The selection of Australia’s Test cricket team always incites fierce controversy and criticism of the selectors. Observing recent selections it is clear that the Australian selectors are not adopting a Moneyball approach.
Moneyball is the system made famous by Billy Beane in Major League Baseball to assess the suitability of players based entirely on statistics. If the selectors haven’t read the Michael Smith novel they should, or at least see the Brad Pitt movie.
Cricket is probably the game most like baseball in that it is a team sport with masses of quantifiable data to assess individual performances and how they then correlate to team’s success. In essence, cricket is an individual sport within a team sport.
Now like all academic systems the thought is obviously that there must be exceptions to the Moneyball system but Beane is reported as stating that the success in the system is actually in having complete faith in the data and not straying from it.
Beane was quoted in the Michael Lewis novel as saying that when considering rookie recruitment prospects for his Major League team, that he did all possible to avoid meeting potential recruits face to face as it left him with an undoubted bias. His theory was that they had to make it on performance alone and seeing the strapping six foot two youngster and meeting his nice parents was only going to confound the decision.
Prior to Beane, the ‘vibe’ of recruiters was a key element. The old “I just knew when I saw him that he was going to make it” attitude. This is where we seem to stand in Australian cricket today.
The more I read about Moneyball, the more Shane Watson comes to mind. He is 34 and commentators still talk of his potential and being better than his statistics tell you. Fact is that he averages less than 35 in a role that many of his peers have done better and yet been punted.
Watson has survived on being an all-rounder yet seems to despise the term and repeatedly indicates he wants to be seen and selected purely as a top order batsman, even though there is no doubt that if he couldn’t bowl that he would not be selected. Yet when you look at his bowling figures he has not taken more than one wicket in an innings since 2011 and constantly talks of workload in the field affecting his batting.
The player that comes to mind at the opposite end of the spectrum is the recently deceased Phil Hughes. I heard Allan Border late last year strongly pushing his case, saying quite simply “I don’t know what he has to do to prove he is a Test player. He made back to back centuries in his second Test and every time he has been dropped he has gone back to the next level and made more runs than anyone else.”
“If you compare his figures with any other 25 year old and he is miles in front as far as First class centuries but the selectors just seem to think there is something in his game that doesn’t quite look right. He does have a different technique but if he had been played since his first selection he would now I have no doubt he may now have 50 Tests behind him and be in the top 10 batsmen in the world”.
Moneyball is all about embracing difference. Pitchers that look ‘slingy’ and sidearm that other teams avoid are snapped up as their statistics tell you they do the job.
Hughes typifies this attitude, much of his batting was unconventional and looked downright ugly at times, but his stats repeatedly did the talking in Sheffield Shield cricket. Now the irony might be that without Hughes and the similarly consistent Usman Khawaja now injured there are very few players who have the numbers to push their cause.
I’m not sure but I could guarantee it isn’t Joe Burns … but gee doesn’t he hit the ball sweet?
Seano
Guest
Bob Quinney?
art pagonis
Guest
Jonathon Wells, Adam Zampa, Tim Ludeman…..Test Cricketers? After last night you’d say so! If you asked Freddie Flintoff or Krazy Kev Pietersen they would tell you you could pick a Young Australia Test team out of the Aussies who play in the Big Bash alone. They are so enamoured with Big Bash and Australian cricket as unbiased observers that they would love to Manage or Coach the following team. Maddinson, Carters, Burns, Wells, Lynn, Faulkner, Ludeman, Pattinson, Starc, Cummins, Zampa. Behrendorff 12th man. Give them all a little “common sense” pill…and voila. Test cricketers. Young Australia V Dad’s Army Australia…and to the winner goes the Test Spot. Okay…. I’ve taken a couple of liberties. Burns and Starc are in the DAA 15 for Sydney. So Hanscombe for Burns, Behrendorff for Starc and Marcus Harris 12th man. Any questions? And I have to stress that this is a young Australia team from T20 cricket….mostly. What does this tell you. It tells you that no matter what form, kids in Australia have runs on the board. And I haven’t even spoken about Sean Abbott, Kane Richardson (who is one of the best alround cricketers –fielding, bowling , batting-in Big Bash), Sam Whiteman, Usman Khawaja, Pete Nevil, Matt Short, Ashton Turner, Nathan Reardon, Cam Bancroft, Nathan Coulter-Nile, Ryan Duffield, etc etc who are all under 26 and rarin’ to go. So don’t worry about Watson, Haddin, Rogers, Harris, Siddle retiring….they can go when the Selectors are ready…or when one of the Young Australia Squad step up…..as Burns, Agar, Hazelwood, Smith, Mitch and Shaun Marsh have in this Oz V India series. Youth and experience IS a potent mix for now….but one day soon Young Australia will be the Hymn Book from which we preach. Especially at the World Cup. Happy New Year everyone!
Rellum
Roar Guru
They were regarded as one of the best clubs too last season where they not, until a remarkable end of season collapse?
Alex L
Roar Rookie
MLB teams play over 100 games per year, so statistical anomalies even out much more quickly. There are 10 shield games scheduled this year. Plus with the way different pitches interact, some level of weighting has to be applied.
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
I dunno, the A's have made the post season the last couple of years with one of the lowest budgets in baseball.
Tom
Guest
I can't really imagine that Warne or McGrath wouldn't have made iron clad cases for selection at some point in their careers even if they weren't selected when they were. There really aren't any players of that quality playing domestic cricket at present.
JGK
Roar Guru
That said - the average doesn't tell the whole story. There is certainly a case for "situational" averages and similar stats.
Steele
Guest
Not really true, Smith' s shield average was in the 40's and fields great and can bowl a few overs. Who currently in the shield has superior stats to those?
Julian King
Roar Guru
Is everything in sport quantifiable? It's in abstract qualities that we seek advantage, be it in the selection of a good team man who improves others, or an all-or-nothing player who might miss out one week, but may just win you the trophy with a freak innings or bowling performance the next.
Tony Loedi
Roar Guru
The only thing I'd add this is that "moneyball" hasn't exactly been working that well for Billy Beane of late. To be honest they really only had that one great season portrayed in the movie/book. Having said that there is now doubt that the analytics the A's brought to baseball not only changed their game but all major american sports also. But It's important to note that stats are not the be all and end all just as the eye test isn't either. It's best to use a combination of both to evaluate talent.
Red Kev
Guest
Quote: I’m not sure but I could guarantee it isn’t Joe Burns … but gee doesn’t he hit the ball sweet? Why that shot? If you actually look at Joe Burns' stats he is doing far better than every other name in contention. And if you actually watch him bat you'll see he looks cramped and uncomfortable at the crease..."hitting the ball sweet" is Shaun Marsh, not Joe Burns.
Tony Loedi
Roar Guru
at the end of the day a batters first class average doesn't lie. Take Shaun Marsh for example he averages around 35 in first class cricket and now we are surprised he averaged that in tests. He Looks like he should average more but the facts are he doesn't.
Tony Loedi
Roar Guru
Please stop calling it money ball, It's really just advanced stats or analytics. It was coined money ball because Billy Bean used these "new" analytics to trade for undervalued players. Cricket could really use advanced stats, especially with regard to fielding. Why don't we have statistics which show how much runs a player gives up in the field - i.e from dropped catches or misfields?
ghjkl;
Guest
With Reguards to Phill Hughes. While he was a massively talented batsmen. His progression as a batsman was also a great example of how the Australian selection panel/ Coaching staff had no idea how to develop a talented batsman. To his Credit Hughes kept working hard, but when he tragically passed he was still terrible at Running between wickets, working singles and batting against spin. All of these flaws meant that Hughes couldn't be selected to partner either Warner or Watson in the top order, because they both have similar issues (Although Warner is competent at running between wickets he often forgets to turn the strike over consistently when he is too busy flaying opposition attacks) It is my understanding that in Aussie Cricket, Stats were always used to set a baseline ie Average 50 in state cricket and you get a shot at the test side if someone in the test team is averaging in the 30's. However Australian cricket seems more interested in copying other countries weakness' rather then developing a strong well rounded team. these other weakness's include selecting Rubbish Allrounders, becoming green top bullies with an all pace attack, Picking an older team that is terrible at fielding, nepotism ect the list goes on
peeeko
Roar Guru
Steve Smith seems to be going well and he was picked on potential. Stats can be very misleading especially in the early days of a career. Glenn McGrath and Warnie were also selected on a whim
Paul D
Roar Guru
I think Moneyball works well for baseball, as it's essentially a game of set pieces. Cricket is far more fluid, and over the course of a 5 day test match will throw up a tremendous amount of variables and differing situations. As others have said, it's a lot more relevant where T20 is concerned. I agree that in Australian cricket we are currently selecting players on a 'vibe' sort of approach, where selectors favour players who have perceived talent, even if their numbers don't stack up. But I'm not so sure a vigorous stats based selection approach is the way to go either.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I don't think moneyball can work in tests as you just can't buy players who fit the team you want to build. You could use elements of it. Right now I think we are to focused on talented juniors. The system needs to be changed to make sure they get a good grounding in combative cricket to prepare/test them for higher honours and if a player that wasn't identified at a young age is doing really well then we should be more comfortable with promoting them. Warner has so far been a one off though. People still bring him up as proof that T20 is a good breeding ground for test players, which so far it has proven it is not.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
In fairness however, David Warner has become a prolific cricketer not standing up against these grade and Sheffield Shield cricketers. That is one example where they got it totally right. I think we can agree though, he is a one-off and the moneyball approach might pay more dividends.
JGK
Roar Guru
Baseball still has the big debate about whether Moneyball (and Sabermetrics) really works. A lot of the commentators (mostly ex players) hate it. In cricket, it is less relevant for Tests I think but certainly quite relevant for T20.
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
Too right Rellum, totally baffling selections and once you're in, it seems to be pretty hard to be kicked out... It's a similar story in England, where it's a lot harder to be dropped than picked. I'm actually midway through reading Moneyball at the moment (awesome Christmas present!) but it took a lot to drop the old methods in baseball, it will take a lot to change the attitude of the old boys clubs in cricket too.