‘Moneyball’ the movie is a big swing and a miss
By David Maraniss,
WashPost
Monday, October 24, 6:02 PM
Before the baseball season ends in a few days and before “Moneyball” leaves movie theaters and the public consciousness, I need to say a few things. Not that many sports issues get me riled up, but “Moneyball,” the first letter capitalized or not, gets me going. Now, let me state first that I consider Michael Lewis, who wrote the book on which the movie was based, to be a brilliant thinker and writer, the absolute best at what he does, which is making complicated subjects accessible, new and revealing.
But I absolutely hate the movie “Moneyball” and everything it stands for. I think it is a fraud, one that people I respect bought into, for what they thought were noble reasons having to do with the little guys vs. the big bullies. I also dislike the philosophy of moneyball as it is applied to sports. My problem with the movie is a matter of truth. My problem with the philosophy is a question of art and beauty.
The movie features Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland A’s, and his struggle to make a success out of a small-market franchise in a world where baseball teams with the most money can buy the best players.
Nothing to dispute there; the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox and a few other big-market teams have the money and buy the best players when they can. (I hate them, too, by the way.) But to watch “Moneyball,” one would think that Beane, played by Brad Pitt, was a genius because, with the astute guidance of a lovably pudgy baseball nerd, he forced the manager to play Scott Hatteberg, a poor fielder with an excellent on-base percentage, at first base, and pulled off a trade that brought in a reliever named Ricardo Rincon, who also projected well in the mathematical equations Beane and his sidekick decided led directly to wins. Those are the two key bits of baseball strategy in the movie. Watching it, one would think that those moves led inexorably to the record-breaking 20-game winning streak of the 2002 A’s.
(More here.)
WashPost
Monday, October 24, 6:02 PM
Before the baseball season ends in a few days and before “Moneyball” leaves movie theaters and the public consciousness, I need to say a few things. Not that many sports issues get me riled up, but “Moneyball,” the first letter capitalized or not, gets me going. Now, let me state first that I consider Michael Lewis, who wrote the book on which the movie was based, to be a brilliant thinker and writer, the absolute best at what he does, which is making complicated subjects accessible, new and revealing.
But I absolutely hate the movie “Moneyball” and everything it stands for. I think it is a fraud, one that people I respect bought into, for what they thought were noble reasons having to do with the little guys vs. the big bullies. I also dislike the philosophy of moneyball as it is applied to sports. My problem with the movie is a matter of truth. My problem with the philosophy is a question of art and beauty.
The movie features Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland A’s, and his struggle to make a success out of a small-market franchise in a world where baseball teams with the most money can buy the best players.
Nothing to dispute there; the New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox and a few other big-market teams have the money and buy the best players when they can. (I hate them, too, by the way.) But to watch “Moneyball,” one would think that Beane, played by Brad Pitt, was a genius because, with the astute guidance of a lovably pudgy baseball nerd, he forced the manager to play Scott Hatteberg, a poor fielder with an excellent on-base percentage, at first base, and pulled off a trade that brought in a reliever named Ricardo Rincon, who also projected well in the mathematical equations Beane and his sidekick decided led directly to wins. Those are the two key bits of baseball strategy in the movie. Watching it, one would think that those moves led inexorably to the record-breaking 20-game winning streak of the 2002 A’s.
(More here.)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home