Moneypuck the Sabres system?

[Sabre the Win]

I was watching the movie 'Moneyball' and the movie captivated me because the Sabres are pretty much where Oakland is at in the movie; a team rebuilding who lost some big assets and they turn to a economics major with a Sabremetric approach to try and fill in for the players lost and I remember hearing Rolston brought in a mathematician to establish a system last year. We also brought in several free agents this offseason, something Buffalo hasn't seen in awhile. While the system may be for grading prospects; I wonder if they have a system for free agents as well. In the movie they used on-base percentage and slugging percentage as better indicators for offensive success as the key logic in their system. It doesn't matter how crap you are defence; if you get get on base and outscore the opposing team you will win more games. Regardless Baseball is a different animal then Hockey.

I wonder how the Sabres system correlates to our picks and free agents and how it will establish us in the transformation of a bottom feeding team into a successful playoff and hopefully Stanley Cup team in the future. I remember last season some posters on this board we're trying to establish our own system to rate and discuss our prospects and free agents and while we have a few months to go before pre season. I figured maybe we could discuss what maybe the Sabres grade on as well as establish our own system.

I will try and dig out some suggestions for a system that was mentioned in a earlier post during the 2013 regular season.

Click to read more...

 

[couture23]

Hey I'm all for it, as long as Sorkin writes a screenplay on our success.

 

[joshjull]

The Sabres are not doing what was done by the As in moneyball.

 

[vcv]

While there is a [r]evolution in how the game is analyzed and studied happening, the Sabres are not at the forefront nor is their situation comparable to the Oakland Athletics.

 

[Sabre the Win]

The Sabres are not doing what was done by the As in moneyball.

Technically they are; not to the same system as the A's because that's baseball and lets not get confused here. They have a rating system; Rolston brought in a mathematician last year. Murray acknowledged getting to know that system and has seem to have adopted it. Last years draft and this years draft have seem to been more meticulous and have focused a lot on trying to find gems in the later rounds.

Bottom line is; they have a rating system that's fuel'd by numbers; which is likely a mathematics formula since science is based off numbers and you cant deny that science is a big part in sports from equipment (weight, comfort, styles, edge) to evaluating a player.

I used the A's 'Moneyball' as an example. I NEVER implied that their system was implemented in hockey at all. A similar idea with different values.. Yes.

 

[dotcommunism]

One of the core issues the Oakland Athletics had was an inability to spend the money necessary to compete with the bigger market teams. The point of "moneyball" was to address this problem by finding something the market undervalued so they could use their more limited resources there and get more value for their money than they could trying to directly bid against the likes of the Yankees.

The Athletics used statistical analysis like they did because it let them find value that more traditional metrics and analysis overlooked. This involved things like players who didn't "look like" baseball players.

A thing to keep in mind, though, is that many other teams started using the same sort of statistical analysis, like the Red Sox. This forced Oakland to look at different areas for value. While you site the "guys who could hit but couldn't play defense" idea that's often associated with moneyball, as other teams began to value similar types of players, Oakland refined their approach to continue to look for "bargains". This idea, finding undervalued players, is really the core tenet of moneyball.

The Buffalo Sabres are not in a position where they have limited financial resources. They, in fact, have vast amounts of resources that can be invested in things such as development and in other areas than player salaries. As far as player salaries go, there's nowhere near the sort of financial disparity in the NHL, with its salary cap, as there is in major league baseball, then or now. There is still a difference between teams that are perpetually cap floor or budget teams, like the Islanders and Predators, and the teams that can essentially print money, like the Maple Leafs and Rangers, but that's not a situation in which the Sabres are exactly at a disadvantage.

The situation that the Sabres were in under Golisano is much more comparable to moneyball than what they're dealing with now. Look at things such as cutting traditional scouting and focusing on video to cut costs. Not only is that more consistent with the spirit of moneyball, but it's also more consistent with how Oakland practiced it at the time, with the focus on statistical analysis over traditional scouting. In both cases, that approach ended up being flawed and replaced with a more hybridized approach. The Sabres brought on board a ton of scouts under new ownership, but still use video scouting to supplement it I believe. One of the baseball teams that took a very anti-scout approach, the Toronto Blue Jays under J.P. Ricciardi (himself a Beane disciple) later hired a ton of scouts after they replaced Ricciardi.

Another more direct moneyball comparison from the Golisano ownership is the team that the Sabres were icing coming out of the 2004-2005 lockout which de-emphasized a lot of the aspects of the "clutch and grab" era that were valued at the time.

Anyway, coming around to a point here, which I'm pretty sure I have long since lost, what really defined moneyball was finding ways to compete using limited financial resources against teams that had significantly more money available to them. It's hard to translate directly into a salary cap system in the first place, but honestly I would say that there is little comparison of it with the situation that the Sabres are in right now, where one of the more defining aspects of the current Sabres regime is an ability to spend money and spend a lot of it to get any possible advantage.

 

[joshjull]

Technically they are; not to the same system as the A's because that's baseball and lets not get confused here. They have a rating system; Rolston brought in a mathematician last year. Murray acknowledged getting to know that system and has seem to have adopted it. Last years draft and this years draft have seem to been more meticulous and have focused a lot on trying to find gems in the later rounds.

Bottom line is; they have a rating system that's fuel'd by numbers; which is likely a mathematics formula since science is based off numbers and you cant deny that science is a big part in sports from equipment (weight, comfort, styles, edge) to evaluating a player.

I used the A's 'Moneyball' as an example. I NEVER implied that their system was implemented in hockey at all. A similar idea with different values.. Yes.

First off, Murray implemented his own system when he got here. He got rid of whatever was here prior to his hiring. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/murray-puts-his-imprint-on-sabres-20140629

Murray changed the way Buffalo’s scouts look at the prospects.

“I put a new rating system in when I got here,” Murray told The News.

“It basically started around the prospect game, and that’s February, and I put a lot of pressure on them on those numbers.

“I made them do a lot of talking, a lot of explaining why they wanted certain players, and that’s the way I think it should be. If you want a player you have to engage. You just can’t tell me he’s a good player. You have to tell me more. I want to hear more. They stepped up.



Second, I have no idea why you keep referencing Rolston and this mathematician. Rolston had nothing at all to do with the scouting staff when he was here and has nothing to do with whats going on now.


I think you missed the underlying premise of moneyball. Its about economics. Its why the As lost the big names they did at the start of the moving to free agency. In 2002 they had the 3rd lowest payroll. It was roughly 40mil. The top 10 teams at the time were spending 80-120+mil. The As were trying to maximize what little they could spend. They were able to use sabremetrics they way they did to find undervalued players. It enabled them to field a competitive team with the budget they had. That is the point of money ball, maximizing limited resources. That has nothing to do with what we are doing.

EDIT: And the reason we've seemed to have found some gems deeper in last years draft was due to holding our own combine. We also have probably one of the largest scouting staffs in the league that has unlimited resources at its disposal.

 

[jvirk]

I don't know if the Sabres can be compared to the Athletics in Moneyball. You see, in baseball there is no salary cap, at least not one teams care about b/c owners will pay the luxury taxes. The Athletics lost in free agency their big pieces, because they simply could not afford them. If they could of matched offers, they would of done so for Giambi and Damon. But they couldn't, because they simply did not have the money (owner is cheap). They got guys for cheap to rebuild, but they had a different method and ideology of how to go about that rebuild.

The Sabres traded these players/assets away because they started a rebuild. The sabres realized that their current core was no longer good enough to win a championship (realized it is a better term), and so they traded them away individually in order to acquire assets to rebuild this team the proper way. If we have free agents down the road in our team, and we WANT to keep them, Terry Pegula has no problem writing a check of any amount to any player the sabres want, whether it be on the team currently or someone else that is in free agency.

One similarity is both teams are "small market' teams. But then again, these 2 small market teams DO have the ability to make some noise if built properly. The only problem with the Athletics is that the rebuilding will have to be done every few years since they can't keep big star players or players that do really well on their team. For example, Jeff Samardzja who was just traded there from the Cubs, is more than likely not going to be on the roster next season for the Athletics b/c he's going to cost a ridiculous amount (I'm guessing he gets at least a 90 million dollar contract).

Btw I love the movie moneyball, and I think in some ways you can compare them but for the most part you can't! Great movie though, love the underdog in sports. Made me really root for Billy Beane. Anyone who hasn't seen the movie yet, I HIGHLY recommend it!

 

[Bps21*]

You know what that movie completely ignores?

That the A's pitching staff was elite. They never mention once how good the starting pitching happened to be.

Also the point you're supposed to take away from moneyball isn't about the money. It's about how analytics are king. Hell the movie ends by pointing out that the team with the second highest payroll (Boston) adopted the analytics movement and won a championship.

The lesson is...Cody Hodgson isn't very good and Christian Ehrhoff was our best player. And you should never ever ever pay a goalie a lot of money.

Or you can ignore the analytics. Either way.

 

[Karate Johnson*]

I don't think Murray cares much for analytic and I'm glad because I personally hate it.

Watching players play is far more important.

 

[SackTastic]

You know what that movie completely ignores?

That the A's pitching staff was elite. They never mention once how good the starting pitching happened to be.

Also the point you're supposed to take away from moneyball isn't about the money. It's about how analytics are king. Hell the movie ends by pointing out that the team with the second highest payroll (Boston) adopted the analytics movement and won a championship.

The lesson is...Cody Hodgson isn't very good and Christian Ehrhoff was our best player. And you should never ever ever pay a goalie a lot of money.

Or you can ignore the analytics. Either way.

Zito was great, Hudson was very good, Mulder had a one off. Bottom of the rotation unremarkable.

There's also a massive difference between baseball analytics and hockey, but too many people screaming 'NUMBERZ' ignore that. The majority (not all) of baseball stats reflect an individual player's actions. None of the advanced analytics that are currently the new hotness in hockey can say the same.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Tampa or Montreal are more like MoneyPuck teams. They value small forwards who score and are passed up by the rest of the league.

The Sabres seem to be targeting the same players the rest of the league is. Two-Way responsible centers, big heavy wingers and tall defensemen who can accelerate.

The movie you're looking at for Buffalo is Enemy at the Gates. A rag tag bunch of conscripts and waiver fodder hold off 2013-2015 until the reinforcements come and demolish everything in their path.

 

[cardiffgiant]

I would have agreed that it was more comparable under Golisano, after the co-caps left. The self imposed cap of that era is similar to what the A's were up against when they decided to use stats to help them get the best bang for the buck.

I'm sure that all teams use a rating system for prospects. What makes the Sabres different is that they happen to be picking near the top of each round of a draft, and working within the limitation of free agents that are willing to come and play for a team that is so early in a rebuild.

I'd say that the focus for free agents may even be less statistically focused than it was in the past, and more focused on the intangibles that the organization believes will help young players develop.

 

[Zip15]

You know what that movie completely ignores?

That the A's pitching staff was elite. They never mention once how good the starting pitching happened to be.

Also the point you're supposed to take away from moneyball isn't about the money. It's about how analytics are king. Hell the movie ends by pointing out that the team with the second highest payroll (Boston) adopted the analytics movement and won a championship.

The lesson is...Cody Hodgson isn't very good and Christian Ehrhoff was our best player. And you should never ever ever pay a goalie a lot of money.

Or you can ignore the analytics. Either way.

Then you missed the point. Many get wrapped up in the methods used by the A's--OBP, Slugging%, OPS, etc. (i.e., "analytics" or "sabermetrics")--and miss what they were really doing: taking advantage of market inefficiencies to maximize their limited resources.

By the way, for anyone who enjoyed Moneyball, I strongly recommend The Extra 2% by Jonah Keri. I think it's even better than Moneyball.

 

[haseoke39]

I don't think Murray cares much for analytic and I'm glad because I personally hate it.

Watching players play is far more important.

How do you think you get the numbers?

 

[Chad Thundercock]

Tampa or Montreal are more like MoneyPuck teams. They value small forwards who score and are passed up by the rest of the league.

Agreed, if there's a Moneyball NHL team, it's Tampa. TM has been the opposite of that this year, overpaying for old guys and going on about leadership.

If I were running a team, I would focus on 1) offensive skill, 2) the best value of guys who can get the puck on net, and 3) rolling with cheap, young goalies with potential. And I'd be fired within a year, and be hated more than Darcy. At least TM has agreed with me on #3.

 

[Djp]

Technically they are; not to the same system as the A's because that's baseball and lets not get confused here. They have a rating system; Rolston brought in a mathematician last year. Murray acknowledged getting to know that system and has seem to have adopted it. Last years draft and this years draft have seem to been more meticulous and have focused a lot on trying to find gems in the later rounds.

Bottom line is; they have a rating system that's fuel'd by numbers; which is likely a mathematics formula since science is based off numbers and you cant deny that science is a big part in sports from equipment (weight, comfort, styles, edge) to evaluating a player.

I used the A's 'Moneyball' as an example. I NEVER implied that their system was implemented in hockey at all. A similar idea with different values.. Yes.

It is so much easier in baseball to isolate players and the situation. Its one batter vs one pitcher so its easy to quantify and analyze of how player X does against pitcher Y, how is a batter against pitches or where the ball is when they swing.

In hockey its really difficult to isolate individual player metrics.

For example they could adjust the +/- rating tot he individual person. For example if his player he was assigned to scores then he would get a hlarger "-" value than if he was away from the player covering his man and not directly responsible for the goal scores. Similarly on the offense end if the player on a goal was a bigger part he would get a higher "+" value than if he happened to just be on the ice during a change.

Football is even worse to break down responsibility. For example a defense lets a team get a big pass play for a TD. In reply you may thing the CB was the one who blew it but you dont know what the defense was for that play and it rewally was the FS who blew it because it was him responsible for the deep go route while the CB was responsble for the shorter out or curl route.

 

[Djp]

I don't think Murray cares much for analytic and I'm glad because I personally hate it.

Watching players play is far more important.

This is where the analytics come in.

Whe you watch the replay you ask who blew the play, who was responsible for that free player that scored. in the offense zone Did player X make a poor pass, did the person he pass to not read what the other player read and went the other way, or did the Dman just make a great play to break it up.

 

[brian_griffin]

Re: "Sabremetrics" / analytics / and the like...

A sure-fire way to ensure the SabreTank model '14-15 lives down to it's most dismal un-potential,

1. Re-acquire Rej Sekera & play him more than 21 minutes every single night.
2. Finish 0-82-0-0 & Draft no worse than #2.
3. Profit.





(some of you remember that thread... )

 

[Jame]

Re: "Sabremetrics" / analytics / and the like...

A sure-fire way to ensure the SabreTank model '14-15 lives down to it's most dismal un-potential,

1. Re-acquire Rej Sekera & play him more than 21 minutes every single night.
2. Finish 0-82-0-0 & Draft no worse than #2.
3. Profit.





(some of you remember that thread... )

The most revisited thread of the decade.... lol

 

[brian_griffin]

The most revisited thread of the decade.... lol

That one, and the thread on intangibles being somethign you can measure, like height and weight.

If only real life was as humorous as these boards often are...

 

[jc17]

Yeah, if anything, Darcy was the most moneyball-like because he played the market. He got great trade value for guys and was able to pick up Drury and Briere because he knew the market.

Its hard to say the Sabres are like this now because they aren't really trying to maximize their total wins. Like someone else said, signing old free agents for leadership value is really the opposite of moneyball.

 

[Husko]

Holy overanalyzing his point. It's a valid comparison, the OP isn't that off the rails just because there's different circumstances.

 

[Jim Bob]

Agreed, if there's a Moneyball NHL team, it's Tampa. TM has been the opposite of that this year, overpaying for old guys and going on about leadership.

If I were running a team, I would focus on 1) offensive skill, 2) the best value of guys who can get the puck on net, and 3) rolling with cheap, young goalies with potential. And I'd be fired within a year, and be hated more than Darcy. At least TM has agreed with me on #3.

I guess you missed the part where the A's actually found locker room chemistry to be an area that wasn't valued in the marketplace.....

 

[Jim Bob]

Holy overanalyzing his point. It's a valid comparison, the OP isn't that off the rails just because there's different circumstances.

I don't see the comparison.

Oakland flipped the script because they couldn't compete economically. Billy Beane also wanted to go a way where lying eyes were minimized and cold, hard numbers ruled.

Murray isn't that kind of GM.