"Moneyball"

By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

In 2002, the New York Yankees made over $125 million. Not surprisingly, the Yankees won 103 games that year. The 2002 Oakland Athletics also won 103 games, but their payroll was about $41 million—less than a third of the Yankees’ payroll. So, the Yankees bought wins with aces and all-stars, but the A’s showed that a team can win just as many games without a blank check. They showed that a poor team can win by pinching pennies, by playing smart—that is, by playing Moneyball.

“Moneyball” is a story about how David outsmarts Goliath, but it begins with heartbreak. Despite putting together a great team, Oakland A’s General Manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) stands by as his team crumbles to the Yankees in the 2001 playoffs. That heartbreak only deepens over the next several months as Beane realizes that his team is going to be gutted. The small market A’s cannot afford to keep their stars. They cannot match the massive contracts offered by the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox. $41 million just isn’t what it used to be.

But Beane refuses to wave the white flag. Instead, he gets creative. Beane knows that he cannot afford to sign superstars. He knows that he has to pinch every penny in order to field a legitimate team. So Beane plays Moneyball.

Moneyball is a team-building system that marries baseball, statistics and economics. It is all about getting some bang for a buck or two. Those who adopt the system try to buy as many wins as possible with as little money as possible. They do this by ignoring the he-man homerun hitters and flashy base stealers that earn big money, and instead focusing on gritty players that just get on base. These players are often overlooked (and underpaid), but they score runs and win games. So they are perfect for small market teams.

Thus, Beane rubs two pennies together and creates a 2002 Oakland A’s team that he thinks is built to win. Others—Beane’s scouts, the A’s manager, sports analysts, and fans all over the country—think that Beane is crazy. They think that his team has no shot.

And at first they are right. At first, the 2002 A’s are pitiful. With few wins and even fewer supporters, Beane can only hope that he was right—that things will turn around. His job depends on it. His team depends on it. The A’s fans depend on it.

Whether Moneyball is the way of the future remains to be seen. It is unclear whether it will turn out to be a huge success. What is clear is that “Moneyball” (the movie) is a winner both at the box office and with critics. This movie is undeniably well written and well acted. Brad Pitt and the supporting cast feel like the real thing—like they know what they are doing in the dugout and front office—and Aaron Sorkin (along with Steven Zaillian) comes through once again with a fun and amusing screenplay.

However, unless you find baseball, fantasy sports, statistical analysis, etc., intrinsically interesting, you might find this movie to be forgettable. Heck, I like baseball a lot, and I even have a fantasy sports team, but I found “Moneyball” to be pretty mundane.

Part of the problem is that Moneyball is made out to be for the little guy; it is supposed to be a strategy for outsmarting richer ball clubs. But, in reality, the little guy never wins. The small market A’s are never successful in the playoffs. It is only when the rich Red Sox adopt the system that it meets with any success in the playoffs. So, appearances and tag lines aside, it’s not clear that Moneyball does what it says it does—it’s not clear that it really levels the playing field. Such truths inevitably take a little wind out of this movie’s sails.

“Moneyball” is good, but not as good as it is supposed to be. My guess is that those who are intrigued and excited by the previews for “Moneyball” will like the movie. Those who are curious but don’t really care about the topic will be disappointed.