Originally Posted by Chip R
I think that's what Sorkin did. Sorkin seems to be very good at writing about things that a majority of people do not find compelling and make it compelling. No one's going to want to watch a 2 hour movie on WAR and xFIP and OPS much less ERA and RBIs and AVG. If you are looking for a clearer understanding of Sabermetrics, Moneyball isn't the place to find it.
I like Sorkin (mostly), but I think you give him a little too much credit. Off the top of my head, I believe he's written about a sports program, a news program, an entertainment program, the presidency, and the biggest social touchstone of our generation. These aren't exactly dry topics; I think a lot of people probably find them compelling.
I think it's a little more accurate to say he stuck to his material. They made a movie about Moneyball, which, as Johnny notes, is far less a story of sabermatrics than it is about business sense and finding value wrapped in several incredibly humanly told human tales. The things that stick with me the most from that book, man years after reading it, are the stories of Hatteberg's first hit and of Chad Bradford pitching with his dad. If they wanted to make a movie about sabermetrics, they would have written a screenplay based on the writings of Bill James. *That's* non-compelling material for a lot of people. Moneyball the book is not. It reached a lot of people outside its expected audience.