Girl on Film : Moneyball
So I saw Moneyball, a film I had been anticipating for a while.
There is just not that much of a story. Beane's kid is cute and that's a nice relationship, but there are no stakes. Beane has a boring relationship with his ex played by Robin Wright. His daughter is unfailingly supportive. The DePodesta character never really questions anything. Aaron Sorkin did re-writes on this picture, so I was expecting a little more of The Social Network in it. The stakes in that movie felt higher, there was more drive. And computer programming is as dull as baseball stats, so you can't tell me that it couldn't have been more interesting. I haven't read the book in a long time and most people have been telling me how things have been cut or changed, making some of the moves nonsensical, but mostly I just found it dull. It takes a lot for me to find something dull.
The acting is solid up and down. Pitt brings the right kind of cheeky swagger to Beane. His portrayal of Beane adds to a long list of performances where he eats a lot. This one featured a lot of chew. I think Jonah Hill's performance of Paul Brand (which is the name they use for Paul DePodesta) is the best part of the movie. And Philip Seymour Hoffman is just never not good.
The acting is solid up and down. Pitt brings the right kind of cheeky swagger to Beane. His portrayal of Beane adds to a long list of performances where he eats a lot. This one featured a lot of chew. I think Jonah Hill's performance of Paul Brand (which is the name they use for Paul DePodesta) is the best part of the movie. And Philip Seymour Hoffman is just never not good.
Winning 20 games in a row is an impressive feat, but it's not winning the World Series. It's something approaching delicious irony that the team that actually won the Series the season that the movie is set in was the LA Angels, Oakland's division rivals. That's not mentioned, because it seems the only three teams that count in this world are the Yankees, the A's and the Red Sox. Moneyball was used to "beat" the Yankees, but failed to beat the more modestly ($ 61,721,667) budgeted Angels.
I wanted to throw something at the screen when the postscript came up, saying that the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004 using the same philosophy as Beane. Yeah, except Epstein had a $127,298,500 payroll when his team won the World Series in 2004. And a $143,026,214 when they won again in 2007. Now, I'm not saying that Epstein doesn't use SABR as part of his team building. I mean, the famous "Greek God of Walks" annoys the crap out of us every time we play the Sox. But it is a stretch to say that the Red Sox are a "Moneyball" team. The only team with a small payroll to win the whole show since Moneyball was published was the Florida Marlins in 2003.
I guess I just have a fundamental disagreement with the concept. I will admit that I find stats dull. I don't understand all of them, but I try to know what is actually considered good. Arguing with Boston fans over Twitter about just why Bautista is the 2011 MVP has expanded my knowledge. But I respect stats, and leave them to others who understand and care about them to develop and explain them. But I think eliminating the subjective nature of baseball is wrong. Baseball is subjective because life is subjective.
I think JP Ricciardi tried and failed to build the Jays this way and an AL East team obviously sees the "beasts of the East" more often than the A's do. Now, I'm not saying that advanced statistics can't be used when trying to build a team. But I think a better course of action is to use both the newer stats and the more traditional scouting. I'm not convinced that every scout is 95 years old and babbles about "5 tools". There is value in their work. Combine the best of both. It's one of the benefits of living in the post-Moneyball age.
I think JP Ricciardi tried and failed to build the Jays this way and an AL East team obviously sees the "beasts of the East" more often than the A's do. Now, I'm not saying that advanced statistics can't be used when trying to build a team. But I think a better course of action is to use both the newer stats and the more traditional scouting. I'm not convinced that every scout is 95 years old and babbles about "5 tools". There is value in their work. Combine the best of both. It's one of the benefits of living in the post-Moneyball age.