Moneyball trailer is here...

[ChasHawk]

Doesn't seem like it will have that much mass appeal.

Not really interesting.

I preface this by saying this is really stupid reasoning, BUT, people will go see this just because it has Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill in it...

People are fans of Jonah Hill for his comedy, this is not a comedic role. And it is Brad Pitt playing Billy Beane, not a leading man or an action character.

You overestimate the intelligence of the average american. A lot of people are swayed by big names and don't put much thought into it.

this

 

[elmalo]

Sorrybro, but a bunch of dudes sitting around talking sabermetrics doesnt seem like something that would interest many people. Even if one of those dudes id Brad Pitt.

 

[Tomlinson21RB]

Sorrybro, but a bunch of dudes sitting around talking sabermetrics doesnt seem like something that would interest many people. Even if one of those dudes id Brad Pitt.

First, I'm sure they aren't going to be sitting around talking about sabermetrics.

Second, the majority of people that will want to see this movie will not know what sabermetrics are.

 

[sportscardtheory]

I would think that one "I don't think people will go see this movie" would be enough. No need to hammer it home. Move along. Nothing to see here.

About the movie. I'm sure they are prepared to not kill at the box office as this will most likely be a rental/NetFlix/Blu-ray sales kind of film that will ultimately make money in the long-run because there aren't all that many baseball movies produced.

 

[GAbballplayer148]

Besides die hard baseball fans, who is going to go see this?

die hard pitt fans...die hard jonah hill fans (yes they exist), die hard PTH fans....movie aficionados...

I dont see it.

Because you know the story. To those that don't know moneyball it's an underdog sports movie with big names, that tells the story of a team breaking out of the old ways and shaking things up to win.

They really didn't win anything, just made the playoffs and some division titles big whoop. Are they going to follow up on their AWESOME draft that is the key to the last half of the book and point out how many failures came from it?

Are they going to follow up with the fact they haven't been able to compete since they traded off their 3 big aces?

To me its a farce of a movie about a team that didn't win anything and their big draft strategy was full of crap.

Relatively speaking, Oakland's drafts from 02-06 have been some of the most successful in producing MLB players. From '02, 4 of their 7 picks made it to MLB, and 3 of 7 are still active. From '03-'06, 13/27 (48%) Top 5 draft picks made it to the majors. To put that in comparison, the only teams with a higher percentage of MLB players in that time span were the Blue Jays (53%) and Mariners (56%) (it should be pointed out that these two teams had almost half the picks in the first 5 rounds than the A's did from '03-'06). Across the majors, the average percentage of Top 5 picks making to to the Majors from '03-'06 was 34%.

 

[markakis8]

Doesn't seem like it will have that much mass appeal.

Not really interesting.

I preface this by saying this is really stupid reasoning, BUT, people will go see this just because it has Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill in it...

People are fans of Jonah Hill for his comedy, this is not a comedic role. And it is Brad Pitt playing Billy Beane, not a leading man or an action character.

You overestimate the intelligence of the average american. A lot of people are swayed by big names and don't put much thought into it.

Agreed.

 

[morgoth]

[quote="elmalo":l0ztbye7]Besides die hard baseball fans, who is going to go see this?

die hard pitt fans...die hard jonah hill fans (yes they exist), die hard PTH fans....movie aficionados...

I dont see it.

Because you know the story. To those that don't know moneyball it's an underdog sports movie with big names, that tells the story of a team breaking out of the old ways and shaking things up to win.

They really didn't win anything, just made the playoffs and some division titles big whoop. Are they going to follow up on their AWESOME draft that is the key to the last half of the book and point out how many failures came from it?

Are they going to follow up with the fact they haven't been able to compete since they traded off their 3 big aces?

To me its a farce of a movie about a team that didn't win anything and their big draft strategy was full of crap.

Relatively speaking, Oakland's drafts from 02-06 have been some of the most successful in producing MLB players. From '02, 4 of their 7 picks made it to MLB, and 3 of 7 are still active. From '03-'06, 13/27 (48%) Top 5 draft picks made it to the majors. To put that in comparison, the only teams with a higher percentage of MLB players in that time span were the Blue Jays (53%) and Mariners (56%) (it should be pointed out that these two teams had almost half the picks in the first 5 rounds than the A's did from '03-'06). Across the majors, the average percentage of Top 5 picks making to to the Majors from '03-'06 was 34%.[/quote:l0ztbye7]

If the book had made a big deal about just making the MLB then it wouldn't look so bad but the tone of the book makes it sound like the draft in the book was going to be one for the ages.

Swisher is a average to sometimes below average MLB in his career. Teahan and Blanton have been mostly below average their entire career.

Just making it to the MLB doesn't mean you were a succesful draft pick. Bryan Bullington made it to the majors too and he was one of the all time worst draft picks.

I didn't see anywhere in the book were they were going to be satisfied by having a mediocre outfielder, 1 below average infielder and 1 below average pitcher.

 

[Adamsince1981]

My favorite take so far (other than the boring sport part):

"That’s right. This guy broke all the rules and created a new system so a small market team like Oakland could beat dynasties like New York and Boston in a sport with no salary cap.

Except that he didn’t create it, the system is called sabermetrics and has been around since the 1980’s, and he didn’t implement it in Oakland, his predecessor did (the Jonah Hill character doesn’t exist), and during his 13 years as GM the A’s have never won the American League much less a World Series. In fact they haven’t been above .500 in 5 years, while Tampa, who is in an even smaller market and has New York and Boston in the same ******* division, was in the Series 3 years ago. So far this season Oakland is last in their division, with the second worst record in the American League.

So this movie tells the story of how the worlds most boring sport added math to create a system that doesn’t work. Holy ****, can I go stand in line now?

(be sure to note the meeting with the A’s scouts, who are all depicted as being in their 200’s. Yeah movie, we ****** get it, it’s New vs. Old. You didn’t have to literally show that. Let me guess, their names are stuff like Stan Still, Theo Oldway and Tommy Noblacks. I hope everyones bifocals and VCR-sized hearing aids aren’t too subtle. Maybe they should re-shoot this scene and have them holding giant horns up to their ears. Would these be the same scouts who drafted the American League Rookie of the Year back to back to back just 10 years earlier? Why not 4 years in a row? Clearly they have no idea what they’re doing.)"

 

[markakis8]

If the book had made a big deal about just making the MLB then it wouldn't look so bad but the tone of the book makes it sound like the draft in the book was going to be one for the ages.

Swisher is a average to sometimes below average MLB in his career. Teahan and Blanton have been mostly below average their entire career.

Just making it to the MLB doesn't mean you were a succesful draft pick. Bryan Bullington made it to the majors too and he was one of the all time worst draft picks.

I didn't see anywhere in the book were they were going to be satisfied by having a mediocre outfielder, 1 below average infielder and 1 below average pitcher.

You're making Swisher and Blanton sound worse than they really are. You don't play almost every day of every year, stay in a rotation ever year, make all-star teams, and have salaries over $8 million annually when you are "below average." That's pretty successful in my mind.

Just b/c they aren't perennial all-stars, doesn't mean they are below average.

Heck, up until this year, Teahen was an every day player and is making $5 million. But I'll give you him. Doesn't look like his career has too much more to it.

 

[GAbballplayer148]

[quote="markakis8":3ijsc7ll][quote="elmalo":3ijsc7ll]Besides die hard baseball fans, who is going to go see this?

die hard pitt fans...die hard jonah hill fans (yes they exist), die hard PTH fans....movie aficionados...

I dont see it.

Because you know the story. To those that don't know moneyball it's an underdog sports movie with big names, that tells the story of a team breaking out of the old ways and shaking things up to win.

They really didn't win anything, just made the playoffs and some division titles big whoop. Are they going to follow up on their AWESOME draft that is the key to the last half of the book and point out how many failures came from it?

Are they going to follow up with the fact they haven't been able to compete since they traded off their 3 big aces?

To me its a farce of a movie about a team that didn't win anything and their big draft strategy was full of crap.

Relatively speaking, Oakland's drafts from 02-06 have been some of the most successful in producing MLB players. From '02, 4 of their 7 picks made it to MLB, and 3 of 7 are still active. From '03-'06, 13/27 (48%) Top 5 draft picks made it to the majors. To put that in comparison, the only teams with a higher percentage of MLB players in that time span were the Blue Jays (53%) and Mariners (56%) (it should be pointed out that these two teams had almost half the picks in the first 5 rounds than the A's did from '03-'06). Across the majors, the average percentage of Top 5 picks making to to the Majors from '03-'06 was 34%.[/quote:3ijsc7ll]

If the book had made a big deal about just making the MLB then it wouldn't look so bad but the tone of the book makes it sound like the draft in the book was going to be one for the ages.

Swisher is a average to sometimes below average MLB in his career. Teahan and Blanton have been mostly below average their entire career.

Just making it to the MLB doesn't mean you were a succesful draft pick. Bryan Bullington made it to the majors too and he was one of the all time worst draft picks.

I didn't see anywhere in the book were they were going to be satisfied by having a mediocre outfielder, 1 below average infielder and 1 below average pitcher.[/quote:3ijsc7ll]

I agree the book made it seem like they were drafting superstars, but isn't the goal of the draft to produce MLB players? Also, I did not say that they were satisfied with "a mediocre outfielder, 1 below average infielder and 1 below average pitcher". I was simply pointing out that Oakland has been successful into turning their draft picks in to actual MLB talent. Even if the players are not all-stars or superstars, a ****** MLB pitcher is better trade bait than a ****** MiLB pitcher.

As an aside, Swisher and Blanton were both great for Oakland during their time there, so I do not even know where your claim of "mediocre outfielder, 1 below average infielder and 1 below average pitcher" comes from, unless you are just spouting at the mouth.

Swisher in Oakland (WAR):
04: 0.0 (71 PA)
05: 1.1
06: 3.7
07: 3.9
He was then traded to the White Sox for Ryan Sweeney, Gio Gonzalez and Fautino de los Santos. I'm pretty sure the A's have been happy about that trade.

Blanton in Oakland (WAR):
04: 0.0 (8 IP)
05: 3.3
06: 1.4
07: 4.1
08: 0.1
Traded for Matt Spencer, Adrian Cardenas, and Josh Outman.

Both of these players were very successful when they were with Oakland, and they also got decent players in return (including their future ace, and a decent #4-5 guy). It should also be noted that Mark Teahen was dealt in a package for Ocatvio Dotel in '04. Curious as to what he did that year for them? 6-2, 4.09 ERA, 112 ERA+. Yeah, they were probably pissed about that one as well.

 

[jrb]

My favorite take so far (other than the boring sport part):

"That’s right. This guy broke all the rules and created a new system so a small market team like Oakland could beat dynasties like New York and Boston in a sport with no salary cap.

Except that he didn’t create it, the system is called sabermetrics and has been around since the 1980’s, and he didn’t implement it in Oakland, his predecessor did (the Jonah Hill character doesn’t exist), and during his 13 years as GM the A’s have never won the American League much less a World Series. In fact they haven’t been above .500 in 5 years, while Tampa, who is in an even smaller market and has New York and Boston in the same fracking division, was in the Series 3 years ago. So far this season Oakland is last in their division, with the second worst record in the American League.

So this movie tells the story of how the worlds most boring sport added math to create a system that doesn’t work. Holy quit swearing can I go stand in line now?

"

Beane didn't invent sabermetrics but he was using it extensively before other teams were. Every team uses some aspect of sabermetrics now and it certainly contributed to the Red Sox breaking the world series curse.

Assuming you read the book, you'd know that Beane wanted to trade for Youkilis - a guy drafted very late in 2001. He was a prototypical "moneyball" guy that Beane looked for at the time. The 2002 "moneyball" draft had some hits and misses like every other team but getting 2 long term major leaguers in the mid to late first round was not a bad haul.

That being said, the rest of baseball has caught up to Beane and this movie is about 10 years too late. I'll still watch it though.

 

[markakis8]

That being said, the rest of baseball has caught up to Beane and this movie is about 10 years too late. I'll still watch it though.

This is actually key. If this movie was made 7-8 years ago, Beane would look even more like the golden god of baseball...like he was back in the early part of the 2000's.

 

[ChasHawk]

Let me guess, their names are stuff like Stan Still, Theo Oldway and Tommy Noblacks.

this made me giggle

 

[MacK]

Looks a little blown out of proportion, but I'm still going to go see it..

 

[sportscardtheory]

My favorite take so far (other than the boring sport part):

"That’s right. This guy broke all the rules and created a new system so a small market team like Oakland could beat dynasties like New York and Boston in a sport with no salary cap.

Except that he didn’t create it, the system is called sabermetrics and has been around since the 1980’s, and he didn’t implement it in Oakland, his predecessor did (the Jonah Hill character doesn’t exist), and during his 13 years as GM the A’s have never won the American League much less a World Series. In fact they haven’t been above .500 in 5 years, while Tampa, who is in an even smaller market and has New York and Boston in the same fracking division, was in the Series 3 years ago. So far this season Oakland is last in their division, with the second worst record in the American League.

So this movie tells the story of how the worlds most boring sport added math to create a system that doesn’t work. Holy quit swearing can I go stand in line now?

"

Beane didn't invent sabermetrics but he was using it extensively before other teams were. Every team uses some aspect of sabermetrics now and it certainly contributed to the Red Sox breaking the world series curse.

Assuming you read the book, you'd know that Beane wanted to trade for Youkilis - a guy drafted very late in 2001. He was a prototypical "moneyball" guy that Beane looked for at the time. The 2002 "moneyball" draft had some hits and misses like every other team but getting 2 long term major leaguers in the mid to late first round was not a bad haul.

That being said, the rest of baseball has caught up to Beane and this movie is about 10 years too late. I'll still watch it though.

This is probably the selling point of the film. That he did something big enough and different enough that MLB had to catch up with him.

 

[elmalo]

My favorite take so far (other than the boring sport part):

"That’s right. This guy broke all the rules and created a new system so a small market team like Oakland could beat dynasties like New York and Boston in a sport with no salary cap.

Except that he didn’t create it, the system is called sabermetrics and has been around since the 1980’s, and he didn’t implement it in Oakland, his predecessor did (the Jonah Hill character doesn’t exist), and during his 13 years as GM the A’s have never won the American League much less a World Series. In fact they haven’t been above .500 in 5 years, while Tampa, who is in an even smaller market and has New York and Boston in the same fracking division, was in the Series 3 years ago. So far this season Oakland is last in their division, with the second worst record in the American League.

So this movie tells the story of how the worlds most boring sport added math to create a system that doesn’t work. Holy quit swearing can I go stand in line now?

"

Beane didn't invent sabermetrics but he was using it extensively before other teams were. Every team uses some aspect of sabermetrics now and it certainly contributed to the Red Sox breaking the world series curse.

Assuming you read the book, you'd know that Beane wanted to trade for Youkilis - a guy drafted very late in 2001. He was a prototypical "moneyball" guy that Beane looked for at the time. The 2002 "moneyball" draft had some hits and misses like every other team but getting 2 long term major leaguers in the mid to late first round was not a bad haul.

That being said, the rest of baseball has caught up to Beane and this movie is about 10 years too late. I'll still watch it though.

This is probably the selling point of the film. That he did something big enough and different enough that MLB had to catch up with him.

And people who arent diehard basball fans could care less.

 

[markakis8]

And people who arent diehard basball fans could care less.

We get your point already. Why do you feel the need to post the same opinion 20 times in the same thread?

We know how you feel, mostly everyone disagrees with you. Move on.

 

[sportscardtheory]

And people who arent diehard basball fans could care less.

We get your point already. Why do you feel the need to post the same opinion 20 times in the same thread?

We know how you feel, mostly everyone disagrees with you. Move on.

Agreed. And who really cares if people do or don't go see it. It's really not a big deal either way.

 

[pigskincardboard]

Stop being stupid.

The movie is about baseball, but good movies are rarely ever about the setting and plot. That just provides context for the characters.

I just picture someone sitting around saying, "THE KING OF KONG IS SOOOO STUPID. WHO WANTS TO SEE A MOVIE ABOUT DONKEY KONG!!!?!?!"

Guess what? I could care less about donkey kong, but I absolutely loved the movie.

Movies about plot and premise are almost always idiotic blockbuster movies that are good in their own right, but it's not like they're quintessential movies.

This really bugs me. It almost bugs me as much as people with videos in their signature.

guh.

 

[Fire360]

Coming from the non-baseball aspect of the movie, I'm excited to see Bennett Miller's second full length film after quite a large gap between this and the great film that was Capote. Not to mention Aaron Sorkin AND Steve Zaillian writing the screenplay.