First ever live request blog! Has such excitement existed since Carson Daly was privileged to introduce foolishly short video clips of SMOKING hot pop princesses and Papa Roach to thousands of dying-to-dry-hump middle school children?! We can only hope interaction such as this will be revolutionary enough an event to launch blogs comparable to classic TRL hits such as "Bawitaba" by Kid Rock, "Bye Bye Bye" by 'Nsync, or the life-changing "Baby One More Time" by my teenage obsession/hottest girl ever turned bald crazy chick turned relevant again turned who knows what next, Britney Jean Spears.
Let's go to the phones...
Baseball/Moneyball (sorry ladies and anyone else who paints their finger nails...)
Going to the movies doesn't get the blood in my veins pumping like the 1999-version of Britney Spears in skin-tight red spandex but let's be honest, not much does. There is something about paying $14 a ticket and $8 for popcorn that really makes me stop and think "I could buy an entire fucking season of Dexter for this price." Furthermore, when watching movies at the theatre, there is at least one 15 minute tantrum that results in the missing of a crucial scene. It may be upon realization that the butter only reaches one goddamn third of the way down the popcorn bag despite paying an additional 75 cents for extra butter. Or possibly because the man in front of me smells like feces and urine. Or because the sour patch kids have burned through the epidermal layer of my tongue. Rarely does going to the theatre result in the sense of general satisfaction...
Moneyball was no different. I did go to the theatre showing of Moneyball for a few reasons, however. 1)It was the first time ever I had read a book that turned into a movie because I'm not a complete weirdo like those who've read Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and/or Twilight. 2)Because I'm absolutely obsessed with baseball. 3) Brad Pitt's comedy and Jonah Hill's good looks.
The movie was okay. Anything that gets people talking baseball is good in my book. The major problem I have with the film is the glorifying of Billy Beane. Look, Billy Beane didn't win shit. Ever. As a player or as a general manager. Why did this guy get an Academy Award nominated movie written about him and his genius?
What Billy Beane did has been done in baseball and all professions for decades: make the best of a situation while getting a little lucky. Innovation is a beautiful and necessary thing for evolution in all walks of life. I applaud Billy Beane's efforts in trying to win with limited funds and he has undoubtedly changed the way baseball teams handle their rosters in regards to statistical analysis. What I'm arguing is that Mr. Beane's (hehe) philosophy is grossly overrated. There have been countless general managers that have been more revolutionary and quite frankly who have experienced much more success over a longer period of time.
First off, statistics have been used to analyze baseball since it's creation. And focusing on an innovative statistic is for certain not the creation of Billy Beane. How about the dramatic shift to focus on power numbers such as home runs and RBI ushered in during the time of Babe Ruth? Baseball shifted from batting average and speed to a game of HR's and runs batted in. The emphasis on power stuck similarly to the way "Moneyball" has spread amongst GM's of today. But do you know how many World Series the Yankees won the Ruth, Gehrig etc? A fuck ton more than Moneyball's Billy Beane ever won. What about the creation of "closers" and focus on saves and pitch counts? The A's pre-Beane won titles with this innovation. It has stuck. The list goes on and on. I think it is fair to say that Moneyball has stuck despite having never won a World Series. (For the record paying JD Drew $100000000000 doesn't count as Moneyball per se and nullifies the Sox).
Your next logical argument would be that Billy has the confounding factor of being handcuffed by budget. And it may be a fair point if you enjoy poorly accurate Hollywood re-enactments that overhype the importance of dickheads like Bill Beane. I argue that an innovative genius would not be bound by such trivial shackles. Babe Ruth was sold from the Boston Red Sox to the New York Yankees for $125,000 in cash, three $25,000 notes payable with 6% interest per year, and a loan of $300,000 to be repaid or else the Yankees GM would acquire the mortgage of Fenway Park. Let's translate this transaction into current day. So the Yankee's GM purchased the greatest player of all time (at the same time shifting focus of his team's philosophy placing a premium on the innovative statistics pertaining to power) for the equivalent of $1.45 million in cash and three notes payable of $290,000 in 2012 money. That my friends is a savvy deal IMHO. Billy Beane's Oakland A's currently have 8 players in 2012 on their roster being paid more than the entire cash amount for the acquisition of Babe Ruth in current day dollars. Essentially the Yankees shrewd GM purchased Babe Ruth the same amount that Billy Beane is paying an injured Rich Harden to sit out for the year. The misconception that the Yankees used absurd amounts of cash to acquire Ruth is outrageous in relation to the concept of Moneyball. No doubt the Yankees paid what was considered a stiff price at the time but this risk was exponentially more successful than Billy Beane's Moneyball risk. The Yankees GM used an innovative strategy and won a plethora of championships. Beane was innovative but didn't win any titles.
More analysis...
What's unique about baseball is that you "have control" of a player that your organization drafts until that player has reached a certain amount of service time playing for your major league roster. This is why you oftentimes see a talented young player held in the minor leagues for longer than you would expect. It is a flaw in the system (at least from the point of view of talented players and their fans who want to see the prospects play in the Major Leauges) that allows a team to pay a good young player a very low salary for longer than would be necessary. Consequently, they "control" that player for longer at a discount price. Billy Beane got lucky in that he had control over the contracts of 3 great young pitchers: Tim Hudson, Barry Zito, and Mark Mulder. If you've seen the movie Moneyball, Brad Pitt (Billy Beane) is made to appear a genius for getting to the playoffs in 2002 after losing talented hitters such as Jason Giambi and Johnny Damon while replacing them with scrubs like Scott Hatteberg and Jeremy Giambi. The premise goes that Beane exploited in Hatteberg, John Mayberry, and other underrated players qualities that other teams were ignoring. Or, that the GM replaced the production of really good players too expensive for his team by mixing and matching a number of undervalued players to make up that production. Sounds good in theory and makes a great movie plot... In reality though, Billy Beane "had control" over three dominant pitchers because they were young in their career. Billy Beane had the best pitching staff in the league in 2002. Barry Zito was the league Cy Young. Oh and it just so happens that Miguel Tejada won the MVP of the league that year to boot. And Tejada for sure replaced a lot more of the lost production on offense than twats like Hatteberg and his muff-tickling facial hair.
To finalize my assault of Bill Beane, I also argue that managers with control over great players have had greater success than Beane. Point and case: John Schuerholz. Schuerholz is the GM that stockpiled Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz on the Atlanta Braves in the 1990's. His teams won 14 division titles in a row! FOURTEEN! That is fucking insane. What Schuerholz did was consistently develop good players to sustain success after losing players too expensive to keep. Players came and went similar to Beane's A's but the Braves kept bringing up talented players they had drafted. The Braves also won a World Series during the Schuerholz tenure (while appearing in 2). Never during Beane's term did the A's even make the World Series. The A's won 2 division titles in a row in 2002 and 2003 but then they started losing their pitchers without having developed good replacements. Hudson and Mulder were traded in 2004 and Zito left by free agency in 2006. The A's win total after losing their Big 3? 2006=93; 2007=76, 2008=76, 2009=75, 2010=81, 2011=74. His teams were nothing without these pitchers.
"Moneyball" the economic analysis of statistics in baseball has changed the way baseball organizations are run. "Moneyball" the movie is inaccurate portrayal of the importance of Billy Beane.
The only plausible explanation for this injustice is that Beane could portrayed by Brad Pitt while Schuerholz would have had been played by Billy Bob Thorton.
Sex sells my friends...just ask Carson Daly.
BRYtunes Genius Recommendations: There's No "I" In Team - Taking Back Sunday (120), Breakdown - Tantric (79), Simple Math - Manchester Orchestra (90), Walking Away - Craig David (62)
