I Think I Figured Out Marc Bergevin's Strategy...
- Thread starter Habby Gilmore
- Start date
Richiebottles
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Jul 26, 2010
- 16,330
- 1,163
Doubtful, the moneyball strategy wouldn't work in hockey anyways. And if it did you would see Timmins and our scouts drafting players with attitude problems and good results. Its all about character for MB, not skill unfortunately.
Maybe if by MoneyPuck you mean "doing the opposite". He's about as old-school, anti-analytical as you can get.
Here's an interesting excerpt about Dudley, Bergevin's right-hand man: http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2010/04/15/atlantas-new-g-m-rick-dudley-book-excerpt/
Bergevin's attitudes seem to line up with Dudley's; I wouldn't be utterly shocked if you told me that Dudley was really driving the team through the inexperienced Bergevin, but in any case the result is the same. Bergevin does pretty much exactly what the analytics would tell him not to do, with the unfortunate results we've gotten.
Last edited:
Richiebottles
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Jul 26, 2010
- 16,330
- 1,163
A moneyball team would be more like the Nashville predators or maybe the Yotes. They are both teams that don't have tons of money but seems to have a good coach that plays a good system.
Bieber fever
Registered User
Guy Germaine
Registered User
Well the Habs have been extremely boring lately, just like Moneyball was.
No, Bergevin doesn't have a clue. He's in over his head.
No, Bergevin doesn't have a clue. He's in over his head.
Harpo
Lyle forever
Also, Moneyball strategy can work in sports like baseball, that is basically an individual sport. Would not work in hockey or football.
The Panthers seem to be trying this strategy though. But it certainly ain't conclusive.
The Panthers seem to be trying this strategy though. But it certainly ain't conclusive.
Last edited:
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
- Jun 24, 2007
- 8,409
- 2
Has someone like bill James done anything credible in this area that we can compare Bergevin to?
The reason is the game of hockey is too fluid to analyze at that level.
For all the buzz that occurred , how many World Series have been won off Moneyball? And please don't tell me Bosox they have a monster payroll .
Different game , no comparable to hockey but yes another thread that Bergevin can be bashed.
The reason is the game of hockey is too fluid to analyze at that level.
For all the buzz that occurred , how many World Series have been won off Moneyball? And please don't tell me Bosox they have a monster payroll .
Different game , no comparable to hockey but yes another thread that Bergevin can be bashed.
Beatnik
Registered User
Moneyball have nothing to do with ressources. It can be used with any budget. It is about evaluating correctly what a player bring on the field.
They realized that Homeruns were vastly overrated and on base average was underrated. They used it in trade, drafting, FA etc. And yes the RedSox copied it and used it to win the World series.
Bergevin has not given this team a particular identity so I don't think that he evaluates players differently than other gm. In fact he seems to value character over any stats, it's kinda anti-moneyball.
I agree with people that say that it's very hard to apply to hockey.
He's actually anti-moneyball, instead of picking up good players with deficiencies in the market, he is picking up bad players. There is nothing close to a moneyball type strategy that MB is employing. In fact, I don't think MB can do basic arithmetic.
Stjonnypopo
Rgesitreed Uesr
He relies a lot on character, which we all know. The problem is that "character" isn't what makes a team good, it's just something that makes a good team better. We need to start with a good team before being pushed over the edge.
Moneyball has absolutely nothing to do with the size of your budget, it's about exploiting deficiencies in the market, valuing things a player positively contributes rather than focusing on the negatives and optimizing those positives with the roster. The Bosox definitely deployed moneyball to win the world series and had originally offered Beane a huge contract to have him employ it for them, but Beane declined.
I guess in some senses the pre Bergevin Habs have employed a bit of a moneypuck style strategy with regards to the whole smurf thing but I wouldn't really say it was an organizational strategy or anything.
Players like Gallagher, Diaz, and Desharnais are providing value at the NHL level and we got them either for free or late in the draft because they're small or "soft". Gionta was signed to an entirely reasonable contract since he's small, look at the deal Nathan Horton signed this summer, his career production is very similar to pre Habs Gionta but he got more money and 2 more years. Cammalleri's contract was also pretty reasonable since he's small, 27 year old guys coming off a 39 goal year usually don't get signed to 5 year deals at reasonable cap hits.
So far Bergevin has been the polar opposite. The more efficient signing in the summer would have been to either retain Ryder, go after a guy like MacArthur, or find a guy like Raymond who had fallen out of favour and sign him cheap, not go after a name like Briere and give him money after a steep decline.
Diaz is the kind of player a GM exploiting market inefficiencies would hang onto, and Emelin is the type they would let go. Emelin's value is inflated because he's physical and Diaz's value is less because he's perceived as soft. The efficient move would be to retain Diaz and not hand out big money and term to Emelin. Then there's the dead horse that is Murray, he's the polar opposite of a GM exploiting market inefficiencies when a guy like Tom Gilbert or Ron Hainsey was still available. The only reason Murray is in the NHL is because the market is inefficient for big guys who hit.
It's not about taking guys who nobody wants because they're past their prime (Murray, Parros, Briere), it's about acquiring good players who are undervalued because they're soft/small/Russian/lazy (Gallagher, Diaz, Kovalev, Ryder).
Players like Gallagher, Diaz, and Desharnais are providing value at the NHL level and we got them either for free or late in the draft because they're small or "soft". Gionta was signed to an entirely reasonable contract since he's small, look at the deal Nathan Horton signed this summer, his career production is very similar to pre Habs Gionta but he got more money and 2 more years. Cammalleri's contract was also pretty reasonable since he's small, 27 year old guys coming off a 39 goal year usually don't get signed to 5 year deals at reasonable cap hits.
So far Bergevin has been the polar opposite. The more efficient signing in the summer would have been to either retain Ryder, go after a guy like MacArthur, or find a guy like Raymond who had fallen out of favour and sign him cheap, not go after a name like Briere and give him money after a steep decline.
Diaz is the kind of player a GM exploiting market inefficiencies would hang onto, and Emelin is the type they would let go. Emelin's value is inflated because he's physical and Diaz's value is less because he's perceived as soft. The efficient move would be to retain Diaz and not hand out big money and term to Emelin. Then there's the dead horse that is Murray, he's the polar opposite of a GM exploiting market inefficiencies when a guy like Tom Gilbert or Ron Hainsey was still available. The only reason Murray is in the NHL is because the market is inefficient for big guys who hit.
It's not about taking guys who nobody wants because they're past their prime (Murray, Parros, Briere), it's about acquiring good players who are undervalued because they're soft/small/Russian/lazy (Gallagher, Diaz, Kovalev, Ryder).
Last edited:
Kobe Armstrong
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2011
- 15,089
- 5,938
one of the final scenes were the fat guy trips running past 1st base always gives me the chills. Very beautiful scene. Jonah Hill was phenomenal even though his role wasn't historically accurate.
JusticeBeaver
noice
- Oct 22, 2012
- 1,687
- 0
:
...as has been stated, oh, about 300,000,000,000,000 times or so, every team builds through the draft...the intelligent ones also use other methods to aide in the building of said teams, such as intelligent trades, good offseason signings, wise pickups, etc...perhaps Bergevin should think of getting creative and partake...
Marc Bergevin's strategy is to evaluate player based on what worked for him as a player - effort level, willingness to take punishment, personality, and of course character. Of course Bergevin was a fringe talent journeyman, but hey, he had a use, therefore the more players like that, the more use, right?
And yeah, like MathMan said, Dudley is a notoriously old school evaluator who is the opposite of "moneyball" style evaluation, and Dudley seems to be Bergevin's mentor far more than the Bowmans were.
My outsider, unsubstantiated guess is that at Chicago his job was to fill in the pieces by finding gritty character role players like Shaw, while other, more qualified guys focused on evaluating the talent in other areas. This could be complete nonsense, but it recognized why he'd priority a guy like Briere for the "skilled" role over much more qualified options - after all Briere has a great narrative, undersized player who picks it up in big moments.
And yeah, like MathMan said, Dudley is a notoriously old school evaluator who is the opposite of "moneyball" style evaluation, and Dudley seems to be Bergevin's mentor far more than the Bowmans were.
My outsider, unsubstantiated guess is that at Chicago his job was to fill in the pieces by finding gritty character role players like Shaw, while other, more qualified guys focused on evaluating the talent in other areas. This could be complete nonsense, but it recognized why he'd priority a guy like Briere for the "skilled" role over much more qualified options - after all Briere has a great narrative, undersized player who picks it up in big moments.
TennisMenace
Registered User
They don't care if the product is boring. It's not about entertaining the fans and it really never has been. It's about winning games, something we do better than not.
I don't get the "Bergevin doesn't know what he's doing" thing. I agree he hasn't done much yet, but pretty much all good potential UFA are signed before hitting the market, and there are barely any trades...
I wouldn't be surprise to see more lawyers and finance type of guys becoming gms in the near future, with the current kind of gm having more of an advisory role, as it is now much more about sound salary cap management (managing players turnover, signing players at the right time in their career, etc.) than building a good locker room.
I wouldn't be surprise to see more lawyers and finance type of guys becoming gms in the near future, with the current kind of gm having more of an advisory role, as it is now much more about sound salary cap management (managing players turnover, signing players at the right time in their career, etc.) than building a good locker room.
Lafleurs Guy
Guuuuuuuy!
- Jul 20, 2007
- 74,914
- 44,609
Hackett
BAKAMAN
Baseball is a sport that is a statistical junkie's dream. I think hockey is much more a game of intangibles, so the numbers, while having some value, can only take you so far on their own.
