the initial free agency frenzy is over, the players who are left realize they are not the top dollar players and it becomes easier to negotiate with them.

 

From here we use our "PFF type of" grading system to find players who are trending upwards and if given more opportunity, they could become contributing players. Ballard seems to like players who have just completed their rookie deal and haven’t been full-time starters but have shown production in limited opportunity. Which is why we joke about the Moneyball stuff. 

 

This could be far-fetched, but I think it makes the most sense right now. Ballard did the same thing last year. It is possible that this is who he is. Until we must start paying our own players to stay, this could be how free agency goes for us. 

 

Chris Ballard playing Moneyball is my best guess right now. 

This approach does not pass the smell test for a win now team but rather for a 3-4 yr rebuild.  Something doesn’t smell right here if Andrew Luck is indeed on schedule to be the starting q.b come Sept?  Things that make you go hmmmmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, neug3246 said:

You apparently didn't read that very well he was talking about New York not the Colts with Solder

 

Yes...   I understood...   Tom has clued me in and I have apologized...   it's here in this thread.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NDcolt said:

This approach does not pass the smell test for a win now team but rather for a 3-4 yr rebuild.  Something doesn’t smell right here if Andrew Luck is indeed on schedule to be the starting q.b come Sept?  Things that make you go hmmmmm...

 

That's what I have been saying. It seems off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Yes...   I understood...   Tom has clued me in and I have apologized...   it's here in this thread.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

Ya I saw that after I posted this then finished reading the thread posts. My bad dude!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, I felt like we tanked for 34 years ever since I was a Cubs fan since 1984. I guess once we got the Natural in Kris Bryant and a Pitcher like Jake moneyballs payed off lmao = Championship. We tried to give the Indians an out by almost blowing Game 7 and be nice. Wanted to call it even but they didn't comply so at that point it was over, Cubs win :scoregood:. Cubs World Champions, Indians haven't won it since 1948. Goodnight everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NDcolt said:

Amazing streak?  A’s?  Must have slept through the past couple decades, missed this.

Yeah they went on like a 20 game win streak in 2002. 

 

The Athletics' 2002 campaign ranks among the most famous in franchise history. Following the 2001 season, Oakland saw the departure of three key players. Billy Beane, the team's general manager, responded with a series of under-the-radar free agent signings. The new-look Athletics, despite a comparative lack of star power, surprised the baseball world by besting the 2001 team's regular season record. The team is most famous, however, for winning 20 consecutive games between August 13 and September 4, 2002.[1] The Athletics' season was the subject of Michael Lewis' 2003 book Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game (as Lewis was given the opportunity to follow the team around throughout that season). A film adaptation of the book, also titled Moneyball, was released in 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moneyball is not new to NFL, Sashi Brown took it to the Browns a couple of years ago. He openly said he was playing moneyball there. He's gone, but I think number of teams use elements of moneyball approach.

 

Regarding the Colts and CB, I don't care how we label it. I judge by the result. What I see is, last year Ballard took similar approach, his first signing was Sheard on the 3rd day (or was it the 2nd? anyway, not on opening day) of FA. Sheard was a once starter, then rotational piece in Boston. Then he signed Simon, who was a rotational piece in Houston. Then one WEEK later he signed Woods, who was a "nobody". Then one MONTH later he finally signed Hankins. Then, he signed a bunch of "busts", third tier journeymans, bubble guys like Mingo, Hunt, Bostic, etc.

 

And the result? Sheard became the 3rd best OLB in 2017 according to PFF, right behind Von Miller and Mack. Simon was a top15 OLB before got injured. Woods became a top 20 inside lineman (3-4 and 4-3 combined) according to PFF. He finished just ahead of Hankins, who was also in the top20. So he signed 4 guys, only one of them (Hankins) being on any top XXX FA list before the free agency, and these 4 guys produced as well as any firs day, top dollar free agent should and expected to play. Except, they were not first day, top dollar signings. Then his low dollar acquisitions: Mingo, Hunt, Bostic, Farley, Desir and so on all played well compared to what you expect from these cheap depth acquisitions.

 

I don't know what Ballard's secret or approach. Honestly, I don't care. All I care about the result. Yeah, i'ts nerve wrecking to watch all these big names going elsewhere. But who cares if he'll find another 4 of those cheap "nobodies", who will play like all pros/probowlers next year. :)

 

(Sidenote: being in top20 of inside linemen is waay better than just good. Its Brandon Williams, Linval Joseph, Malik Jackson good. Dontary Poe finished at 41th, and he had a good - not great, but good - season. Sheldon Richardson was 35th, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven’t the Browns played moneyball the last few years?

 

So here’s a simplistic analysis:  You get mid tier players who you hope are gems to improve the entire team.   If it works out the guys who become stars move on to bigger contracts.  But it’s more likely the outcome is Browns rather than Patriots.

 

OR you get proven play makers that immediately improve your team.  Pay them well.  Win now.  Cap space continues to go up, so when they leave you get the next group of playmakers.  

 

Bottom line, I trust in Ballard to get players that will improve the team.  I don’t think he intentionally plays moneyball.  But if he doesn’t improve the Oline because he wants to save money, then I’ll start to doubt his judgment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TomDiggs said:

In general I think this is pretty accurate 

 

id say its more a hybrid money ball approach. 

 

I think CB sets limits to what he will pay guys and then doesn’t go over it. If he loses a guy then oh well

 

he is the opposite of what the giants did. They bid big on Norwell. Didn’t get him. Then went and made solder the highest paid OL in the league. It was basically “oh crap we didn’t get our first choice. We better not lose this next guy. Do whatever it takes. Even if overspending. “

 

CB said “oh well we lost Norwell. Who are other guys we like and at what price? Oh they want more? Ok next guy...”

 

if if we end up w 6-10 middle tier guys w upside by the end of the off-season then we have a better chance to hit on a few. So I do agree he’s taking that money ball stance for sure. 

 

And he he also will get his best deals on guys the longer they linger on the market and get more desperate and we are a popular destination due to remaining cap space and opportunity. Just means it won’t be the big name well known guys. 

I agree with your hybrid money ball thought.  I like that Mr Ballard sets a limit and will not cross it much, but does not get bent if he misses, moves to next man.

Now to where we disagree.  Yes, Mr Ballard brings in 6-10 low mid tier/ bottom tier, but he still has to over pay.  Second, most of these players don't have much upside left.  They have been in the NFL at least 3 years, so unless they are very late bloomers, their upside is what they are already showing.  The other is bringing in players that don't fit the scheme.  I had this discussion with NCF about Sheard and Sheard proved me out (averaged 6 sacks in fist 6 years and gave us 5.5 last season).  Simon was not a scheme fit.  Simon was a 43 OLB and we got him to by a 34 pass rusher.  It wasn't going to happen.  Simon should do better this season as we are changing back to a 43.

If you are thinking about getting Hankins last year,  Hankins fell into Mr Ballard's lap, was a fluke.  the chance of that happening again is pretty high.

Now, let's talk about the Giants.  Eli spent a lot of time last year on his back, would have given Andrew a run for most sack received.  The Giants knew they needed to rebuild that O-line, so they went big after Norwell.  When they didn't get him, they went after Solder.  They knew it was going to cost them, because LT's salaries have been going up.  Norwell caused it to go up more with what he got for his salary.  As stated on this forum, a Guard is not paid more than a LT.  The Giants now have 1 less hole to fill in the draft.  IMO, if Barkley was gone, the Giants were going after Nelson.  Helps improve their O-line.

To wrap this up, I think of FA as the silly part of the off season.  You can say what you want about not over paying, but it doesn't matter whether you get a big name or a bottom tier player, you will have to over pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I agree. In this case the market inefficiency would simply be talent evaluation (Ballard's vs other teams)...and that's very subjective. It's not like the guys he is bringing in has some special skill set that is undervalued or underappreciated. For example, BB brought in quick, shifty route runners who could get separation. That was a moneyball approach. Same with scat back that can catch out of the backfield...or athletic TEs.

 

What Ballard is doing really isn't much different than what Grigs did the first few seasons...targeting guys he thought had "potential." Which isn't surprising in that both guys had extensive scouting backgrounds.

 

And while the Colts did make it to the AFC Championship, Grigson's initial approach was pretty bad, especially from a value standpoint. Though I have liked the players Ballard has acquired much better overall.

 

I just think at some point, Ballard is going to have to pull the trigger on impact talent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...