Moneyball is an excellent book by Michael Lewis that details the behind-the scenes life of the front office of the 2002 Oakland Athletics. The 2002 A's and GM Billy Beane - due both to their success and to the book that chronicled it - were the first and most famous face of the years-old "sabermetric" movement in baseball that prioritizes statistical analysis ahead of traditional scouting methods in the construction of a baseball team.
It's a story of overcoming disadvantages by enforcing a nontraditional methodology in the most systematically and rigidly traditional corner of American sports. Specifically, the challenge of Moneyball is that of applying a decidedly intellectual approach to a game largely informed by anecdotal and situational evidence and played in great numbers by overgrown children indoctrinated in old baseball's conventional wisdom.
A tale of ingenuity and inventive thinking, Moneyball was owed a thorough and envelope-pushing cinematic treatment. A creative, out-of-the box approach to moviemaking would have garnered the appropriate atmosphere for a film about an uncommon and somewhat subversive baseball ideology. Instead, the Hollywood powers that be gave us a movie rife with issues both large and small.
First and most egregious is the absence of Joe Morgan as a character. The media as a whole was critical of the sabermetric approach to building a team, but no one quite as stubbornly, visibly, and indignantly as Joe Morgan. He was cited several times in the book as a prime example of baseball's old guard, and was extremely outspoken - if incoherent and uninformed - in his criticisms after the book came out.
The other one comes with an easy explanation of "that's just how movies work," which is the tacked-on storyline about Beane's turbulent home life in which his ex-wife raises their daughter with her new husband (played by Spike Jonze). They do so in a manner not entirely agreeable to Beane, and his quirky daughter writes a song for the Juno soundtrack (or something) to express that it's tough having divorced parents. Now, besides the fact that these are not the scenes I'm there to see if I'm watching Moneyball, out of this storyline comes a scene where Beane's ex-wife leaves him a voicemail about the team's recent success that is abhorrently cheesy, lazily written, and unnecessary. This criticism would feel much more unfair if it weren't for the line "You done good, BIlly."
Here's the thing about Moneyball: Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The Social Network) adapted the screenplay. Bennett Miller (Capote) directed. Scott Rudin (No Country for Old Men, The Social Network) produced. Mychael Danna (Capote, Little Miss Sunshine) did the music. Brad Pitt, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Jonah Hill played the movie's three biggest roles.
It feels like the decision-makers behind this movie took every piece of conventional moviemaking wisdom and built the 2002 New York Yankees of personnel and overdone sports-movie tropes to tell the story of the 2002 Oakland A's. With that in mind, let's complete the comparison by identities from the '02 Yanks to the various key Moneyball players.
A tale of ingenuity and inventive thinking, Moneyball was owed a thorough and envelope-pushing cinematic treatment. A creative, out-of-the box approach to moviemaking would have garnered the appropriate atmosphere for a film about an uncommon and somewhat subversive baseball ideology. Instead, the Hollywood powers that be gave us a movie rife with issues both large and small.
First and most egregious is the absence of Joe Morgan as a character. The media as a whole was critical of the sabermetric approach to building a team, but no one quite as stubbornly, visibly, and indignantly as Joe Morgan. He was cited several times in the book as a prime example of baseball's old guard, and was extremely outspoken - if incoherent and uninformed - in his criticisms after the book came out.
The other one comes with an easy explanation of "that's just how movies work," which is the tacked-on storyline about Beane's turbulent home life in which his ex-wife raises their daughter with her new husband (played by Spike Jonze). They do so in a manner not entirely agreeable to Beane, and his quirky daughter writes a song for the Juno soundtrack (or something) to express that it's tough having divorced parents. Now, besides the fact that these are not the scenes I'm there to see if I'm watching Moneyball, out of this storyline comes a scene where Beane's ex-wife leaves him a voicemail about the team's recent success that is abhorrently cheesy, lazily written, and unnecessary. This criticism would feel much more unfair if it weren't for the line "You done good, BIlly."
Here's the thing about Moneyball: Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The Social Network) adapted the screenplay. Bennett Miller (Capote) directed. Scott Rudin (No Country for Old Men, The Social Network) produced. Mychael Danna (Capote, Little Miss Sunshine) did the music. Brad Pitt, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Jonah Hill played the movie's three biggest roles.
It feels like the decision-makers behind this movie took every piece of conventional moviemaking wisdom and built the 2002 New York Yankees of personnel and overdone sports-movie tropes to tell the story of the 2002 Oakland A's. With that in mind, let's complete the comparison by identities from the '02 Yanks to the various key Moneyball players.
Brad Pitt - Derek Jeter
Seriously, this one is almost too easy. Clear captain/star parallel, good looking dudes, impressive list of famous former and current mates; the match is nearly perfect. Jeter is 1,000% old-school baseball scout wet dream. He hits for a high average, steals, bunts, scraps, and looks good and owns every room he walks into with his charisma. He' a "plus fielder" because he made an awesome play against the A's, and he's got all the intangibles that make scouts swoon.
Seriously, this one is almost too easy. Clear captain/star parallel, good looking dudes, impressive list of famous former and current mates; the match is nearly perfect. Jeter is 1,000% old-school baseball scout wet dream. He hits for a high average, steals, bunts, scraps, and looks good and owns every room he walks into with his charisma. He' a "plus fielder" because he made an awesome play against the A's, and he's got all the intangibles that make scouts swoon.
These two are among the best and most charismatic performers in their
respective fields. Pitt, for all his baseball ignorance and
anti-Moneyball big name/big paycheck status, puts forth great
performances in a variety of roles, including Beane in Moneyball.
Similarly Jeter, despite being the figurehead of the evil baseball
empire for 16 years and playing a non-SABR- friendly style of ball, has
been a cornerstone of three World Series champions since 1996.
Perhaps the most important parallel, though, is the 'original' status of each one's involvement. Pitt was the first key contributor to sign on for the movie, committing to the project in its original incarnation in 2007, when Bennett Miller was Steven Soderbergh and Jonah Hill was Demitri Martin. Jeter, had been with the Yankees six years by the time '02 came around and has been the face of the franchise through many personnel switches, both successful and otherwise.
Aaron Sorkin - Roger Clemens
Aaron Sorkin is undeniably talented. He's been praised and awarded at nearly every stop of his career, from A Few Good Men through Sports Night, The Social Network, and everything in between. As far as Hollywood writers go, Sorkin is the ultimate hired gun.
Clemens entered Major League Baseball with the Yanks' division-rival/historical nemesis Boston Red Sox and spent time with another divisional foe in Toronto in 1997 and 1998 before coming to New York as a free agent ringer and a five time Cy Young winner. Clemens embodied everything that baseball purists resent about the Yankees and the free market system of player movement in sports, taking an enormous contract to play for an established juggernaut of a team instead of challenging himself by joining an up and coming team or staying loyal to a franchise.
The comparison strengthens when you compare Sorkin's Moneyball adaptation to Clemens' 2002 season. Both were objectively good, but Moneyball didn't approach Charlie Wilson's War. Similarly, Clemens had a 2002 regular season in which he only won 13 games (he averaged 16.25 in years that he pitched 200 or more innings) and lost his only postseason start. Also, since this article concerns the sabermetric movement and wins are like poison for stat-heads, that was also his third-worst season for WHIP in that same stretch.
Jonah Hill - Jason Giambi
Remember Fat Jonah Hill? He was quirky, funny, and endearing as a guy who excelled at one thing that was at least slightly linked to his appearance. Just a legitimately funny guy who always had a presence in a defined secondary role. He parlayed some great comedic performances into the role of Peter Brand, where he would slot in as a solid comic relief character and a key player in a highly regarded cast.
Now think about 2001 AL MVP Jason Giambi, a player with a distinctive style of his own, a mean-streak player and a prototypical cleanup-hitting basher. His personality dominated the A's team in a way that a first baseman rarely does. He filled his role perfectly, hammering balls to the tune of a .333 average, 47 Home Runs, and 120 RBIs. In addition to that, he led the league in the all-important Billy Beane statistic of On Base Percentage at a ridiculous .477 clip. (Giambi also led the league that year in Walks, Slugging Percentage, and subsequently On base Plus Slugging.)
By the time that Giambi sold out to the Yankees, shaved, cut his hair, and became 2002 New York Yankee Jason Giambi he was a shell of his former badass self. And it seems silly to even state this but HOLY CRAP SKINNY JONAH HILL. Both men shifted to fit a new role that was not theirs previously. Both were worse for the change, even though they still did well (though Giambi still hit homers he struck out 30 more times than the year before; though Jonah nailed his awkward-funny-nerd role it was not as good as what he does well).
Phillip Seymour Hoffman - Bernie Williams
Bennett Miller - Jorge Posada
It sort of feels like both of these pairings should go together. Bennett Miller and Phillip Seymour Hoffman are apparently childhood friends. Which is not to say that Bernie and Jorge are, but both were original and lifetime Yankees, the closest parallel we're realistically going to make here.
Hoffman is absolutely a prototype character actor that can act his way into a convincing and compelling leading role. What stuck out about casting Hoffman as Art Howe: Art Howe weighs - oh, let's say - about 190-200 pounds (author's note: I looked for this for a while and honestly could not find it). Phillip Seymour Hoffman weighs in at conservatively 225. Shaving his beard and his head make him look more like Art Howe, but come on, one is a tall skinny dude and the other is Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Hoffman pulls it off, but is probably miscast there.
Similarly, Bernie Williams, as great as he was (5-time All Star, though not in '02), was mis-cast as a top-line middle of the order hitter, especially by 2002. He homered in the low 20's and drove in 80-some RBI's and was a good hitter who contributed to a lot of good teams and could occasionally produce his way to being a featured talent. But he was never Derek Jeter or Jason Giambi the same way Hoffman was never Pitt or Tom Cruise.
Miller and Posada get points as a pair for being overlooked in central roles. Perhaps no one is in more control of a baseball team on the field than the catcher. Every signal goes through him, every mound visit involves him, and he touches the ball during every play. The director shapes the movie similarly, but in 30 years people will not think of Moneyball as a Bennett Miller movie in a similar way that people will not think of the 2002 Yankees as a Jorge Posada team.
Mychael Danna - Robin Ventura
Digging a little deep for this last one, but that's sort of the point. Both Ventura and Danna had pretty forgettable contributions to the final product of each entity, but were also sort of symptomatic of the systematic issues of each. They each had moderate success before coming over (Danna in the films already mentioned and Ventura with the White Sox and Mets), but neither was the linchpin of the success or failure of their movie/team.
Danna's music fell somewhere between "Explosions in the Sky in Friday Night Lights" and "Hans Zimmer in The Dark Knight" without pushing either envelope. Ventura hit 27 HR's and 93 RBI's in 2002, and was replaced the next year by Aaron Boone (the gold standard statement for non envelope pushing in baseball). Neither was bad. Neither was great.
If the makers of Moneyball wanted to make a truly transcendent sports movie, they had a solid story and cast of characters to work with. And they came out and made a good sports movie. But they made it in all the wrong ways. They defied the character of the very story they were telling in the makeup of its cast and the structure of its production. Ultimately, it was an fun movie, and probably more successful financially than its underdog counterpart would have been. It just feels like such a shame that such an opportunity was missed to capture the spirit of one of the truly unforgettable sports stories of the 2000s.
Perhaps the most important parallel, though, is the 'original' status of each one's involvement. Pitt was the first key contributor to sign on for the movie, committing to the project in its original incarnation in 2007, when Bennett Miller was Steven Soderbergh and Jonah Hill was Demitri Martin. Jeter, had been with the Yankees six years by the time '02 came around and has been the face of the franchise through many personnel switches, both successful and otherwise.
Aaron Sorkin - Roger Clemens
Aaron Sorkin is undeniably talented. He's been praised and awarded at nearly every stop of his career, from A Few Good Men through Sports Night, The Social Network, and everything in between. As far as Hollywood writers go, Sorkin is the ultimate hired gun.
Clemens entered Major League Baseball with the Yanks' division-rival/historical nemesis Boston Red Sox and spent time with another divisional foe in Toronto in 1997 and 1998 before coming to New York as a free agent ringer and a five time Cy Young winner. Clemens embodied everything that baseball purists resent about the Yankees and the free market system of player movement in sports, taking an enormous contract to play for an established juggernaut of a team instead of challenging himself by joining an up and coming team or staying loyal to a franchise.
The comparison strengthens when you compare Sorkin's Moneyball adaptation to Clemens' 2002 season. Both were objectively good, but Moneyball didn't approach Charlie Wilson's War. Similarly, Clemens had a 2002 regular season in which he only won 13 games (he averaged 16.25 in years that he pitched 200 or more innings) and lost his only postseason start. Also, since this article concerns the sabermetric movement and wins are like poison for stat-heads, that was also his third-worst season for WHIP in that same stretch.
Jonah Hill - Jason Giambi
Remember Fat Jonah Hill? He was quirky, funny, and endearing as a guy who excelled at one thing that was at least slightly linked to his appearance. Just a legitimately funny guy who always had a presence in a defined secondary role. He parlayed some great comedic performances into the role of Peter Brand, where he would slot in as a solid comic relief character and a key player in a highly regarded cast.
Now think about 2001 AL MVP Jason Giambi, a player with a distinctive style of his own, a mean-streak player and a prototypical cleanup-hitting basher. His personality dominated the A's team in a way that a first baseman rarely does. He filled his role perfectly, hammering balls to the tune of a .333 average, 47 Home Runs, and 120 RBIs. In addition to that, he led the league in the all-important Billy Beane statistic of On Base Percentage at a ridiculous .477 clip. (Giambi also led the league that year in Walks, Slugging Percentage, and subsequently On base Plus Slugging.)
By the time that Giambi sold out to the Yankees, shaved, cut his hair, and became 2002 New York Yankee Jason Giambi he was a shell of his former badass self. And it seems silly to even state this but HOLY CRAP SKINNY JONAH HILL. Both men shifted to fit a new role that was not theirs previously. Both were worse for the change, even though they still did well (though Giambi still hit homers he struck out 30 more times than the year before; though Jonah nailed his awkward-funny-nerd role it was not as good as what he does well).
Phillip Seymour Hoffman - Bernie Williams
Bennett Miller - Jorge Posada
It sort of feels like both of these pairings should go together. Bennett Miller and Phillip Seymour Hoffman are apparently childhood friends. Which is not to say that Bernie and Jorge are, but both were original and lifetime Yankees, the closest parallel we're realistically going to make here.
Hoffman is absolutely a prototype character actor that can act his way into a convincing and compelling leading role. What stuck out about casting Hoffman as Art Howe: Art Howe weighs - oh, let's say - about 190-200 pounds (author's note: I looked for this for a while and honestly could not find it). Phillip Seymour Hoffman weighs in at conservatively 225. Shaving his beard and his head make him look more like Art Howe, but come on, one is a tall skinny dude and the other is Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Hoffman pulls it off, but is probably miscast there.
Similarly, Bernie Williams, as great as he was (5-time All Star, though not in '02), was mis-cast as a top-line middle of the order hitter, especially by 2002. He homered in the low 20's and drove in 80-some RBI's and was a good hitter who contributed to a lot of good teams and could occasionally produce his way to being a featured talent. But he was never Derek Jeter or Jason Giambi the same way Hoffman was never Pitt or Tom Cruise.
Miller and Posada get points as a pair for being overlooked in central roles. Perhaps no one is in more control of a baseball team on the field than the catcher. Every signal goes through him, every mound visit involves him, and he touches the ball during every play. The director shapes the movie similarly, but in 30 years people will not think of Moneyball as a Bennett Miller movie in a similar way that people will not think of the 2002 Yankees as a Jorge Posada team.
Mychael Danna - Robin Ventura
Digging a little deep for this last one, but that's sort of the point. Both Ventura and Danna had pretty forgettable contributions to the final product of each entity, but were also sort of symptomatic of the systematic issues of each. They each had moderate success before coming over (Danna in the films already mentioned and Ventura with the White Sox and Mets), but neither was the linchpin of the success or failure of their movie/team.
Danna's music fell somewhere between "Explosions in the Sky in Friday Night Lights" and "Hans Zimmer in The Dark Knight" without pushing either envelope. Ventura hit 27 HR's and 93 RBI's in 2002, and was replaced the next year by Aaron Boone (the gold standard statement for non envelope pushing in baseball). Neither was bad. Neither was great.
If the makers of Moneyball wanted to make a truly transcendent sports movie, they had a solid story and cast of characters to work with. And they came out and made a good sports movie. But they made it in all the wrong ways. They defied the character of the very story they were telling in the makeup of its cast and the structure of its production. Ultimately, it was an fun movie, and probably more successful financially than its underdog counterpart would have been. It just feels like such a shame that such an opportunity was missed to capture the spirit of one of the truly unforgettable sports stories of the 2000s.
No comments:
Post a Comment