MovieChat Forums > Moneyball (2011) Discussion > Is Moneyball Boring to the Fans?

Is Moneyball Boring to the Fans?


I’m not a huge baseball fan, but I enjoy the game casually. I just watched Moneyball for the first time, and the film didn’t address the major concern I first had when learning about the Moneyball concept.

Does Moneyball create “boring” games?

The film seemed to stress the importance of “on-base percentage”, even to the point of emphasizing a player’s ability to draw walks over his ability to play defensively.

I understand the concept from a statistical standpoint, but how did fans attending the games feel about it?

I mean, if you take the concept to absurd limits, I suppose 9 schlubs like me could win the World Series by leaning in, getting hit by the pitcher, taking our base, and scoring run after run. But, that wouldn’t really be baseball, would it?

reply

Fans like it when the team wins. Frankly, I find it more exciting when a team scores with a bunch of walls and singles than with a home run.

reply

A game filled with walks is certainly not as exciting as one with the same number of base runners via base hits. The real answer to the question of how to avoid too many walks is twofold: 1) Get pitchers who can throw strikes, and 2) Make sure the umpires really call the full strike zone. This was a huge problem about 15-20 years ago when it seemed almost every pitch over the plate three inches higher than the knee was called a ball because it was "high." (Exaggeration for emphasis) The umpires in the last several seasons are calling many more high strikes and that part of the problem has been greatly reduced.

I agree with the poster that says it isn't boring if your team wins. But even then I definitely feel it's more exciting to win in the bottom of the 9th on a line drive to right than on a ball four pitch.

Now I wish to make a comment on the headline of your post: "Is Moneyball Boring to the Fans?"

I clicked into this thinking you were asking if the movie was boring to the real fans of the game, as opposed to movie goers who aren't really fans. My opinion would be that I thought parts of it were boring to this fan, but my main complaints about the film are not that it bored me, but that I didn't really care about the A's or the two stars of the film.

Don't know what the real Billy Beane is like, but I really didn't like the character in the movie. He seemed to cause much of his trouble by being so poor at explaining things to people, and, from what we saw, he sometimes didn't even try to explain, just said, "We're doing it this way."











reply

I prefer strategy over homeruns, meaning stealing bases, bunts, hits, doubles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA5O_0Ufjwc

reply

I suppose 9 schlubs like me could win the World Series by leaning in, getting hit by the pitcher, taking our base, and scoring run after run.
Except you'd be out if you intentionally lean in to get hit by the pitch.


That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, bingo!

reply

Not to me, and I do know that baseball is not as fast paced of a sport like basketball, football, and hockey. I don't know if people would have cared about if the movie create "boring" games and on base percentage is very important in baseball, as that is how teams win games if they score more runs then the team they are playing. And it doesn't matter how it comes, homerun, a hit, a walk off hit or a walk off home run.

reply

While it can be exciting to have a stud on the mound, I prefer hitting.

Two great pitchers having a pitchers duel can get boring, but watching the batting lineup take a great pitcher apart is much more exciting.

Oskars problem with Eli is not her ambiguous gender, but her ambiguous humanity.

reply

I don't know if you're a hockey fan, but are you familiar with the New Jersey Devils "trap" in the late 90's/early 2000's? That was a strategy that made the game less enjoyable because it changed how the game was played. Moneyball didn't change how the game was played.

reply