- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Moneyball was great; 9/10 IMO
Posted on 9/24/11 at 2:41 pm to iwyLSUiwy
Posted on 9/24/11 at 2:41 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
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.
Beane was named GM in 98. He drafted Mulder and Zito. Also, as prep for his job as GM, outgoing GM Sandy Alderson gave Beane a copy of Bill James' Abstracts when he was the assistant.
Beane has implemented Jamesian concepts as soon as he took charge. His first draft was a Moneyball draft.
quote:
Dude. Wtf man.
Have Dan explain the joke to you.
1
Posted on 9/24/11 at 4:03 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
It was pretty good but it dragged towards the end and no way Pitt wins an Oscar.
Spot on analysis
Thoughts they could have shaved off about 10-15 minutes and been in good shape
Posted on 9/25/11 at 2:00 pm to The Future
quote:
Beane was named GM in 98. He drafted Mulder and Zito. Also, as prep for his job as GM, outgoing GM Sandy Alderson gave Beane a copy of Bill James' Abstracts when he was the assistant.
Correct, the A's were already practicing sabermetrics or "moneyball" before Beane was gm. In the book it talks about drafting college pitchers out of college instead of highschool because there are to many things that can go wrong with a kid from HS. Thats why they drafted Mulder, Zito, and Hudson. I just wish they would have said something about this in the movie.
Posted on 9/25/11 at 5:13 pm to The Future
The problem with the concept of "moneyball" is just like it says in the movie: it may work well over a long season, but in division, championship series, it doesn't work. Just plain doesn't work.
Posted on 9/25/11 at 6:51 pm to Baloo
Just got back from seeing this, and wow.
This is a great sports movie. It had high profile actors and great scriptwriters. Hollywood usually doesn't put something together like this for a sports film.
Similarly, just like it's a different type of sports movie about a different kind of baseball management.
So, I guess you could say Moneyball is.....
A game-changer.
- Was that Spike Jonze as the step father?
- How many awesome trailers did you see before the film. They all looked really good!
This is a great sports movie. It had high profile actors and great scriptwriters. Hollywood usually doesn't put something together like this for a sports film.
Similarly, just like it's a different type of sports movie about a different kind of baseball management.
So, I guess you could say Moneyball is.....
A game-changer.
- Was that Spike Jonze as the step father?
- How many awesome trailers did you see before the film. They all looked really good!
Posted on 9/25/11 at 7:42 pm to Pectus
Just went to see it. I didnt read the book, but thoroughly enjoyed the movie...
Posted on 9/25/11 at 8:49 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
You have to bunt and steal bases to win.
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
The concept of Moneyball was very smart. Take advantage of ineffencies of the game. Teams like the Red Sox started using the ideas of OBP and building up a farm system through college, not high school, pitchers, so they were able to prevail. The A's were fortunate to have so many players pan out, especially their stud pitchers, but you have to compare the 2001 and 2002 seasons to understand why the book was written.
In 2001, the A's lost some offensive studs and they needed to find cheap replacements who did not have to be as good as Giambi, but they had to be good enough to win the division. They were still able to be one of the best teams in baseball in 2002.
Moneyball was a pretty interesting and successful philosophy, which is simply the real life application of Bill James's baseball abstracts. Even though it ultimately destroyed his chances to be a contender again, Beane was able to build a short-term powerhouse for pennies on the dollar.
This post was edited on 9/25/11 at 8:51 pm
Posted on 9/25/11 at 8:55 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
iwyLSUiwy
I respect your opinion on movies, but you really have no idea what you are talking when it comes to baseball.
First of all, you are arguing with Baloo. Bad idea right there.
Second of all, did you read the book?
Third of all, bunting sucks.
Posted on 9/25/11 at 8:59 pm to iwyLSUiwy
No way you read the book and are arguing the way you are
Posted on 9/25/11 at 9:03 pm to Vicks Kennel Club
Bunting and stolen bases do not correlate with winning. Some leaders this season:
Stolen bases: Padres
Sacrifice bunts: Marlins
Walks: Yankees
Just saying. And this year isn't that odd. There are good offenses which steal lots of bases (Rays, for instance), but really, there's just not a strong connection between a good offense and stealing bases. There tends to be a negative correlation between bunting and scoring runs -- only bad teams need to "create" runs at the cost of an out, which is very bad trade (4 bases, 3 outs).
Walks. They ain't exciting, but they are a great weapon.
Stolen bases: Padres
Sacrifice bunts: Marlins
Walks: Yankees
Just saying. And this year isn't that odd. There are good offenses which steal lots of bases (Rays, for instance), but really, there's just not a strong connection between a good offense and stealing bases. There tends to be a negative correlation between bunting and scoring runs -- only bad teams need to "create" runs at the cost of an out, which is very bad trade (4 bases, 3 outs).
Walks. They ain't exciting, but they are a great weapon.
Posted on 9/25/11 at 10:11 pm to Baloo
Posted on 9/25/11 at 10:17 pm to Vicks Kennel Club
quote:
I respect your opinion on movies,
Appreciate that.
quote:
but you really have no idea what you are talking when it comes to baseball.
I guess bunting and stealing can win you games would have been a better choice of words. I wasnt meaning that you have to bunt and steal to win championships. But I dont try to be the know it all of baseball. I played it for quite a while and I love it. Have never claimed nothing more than that.
quote:
First of all, you are arguing with Baloo. Bad idea right there.
This much I know.
quote:
Second of all, did you read the book?
Nope.
quote:
Third of all, bunting sucks.
Gotta disagree here. I love small ball and manufacturing runs. Sacrifices, bunts and steals.
Posted on 9/25/11 at 10:35 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
Gotta disagree here. I love small ball and manufacturing runs. Sacrifices, bunts and steals.
I guess it can be fun to watch or something, but it is not the best to build your team.
Posted on 9/25/11 at 10:48 pm to Vicks Kennel Club
quote:
I guess it can be fun to watch or something
No, it really isnt. ETA:
I loved the movie, it was as good as I expected it to be. Wasnt really sure how they would adapt this to a movie, but they did a great job.
This post was edited on 9/25/11 at 10:49 pm
Posted on 9/25/11 at 10:53 pm to D011ahbi11
I was being nice. I don't love it, but maybe he does. Looking forward to seeing the movie. I am curious to see how it compares to the book.
Posted on 9/26/11 at 12:39 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
I love small ball and manufacturing runs.
Why do you love shitty baseball?
That's like saying, "Hey, I'm really digging this Jessica Alba flick. She's got sweet acting chops."
Posted on 9/26/11 at 1:38 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:This is huge. The A's had a big time pitching rotation. They weren't even mentioned.
he 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
quote:My wife loved it. She said it was the best movie she had seen in years.
Chick friend that came with me and a buddy left 20 minutes in and didn't come back.
I thought it made the A's manger Art Howe look like a buffoon.
It's kind of hard for anyone who knows anything about baseball to really believe that buying into this new way of thinking lead to the two Red Sox pennants. Last I checked, they were shelling out a lot of cheddar.
BTW, I loved it. Great movie.
This post was edited on 9/26/11 at 1:42 am
Posted on 9/26/11 at 2:35 am to Zamoro10
quote:
it didn't really pan out as a philosophy
Please enlighten me to what you think the philosophy of Money Ball is?
Posted on 9/26/11 at 7:25 am to alajones
Wow somebody actually responded to my post without dogging me.
@Dan. It's not that I like bunting over a homerun or find it more exciting. I just like when somebody can play smart and manufacture a run. It's not like any team in baseball is going is going to solely rely on that anyway, I just like it when it dies happen. O well, I'm done.
@Dan. It's not that I like bunting over a homerun or find it more exciting. I just like when somebody can play smart and manufacture a run. It's not like any team in baseball is going is going to solely rely on that anyway, I just like it when it dies happen. O well, I'm done.
Posted on 9/26/11 at 10:04 am to The Future
I saw it yesterday, and enjoyed it. that's all I'll say, don't want to join the melee, haha!
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News