The Moneyball Myth

[tycobb420]

http://theoaklandpress.com/articles/2012/02/19/sports/doc4f403b3495a98908727189.txt?viewmode=default

 

[johnny2x2x]

Good article that maybe provides a little balance. Sure there were some more advanced metrics 1st implemented at the major league level by Beane, but I thought the movie completely omitted the fact that the A's had ridiculous starting pitching that year and that's why they won. Hudson, Zito, and Mulder all were fantastic those couple years and arguably made up the best 3 starters in the league for a while. They had 3 aces.

 

[jimrice]

I have a pet peeve concerning movies "based" on a real story. The fact is that these films are entertainment, and they'd be totally boring without some poetic license. If you want truth, watch a documentary. Moneyball is intended as an entertaining movie, not a historical document. It's the height of journalistic whacking off to complain about the veracity of a movie "based" on a real life event. Ugh.

 

[tycobb420]

I have a pet peeve concerning movies "based" on a real story. The fact is that these films are entertainment, and they'd be totally boring without some poetic license. If you want truth, watch a documentary. Moneyball is intended as an entertaining movie, not a historical document. It's the height of journalistic whacking off to complain about the veracity of a movie "based" on a real life event. Ugh.

People tend to think it's true if they see it in a movie. Worst example was JFK...

 

[jimrice]

I have a pet peeve concerning movies "based" on a real story. The fact is that these films are entertainment, and they'd be totally boring without some poetic license. If you want truth, watch a documentary. Moneyball is intended as an entertaining movie, not a historical document. It's the height of journalistic whacking off to complain about the veracity of a movie "based" on a real life event. Ugh.

People tend to think it's true if they see it in a movie. Worst example was JFK...

Funny, I had JFK on my mind when I wrote my reply. I liked it as a movie, but obviously it was far from historically accurate.

 

[chrisinthed]

Good article that maybe provides a little balance. Sure there were some more advanced metrics 1st implemented at the major league level by Beane, but I thought the movie completely omitted the fact that the A's had ridiculous starting pitching that year and that's why they won. Hudson, Zito, and Mulder all were fantastic those couple years and arguably made up the best 3 starters in the league for a while. They had 3 aces.

I just saw Moneyball last night, it was pretty good but I also kept thinking they didn't mention ANYTHING about their starting staff. For heaven's sake, Zito won 23 games lol. If I was him, I'd be a little pissed about it. Still, it was entertaining and is a must see for all baseball fans.

 

[everyoneneedsasmil]

I think the bigger problem is not the movie (which was a good watch), but the general lack of historical knowledge by the average moviegoer. People thought JFK was real because outside of 6th grade social studies, anyone under 60 has very little base for knowing real history. They don't go out and read about JFK for no reason, and probably don't remember much from elementary school. Moneyball is the same thing. Anyone who actually knows about the A's knows Beane didn't do nearly as much as the movie shows for that team. But how many people actually care about the A's outside Oakland? How many people are going to look it up after an entertaining couple hours already spent?

But, I do think there is some validity to the concept the movie presented. That is, the world became a much more stat-heavy and stat-friendly place in the last 10+ years. Was Moneyball the start? Not really, given its actual usage at the time. But, Moneyball made stats popular to the normal fan. You can't have an argument with anyone anymore without a friend throwing out OBP, TS%, QBR, or plus-minus. And that wasn't really the case back when homers, ppg, and sacks were all anybody cared about. The fans are a little more aware of what's really going on in games, and that's something.

 

[byco42]

In Stone's defense, and I'm not an apologist for the guy, his whole intention was to construct a tale as fanciful as he considered the Warren Report. He figured if they can make shit up, why shouldn't he?

 

[byco42]

Pat Caputo guzzled some Haterade before writing that article.

 

[zonietigerfan]

I have a pet peeve concerning movies "based" on a real story. The fact is that these films are entertainment, and they'd be totally boring without some poetic license. If you want truth, watch a documentary. Moneyball is intended as an entertaining movie, not a historical document. It's the height of journalistic whacking off to complain about the veracity of a movie "based" on a real life event. Ugh.

Couldn't agree more. Look at any movie & its true historical accuracy: examples: GoodFellas...Tommy was a composite, Henry Hill didn't attack the rapist neighbor (he hid in the dudes back-yard and attacked him from behind), Hill's had 2 kids, but one was a boy, Hill claimed "only my birth certificate and rap sheet proved I was ever alive"...not true: he served in the US Marines in the 1960's...they kept no record of that??? & so forth.
Now, take Braveheart: wasn't fought on a plain but on Sterling Bridge & that - to me - should have been a critical point. Besides, seeing dudes tossed from a Bridge would have been kind of cool...William Wallace was nearly 7 feet tall and was a thug, if somewhat a benevelant one; he was known to kill Englishmen sent to "tame" the Scots. Now, I know that Gibson being under 6' tall isn't that big a deal, but it destroys the entire reason of why Wallace was so feared. The French lady existed but happened to be born after Wallace was slain. Oh, and Wallace's wife? Probably not killed by the English.
And let's not forget Hoffa. Oh god, what a bastardization they did to that: Mincus Steak House on Telegraph in Bloomfield (or whatever it was called) changed to the..Road House?!...jeezus H...and the made up characters and false "incidents"...and, while the ending was pretty cool & wild the first time one saw it, you knew the killers weren't some kid at the restaurant but mafiosa from NJ & Detroit. Anyway, I have to say that Hoffa doesn't bug me as much as Braveheart, maybe b/c most everyone knows it's total bs & so many thought Braveheart was accurate.
As for baseball flicks: Funniest had to be The Babe Ruth story where William Bendix plays Ruth as a teen and on his death bed in his 50's!! And he never changed!! Gotta love it.
Cobb was much better, though dwelling on Ty's evil racism may have been over-done and he came off as a rather shallow person, though many have said that he had many faces & his evil side was merely one. Much of the story was fairly accurate but to say that folks hated the guy likely isn't correct. I recall seeing a photo of Cobb and Kaline & reading where Kaline really seemed to like Cobb. Anyway, Cobb was intriguing but I have to say I had a sour feeling about the flick overall. And, as a kid, I read much of Stump's writing on MLB and Cobb specifically. Don't recall much of what was on the screen.

Anyway, I agree that Hollywood can & does change stories all the time. My take is that they do it to better entertain. But some of the above and much else is probably unnecessary. Guess I come across as a "whack-off complainer", but I prefer to think of it as more of a curmudgeon.

 

[zonietigerfan]

People tend to think it's true if they see it in a movie. Worst example was JFK...

Funny, I had JFK on my mind when I wrote my reply. I liked it as a movie, but obviously it was far from historically accurate.

Oh...in my diatribe I pretty much forgot JFK. LOL. What a flick. Funny thing is, much of the movie follows much of the spirit & the letter of Jim Garrison's book. Ergo, while much of Garrison's theories were claptrap & not worthy of discussion, Stone's flick followed the Garrison book fairly closely; iow, if you disagreed with Garrison you disagreed with JFK. But I too agree that the flick was entertaining. But nothing more.