Trailer here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=player_embedded
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Looks like a good one. Of course, anything with Brad Pitt can't be all bad. 
I really enjoyed this book. Wonder if the movie will be A's good? Micheal Lewis also wrote "The Blind Side" and that turned into a pretty good movie.
CaBB- "The Blind Side" also has a very emotional and touching side to it, and that is why it did so well (Sandra Bullock wasn't too bad either). I honestly don't see Moneyball being any good as a movie. It's an informational book that certainly documented a monumental change in baseball, but it isn't Hollywood at all.
We'll see...hopefully I'm proved wrong because I'd like it to be enjoyable and to help the game like the book did.
We'll see...hopefully I'm proved wrong because I'd like it to be enjoyable and to help the game like the book did.
Moneyball is an overhyped sabermetric gimmick which doesn't stand the test of time, no better or worse than old school scouting by the seat of the pants.
For instance the A's traded to the Rockies Huston Street, Carlos Gonzales and Greg Smith for Matt Holliday......how did that one work out for them?
Who has the most saves in the National League? Street. Holliday had his worst year in Oakland and they traded him and he never hit below .312 again.
St Louis is glad Billy believes in moneyball. Who did Billy get for Holliday? Brett Wallace, already dealt to the Astros and only hit 4 homers in 233 AB's thus far in Round Rock, Clayton Mortensen, already dealt to the Rockies and seems to be getting his career off the ground in the rotation, and Shane Peterson AA Texas League, 7 homers in 221 AB's.
You can make any book say what you want. I bought it, I read it and then I gave it away. The movie will be a yawner also.
For instance the A's traded to the Rockies Huston Street, Carlos Gonzales and Greg Smith for Matt Holliday......how did that one work out for them?
Who has the most saves in the National League? Street. Holliday had his worst year in Oakland and they traded him and he never hit below .312 again.
St Louis is glad Billy believes in moneyball. Who did Billy get for Holliday? Brett Wallace, already dealt to the Astros and only hit 4 homers in 233 AB's thus far in Round Rock, Clayton Mortensen, already dealt to the Rockies and seems to be getting his career off the ground in the rotation, and Shane Peterson AA Texas League, 7 homers in 221 AB's.
You can make any book say what you want. I bought it, I read it and then I gave it away. The movie will be a yawner also.
Filmed partly at USC. Belive our last coach plays a small role in it.Also a small appearance by one of our graduated players, unless that was cut from scenes as often happens.Excited to see it.
C'mon, it's a baseball movie. It's got to be good.
Be nice with your responses... I'm an Indians fan and still bitter that Uecker didn't win an Oscar.
Be nice with your responses... I'm an Indians fan and still bitter that Uecker didn't win an Oscar.
Sure, I guess if you change the outcome of the A's post season play and maybe throw in a world series appearance, it could be a compelling nice ending comedic drama. But then, that would be a movie based on a book about the Atlanta Braves and their divisional titles and their old school reliance on recruiting of the best athletes, developing them and focusing on make-up over cold statistical actuaries.
The theory is akin to short selling stocks only the broker you bought it from doesn't realize how much it's worth. The movie should end with the great contributions that were made toward the fantasy baseball industry but I'm betting on a walk off walk!
The theory is akin to short selling stocks only the broker you bought it from doesn't realize how much it's worth. The movie should end with the great contributions that were made toward the fantasy baseball industry but I'm betting on a walk off walk!
I'm not sure how it will "transfer" to the big screen. A "Super-star" lead man probably won't hurt it's chances!
I liked the book. I think his style, now copied by many (Epstein/Red Sox) has it's place as does the traditional opinion of an experienced scouting department. A blend of the two approaches depending upon how much you have to spend, what you need, what the Owners philosophy is and how well you develope players would all play into the approach you might take as an organization.
I liked the book. I think his style, now copied by many (Epstein/Red Sox) has it's place as does the traditional opinion of an experienced scouting department. A blend of the two approaches depending upon how much you have to spend, what you need, what the Owners philosophy is and how well you develope players would all play into the approach you might take as an organization.
quote:Originally posted by cabbagedad:
C'mon, it's a baseball movie. It's got to be good.
Beats the heck out of watching kids fly around on brooms, or Arnold yelling...L O O K...O U U T...G E T ... D O U W N...
Gee Pa Dino- don't hold back tell what you really think 
. Lewis writes for entertainment and brings subjects to the general public that are unfamiliar to them. From that stand point, for non-baseball people this book was enjoyable. For a baseball purist it won't go down as the best baseball book ever written. The movie, made by Hollywood, will also seek to entertain more than really inform.
Probably not one you'll bother seeing.
. Lewis writes for entertainment and brings subjects to the general public that are unfamiliar to them. From that stand point, for non-baseball people this book was enjoyable. For a baseball purist it won't go down as the best baseball book ever written. The movie, made by Hollywood, will also seek to entertain more than really inform. Probably not one you'll bother seeing.
I think a lot of people misunderstand the message of the book MoneyBall including many members of the media who have written about it. The book is not about loading up on On Base Percentage guys that are not good baseball players from a scouting perspective. The book is not about drafting according to the "new" statistics and ignoring traditional scouting. The book's true meaning was the way some teams have recognized ways to exploit market inefficiencies such as the way OBP was overlooked at the time. The market inefficiencies have moved to other things now and Billy Beane has not necessarily been the leader in finding them, as he was at the time. The new models in fielding statistics, and area hitting tendencies are examples of things the Moneyball teams are taking very seriously. I feel the Boston Red Sox are the leaders in the philosophy now. Certain teams are recognizing the inefficiencies of drafting high school pitchers. There are many other inefficiencies that the top teams following this path are only just learning about.
quote:Originally posted by Three Bagger:
I think a lot of people misunderstand the message of the book MoneyBall including many members of the media who have written about it. The book is not about loading up on On Base Percentage guys that are not good baseball players from a scouting perspective. The book is not about drafting according to the "new" statistics and ignoring traditional scouting. The book's true meaning was the way some teams have recognized ways to exploit market inefficiencies such as the way OBP was overlooked at the time. The market inefficiencies have moved to other things now and Billy Beane has not necessarily been the leader in finding them, as he was at the time. The new models in fielding statistics, and area hitting tendencies are examples of things the Moneyball teams are taking very seriously. I feel the Boston Red Sox are the leaders in the philosophy now. Certain teams are recognizing the inefficiencies of drafting high school pitchers. There are many other inefficiencies that the top teams following this path are only just learning about.
This is what I was trying to say but didn't!
I agree, well spoken tres-bagger.
quote:The market inefficiencies have moved to other things now and Billy Beane has not necessarily been the leader in finding them, as he was at the time.
Exactly!
Billy Beane figured out that the market for baseball players overpriced defense and underpriced OB% compared to their actual value to run production.
In financial parlance, he arbitraged these inefficiencies to extract wealth in the form of more runs created.
Anyone who has dealt with arbitrage situations knows that arbitrage conditions are not permanent - the very act of taking advantage of them drives them away, as the relative prices are brought back to where there are no longer large mispricings to be exploited.
Rob I am not sure what you said. But I will go with it for a couple of reasons. #1 Because I know your a smart guy and I like you. #2 You sound like you know what your talking about so you must know what your talking about.
Coach May- Think of it this way...lets say a company sells apples and oranges. They determine that selling both apples and oranges is where they are most profitable, and they sell the same amount of apples as they do oranges. Now lets also say that another company determines that the market desires bananas and grapes as well. However, bananas and grapes alone would not be the most profitable combination of goods. The second company figures out a way to average out the amount of all four fruits...apples, oranges, bananas and grapes in order to form the most desired product by the market.
In terms of the discussion, the "second company" in the example I provided is Billy Beane and the A's. The apples and oranges are home runs and RBIs, and OB% and Slugging% are bananas and grapes. The right combination of all the "fruits", or categories of production in baseball, will create a winning team.
Obviously it's been nine years since the 2002 draft that was highlighted in the book. Rob's analysis provides another economic theory, which in layman's terms basically says that every product has a maximum peak of desire. In other words, the "phenomenon" that was the drafting philosophy of Moneyball isn't really a phenomenon anymore. Other teams have adapted that format, and modified it to various levels of success. The maximization aspect that was highlighted in the book does not exist anymore because the product of Moneyball already reached that peak point. The successes of GMs and organizations today that still follow the Moneyball format are, as I said, modified formats of the past system.
It's actually fairly easy to understand, just somewhat difficult to comprehend in an economist's terminology (I'm studying business in school so I am someone who actually does...at least sometimes...understand these things) and the condensed form of description it's put in. Moneyball was an extremely successful revelation that shaped the game in more ways than most people realize.
I still, however, don't think it'll do well in Hollywood. Unless they completely change the premise of the story and add some flashiness into the plot, it will be a boring flick for the majority of people who 1. aren't baseball fans and 2. aren't economists.
In terms of the discussion, the "second company" in the example I provided is Billy Beane and the A's. The apples and oranges are home runs and RBIs, and OB% and Slugging% are bananas and grapes. The right combination of all the "fruits", or categories of production in baseball, will create a winning team.
Obviously it's been nine years since the 2002 draft that was highlighted in the book. Rob's analysis provides another economic theory, which in layman's terms basically says that every product has a maximum peak of desire. In other words, the "phenomenon" that was the drafting philosophy of Moneyball isn't really a phenomenon anymore. Other teams have adapted that format, and modified it to various levels of success. The maximization aspect that was highlighted in the book does not exist anymore because the product of Moneyball already reached that peak point. The successes of GMs and organizations today that still follow the Moneyball format are, as I said, modified formats of the past system.
It's actually fairly easy to understand, just somewhat difficult to comprehend in an economist's terminology (I'm studying business in school so I am someone who actually does...at least sometimes...understand these things) and the condensed form of description it's put in. Moneyball was an extremely successful revelation that shaped the game in more ways than most people realize.
I still, however, don't think it'll do well in Hollywood. Unless they completely change the premise of the story and add some flashiness into the plot, it will be a boring flick for the majority of people who 1. aren't baseball fans and 2. aren't economists.
I, too find it hard to believe they'll be able to make this movie interesting to anyone but hard core baseball fans, but I hope they surprise me.
The whole Moneyball premise fascinates me as anyone can see the total (I'm going to use the word one more time) inefficiency of the draft as well as the international free agency market. Gazillions of dollars are wasted on "talents" that are total flops or not worth near what they are signed for such as the Japanese pitcher the Yankees threw 20 or 30 million away on (Ishikawa?), Matsuzaka of Boston, Jose Contreras(32 million to sign) Matt Bush, the first round #1 draft choice of San Diego several years ago, etc. Yet other teams will not devote the extra two to five million it would take to sign all their draft choices even when they've made good picks with due diligence. Learning how to combat your own deficiencies in this and to exploit other teams gross mistakes in this area can be worth tens of millions of dollars. You could go on and on and its amazing so many smart people are not able to figure this stuff out.
The whole Moneyball premise fascinates me as anyone can see the total (I'm going to use the word one more time) inefficiency of the draft as well as the international free agency market. Gazillions of dollars are wasted on "talents" that are total flops or not worth near what they are signed for such as the Japanese pitcher the Yankees threw 20 or 30 million away on (Ishikawa?), Matsuzaka of Boston, Jose Contreras(32 million to sign) Matt Bush, the first round #1 draft choice of San Diego several years ago, etc. Yet other teams will not devote the extra two to five million it would take to sign all their draft choices even when they've made good picks with due diligence. Learning how to combat your own deficiencies in this and to exploit other teams gross mistakes in this area can be worth tens of millions of dollars. You could go on and on and its amazing so many smart people are not able to figure this stuff out.
quote:To borrow from Coach May
J H and Rob, I am not sure what you said. But I will go with it for a couple of reasons. #1 Because I know your smart guys and I like you both. #2 You sound like you know what your talking about so you must know what you're talking about.
Coach May I hope you don't mind me borrowing your post but I think you and I might be in the same boat. I've never read the book mainly due to the fact I'm afraid it's going to read the way J H and Rob were just writing.
No idea how this will translate to the big screen but maybe Michael Bay has an uncredited role where he gets to blow up some stadiums or something. I'm going to watch it because it's baseball related and hold out judgement until then.
I read and enjoyed the book... It's an easy read, you don't feel like you are reading an Econ text.
I will watch it but I'm real bad about watching baseball movies and getting all hung up on crummy editing... The guy hits a humpback liner to right and the next shot is the ball going over the wall in left. AHHHH....
I will watch it but I'm real bad about watching baseball movies and getting all hung up on crummy editing... The guy hits a humpback liner to right and the next shot is the ball going over the wall in left. AHHHH....
Prime9,
Who are these teams.....For example, the Orioles took Dylan Bundy, a HS RHP 4th overall. The Diamondbacks took Treavor Bauer, RHP UCLA 3rd overall but then turned around and selected Archie Bradley, HS RHP 7th overall passing on Jungmann of Texas, Bradley of Georgia Tech and Reed of Stanford to name a few.
Kansas City, took Starling a HS OF, 5th overall. The Tribe took Lindor HS SS, 8th overall, Cubs took Baez HS SS 9th overall. Mets took Nimmo HS OF 13th overall. The Fish took Fernandez, HS RHP 14th overall. Toronto took Beede, HS RHP 21st overall. The Rays took Guerrieri, HS RHP, 24th overall. Padres took Ross, HS RHP 25th overall. Red Sox took Swihart, HS C, 26th overall. Reds took Stephenson HS RHP, 27th overall. That's fully 1/3 of the entire first 30 picks going to HS players with presumably less of a statistical track record than college players. You mean to tell me that there are not 10 better players in the college ranks than these 10 HS players?
Who did the Athletics pick? Sonny Gray, 18th overall - Vanderbilt - and his most recent performance against North Carolina was "forgettable".
I don't see the innovation nor the "something new under the sun" claims of the moneyballers. I see statistics highlighted to justify making decisions that you don't feel comfortable defending on the merits of knowing the game and how to field a competitive team.
How does Minnesota keep competing with their payroll? They draft athletes, teach them fundamental baseball and make sure they do it the Twins way. Or you can do it the Boston or New York way and try to develop players but always have the ching to throw at the can't miss replacement player with a proven record.
You can't define a human athlete in terms of numbers only. There are too many variables both on the field and off the field that define the person. To do so is to settle for something less.
quote:The new models in fielding statistics, and area hitting tendencies are examples of things the Moneyball teams are taking very seriously. I feel the Boston Red Sox are the leaders in the philosophy now. Certain teams are recognizing the inefficiencies of drafting high school pitchers.
Who are these teams.....For example, the Orioles took Dylan Bundy, a HS RHP 4th overall. The Diamondbacks took Treavor Bauer, RHP UCLA 3rd overall but then turned around and selected Archie Bradley, HS RHP 7th overall passing on Jungmann of Texas, Bradley of Georgia Tech and Reed of Stanford to name a few.
Kansas City, took Starling a HS OF, 5th overall. The Tribe took Lindor HS SS, 8th overall, Cubs took Baez HS SS 9th overall. Mets took Nimmo HS OF 13th overall. The Fish took Fernandez, HS RHP 14th overall. Toronto took Beede, HS RHP 21st overall. The Rays took Guerrieri, HS RHP, 24th overall. Padres took Ross, HS RHP 25th overall. Red Sox took Swihart, HS C, 26th overall. Reds took Stephenson HS RHP, 27th overall. That's fully 1/3 of the entire first 30 picks going to HS players with presumably less of a statistical track record than college players. You mean to tell me that there are not 10 better players in the college ranks than these 10 HS players?
Who did the Athletics pick? Sonny Gray, 18th overall - Vanderbilt - and his most recent performance against North Carolina was "forgettable".
I don't see the innovation nor the "something new under the sun" claims of the moneyballers. I see statistics highlighted to justify making decisions that you don't feel comfortable defending on the merits of knowing the game and how to field a competitive team.
How does Minnesota keep competing with their payroll? They draft athletes, teach them fundamental baseball and make sure they do it the Twins way. Or you can do it the Boston or New York way and try to develop players but always have the ching to throw at the can't miss replacement player with a proven record.
You can't define a human athlete in terms of numbers only. There are too many variables both on the field and off the field that define the person. To do so is to settle for something less.
Dino,
Not my quote but I appreciate your point of view.
Prime(
Not my quote but I appreciate your point of view.
Prime(
A couple people have already given some good real-life examples of these theories, but this is a fun topic and I thought I might post one more.
Here’s another way to describe an arbitrage. Let’s say you find that you can buy a Porsche for $50k in Las Vegas and sell it in Los Angeles for $65k. You’d certainly have someone drop you off at LAX, hop a flight to Vegas, buy a Porsche, drive back to LA, sell the Porsche and pocket the $15k (minus gas and flight expenses). In the end, you don’t own anything; you managed to buy & sell the same product in different markets, taking advantage of the pricing differential.
I don’t think MoneyBall is explaining that Billy Beane arbitraged Porsches; it’s saying he went to Vegas to buy them, while the other teams continued to use the same old car dealers in LA. In fact I think it goes further - work with me on the metaphor - to say that Billy Beane some did some research and found that older, balding men actually pickup more 20-something girls when they drive a Bentley instead of a Porsche. His research also showed him that a $30k Acura do just as well with ‘the girls’ as a Porsche. So while other teams loaded up on Porsches, he picked up a Bentley and a couple Acuras and lived a middle-aged man’s dream. (oh, sorry, got lost in my metaphor)
The jist is this: He worked out a new method to determine the value of a player. Turns out he was right. It was revolutionary in its moment, but I’m sure most the league now implements some version of his valuation process. The market learns.
Here’s another way to describe an arbitrage. Let’s say you find that you can buy a Porsche for $50k in Las Vegas and sell it in Los Angeles for $65k. You’d certainly have someone drop you off at LAX, hop a flight to Vegas, buy a Porsche, drive back to LA, sell the Porsche and pocket the $15k (minus gas and flight expenses). In the end, you don’t own anything; you managed to buy & sell the same product in different markets, taking advantage of the pricing differential.
I don’t think MoneyBall is explaining that Billy Beane arbitraged Porsches; it’s saying he went to Vegas to buy them, while the other teams continued to use the same old car dealers in LA. In fact I think it goes further - work with me on the metaphor - to say that Billy Beane some did some research and found that older, balding men actually pickup more 20-something girls when they drive a Bentley instead of a Porsche. His research also showed him that a $30k Acura do just as well with ‘the girls’ as a Porsche. So while other teams loaded up on Porsches, he picked up a Bentley and a couple Acuras and lived a middle-aged man’s dream. (oh, sorry, got lost in my metaphor)
The jist is this: He worked out a new method to determine the value of a player. Turns out he was right. It was revolutionary in its moment, but I’m sure most the league now implements some version of his valuation process. The market learns.
PADino: Rob and JH have it exactly right. The A’s were able to use statistics to find undervalued assets. They built a team based on these undervalued assets and were successful at a low cost. Like it or not these assets happen to be baseball players and the best teams will continue to use the myriad of statistics in addition to their “feet on the street” to find the best cost basis for these assets.
Were not talking about the top picks in the draft, actually none of this has to do with drafted players at all. Were talking about players who have been in the minors for some time and have a statistical base that can be drawn upon to see what their cost would be relative to other players that would be available. Actually someone would have to do a lot of calculations on average cost for a specific performance variable, which would have to be compared with the players on an organizations team and finding players to fit this need at a discounted cost. As you can imagine doing this would/will take a lot of data collection and manipulation. I have no idea if teams are doing this but there are certainly a lot of statistics available now that were not in years past.
Paul DePosdesta (one of the money ball data crunchers, and former Dodger GM(very short lived)) is now in the Padre’s organization and I wondered how much he had to do with their player selection and surprising success last year.
No one is saying you can't define human performance based on statistics, but you can find (within statistical reason) an athlete that has historical performance at a cost for a performance variable someone is interested in.
Were not talking about the top picks in the draft, actually none of this has to do with drafted players at all. Were talking about players who have been in the minors for some time and have a statistical base that can be drawn upon to see what their cost would be relative to other players that would be available. Actually someone would have to do a lot of calculations on average cost for a specific performance variable, which would have to be compared with the players on an organizations team and finding players to fit this need at a discounted cost. As you can imagine doing this would/will take a lot of data collection and manipulation. I have no idea if teams are doing this but there are certainly a lot of statistics available now that were not in years past.
Paul DePosdesta (one of the money ball data crunchers, and former Dodger GM(very short lived)) is now in the Padre’s organization and I wondered how much he had to do with their player selection and surprising success last year.
No one is saying you can't define human performance based on statistics, but you can find (within statistical reason) an athlete that has historical performance at a cost for a performance variable someone is interested in.
Hmm...I thought the book simply said that Billy Beane was too smart to play baseball and that Lenny Dykstra wasn't smart enough to realize he wasn't all that smart.
BOF,
I agree with much of what you and others are saying here, but Moneyball, the book and the concept itself DOES deal with the draft and finding players that fit the current undervalued mode. It can be both applied to current professional players and college players.
In a very short time, the ML's have entered a pitchers cycle and for various reasons, hitting has declined from the .270 plus team averages to the low .250's. The smart teams will quickly recognize that fielding, team speed, and maybe just loading up teams with 15 HR guys who can actually do other things besides jacking 30 HRs has a lot of value at this time. They will use statistical analysis to find the best combinations. This is one aspect of the Moneyball concept. Much was made of OBP being king by readers of the book and while that was true at the time, teams that are loaded with guys who don't necessarily walk a ton but all force deep counts seem to be successful in this era of pitch counts and six inning starters. They drive the starters out by the fourth and fifth inning by running up the counts and get into the weaker bullpens. Moneyball is about doing the statistical analysis and scouting combined to find the players that allow this type of lineup to be created. This is just one example.
I agree with much of what you and others are saying here, but Moneyball, the book and the concept itself DOES deal with the draft and finding players that fit the current undervalued mode. It can be both applied to current professional players and college players.
In a very short time, the ML's have entered a pitchers cycle and for various reasons, hitting has declined from the .270 plus team averages to the low .250's. The smart teams will quickly recognize that fielding, team speed, and maybe just loading up teams with 15 HR guys who can actually do other things besides jacking 30 HRs has a lot of value at this time. They will use statistical analysis to find the best combinations. This is one aspect of the Moneyball concept. Much was made of OBP being king by readers of the book and while that was true at the time, teams that are loaded with guys who don't necessarily walk a ton but all force deep counts seem to be successful in this era of pitch counts and six inning starters. They drive the starters out by the fourth and fifth inning by running up the counts and get into the weaker bullpens. Moneyball is about doing the statistical analysis and scouting combined to find the players that allow this type of lineup to be created. This is just one example.
CABBALLFAN,
I appreciate the metaphor, especially the "chicks dig Acuras too" one. Having been to Las Vegas more than a few times, I can relate to the balding middle aged man analogy. Very nice explanation.
BOF,
What you mean is that Beane took advantage of the other owner's statistical ignorance to gain an advantage akin to buying a rare book in a garage sale, you know to be worth $2,000 for $5. Then the owner's figured out they were being ripped off and started researching books before they sold them cheap. Now you can't find a good book in a garage sale to save your hiney.
Prime9,
I don't know how that quote got linked to you, sorry. I think I was distracted by a chick in an Acura.
Anyway, whoever makes a riveting movie out of this stuff deserves an Academy Award.
I appreciate the metaphor, especially the "chicks dig Acuras too" one. Having been to Las Vegas more than a few times, I can relate to the balding middle aged man analogy. Very nice explanation.
BOF,
What you mean is that Beane took advantage of the other owner's statistical ignorance to gain an advantage akin to buying a rare book in a garage sale, you know to be worth $2,000 for $5. Then the owner's figured out they were being ripped off and started researching books before they sold them cheap. Now you can't find a good book in a garage sale to save your hiney.
Prime9,
I don't know how that quote got linked to you, sorry. I think I was distracted by a chick in an Acura.
Anyway, whoever makes a riveting movie out of this stuff deserves an Academy Award.
quote:Hmm...I thought the book simply said that Billy Beane was too smart to play baseball and that Lenny Dykstra wasn't smart enough to realize he wasn't all that smart.
LOL
JH,
The real-world business-school point of Moneyball is much simpler than you think. Forget all that detailed goop about the business mechanics of what they were doing - leave that to your b-school professors.
Here's the lesson: Beane and the A's found themselves at a competitive disadvantage with the large-market teams in their league. They recognized that they didn't have the revenues year-over-year to play the high-end talent game with teams like the Yankees, and so they needed an innovative approach. The story is about how they recognized their business environment and dealt with it.
The real-world business-school point of Moneyball is much simpler than you think. Forget all that detailed goop about the business mechanics of what they were doing - leave that to your b-school professors.
Here's the lesson: Beane and the A's found themselves at a competitive disadvantage with the large-market teams in their league. They recognized that they didn't have the revenues year-over-year to play the high-end talent game with teams like the Yankees, and so they needed an innovative approach. The story is about how they recognized their business environment and dealt with it.
There were certain players that were undervalued by most, if not all other mlb teams.
Players with high OBA, but couldnt do much else, didn't cost a lot of money at the time.
With a low pay roll, they could load up on position players with high oba's for pretty cheap and still have a chance to score runs and win games.
Players with high OBA, but couldnt do much else, didn't cost a lot of money at the time.
With a low pay roll, they could load up on position players with high oba's for pretty cheap and still have a chance to score runs and win games.
Moneyball aside... I do not think its any accident that the Red Sox broke the curse shortly after Bill James was put on the payroll.
I read the book and I don't see how it can be made into a movie the general public will want to see - it was interesting but very baseball specific. No other real story line. Casting Brad Pitt helps.
I think there is a very appealing Hollywood story line to the Moneyball narrative. It's a tried and true story that Hollywood has done in thousands of films over the years: underdog vs. establishment.
It's obvious from the trailer for the movie that this is their take. They will use whatever creative license they need to make the story compelling, but there is plenty of fodder for them to craft a compelling story.
It's almost a "Revenge of the Nerds" narrative as well. Little guy vs big guy, toss in jocks vs nerds and you have a successful Hollywood flick.
It's obvious from the trailer for the movie that this is their take. They will use whatever creative license they need to make the story compelling, but there is plenty of fodder for them to craft a compelling story.
It's almost a "Revenge of the Nerds" narrative as well. Little guy vs big guy, toss in jocks vs nerds and you have a successful Hollywood flick.
quote:Originally posted by PA Dino:
Moneyball is an overhyped sabermetric gimmick which doesn't stand the test of time, no better or worse than old school scouting by the seat of the pants.
For instance the A's traded to the Rockies Huston Street, Carlos Gonzales and Greg Smith for Matt Holliday......how did that one work out for them?
Who has the most saves in the National League? Street. Holliday had his worst year in Oakland and they traded him and he never hit below .312 again.
St Louis is glad Billy believes in moneyball. Who did Billy get for Holliday? Brett Wallace, already dealt to the Astros and only hit 4 homers in 233 AB's thus far in Round Rock, Clayton Mortensen, already dealt to the Rockies and seems to be getting his career off the ground in the rotation, and Shane Peterson AA Texas League, 7 homers in 221 AB's.
You can make any book say what you want. I bought it, I read it and then I gave it away. The movie will be a yawner also.
Just curious PA, did you even read the book?
Just saw Moneyball in a sneak preview...agree with the theory or not, I thought it was a very well made film. Saw it with 16 year old son who plays baseball and a wife who tolerates baseball...both agreed it was very good. Interested to see what everyone else thinks.
There's a commentary on Baseball America opining that the A's recent history undermines some of the credibility of the book/movie. Beane evidently concedes now that a primary reason those early 2000s teams won the division four times was because of the foundation of players signed by Sandy Alderson. Namely, the outstanding pitching trio of Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, Tim Hudson plus offensive/defensive stars Eric Chavez and Miguel Tejada. The article then states that these players would never have been signed under Beane's criteria. The A's have had a streak of years now where they are just not real good. To me, the classic A's OBP player was Jack Cust. A guy who would hit .230, couldn't field, would strike out over 200 times, get a ton of walks and hit 35 home runs. I think Cust is now out of MLB.
Not in our market till Friday... I'll be there when the doors open. 
GED10DaD
Interesting comments by Brad Pitt; that he is the "force" behind this movie. He read the book and decided to take it upon himself to turn it into a movie project. Must be a baseball fan!
Actually in an interview I read, he indicated that he knew little about the game and barely played! Just a good actor I suppose.
We will be there tomorrow night as well!
We will be there tomorrow night as well!
The book as interesting in its day. I dont see how the book can be turned into an interesting movie. I will guess it will start with Beane as a cant miss prospect who missed due to his temperment. It will tranlate into his philosophy. Then his temperment will be diplayed throughout the movie. I believe the Sox made him an offer. But he did not want to leave his daughter in CA.
My girlfriend said the movie was hyped all day on NPR. She wants to see it this weekend. She thought it would be an easy sell on me. I do not see how this movie can be that interesting. The book was a science. I will report in after the viewing Sunday.
One thing to note about the success of Moneyball. The Athletics already had Hudson, Muldar and Zito before the Moneyball philosophy was implemented. They were a good head start.
My girlfriend said the movie was hyped all day on NPR. She wants to see it this weekend. She thought it would be an easy sell on me. I do not see how this movie can be that interesting. The book was a science. I will report in after the viewing Sunday.
One thing to note about the success of Moneyball. The Athletics already had Hudson, Muldar and Zito before the Moneyball philosophy was implemented. They were a good head start.