Moneyball Mock

[nathanlt]

If you've seen Moneyball, you know that in order to maximize their limited funds, the Oakland A's ended up trading for rejects and guys who don't look the part, but for all their troubles, kept getting on base. They had great success with that philosophy.

So here's a mock that focuses on a player producing very well in their primary job, tackling, catching, or breaking up passes.

1- 14 Luke Kuechly ILB With 532 tackles in three season, 22 tackles for loss, this guy is instinctive and makes plays behind the line of scrimmage. Pairing him with Sean Lee would overload the linebacker position with exceptional talent and instincts, crushing the run game of opposing offenses. One of the safest picks in the draft, and that's what you want in the first round. (Decastro is an alternate here, without stats, but shoring up the O line must happen)

2- 45 Harrison Smith, FS/SS 180 tackles in his last 2 seasons, and 17 for loss, this guy is a force at the safety position. Adds leadership to the mix, and this is exactly the kind of player that would help change the attitude of the team. (Lamichael James here instead with over 5,000 yards rushing would not be a disappointment by any means)

3- 81 Ryan Broyles WR It always amuses me that the guy with eye popping yards is ranked so low on a draft ranking, but getting this kind of production 4,586 yards from a "thinly built" underpowered blocker is no problem. Ogletree certainly doesn't block well enough to offset his underwhelming results. Broyles would be an upgrade, and fully replace Robinson's clutch production.

4-113 Derek Wolfe DT 6-4, 286 lbs, 118 tackles and 28 TFL's in the last 2 years, he just makes plays. 9.5 sacks his senior year wasn't bad either, and he adds leadership that Dallas desparately needs.

4-135 Josh Robinson, CB 176 tackles in 3 seasons, 36 passes defensed, 10 picks make him a late round producer, with a solid performance against A.J. Green, he gives every indication that he would be an excellent worker, and he just gets the job done.

5-152 Ladarius Green, TE, 6-5 237 Racks up the catches to the tune of 149 over 4 years, with 2,201 yards receiving from Louisiana-Lafayette, average of 14.8 yards per catch. A developmental guy who simply produces. Line him up in the slot every now and then to mess with the nickel corner.

6-186 If Brian Anger P drops this far, it might be a stretch, but booming the ball 11,094 yards over 4 years is the kind of production that almost makes you wonder if he's worn out his leg a bit. Hopefully, he won't get those many attempts (255) in Dallas if the offense and defense are clicking with the previous additions.

7-222 Shawn Loiseau ILB, primarily to keep a special teams superstar, this guy is a tackling machine. He has had 377 tackles as a full time starter in just 3 years with 11 sacks. He is a leader as well, and you know Dallas needs that. And if injuries occur in the LB corps, he would be a solid backup.

That's it, a production draft by default neglects offensive line since the only stats are bad stats for OL. But DeCastro instead of Kuechly would be a great replacement, and the running game would thrive, especially with Vickers there. Rob Ryan's crazy defense could still use a 3-4 NT, but playmakers all over the field would help to cash in the blitzes that he uses. 3 Offense, 4 Defense, and 2 special teamers, a pretty good haul, I think.

There's my Moneyball draft. What's yours???

[fortdick]

No OL? You would be happy with no additional blockers?

[theogt]

Well, that's not something I'd want to see.

[robert70x7]

I think the way you explained Moneyball will confuse people. I know most everyone has seen the movie, but I think this is something that the Patriots try to do: focus on production instead of falling in love with a players measureables.

Billy Beane would not draft Dontari Poe, Quinton Coples or Michael Brockers. They look the part, but don't show up on the field. The Cowboys don't have a problem with limited draft picks or cap, so this will just focus on production.

14 - Whitney Mercilus

45 - Jayron Hosley

81 - Jared Crick

113 - Philip Blake

135 - Ryan Broyles

165 - Akiem Hicks

186 - Jerron McMillian (S, Maine)

222 - Taylor Thompson (TE, SMU)

[nathanlt]

Originally Posted by fortdick

No OL? You would be happy with no additional blockers?

No, DeCastro is an option at 14. Sub any OL along the way, but this a good framework to go with.

[AbeBeta]

You missed the point of Moneyball. The point was taking players who are undervalued. Just saying we are going to take players who produced in college doesn't match that philosophy.

[fortdick]

You do realize, moneyball was a movie, right? Kinda like Madden, not applicable to the real world.

[robert70x7]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

You missed the point of Moneyball. The point was taking players who are undervalued. Just saying we are going to take players who produced in college doesn't match that philosophy.

But Beane would take players who have produced over players who had measureables, but weren't producing. This is going to be a circular argument if we're trying to apply it to football.

[Outlaw Heroes]

Originally Posted by robert70x7

I think the way you explained Moneyball will confuse people. I know most everyone has seen the movie, but I think this is something that the Patriots try to do: focus on production instead of falling in love with a players measureables.

Billy Beane would not draft Dontari Poe, Quinton Coples or Michael Brockers.

That's still only half the story. Billy Beane would not only be looking at a given player's production, but he'd also be trying to exploit inefficiencies in the way certain skills are valued by others around the league. Thus he might (I say "might" because this would all be subject to statistical analysis regarding the extent to which certain "skills" correlate to winning) take advantage of the league's historic tendency to undervalue interior lineman and/or safeties by grabbing players like DeCastro or Barron earlier than others might (say, at #14), on the theory that passing efficiency (on both sides of the ball) is strongly correlated with winning and that others fail to properly recognize this when they argue that OG and S are not premium positions.

[robert70x7]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Heroes

That's still only half the story. Billy Beane would not only be looking at a given player's production, but he'd also be trying to exploit inefficiencies in the way certain skills are valued by others around the league. Thus he might (I say "might" because this would all be subject to statistical analysis regarding the extent to which certain "skills" correlate to winning) take advantage of the league's historic tendency to undervalue interior lineman and/or safeties by grabbing players like DeCastro or Barron earlier than others might (say, at #14), on the theory that passing efficiency (on both sides of the ball) is strongly correlated with winning and that others fail to properly recognize this when they argue that OG and S are not premium positions.

Well said. He would probably NEVER draft a special teams player based on his philosophy of relievers. I think they share similar roles on both teams.

[Outlaw Heroes]

Originally Posted by robert70x7

Well said. He would probably NEVER draft a special teams player based on his philosophy of relievers. I think they share similar roles on both teams.

I agree.

[AbeBeta]

Originally Posted by robert70x7

But Beane would take players who have produced over players who had measureables, but weren't producing. This is going to be a circular argument if we're trying to apply it to football.

That's true of the movie. Not so much of the actual approach which focused a much finer grained analysis of statistical performance than those used previously. Using those measures allowed for better prediction of future performance -- just 'getting on base' is a gross oversimiplification of the approach.

If we were applying this to the NFL, measurables would be used only to the extent that they predict actual performance

[nathanlt]

Originally Posted by fortdick

You do realize, moneyball was a movie, right? Kinda like Madden, not applicable to the real world.

I just have to point out that it was based on the actual philosophy that the Oakland A's used.

But I'm enjoying the discussion.

[jterrell]

The A's can not even field a competitive team right now.


They won for a short while by adding quality AAAA guys... i.e. cheap but deployable veterans. They could rinse and repeat as they never cost much to be wrong.

But the Rangers and Angels have shown the fallacy of such thinking. Legitimate development and resources spent on actual talent outweighs production at a small specific area.

Baseball isn't complicated. Develop pitchers, profit.

The biggest benefit of "moneyball" analysis is not paying for age. Paying for age and past performance kills you. In any sport.

But you most certainly need talent to win.

[robert70x7]

The Angels?

You can't convince me that the Angels are cost-conscience with the contracts of Vernon Wells, Torii Hunter, Gary Matthews Jr., Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson.

Worst payroll in baseball.

The Athletics were successful because they were able to use their scouting philosophies that other teams weren't using because they had to with their lack of funds. If Beane would have went to Boston, he would've won the World Series just like Theo Epstein, because he would have the necessary resources to bring in great players. The Athletics don't have those resources and other teams have starting using the types of statistical analysis that they use for their own teams. It is the owners fault, not Beane's.