Money Ball the movie

Because if the team with the No. 10 pick doesn't think that much of player A, but then they find out that the GM for the team with the No. 11 pick is on him, they may re-evaluate and say "What are we missing?"

 

Yes, my point is that there were a few "Moneyball" picks and they were really just the sidebars to the real draft picks. The A's got their legit players, and then they had to cut costs with those extra picks, so they took some low-risk players. It's exactly the same as the idea with building the major league team that offseason. They already had the main elements (Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Chavez, Tejada) so they were trying to fill out the complementary parts on the cheap.

Whether that "worked" or "didn't work" is a silly debate, because it's a debate about a small percentage of what mattered with that team. It would be like debating whether a movie was good or bad based solely on the soundtrack. It helps, but it's just a small piece.

Again, as I've said earlier on this thread and probably a dozen times on other threads.... there is no "Moneyball." It's a myth. The A's did not flip a switch in 2002 and say "Now we're doing it this way," contrary to what Michael Lewis would have you believe. They had been blending the statistical and scouting sides for years, ever since Sandy Alderson's days, and all that changed in 2002 was that Michael Lewis showed up to write about it.

By ignoring everything else that was going on, Lewis made it look like this was the only way the A's operated, and it was the reason they were winning with a low payroll.

The reason they were winning with a low payroll was very simple: They had great, young players. The market inefficiency the A's took advantage of was a collective bargaining agreement that said that you can win on the cheap if the players have no leverage to be paid according to their true value. It was the same for the A's as it was for every other team. The A's were just lucky enough that they had a core of such players all peaking at the same time.

Yes. But I don't criticize Billy Beane for that.

 

This thread is so depressing.

Jesus, does anyone here understand a movie based on a book is not a documentary?

Anyone here seen "The Great Escape", one of the great WW2 movies based on a non-fiction book by Paul Brickhill?

The Brickhill book was a fabulous work based on his experience in the camp in question

The move had a few, well, deviations from the book.

Well, for starters, the Americans role in the escape was minimal at best, contrary to what the film portrayed.

It was entirely a British operation. Americans had a small role in digging the tunnels but that's about it.

Remember that awesome Steve McQueen motorcycle escape attempt? Totally fictional although the McQueen character is based on a real person

Does that change the fact that it's a great movie?

At the end of the day, movies, like books, can only be analysed on the actual text.

Almost all of Shakespeare's tragedies were based on historical facts.

Can't wait to read the sj big literary brains talk about the historical inaccurasies of Hamlet.

 

I think it's a bit selective to cherrypick draft picks that panned out in later rounds as a way to criticize earlier picks, but otherwise, that's a fantastic takedown and well-reasoned argument.

 

If Hamlet had been produced with a marketing campaign that included the words "Based On A True Story," and the characters were all within easy range to confirm or deny the details, Shakespeare would have been fact-checked too.

 

OPS is the thing, wherein which I catch the Steinbrenner Kings.

#MoneyballAsHamlet

 

Do you have any idea what the words "Based on a True Story" actually mean?

Your post confirms my original thesis. A whole bunch of people here don't understand the difference between a movie and a documentary.

Do you think the fictional McQueen motorcycle scene in "The Great Escape" negates the validity of the film?

If you do, then, sorry, you don't understand the film making process.

 

Billy Beane:
I did love bunting once.

Paul DePodesta:
Indeed, my lord, you made me believe so.

Billy Beane:
You should not have believ'd me, for virtue cannot so
inoculate our old stock but we shall relish of it. I lov'd Carlos Pena not.

Paul DePodesta:
I was the more deceiv'd.

Billy Beane:
Get thee to a SABR convention, why woulds't thou be a breeder of
BABIP?

#MoneyballAsHamlet

 

I get all that. I think most people get all that. But people are naturally left with a question about which parts are true and which parts aren't. The article that touched off this flare was simply answering those questions. If you don't think that's relevant, you don't understand the film-going process.

I enjoyed "Remember the Titans." But I did want to know what was true and what was made up (which was most of the movie, really). It didn't affect my enjoyment of the movie, but it was good info to have.

 

That's fine, JR, but when the film uses real names and characterizes Art Howe as something he's not, that's a problem to me. Moviegoers will come away from the film believing every bit of it is true. One man's dramatic license is another man's lack of truthfulness to an actual story. If all the characters had fictional names like Peter Brand, this movie would have been just fine. But telling the world that Billy Beane is some sort of tortured genius when he's not is pure fiction. The only thing this movie is based on are the thoughts in Michael Lewis' head.

 

JR,

My complaint is that the movie turns out to be about "as based on facts" as The Blue Brothers. After all, Chicago does exist. The Catholic Church does exist. There are Nazi-loving sheriffs somewhere in the world. And Aretha doesn't get much respect.