A couple corrections I caught after making the video. First, Chad Bradford did join the team in 2001 and not 2002, so, similar to Giambi, that's another player the movie mis-characterized as a "new addition." However, the book did focus on him some and why the A's acquired him, so not completely out of place. Secondly. I did overlook that the book does describe Beane as a more involved GM in the clubhouse, but I'll still say the movie way overstates that.
@Craig Salad... Yeah but they were still super young brand new players. You cant tell if someone is a superstar yet, after only 1 or 2 years of solid production. Thats crazy.. But regardless, most people knew about Tejada already. And it was known & shown, that he was 1 of the only more solid players that was on the team already previously
My biggest findings were that the movie combines years of Billy’s strategy in to one season. Which I’m more than ok with. The funny thing is… one of Billy’s greatest strengths was drafting and it doesn’t get addressed in the movie.
you should do a video about the baseball episode of star trek DS9 in the final season, Take Me Out To The Holosuite. It'd be interesting to see your take on vulcans and klingons and genetically enhanced humans playing baseball.
The point of a biopic is to paint a picture of somebody's life while still keeping it entertaining and under 3 hours. The more accurate version of this story that you are suggesting would be 10 hours long and boring as hell
The reason Hatteberg was a main focus in the movie is because he hit the walk-off homer to win the 20 straight game. In order for the monent to have extra weight, they needed the audience to be invested in him
He also really turned his career around for awhile there I followed him from when he was a catcher in Boston. He had talent but didn't actually live up to it till after he got injured and couldn't catch anymore It's actually a decent story all on its own
He was also the most analytical pick up. An ex catcher that can't throw. Put at fist cuz he has the .OPS they needed ... that they got for dirt cheap cuz no one else seen the value in it
In the book, Lewis writes a symbolic thought that the ownership is cheap enough to use vending machines for soda, where the players have to pay for it. This 'becomes' a real thing for a scene in the movie.
Also the "good face" stuff. That was cited in the book as ridiculous hokum that scouts had used in the past, and then it's actually cited by an A's scout in one scene.
I'm from Argentina. I've never seen a Baseball game in my life. Baseball is probably the hardest sport to relate being a football (soccer) fan. But I really loved this movie, and somehow, it felt like for a couple of hours, I could experience and understand the magic and soul of this sport.
the exciting moments of baseball are excellent, but there's so much dead time where everyone is standing around doing nothing that it's pretty much impossible to watch from a screen at home. you either need to go see it live at the stadium, have a watch party or be doing something else at home with the game on in the background, or watch a recap with all the empty space edited out
@@MenachemSchmuelUnless if you know the game well, then that so-called "dead time" is not dead time at all: it's anticipation time (and, depending on the importance of the situation and/or game, that anticipation time is actually what can greatly INCREASE the excitement, even to the point of agony: no sport has as intense excitement/agonizing moments as baseball has in those "dead time" moments between pitches in crunch time moments, especially in big games! Enough to give one a heart attack at times, I tell ya...).
The worst thing about moneyball is ignoring the fact of how great they were at drafting talent. Sure the players they picked up were good but the kids they drafted were the difference makers.
Agreed. I get why they do it for the movie since it’s more compelling with how the movie shows it but it’s a glaring omission compared to the reality. When you look back to this 2002 team as an example they had that elite starting rotation of Zito, Mulder and Hudson. Zito won the Cy Young that season. Eric Chavez won the Silver Slugger. Miguel Tejada won the MVP. All of those guys were drafted by the team. But they cut them out of the movie. I get why they do it for the story but obviously it’s a huge aspect to leave out when looking at how the team performed.
Even worse - the movie goes out of it's way to make the scouts seem like a room full of out-of-touch buffoons when they were 99% of the reason the A's won 103 games that year.
@@semperconstanceExactly. They were the guys looking at these draft picks. I get that it's Hollywood, but the story is barely recognizable with how they chopped it all up.
@@semperconstanceBro have you read the book? Those drafting decisions were made explicitly against what the scouts wanted to do in many cases. Billy actually did fire Grady Fuson for being shit. Barry Zito in particular was hated by the scouts.
@plasmakitten4261 - if that's the case, then that's what the movie should have focused on as the emergence of Zito was far, far more consequential than the signing of David Justice (which was ultimately a hindrance, not a benefit).
The way they treated Art Howe and some of the omitted players reminds me of the movie Friday Night Lights at the end it states that the next year the team actually won the championship. Can you imagine having been on a championship winning team back in high school only to find out a movie is being made about your old team but it’s about the year before you won.
Well the movie is based on the book, where the writer only followed the team for one year, he had no idea what was going to happen as far as the team winning or losing, just so happens he starting writing in 88 and not 89 I would say it is similar in the aspect that the movie makes it seem like the team hadn’t been good since the 60s yet the author specifically chose the school because of their history of winning
As an Australian college student studying economics, reading Moneyball was what really got me into Baseball, so I credit it with that. I appreciate a sports movie that centres on decisions made at a management level, instead of on the field.
Absolutely fantastic video. Moneyball is still one of my favorite sports movies of all time, so it was cool to see how many of the individual player details it got right (even if a bit editorialized). The research you do is really impressive
It was a movie.... out of left field, lol. I never thought I would love this movie as much as I do. Had to go buy it and I still watch it at least once a month, it's just such a great movie!
When I saw the movie, I thought it was implausible that a Royals player would be on base in a major league game (as the movie shows), but I checked it out and it did happen.
RIP Jeremy Giambi … I don’t think he should’ve gotten as much flack as he did in his career. I feel that may have played a part in his decision to leave this realm. Just a sad situation all around.
As an A’s fan, I remember the events and players differently than the book depicts. Sandy Alderson was responsible for the core team and farm system they had during those years of success. Beane came in and got credit because of the 20 game streak but they got to the playoffs as they had without Beane, and got blown out because the focus on walks doesn’t work in a playoff situation. It was very frustrating watching them load the bases only to have their big hitters strike out looking, afraid to swing the bat.
My memory is fuzzy and the A's weren't my team but I seem to remember most of the attention/hoopla that year was Zito/Muldar/Hudson? I don't even remember conversations about sabermetrics till later. I also thought Chavez was a hell of 3rd baseman
I dig the book, and loved the movie. But for me it really is a problem that it goes out of its way to ignore Tejada and especially the 1-2-3 punch of Hudson, Zito and Mulder, one of the most talented and frightening rotations in the majors both in 2002 and the year before. I get it, it's for the narrative. But it's definitely bending reality.
I have found memories of that time because I’m a NE Ohio native and we had some great Indians teams, but I hated how the game was so offensively lopsided during that time.
I’d agree mostly. I’d adjust the timing to be ‘91 - ‘08. Sure, there’s disputes about it being the “steroid” era. But, let’s be real here, those “steroid” players brought in so many fans it can’t be denied. It created so much passion for MLB.
Great video! I think you really hit it on the head with the last part. Aaron Sorkin movies tend to use real events and people but add twists on events to build a larger narrative point. Moneyball is such a smart movie because as well as being a great baseball movie. It’s also a very smart commentary on business and capitalism as a whole and I think that’s why so many people like me actually got into baseball because of it
I don't mind if it's only half true. I assumed that anyways and knew going into watching the film it was fiction. I found it a thoroughly engrossing film though. Has some real emotion in there and great flow. No down time or boring parts.
It’s obvious Hollywood would take liberties with events to put out the most compelling movie. The issue with money ball is that they make drastic changes to the events that mis portray the story and success of the strategy. For example, they portray that this method is why the team succeeded when the reality is they excluded a Cy Young winner, Silver Slugger and MVP all drafted the traditional way from the story. That’s a gigantic omission to have and changes the entire story. I get why they did that because if they presented the truth of that roster as it actually was it would show that money ball may have been helpful but was not the driving force or why they won a ton of games.
I don't play baseball or even follow it, but this book helped a few of us construct a competitive hockey club that ran for 4 years, winning league once, a major tournament once, and having several league/tournament runner-up. Defense and goaltending were top priority. Winning face offs, blocking shots, stealing the puck. While we had a few offensive stud players over those years, it was the "details" of the lesser skilled players that helped us to victory. Analytics got us there.
Is winning faceoffs really that important? In a specific game maybe, but in the long term a team like Pittsburgh Penguins can win Stanley Cup with lower then average FO%.
@@Rojk in beer league yes. On teams where we get shots from the point, we score more goals. Most of those come off of face offs. As a defenseman I've had games with 10 shots/scoring opportunities because my center could win draws clean back. If I play wing that's more chances for tip ins. You do all of those things I mentioned and you make the other team panic / make mistakes.
Not only was Carlos Pena traded while in the minors, he was in the on deck circle when he found out. I was the official scorer of that game. We watched as he grabbed his stuff, then the umpire called timeout so he could run to the clubhouse (access to which is in left field). None of us knew why this was happening at the time, but the Sacramento Bee beat writer got on the horn to his A's counterpart and learned of Pena's trade to Detroit.
I wish I could ask my dad, a baseball scout for numerous teams over several decades but never on the level of the guys in the film, for his views. As for the portrayal of Art Howe, Philip Seymour Hoffman was such an incredible talent I can see making adjustments so the manager and the GM can bounce ideas around.
I absolutely love both the movie and the book. I was surprised to find how much the book talked about Nick Swisher. Obviously they left out the whole section about the draft, but it's just funny that he isn't even mentioned in passing as far as I remember
I assume not every player granted the movie production permission to use their likeness, at least not at free will. Alot of the star players on that A's team who didnt need money, did not allow free reign to use their likeness in the film.
I think Moneyball is a film that does an excellent job of portraying what it felt like to face challenges the A's faced at the expense of accuracy of what actually happened. I know people are bothered by the omission of star-players and the timeline of events. But virtually every team has star-players, and one of the best lines from the book goes something like "Some team think one players will solve all their problems and they pay any price for them." This is in reference to the Red Sox really wanting the left-handed power-hitter Cliff Floyd. The A's organization saw things differently as they tried to build an entire roster that had a better chance to win and movie line really does it justice by saying teams were trying to buy players when they should have been trying to buy runs. The timeline I can really forgive to, it's impossible to make something like building a team over 10 year dramatic. I mean we can't expect the public to get excited about trades for would be super-stars while there in A ball or possible roster fillers during the draft.
The issue with the exclusion of the star players is how it is such a material omission about the teams success. That exclusion removed a Cy Young winner, Silver Slugger winner, and MVP of the league that were on that team and a giant aspect of the success that team had. It’s one thing to make small tweaks for the benefit of story but it’s another thing when you make tweaks to entirely change the events to put out a better movie. I get why they did it because the focus of course was to portray the strategy of money ball being the reason for the teams success but it’s a big mis portrayal of the reality of events that happened. The movie focuses so much on how archaic the scouts were being attached to their out of date methods and how it was holding the team back with the solution being the money ball strategy but the reality is that the guys those scouts were drafting were consistently the biggest contributors to the success of the team. It’s an issue because of how it flips the entire story. The timeline doesn’t bother me because it isn’t a huge deal to the story. Again small tweaks for a better story are fine it’s only an issue when you tweak stuff to entirely change the story. The line about buying runs and such is a solid line for a movie and focusing on an overall team. But the realities are that buying players more often than not still results in championships. The Athletics despite this strategy have consistently lost early and never made a deep run for a championship. The teams mocked for buying players like the Red Sox as an example have won four World Series since this time. So while the big buyers don’t always win they still win pretty often despite what the movie wanted to portray. It’s a solid story for the movie but much less sexy in the real events.
@@Matt-cr4vv Good points. I think what it comes down to is the viewer and their knowledge of the game and, especially the A's during this period. You sound like you're a good fan and maybe a A's fan, you obviously know the game. Others however went to the theater and looked at the offerings and said "this looks like it might be good, it's about baseball". They might of thought it was going to be like "Major League", " The Natural" or "Bull Durham". They don't know any better, so for them it was just an entertaining baseball movie. My own opinion is as long as you have a round bat trying to hit a round ball there will never be a foolproof formula. There are teams like the Yankee who defy that however.
I coach 14u Little League. The years my teams won the District were when the bottom half of my team are better than the other teams bottom half. My guys would battle, draw walks, gets an occasional hit, make some plays on defense. The other teams’ worst players didn’t do much. The best players on all teams were studs. But if my worst are better than your worst, we win. Thanks for the video. I love the book and movie. I’m a Red Sox fan, but I did love those A’s teams.
Yeah, I only do beer league softball these days but in the co-ed leagues I was in, the best teams were whoever had the best women, even if they had stud dudes that could hit it out every time.
This needs more up votes, just over 120 isn't enough for the time and research that went into this video. Author did an amazing job and deserves the credit for sure.
Mine is Justice "Well good luck with that". In his feeble attempt with Hatteberg in trying to be more of a leader. The mouthful of cereal is a nice touch.
This movie got me to read the book which led me to reading more baseball books. Now it's my favorite sport. Great video and way to capture a lot in a short amount of time.
Great video man, well done. I never watch UA-cam videos this long, ever. For Field of Dreams and one thing that bothered me was Moonlight Graham's SAC fly. He wanted 1 at bat, but in the record books it would show no at bat with an RBI. I think a single would have fit better.
awesome video. i was mostly into only hockey at the time (which has a growing but still less developed analytics community) - and i loved this movie. It made me not only appreciate stats in general more; but got me into baseball and basketball too - nice to see someone who like acknowledges the realities of storytelling and how important some deviations (minor or significant) are needed to make a good film. The movie had the vibes which is why we all like it - the historical specifics less important in the context of telling a story.
MC hammer was once a batboy/clubhouse grip for the A's. Oak player, Dwayne Murphy, who later went on to Coach the blue Jays, helped fund Hammer's first record label at that time.
The owner of the A’s at the time hated paying front office personnel. I think at one point he made Hammer Vice President of baseball operations. 😂 Hammer was also used as a club house spy. He would report back to the owner about the vibe in the club house.
This is a good example of why there are knowledgeable baseball fans, knowledgeable screenwriters and producers, and very little overlap. I like watching UA-cam videos from knowledgeable baseball fans because it provides additional context to interesting baseball topics based upon a level of basebal history I have zero interest in amassing. Still, those are not the guys I want to even watch a game with, let alone a baseball movie. Perhaps the one minute synopsis at the end of this video placed in the beginning would have been a better representation of the context of the comments to follow. In this order, it comes across more like an "Um actually..." critique of a movie whose job was to get non-baseball fan butts into seats, not win an MVP for historical accuracy. But it definitely made me think about the morality of portraying a caricature of a character who is also a real life person (Howe). Props for acknowledging the need for an antagonist shift in the plot.
Absolutely loved this movie. It and the budding success of my Nationals helped get me into baseball at the time, and I'm now a fan of the sport because of it.
Great video and analysis. Movies often make sacrifices on accuracy for the sake of pacing in a film and it's cool to see the rest of the story. One comment on that last couple minutes talking about the omission of the A's star players at the time. I wonder if their omission may have been part of some kind of contractual issue where the producers simply weren't allowed to use their name and likeness or if it was just for the narrative?
Having read the book, there's one scene that gets under my skin -- it's when Beane asks the Jonah Goldberg character (I forget his real name) where he would have drafted him. Goldberg basically gives this spiel about his deficiencies and how he would have been drafted as a developmental project, if that. Wrong answer. The correct answer is "don't draft out of highschool". In the book they use Len Dykstra as a counterexample to Beane: they were both consider major talents, although Beane was considered the greater talent, but they were roomed together. Beane would come up to bat against a pitcher and know who he was, everything he'd done, and be too busy overawed to successfully hit the ball. Dykstra knew none of that, and had the attitude "I don't care who they are -- I'll stick em". It's why Jameseans don't draft until they've seen you in college, because mental issues like that aren't really a factor in high school baseball.
I met the Oakland A's chaplain at a wedding. He explained to me that the portrayal of Art Howe was completely wrong. Art Howe was a very easy person to get along with according to the chaplain.
This is one of the big things the movie changes from the book. Because the book paints Howe as basically just doing exactly what Beane wants most of the time. But the movie apparently needs Howe as a foil.
The whole idea of the movie was how can a low market team win as many games as the high payroll of the Yankees. While completely dismissing the fact that the team the A's lost to in the ALDS was the twins, who had virtually the same payroll as the A's. Also, and this is my biggest criticism of the sabermetric community, the idea that A high OBP equals runs isn't true. The A's in 2002 finished 3rd in the AL in Walks and 5th in OBP but finished 8th of 14th in runs. Also of the four consecutive playoff appearances, the A's pitching staff never finished worse than having the third best of ERA in the AL. Billy Beane has admitted that his system doesn't work in the postseason, the truth is if you acquire players that have high walk totals and high OBP but have low batting averages, good pitchers don't walk hitters and you for the most part are only facing good pitching in the postseason.
The Twins thing is a very good point. I think characterizing the sabermetric community as saying "A high OBP equals runs" is a bit of a straw man. A high OBP does correlate with runs pretty well, but OPS correlates with runs MUCH more (which would factor in your comment about batting average) and the sabermetric community today would weigh OPS higher than OBP. However, in 2002 OBP was overlooked. Moneyball was all about finding inefficiencies in the market, and OBP was absolutely an inefficiency and that's why the movie and book about 2002 focus on OBP so much. Similarly, today defense is somewhat of an inefficiency. The pendulum has swung so far to one side in teams valuing OBP, slugging, and 3-true outcomes baseball that a current Moneyball strategy employed by the Brewers and Rays is focusing on defense and relief pitching. In that sense, Moneyball isn't "OBP is king" but instead Moneyball is finding whatever analytics are undervalued at the moment.
@@BaseballsNotDead It is interesting that there is almost a reverse moneyball trend that's happening right now, in the early 2000's players like Nick Swisher would go from overlooked because his low BA to valuable because of his walk rate and ability to hit homers. Now you have teams like the Nationals, Braves and Royals winning championships based somewhat on timely hitting and putting the ball in play. The really great thing about Baseball however is that there is more than one way to build a contender. Anyway, great video.
@@dukesfan23 See, I wouldn't consider that reverse Moneyball. Moneyball is about finding inefficiencies in the market. If teams now overvalue OBP, the Moneyball move would be to then focus on things like putting the ball in play. Moneyball is more "when they zig, I zag" mentality to free agents and acquisitions and not a 100% focus on OBP.
@@BaseballsNotDead But "putting the ball in play" was the pre-Moneyball strategy as it has and is still devalued by sabermetrics. I am not certain that claiming the Moneyball strategy was to reject Moneyball analytics and go back to the old valuation methods is very wise.
Nothing except luck works in the postseason tho. That's what Billy admits - that his goal is to just get to the playoffs, because after that, there's so few games that it's all luck.
When Hwood makes a movie based on real events and makes characters with the exact name as real people, and takes dramatic license with them the way they did with Art Howe to make them adversarial, it baffles me why they can’t have the decency to put a text card at the end that states that fact so the true life person isn’t left hung to dry. Also see Eugene DeBruins portrayal in Rescue Dawn
I was living the DFW area when Mike Venafro played with the Rangers. He was brought in to usually do a lefty vs lefty situation. He usually failed which made me create a 'new start', Blown Out Opportunity or BOO!
Idk, everyone else in baseball is using analytics to this extent too nowadays. Which means the A's are back to just having less money than everyone else now. The window of opportunity where they knew things no one else did closed ages ago.
Good video. I enjoyed it. I agree with you. As a Oakland A's fan, I loved this movie besides the licenses that the production took in order to do a very compelling story. We know that this team was great for the Big Three (Hudson, Mulder and Zito), and Chavez and Tejada. We know the lost of Jason Giambi to the Yankees was very hurtful, however, Oakland's 2002 team was a really good team. The book doesn't talked about this big five names either and for the person who only is going to see the movie, he/she only will have a part of the story. Thank you for sharing this video. Good job.
the A's starting rotation was sick, Tejada was phenominal as well, I had him on my fantasy baseball team that season. But no one saw the Tigers come from no where to win the ALCS that season. I will never forget when Magglio hit the walk off homer at Comerica to send the TIgers to the World Series.
I think the reason they leave out Chavez, Tejada, and the big 3 pitchers is because the movie just centered around THAT season, the streak, and the analytics of the players and moves they made THAT season. Also, do we know these guys even wanted to be apart of the Cinematic version? The movie was amazing and capture the essence of the story for the 2002 season and how it advanced the way a lot of teams now approach payroll/players
Good stuff! I would point out a few things you missed. You describe Chad Bradford as an addition for 2002, but that was also a place they took liberties, because Bradford was on the 2001 As, pitched in 35 games, had the lowest or second lowest ERA on the staff, and pitched a cleaning against the Yanks in the post season. You describe Menochino as a journeyman, but he was a huge member of the 2001 As. He played in 139 games to a. 269 OBP and a 3.3 WAR, higher than Damon or Isringhausen.
I'm not sure if you mean literally they weren't mentioned in the movie when referring to Chavez or Hudson or you mean they weren't mentioned in-depth, but both Chavez and Hudson were in the same scene where Beane is walking through the locker room. He mentions to Hudson to throw strikes (Throw strikes Huddy - and Hudson replies with "Split the Plate, I know") and then he gives Chavez trouble talking about the pitches he was swinging about saying "Chavy you couldn't hit those pitches with a boat orr!" Yes, they weren't mentioned in-depth, but they were in the movie.
It amazes me that no one has done a movie on the 1993 Phillies. On paper that team had no business going to the World Series. In 1992 they won 70 games and were the 3rd worst team in all of baseball. The next year they won 97 games, beat a much superior team in the NLCS, and gave the defending champions all they could handle. All the while the team was filled with has beens, never was', and a bunch of bench players. They had 2 solid stars in Shilling and Dykstra, 2 high level players in Kruk and Daulton, the rest were platoon players(RF, LF, 2B, 3B were all platoons). Not to mention they had a lot of big personalities including the clique they called Macho Row.
Great video. I myself didn't care about baseball at all until I saw Moneyball. I always assumed it was dramatized, and I don't care that it's inaccurate. Like you said, the real story doesn't make a good movie. Very few real stories do. Anyway, I love baseball now in large part because of this movie.
What a great and in-depth video. Thanks for that. Moneyball is a movie that I try too watch whenever it's on (and not just because of Brad Pitt). And a friend of mine who used to be a baseball writer said the same about Art Howe and how the movie made him really look bad. One thing I always wondered is if Billy Bean was always eating snacks in real life, like he is in the movie. And the one thing I hate about baseball movies is how Hollywood wants us to think that baseball games are played at night....in deep and dark shadows.
Chavez is mentioned. He’s referred to as Chavvie in the locker room as Bean is getting on to him a bit about bad swing selection. Absolutely right about not mentioning the stars they had though. I looked for Zito and Mulder specifically.
How accurate was the portrayal of Suzzane, the secretary that could get anyone on the phone in 15 seconds? If that is really true then she should have got more screen time. So, did the conversation at the batting cage actually happen?
The Jeremy Brown scene, and Pete's narration, is presented as a metaphor for Beane and Moneyball. At that point, Beane is still despondent over losing in 5 for the second straight season and now has to decide if he wants to move on and be Boston's GM since he'd already said he wanted to win in Oakland. Earlier he said that if they didn't win, the baseball world would dismiss them, but if they did win they'd change the game. The metaphor is that, even after his meeting with John Henry, Beane doesn't realize that he's already changed the game. He'd hit a Home Run, and didn't even know it. As the ending text says, Boston went on to win the Series two years later, embracing aspects of Moneyball.
Yeah, but the Red Sox also spent a lot to get top players. Pedro, Manny, Damon, Shilling, Foulke. The only moneyball stuff they did was take a lot of walks.
The Red Sox were a repudiation of Moneyball strategy though. It wasn't quite Marlins-level of buying successful players to win it all but it was pretty close. It could not be replicated by small market teams.
I mean the Sox just by having a decent amount of money we're automatically a repudiation of the moneyball approach to winning with less money. But they valued the same stats and analytics, which was revolutionary at the time. And they were the team that proved you could win a World Series with that strategy. And thematically, since it was breaking an 86-year curse, it had a bigger impact than a lot of other world series, being a significant factor towards other teams also adopting analytics which are now so widespread.
Moneyball and A League of Their Own are my two favorite baseball movies! I keep going back-and-forth on which one is better, but both are pretty top notch. It's tough to pick
This film wasn’t as accurate as it could of but it still got me excited about a sport that is boring 99% of the time. This film was absolutely amazing. The ost, gets an A, the cast, A, the team A’s. This is an A plus
Hudson was mentioned in passing a couple times and was the starter in game against kc. The final out of the alds has the wrong person catch the pop up. Beane originally took the Sox job and the a’s were going to get youkilis back as compensation with Paul being promoted to gm before Billy changed his mind
Regarding Chad Bradford, I think the movie embellished a little on his story. The book famously pointed out that only the White Sox scouted him, so I think there's some truth to the "throwing funny" line. But, the White Sox liked him enough as a prospect that they drafted twice. And how he ended up on Oakland? It was a pretty ho-hum trade: a ready-to-go reliever for a catching prospect. Catchers are generally more important than relievers, so even if Oakland won that trade you're generally not going to get a large haul for a reliever who's still technically a rookie. Plus, it's not like there hadn't been other successful submarine throwers. Notably, Arizona signed Byung Hyun Kim in 1999 and promoted him to closer by their championship 2001 season.
There's a strong case to be made that a good submariner can be an extremely valuable weapon in a bullpen because the different look & motion they bring to the mound. What's more, their motions often add less overall stress to their arms. Joe Smith, Mark EIchhorn, Kent Tekulve, Brad Ziegler, Gene Garber & Dan Quisenberry are all great examples of guys that carved out extremely successful careers by just being different.
Thank you for your meticulous research that went into this video. This is a nice supplement to the movie. Should ideally be included with the DVD of the movie.
Good information and I'm glad it's getting out there. As a ball player who played through college, did some coaching, and whose father was a professional baseball player, I saw this movie for the bullshit it was when it first came.
They made the movie about Hatteberg and never talked about the great rotation (one of the best the game had ever seen), Jermaine dye, Eric Chavez, Carlos Peña, and Miguel tejada bc that would have undermined the movies narrative that the scouting department and art Howe were inept dinosaurs of the game. Truth is everyone in that scouting room had a lot more to the As success than a catcher turned first baseman ever did. That was a great young team built on solid draft picks for years. The made art Howe and David Justice into villains for no reason. Whatevs it’s Hollywood.
Thanks so much for an in-depth analysis of one of my favourite movies. It would have taken a lot of time and effort to research and I applaud you for that
Great video. Moneyball is my favorite movie. I'm left with mixed emotions. Tell a great story, or tell an accurate story? Is the real life story not entertaining enough? Maybe it wouldn't be as good of a movie if sabermetrics was already in use, Art Howe wasn't a villain, Billy Beane didn't interact as much with the players, and ignoring the stars. I guess real life just doesn't translate as well into roughly 2 hour films. Stories can take years to play out. In the end, I can appreciate the story told while knowing more of the truth. I had no idea about Steve Vucinich or knew he was referenced. Thank you for the video.
Great analysis pal. I too love movies and baseball movies. This one really hooked me, and I really believe the reason was Brad Pitt's performance. His handling of the firings and the scouts affected me in a big way. I'm pretty sure these actions are text book management teachings.
Agree! My only doubt is when he's brought out to Fenway. Would a offer of $12, 500, 000 @ year really be scribbled on a scrap of paper? I would think that would be done in a closed office.
I too actually looked up the names of the players thrown around in that Rincon acquisition and got the same results you mentioned either they don't exist or wasn't specific on who.
While Beane does deserve some fair credit for the teams he built on the cheap during the 2010s, most of his early/mid 2000s success was due to guys not brought in by him (Chavez, Tejada, the big three pitchers). Only real wins he can claim for that period are trading a declining Mark Mulder for Dan Haren and drafting Nick Swisher. Not related but I can't believe the dude traded two all star caliber players on Carlos Gonzalez and Huston Street for half a season of Matt Holliday. Easily the worst move of his career.
Didn't understand a thing about baseball when I watched this film a few years ago. Have watched it many times after and sell dont understand a thing about baseball but love the film. I like the flow of the story and the excellent dialogue.
I saw this on a streaming service at some point when I was bored and didn't know what to watch, so I gave it a shot. I don't give one shit about baseball and never will, but I still really enjoyed this movie. It using some Explosions in the Sky just added to it.
Interesting note on Venafro. I used to live in Texas (and actually worked for the Rangers later on) and he was a lefty and they would bring him in for the ole lefty vs lefty bit. Most of the time the guy got on base. I wanted a new stat...Blown Out Opportunity or BOO. As in 'get off the field and don't come back' BOO.
The other critical account of this movie I have read was by a woman who said it was just boring scenes of men in meetings. At first glance she is right, but when you take them together it tells a fascinating story with all the ingredients of hope overcoming despair, a hero triumphing over all odds. If you stick too close to the truth all those elements are lost to the story and it becomes another tale of Hollywood taking a good book and making a bad story.
I loved the book, but I know people in baseball who will tell you that all clubs knew about sabermetrics. Some were disciples, some half-believed, some thought it was ridiculous. All clubs were looking for innovative ways to evaluate players. What I hated about the book was a dismissive attitude toward defense, base running and athleticism. The team that valued defense, the twins, beat the A’s that year…another small market team. They should have had a sequel.
Looking back now, it’s criminal that the Oakland A’s never won World Series. That ‘02 team was so stacked. I lived in Bay Area at the time and it was a blast being “band-wagon fan” of that A’s team. They were so fun to watch.
The biggest failure is not mentioning Miguel Tejada and the pitching trio of Mulder, Zito, Hudson. Like you said, the worst thing about the movie. At least Chavez got the nickname mention.
A couple corrections I caught after making the video. First, Chad Bradford did join the team in 2001 and not 2002, so, similar to Giambi, that's another player the movie mis-characterized as a "new addition." However, the book did focus on him some and why the A's acquired him, so not completely out of place.
Secondly. I did overlook that the book does describe Beane as a more involved GM in the clubhouse, but I'll still say the movie way overstates that.
Not to mention Tejada and Chavez being superstars
@Craig Salad... Yeah but they were still super young brand new players. You cant tell if someone is a superstar yet, after only 1 or 2 years of solid production. Thats crazy.. But regardless, most people knew about Tejada already. And it was known & shown, that he was 1 of the only more solid players that was on the team already previously
My biggest findings were that the movie combines years of Billy’s strategy in to one season. Which I’m more than ok with. The funny thing is… one of Billy’s greatest strengths was drafting and it doesn’t get addressed in the movie.
you should do a video about the baseball episode of star trek DS9 in the final season, Take Me Out To The Holosuite. It'd be interesting to see your take on vulcans and klingons and genetically enhanced humans playing baseball.
The point of a biopic is to paint a picture of somebody's life while still keeping it entertaining and under 3 hours. The more accurate version of this story that you are suggesting would be 10 hours long and boring as hell
The reason Hatteberg was a main focus in the movie is because he hit the walk-off homer to win the 20 straight game. In order for the monent to have extra weight, they needed the audience to be invested in him
I'll buy that for a dollar
He also really turned his career around for awhile there
I followed him from when he was a catcher in Boston. He had talent but didn't actually live up to it till after he got injured and couldn't catch anymore
It's actually a decent story all on its own
He was also the most analytical pick up. An ex catcher that can't throw. Put at fist cuz he has the .OPS they needed ... that they got for dirt cheap cuz no one else seen the value in it
@@ianmangham4570Dead or alive, you're coming with me!
@@stvinneywas a fan favorite as a backup to Jason varitek. Born and raised Bostonian here
"who is Fabio, he's a shortstop for the Mariners" is the funniest line in this movie 🤣
that's not the line, it's he's a shortstop from seattle.
only if you're not a real BB fan......
Lmfao I put my palm over my face when I heard him ask who it was 😂😂😂
@@kendallevans4079 this movie was so inaccurate bb fans should be upset
idk…. “he’s got an ugly girlfriend” is close
Yea team depth is incredibly important BUT ignoring the A’s BIG3 starting pitchers is ridiculous
And Eric Chavez
And Miguel tejada
Yeah, overlooking the AL MVP is a pretty big oversight.
Jermaine dye was on this squad too, no?
@@daltonfarris Yeah I think he was as well. It is a bit silly to ignore the AL MVP & AL Cy Young. 🤦♂️😆
In the book, Lewis writes a symbolic thought that the ownership is cheap enough to use vending machines for soda, where the players have to pay for it. This 'becomes' a real thing for a scene in the movie.
Also the "good face" stuff. That was cited in the book as ridiculous hokum that scouts had used in the past, and then it's actually cited by an A's scout in one scene.
I'm from Argentina. I've never seen a Baseball game in my life. Baseball is probably the hardest sport to relate being a football (soccer) fan. But I really loved this movie, and somehow, it felt like for a couple of hours, I could experience and understand the magic and soul of this sport.
the exciting moments of baseball are excellent, but there's so much dead time where everyone is standing around doing nothing that it's pretty much impossible to watch from a screen at home. you either need to go see it live at the stadium, have a watch party or be doing something else at home with the game on in the background, or watch a recap with all the empty space edited out
@@MenachemSchmuelUnless if you know the game well, then that so-called "dead time" is not dead time at all: it's anticipation time (and, depending on the importance of the situation and/or game, that anticipation time is actually what can greatly INCREASE the excitement, even to the point of agony: no sport has as intense excitement/agonizing moments as baseball has in those "dead time" moments between pitches in crunch time moments, especially in big games! Enough to give one a heart attack at times, I tell ya...).
@blessedvirginmaryisqueen8448 Yeah pal, it's called cricket, we have that
@ILikedGooglePlus Ah, Cricket is good and all, but... well...baseball is the perfection of cricket!
That's disappointing because the analytics guys are the ones sucking the soul out of baseball.
The worst thing about moneyball is ignoring the fact of how great they were at drafting talent. Sure the players they picked up were good but the kids they drafted were the difference makers.
Agreed. I get why they do it for the movie since it’s more compelling with how the movie shows it but it’s a glaring omission compared to the reality. When you look back to this 2002 team as an example they had that elite starting rotation of Zito, Mulder and Hudson. Zito won the Cy Young that season. Eric Chavez won the Silver Slugger. Miguel Tejada won the MVP. All of those guys were drafted by the team. But they cut them out of the movie. I get why they do it for the story but obviously it’s a huge aspect to leave out when looking at how the team performed.
Even worse - the movie goes out of it's way to make the scouts seem like a room full of out-of-touch buffoons when they were 99% of the reason the A's won 103 games that year.
@@semperconstanceExactly. They were the guys looking at these draft picks. I get that it's Hollywood, but the story is barely recognizable with how they chopped it all up.
@@semperconstanceBro have you read the book? Those drafting decisions were made explicitly against what the scouts wanted to do in many cases. Billy actually did fire Grady Fuson for being shit. Barry Zito in particular was hated by the scouts.
@plasmakitten4261 - if that's the case, then that's what the movie should have focused on as the emergence of Zito was far, far more consequential than the signing of David Justice (which was ultimately a hindrance, not a benefit).
The way they treated Art Howe and some of the omitted players reminds me of the movie Friday Night Lights at the end it states that the next year the team actually won the championship. Can you imagine having been on a championship winning team back in high school only to find out a movie is being made about your old team but it’s about the year before you won.
Well the movie is based on the book, where the writer only followed the team for one year, he had no idea what was going to happen as far as the team winning or losing, just so happens he starting writing in 88 and not 89
I would say it is similar in the aspect that the movie makes it seem like the team hadn’t been good since the 60s yet the author specifically chose the school because of their history of winning
Yeah they writer is not a journalist. He is a writer, the new book (abou FTX) is full of lies and even more atrocious.
As a lifetime baseball fan, a Bay Area resident, and an aspiring screenwriter, I had a variety of reasons to love this clip. Thank for posting.
Very cool!
As an Australian college student studying economics, reading Moneyball was what really got me into Baseball, so I credit it with that. I appreciate a sports movie that centres on decisions made at a management level, instead of on the field.
Nightmare 🙏 good luck
That's quite possibly the nerdiest thing ever. 😂
Absolutely fantastic video. Moneyball is still one of my favorite sports movies of all time, so it was cool to see how many of the individual player details it got right (even if a bit editorialized). The research you do is really impressive
Glad you enjoyed it!
It was a movie.... out of left field, lol. I never thought I would love this movie as much as I do. Had to go buy it and I still watch it at least once a month, it's just such a great movie!
When I saw the movie, I thought it was implausible that a Royals player would be on base in a major league game (as the movie shows), but I checked it out and it did happen.
RIP Jeremy Giambi … I don’t think he should’ve gotten as much flack as he did in his career. I feel that may have played a part in his decision to leave this realm. Just a sad situation all around.
As an A’s fan, I remember the events and players differently than the book depicts. Sandy Alderson was responsible for the core team and farm system they had during those years of success. Beane came in and got credit because of the 20 game streak but they got to the playoffs as they had without Beane, and got blown out because the focus on walks doesn’t work in a playoff situation. It was very frustrating watching them load the bases only to have their big hitters strike out looking, afraid to swing the bat.
Wasn't Beane already with the A's before 2002?
My memory is fuzzy and the A's weren't my team but I seem to remember most of the attention/hoopla that year was Zito/Muldar/Hudson? I don't even remember conversations about sabermetrics till later. I also thought Chavez was a hell of 3rd baseman
@@kendallevans4079So you're saying Fuzzy Wuzzy was a woman! 😮
@@ianmangham4570 He was a bear...everyone knows that!
@@kendallevans4079 🙄
I dig the book, and loved the movie. But for me it really is a problem that it goes out of its way to ignore Tejada and especially the 1-2-3 punch of Hudson, Zito and Mulder, one of the most talented and frightening rotations in the majors both in 2002 and the year before. I get it, it's for the narrative. But it's definitely bending reality.
being a steroid cheat, tejada's name should not be spoken in polite company.
Idk, book mentions all of these people. The movie just couldn't fit all of the content.
95-05 was a great decade in baseball.
I have found memories of that time because I’m a NE Ohio native and we had some great Indians teams, but I hated how the game was so offensively lopsided during that time.
I’d agree mostly. I’d adjust the timing to be ‘91 - ‘08. Sure, there’s disputes about it being the “steroid” era. But, let’s be real here, those “steroid” players brought in so many fans it can’t be denied. It created so much passion for MLB.
My baseball years for sure. Watching and playing.
Great video! I think you really hit it on the head with the last part. Aaron Sorkin movies tend to use real events and people but add twists on events to build a larger narrative point.
Moneyball is such a smart movie because as well as being a great baseball movie. It’s also a very smart commentary on business and capitalism as a whole and I think that’s why so many people like me actually got into baseball because of it
I don't mind if it's only half true. I assumed that anyways and knew going into watching the film it was fiction. I found it a thoroughly engrossing film though. Has some real emotion in there and great flow. No down time or boring parts.
I wouldn't either, if it was anywhere close to half! They got like 4 total details right, and two of those were the city and name of the team 🙄
It’s obvious Hollywood would take liberties with events to put out the most compelling movie. The issue with money ball is that they make drastic changes to the events that mis portray the story and success of the strategy. For example, they portray that this method is why the team succeeded when the reality is they excluded a Cy Young winner, Silver Slugger and MVP all drafted the traditional way from the story. That’s a gigantic omission to have and changes the entire story. I get why they did that because if they presented the truth of that roster as it actually was it would show that money ball may have been helpful but was not the driving force or why they won a ton of games.
You would mind if you were slandered
I don't play baseball or even follow it, but this book helped a few of us construct a competitive hockey club that ran for 4 years, winning league once, a major tournament once, and having several league/tournament runner-up. Defense and goaltending were top priority. Winning face offs, blocking shots, stealing the puck. While we had a few offensive stud players over those years, it was the "details" of the lesser skilled players that helped us to victory. Analytics got us there.
Is winning faceoffs really that important? In a specific game maybe, but in the long term a team like Pittsburgh Penguins can win Stanley Cup with lower then average FO%.
@@Rojk in beer league yes. On teams where we get shots from the point, we score more goals. Most of those come off of face offs. As a defenseman I've had games with 10 shots/scoring opportunities because my center could win draws clean back. If I play wing that's more chances for tip ins. You do all of those things I mentioned and you make the other team panic / make mistakes.
Not only was Carlos Pena traded while in the minors, he was in the on deck circle when he found out. I was the official scorer of that game. We watched as he grabbed his stuff, then the umpire called timeout so he could run to the clubhouse (access to which is in left field). None of us knew why this was happening at the time, but the Sacramento Bee beat writer got on the horn to his A's counterpart and learned of Pena's trade to Detroit.
I wish I could ask my dad, a baseball scout for numerous teams over several decades but never on the level of the guys in the film, for his views. As for the portrayal of Art Howe, Philip Seymour Hoffman was such an incredible talent I can see making adjustments so the manager and the GM can bounce ideas around.
Really respect how much effort you put into these bro. Moneyball is one of my favorite movies and it's cool to see the differences.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I absolutely love both the movie and the book. I was surprised to find how much the book talked about Nick Swisher. Obviously they left out the whole section about the draft, but it's just funny that he isn't even mentioned in passing as far as I remember
I assume not every player granted the movie production permission to use their likeness, at least not at free will. Alot of the star players on that A's team who didnt need money, did not allow free reign to use their likeness in the film.
Nick Swisher didn’t think much of Babe Ruth’s physique either
I think Moneyball is a film that does an excellent job of portraying what it felt like to face challenges the A's faced at the expense of accuracy of what actually happened. I know people are bothered by the omission of star-players and the timeline of events. But virtually every team has star-players, and one of the best lines from the book goes something like "Some team think one players will solve all their problems and they pay any price for them." This is in reference to the Red Sox really wanting the left-handed power-hitter Cliff Floyd. The A's organization saw things differently as they tried to build an entire roster that had a better chance to win and movie line really does it justice by saying teams were trying to buy players when they should have been trying to buy runs. The timeline I can really forgive to, it's impossible to make something like building a team over 10 year dramatic. I mean we can't expect the public to get excited about trades for would be super-stars while there in A ball or possible roster fillers during the draft.
The issue with the exclusion of the star players is how it is such a material omission about the teams success. That exclusion removed a Cy Young winner, Silver Slugger winner, and MVP of the league that were on that team and a giant aspect of the success that team had. It’s one thing to make small tweaks for the benefit of story but it’s another thing when you make tweaks to entirely change the events to put out a better movie. I get why they did it because the focus of course was to portray the strategy of money ball being the reason for the teams success but it’s a big mis portrayal of the reality of events that happened. The movie focuses so much on how archaic the scouts were being attached to their out of date methods and how it was holding the team back with the solution being the money ball strategy but the reality is that the guys those scouts were drafting were consistently the biggest contributors to the success of the team. It’s an issue because of how it flips the entire story.
The timeline doesn’t bother me because it isn’t a huge deal to the story. Again small tweaks for a better story are fine it’s only an issue when you tweak stuff to entirely change the story. The line about buying runs and such is a solid line for a movie and focusing on an overall team. But the realities are that buying players more often than not still results in championships. The Athletics despite this strategy have consistently lost early and never made a deep run for a championship. The teams mocked for buying players like the Red Sox as an example have won four World Series since this time. So while the big buyers don’t always win they still win pretty often despite what the movie wanted to portray. It’s a solid story for the movie but much less sexy in the real events.
@@Matt-cr4vv Good points. I think what it comes down to is the viewer and their knowledge of the game and, especially the A's during this period. You sound like you're a good fan and maybe a A's fan, you obviously know the game. Others however went to the theater and looked at the offerings and said "this looks like it might be good, it's about baseball". They might of thought it was going to be like "Major League", " The Natural" or "Bull Durham". They don't know any better, so for them it was just an entertaining baseball movie. My own opinion is as long as you have a round bat trying to hit a round ball there will never be a foolproof formula. There are teams like the Yankee who defy that however.
I coach 14u Little League. The years my teams won the District were when the bottom half of my team are better than the other teams bottom half. My guys would battle, draw walks, gets an occasional hit, make some plays on defense. The other teams’ worst players didn’t do much. The best players on all teams were studs.
But if my worst are better than your worst, we win.
Thanks for the video. I love the book and movie. I’m a Red Sox fan, but I did love those A’s teams.
Yeah, I only do beer league softball these days but in the co-ed leagues I was in, the best teams were whoever had the best women, even if they had stud dudes that could hit it out every time.
Raising the floor is more important than raising the ceiling.
This needs more up votes, just over 120 isn't enough for the time and research that went into this video. Author did an amazing job and deserves the credit for sure.
Thanks!
Absolutely! That is a labor of love of the game. That's a real MLB fan!
“What about the fans?”
“Yeah, maybe we could teach one of them”
This is the best line in the movie
"It's incredibly hard..."
My favorite line in the movie.
That whole conversation was some of the BEST understated, low-key lines EVER delivered !
In real life he said "it's gonna be real MFin' hard if you don't put in the MFin' work"
Michael Scott's as well
Mine is Justice "Well good luck with that". In his feeble attempt with Hatteberg in trying to be more of a leader. The mouthful of cereal is a nice touch.
The delivery makes it awesome
Tejada was only mentioned by broadcast and replayed footage from their 2002 season, they show his walkoff and gaming winning hits
This movie got me to read the book which led me to reading more baseball books. Now it's my favorite sport. Great video and way to capture a lot in a short amount of time.
Great video man, well done. I never watch UA-cam videos this long, ever. For Field of Dreams and one thing that bothered me was Moonlight Graham's SAC fly. He wanted 1 at bat, but in the record books it would show no at bat with an RBI. I think a single would have fit better.
@account-manager I lack patience! 😄
awesome video. i was mostly into only hockey at the time (which has a growing but still less developed analytics community) - and i loved this movie. It made me not only appreciate stats in general more; but got me into baseball and basketball too - nice to see someone who like acknowledges the realities of storytelling and how important some deviations (minor or significant) are needed to make a good film. The movie had the vibes which is why we all like it - the historical specifics less important in the context of telling a story.
MC hammer was once a batboy/clubhouse grip for the A's. Oak player, Dwayne Murphy, who later went on to Coach the blue Jays, helped fund Hammer's first record label at that time.
The owner of the A’s at the time hated paying front office personnel. I think at one point he made Hammer Vice President of baseball operations. 😂 Hammer was also used as a club house spy. He would report back to the owner about the vibe in the club house.
This is a good example of why there are knowledgeable baseball fans, knowledgeable screenwriters and producers, and very little overlap.
I like watching UA-cam videos from knowledgeable baseball fans because it provides additional context to interesting baseball topics based upon a level of basebal history I have zero interest in amassing. Still, those are not the guys I want to even watch a game with, let alone a baseball movie.
Perhaps the one minute synopsis at the end of this video placed in the beginning would have been a better representation of the context of the comments to follow. In this order, it comes across more like an "Um actually..." critique of a movie whose job was to get non-baseball fan butts into seats, not win an MVP for historical accuracy.
But it definitely made me think about the morality of portraying a caricature of a character who is also a real life person (Howe). Props for acknowledging the need for an antagonist shift in the plot.
This video is so well made that it should be part of the bonus features on the Blue Ray for this movie.
Thanks!
Absolutely loved this movie. It and the budding success of my Nationals helped get me into baseball at the time, and I'm now a fan of the sport because of it.
Nice!
Great video and analysis. Movies often make sacrifices on accuracy for the sake of pacing in a film and it's cool to see the rest of the story. One comment on that last couple minutes talking about the omission of the A's star players at the time. I wonder if their omission may have been part of some kind of contractual issue where the producers simply weren't allowed to use their name and likeness or if it was just for the narrative?
Having read the book, there's one scene that gets under my skin -- it's when Beane asks the Jonah Goldberg character (I forget his real name) where he would have drafted him. Goldberg basically gives this spiel about his deficiencies and how he would have been drafted as a developmental project, if that. Wrong answer. The correct answer is "don't draft out of highschool". In the book they use Len Dykstra as a counterexample to Beane: they were both consider major talents, although Beane was considered the greater talent, but they were roomed together. Beane would come up to bat against a pitcher and know who he was, everything he'd done, and be too busy overawed to successfully hit the ball. Dykstra knew none of that, and had the attitude "I don't care who they are -- I'll stick em". It's why Jameseans don't draft until they've seen you in college, because mental issues like that aren't really a factor in high school baseball.
I met the Oakland A's chaplain at a wedding. He explained to me that the portrayal of Art Howe was completely wrong. Art Howe was a very easy person to get along with according to the chaplain.
This is one of the big things the movie changes from the book. Because the book paints Howe as basically just doing exactly what Beane wants most of the time. But the movie apparently needs Howe as a foil.
The scene in Hatteberg's house was a great though. The back and forth between Wash and Beane is pure Sorkin.
On the record, probably the best video on analyzing this film as to whether or not it’s accurate! You got a sub in my book and I hope you get more!
Wow, thanks!
The whole idea of the movie was how can a low market team win as many games as the high payroll of the Yankees. While completely dismissing the fact that the team the A's lost to in the ALDS was the twins, who had virtually the same payroll as the A's. Also, and this is my biggest criticism of the sabermetric community, the idea that A high OBP equals runs isn't true. The A's in 2002 finished 3rd in the AL in Walks and 5th in OBP but finished 8th of 14th in runs. Also of the four consecutive playoff appearances, the A's pitching staff never finished worse than having the third best of ERA in the AL.
Billy Beane has admitted that his system doesn't work in the postseason, the truth is if you acquire players that have high walk totals and high OBP but have low batting averages, good pitchers don't walk hitters and you for the most part are only facing good pitching in the postseason.
The Twins thing is a very good point. I think characterizing the sabermetric community as saying "A high OBP equals runs" is a bit of a straw man. A high OBP does correlate with runs pretty well, but OPS correlates with runs MUCH more (which would factor in your comment about batting average) and the sabermetric community today would weigh OPS higher than OBP.
However, in 2002 OBP was overlooked. Moneyball was all about finding inefficiencies in the market, and OBP was absolutely an inefficiency and that's why the movie and book about 2002 focus on OBP so much. Similarly, today defense is somewhat of an inefficiency. The pendulum has swung so far to one side in teams valuing OBP, slugging, and 3-true outcomes baseball that a current Moneyball strategy employed by the Brewers and Rays is focusing on defense and relief pitching. In that sense, Moneyball isn't "OBP is king" but instead Moneyball is finding whatever analytics are undervalued at the moment.
@@BaseballsNotDead It is interesting that there is almost a reverse moneyball trend that's happening right now, in the early 2000's players like Nick Swisher would go from overlooked because his low BA to valuable because of his walk rate and ability to hit homers. Now you have teams like the Nationals, Braves and Royals winning championships based somewhat on timely hitting and putting the ball in play. The really great thing about Baseball however is that there is more than one way to build a contender.
Anyway, great video.
@@dukesfan23 See, I wouldn't consider that reverse Moneyball. Moneyball is about finding inefficiencies in the market. If teams now overvalue OBP, the Moneyball move would be to then focus on things like putting the ball in play. Moneyball is more "when they zig, I zag" mentality to free agents and acquisitions and not a 100% focus on OBP.
@@BaseballsNotDead But "putting the ball in play" was the pre-Moneyball strategy as it has and is still devalued by sabermetrics. I am not certain that claiming the Moneyball strategy was to reject Moneyball analytics and go back to the old valuation methods is very wise.
Nothing except luck works in the postseason tho. That's what Billy admits - that his goal is to just get to the playoffs, because after that, there's so few games that it's all luck.
When Hwood makes a movie based on real events and makes characters with the exact name as real people, and takes dramatic license with them the way they did with Art Howe to make them adversarial, it baffles me why they can’t have the decency to put a text card at the end that states that fact so the true life person isn’t left hung to dry. Also see Eugene DeBruins portrayal in Rescue Dawn
I was living the DFW area when Mike Venafro played with the Rangers. He was brought in to usually do a lefty vs lefty situation. He usually failed which made me create a 'new start', Blown Out Opportunity or BOO!
And yet here we are, this strategy isn’t working to the point where it’s pretty much a done deal for them moving to Vegas
Idk, everyone else in baseball is using analytics to this extent too nowadays. Which means the A's are back to just having less money than everyone else now. The window of opportunity where they knew things no one else did closed ages ago.
Good video. I enjoyed it. I agree with you. As a Oakland A's fan, I loved this movie besides the licenses that the production took in order to do a very compelling story. We know that this team was great for the Big Three (Hudson, Mulder and Zito), and Chavez and Tejada. We know the lost of Jason Giambi to the Yankees was very hurtful, however, Oakland's 2002 team was a really good team. The book doesn't talked about this big five names either and for the person who only is going to see the movie, he/she only will have a part of the story. Thank you for sharing this video. Good job.
Thanks!
I'm surprised Art Howe didn't sue them for his portrayal!
the A's starting rotation was sick, Tejada was phenominal as well, I had him on my fantasy baseball team that season. But no one saw the Tigers come from no where to win the ALCS that season. I will never forget when Magglio hit the walk off homer at Comerica to send the TIgers to the World Series.
That was 2006, by which point Miggy, Hudson, and Mulder were all gone.
The Angels won the World Series that year...
I like they they focus on the system and it’s processes over individuals within the team. It’s shows how your only as strong as your weakest link.
2022 Angels really lived that this year despite having two of the best players in baseball.
I think the reason they leave out Chavez, Tejada, and the big 3 pitchers is because the movie just centered around THAT season, the streak, and the analytics of the players and moves they made THAT season. Also, do we know these guys even wanted to be apart of the Cinematic version? The movie was amazing and capture the essence of the story for the 2002 season and how it advanced the way a lot of teams now approach payroll/players
Don't forget dye
It ignores the main reason for the A's success in order to prop up a method that has had basically no real success.
@@Turamwdd i can agree but Boston was able to copy it and won a couple world series with this strat. So there is some success.
Good stuff! I would point out a few things you missed. You describe Chad Bradford as an addition for 2002, but that was also a place they took liberties, because Bradford was on the 2001 As, pitched in 35 games, had the lowest or second lowest ERA on the staff, and pitched a cleaning against the Yanks in the post season. You describe Menochino as a journeyman, but he was a huge member of the 2001 As. He played in 139 games to a. 269 OBP and a 3.3 WAR, higher than Damon or Isringhausen.
I was pissed when the whitesox got rid of Bradford. Never understood why they disliked him all he did was get people out
I'm not sure if you mean literally they weren't mentioned in the movie when referring to Chavez or Hudson or you mean they weren't mentioned in-depth, but both Chavez and Hudson were in the same scene where Beane is walking through the locker room. He mentions to Hudson to throw strikes (Throw strikes Huddy - and Hudson replies with "Split the Plate, I know") and then he gives Chavez trouble talking about the pitches he was swinging about saying "Chavy you couldn't hit those pitches with a boat orr!" Yes, they weren't mentioned in-depth, but they were in the movie.
Yet those 2 players had more to do for the success of the club than the entire Moneyball concept produced.
Excellent work, pal. Thank you for this.
Glad you enjoyed it!
i love watching this movie. to me this what it's all about in the end. that you end up researching after the fact, is even more of a compliment.
It amazes me that no one has done a movie on the 1993 Phillies. On paper that team had no business going to the World Series. In 1992 they won 70 games and were the 3rd worst team in all of baseball. The next year they won 97 games, beat a much superior team in the NLCS, and gave the defending champions all they could handle. All the while the team was filled with has beens, never was', and a bunch of bench players. They had 2 solid stars in Shilling and Dykstra, 2 high level players in Kruk and Daulton, the rest were platoon players(RF, LF, 2B, 3B were all platoons). Not to mention they had a lot of big personalities including the clique they called Macho Row.
This was great to watch, awesome work.
Thank you! Cheers!
Before moneyball I never watched a single baseball game or knew a thing about baseball now I am a baseball fan
This video should be included on the Criterion DVD edition of Moneyball. ⚾️🏆
Haha, I wish.
Great video. I myself didn't care about baseball at all until I saw Moneyball. I always assumed it was dramatized, and I don't care that it's inaccurate. Like you said, the real story doesn't make a good movie. Very few real stories do. Anyway, I love baseball now in large part because of this movie.
it’s crazy how much i didn’t know about this team with the movie being one of my favorites! great video
Glad you enjoyed!
What a great and in-depth video. Thanks for that. Moneyball is a movie that I try too watch whenever it's on (and not just because of Brad Pitt). And a friend of mine who used to be a baseball writer said the same about Art Howe and how the movie made him really look bad.
One thing I always wondered is if Billy Bean was always eating snacks in real life, like he is in the movie. And the one thing I hate about baseball movies is how Hollywood wants us to think that baseball games are played at night....in deep and dark shadows.
Chavez is mentioned. He’s referred to as Chavvie in the locker room as Bean is getting on to him a bit about bad swing selection.
Absolutely right about not mentioning the stars they had though. I looked for Zito and Mulder specifically.
Uh... 13:42
They had MVP Miguel Tejada, Big3 Mulder, Hudson and Zito. They had MVP runner up Eric Chavez, they had Jermaine Dye.
How accurate was the portrayal of Suzzane, the secretary that could get anyone on the phone in 15 seconds? If that is really true then she should have got more screen time.
So, did the conversation at the batting cage actually happen?
I wonder that myself but I think like any movie involving phone calls they always pick up in 1-2 rings...no time for 8 rings then a admin answers.
No the batting cage conversation was pure fiction. Also Beane's daughter does not sing nor play guitar.
12:27 I think the more iconic line is "what about the fans?" "Yeah maybe I can teach one of them"
The Jeremy Brown scene, and Pete's narration, is presented as a metaphor for Beane and Moneyball. At that point, Beane is still despondent over losing in 5 for the second straight season and now has to decide if he wants to move on and be Boston's GM since he'd already said he wanted to win in Oakland. Earlier he said that if they didn't win, the baseball world would dismiss them, but if they did win they'd change the game. The metaphor is that, even after his meeting with John Henry, Beane doesn't realize that he's already changed the game. He'd hit a Home Run, and didn't even know it. As the ending text says, Boston went on to win the Series two years later, embracing aspects of Moneyball.
Yeah, but the Red Sox also spent a lot to get top players. Pedro, Manny, Damon, Shilling, Foulke.
The only moneyball stuff they did was take a lot of walks.
The Red Sox were a repudiation of Moneyball strategy though. It wasn't quite Marlins-level of buying successful players to win it all but it was pretty close. It could not be replicated by small market teams.
I mean the Sox just by having a decent amount of money we're automatically a repudiation of the moneyball approach to winning with less money. But they valued the same stats and analytics, which was revolutionary at the time. And they were the team that proved you could win a World Series with that strategy. And thematically, since it was breaking an 86-year curse, it had a bigger impact than a lot of other world series, being a significant factor towards other teams also adopting analytics which are now so widespread.
Amazing work, great video. Congrats!
Thanks a lot!
Moneyball and A League of Their Own are my two favorite baseball movies! I keep going back-and-forth on which one is better, but both are pretty top notch. It's tough to pick
Where does Bull Durham rank with you?
@@mikemartin5749 #1
MAJOR LEAGUE!!!
Hudson is mentioned in Moneyball near the end (he’s called “Huddy”).
This went from my favourite sports movie of all time to my favourite movie of all time.
I'm not even a baseball fan
It's a banger of a movie.
This film wasn’t as accurate as it could of but it still got me excited about a sport that is boring 99% of the time. This film was absolutely amazing. The ost, gets an A, the cast, A, the team A’s. This is an A plus
Hudson was mentioned in passing a couple times and was the starter in game against kc. The final out of the alds has the wrong person catch the pop up. Beane originally took the Sox job and the a’s were going to get youkilis back as compensation with Paul being promoted to gm before Billy changed his mind
*Read the book. Listen to the audiobook. Do both! I am totally in love with the story, just like Michael Lewis.*
I know Jeff Duncan! Great guy.
Regarding Chad Bradford, I think the movie embellished a little on his story. The book famously pointed out that only the White Sox scouted him, so I think there's some truth to the "throwing funny" line. But, the White Sox liked him enough as a prospect that they drafted twice. And how he ended up on Oakland? It was a pretty ho-hum trade: a ready-to-go reliever for a catching prospect. Catchers are generally more important than relievers, so even if Oakland won that trade you're generally not going to get a large haul for a reliever who's still technically a rookie.
Plus, it's not like there hadn't been other successful submarine throwers. Notably, Arizona signed Byung Hyun Kim in 1999 and promoted him to closer by their championship 2001 season.
There's a strong case to be made that a good submariner can be an extremely valuable weapon in a bullpen because the different look & motion they bring to the mound. What's more, their motions often add less overall stress to their arms. Joe Smith, Mark EIchhorn, Kent Tekulve, Brad Ziegler, Gene Garber & Dan Quisenberry are all great examples of guys that carved out extremely successful careers by just being different.
Thank you for your meticulous research that went into this video. This is a nice supplement to the movie. Should ideally be included with the DVD of the movie.
Good information and I'm glad it's getting out there. As a ball player who played through college, did some coaching, and whose father was a professional baseball player, I saw this movie for the bullshit it was when it first came.
The only thing that was omitted from the movie was that the A's had big 3 in the starting pitching staff. Mulder, Hudson and Zito.
They made the movie about Hatteberg and never talked about the great rotation (one of the best the game had ever seen), Jermaine dye, Eric Chavez, Carlos Peña, and Miguel tejada bc that would have undermined the movies narrative that the scouting department and art Howe were inept dinosaurs of the game. Truth is everyone in that scouting room had a lot more to the As success than a catcher turned first baseman ever did. That was a great young team built on solid draft picks for years. The made art Howe and David Justice into villains for no reason. Whatevs it’s Hollywood.
Thanks so much for an in-depth analysis of one of my favourite movies. It would have taken a lot of time and effort to research and I applaud you for that
Great video. Moneyball is my favorite movie. I'm left with mixed emotions. Tell a great story, or tell an accurate story? Is the real life story not entertaining enough? Maybe it wouldn't be as good of a movie if sabermetrics was already in use, Art Howe wasn't a villain, Billy Beane didn't interact as much with the players, and ignoring the stars. I guess real life just doesn't translate as well into roughly 2 hour films. Stories can take years to play out. In the end, I can appreciate the story told while knowing more of the truth. I had no idea about Steve Vucinich or knew he was referenced. Thank you for the video.
they made Art Howe look ridiculous
Despite all the inaccuracies, it's just a really good movie. It's a good story.
Great analysis pal. I too love movies and baseball movies. This one really hooked me, and I really believe the reason was Brad Pitt's performance. His handling of the firings and the scouts affected me in a big way. I'm pretty sure these actions are text book management teachings.
Agree! My only doubt is when he's brought out to Fenway. Would a offer of $12, 500, 000 @ year really be scribbled on a scrap of paper? I would think that would be done in a closed office.
@kendall Evans exactly! With a bunch of lawyers and an agent. The movie allegedly took a lot of creative license from the book. Still a fun movie.
Very interesting take. Thanks for the background on the real story!
I too actually looked up the names of the players thrown around in that Rincon acquisition and got the same results you mentioned either they don't exist or wasn't specific on who.
I don't even watch MLB and I loved this movie. I've seen it several times and I love the way the story is told in the film.
While Beane does deserve some fair credit for the teams he built on the cheap during the 2010s, most of his early/mid 2000s success was due to guys not brought in by him (Chavez, Tejada, the big three pitchers). Only real wins he can claim for that period are trading a declining Mark Mulder for Dan Haren and drafting Nick Swisher.
Not related but I can't believe the dude traded two all star caliber players on Carlos Gonzalez and Huston Street for half a season of Matt Holliday. Easily the worst move of his career.
Didn't understand a thing about baseball when I watched this film a few years ago. Have watched it many times after and sell dont understand a thing about baseball but love the film. I like the flow of the story and the excellent dialogue.
Awesome video. Well done! All best from Mexico City!
Thank you very much!
The movie "Rudy"did the same thing to Dan Devine as "Moneyball" did to Art Howe.
The level of nerdness in this clip is beyond comprehension. I love it.
Excellent work on this.
Thank you! Cheers!
I saw this on a streaming service at some point when I was bored and didn't know what to watch, so I gave it a shot. I don't give one shit about baseball and never will, but I still really enjoyed this movie. It using some Explosions in the Sky just added to it.
Interesting note on Venafro. I used to live in Texas (and actually worked for the Rangers later on) and he was a lefty and they would bring him in for the ole lefty vs lefty bit. Most of the time the guy got on base. I wanted a new stat...Blown Out Opportunity or BOO. As in 'get off the field and don't come back' BOO.
The other critical account of this movie I have read was by a woman who said it was just boring scenes of men in meetings. At first glance she is right, but when you take them together it tells a fascinating story with all the ingredients of hope overcoming despair, a hero triumphing over all odds.
If you stick too close to the truth all those elements are lost to the story and it becomes another tale of Hollywood taking a good book and making a bad story.
I loved the book, but I know people in baseball who will tell you that all clubs knew about sabermetrics. Some were disciples, some half-believed, some thought it was ridiculous. All clubs were looking for innovative ways to evaluate players.
What I hated about the book was a dismissive attitude toward defense, base running and athleticism. The team that valued defense, the twins, beat the A’s that year…another small market team. They should have had a sequel.
Love the movie, but I assumed they were loose with the facts - I just didn't know which ones. Now I know some of them and I thank you.
Looking back now, it’s criminal that the Oakland A’s never won World Series. That ‘02 team was so stacked. I lived in Bay Area at the time and it was a blast being “band-wagon fan” of that A’s team. They were so fun to watch.
Did they not beat the Giants in the Earthquake series?
The biggest failure is not mentioning Miguel Tejada and the pitching trio of Mulder, Zito, Hudson. Like you said, the worst thing about the movie. At least Chavez got the nickname mention.