What movies have you seen recently?

[CC]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Margin Call was excellent. Another one of those movies (along with Warrior, 50/50, and Drive) that I would have rather seen nominated for best picture, instead of Incredibly Close and War Horse.

[Buckeyes_Doc]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Margin Call was excellent. Another one of those movies (along with Warrior, 50/50, and Drive) that I would have rather seen nominated for best picture, instead of Incredibly Close and War Horse.

I agree. I loved that the film didn't have any fluff at all.

[untrugby]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

just saw moneyball is was okay, dont see what the big fuss was about. It was the equivalent of if someone made a football movie about the wildcat offense.

[Buckeyes_Doc]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

just saw moneyball is was okay, dont see what the big fuss was about. It was the equivalent of if someone made a football movie about the wildcat offense.

I don't understand the comparison.

[Bellsprout]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

I don't understand the comparison.

Neither do I. What Beane did changed the way executives and decision makers thought about the game. It truly revolutionized baseball.

The wildcat was a gimmick offensive formation that didn't do anything really to change the NFL or the way people thought about it.

[BleacherBum2310]

I thought Moneyball was quite good. One of my favorites of this year personally.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk

[untrugby]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

the wildcat was a concept that helped the dolphins go from 1-15 to 11-5 but by the next year everyone had a wildcat package and it became worthless. the moneyball helped a low payroll team get to the playoffs but they got beat by another low payroll team that played ball the old way base stealing and defense. then every team tried to use moneyball and the concept doesnt work anymore.

[Beantown]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

the wildcat was a concept that helped the dolphins go from 1-15 to 11-5 but by the next year everyone had a wildcat package and it became worthless. the moneyball helped a low payroll team get to the playoffs but they got beat by another low payroll team that played ball the old way base stealing and defense. then every team tried to use moneyball and the concept doesnt work anymore.

The Moneyball concept inspired a certain young General Manager who helped bring two World Series titles to a city that hadn't seen one in a very, very, very long time.

[Knight165]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

The Moneyball concept inspired a certain young General Manager who helped bring two World Series titles to a city that hadn't seen one in a very, very, very long time.

I'm not taking sides...
But while the concept of moneyball might have inspired him....did he really use that to build the Sox?

M.K.
Knight165

[Beantown]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

I'm not taking sides...
But while the concept of moneyball might have inspired him....did he really use that to build the Sox?

He would say he did, although a slightly different version since he had money to play around with as well, but Theo turned around the Sox with a focus on the minor leagues (guys like Pedroia, Youk, Ellsbury, Lester, Clay, etc.).

He didn't use Beane's Moneyball, no, but it was definitely his own take on it.

My main point - it's completely different than the Wildcat.

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

I'm not taking sides...
But while the concept of moneyball might have inspired him....did he really use that to build the Sox?

M.K.
Knight165

Kevin Youkilis, J.D. Drew, David Ortiz, Bill Mueller, and Brian Daubauch would seem to think so.

But yes, sabermetrics and expanded stats have found their way into baseball. It's not just for the die-hard fans, either. On live television, they have made people privy to certain splits, hot/cold zones, spray charts, and OPS. It's no longer just about the triple crown numbers, and aside from the high payroll from the BoSox, they have found valuable ways to measure players that the players themselves didn't realize when they signed their first contracts with Boston. Likewise, they scrapped players who no longer fit the bill.

By the way, the movie isn't completely correct about some of the things it seemed to shove down our throats. Beane wouldn't put somebody who can't play first base for a few OBP points more and a few million dollars less. Also, he has some want for certain pitcher/hitter matchups, base stealing, and a veteran power hitter. You have to remember that Oakland also had The Big Three, Tejada and Chavez on that team.

This route opened the eyes for other organizations to follow suit, saying there is more depth they can add to their ball clubs, and certain formulas that just aren't working, to help them buy more wins. They aren't the only team to be inspiring obviously (and I think the 2006 A's would have been a good Moneyball story as well), and you can make an argument that the 2010 Giants inspired teams like Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Texas and to bolster their pitching rotations.

It was not a coincidence that Boston's 2003, 2004, and 2007 seasons were as extravagant as they were, because they did what it took to "win their last game." Obviously, Grady Little didn't fit into the picture with that idea after the 2003 ALCS loss, so they changed it up, went back, and won their last game in the following season. More teams began to do the same.

If anything else, at least people won't laugh if you see a team rebuild in this way anymore. Now it's actually a viable option. This movie helped express that. Just remember the metaphor at the end.

[Knight165]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

My point was...he didn't use moneyball....
He used....MONEYball.
(I shied from using this font...MONEY as that one is reserved for the Yankees.

M.K.
Knight165

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

My point was...he didn't use moneyball....
He used....MONEYball.
(I shied from using this font...MONEY as that one is reserved for the Yankees.

M.K.
Knight165

I understand that other teams have more money, but they found a way to spend and measure what they have better. There is no doubt that the A's couldn't have brought together a team where they acquire Ortiz with guys like Ramirez, Martinez, Garciaparra, etc... but you have to remember that his last year in Minnesota he was at .272/20/75, and the following year he was paid $1.25 mil, and aside from his ~.290/30/100 season, he also displayed a .369 OBP. Minnesota didn't seem to care too much about what he could do with his patience at the plate, much less his growing potential to become such a massive threat that he would be walked even more than that.

However, it wasn't because of their salary that they were able to acquire him; it's only because of their salary that they can keep him. They bought into the idea, took a small-risk gamble with him, and locked him up. The other players who I mentioned were either acquired within those next two years (or let go, like Daubach), and the right formula came through to get them their first World Series victory in over 85 years. More teams followed suit, and now baseball has spawned a new breed of competition and new type of player. Players are evaluated differently today, and you can see where the change has come (outside of the new steroid policy, which Ortiz was also unfortunately a culprit of).


To stay on topic a little bit...

Catfish

For a film which had an interesting advertising campaign, I wanted to see it no matter what. Hearing that it was a real documentary allowed me to eliminate some things that it wouldn't be, but it was an intense, emotionally-driven story for most of the film. I actually really enjoyed it, and although some people will be disappointed watching it unravel, I personally think it was very riveting. It's good to see that the directors ended up getting some shots at doing other things (like they directed Paranormal Activity 3), and I think that it's a documentary worth some discussion in the long term as well.

[Knight165]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

I understand that other teams have more money, but they found a way to spend and measure what they have better. There is no doubt that the A's couldn't have brought together a team where they acquire Ortiz with guys like Ramirez, Martinez, Garciaparra, etc... but you have to remember that his last year in Minnesota he was at .272/20/75, and the following year he was paid $1.25 mil, and aside from his ~.290/30/100 season, he also displayed a .369 OBP. Minnesota didn't seem to care too much about what he could do with his patience at the plate, much less his growing potential to become such a massive threat that he would be walked even more than that.

However, it wasn't because of their salary that they were able to acquire him; it's only because of their salary that they can keep him. They bought into the idea, took a small-risk gamble with him, and locked him up. The other players who I mentioned were either acquired within those next two years (or let go, like Daubach), and the right formula came through to get them their first World Series victory in over 85 years. More teams followed suit, and now baseball has spawned a new breed of competition and new type of player. Players are evaluated differently today, and you can see where the change has come (outside of the new steroid policy, which Ortiz was also unfortunately a culprit of).

Blzer;

No offense....I know you like to "hear" yourself talk in your posts....but you needn't explain the concept of moneyball to me...I get it.
But while you talk of the "brilliant"(read lucky!...but still...he did have the wisdom to give him a shot...) signing and explosion of David Ortiz.....are you trying to tell me that it was moneyball's radical ideas that brought J.D. Drew to the Sox and not the hope that his 2004 season would be repeated? Not buying it.
But even that is not what I was saying...
My point is....it's easier to play "moneyball" when you have some serious bucks to back it up!

M.K.
Knight165

[Blzer]

Re: What movies have you seen recently?

Blzer;

No offense....I know you like to "hear" yourself talk in your posts..

Almost stopped reading due to the inaccuracy of this comment (unless you meant I post as if I'm actually speaking to you in a face-to-face conversation), but go on...

..but you needn't explain the concept of moneyball to me...I get it.
But while you talk of the "brilliant"(read lucky!...but still...he did have the wisdom to give him a shot...) signing and explosion of David Ortiz.....are you trying to tell me that it was moneyball's radical ideas that brought J.D. Drew to the Sox and not the hope that his 2004 season would be repeated? Not buying it.
But even that is not what I was saying...
My point is....it's easier to play "moneyball" when you have some serious bucks to back it up!

M.K.
Knight165

This is undoubtedly true. The only thing you have to remember is that Boston wanted to bring Beane over to do the exact thing that Epstein did. They wanted Beane to play Moneyball with a higher payroll and a better shot at making the World Series, and they were going to offer the highest GM salary to do it as well. That's how much they bought into the philosophy. In a way, you could say they were playing Moneyball with Beane (paying him his true worth, whether other teams saw it or not). Oakland will have a tough chance to ever win again because other teams are playing the same game that Beane is with the same philosophy, but with an insurmountable budget.

Anyway... Catfish... good movie.