Money Ball the movie

And the David Justice thing is actually germane to point out, too. It loads the deck unnecessarily, making a major league franchise seem destitute, when it was merely more cash-strapped than others.

 

Haven't set it yet, but is the movie made with the same arrogant voice Michael Lewis had in the book?

Full confession. I finally just read the book this weekend. I wanted to read it before I saw the movie. It's interesting to read the book with the context of time behind it, but what struck me was how heavy-handed Lewis was in advocating the early 2000s A's way of doing things. There was no room for dissent.

I actually like most of the actual Beane/DePodesta ideas, love some of them, dislike a few others. I don't love the way they put it into practice back then. I hate ANY system in any sport that is shoved down someone's throat to the point where it isn't pliable enough to take advantage of someone's individual skill.

But that doesn't really matter. They could have been advocating a return of the Cubs' College of Coaches.

What is germane is that Lewis's point of view and literary voice presented their ideas in such a high-handed way that there's almost no way Beane, et al, wouldn't come out looking arrogant ... even though I suspect Beane really is. Lewis takes sides right off the bat -- portraying anyone who could possibly have even a mild opposing view as a luddite.

No wonder people lashed out at Moneyball at the time and even now. That book was tailor-written to provide a backlash.

Lewis just pours gasoline on the fire with an embarrassing afterword added to the edition I read that's basically one long bitch-and-moan session about the critics of his point of view in the year or so after Moneyball was published.

It's a well-written book, don't get me wrong, but I absolutely hated the arrogant place Lewis was coming from to make his case.

I'd be curious to know if the movie reflects that spirit or if it tones it down.

 

IMO, that tone is muted almost to where it doesn't exist except in one or two preseason scenes with Beane and the scouts at the table together. And even then, the charisma Brad Pitt gives Beane (not that Beane doesn't have plenty of it himself) makes it so that he doesn't come across as arrogant. "In charge", but not arrogant.

 

That's what I figured.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with Bubbler about the tone of the book. The movement wouldn't be quite so polarizing without it, I don't believe.

At the same time, it's what makes it a great book, if that's what makes any sense. When you pick up a book by Michael Lewis or Malcolm Gladwell or their ilk, you have to understand that you are going to be absorbing a terrifically paced read, but also one from a point of view. I've said this before - they are pop statisticians/journalists, not academics. You have to keep that in mind. A smart person should read one of their polemics and suspect that there is nuance on the cutting-room floor.

 

Book is so much better . . . it was, and remains, brilliant.

 

Of course, another reason he succeeds is because he studies computer-compiled statistical reports based on tons of sybermatic research that discern the strengths and weaknesses of opposing hitters, too. But I'm sure he does it with a childlike glee.

And in his last six seasons, Mark Buehrle is a whopping 10 games over .500, averaging 12 wins a year. So it's not like he's been one of the most successful pitchers in the AL over that period.

I saw the movie. I enjoyed it. Stretching the truth on a few things to enhance character development is one thing. But blatent things like wrong info on the acquisition of certain players and stuff like having to pay for a soda in the clubhouse is wrong, even if the movie is purportedly "based" on a true story.

Using that logic, "they could have staged D-Day in Holland in "SPR," since it's only "based" on a true story.

 

I think they had to change the things they did to make the story all neat and tidy for non-baseball fans.

Movies need to work that way or they get overly complicated.

What if you try to explain that the A's had really been embracing the statistical stuff for years, gradually, blending it with the old-school things? That DePodesta had been there for two years? That Grady Fuson drafted Hudson, Mulder and Zito? That Beane acquired Carlos Pena after Hatteberg? That Hatteberg was already in the lineup every day, at DH, while Pena was playing first? That Art Howe already had an option for 2003? That he didn't fight with Beane over the lineup? That Beane's job was never in jeopard?

All of these things complicate the story for people who need to be spoon-fed because they don't know/like baseball.

If the movie would have been 100 percent accurate, it would have sucked. In fact, that's why the studio canned the previous screenplay, which was more documentary like.

 

If a non-baseball fan loves it then I'm not sure I want to go near it.

 

Whatever one thinks of the A's performance over the last few years, Beane is still a wanted man.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Billy-Beane-Oakland-As-could-he-join-Los-Angeles-Angels-as-GM-100111

 

The novel was based on a Kinsella short story "Shoeless Joe Jackson Comes to Iowa" published by a small literary press up here.

Some Houghton Mifflin editor read it convinced Kinsella to turn it into a novel. If I knew who the editor was, I'd hunt him down and shoot him. May be my least favourite baseball novel of all time.