Rumours and Stuff

[Poupou Escobar]

There is more to most NRL players than stats..otherwise coaches would just play Moneyball and get the players with best stats.

From what I've heard the coach of the Premiers lists stats as the least important criteria when recruiting players. He believes in getting the right person and he'll just make his stats good enough to help his team win games.

I'll take Bellyaches philosophy over yours thanks.

Bellamy doesn't have to worry about stats when recruiting players because the blokes already in the squad can do this:

Slater: 17 LBs (=10th in the NRL), 16 LBAs (=10th), 17 TAs (=7th)
Munster: 20 LBAs (=3rd), 13 TAs
Cronk: 20 LBAs (=3rd), 16 TAs (=9th)
Smith: 16 LBAs (=10th), 13 TAs

I suggest you try and understand the reasons coaches say the things they do before crowing about them as though they support your pet biases. Bellamy is just looking for blokes who can hold their own in defence. His key players all make it happen in attack. Elite players have elite stats.

 

[Eelementary]

Pretty much all our forwards (plus JWH) could make 100 metres per game if they made 11 carries. Mannah only needs 10. Obviously the main difference between them is the number of carries they are given, which is closely related to number of minutes (which is determined by the coach). Apart from Brown (minutes) and Vave (runs per minute) our middle forwards tend to share the load in attack. Terepo was more or less an afterthought in our attack this year:

Metres per minute:
3.24 Vave (28 minutes)
2.62 Mannah (35 minutes)
2.50 Matagi (39 minutes)
2.49 Alvaro (36 minutes)
2.34 Terepo (29 minutes)
2.27 Brown (68 minutes)

Kane Evans and JWH had these stats:
2.68 Evans (26 minutes)
2.51 Waerea-Hargreaves (54 minutes)

Obviously there is more to a middle forward than just metres gained, or else Arthur would be giving far more minutes to Vave and far less to Brown.

Very true.

I also think that JWH is a very good forward defensively, and he has that aura about him of a leader.

I'm not saying he'd replace Mannah, but imo, a starting front row of Mannah and JWH, with Evans off the bench, is a great combination.

But I don't think it's ever likely to happen.

 

[84 Baby]

There is more to most NRL players than stats..otherwise coaches would just play Moneyball and get the players with best stats.

From what I've heard the coach of the Premiers lists stats as the least important criteria when recruiting players. He believes in getting the right person and he'll just make his stats good enough to help his team win games.

I'll take Bellyaches philosophy over yours thanks.

I’m tired of people thinking every sport should, could or does use the money ball method. It only works in baseball. Baseball is about roughly 4 to 6 singular moments per batter of which there’ll be roughly 6 to 9 per inning which there are 9 of per game which each team plays freaking 162 of them each regular season! No other sport comes anywhere remotely close to the available sample sizes for baseball sabermetrics

 

[Chipmunk]

Bellamy doesn't have to worry about stats when recruiting players because the blokes already in the squad can do this:

Slater: 17 LBs (=10th in the NRL), 16 LBAs (=10th), 17 TAs (=7th)
Munster: 20 LBAs (=3rd), 13 TAs
Cronk: 20 LBAs (=3rd), 16 TAs (=9th)
Smith: 16 LBAs (=10th), 13 TAs

I suggest you try and understand the reasons coaches say the things they do before crowing about them as though they support your pet biases. Bellamy is just looking for blokes who can hold their own in defence. His key players all make it happen in attack. Elite players have elite stats.

Were any of those players elite level before being coached by Bellamy? Did some of those players make Bellamy the coach he is?

Id say neither question has a right answer, but I also don't think stats will tell you the answer either.

 

[Chipmunk]

I’m tired of people thinking every sport should, could or does use the money ball method. It only works in baseball. Baseball is about roughly 4 to 6 singular moments per batter of which there’ll be roughly 6 to 9 per inning which there are 9 of per game which each team plays freaking 162 of them each regular season! No other sport comes anywhere remotely close to the available sample sizes for baseball sabermetrics

I dont see why cricket couldn't use the same methodology to be be honest, as a team sport it relies alot on the stats of an individual to provide the outcome.

Both cricket and baseball are two sports that need little 'team' work to win games and essentially a team of 9 or 11 individuals can walk on a field and win every game. Most football codes need more than just the effort of individuals by themselves for a team to win.

 

[Bazal]

I dont see why cricket couldn't use the same methodology to be be honest, as a team sport it relies alot on the stats of an individual to provide the outcome.

Both cricket and baseball are two sports that need little 'team' work to win games and essentially a team of 9 or 11 individuals can walk on a field and wij every week. Most football codes need more than just the effort of individuals by themselves for a team to win.

Cricket is far more complex than baseball. There are far more variables and team work is vital.

 

[El Diablo]

I dare say someone at the Tele got a stern phone call from some irate merkin in Bali..

Renae Lawrence?

 

[Chipmunk]

Cricket is far more complex than baseball. There are far more variables and team work is vital.

Only marginally more complex than baseball at best. Why do you think it's more complex? In many respects cricket can be less complex.

 

[Bazal]

Only marginally more complex than baseball at best. Why do you think it's more complex? In many respects cricket can be less complex.

Because I've played it since I was eight years old, and won two senior premierships as a captain (with a better than 70% win record)...? What makes you believe it's so simple?

Baseball is a bloke having to put a ball in a perfect swinging arc, hitting into a natural v, with no interference from environmental factors

Cricket is 360 degrees, the bowler hits the ground producing huge variations, he can knock the batsmans head off and attack his body quite legally, mentally a batsman must be prepared to be there for hours or days rather than 4 pitches max....it's incredibly complicated and that's even without getting in to your clear lack of understanding of the team component of the game

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Do they have a pitch in cricket?

Is there a grass field in baseball?

Do they f**k with the ball in baseball?

Don't think baseball has wickets

 

[Joshuatheeel]

I reckon a "money ball" type system can be used in league for all positions apart from 2-3 spots of your spine (1, 6,7 and 9)

 

[Chipmunk]

Because I've played it since I was eight years old, and won two senior premierships as a captain (with a better than 70% win record)...? What makes you believe it's so simple?

Baseball is a bloke having to put a ball in a perfect swinging arc, hitting into a natural v, with no interference from environmental factors

Cricket is 360 degrees, the bowler hits the ground producing huge variations, he can knock the batsmans head off and attack his body quite legally, mentally a batsman must be prepared to be there for hours or days rather than 4 pitches max....it's incredibly complicated and that's even without getting in to your clear lack of understanding of the team component of the game

So everything you've raised on both sports relates to individual skills.

Tell me more on the teams aspects of both sports to win your argument.

Ive played cricket, baseball, rugby league, rugby union, soccer and hockey. The first two are primarily won and lost purely on the efforts of individuals stats.

 

[Bazal]

So everything you've raised on both sports relates to individual skills.

Tell me more on the teams aspects of both sports to win your argument.

Ive played cricket, baseball, rugby league, rugby union, soccer and hockey. The first two are primarily won and lost purely on the efforts of individuals stats.

You win cricket games by building partnerships. Simple as that. Batting partnerships and bowling partnerships. You win cricket games by fielding as a unit. These are the most basic tenets of the game ffs. Just because one bloke gets MOTM for scoring a hundred doesn't mean that his individual performance has won the game. It's the 250 runs in partnerships that he and the other batsmen have built that have done that.

Baseball does not have that element.

 

[84 Baby]

I dont see why cricket couldn't use the same methodology to be be honest, as a team sport it relies alot on the stats of an individual to provide the outcome.

Both cricket and baseball are two sports that need little 'team' work to win games and essentially a team of 9 or 11 individuals can walk on a field and win every game. Most football codes need more than just the effort of individuals by themselves for a team to win.

Mostly because of that 162 game component. Batters will get 600 at bats a season, pitchers will face up to 800 batters. Those sorts of numbers allow for more accurate stats. Plus professional cricket is mostly played country vs country where the money saving part of the equation is also less necessary

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Were any of those players elite level before being coached by Bellamy? Did some of those players make Bellamy the coach he is?

Id say neither question has a right answer, but I also don't think stats will tell you the answer either.

I don't really care about the questions though. My point is that stats do absolutely show the quality of a player.

However a pertinent question is this: Is Bellamy responsible for developing Slater, Cronk and Smith, or were they always going to turn out that good? It's possible they were just comparatively great at recruiting when they found those three. They probably had a bit of luck too.

 

[84 Baby]

Because I've played it since I was eight years old, and won two senior premierships as a captain (with a better than 70% win record)...? What makes you believe it's so simple?

Baseball is a bloke having to put a ball in a perfect swinging arc, hitting into a natural v, with no interference from environmental factors

Cricket is 360 degrees, the bowler hits the ground producing huge variations, he can knock the batsmans head off and attack his body quite legally, mentally a batsman must be prepared to be there for hours or days rather than 4 pitches max....it's incredibly complicated and that's even without getting in to your clear lack of understanding of the team component of the game

I agree cricket at the singular moment of action is more complex. There’s way more variables

You win cricket games by building partnerships. Simple as that. Batting partnerships and bowling partnerships. You win cricket games by fielding as a unit. These are the most basic tenets of the game ffs. Just because one bloke gets MOTM for scoring a hundred doesn't mean that his individual performance has won the game. It's the 250 runs in partnerships that he and the other batsmen have built that have done that.

Baseball does not have that element.

But now it sounds like you’re just saying my sport is better than your sport. “Teamwork” is more required in baseball fielding than cricket and I reckon offensively it’s about the same with baseball having sacrifice hits, stealing, hit and runs, the time honoured tradition of stealing the catchers signals to relay to your batter, etc f**k it I reckon there’s more teamwork in baseball because we can also go to managers and coaches having an active role in team effort

 

[Bazal]

I agree cricket at the singular moment of action is more complex. There’s way more variables


But now it sounds like you’re just saying my sport is better than your sport. “Teamwork” is more required in baseball fielding than cricket and I reckon offensively it’s about the same with baseball having sacrifice hits, stealing, hit and runs, the time honoured tradition of stealing the catchers signals to relay to your batter, etc f**k it I reckon there’s more teamwork in baseball because we can also go to managers and coaches having an active role in team effort

Well then you have to go into coaches having an input into cricket too. Blokes aren't running drinks out to the skipper between overs in the field just because they want to ask how his day is going

I'm simply stating the obvious that baseball, in terms of team dynamic, is much less team oriented than cricket. You are a batter, you walk out alone, you have a few swings and you either hit it, get hit or get out. You don't have to worry about working with another batter. Even stealing bases has nothing to do with teamwork, it's basically how sneaky the individual is. Same for a pitcher. He has more of a partnership deal going with the catcher but it's nothing like a bowling unit.

Anyway the original point was that baseball moneyball shenanigans can be easily applied to cricket, which is utterly false

 

[Chipmunk]

You win cricket games by building partnerships. Simple as that. Batting partnerships and bowling partnerships. You win cricket games by fielding as a unit. These are the most basic tenets of the game ffs. Just because one bloke gets MOTM for scoring a hundred doesn't mean that his individual performance has won the game. It's the 250 runs in partnerships that he and the other batsmen have built that have done that.

Baseball does not have that element.

Cricket is still a sport that can be won easily by the individual. If you put Dave Warner and Mitchell Starc in the worst team in your local competiton that you Captain in, both players would be capable of individually blowing your team off the park, with the other 9 players still having to contribute very little. There's nothing stopping Warner getting 250 himself or Starc taking 80 for 20 if either is good enough on the day. Theoretically you can do the same at International level with 4 or 5 players (which most teams at international level do) and as long as your fielders don't drop any catches then you'll win.

Baseball again, if most of your individuals get on base, your pitcher(s) limit your opposition players getting on base and your fielders dont drop the ball, then you'll probably win.

Both sports rely heavily on the effort of individuals to do their job, which doesn't even need to be half the team, to make the team win.

 

[Bazal]

Cricket is still a sport that can be won easily by the individual. If you put Dave Warner and Mitchell Starc in the worst team in your local competiton that you Captain in, both players would be capable of individually blowing your team off the park, with the other 9 players still having to contribute very little. There's nothing stopping Warner getting 250 himself or Starc taking 80 for 20 if either is good enough on the day. Theoretically you can do the same at International level with 4 or 5 players (which most teams at international level do) and as long as your fielders don't drop any catches then you'll win.

Baseball again, if most of your individuals get on base, your pitcher(s) limit your opposition players getting on base and your fielders dont drop the ball, then you'll probably win.

Both sports rely heavily on the effort of individuals to do their job, which doesn't even need to be half the team, to make the team win.

Lol.

Put Semi Radradra in the worst team in the Canberra competition and he'll score ten tries and win the game. Your point is awful and you should be embarrassed

 

[Chipmunk]

I don't really care about the questions though. My point is that stats do absolutely show the quality of a player.

However a pertinent question is this: Is Bellamy responsible for developing Slater, Cronk and Smith, or were they always going to turn out that good? It's possible they were just comparatively great at recruiting when they found those three. They probably had a bit of luck too.

Well given that two of them came from Brisbane and the Broncos apparently showed little interest when they were younger, I think you can attribute a fair portion to their success to Bellamy. When those three chose to go to the Storm they weren't anything that closely resembled the organisation that they are now.