Moneyball

[Lou E Ville]

I really liked this movie the first time I watched it. Then as I'm watching it again and again on cable some things jump out at you.

 

1. Hudson, Mulder and Zito are never mentioned (they had a much bigger role in getting the A's to the playoffs than Hatteberg and Crawford), as did Chavez, Tejeda, etc. The movie makes it look like the A's had no great players left and a bunch of guys who take walks replaced them.

 

2. The Angels are never mentioned, and they just so happened to win the World Series that year doing the opposite of many of the things Beane (Brad Pitt) says in the movie....never bunt, never steal, etc.

 

3. They make the 20th game of that streak seem like the seventh game of the World Series. Didn't the Angels go 17-3 during that same stretch? And we won the seventh game of the World Series.

 

I apologize if this has been discussed on this board before.

[yk9001]

Stoneman didn't have the rugged good looks upon to base a movie.

[Troll Daddy]

Moneyball is a false stat

[AngelsAndRamsFan]

I didn't like the movie for a lot of the reasons you mentioned. I don't know how anyone that isn't a fan of baseball would like the movie or care about any of the people in the movie. 

[Mudville]

The Yankees, the antithesis of Moneyball, led the league in walks.

[Troll Daddy]

The Yankees, the antithesis of Moneyball, led the league in walks.

 

You sure it's not Boston?

[AngelsAndRamsFan]

You sure it's not Boston?

I hate to say it, but you're right. The Yankees are way down on the list of walks.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/stats/teamsort/MLB/T-RX/regularseason/2013?&_1:col_1=3

[Mudville]

In 2002 the Red Sox were 5th in walks. The Angels were one notch above the A's in on base percentage.

[YouthofToday]

Moneyball does not = walks.

Moneyball is the process to identify market inefficiencies and exploit them

[Lou E Ville]

Whatever it is, it brought Hatteberg and Crawford to the team, and watching the movie you'd think their contribution was what put the A's back in the playoffs. The fact that the A's had the best top three starters in baseball was what put the A's back in the playoffs. And Tejada had a killer year, too, if I'm not mistaken.  

 

Not to belittle Bill James. I actually believe in a lot of his concepts (such as the fallacy that the best teams win more close games). I just think the movie made it look like scouts are useless compared to computer printouts.

[ten ocho recon scout]

As already mentioned, my biggest complaint is how the pitching was never mentioned, nor were tejada dye and chavez really.

[Angel Oracle]

Crawford?    Are you actually referring to submariner delivery pitcher Bradford?

[Tyler]

Awful movie, which is a shame because the book was pretty good.

[markb]

Neither the Angels nor the big 3 are mentioned because they don't matter to the essence of the story.  The focus is on how Beane/DePodesta saw value in what most other GMs considered the junk heap through the use of sabermetrics.  It's approached from both angles with some younger guys who'd never previously amounted to much (Hatteberg, Bradford) and an older guy who was no longer wanted (David Justice).  

 

1. Billy Beane: You think you're special?
2. David Justice: Well, you are paying me 8 million dollars a year, so yeah.
3. Billy Beane: No, no. We aren't paying you. The Yankees are paying half of your salary. The Yankees are paying you 4 million dollars to play against them.

[stormngt]

Whatever it is, it brought Hatteberg and Crawford to the team, and watching the movie you'd think their contribution was what put the A's back in the playoffs. The fact that the A's had the best top three starters in baseball was what put the A's back in the playoffs. And Tejada had a killer year, too, if I'm not mistaken.  

 

Not to belittle Bill James. I actually believe in a lot of his concepts (such as the fallacy that the best teams win more close games). I just think the movie made it look like scouts are useless compared to computer printouts.

Best three starters plus the league MVP in Tejada

[ukyah]

it's a good movie. telling a story requires focus, otherwise the movie lacks direction. those criticisms are fair for reality, but moneyball, the book and movie, aren't about reality. they're not even about baseball. they're about challenging established thought or risking personal credibility and comfort by following something you think might be true.

 

billy beane knew that something was wrong with the way baseball scouted and valued amateur players because he was a living embodiment of that failure. it's why he sought out james and depodesta, because he was looking for answers as to why he failed as a professional. i, personally, believe that the same thing that kept billy from succeeding as a professional player is the very thing that keeps him from being able to watch the games on the field.

[Lou E Ville]

You're right, and that's why I enjoyed it the first time because like Field of Dreams, I wasn't thinking about the technical aspects but moreso the story of going against established conventional wisdom.

 

I just realized I had been duped the second time around.

[Bashbrothers]

The movie is really good.  It's a retelling of the past, but the movie, unlike the book, is more about how the underdog overcomes. 

[Lhalo]

Whenever I see that movie I think of "Don't forget Mark Mulder!" from the Jim Rome show back in the day on 690.

[Sciosciapath]

Not this moneyball crap again.

[YouthofToday]

Paying a 32-year-old $240 million to play baseball through their age 41 season is not exactly exploiting a market inefficiency.

[Inside Pitch]

Best three starters plus the league MVP in Tejada

 

And a whole lot of PEDs....    Lets not pretend all those guys who found the fountain of youth weren't partaking of chemical assistance..

[Bashbrothers]

And a whole lot of PEDs....    Lets not pretend all those guys who found the fountain of youth weren't partaking of chemical assistance..

http://steroids-and-baseball.com/actual-effects.shtml

 

 

The guy who has made this thesis has worked as a statistician and a consultant for baseball teams for over thirty years.  Every other statistician who has done thorough and brilliant work on PED's have found no positive effect or negative. 

[yk9001]

http://steroids-and-baseball.com/actual-effects.shtml

 

 

The guy who has made this thesis has worked as a statistician and a consultant for baseball teams for over thirty years.  Every other statistician who has done thorough and brilliant work on PED's have found no positive effect or negative. 

 

Listen, there are a lot of butthurt angel fans on this thread, who sound ridiculous, complaining about a movie b/c it doesn't give the Angels "their due".

 

 

That said, your linked article is asinine.  Ridiculous.

 

The Bonds part:

After the move to the new park-of-many-names (originally PacBell), his PF generally--just as one might expect in a player in his late 30s--began a zig-zag but obvious decline. The single exception, of course, was the famous one-shot spike in 2001, when he shattered the home-run record. The extent to which that year was a freak, even for Bonds, is glaringly obvious from the graph above.

 

Bonds'"obvious decline" in late thirties is still so far every mortal man, and what Bonds did during the so-called "prime years" of his career. 

 

Don't insult anyone's intelligence here w that article.

[katie]

Holy crap it said "based on a true story", get over it people.