Moneyball was great; 9/10 IMO

Wait, Tulane said it was only a 4/10. Now I don't know who to trust.

I was just about to start a thread.

I thought it was really good too and your right the comedic relief was pretty good. Not a 9/10 and I probably need to sit on it but maybe anywhere from a 6 to an 8.

But I got a few problems.

1. Jonah Hill's character is fictitious.
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.
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.
4. Very minor. But why does starting big league infielder need the GM to instruct him that the smart thing to do on a bunt is get the runner out at first? Really? Pretty sure he learned that like me when he was 10.

Those were just a few things that stood out to me. The movie was slower than I was expecting. But was a good watch and a good baseball movie. If you like baseball go see it. If your gay and don't like baseball then don't go see it. Chick friend that came with me and a buddy left 20 minutes in and didn't come back. She sent an apology text. I didn't respond. She's got chicken legs anyways.

quote:

---

1. Jonah Hill's character is fictitious.

---

but based on Paul DePodesta. He didnt like the way he was portrayed in the book so he didnt want to be a part of the movie.

I'm glad you told me some of this...wasn't sure how much was real and how much was fictionalized.

I just took it at face value and as a work of fiction based on fact if that makes sense.

The story was good (made up or not)

quote:

---

I was wondering how they are going to sell a theme (Moneyball worked and revolutionized baseball and the A's) when in hindsight there have been all these articles recently about how, well - Moneyball wasn't the reason they had good teams and it didn't really pan out as a philosophy and the A's aren't even using it anymore.

---

Yeah my biggest thing is they acted like Moneyball was the reason they won in 02. When really it was their farm system. The people they dogged in the movie

Moneyball was based on the roids era and stats for that era. It doesn't work now. You have to bunt and steal bases to win.

quote:

---

The story was good (made up or not)

---

Definitely. I can look past all the stuff I talked about. It just bothered me a little bit. It just really wasn't a true story. Or it's like the motivational poster where you see a pretty face of a chick and a nice set of tits but when you pan out you see this super fat braud and that need to man the harpoons.

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.

Haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm going to have to go into with an open mind, that it probably won't uphold the book or really be factually accurate.

Doesn't mean it can't still be a good movie though.

Did you read the book? I get the feeling people who haven't read the book and see it will like it a lot more than people who have read the book.

But I could be way wrong with that.

It was pretty good but it dragged towards the end and no way Pitt wins an Oscar.