Started By
Message

re: Moneyball was great; 9/10 IMO

Posted on 9/24/11 at 9:58 am to
Posted by Baloo
Formerly MDGeaux
Member since Sep 2003
49645 posts
Posted on 9/24/11 at 9:58 am to
Haven't seen it, but read the book...


1. Jonah Hill's character is fictitious.

Paul DePodesta did not consent to have the movie made about him, so they created a composite character to avoid litigation. The book's about the idea anyway, not DePodesta.


2. Jonah Hill tries telling me the Red Sox's are idiots for giving Damon 7.5 million. Hmm. I wonder if the Sox regret giving him that money or if they think the rings they now have on their fingers aren't worth it. I mean why did they put that scene in there? Or why not make the scene about Jason Giambi. You have the hind sight and you are refusing to use it. The Yankees waaaay over paid for Giambi and he didn't pan out, the Sox got a decent deal on Damon and he was a huge factor in them winning the series. I didn't get that.

Well, because Damon wasn't worth it from the A's perspective. The Red Sox can pay $7 million for a decent centerfielder, but the A's didn't want to commit longterm to that. Damon was about the seventh best player on that Red Sox WS winner.


3. The 02 A's were a great team. You know why? Not what the movie makes you think. It was because of Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, Miguel Tejada, Eric Chavez, Jermaine Dye. Though he had a decent year, the A's didn't win the division bc of Scott Hattaberg. Or David Justice. They didn't lead the team. It makes me mad they tried to convince me of that.

OK, this completely misses the point. First, the pitchers WERE acquired by the concept of "Moneyball" as they drafted college pitchers instead of high schoolers, a central tenet of sabermetrics. Don't draft high school pitchers because there's no such thing as a pitching prospect -- and that rotation validated that belief.

Secondly, THE PITCHERS WERE ALREADY THERE. The story was that the A's lost their top offensive producers and Beane was able to replace them on the fly without breaking the bank, and only suffer a minor dip in production. The team was in the playoffs the previous season, so they aren't trying to hide the ball that the team was already good (of course, the reason they were already good is because the team had already committed to sabermetric principles -- which led to the drafting of college aces instead of high school arms).

4. Bunting sucks.
Posted by OBUDan
Chicago
Member since Aug 2006
40723 posts
Posted on 9/24/11 at 10:24 am to
quote:

4. Bunting sucks.




Posted by iwyLSUiwy
I'm your huckleberry
Member since Apr 2008
34488 posts
Posted on 9/24/11 at 12:20 pm to
quote:

OK, this completely misses the point. First, the pitchers WERE acquired by the concept of "Moneyball"

/quote]

quote:

Secondly, THE PITCHERS WERE ALREADY THERE


I thnk you're missing my point. Im saying they won because of the other guys, not the ones they focused on. How were Mulder, Hudson and Zito aquired by Billy ball? They all three were 18+ games winner before 02 when the system was implemented. They might have drafted them from college and technically fits that description but they didn't know they were using that system and it was still dependent on the scouts.

quote:

Well, because Damon wasn't worth it from the A's perspective. The Red Sox can pay $7 million for a decent centerfielder, but the A's didn't want to commit longterm to that. Damon was about the seventh best player on that Red Sox WS winner.


But why not use Giambi as the example? He made even less sense. And you have the benefit of knowing he sucked in NY while Damon whether you say so or not was a key to them winning rings. And you already showed us in the movie you offered 7.5 million so they were willing to spend/commit. Just the sox gave 500k more.


quote:

Bunting sucks


Dude. Wtf man.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram