What about the Patriots during their run of Super Bowls? I’d argue they took a Moneyball approach to building their roster, especially on defense, getting discarded players like Vrabel to contribute while also signing veterans like Seau and Harrison to discounted contracts after they’d been cut by their teams.

Sounds like they took the approach of the old Oakland Raiders.

When Bill Polian says Moneyball cannot work, I would say that the concept has always worked in football. Teams that are first to market or find inefficiencies and take advantage of them always have an edge, whether it be Paul Brown in the 1950′s, or the Cowboys and their intricate scouting in the 60′s and 70′s, to any number of innovations that have now become dogma in the game.

This has nothing to do with this moneyball thing. This is about coaches who draft and seek out players to fit a philosophy. The Mel Blount rules went into effect opening up the passing game, and teams began drafting small receivers to take advantage of that. Based on that, teams started drafting smaller corners to cover the smaller receivers. Teams began converting to the 3/4. Teams started drafting quicker, more agile tackles to deal with the Lawrence Taylors of the world. Teams started looking for LB’s and safeties with coverage skills, etc. etc. The definition Lisk uses for moneyball in this post is an attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. Russell Wilson was drafted in the 3rd round, and the teams running most often include the Redskins with the number 2 pick in the draft, the Panthers with the number 1 pick in the previous draft, and the 49ers who have run it with another number 1 pick and the current QB who was picked in the second round.

And it’s not even close.

Moneyball is an awesome movie.

If you like fiction

/Team Hudson,Mulder and Zito

Moneyball is an awesome movie.

No, it’s really not. There are just too many things they changed from real life to make it any good. Moneyball the book is good, Moneyball the movie is not.

I didn’t read the book, all I saw was the stupid movie. So I don’t know from Moneyball, per se. But all they talked about in the movie was getting cheap guys who got on base. So is that the same as trading for a running back with a team that has too many running backs, and who didn’t want to pay the one who was going to be the most expensive?
Or is drafting the best player available just basically Moneyball?

I’m sure you’re right, and I know he sounds stupid here, but not about football, about Moneyball as a concept.

I think I can help make his point a little clearer, if you’ll allow me a bit of leeway.

“As a practical tool, Moneyball does not work in the NFL because there are very few undervalued players whose rights aren’t owned in an ironclad way by one team

You can definitely find undervalued players all over the league, but usually youngsters. And like you mention Russel Wilson. But no smart analytics guy is going to be able to say “let’s get Russel Wilson” because young, cheap players don’t get traded if they’re good, except for higher draft choices. And teams like higher draft choices more than they like players, usually.

let me keep reading from there, to see if I’ve just let you make me look foolish.

I stopped reading here.