Chris Ballard’s Moneyball (BallardBall)

[Dilger85]

10 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. 

Moneyball is exploiting the marketplace.  OBP and SLG were undervalued at the time of that book, but the A's were not the first ones to study Bill James and his statistical approach to baseball.  Beane received accolades for that due to the extremes that he went to with saber-metrics. 

In football, what is undervalued so much that you can take advantage of the marketplace.  As other people have said, there is a salary cap in football so this type of approach has marks against it from the beginning.

[Dilger85]

9 hours 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.

Beane did not invent Moneyball.  He hired a guy working with the Cleveland Indians at the time and listened to his philosophies at what sabermetics mattered.  The guy from Cleveland was a Bill James disciple who stressed OBP and SLG as statistical predictors.  Beane went to the extreme because he had to, but he did not come up with the idea all by himself.

I do agree though that trying to apply this approach to football doesn't mesh with the market.

[Dilger85]

9 hours ago, azcolt said:

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.

Exactly and then when you consider that the book and the movie barely touched on the most important aspect of those A's teams......the pitching, then the parallel crumbles even more.  Those A's teams won because for the outstanding starting pitching they had not due to Moneyball.

[throwing BBZ]

56 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

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. 

 

What we are seeing is a mirror of the correct approach that Grigson said he would do to start the rebuild.
Unfortunately,  Grigson's young, ascending guys failed to improve. Was it the coaching? His guys didn't do much after leaving here so probably not.
 Grigson also got it stuck to him by being in the pathetic AFC South and getting all those easy wins.
 Coming from behind 9 times in the 4th quarter against those terrible teams his 1st season was actually a longer term disaster. He didn't get a chance to rebuild through the draft.
 We need a bigger sample from CB.  I believe he will have us well stocked for the 2020 season.

[Peterk2011]

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

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.

 

The result is different. Grigson might have had extensive scouting bacground, but then he used zero of that knowledge as GM. Except a few guys (Freeman, Adams, Butler and Gore) most of his free agent signings and trades were disastrous.

 

I will review my opinion frequently, but, so far it's simple for me: Both guys tried to do it the same way. Grigson was bad at it and failed. Ballard is good at it and is doing a good job so far.

[shasta519]

Just now, Peterk2011 said:

 

The result is different. Grigson might have had extensive scouting bacground, but then he used zero of it as GM. Except a few guys (Freeman, Adams, Butler and Gore) most of his free agent signings and trades were disastrous.

 

I will review my opinion frequently, but, so far it's simple for me: Both guys tried to do it the same way. Grigson was bad at it and failed. Ballard is good at it and is doing a good job so far.

 

Oh Grigson was awful...no doubt about that. And even though I would have liked to see this or that from Ballard, he has been better.

 

I was just referring to the OP's idea that Ballard has some fresh approach to the GM position.

[BlueShoe]

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

 

Oh Grigson was awful...no doubt about that. And even though I would have liked to see this or that from Ballard, he has been better.

 

I was just referring to the OP's idea that Ballard has some fresh approach to the GM position.

 

To be clear, I never said it was a fresh approach. I said it could be Ballard’s approach though. 

[shasta519]

2 minutes ago, BlueShoe said:

 

To be clear, I never said it was a fresh approach. I said it could be Ballard’s approach though. 

 

That's true.

[BlueShoe]

12 hours ago, dodsworth said:

Ballardball

 

I like it so much that I have added it to the title.  

[Scott Pennock]

13 hours ago, NDcolt said:

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

That was proven to be wrong. It was coaching and play calling. In 100% of 2 WR sets in games we were leading in the second half were runs. 100%. That is middle school offensive play calling. It was NOT moneyball. To take it a step farther.....in 3 WR sets we passed at an equally staggering percentage.

 

Our offense was stagnant in the second half due to telegraphing virtually every play.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

14 hours 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.

 

The salary cap is the exact reason to utilize the moneyball approach in the NFL. It's way easier to fill out a 90 player roster with diamond in the rough type players and stay under the cap than it is to hand out giant contracts to a few guys and be up against the cap every single year. Analytics is also a big part of the moneyball approach as well, so it shouldn't be a surprise when guys like Margus Hunt and Al Woods come in and have productive seasons.

[NDcolt]

8 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

That was proven to be wrong. It was coaching and play calling. In 100% of 2 WR sets in games we were leading in the second half were runs. 100%. That is middle school offensive play calling. It was NOT moneyball. To take it a step farther.....in 3 WR sets we passed at an equally staggering percentage.

 

Our offense was stagnant in the second half due to telegraphing virtually every play.

If it happened 3 or 4 times, I buy your story but 9 times??  No NFL coaching staff is that DUMB to go from a dominant plan of attack in one half to literally 1, maybe 2 first downs total in second half.  Like I said, 3-4 times ok but 9?  You only mentioned the offense side of the ball but the defense was just as bad in these 9 games.  Went from 85’ Bears dominance to couldn’t stop a pop Werner rocket league team in just one half?  It was a total complete meltdown that after 9 times got pretty comical & I don’t believe Chucks staff is THAT incompetent.  If it wasn’t on purpose then I bet any one of you forum members could have at least got us to 4-12.  From one half to the other was just a complete opposite that didn’t pass the eye test but who cares now on to the 3rd pick!

[Scott Pennock]

1 hour ago, NDcolt said:

If it happened 3 or 4 times, I buy your story but 9 times??  No NFL coaching staff is that DUMB to go from a dominant plan of attack in one half to literally 1, maybe 2 first downs total in second half.  Like I said, 3-4 times ok but 9?  You only mentioned the offense side of the ball but the defense was just as bad in these 9 games.  Went from 85’ Bears dominance to couldn’t stop a pop Werner rocket league team in just one half?  It was a total complete meltdown that after 9 times got pretty comical & I don’t believe Chucks staff is THAT incompetent.  If it wasn’t on purpose then I bet any one of you forum members could have at least got us to 4-12.  From one half to the other was just a complete opposite that didn’t pass the eye test but who cares now on to the 3rd pick!

Actually a third party did the analysis and it was posted on this forum a few weeks ago maybe and it was literally pop warner coaching in the second half....

[Scott Pennock]

1 hour ago, NDcolt said:

If it happened 3 or 4 times, I buy your story but 9 times??  No NFL coaching staff is that DUMB to go from a dominant plan of attack in one half to literally 1, maybe 2 first downs total in second half.  Like I said, 3-4 times ok but 9?  You only mentioned the offense side of the ball but the defense was just as bad in these 9 games.  Went from 85’ Bears dominance to couldn’t stop a pop Werner rocket league team in just one half?  It was a total complete meltdown that after 9 times got pretty comical & I don’t believe Chucks staff is THAT incompetent.  If it wasn’t on purpose then I bet any one of you forum members could have at least got us to 4-12.  From one half to the other was just a complete opposite that didn’t pass the eye test but who cares now on to the 3rd pick!

I just revived the thread by Warren Sharp....give it a read

[ColtsBlueFL]

6 hours ago, NDcolt said:

If it happened 3 or 4 times, I buy your story but 9 times??  No NFL coaching staff is that DUMB to go from a dominant plan of attack in one half to literally 1, maybe 2 first downs total in second half.  Like I said, 3-4 times ok but 9?  You only mentioned the offense side of the ball but the defense was just as bad in these 9 games.  Went from 85’ Bears dominance to couldn’t stop a pop Werner rocket league team in just one half?  It was a total complete meltdown that after 9 times got pretty comical & I don’t believe Chucks staff is THAT incompetent.  If it wasn’t on purpose then I bet any one of you forum members could have at least got us to 4-12.  From one half to the other was just a complete opposite that didn’t pass the eye test but who cares now on to the 3rd pick!

 

5 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

Actually a third party did the analysis and it was posted on this forum a few weeks ago maybe and it was literally pop warner coaching in the second half....

 

5 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

I just revived the thread by Warren Sharp....give it a read

 

He did, it's here-

 

 

Back on topic, Analytics will always play a factor henceforth.  However, there is no Bill James with amazing plethora of sabermetrics for football (that I'm aware of). Besides, the small number of games, high likelihood of injury, and the human emotion component upsetting the apple cart.  Browns tried the 'moneyball approach' and have now decide to bring in a 'football guy' (Dorsey) to shore things back up. Doesn't mean Dorsey will scrap the whole deal, just repair and replace in spots where the CFO previously needed to be overridden.

[Scott Pennock]

13 hours ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

 

 

He did, it's here-

 

 

Back on topic, Analytics will always play a factor henceforth.  However, there is no Bill James with amazing plethora of sabermetrics for football (that I'm aware of). Besides, the small number of games, high likelihood of injury, and the human emotion component upsetting the apple cart.  Browns tried the 'moneyball approach' and have now decide to bring in a 'football guy' (Dorsey) to shore things back up. Doesn't mean Dorsey will scrap the whole deal, just repair and replace in spots where the CFO previously needed to be overridden.

Agreed. What Ballard is doing is building a "base" of home grown, drafted players so in years 3 and beyond then a splash free agent can be signed that would be plug and play. Free agents are meant to supplement with, not build the foundation with. 

 

If that's "Moneyball" then I'm all for it....

[lollygagger8]

On 3/16/2018 at 9:30 AM, lollygagger8 said:

With all the needs on this team, along with the lack of FA moves, trading down and accumulating more picks seems more plausible every day that goes by. 

 

See? Even I can get one right every once in awhile.......

 

 

 

 

 

out of 1000 lol