What the movie doesn't say: The Moneyball approach failed in the end - Moneyball (2011) Discussion

[–] bpjoyce10 12 years ago

why are we only fastforwarding to 2011? the A's just made the playoffs. you're right, other teams with more money have hired the same kind of statisticians, but it's still the moneyball strategy. it's all relative. "moneyball" type players are still far cheaper than the albert pujols and prince fielders of the world

reply

[–] thbryn 12 years ago

The(OA) franchise's problems are manifest. To say that their approach isn't successful is ignoring so many other problems it's ridiculous. The attendance difficulties are due to a number of factors not least of which is another team on the other side of the bay. How many teams have to deal with a rich neighbor?

Kisskiss, Bangbang

reply

[–] klunder5 12 years ago

Everybody (with more $) copied the approach and now every single team in baseball is doing it. I don't think it's accurate to say the "approach" didn't work. The Red Sox hired Bill James and won two world series titles.

reply

[–] funkyfry 11 years ago

James was just a consultant, Epstein was the manager and built those teams.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

[–] musicmaninmass 10 years ago

Epstein was a proponent of the moneyball approach. 2004 Sox were filled with hitters that had great obp. The Sox took the Beane approach and used it. The difference between the A's and the Sox was money

reply

[–] Citation_Needed 9 years ago

The Red Sox hired Bill James and won two world series titles.

Not becausw of him. Because they used the REAL winning approach and had two of the biggest juicers in the game. Ramirez and Ortiz. Without them hitting HRs in the playoffs, the curse would still be alive, and in my mind still is, since they cheated.

Here's Schilling explaining how the Red Sox "won" - http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2013-02-07/mlb-steroids-curt-schilling-red-sox-peds-hgh-biogenesis-alex-rodriguez

reply

[–] henrimaine 12 years ago

From what you are saying it seems that the Moneyball approach worked fine. The richer teams are better at implementing that approach.

reply

[–] TarkusLV 12 years ago

Exactly. The fact that everyone is doing it now is proof that it succeeded, not failed.

YAAAAAY! Now you go, lady!

reply

[–] kobrickmamba 11 years ago

Um it didn't fail. The whole league uses some variation of it now.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chas437 11 years ago

I agree to an extent, but the OP's last paragraph is correct and salient. It has not proven to be a reliable, consistent way for the small market teams to achieve equality with the big-market, high budget teams.

This film ignores the fact that the 2002 A's still had big-time, high dollar talent. They had Tejada and E Chavez in their prime, as well as the Big 3 pitchers (Mulder, Hudson, Zito). So the whole premise of this film is pretty weak.

How ridiculous was Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe?

"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SidekickinWhiteFury 11 years ago

The movie says opposites things about this point.
On the one hand you have the Peter Brand character, Billy Beane, and the Red Sox owner all agreeing that this method has value.

You have the scout that says you have to do it the old time way, this new way will not work because it does not figure intangibles.

The voice over at the end claims their system was flawed. But right before that we hear a baseball announcer (Joe Morgan?) say: That for 1 game, you have to throw statistics out the window.

The film shows that the system works. They won 20 games in a row, they won over 100 games with a roster that was less talented then the previous year.
And the fact that they lost game 5 to the Twins, does not expose their system as being flawed, as in any 1 particular game, anything can happen.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jkholman 11 years ago

by Chas437:

I agree to an extent, but the OP's last paragraph is correct and salient. It has not proven to be a reliable, consistent way for the small market teams to achieve equality with the big-market, high budget teams.

This film ignores the fact that the 2002 A's still had big-time, high dollar talent. They had Tejada and E Chavez in their prime, as well as the Big 3 pitchers (Mulder, Hudson, Zito). So the whole premise of this film is pretty weak.

How ridiculous was Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe?

"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___

2oo2 Barry Zito - $295,000

2002 Mark Mulder - $800,000

2002 Tim Hudson - $875,000

Not exactly high dollar salaries at this point in their careers. As to Hoffman as Art Howe, you need more exposure to Major League Baseball to better appreciate his acting in this film.

reply

[–] chas437 11 years ago

I've followed Baseball all of my life, and I can remember Art Howe as far back as his playing days. He's a tall, lanky guy, so anybody who knows this would think PSH as Howe is not a fit. PSH was a great actor, but was miscast in this film.

The debate goes on as to whether or not Billy Beane's 'Moneyball' revolutionized baseball or not. The film drastically overstates the case.

I'm a civilian, I'm not a trout

reply

[–] jonathanrspalding 8 years ago

Philip Seymour Hoffman played a character in the movie, the villian, and not the real Art Howe

reply

[–] paulhilts 11 years ago

Beardy--
Several points:
1) The movie *did* say (via the voiceover of what sounded like someone else speaking Joe Morgan's opinion) that as of Oct 2002, the majority of Baseball (the institution) thought Beane's method a flop.

2) The Oakland fan base has always been infamous: In 72 and 73, as World Champions, they couldn't sell out World Series games. In response we fans of the Game who had always supported non-winning teams, invented a new promotion: Buick Day--the first 10,000 fans to come to the Coliseum would get a new Buick. Seems GM blanched, though, at giving away 3 or 4000 cars and getting 0 loyal owners in return.

3) Oakland's six postseason appearances from 2000-2012 (under Beane) are fourth best in Baseball, behind the Yankees, the Cardinals, and the Braves.

4) The method was not just to spend less money, but to get better players by metric analysis. Boston hired Bill James and won the series in 2004 and 2007; the White Sox won in 2005 with one nationally recognized star: Paul Konerko (Frank Thomas got a ring, but was only healthy enuf to get in 34 games; AJ Pierzynski had been an all-star in 02, but was better known as a malcontent). The Sox got Jerome Dye, Oakland's 4th or 5th best outfielder from Beane, then Dye was World Series MVP. The smart organizations *did* get it, won a bunch, and now it's hard to find a club without a Sabrmetrician.

It's a good movie: good story, well told. Considering his age, before he's done Beane may have done as much for baseball as anyone since Branch Rickey--maybe somebody should do a movie about Rickey :) :) :)

reply

[–] DesertEagle5150 11 years ago

actually they're tied with the Red Sox at 6, who by the way won 2 world series in that span :)

They lack any kind of criminal credibility. I might get laughed at.

reply

[–] zuckerkorn 11 years ago

what you didn't see is this line: Nobody reinvents this game. The point of this movie was not how invincible the moneyball approach is

reply

[–] gotmyorangecrush 11 years ago

You couldn't be more wrong if you possibly tried. The Red Sox won the World Series just 2 years later using the same system, their first championship since 1918. On top of that, every team in major league baseball now employs statisticians and to one degree or another, incorporated this same strategy. To suggest that Moneyball failed is nothing short of laughable. It completely changed the building strategy of every major league baseball team. The strategy of Moneyball couldn't have possibly been more successful. Your have it all backwards as everything your saying only proves how successful Moneyball really was, not the other way around.

Still Shooting With Film!

reply

[–] steffeeric 11 years ago

It was successful but you are wrong saying "it couldn't have possibly been be more successful". If the A's would have won a World Series in the last 10+ years under Billy Beane it would be considered more successful in my mind. The movie even ended by saying Beane is still trying to win the last game of the season. That isn't to right off the contributions their system has made to the game but winning the World Series is still what it is all about.

reply

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 11 years ago

And the As have one of the very best record in baseball right now. Even better than the mighty Yankees. I think your notion that since they didn't win the World Series every year, it was a failure is an absurd one. I think the fact that pretty much every team adopted it and the As are in the hunt right now is a testament to how well it works.

“There are no ordinary moments. There is always something going on.” – Peaceful Warrior

reply

[–] steffeeric 11 years ago

I said it was a success...it was far from a failure...but I was responding to the guy who said it couldn't possibly have been more successful...it could have been more successful if they would have won the big one. It is pretty simple.

reply

[–] thbryn 11 years ago

Somewhat ironic that Bo and Oak are battling for the BRIMLB and home field advantage this season.
Their approach is similar even though Bo will have certain advantages ($$$ being one) but the point is their thinking is largely the same.

Kisskiss, Bangbang

reply

[–] steffeeric 11 years ago

It is also interesting how the Red Sox got a lot better after trading Josh Beckett, Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford to the Dodgers. They could end up playing each other in the World Series. Gonzalez has been the only key contributor the the Dodgers this season and none of the players the Red Sox got in the trade helped them much this year.

The Red Sox definitely use Sabremetrics like every team in the MLB these days but I don't think they really follow the Billy Bean "Moneyball" model that much any more. The reason being is they have the money to do things like pay John Lackey 16 million dollars a year...They signed Shane Victorino for 13 million dollars a year as well.

Boston has a payroll that is 80 million dollars a year more than Oakland. However if you look at the way Oakland has spent their money it isn't that impressive at all. Their 5 highest paid players have all underperformed.

Chris Young is their highest paid player at 8.7 million and his is hitting under .200.
Cespedes has decent power numbers but he is hitting .245.
Coco Crisp has had a career high in HRs but he is only hitting .255.
Their highest paid pitcher Brett Anderson only started 4 games before being relegated to the bullpen where he currently has a 6.34 ERA.

It is really inexplicable as to how the A's are one of the best teams in the league. They have gotten a career year out of a 40 year old Bartolo Colon who I thought was washed up 8 years ago. Some young guys have stepped up as well but they really have no business winning that division with the Angels and Rangers and their great lineups.

reply

[–] totoum 11 years ago

Feel free to call me biased since I'm an A's fan but you're putting way too much weight on batting average, avg isn't meaningless but there's a whole lot more to offense than batting average.
The goal of the offense is to score runs,not get a high batting average , the A's lineup has scored more runs than the rangers and angels, in large part due to its power (they've hit the 3rd most HR in the majors).They very much have a business wining the division with that lineup.

I'll gladly take Coco and Cespedes' production, this isn't the steroid era anymore , in 2001 his 26hrs might put him in only 51st place in mlb but in 2013 that's good for 21st place so far, so that's more than decent.

reply

[–] steffeeric 11 years ago

I agree with what you are saying for the most part but the Mariners have only hit 3 less home runs than Oakland but have 25 less wins and have scored 134 fewer runs. The A's have a combination of timely hitting and the 2nd best ERA in the AL.

They clearly do deserve to win the division since they are doing so but it is somewhat perplexing to me. Josh Donaldson is top 3 in the majors in WAR and is tied with Miguel Cabrera among 3rd basemen. Only one of their pitches is in the top 60 in WAR and that is Bartolo Colon. Moss 16th among 1st basemen and Lowrie is 6th among shortstops but has a negative defensive ranking. None of their outfield is in the top 15 in WAR but Crisp is a respectable 16th.

Judging from these #'s Donaldson should get some serious MVP consideration.

reply

[–] i_am_jokerman 11 years ago

That Oakland has so many hrs is amazing considering the ballpark is where flyballs go to die. I think they've hit the most homeruns in MLB in the 2nd half

reply

[–] Drew914 11 years ago

If you look deeper into the team, you'll understand how the A's are doing it. They have a stellar young pitching staff, who, outside of Bartolo Colon, are all under 25. Jarrod Parker is 24 and has lost only one game since May. They have a deep roster which Bob Melvin has used with great success. If someone gets hurt or slumps, he just plugs in someone else. They have gotten contributions from everyone in the lineup, Moss, Donaldson, Crisp, Sogard, Cespedes, Norris, et all. They continue to work counts and bring opposing pitchers pitch counts up in games. While Texas looked for everyone under the sun to acquire at the deadline, the A's had one deadline deal, Alberto Callaspo for Grant Green, and he has paid dividends already.

The Rangers and Angels paid boatloads of money to acquire top name talent in the offseason, and STILL the A's won the division. That's a testament to the organization and the front office staff in finding the pieces they need and still keeping within their budget. I hope the A's win it all this year.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Super-Van 11 years ago

I know nothing about baseball and if some variation of the moneyball approach is being used by the other teams then that's proof that the moneyball was a good idea. That doesn't mean each team will adapt it in the same way. I imagine most teams mix the old and the new approach.

Of course the rich teams were gonna use the moneyball idea if it works.

reply

[–] justintruax 11 years ago

Almost 50% of the teams in MLB use this format now, so it's obviously a good idea.

Boston was the first team to win a world series with this strategy.

reply

[–] Trackmaster 11 years ago

The untold story of Moneyball and Sabermetrics is that the A's were actually champions of statistics and on base percentage for years before Billy Beane even got there. Sandy Alderson (the A's previous GM) was a very accomplished GM and was a very big champion of the walk. This was mentioned briefly in the book, but if you read other source material you'll learn more about it.

The idea that Billy Beane suddenly bumped into a bumbling Paul DePodesto who convinced him to use Sabermetrics in 2002 is absurd. As was said in the book, the A's didn't just win because they stumbled upon Sabermetrics, it was also because Billy Beane was a great swindler, negotiator, and knew how to hire the right people around him.

It's not enough to agree with using advanced metrics to win games. You have to be good at using them too.

reply

[–] funkyfry 11 years ago

They did mention Alderson in the film, but only briefly as if they were trying to avoid the criticism. To watch the film you would think Beane had changed his whole approach in 2002, but actually the 2002 team was just like 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998.... I remember everybody being pissed that he let McGuire go, just like they were pissed a few years later that he let Giambi go. Beane knew that the club could not win by putting so much payroll into a steroid monster. So anyway I agree with everything you are saying.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

reply

[–] eifler121 11 years ago

Money matters more only because they picked up on his strategy. It's the story of how this way of thinking came to be the dominant force in baseball management. It works regardless of the cost. It's a focus on on-base percentages rather than star power or home runs. The point is to get wins, even if you're not saving as much money anymore.

reply