You’ve probably heard the term ‘moneyball’ in an AFL context a lot over the past few years. We aren’t there yet, not even close. But with Emma Quayle’s career-change, the critical thinking revolution is one step closer.
In case you missed it, The Age announced, via one of the easiest exclusive stories they’ve ever had to win, that veteran AFL journalist Emma Quayle was joining the Greater Western Sydney Giants as a recruiter. Quayle had forged a well-earned reputation as one of the best Australian rules journalists in the land, with her specialty coverage of the annual draft.
This is a momentous move, for more reasons than one. Most obviously, Quayle becomes the first female recruiter in the AFL, forking off a road which has seen the game add its first female goal umpire, female coach and female field umpire in the past few years. While women have been represented in administration for many years, Chelsea Roffey, Peta Searle, Eleni Glouftsis and now Quayle have taken on roles that until recently had been the exclusive domain of men: football roles.
Diversity is great. These women have been appointed on merit, and many more will follow. In five years time, this won’t be a newsworthy happening.
It is a great development for the code. But it is not my main point of interest here.
According to the piece penned by Caroline Wilson, Quayle had been courted by clubs for some time. Her journalistic skills, displayed in ample volume across more than a dozen drafts, will be a unique skill set for the Giants.
From Quayle’s writing, and the stories she can elicit from her subjects, it is abundantly clear she has a gift for conversation. Her phantom drafts and draftee profiles are digital lucre, one of the most eagerly anticipated standalone pieces of content on the Australian rules interweb. She has consistently been among the best phantom drafters since phantom draft tracking became a thing.
Now, instead of us lazy people getting to pretend we know what we’re talking about by reading her pieces, all of that IP will form a critical part of the Giants’ recruiting strategy for the next however long. We’re all much poorer for it as consumers of critically thought AFL scratchings, and the Giants are all the richer.
This is where the story piques my (admittedly peculiar) interest. Quayle joins GWS’ now five-strong list management team with a journalistic skill set. Her colleague, Adrian Caruso, is the team’s National Recruiting Manager with a statistics background. Football statistics, but statistics nonetheless. He was with Champion Data for eight years and spent 12 months feeding David King the good oil in 2013. As best as I can tell, the Giants have the most diverse list management team from a skills perspective in the game.
As an aside, according to the personnel list on their website, the Giants have four permanent performance analysts on staff as well as two interns. From recent job ad activity, I understand many other clubs are looking to catch up.
The Giants current situation is important, because this is what I imagine a typical AFL list management committee meeting looks like.
Ok not quite as ridiculous as that scene from Moneyball. But with the profession mostly made up of ex-footballers of varying vintage, it is probably more real than clubland veterans would admit.
The Giants have seen value in appointing two people with non-playing backgrounds in roles that decide who will play for their club. Director of Football Wayne Campbell said it himself: “We feel like we’re a club that likes to do things differently”.
Caruso has been with the club for three drafts now, although in an opposition analyst role prior to taking on the National Talent Manager position this year. Quayle’s track record will begin to establish itself this season. We will know soon whether the outsider path is one which leads it to sustained excellence.
It is not unusual at all for these kinds of skills crossovers to occur in global sports – particularly in the United States, where the moneyball revolution began. Dozens of contributors to the website Baseball Prospectus, one of the first sports analysis websites to build a following for its wares, now work for Major League Baseball teams. They began as hobbyists, like the fictional Peter Brand from Moneyball the movie, and have ended up playing central roles in real sports organisations.
This kind of crossover likely happens in Australian rules, albeit it would be the more anonymous analysts of Champion Data making their way into and out of AFL clubs.
You’ve probably heard the term ‘moneyball’ used in AFL circles in recent years, in an attempt to legitimise analysis that uses numbers. There is nothing I have seen that suggests critical thinking and questioning of foundational conventional wisdom is happening at a large scale in AFL clubs. There are tactical innovations, and gaming of the rules, and Alastair Clarkson’s annual wizardry, but clubs still play follow the leader.
Look no further than this first weekend of the AFL preseason competition. The use of the handball – the weapon of choice of the Western Bulldogs, last year’s premiers – was up 16 per cent on the first week of the 2016 preseason. Teams were much more content to run the ball and ping it around with short handballs than last season; this also happens to be the calling card of Luke Beveridge’s premiership Dogs.
Part of this is because the driver of the Oakland Athletics’ adoption of sabermetric analysis – moneyball to non-weird people – was born from their miserly means with which to purchase players. The franchise was forced to think about things differently.
We’re a ways off being in a position where we can call the moneyball revolution as having swept through the corridors of AFL clubs. It might never happen; the community of AFL “fanalysts” – people poking and prodding conventional wisdom from outside of the four walls of a club – are doing their work with one hand tied behind their back. We do our best with what’s available.
Emma Quayle’s career switch from scribe to scout means there’s one more different perspective affecting the outcomes of our game. It may also bring the critical thinking revolution that has so far eluded the AFL one step closer.
Brett Burdeu
Roar Rookie
Once again an interesting take on things, I'm sure my response (albeit a bit late on the scene) will elicit calls for me to take my "grumpy old man" hat off momentarily (as unlikely as that is). While I am not against the idea of diversity of thought, particularly in regards to something as subjective as the recruitment process, I think that there is a danger of this being somewhat of a thin end of a potentially thick wedge. The "moneyball" philosophy is definitely valid in sports where the activities are, for the most part, closed (e.g. baseball) and most practical when assessing the performance of players who are already in the system. The recruitment of kids out of TAC/WAFL Colts/SANFL Colts when looked at with a predominantly statistical based lense (I recognise that this may not be the predominant view at present, but the tone of your article suggests that there is support for a move towards this thinking) is that it undervalues the inherent nuances of the game such as game awareness and decision making. To give a practical example. A baseball batter goes to the plate, if he hasn't already been given instruction from the dug out as to how to attempt to hit he will get it from the 3rd base coach, there is limited (if any) scope for independent thought and/or action (unless he chooses to defy the orders, which is a separate matter). His ability to execute those orders can be fairly represented by the statistics that support his performance (e.g. on base percentage etc.). A footballer is required to use a much larger degree of free thought in the execution of his skills on the field. Granted he will be attempting to execute the coach's/team's plan but this is never a binary action. There is a risk that the move towards a more statistical based assessment of potential recruits will have a similar impact to the "revolutionary" move years ago to focus on recruiting athletes and then working on their football IQ. Yes there were and are examples where this works but give me a good football brain over an athletic build every day of the week. For the record, I'm not saying this is specifically what Emma has been hired to do (I don't know her from a bar of soap and have never been a mock-draft devotee so I can't comment on whether this is statistically based assessment or not). It seems to me that the role of statistics in modern football is increasingly to give "expert" commentators something to talk about. I for one wouldn't put supplying David King with his ammunition high on my list of achievements, the man makes me want to deafen myself. But that is an unrelated rant.
Ryan Buckland
Expert
Hahaha there's an art to deciphering what Roar posters are getting at when there's a flurry of comments like there is in this piece. It's probably summarised best by this quote from the movie: It's about getting things down to one number. Using the stats the way we read them, we'll find value in players that no one else can see. People are overlooked for a variety of biased reasons and perceived flaws. Age, appearance, personality. Bill James and mathematics cut straight through that. Billy, of the 20,000 notable players for us to consider, I believe that there is a championship team of twenty-five people that we can afford, because everyone else in baseball undervalues them. The original "moneyball" was called that because there was a monetary element at play. The Oakland Athletics applied (sabermetrics, an acronym for Society for American Baseball Research metrics) mathematical analysis to find players that could give them quality output for less dollars, because the more backward thinking baseball economy undervalued them. Over the years it has been bastardised to mean any kind of objective or unconventional analysis in a sporting context. Check out the clip from the movie that's embedded in the piece. It gives you an idea of where the thinking was at when it came to player evaluation 15 years ago. While it's over the top to create contrast between it and the more objective analysis. Then check out this one, which is a similar scene but when the analyst (Peter Brand in the movie) comes in to shake things up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtKzhtX00ZE
dave
Guest
One player kicks 3 goals a game and is worth 200 the other player kicks one goal a game and is worth 100.Now if a recruiter looks further into it and finds that the 3 goals are always kicked in junk time but the other payers one goal is always kicked in critical moments of the match and is actually more value and he comes at a cheaper price. I honestly have no idea,i haven't even watched the movie and after reading through the comments I still have no idea. Just curious.Is it something like this? .
Steve J
Roar Guru
Good luck to Emma, not sure how much work she'll have to do given 80% or more of GWS's draftees will most likely be academy selections Of their 6 national draft selections in 2016 4 were academy players, 1 was the number 2 pick in Taranto and the other was Matt De Boer The rookie draft yielded Mzungu and Patfull. If I was a GWS scout I would have had 11 months off with those selections In 2015 all 4 national draft picks were academy players Expect that to remain the same in 2017 with Jarrod Brander expected to be an academy selection in the first round for GWS who most pundits are tipping for the top 4
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
Totally forgot about this comment. It was on moderation for so long due to the video link. Useless site this at times. Baseball to me is just a bunch of stoppages put together. Once the ball is in play, it's a bit like the open play in AFL, but open play (as mentioned) can be broken down further. This is the beauty of all contests, you can relate them back to each other no matter what the sport.
Macca
Guest
PD - Her draft insight will definitely be missed - as Ryan said it will hurt "us lazy people getting to pretend we know what we’re talking about by reading her pieces"
Macca
Guest
Rick - I am not going to argue that coaches don't try and make as much of the game a closed skill as possible, of course you are right on that but no matter how much you close an AFL game I doubt you will ever get it to as closed as what baseball is.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
I rate Quale's opinion on future draftees (likely selection by clubs of top 20, top 30 each year and summary of each player's strengths and flaws) higher than anyone. She knows her stuff. Good luck to her.
Chancho
Roar Rookie
Ryan's version of Chinese whispers... Josh will chime in soon with 'purple monkey dishwasher' It's a good topic actually, and one I took as being about the unconventional approach to making a hiring in an area of a footy club where you have the stereotype of talent scouts.
Chancho
Roar Rookie
She's presenting Powerball now, well done to her! Stepping back a bit; I'm a big fan of this sort of move and the relatively unconventional recruiting of talent. There is nothing to say thay talent scouts must be the crusty old types of ex coaches/players. I think her background will give the Giants an extra dimension in the recruiting office. There have been some on here saying that her pool of knowledge comes form other AFL clubs who will now be less forthcoming with information - I think that's only part of her knowledge base. I think what's of more value is the contact with the feeder clubs and the accademy, as in, WHERE these kids come from.
Macca
Guest
TomC- clearly you are right, I mean when I didn't post for 4 hours the "argument" just stopped completely- didn't it?
TomC
Roar Guru
Macca, you clearly don't appreciate how annoying we find your long, meaningless arguments on this site. Paul, like the rest of us, is entitled to have run out of patience.
Macca
Guest
AD - don't mind him speaking his mind but when his sole contribution to the thread is to have a go at me I find it a bit rich.
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
"you are right I shouldn’t come have come on this thread for an argument, just to hurl abuse like you." Macca - dude, haven't you realised Paul is essentially always pretty blunt and won't hesitate to speak his mind - it's one reason I respect him so much haha, I think sometimes these threads need someone like him
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
Don't worry Rick, I definitely wasn't being serious. I stumbled upon it whilst looking through Freo's online store and I was like 'haha, I've gotta bookmark this because I know which particular Roarer I can tease with this". Plus I thought this thread could use a little humour. It's far to confrontational and serious for my liking.
Macca
Guest
PaulD - you are right I shouldn't come have come on this thread for an argument, just to hurl abuse like you. As fo being a contrarian, how did I know people were going to take the illogical side of the argument? How does Emma Quayle being appointed make us one step closer to moneyball?
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
No more boring than your Theo Epstein article, which no one cares about...much like the Oakland A's sadly enough. Stellar closing argument though.
Cat
Roar Guru
Are you really trying to talk soccer to me? I tried reading it but i kept dozing off. Sorry too boring.
Doc Disnick
Roar Guru
You'll always have exceptions Cat, which is precisely why I said 9/10 times. Just look at the EPL last year, yet Leicester are most likely going to be relegated a year later. I'm not saying spending wisely isn't important either, so don't try to twist the argument. You ever stop to think Moneyball maybe Oakland's downfall? You ever stop to think the Yankees might see it as a clever adjunct to improving efficiency, but if implemented in its entirety, might actually drop overall revenue affecting their on-field ability? Let me give you another side of the debate, the one you can't read on wiki or catch in the 2 hour Brad Pitt special. Florentino Pérez (former president of Real Madrid) vowed to always play exciting attaching football. Is this the most efficient way to win football (especially the UCL)? Not always, but what it does do is allow for greater sponsorship, membership and following around the world. This results in greater financial power, resulting in the ability to target the best players in the world, which further enhances its image around the world. Real Madrid for the 4th straight year now had the highest revenue of any sporting club in the WORLD! Again, is this efficient use of money? Hell no, they spend twice as much as most of their top rivals, but it consistently wins them championships at all levels, which in turn results in further revenue. They don't care about profit, the care about winning! If they used Moneyball principals, would the most marketable players be on such a list? No, because it doesn't take the marketing ability of players into account, just their value relative to a bunch of stats. Moneyball principals in isolation would be detrimental to the more powerful clubs who take more than just a bunch of stats into consideration when recruiting players. Money is power — always has been, always will be.
Cat
Roar Guru