223 replies to this topic

[8slim]

Wow, I liked the Blind side. Is your problem with the Blind Side or that this movie might be like it? Or both?

I imagine there's fear this could be an entertaining movie, and not an intricate 90 minute PowerPoint presentation.

[minischwab]

I'm just waiting for people to see the movie and come out of theaters asking how many world series titles those A's teams won. They sure showed those Yankees and Red Sox that a team full of castoffs can compete in October.

[SumnerH]

I'm absolutely terrified it's just going to be The Blind Side on a football field. The scenes of Pitt with the daughter and of him sitting in the bleachers looking forlorn didn't decrease that worry.

Aaron Sorkin's writing alone should make it 100 times more interesting than anything associated with The Blind Side. He can be pompous and annoying, but he's never saccharine and boring.

[TheYellowDart5]

Wow, I liked the Blind side. Is your problem with the Blind Side or that this movie might be like it? Or both?

Well, both. I thought The Blind Side (movie) was a heartstring tugging mess of cloying sentimentality, but I also hate Sandra Bullock and felt that turning Michael Oher into a retarded puppy who could only be a real person with the help of some nice white lady was a bit much.

I should also say that I think this will be a better movie, but that those scenes of forced sentimentality don't feel right. I mean, the book made a point of noting that Beane's job cost him his marriage and that his daughter lived in Southern California with her mother, but the trailer makes it seem like he's "Billy Beane, single parent and super dad." Obviously, it's just a trailer and it probably isn't that simplistic. But I guess my main worry is that this is going to be some pandering and simplistic triumph of going against the grain and fighting for what you believe in, when in reality, it was a lot more complex than that.

[SydneySox]

Yeah. The Blind Side was awful. The magical Sandra bullock reforming the poor retarded gentle giant storyline? There's sweet and there's cloying.

But... The point made was they stripped the written blind side's interesting aspects of recruitment and the role of these boosters and stuff and turned it into a Disney movie.

The fear is they'll take the interesting parts of Moneyball - the strategy of recruiting undervalued 'talent' and also just turn it into the life story of Billy Beane, failed minor leaguer who builds a team (with the awesome spectacle of a putting the team together montage hilariously mentioned by the Filthy One, which will probably be set to a cool song like The Boys are Back in Town or Thunderstruck) of lovable losers and teaches them how to win, mighty ducks style.

Which is kind of not what Moneyball was all about, similar to the way the film of the Blind Side ignored the parts of the book that weren't about Sandra saving the poor kid.

[dolomite133]

I suspect it's not going to be about the moneyball theory itself, it's going to really be the story of our hero Billy Beane, which will play into the hands of people like Dolomite and Joe Morgan.

Much like that steaming pile of shit, The Blind Side, it'll end up a human interest story.

Still, there's not all that many really good baseball movies out there so it'd be pretty cool if that was a by product.

Bit of a hijack. I'm reading The Big Short now and am so impressed I'm planning to read more from Michael Lewis. What are your general opinions of his other books? Must reads?

Edited by dolomite133, 17 June 2011 - 12:19 AM.

[SydneySox]

I dunno, I didn't love the Big Short but clearly Moneyball was really interesting back then and kind of interesting now, while Blind Side was pretty good. I liked the parts if Blind Side which skirted around the booster/recruitment of a clearly phenomenal talent most. The book hints at but never really brings up in detail the serious questions pertaining to why Oher, and to many people, me included, that stuff was the most interesting... And why the Real life Bullick and her family were quite repugnant. But Lewis always gets too close to his subjects, he did it in Big Short, Moneyball and Blind Side.

That's all I've read.

[Trlicek's Whip]

Aaron Sorkin's writing alone should make it 100 times more interesting than anything associated with The Blind Side. He can be pompous and annoying, but he's never saccharine and boring.

This. Sorkin won an Oscar for THE SOCIAL NETWORK, and this looks closer to that narrative style, the way SOCIAL NETWORK itself was following in the storytelling docu-drama footsteps of ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. The co-writer was Steven Zaillian, who also Oscared for SCHINDLER'S LIST and made chess interesting in SEARCHING FOR BOBBY FISCHER.

Comps to THE BLIND SIDE (I'm talking solely the film) aren't accurate. Studio PR had to make this trailer somewhat palatable to the 99% of the movie-going population that doesn't give a shit about sabermetrics and thinks that Moneyball is about a lottery winner, hence the meet cute moments, Brad Pitt being aloof, and lots of daughter/muppet facetime. THE BLIND SIDE was adapted by the guy who directed THE ROOKIE, which is good but definitely schmaltzier. To me it's two different strands of movie DNA.

My only regret is that Soderbergh didn't follow through and direct this. Bennett Miller directed the indie CAPOTE - for which Philip Seymour Hoffman starred and won the Oscar. Not sure Miller has the chops for something on a larger scale to make this more than cliches on the field, and the dry turning of the book's pages off the field.

Edited by Trlicek's Whip, 17 June 2011 - 07:41 AM.

[JimBoSox9]

I think it's safe to say that Moneyball will be about as true-to-life as the Blind Side, Remember the Titans, The Rookie, etc. If you're expecting a movie that is factual enough for the saber crowd, or a study in the post-book pros and cons of Beane's strategy and success, you're misleading yourself.

That doesn't mean it's not going to be a good, or at least watchable, movie. Pitt and Sorkin are two guys I generally don't bet against.

[Huntington Avenue Grounds]

Bit of a hijack. I'm reading The Big Short now and am so impressed I'm planning to read more from Michael Lewis. What are your general opinions of his other books? Must reads?

I read The Big Short a couple of months ago and really enjoyed it. Moneyball I remember liking but there have been a lot of brain cells slaughtered in the years since reading it. His Vanity Fair work, while not book length, are very enjoyable reads as well. Loved his Ireland financial crisis piece from earlier this year: Here it is.

[Rocco Graziosa]

Well, both. I thought The Blind Side (movie) was a heartstring tugging mess of cloying sentimentality, but I also hate Sandra Bullock and felt that turning Michael Oher into a retarded puppy who could only be a real person with the help of some nice white lady was a bit much.

Yeah, but what if thats what happened?

Anyway I digress. I liked the Blind Side (and The Rookie and Remember the Titans) and have high hopes for this movie. In short I'm kind of a sucker for any movie sports related. Especially if its based on a true story.

Edited by Rocco Graziosa, 17 June 2011 - 08:02 AM.

[MannysDestination]

Yeah. The Blind Side was awful. The magical Sandra bullock reforming the poor retarded gentle giant storyline? There's sweet and there's cloying.

But... The point made was they stripped the written blind side's interesting aspects of recruitment and the role of these boosters and stuff and turned it into a Disney movie.

The fear is they'll take the interesting parts of Moneyball - the strategy of recruiting undervalued 'talent' and also just turn it into the life story of Billy Beane, failed minor leaguer who builds a team (with the awesome spectacle of a putting the team together montage hilariously mentioned by the Filthy One, which will probably be set to a cool song like The Boys are Back in Town or Thunderstruck) of lovable losers and teaches them how to win, mighty ducks style.

Which is kind of not what Moneyball was all about, similar to the way the film of the Blind Side ignored the parts of the book that weren't about Sandra saving the poor kid.

...you got all that from the trailer? I understand the concern, and I hated the Blind Side too because of the book to film disparity, but don't you think you're being a bit harsh given it's Brad Pitt and Aaron Sorkin? Sandra Bullock and Disney are AA to Pitt/Sorkin's MLB quality.

[RingoOSU]

My other favorite Michael Lewis books not mentioned so far are Liar's Poker and Next: The Future Just Happened.

[Corsi]

Aaron Sorkin's writing alone should make it 100 times more interesting than anything associated with The Blind Side. He can be pompous and annoying, but he's never saccharine and boring.

Exactly. After what he did with The Social Network, I have high hopes for this film. I have no doubt he'll manage to make it a compelling story.

[SydneySox]

...you got all that from the trailer? I understand the concern, and I hated the Blind Side too because of the book to film disparity, but don't you think you're being a bit harsh given it's Brad Pitt and Aaron Sorkin? Sandra Bullock and Disney are AA to Pitt/Sorkin's MLB quality.

No, I didn't get anything from the trailer. Trailers aren't usually even cut by the directors. So often, trailers mean nothing.

I just said it's what I feared the film would be. Given what they did with the Blind Side, and the obvious popular response to that film, it's not an unjustifiable fear. Remember it took a lot to get this film off the ground. Sorkin can be pretty good and Pitt too with the right director, so that's cool. But...

[bankshot1]

I haven't see the trailer, so this is probably an unfair comment, but my concern is that Money Ball the movie is to the book (which is phenomenal and should be must reading for baseball fans AND in business or MBA programs) as Fever Pitch was to the 2004 Sox.

[TallerThanPedroia]

Love Chris Pratt as Hatteberg.

Worth seeing for this alone.

[Mystic Merlin]

Yeah, but what if thats what happened?

But it isn't.

[8slim]

I would suggest that if you want a true-to-life rendition of the book Moneyball then you should read the book Moneyball.

This is a movie. It may be good, or bad, but it is most certainly not a book.

Edited by 8slim, 17 June 2011 - 11:54 AM.

[8slim]

I mean, honestly, is there a more annoying thing to hear than "but its not like the boooooook!"

[drbretto]

I'm guessing it will be as historically accurate and entertaining as The Social Network. Which is a good thing for a movie not screen solely on SoSH. I'm sure most of you will be able to pick up a ton of inaccuracies.

[RingoOSU]

Number one inaccuracy in the movie: Oakland beats the Twins, Angels, and Giants to win the 2002 World Series.

[dolomite133]

I think Moneyball would work great as the basis for an Errol Morris documentary. Morris has shown an amazing ability to take dry information and turn it into something interesting. ... BTW I obtained Sorkin's script for Moneyball. It includes several long takes following Billy Beane as he walks through hallways, concourses, etc. delivering dense dialogue to other characters.

[Philip Jeff Frye]

Personally, I can't stand Michael Lewis. IMHO, Moneyball is one of the most overrated books in history. Maybe its because I got about 15 copies of it from would-be investment managers who all said "I'm the Billy Bean of [insert asset class]!" but I thought the book completely missed the point of the A's success - Hudson, Mulder, Zito instead of Hatteburg and and the sidewinder whose name escapes me right now.

I also have it on good authority that he is a fiction writer claiming to be a non-fiction writer - both Liar's Poker and The Next New Thing contain stories which are just not true, but which made for a better read. In similar vien, I saw him give a talk about The Big Short in which he admitted that nobody had made more money from the financial crisis than John Paulson, but because he couldn't get his arms around Paulson's personality, despite spending lots of time with him, he decided to pass over Paulson in favor of others with more interesting stories. The story is more important than what actually happened? What kind of chronicler does that?

Hollywood may bastardize his books, but he's not exactly the journal of record to begin with.

Edited by Philip Jeff Frye, 17 June 2011 - 12:46 PM.

[SumnerH]

BTW I obtained Sorkin's script for Moneyball. It includes several long takes following Billy Beane as he walks through hallways, concourses, etc. delivering dense dialogue to other characters.

The best was when he layed the smackdown on Omar Minaya:

"I have a B.A. in Economics from UCSD, I have been awarded Executive of the Year by Sporting News and Baseball America, I have won the World Series, and I am never, ever sick at sea. So I ask you: when a fan starts watching in the spring and they fall on their knees and they pray to god that their pitcher doesn't develop Nuke Laloosh syndrome or that their first baseman doesn't hit below the Mendoza line or that their second baseman doesn't come down with a case of the Knoblauchs, who do you think they are praying to? Now, go ahead and read your baseball cards, Omar, and you trade for your old school stats, and, with any luck, you might pick up a DH with an empty .300 average or a CF with 20 SB to 15 CS, but if you're looking for God he was at the winter meetings in November and he doesn't like to be second guessed. You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God."

[JBill]

What did Brad Pitt do to his face?

[Jody Reeds Well]

I hope they devote a lot of time to how awesome and underrated Dusty Brown is.

[Corsi]

I hope they devote a lot of time to how awesome and underrated Dusty Brown is.

It was Jeremy Brown, no?

[Old Fart Tree]

My biggest complaint about Moneyball was always that it missed the point: at LEAST 75% of that team's success was due to 1) hitting the lottery with three pitchers in the draft, and 2) playing in a division with a) only three other fucking teams in it and b) no juggernauts. Even if you take "Beane is a genius" as gospel, it wasn't nearly as important as those factors. Not even fucking close.

"My shit doesn't work in the playoffs" is a nice way of saying "It's a super nice tailwind to play in a mediocre division with only three competitors in it, so my As teams make the playoffs and then get exposed as good but not great teams."

[8slim]

IMHO, Moneyball is one of the most overrated books in history.

I didn't start reading Moneyball until a couple years after it came out. And I stopped reading during the chapter on Hatteburg. I mean, the book was enjoyable, but it was such a Beane knob-wash that reading it after most of his prized guys had flamed out rendered it pointless.

[JimBoSox9]

Moneyball, to me, is much more about the difficult task of old-time scouting co-existing with new-age-stats than it is about the genius of Beane or the A's as a proof-of-concept of the new system. The narrative of "scrappy reformer overthrows establishment old guard and creates a winner from nothing", when applied to the book, is a bit of a straw man.

However, when applied to the movie, I suspect it is spot-on.

[SydneySox]

Pretty much what i am getting at.

Edited by SydneySox, 17 June 2011 - 05:04 PM.

[epraz]

The narrative of "scrappy reformer overthrows establishment old guard and creates a winner from nothing", when applied to the book, is a bit of a straw man.

Except that Michael Lewis does this in most of his books.

[jtn46]

I didn't start reading Moneyball until a couple years after it came out. And I stopped reading during the chapter on Hatteburg. I mean, the book was enjoyable, but it was such a Beane knob-wash that reading it after most of his prized guys had flamed out rendered it pointless.

It's still a great look at a forward-thinking GM and even if all the moves didn't work out so well, it's rare that we get so much on the thought process behind the acquisition of a middle reliever. That LaRussa book had the same problem (to a greater degree, really, because LaRussa is a tool) but the same appeal, and as a baseball fan I could read a lot of that kind of thing.

The film could take another crack and be more objective, but look, plenty of people read Moneyball and came away thinking that Beane liked himself a little too much and wasn't the miracle worker he was portrayed as, so the film could easily produce the same opinion even if it tries to portray him in the most positive light. Bottom line is that we're getting a film about a baseball GM with a real cast and real directors about a real team. Plus, maybe they'll recreate those Derek Lowe 2-seamers somehow. I'm excited.

[WayBackVazquez]

My biggest complaint about Moneyball was always that it missed the point: at LEAST 75% of that team's success was due to 1) hitting the lottery with three pitchers in the draft, and 2) playing in a division with a) only three other fucking teams in it and b) no juggernauts. Even if you take "Beane is a genius" as gospel, it wasn't nearly as important as those factors. Not even fucking close.

"My shit doesn't work in the playoffs" is a nice way of saying "It's a super nice tailwind to play in a mediocre division with only three competitors in it, so my As teams make the playoffs and then get exposed as good but not great teams."

You sound pretty bitter about this. While I agree that the success of the 3 pitchers was key, the "my shit doesn't work in the playoffs," is a mischaracterization of the acknowledgment of the fact that one has to build a team for 162 games, and anything can happen in a short series. Each of the relevant 4 playoff losses came in 5 games; the A's dominated the AL East (112-69/.619) and the Central (112-70/.615) in the regular season over those 4 years; in each of the seasons they won the division they would otherwise have been good enough for a wild card, and in the year they won the wild card, they had to play 19 games against a team that won 116. And they did it all with a bottom 5 payroll.

[Old Fart Tree]

It's because I lived in the Bay Area and had to put up with As fans bragging about dominating a weak AL West. It was tiresome. Granted, that Ms team was outstanding, but there's no fucking way they would have made the playoffs in the AL East, even with that pitching.

Moreover, the hagiography you're now seeing (appropriately) about Timmy Thomas was nothing compared to the knob-slobbing that Beane was getting from As fans, many of whom are Raider fan types. The combination of their bristling arrogance about how "we're so smarter than everyone else and we're going to win a world series LONG before the free-spending Red Sox do" (remember, we hadn't won shit) and the violent hostility at As games makes my first inclination to say "Hey, guess what, fucksticks? Money really does matter, and Beane wasn't actually 11 standard deviations smarter than everyone else. So fuck off and enjoy all those world series rings that Jeremy Brown won."

Edited by Old Fart Tree, 17 June 2011 - 07:51 PM.

[WayBackVazquez]

It's because I lived in the Bay Area and had to put up with As fans bragging about dominating a weak AL West. It was tiresome. Granted, that Ms team was outstanding, but there's no fucking way they would have made the playoffs in the AL East, even with that pitching.

This is nice to say, but again, they went 112-69 against the division over those 4 years. Include 1999 and it's 146-87 (.627).

Edited by WayBackVazquez, 17 June 2011 - 08:00 PM.

[Gunfighter 09]

My biggest complaint about Moneyball was always that it missed the point: at LEAST 75% of that team's success was due to 1) hitting the lottery with three pitchers in the draft, and 2) playing in a division with a) only three other fucking teams in it and b) no juggernauts. Even if you take "Beane is a genius" as gospel, it wasn't nearly as important as those factors. Not even fucking close.

"My shit doesn't work in the playoffs" is a nice way of saying "It's a super nice tailwind to play in a mediocre division with only three competitors in it, so my As teams make the playoffs and then get exposed as good but not great teams."

Your theory assumes the Moneyball era A's were playing in todays AL West. In the period that Moneyball covers, the AL West was the best division in baseball.

The 2001 A's finished second with 102 wins because they shared the division with a team that won 116 games in the 2001 Mariners. That .716 winner percentage might meet the technical definition of juggernaut. The 2002 As won the division with 103 wins, while the second place team won 99 games and the World Series and the third place Mariners won 93 games.

http://www.baseball-...s/AL/2002.shtml
http://www.baseball-...s/AL/2001.shtml

The best reason I have seen to call bullshit on the A's success in the early part of the decade is BALCO, seeing as every Bay Area baseball and football team was winning with BALCO clients and then seemed to fall off of a cliff starting around 2004. This article by Tom Scocca in Slate touches briefly on BALCO and the Moneyball A's

http://www.slate.com/id/2180070/

Oakland, with its limited funds, wouldn't spend payroll to buy power hitters. Instead, it invested in cheaper, patient hitters. And those hitters, it seems, bought the power themselves.

Edited by Gunfighter 09, 17 June 2011 - 08:09 PM.

[Gunfighter 09]

wrong button

Edited by Gunfighter 09, 17 June 2011 - 08:09 PM.

[Gunfighter 09]

It's because I lived in the Bay Area and had to put up with As fans bragging about dominating a weak AL West. It was tiresome. Granted, that Ms team was outstanding, but there's no fucking way they would have made the playoffs in the AL East, even with that pitching.

Moreover, the hagiography you're now seeing (appropriately) about Timmy Thomas was nothing compared to the knob-slobbing that Beane was getting from As fans, many of whom are Raider fan types. The combination of their bristling arrogance about how "we're so smarter than everyone else and we're going to win a world series LONG before the free-spending Red Sox do" (remember, we hadn't won shit) and the violent hostility at As games makes my first inclination to say "Hey, guess what, fucksticks? Money really does matter, and Beane wasn't actually 11 standard deviations smarter than everyone else. So fuck off and enjoy all those world series rings that Jeremy Brown won."

There was no weak AL west, three of the four teams won 93+ games in 2002. They would have dominated the AL East and did head to head. I assumed your post was coming from something more than bullshit wine and cheese 49er fan snobbery/"I get scared when I go to Oakland" crybabyism, but I was wrong.

Edited by Gunfighter 09, 17 June 2011 - 08:16 PM.

[Old Fart Tree]

Ok.

[Old Fart Tree]

Looking back at their B-Ref pages, you're right; those AL West teams were significantly better than I remember them being. Mea Culpa.

As for this,

I assumed your post was coming from something more than bullshit wine and cheese 49er fan snobbery/"I get scared when I go to Oakland" crybabyism, but I was wrong.

You can kind of fuck off. We've had this argument before, when basically anyone who points out that Oakland is really not the nicest place to go to watch a game gets accused by you of being a pussy, a snob, a racist, or all three. The difference is when I say something demonstrably wrong, I'll acknowledge it and retract, but you will never be convinced that I could be anything but a "whine and cheeser" who is "scared" of Oakland. No, dude - it just fucking sucks to watch games there. Whatever.

[Gunfighter 09]

Looking back at their B-Ref pages, you're right; those AL West teams were significantly better than I remember them being. Mea Culpa.

As for this,



You can kind of fuck off. We've had this argument before, when basically anyone who points out that Oakland is really not the nicest place to go to watch a game gets accused by you of being a pussy, a snob, a racist, or all three. The difference is when I say something demonstrably wrong, I'll acknowledge it and retract, but you will never be convinced that I could be anything but a "whine and cheeser" who is "scared" of Oakland. No, dude - it just fucking sucks to watch games there. Whatever.

Just note that I never initiate these arguments. I will send my response in a PM. Nothing to see here, please resume talking about the movie, which I will pay the $10.50 to see on day 1 after watching that trailer.

Edited by Gunfighter 09, 18 June 2011 - 10:25 PM.

[VORP Speed]

Saw the new trailer for the Moneyball movie. Hadn't been following things and assumed it was dead after all the talk a couple of years back, but alive it is!
The trailer was actually surprisingly compelling. Will be interesting to see how the final product turns out, but was encouraging to see some evidence that they may try to preserve some of the key points of the book.
Pitt Oscar vehicle? Jonah Hill as Paul DePodesta? SABR goes Hollywood? All slightly strange, but looking forward to Sept 23.

[redsox3g2]

Saw the new trailer for the Moneyball movie. Hadn't been following things and assumed it was dead after all the talk a couple of years back, but alive it is!
The trailer was actually surprisingly compelling. Will be interesting to see how the final product turns out, but was encouraging to see some evidence that they may try to preserve some of the key points of the book.
Pitt Oscar vehicle? Jonah Hill as Paul DePodesta? SABR goes Hollywood? All slightly strange, but looking forward to Sept 23.

Just thought I'd share a link.

[502 to Right]

Colin Cowherd of ESPN Radio called the Moneyball trailer the third best trailer he's ever seen in his life. Take it for what's it's worth.

I watched the trailer and have to say it looks like it might be a decent movie. And this is coming from someone who wondered how they could ever turn the book into a watchable movie.

[EddieYost]

Does anyone else wonder if the A's might have had more success over the past few years if they had kept the Moneyball concept quiet.

I realize other teams were going to do some similar stuff anyway. Still they haven't actually won anything...

[Orel Miraculous]

Does anyone else wonder if the A's might have had more success over the past few years if they had kept the Moneyball concept quiet.

I realize other teams were going to do some similar stuff anyway. Still they haven't actually won anything...

I believe Billy Beane has said they would not have agreed to do the book if they knew how popular it would be for just this reason. They gave up their competitive advantage.

[CeeAngi]

I went to a screening of this film last night. In case anyone's interested in my thoughts, they are not quite as scathing at Keith Law's and can be found here.

[P'tucket, rhymes with...]

Theres no way they'll spend a lot of money on popular, big name actors. They'll just find some washed up has beens or actors you've never heard off to cast the movie.

Prophetic.