Moneyball: Baseball Truth or Hollywood Fiction? 

Not to mention Tejada and Chavez being superstars

@Craig Salad... Yeah but they were still super young brand new players. You cant tell if someone is a superstar yet, after only 1 or 2 years of solid production. Thats crazy.. But regardless, most people knew about Tejada already. And it was known & shown, that he was 1 of the only more solid players that was on the team already previously

My biggest findings were that the movie combines years of Billy’s strategy in to one season. Which I’m more than ok with. The funny thing is… one of Billy’s greatest strengths was drafting and it doesn’t get addressed in the movie.

you should do a video about the baseball episode of star trek DS9 in the final season, Take Me Out To The Holosuite. It'd be interesting to see your take on vulcans and klingons and genetically enhanced humans playing baseball.

The point of a biopic is to paint a picture of somebody's life while still keeping it entertaining and under 3 hours. The more accurate version of this story that you are suggesting would be 10 hours long and boring as hell

I'll buy that for a dollar

He also really turned his career around for awhile there I followed him from when he was a catcher in Boston. He had talent but didn't actually live up to it till after he got injured and couldn't catch anymore It's actually a decent story all on its own

He was also the most analytical pick up. An ex catcher that can't throw. Put at fist cuz he has the .OPS they needed ... that they got for dirt cheap cuz no one else seen the value in it

that's not the line, it's he's a shortstop from seattle.

only if you're not a real BB fan......

Lmfao I put my palm over my face when I heard him ask who it was 😂😂😂

Agreed. I get why they do it for the movie since it’s more compelling with how the movie shows it but it’s a glaring omission compared to the reality. When you look back to this 2002 team as an example they had that elite starting rotation of Zito, Mulder and Hudson. Zito won the Cy Young that season. Eric Chavez won the Silver Slugger. Miguel Tejada won the MVP. All of those guys were drafted by the team. But they cut them out of the movie. I get why they do it for the story but obviously it’s a huge aspect to leave out when looking at how the team performed.

Even worse - the movie goes out of it's way to make the scouts seem like a room full of out-of-touch buffoons when they were 99% of the reason the A's won 103 games that year.

And Eric Chavez

And Miguel tejada

Yeah, overlooking the AL MVP is a pretty big oversight.

Jermaine dye was on this squad too, no?

@@daltonfarris Yeah I think he was as well. It is a bit silly to ignore the AL MVP & AL Cy Young. 🤦‍♂️😆

Also the "good face" stuff. That was cited in the book as ridiculous hokum that scouts had used in the past, and then it's actually cited by an A's scout in one scene.

Glad you enjoyed it!

It was a movie.... out of left field, lol. I never thought I would love this movie as much as I do. Had to go buy it and I still watch it at least once a month, it's just such a great movie!

Very cool!

Nightmare 🙏 good luck

That's quite possibly the nerdiest thing ever. 😂

Well the movie is based on the book, where the writer only followed the team for one year, he had no idea what was going to happen as far as the team winning or losing, just so happens he starting writing in 88 and not 89 I would say it is similar in the aspect that the movie makes it seem like the team hadn’t been good since the 60s yet the author specifically chose the school because of their history of winning

I have found memories of that time because I’m a NE Ohio native and we had some great Indians teams, but I hated how the game was so offensively lopsided during that time.

I’d agree mostly. I’d adjust the timing to be ‘91 - ‘08. Sure, there’s disputes about it being the “steroid” era. But, let’s be real here, those “steroid” players brought in so many fans it can’t be denied. It created so much passion for MLB.

That whole conversation was some of the BEST understated, low-key lines EVER delivered !

In real life he said "it's gonna be real MFin' hard if you don't put in the MFin' work"

Michael Scott's as well

Mine is Justice "Well good luck with that". In his feeble attempt with Hatteberg in trying to be more of a leader. The mouthful of cereal is a nice touch.

The delivery makes it awesome

Wasn't Beane already with the A's before 2002?

My memory is fuzzy and the A's weren't my team but I seem to remember most of the attention/hoopla that year was Zito/Muldar/Hudson? I don't even remember conversations about sabermetrics till later. I also thought Chavez was a hell of 3rd baseman

​@@kendallevans4079So you're saying Fuzzy Wuzzy was a woman! 😮

@@ianmangham4570 He was a bear...everyone knows that!

@@kendallevans4079 🙄

Glad you enjoyed it!

being a steroid cheat, tejada's name should not be spoken in polite company.

I wouldn't either, if it was anywhere close to half! They got like 4 total details right, and two of those were the city and name of the team 🙄

It’s obvious Hollywood would take liberties with events to put out the most compelling movie. The issue with money ball is that they make drastic changes to the events that mis portray the story and success of the strategy. For example, they portray that this method is why the team succeeded when the reality is they excluded a Cy Young winner, Silver Slugger and MVP all drafted the traditional way from the story. That’s a gigantic omission to have and changes the entire story. I get why they did that because if they presented the truth of that roster as it actually was it would show that money ball may have been helpful but was not the driving force or why they won a ton of games.

The issue with the exclusion of the star players is how it is such a material omission about the teams success. That exclusion removed a Cy Young winner, Silver Slugger winner, and MVP of the league that were on that team and a giant aspect of the success that team had. It’s one thing to make small tweaks for the benefit of story but it’s another thing when you make tweaks to entirely change the events to put out a better movie. I get why they did it because the focus of course was to portray the strategy of money ball being the reason for the teams success but it’s a big mis portrayal of the reality of events that happened. The movie focuses so much on how archaic the scouts were being attached to their out of date methods and how it was holding the team back with the solution being the money ball strategy but the reality is that the guys those scouts were drafting were consistently the biggest contributors to the success of the team. It’s an issue because of how it flips the entire story. The timeline doesn’t bother me because it isn’t a huge deal to the story. Again small tweaks for a better story are fine it’s only an issue when you tweak stuff to entirely change the story. The line about buying runs and such is a solid line for a movie and focusing on an overall team. But the realities are that buying players more often than not still results in championships. The Athletics despite this strategy have consistently lost early and never made a deep run for a championship. The teams mocked for buying players like the Red Sox as an example have won four World Series since this time. So while the big buyers don’t always win they still win pretty often despite what the movie wanted to portray. It’s a solid story for the movie but much less sexy in the real events.

@@Matt-cr4vv Good points. I think what it comes down to is the viewer and their knowledge of the game and, especially the A's during this period. You sound like you're a good fan and maybe a A's fan, you obviously know the game. Others however went to the theater and looked at the offerings and said "this looks like it might be good, it's about baseball". They might of thought it was going to be like "Major League", " The Natural" or "Bull Durham". They don't know any better, so for them it was just an entertaining baseball movie. My own opinion is as long as you have a round bat trying to hit a round ball there will never be a foolproof formula. There are teams like the Yankee who defy that however.

Is winning faceoffs really that important? In a specific game maybe, but in the long term a team like Pittsburgh Penguins can win Stanley Cup with lower then average FO%.

@@Rojk in beer league yes. On teams where we get shots from the point, we score more goals. Most of those come off of face offs. As a defenseman I've had games with 10 shots/scoring opportunities because my center could win draws clean back. If I play wing that's more chances for tip ins. You do all of those things I mentioned and you make the other team panic / make mistakes.

Glad you enjoyed!

I assume not every player granted the movie production permission to use their likeness, at least not at free will. Alot of the star players on that A's team who didnt need money, did not allow free reign to use their likeness in the film.

Nick Swisher didn’t think much of Babe Ruth’s physique either

@@account-manager I lack patience! 😄

Yeah, I only do beer league softball these days but in the co-ed leagues I was in, the best teams were whoever had the best women, even if they had stud dudes that could hit it out every time.

Thank you! Cheers!

Thanks a lot!

Don't forget dye

The owner of the A’s at the time hated paying front office personnel. I think at one point he made Hammer Vice President of baseball operations. 😂 Hammer was also used as a club house spy. He would report back to the owner about the vibe in the club house.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks!

Wow, thanks!

The Twins thing is a very good point. I think characterizing the sabermetric community as saying "A high OBP equals runs" is a bit of a straw man. A high OBP does correlate with runs pretty well, but OPS correlates with runs MUCH more (which would factor in your comment about batting average) and the sabermetric community today would weigh OPS higher than OBP. However, in 2002 OBP was overlooked. Moneyball was all about finding inefficiencies in the market, and OBP was absolutely an inefficiency and that's why the movie and book about 2002 focus on OBP so much. Similarly, today defense is somewhat of an inefficiency. The pendulum has swung so far to one side in teams valuing OBP, slugging, and 3-true outcomes baseball that a current Moneyball strategy employed by the Brewers and Rays is focusing on defense and relief pitching. In that sense, Moneyball isn't "OBP is king" but instead Moneyball is finding whatever analytics are undervalued at the moment.

@@BaseballsNotDead It is interesting that there is almost a reverse moneyball trend that's happening right now, in the early 2000's players like Nick Swisher would go from overlooked because his low BA to valuable because of his walk rate and ability to hit homers. Now you have teams like the Nationals, Braves and Royals winning championships based somewhat on timely hitting and putting the ball in play. The really great thing about Baseball however is that there is more than one way to build a contender. Anyway, great video.

@@dukesfan23 See, I wouldn't consider that reverse Moneyball. Moneyball is about finding inefficiencies in the market. If teams now overvalue OBP, the Moneyball move would be to then focus on things like putting the ball in play. Moneyball is more "when they zig, I zag" mentality to free agents and acquisitions and not a 100% focus on OBP.

Thanks!

Thanks!

Absolutely! That is a labor of love of the game. That's a real MLB fan!

There's a strong case to be made that a good submariner can be an extremely valuable weapon in a bullpen because the different look & motion they bring to the mound. What's more, their motions often add less overall stress to their arms. Joe Smith, Mark EIchhorn, Kent Tekulve, Brad Ziegler, Gene Garber & Dan Quisenberry are all great examples of guys that carved out extremely successful careers by just being different.

Uh... 13:42

Where does Bull Durham rank with you?

@@mikemartin5749 #1

MAJOR LEAGUE!!!

Agree! My only doubt is when he's brought out to Fenway. Would a offer of $12, 500, 000 @ year really be scribbled on a scrap of paper? I would think that would be done in a closed office.

@kendall Evans exactly! With a bunch of lawyers and an agent. The movie allegedly took a lot of creative license from the book. Still a fun movie.

I wonder that myself but I think like any movie involving phone calls they always pick up in 1-2 rings...no time for 8 rings then a admin answers.

Nice!

Thank you very much!

Thank you! Cheers!

Haha, I wish.

2022 Angels really lived that this year despite having two of the best players in baseball.

I was pissed when the whitesox got rid of Bradford. Never understood why they disliked him all he did was get people out

Much appreciated

It kinda is. Bass line is completely different and synth keys are changed up enough to avoid a copyright claim.

That was 2006, by which point Miggy, Hudson, and Mulder were all gone.

The Angels won the World Series that year...

Thanks for the sub!

It's a banger of a movie.