Clint Eastwood Hated Moneyball so much...

[757690]

He's making his own movie about how awesome baseball scouts are.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/08/clint-eastwood-hated-moneyball/55523/


Clint Eastwood hated Moneyball. At least, that's the biggest thing we can take away from the trailer for Clint Eastwood's latest movie, Trouble with the Curve. Eastwood lazily played with a bowl of popcorn while watching Moneyball alone. He was too offended by Brad Pitt's stupid assertions that old guys didn't know anything about baseball to eat anything. "I'll show this kid," he said. He was so worked up he paid a guy named Randy Brown to write a script about the old baseball scouts he grew up admiring as a kid. He wanted to snarl things like, "You don't know anything about the game. A computer can't tell if a kid's got instincts," at the sharply dressed, WHIP-VORP-QWRK human calculator played by Matthew Lillard, in what's easily his biggest role since his critically acclaimed performance in The Descendants. Curve's plot is almost identical to Moneyball's: a veteran baseball scout's job is in jeopardy while he fights to win the affection of his daughter who he's never had a great relationship with.

BTW, he's touted as the scout who signed Dusty Baker in the trailer, lol.

[westofyou]

I hated Moneyball too, crap movie with characters consistently breaking their own arms patting themselves on the back.

[RedsManRick]

I hated Moneyball too, crap movie with characters consistently breaking their own arms patting themselves on the back.


The movie, like the book, left the viewer without a clear differentiated understanding of the basic principles of the sabermetric approach and the particulars of how a particular guy with a prickly personality was one of its early adopters.

It bugs me when people aren't willing/able to view sabermetrics separately from the Billy Beane story and persona. That the movie (and book) were so heavy handed and so heavily downplayed the role of the Big 3 in the A's success is unfortunate. That said, I'm not sure you could do that story with nuance and still get an audience/ get the core point across.

In any event, I'm looking forward to the movie. I think Three Nights in August is in the works as well. Sort of cool to be getting a set of movies told from different perspectives within the sport. We've obviously had a lot told from the player perspective and fan perspective, but these really help round out the 'genre'.

[Chip R]

That said, I'm not sure you could do that story with nuance and still get an audience/ get the core point across.

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.

[westofyou]

The movie, like the book, left the viewer without a clear differentiated understanding of the basic principles of the sabermetric approach and the particulars of how a particular guy with a prickly personality was one of its early adopters.

It bugs me when people aren't willing/able to view sabermetrics separately from the Billy Beane story and persona. That the movie (and book) were so heavy handed and so heavily downplayed the role of the Big 3 in the A's success is unfortunate. That said, I'm not sure you could do that story with nuance and still get an audience/ get the core point across.

In any event, I'm looking forward to the movie. I think Three Nights in August is in the works as well. Sort of cool to be getting a set of movies told from different perspectives within the sport. We've obviously had a lot told from the player perspective and fan perspective, but these really help round out the 'genre'.

It would have been nice if they had mentioned Tejada and Chavez as well.

Sorkin can be a little cheesy in the Mickey Rooney "let's put on a show" way, IE The Newsroom is peppered with numerous tidbits like "Damn, I LOVE the news"

Just rings hollow after awhile

I really enjoyed three nights in august, as with most baseball films I expect it to miss the mark.

[Johnny Footstool]

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.

The book isn't really about those things, either. At the core, Moneyball is about bucking the system -- finding unorthodox ways to succeed, finding creative ways to work within tight constraints. The movie adds a human element to that -- what kind of personality has to drive those kinds of decisions, and what effects do those decisions have on that person?

[camisadelgolf]

I hated Moneyball too, crap movie with characters consistently breaking their own arms patting themselves on the back.
By Hollywood standards, I thought Moneyball was a pretty good movie. But it was exactly what I expected--a Hollywood version of what actually happened.

[vaticanplum]

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.

[marcshoe]

Matthew Lillard had a critically acclaimed performance? :eek:

[757690]

Matthew Lillard had a critically acclaimed performance? :eek:

http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/02/30/57/625603/3/628x471.jpg

[Razor Shines]

Matthew Lillard had a critically acclaimed performance? :eek:

He was good in a very small role in the Descendants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[forfreelin04]

He was good in a very small role in the Descendants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Slc punk too. In the leading role

[Chip R]

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 a lot of people would find a show about what happens behind the scenes of a sports program and a comedy show boring. Same thing with the senior staff of a White House and how someone invented Facebook. In the wrong hands, they may not be as good. I think Sorkin has a lot of faults as a writer - especially the way he writes women - but I think he's good at getting people interested in his subject. My girlfriend does not like baseball. She likes it better than basketball or football but that's not saying a lot. She enjoyed Moneyball.


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.

I think it was more of a relationship movie than it was finding value where others couldn't. I'd say it was about 70-30. It was more of a relationship between Beane and "Peter Brand" and Beane and his daughter. The movie embellished those relationships. I doubt Beane and DePodesta worked quite in the fashion that Beane andd "Brand" did in the movie where it was basically those two against the world. The daddy-daughter stuff was way overblown and pretty schmaltzy. I think that is why the movie was such a success. People who didn't give a hoot about baseball liked those relationships.

[bucksfan2]

The movie, like the book, left the viewer without a clear differentiated understanding of the basic principles of the sabermetric approach and the particulars of how a particular guy with a prickly personality was one of its early adopters.

It bugs me when people aren't willing/able to view sabermetrics separately from the Billy Beane story and persona. That the movie (and book) were so heavy handed and so heavily downplayed the role of the Big 3 in the A's success is unfortunate. That said, I'm not sure you could do that story with nuance and still get an audience/ get the core point across.

In any event, I'm looking forward to the movie. I think Three Nights in August is in the works as well. Sort of cool to be getting a set of movies told from different perspectives within the sport. We've obviously had a lot told from the player perspective and fan perspective, but these really help round out the 'genre'.

I have read several Michael Lewis books and they all strike me the same way. They are good and interesting reads but Lewis is a very arrogant man. He is a "I am right and I am going to show you why I am right." In The Big Short he lauded John Paulsen who made a fantastic bet back in 2007-2008 but has been a laggard ever since. I wish Lewis would do a follow up on Paulsen now.

I thought the movie was bad, especially for someone who thought the book was interesting. The problem I had with both the book's mantra is the draft of Swisher wasn't all that unexpected and the other guys who were drafted were pretty meh. The star Jeremy Brown really did nothing in his career. Lewis and Beane lauded the draft as a new way of thinking. Thats great and all but more success would have been helpful.

As for the A's season, the Hatteberg storyline was fantastic, but as mentioned above they didn't mention the Big 3, Tejada, Chavez, and maybe most importantly PED's!

[krm1580]

I have mixed feelings on both the book and the movie.

On the movie, I found it well done and enjoyable from an entertainment perspective. The baseball part of me thought it was ridiculous that you could do a movie on the 2002 Oakland A's and not even allude to the fact they had the 2002 AL MVP & 2002 CY Young award winner.

The book and the concept of the book I thought was really interesting where a team looks at a completely different way of doing things in order to attempt to balance an uneven playing field. On the flip, even at the time I thought the book was written with certain level of arrogance as if the Moneyball approach was an absolute lock and they were the smartest guys in the room. In retrospective looking at the results of their 2002 draft along with their badmouting of high school pitchers like Cole Hammels it looks even more ridiculous.

Granted the 2002 draft was not really strong one but consider this:

Oakland A's 2002 (7) first round draft picks Career WAR: 25.6
Reds 2002 draft pick Joey Votto Career WAR: 25.2