Opportunity Cost

[The Bomb]

Cloke, Buddy, Dangerfield, Judd, Fyfe, Cotchin ect are all A grade players but there are heaps of B graders who use the ball better.

 

[Despair]

* There isn't a predetermined allocation of possessions per team.
* Most B-Grade midfielders are in the middle because their ability to win the ball themself, winning the ball grants them a possession but also increases the likelihood of it ending up in the hands of an A-Grade player on their team (as opposed to the other team)
* Your opportunity cost model doesn't factor in the team having an opponent

Just stop.

 

[Tas]

It is not opportunity cost, it is not like Richmond are picking Jackson over Cotchin. Jackson is getting games because there is nobody better forcing him out of the team.

 

[Number37]

Nobody is saying that. It is blatantly obvious that you would want your A graders getting the ball more than your B graders - saying that is not some kind of revelation.
BUT you are confusing this with B's possessions being gained AT THE EXPENSE of A. That is mostly untrue in a game of footy and therefore it cannot be called opportunity cost. It can only be called opportunity cost if you know for sure you have given up opportunity A to take opportunity B. By your reasoning possessions gained by B were just as available to A and were actually taken AWAY from A - that's just plain wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually it is right.
The opportunity cost is the quality of ball use. i.e. there is a trade-off between good ball use and not so good ball use.
We see it every week, how many times do you hear commentators talk about poor goal kicking costing teams?
For example: Tony Lockett can't take every kick for goal, but if you had to choose you would pick Tony Lockett to kick for goal.
Similarly if you had to choose between Sam Mitchell and Luke Ball delivering to your forward line you would pick Sam Mitchell every day of the week.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

It is not opportunity cost, it is not like Richmond are picking Jackson over Cotchin. Jackson is getting games because there is nobody better forcing him out of the team.

That is an opportunity cost. And it wouldn't necessarily have to be someone better forcing him out of the team. If Jackson is playing ahead of say Ben Lennon (just for arguments sake, I have no actual idea if he is injured or whatever), then Richmond is making the decision there are greater benefits from playing Jackson now than getting AFL level games into Lennon. That may be a perfectly rational argument, but nonetheless it is a far better example of opportunity cost than that set out by the OP.

 

[E Shed]

Wow. A new way to take potshots at players without infringing on the main board. Ingenious!

 

[piedpiper32]

Actually it is right.
The opportunity cost is the quality of ball use. i.e. there is a trade-off between good ball use and not so good ball use.
We see it every week, how many times do you hear commentators talk about poor goal kicking costing teams?
For example: Tony Lockett can't take every kick for goal, but if you had to choose you would pick Tony Lockett to kick for goal.
Similarly if you had to choose between Sam Mitchell and Luke Ball delivering to your forward line you would pick Sam Mitchell every day of the week.

Of course you would choose Mitchell over Ball. But the argument in the OP is that Ball's disposals are gained at the expense of Mitchell, which is wrong. It is only opportunity cost if you give up one choice over another, but in a game of footy disposals are not some even chance to be distributed either among player A or player B.

 

[madmug]

Bruce Mcavaney would like that in his vocab. Just imagine him using that!!!!!
'Whaaat an opportunity cost that was!!!!!, what do you think Leigh', Dennis?? anyone??

 

[andrew99]

If you think you can win a flag with B-graders consistently getting more ball than then A-graders then good luck to you. I know this not to be true.

So what's your advice then? Get more A-graders? Well that's obvious.

 

[Tas]

That is an opportunity cost. And it wouldn't necessarily have to be someone better forcing him out of the team. If Jackson is playing ahead of say Ben Lennon (just for arguments sake, I have no actual idea if he is injured or whatever), then Richmond is making the decision there are greater benefits from playing Jackson now than getting AFL level games into Lennon. That may be a perfectly rational argument, but nonetheless it is a far better example of opportunity cost than that set out by the OP.

No, it is not.

Opportuntiy cost is the loss of other alternatives when one alternative is chosen. Richmond isn't choosing Jackson over Cotchin, it isn't structured up so Jackson gets the ball instead of Cotchin, the latter had someone hanging on to him all game so he couldn't get to the ball. Your second example would have more merit for opportunity cost, if Lennon wasn't injured. Lennon was playing up until he got hurt during the pre-season.

 

[andrew99]

Nobody is saying that. It is blatantly obvious that you would want your A graders getting the ball more than your B graders - saying that is not some kind of revelation.
BUT you are confusing this with B's possessions being gained AT THE EXPENSE of A. That is mostly untrue in a game of footy and therefore it cannot be called opportunity cost. It can only be called opportunity cost if you know for sure you have given up opportunity A to take opportunity B. By your reasoning possessions gained by B were just as available to A and were actually taken AWAY from A - that's just plain wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And this.

OP has wrongly applied the term opportunity cost. Anyone who has done economics at uni/HS will be fuming.

 

[master bate]

A better example of opportunity cost is:

Recruiting Petterd, Lonergan, Thomas, Chaplin, Knights, Stephenson with X amount of draft picks and giving them X amount of games when you could've found some late round gems and got some games in to kids.

Opportunity cost is the price you pay for list cloggers who aren't improving. The counter argument to that is the important win you might get here and there just by having a mature body back up capable of doing the job on the day.

This theory on Jackson is a bit rubbish to me. Jackson might have low disposal efficiency but so do most players who play at the clearances and can do a defensive job at the same time. He's not a bad complement to Martin, Cotchin, Deledio. Matt Thomas coming from delisted by Port in to the starting Richmond midfield is a much bigger problem.

By the way Geelong have been really clever handing over centre bounce midfield time to Caddy, Horlin-Smith and Guthrie so that the decline of Kelly and Bartel isn't dramatic and they can play back and forward and then the same can happen with Stoke and Stevie J etc. But that's easy to do when you have a really healthy list.

 

[Franc de Borges]

Overly complicated way of saying that you want the ball in the hands of the skilful players, not the shit ones.

 

[master bate]

Sydney spending 1 mil on Buddy when that money could've gone to Mumford, Jessie White and Everett is another better example of opportunity cost.

 

[Number37]

Except the point is that Mumford could get 30 hitouts to advantage, Everitt & White could get 40 possessions @ 100% efficiency but each alone or together will be nowhere near Buddy kicking 10 goals from 15 possessions.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

No, it is not.

Opportuntiy cost is the loss of other alternatives when one alternative is chosen. Richmond isn't choosing Jackson over Cotchin, it isn't structured up so Jackson gets the ball instead of Cotchin, the latter had someone hanging on to him all game so he couldn't get to the ball. Your second example would have more merit for opportunity cost, if Lennon wasn't injured. Lennon was playing up until he got hurt during the pre-season.

Yeah, that's what I was saying. Didn't realise Lennon was injured though.

 

[Kaboodleer]

Just to get this straight opportunity cost is the value of the best alternative forgone. With football where there a number of players in the midfield the opportunity cost of playing Priddis is the best midfielder not currently in the 22. To be blunt at West Coast this player is often not very good - i.e. not a high opportunity cost.

Obviously common sense dictates that its better to have better users disposing of the ball but this already happens. If Priddis has an open handball to Shuey, Gaff or Hurn he's going to give it off.

 

[Tas]

Yeah, that's what I was saying. Didn't realise Lennon was injured though.

I think he is over the injury problems now but will likely have to come through the VFL. It still poses the question, would we drop Gibson for Harper who is a much better user of the ball even though he will get about a quarter of the ball?

 

[vast]

Pendleburies lol

Oh and while we are at it does the law of diminishing returns apply to footy as well?

 

[Couttsy]

I think this is stupid.

Bradley Hill got 30+ disposals for us and I would not call him an A grader.
It's all about who plays the best on the day.

This thread is Invalid and that's the end.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

I think he is over the injury problems now but will likely have to come through the VFL. It still poses the question, would we drop Gibson for Harper who is a much better user of the ball even though he will get about a quarter of the ball?

No, because Gibson plays a role that Harper couldn't. Having said that, Harper got a shitload of games pumped into him in 2011-12 before being dropped in 2013. No doubt there were some honest toilers on our list back then who probably could have got a game on merit ahead of him (Cruize for example)

 

[madmug]

Pendleburies lol

Oh and while we are at it does the law of diminishing returns apply to footy as well?

Maybe not as much as the law of gravity

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Pendleburies lol

Oh and while we are at it does the law of diminishing returns apply to footy as well?

Pretty sure it does. For example, Collingwood spends six squillion on the footy department because it can, but for the last squillion or so it really is just squeezing out a tiny advantage compared to what it gets for the rest.

 

[Vindicater]

But they don't all have the same skill and performance capability and they don't all get equal amounts of possession. I would have though the concept that you want your best players getting more ball that other players quite straight forward but it's obviously not for some.

It's flowery nonsense that's why.

Teams set up structures to have those players get the ball in certain situations. While this is happening the other team is running structures to keep the ball out of those players hands.

In some cases players may be held away from the ball because you want them to get the overlap and be put in a good situation with the ball in hand. Thus a player like Kane Cornes may get 30 odd possessions that help set the offensive structure to allow a player like Windgard or Hartlett to have 20 better possessions in a more damaging position.

Your theory is just that, a theory, one badly flawed because it only looks at one team and not the other.

 

[Furn2]

I think he is over the injury problems now but will likely have to come through the VFL. It still poses the question, would we drop Gibson for Harper who is a much better user of the ball even though he will get about a quarter of the ball?

No just get Gibson to only get 5 possessions a game so Wells can get them instead and have 45 possessions a game.

Makes perfect sense.