Moneyball movie (possible spoilers)

[Mike Lowe]

Saw this last night after having read the book twice (once in 2002-2003ish, once a couple of years ago as a follow up).

I liked it and was initially worried because usually sports movies suck, and I was also concerned that they'd focus too much on the stats side of things which would get ridiculously boring in movie form.

There was a nice balance, and it was interesting to see how they made this interesting for even someone who might not care much about baseball and especially nerdy baseball stats.

I'm not a big Brad Pitt fan, but I thought he was really good...even though he looks nothing like Billy Beane. His behavior was ecentric and fit the descriptions in the book well.

I liked the kid who played Hatteberg too...some of the others matching up weren't even close, like Carlos Pena, David Justice haha.

No mentioning of the Bonderman draft...perhaps they didn't have permission for JB since he basically walked away from the game anyhow.

Of course there was a lot left out, but it was nice to see some other details worked in (like the daughter's song, Bill James making a small appearance).

Anyway...thoughts? I'd see it again, but there were some moments that were very slow.

BTW, the commentary at the very end, about the A's not being able to withstand their gimmics for long...was that Joe Morgan? If so, how fitting!

[Chief Rum]

I posted about this movie in the movie thread, but I will repost here...

Moneyball-- 8/10

And I might be underselling it. It's not an exciting movie or nothing, but it's an interesting watch. I think Brad Pitt did a good job with it, too, enough so that I eventually got over the fact that he's way too good looking to be Billy Beane.

It's not the kind of movie you lump with other well-liked baseball movies, like a Bull Durham or Field of Dreams. It's a different sort of movie. So not sure where to put it in among that group. I think those movies are more fun and/or emotional. Given its analytical subject matter, I think it's appropriate the Moneyball is abit heady and quieter, more introspective, although the script does a good job of humanizing the process Beane goes through in introducing sabremetric analysis to organizational baseball decision-making.

I also think it had an even bigger impact for me personally because I root for a team that was the antithesis of Beane's Moneyball A's teams, and that team in fact won the World Series in the year the film focuses on. So a bit of irony there.

I would recommend it for thinking man's baseball fans.

[cubboyroy1826]

Really liked the movie and thought Brad Pitt did a great job. For some reason when I was reading the book I had pictured Pitt as one of the guys that would be a good choice to play Beane. Of course I had not clue what Beane looked like back then. Loved Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe. I can only imagine the behind the scenes things that went on with the fight between Beane and Howe.

[Toddzilla]

Odd how history has exposed Moneyball (the strategy as it were, not the book/movie) as a basic failure, yet this movie still got made.

Having not seen it, is there a "come clean" in the movie that says the A's never won shit using moneyball?

[Mike Lowe]

The problem with Moneyball being a failure, which I completly disagree with, is that the other MLB teams have begun using the same strategies as well, thus putting Oakland back at it's original displacement.

I can't see how anyone could argue the statistical side of Sabremetrics...OBP is the single most important statistic in baseball, followed by slugging. You can have ERA, defense, AVG, HR's, RBI's (the most useless stat), and everything else. OBP, SLG, then perhaps some of the pitcher-controlled stats like K/BB/HR are what matters when it comes to scoring runs, and thus winning, and that has been documented as hard fact via Sabremetrics. It's non-disputable and covers decades of baseball. Even ideas such as the importance of "setting your lineup" has proven to be VAAAAASTLY overrated. Play your best players in any order and over the course of 162 games, it will basically look the same. If you have OOTP, try it for yourself

I suppose there is an argument on the scouting of players side of things, but like the movie mentioned, NO ONE has a crystal ball, scouts, Sabrematricians or other, to predict each and every player.

In my opinion, hard data will always outvalue some gut instinct. Sure some guys can suddenly make themselves into better ballplayers, but everytime you hear a story like that (not involving PED's), it seems the player mentions gaining a better understanding of the strikezone, etc. hence Moneyball approach.

I also found it interesting how the movie basically made up "Peter Brand" to represent guys like DePodesta, etc.

[Rizon]

Not a movie I would spend a single one of my goddamned pennies on.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Odd how history has exposed Moneyball (the strategy as it were, not the book/movie) as a basic failure, yet this movie still got made.

Is this remotely true? Did you read the book? Moneyball isn't about the A's. Moneyball is about thinking about baseball more intelligently and exploiting market inefficiencies. I would say that history has exposed Moneyball to be the new standard in thinking, not as a failure.

[Toddzilla]

Not bashing sabermetrics by a longshot, just pointing out that the A's never won using their strategy.

[Mike Lowe]

I hear ya Todd, I was always curious, after finishing the book, "I wonder what Billy is using TODAY?!" Either way, yeah things haven't been that hot with Oakland, and in a shitty division too.

I'm willing to bet, if he has some new idea, there won't be a book written about it anytime soon (Not that Moneyball was the informant...but it was to much of the public audience I'd say)

Just think if he had taken the Boston job, and they won 2 WS's are are a day way from yet another playoff birth.

We're honestly talking about a baseball revolution then!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Right, but that's not the point of Moneyball. Also, a key point raised in the book (haven't seen the movie) is that the playoffs are very small sample sizes and much more random. They could have won, easily, and Beane deserves credit for getting them that far.

102 wins

[Ksyrup]

It's amazing how many people don't understand what that book's about.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Odd how history has exposed Moneyball (the strategy as it were, not the book/movie) as a basic failure, yet this movie still got made.

Having not seen it, is there a "come clean" in the movie that says the A's never won shit using moneyball?

After using Moneyball, the A's went on a 5 year run where they won three division titles, two 2nd place finishes, and their worst season was 88-74. You could say they didn't win "anything" because they didn't win the World Series, but that's an incredibly silly argument and to answer your question is one that Beane "predicts" people will make. However, the movie also mentions that the Red Sox won the World Series two years later embracing Moneyball concepts.

Moneyball would only be a failure if the A's did worse than they would have using traditional metrics under the same payroll. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that, though.

[Ksyrup]

If anything, the As recent string of subpar seasons is a testament to (a) how well the specific measurements/market inefficiencies Beane identified worked, given the fact that nearly every franchise, poor and rich, adopted them shortly thereafter, and (b) how Beane has struggled to identify the next undervalued asset in the market, now that every franchise, poor and rich, employs a subset of people analyzing the market the same way he does.

It's not about OBP, other than that was the undervalued commodity in the market at the time. Fast forward to 4-5 years ago, and it was defense - as the 2008 Rays demonstrated (and the Mariners thought they could follow, although they forgot to employ anyone who could swing a bat).

[Toddzilla]

I guess I don't get the "Moneyball" meaning of success.

Win 60 games or 120 games. If you don't win the world series, I don't know how you consider it a success.

I've never heard anyone say they aspire to be 2nd best or almost make the championship.

[Ksyrup]

The real success is getting to the playoffs. From there, it's essentially a crapshoot whether you win 3 consecutive short series. There simply can't be one successful team every year, in every sport. I think that's a ridiculous, naive, and overly simplistic way to define and judge the job a front office does.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I guess I don't get the "Moneyball" meaning of success.

Win 60 games or 120 games. If you don't win the world series, I don't know how you consider it a success.

I've never heard anyone say they aspire to be 2nd best or almost make the championship.

Full disclosure: I've never read the book, nor do I have any understanding of what the concept of Moneyball is.

With that said, I would consider it a success if you take a team that had no chance of winning a championship and turning that around. Hell, people around Pittsburgh were going nuts earlier this year when we thought the Pirates had a chance of finishing above .500. If that had happened and we could tie it to one concept, we'd have considered that concept a huge success. Now, if you can take a concept and get a team to the playoffs with it? Even better. Playing for championships is better than not playing for championships. Personally, I don't think a season is not successful just because the ultimate goal wasn't reached.

Then again, I eat paste.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I guess I don't get the "Moneyball" meaning of success.

Win 60 games or 120 games. If you don't win the world series, I don't know how you consider it a success.

I've never heard anyone say they aspire to be 2nd best or almost make the championship.

I guess if Billy Beane fielded a team of little leaguers and they lost to the Yankees in a 7 game LCS, they would be considered a failure also.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Having not seen it, is there a "come clean" in the movie that says the A's never won shit using moneyball?

The movie ends with a line that says that Beane "is still trying to win the last game of the season." (i.e. the World Series)

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The real success is getting to the playoffs. From there, it's essentially a crapshoot whether you win 3 consecutive short series. There simply can't be one successful team every year, in every sport. I think that's a ridiculous, naive, and overly simplistic way to define and judge the job a front office does.

I'd go even further than that. Is there is some strategy Billy Beane could have pursued with a small-market payroll that would have been more successful? If not, I'd say Moneyball was a success. "Success" as a GM should be defined relatively, not absolutely. We should only really measure any given strategy against the realistic counterfactual scenarios.

Further, the As lack of recent success tells us nothing, because the number of realistic counterfactual scenarios has shrunk as baseball markets have become more efficient. At its core, Moneyball is not about sabermatrics--it's about market inefficiency.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I guess I don't get the "Moneyball" meaning of success.

Win 60 games or 120 games. If you don't win the world series, I don't know how you consider it a success.

I've never heard anyone say they aspire to be 2nd best or almost make the championship.

Let's say traditional strategy would've yielded 80 wins. You're basically arguing that no strategy, no matter how many wins over 80 it produces is a success unless it also delivers a World Series title. I'm sorry, but that's a pretty stupid argument. If you wanted to sound like Joe Morgan, well then congratulations.

[Ksyrup]

As far as the movie goes, I read the book back when it came out and truthfully, I'd probably go see the movie if I watched movies, but I don't so I won't. What I've seen of the previews in commercials and what-not aggravated me and brought back all the reasons why I don't like movies, so it's best I stay away from this one.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Odd how history has exposed Moneyball (the strategy as it were, not the book/movie) as a basic failure

I'd imagine the Red Sox winning their first World Series in 86 years using Moneyball techniques exposed the strategy as a massive success.

[Chief Rum]

FWIW, everyone knows I am not a huge proponent of sabermetrics or of the Moneyball strategy as the only strategy for success in baseball, but even I think it's silly to not note the system as a success. It has changed baseball, and the math, while maybe hard to understand or subject to the biases of those who design the formulae, is in and of itself indisputable.

[molson]

If we didn't have the Michael Lewis book and this name for what the A's tried to do, we would just look at the A's as a team that made a lot of good moves and went on a nice run over a couple of years. There's nothing groundbreaking about trying to find market inefficiencies and getting value for your dollar. Surely other teams have done this before. Ya, there's the advanced statistics, but Billy Beane didn't invent those either. My conclusion, Michael Lewis is a great writer, who gave a brand name to something that really didn't warrant a brand name, and sold a billion books and movie rights off of the idea. And that 2002 draft didn't turn out as well as the book seemed to predict it would (and there were also a bunch of star players drafted out of high school that A's ignored.)

[ISiddiqui]

Lewis's book, though, did accelerate, IMO, the acceptance of sabermetrics in Major League ballclubs. Though, I guess, the Red Sox winning a couple championships using sabermetrics (first one happened the year after Moneyball came out) would have done the same.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'd imagine the Red Sox winning their first World Series in 86 years using a $120 million dollar payroll exposed the strategy as a massive success.

fixed

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by molson

And that 2002 draft didn't turn out as well as the book seemed to predict it would (and there were also a bunch of star players drafted out of high school that A's ignored.)

Everyone misses star players in the draft. The A's drafted 3 MLB starting-caliber players in that draft (Swisher, Blanton, Teahan). That sounds pretty good to me.

By contrast, the Red Sox drafted one in that draft (Lester), the Yankees zero.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

fixed

Of course that's a big help. That's the entire fucking point, Beane didn't have that AND STILL had success.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

fixed

Do you realize you're pretty much arguing against your own point here?

[Rizon]

This thread makes me want to gouge out my eyes and skullfuck myself.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

I guess I don't get the "Moneyball" meaning of success.

Win 60 games or 120 games. If you don't win the world series, I don't know how you consider it a success.

I've never heard anyone say they aspire to be 2nd best or almost make the championship.

Really?...

Baseball is a business and although winning the World Series is the "ultimate goal" any strategy that makes money for the owners is a success. If the owner tells the GM that he has 40 Million and that GM is able to make a payroll of 40 Million to the playoffs (or even a contender to September) that is generally a success because it's probably made you money on your investment. Of course there are a lot of other factors buying low selling high, getting fans in the seats, etc. But I don't really think winning it all is the main goal of every team out there...

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mike Lowe

The problem with Moneyball being a failure, which I completly disagree with, is that the other MLB teams have begun using the same strategies as well, thus putting Oakland back at it's original displacement.

Has Beane (or anyone, really) identified what he feels are market inefficiencies these days? I know the Red Sox thought it was defense for a while, but they pulled the plug on that pretty quickly.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Mike Lowe

I also found it interesting how the movie basically made up "Peter Brand" to represent guys like DePodesta, etc.

DePodesta was originally supposed to be in it. They even had a guy cast to play his role, but he decided he didn't want his name or likeness used, so they had to come up with a fictional character to represent him.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Rizon

This thread makes me want to gouge out my eyes and skullfuck myself.

Why are you in here then?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Has Beane (or anyone, really) identified what he feels are market inefficiencies these days? I know the Red Sox thought it was defense for a while, but they pulled the plug on that pretty quickly.

Beane did try defense himself. In 2010, the A's led the league in defensive efficiency. It was only good enough for an 81-81 record, but that's their best record out of the last five years.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by molson

Has Beane (or anyone, really) identified what he feels are market inefficiencies these days? I know the Red Sox thought it was defense for a while, but they pulled the plug on that pretty quickly.

TB and Detroit both used defense to radically and quickly improve their teams and get to the playoffs - and World Series. But they didn't win the World Series, so they fired everyone.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Rizon

This thread makes me want to gouge out my eyes and skullfuck myself.

On the contrary, I think this thread is destined for greatness. It is approaching "Blackjack" levels of awesomeness.

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Why are you in here then?

Masochism.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Rizon

Masochism.

Shit I forgot you are an A's fan... right?

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Shit I forgot you are an A's fan... right?

Exactly!!!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The real success is getting to the playoffs. From there, it's essentially a crapshoot whether you win 3 consecutive short series. There simply can't be one successful team every year, in every sport. I think that's a ridiculous, naive, and overly simplistic way to define and judge the job a front office does.

This is true. The worst team in the entire league will win a 5-game series against the best team like 33% of the time. The playoffs are largely a coin flip and getting there is the most important part.

Some of the stuff is overblown, but I think it's a nice story of finding inefficiency in a market. Of taking advantage of others who weren't as smart. Baseball is largely about buying wins and he found a way to do it on the cheap.

[stevew]

Enjoyable movie.

[Ksyrup]

http://

[larrymcg421]

Ha! I was just about to post that. Hilarious spoof.

[stevew]

Restricted content? Bullshit.

[molson]

This made me laugh....This guy is really angry.

An Open Letter to Billy Beane’s Fake Daughter in Moneyball | Pop Culture Has AIDSv

While watching Moneyball, I wanted to slit your throat and watch you bleed out all over the carpet.

On one hand, it’s not really your fault. I’m blaming you more for what you represent than what you are. You are Hollywood’s worst instincts. You are an appeal to our lowest common denominator. You are the dumbing down of every movie, TV show, album and book so that the maximum amount of people will enjoy it, even if that means nobody will enjoy it a lot. You are America’s decline. You are pop culture’s AIDS.

There is no need — none — for you to exist in the world of this film. You are ostensibly there to humanize the character of your father, to make him likable for the ladiez. But the ladiez were going to like him anyway because he is Brad Pitt. So when he drives around listening to your retarded song and gets teary-eyed, that helps nothing while undermining the character, the narrative and the entire goddamn movie.

Moneyball isn’t a bad movie — the creative team did a better job than I thought they would do, given the constraints of the story (such as it is). Yes, there are flaws (the demonization of Art Howe, the simplification and misrepresentation of the complicated ideas in the book, the absence of the draft scene), but it’s watchable and entertaining enough.. Pitt is indeed likable as the cocky Beane, the baseball action is filmed well, and Jonah Hill is at his best as Fake Paul DiPodesta. But oh, how you ruined things. Unfortunately, you are my lasting memory from this movie and you taint and tarnish all the good stuff.

Your very existence is flawed. I know that Beane has daughters in real life, but you should not exist in this movie. You are not a character, you are a device. A cynical, focus-grouped device to make us feel in a movie about objectivity and the quest for knowledge. You are anathema to the ideas in Michael Lewis’s book and most of the ideas in the film. You are rotten to your non-existent core.

Beyond that, you’re fucking annoying. You’re supposed to cute and precocious, but you’re cloying and unrealistic. You are a hateful little girl, and I hate you. Most of all, I hate your fucking song. I hate your guitar, I hate the scene where Beane takes you guitar shopping, and I hate that your song becomes a recurring motif in the fucking movie.

Let’s take a closer look at your vile little ditty, which sounds directly ripped off from that annoying song in Juno and then dipped in a vat of cavity-causing syrup:

I’m just a little bit caught in the middle

What are you caught in the middle of, exactly? Your divorced parents? (And why is Robin Wright in this movie? She’s only in one scene!) Old and new ideas of how to evaluate baseball talent? OPB and batting average? Gym class and recess?

Life is a maze and love is a riddle

You’re five years old. Shut the fuck up.

I don’t know where to go, can’t do it alone

Go to school. Then go to bed. Repeat.

I’ve tried and I don’t know why

You’ve tried to do it alone at the age of five? Wow, very brave of you. So you’re not married yet? Very brave to be a strong, single woman in this complicated, demanding world. Kudos.

Slow it down, make it stop or else my heart is going to pop

A) What? B) You’re five. C) Your stupid fucking lyrics don’t make any sense.

Cause it’s too much, yeah it’s a lot to be something I’m not

SO MUCH PRESSURE ON YOU! Your life is so hard!

I’m a fool out of love cause I just can’t get enough

Slut.

I’m just a little girl lost in the moment

You know what I like the most about you? You just get it, you know? You know what’s important in life and you really have your shit figured out. You don’t get bogged down in all the day-to-day bullshit. You have your priorities straight. You’ve very zen.

I’m so scared but I don’t show it

Again….so brave. So adorably brave. Also, “moment” doesn’t rhyme with “show it.”

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by molson

This made me laugh....This guy is really angry.

An Open Letter to Billy Beane’s Fake Daughter in Moneyball | Pop Culture Has AIDSv

There is no need — none — for you to exist in the world of this film. You are ostensibly there to humanize the character of your father, to make him likable for the ladiez. But the ladiez were going to like him anyway because he is Brad Pitt. So when he drives around listening to your retarded song and gets teary-eyed, that helps nothing while undermining the character, the narrative and the entire goddamn movie.

That’s pretty funny, because I walked out of the theater thinking how well the character was used in telling the story. About 10 minutes of screen time to justify the biggest decision made by the main character, and this guy thought she shouldn’t have existed at all?

Though it would be great to have the entire movie without the family aspect; final scene of Beane sitting in Oakland’s shitty clubhouse and deciding to turn down $12.5m from Boston, roll credits. Lights come up on an audience full of people saying what the fuck? Yeah, dude, you’re right that would have been much better.

[Hammer755]

Glad I'm not the only one who wanted a draft scene!