Moneyball: The Freakonomics of Baseball
Ryan P. Carey, D.D.S.
Courtesy of GeorgioCapote director Bennett Miller helms this semi-nonfictional adaptation of Michael Lewis' 2003 book of the same name, written for the screen by Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network) and Steven Zaillian (Schindler's List). Right off the bat, this doesn't sound like a very sportsy movie, which is fine with me, because Moneyball is not as much about baseball as it is about freeing oneself from traditional values in order to achieve goals more effectively. Lewis' book is supposedly the Freakonomics of baseball (and if you haven't yet read Freakonomics and its sequel, Superfreakonomics, you're wasting your life one day at a time). How often have we done things a certain way simply because that's the way they've always been done? Or because their merits seem self-evident?
Welcome to the world of Moneyball, where the highlight reel is meaningless, and bottom-line runs per game is the real glory. Traditional sports heroes are replaced by undervalued, purely utilitarian players.
Brad Pitt plays Billy Beane, general manager of the Oakland Athletics. He's going into the 2002 season, and his franchise can't compete with the George Steinbrenners of the world, who use their deep pockets to out-bid less rich teams for all of the "best" players and win championships every year. But Beane is just like Leanne Rhymes--he's all about value.
Selling extra hotdogs or getting a lot of air-time on Sports Center is nothing to Beane, next to the ultimate goal of winning a championship. In order to crunch the numbers in real-time roster negotiations, he recruits like-minded Yale wiz-kid Peter Brand, played by the wonderfully understated Jonah Hill.
Together, the two of them piss off almost everyone in baseball in order to maximize the amount of runs per dollar. They hire unhirable players like Scott Hatteberg (played by the loveable Chris Pratt, of Parks and Recreation), despite his debilitated throwing arm rendering him unable to fill his previous role as catcher. They select Hatteberg for two things: 1) For his talent for getting on base, and 2) For his willingness to play for pocket change. He can't throw anymore but he can still catch, let's just put him at first base. He's never played first base, you say? Not important. It's way easier to teach than scoring runs.
Phillip Seymore Hoffman plays Art Howe, the Athletics' manager. Howe is the guy most directly affected by Beane's insanity, because he has to manage the game using such untraditional players. Phil-Ho packs a gloriously perturbed antacid-popper into this relatively small role, which is remeniscent of his stony visaged villain in Mission Impossible III. But Howe's not the bad guy here, he's just one of many foils who attempts to manage his bewilderment in a professional manner.
Moneyball packs a sentimental punch with the side-plot of divorced Beane's relationship with his young daughter, who shows a great deal of maturity for her age. The commonly sympathetic Beane does his best to father his part-time daughter. A budding musician, she plays him an original Jack Johnson-esque song she wrote on the guitar, which is both an efficient lyrical device for developing her character, as well as utilitarian nurturing point for Beane's relationship with her. The real Billy Beane would approve.
If you're one of those baseball haters (which I can understand completely, this author has only watched two or three games in his life), don't let that stop you from checking this out. Think Charlie Wilson's War meets Thank You For Smoking, except set in the back offices of a ball-park. Moneyball is probably going to be worth a nod or two in the Oscar discussion, especially for how essentially liberal/progressivist the main theme is--while still mainting a balanced tribute to an important part of American culture. It should easily earn a best adapted screenplay nomination and--considering the ten film field for best picture--maybe even an outside shot at the championship.
Reader Comments (4)
"Moneyball is not as much about baseball as it is about freeing oneself from traditional values in order to achieve goals more effectively."
This is a great line and a quote to live by. I love the story of Billy Beane, as much for his name as his move to quit playing one day to go to the front office. He was able to see his limitations and move to a place where he could be effective.
But I have read the book and though it will be a great movie to see, it is a bunk in my mind. They tried to make baseball a science for math geeks who can spin a competitive team and turn a profit. The goal is to win the World Series and the A's never did do it.
I watch baseball religiously -- 2 or 3 games a day sometimes. I love the game for its magic, art and expectations that are sometimes inhuman. Fancy math and equations might make for a good tale, but baseball is much more about the incalculable in the game (weather, personality, fans, tradition, gut and yes, money) that makes it an art.
And I can live with art as long as it means the Phillies win.
Great post and writing and timely lunch. Welcome to the lunch break and your seat at the table.
I've heard a lot about this film, and I appreciate your unique take on the movie. I think Sorkin is establishing himself as one of the best writers in Hollywood.
The one thing I heard about the film though is, much The Social Network, it is far from reality. Jonah Hill's character in particular is not even close to an accurate portrayal Peter Brand, who was actually a sports' nut and eventually became GM of the L.A. Dodgers. His real name is Paul DePodesta, and I know he requested a name change for the film. Also, I read how the real reason for the incredible success of the A's was more their pitching than any of the role players they acquired.
However, I think your post points out the larger impact and purpose of the film, which essentially functions as a metaphor for the repetitive, short-sighted manner of thinking of so many in society- from business, politics, education, and even sports.
Thanks for the post, and I look forward to reading more from you.
Well I was going to wait to rent this one, but now I might try to catch it in theaters. There seems like a lot of good movies coming out now. Way more than in the summer I think. I gotta take off wrk and hit the matinee double feature one of these days. Thanks for the post. I loved your descriptions of the foil characters.
I heard as a movie that it is pretty entertaining, but the reality of Billy Beane and those early 2000 A's team is far less Hollywood. Bottom line was that the A's were really good then not because of the hidden gems like Hattenberg and Bradford but because they drafted 3 ace pitchers (before Billy Beane was even aboard as GM) And had an MVP/juiced up Miguel Tejada as well as a young stud 3rd baseman in Eric Chavez. In fact the "legendary" prospect draft that the book spent so much time fawning over produced zero all stars for the A's. I agree that the real purpose of Moneyball was to show a different outside the box way of thinkingin a very rigid minded sport....however the success of the A's had nothing to do with legendary Beane and everything to do with a previous regime drafting great players to anchor a team with.