RSS
Brad Pitt as Billy Beane. Now that's funny
Seldom has one man done so little in the game and gotten so much recognition. Honestly, those are my feelings about Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane.
You see, I remember Beane as a beat writer when he rode the pine with the Tigers in 1988. It wasn't a brief stint. It was months. But he only got six at bats because he was so bad Tigers manager Sparky Anderson, who bemoaned his presence on the team on a daily basis, refused to put him in the games.
Still, when you read "Money Ball," author Michael Lewis' portrayal makes Beane seem like this premier athlete, which he wasn't.
Yet, they are making a movie about Beane - with Brad Pitt playing his role. Of course, the movie is about Beane, the general manager. But tell me, what has Oakland exactly won under his guidance. Oh, and by the way, how have all those draft picks that were discussed in "Money Ball" panned out? Hey, scouts do know something after all.
Guess who is playing then-Oakland manager Art Howe in the movie? Philip Seymour Hoffman. I can sense another Oscar for him, don't you?
One of the funny casting credits given in the movie is to Royce Clayton playing Miguel Tejeda. Sure to be the best thing to hit a sports movie since Wayne Fontes played himself in "Jerry MaGuire."
You see, I remember Beane as a beat writer when he rode the pine with the Tigers in 1988. It wasn't a brief stint. It was months. But he only got six at bats because he was so bad Tigers manager Sparky Anderson, who bemoaned his presence on the team on a daily basis, refused to put him in the games.
Still, when you read "Money Ball," author Michael Lewis' portrayal makes Beane seem like this premier athlete, which he wasn't.
Yet, they are making a movie about Beane - with Brad Pitt playing his role. Of course, the movie is about Beane, the general manager. But tell me, what has Oakland exactly won under his guidance. Oh, and by the way, how have all those draft picks that were discussed in "Money Ball" panned out? Hey, scouts do know something after all.
Guess who is playing then-Oakland manager Art Howe in the movie? Philip Seymour Hoffman. I can sense another Oscar for him, don't you?
One of the funny casting credits given in the movie is to Royce Clayton playing Miguel Tejeda. Sure to be the best thing to hit a sports movie since Wayne Fontes played himself in "Jerry MaGuire."
Labels: Billy Beane Brad Pitt Philp Seymour Hoffman Sparky Anderson Art How Royce Clayton Miguel Tejeda
posted by Pat Caputo at
10:46 AM
4 Comments:
I don't think Money Ball ever presented Billy Beane as a premiere Major League athlete. It presented him as a guy (allegedly) brimming with talent that was never able to put it together as a professional.
I do agree that some of the shine of his genius as a GM has worn off, but often Oakland is forced to give up its premiere players as soon as they become free agents. That must make it tough to build a perennial contender.
I agree with MSUSteve that Moneyball never claimed that Beane was a star player. In fact, one of the ironies that the book tried to make stand out was the fact that he was a great athlete that the scouts loved who sucked, and then he had the opposite strategy (in large part) when drafting players - non-great athletes who the scouts ignore.
In response to this blog article, I think that it's totally disingenuous to act like the gamble of a small group of draft picks proves or disproves a GM's skill or the organizational philosophy. This isn't like the NBA where all lottery picks are expected to become stars (or at least solid contributors). The MLB draft has more busts than any other sport, and it's not even close. If you cherry-pick any GM's first ten picks from a given draft, many more of them are busts than Major Leaguers.
(But still....I actually believe that many of the A's picks in the book have had fine careers - Joe Blanton comes to mind.)
Having defended it there, I do believe that Moneyball exaggerated Beane's genius and, in fact, that it told some lies. So I have big problems with the book. But the problems you cited (and the ones often cited elsewhere) are, I believe, just people misinterpreting it. The main point of the book was not that scouts are bad, that big contracts are bad, or that walks are the only stat that counts. The point of the book, I believe, was that the A's were very shrewd and resourceful - for an extended period of time - in gauging the true value of players in clever and novel ways.
(Incidentally, I've read the screenplay, and if you think that the book was over-the-top in portraying Beane as this badass maverick....wait 'til you you see the movie! It basically portrays Beane as this swaggering rebel who's one soft spot is his love for his precocious daughter. It's just this over-idealized silliness.)
MSUSteve,
I took it as a premier athlete - and he wasn't nearly as gifed as Lenny Dykstra. It's why he didn't really make it. Book was more myth than reality, in my opinion. So will be the movie.
Caputo
David Brennan,
While I don't agree about the "athete" part, I think you articulated some great points. The book was just too much, making Beane vastly overrated. I think Hollywood is looking for another "Blind Side," a good story - but embellished for the sake of drama.
Caputo
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home