Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottFandango
No mention of moneyball?
Just an average movie I guess. Not one to watch over and over...
Also they failed to mention why the A's we're good that year, it wasnt because of hatterberg or Bradford....it was because they had the best group of young stud starting pitchers that was not mentioned once! Hudson zito mulder
|
I enjoyed the hell out of "moneyball", although I found it to be pure spin and somewhat anti-climactic.. I choose to accept it as a biased, semi-fictional, film intended to really do nothing more than glamorize Bean and Sabermetrics. Again, while being able to block that out, and just view it as a film, I did enjoy the movie.
Realistically, I don't believe that sabermetrics had a whole lot to do with that team winning like they did. The series of supposedly genius sabermetrics moves took the team from 4th in the AL in Runs in 1999, and dropped them to 8th by 2002(and 9th the following two seasons). The true force on that team was it's young pitching, much like it had been the previous 2 years, yet somehow the film managed to severely downplay it. Plus the intentionally negative portrayal of Howe, makes it even more clear that it was nothing more than a biased spin-machine for Bean and Sabermetrics in general.. I do think that Bean and his guys have been incredible when it comes to evaluating pitching prospects though.. Hell, even last year's success was almost purely based on pitching(2nd in ERA), as they were only 8th in the AL in runs(and below AL average),