He was awesome playing that junkie that held it together long enough to break everyone's heart when he finally overdosed and died leaving a wife and young children to fend for themselves. What was the name of that flick again?
Art was actually more supportive of Billy with this than the movie portrayed. He actually believed in Hattie but the movie needed an antagonist and he was it.
I don’t believe in any antagonists in this movie, Howe was under the cloud of doubt over his job security. How could you expect him to play an unorthodox team on a 1 year contract? He made the right choice playing normally and having a chance for job interviews in the post season.
@@FRANKIERGG thats what the movie wants you to believe. Art howe and billy beane were 100% on the same page and all the players loved and respected both of them. Watch the interviews. OP is correct
@@isars3433 that’s really weird they made him the “villain”. This movie felt very jarring to have someone so against a plan that made sense and it honestly is disrespectful and spits in the face of those who believed in the A’s game plan. That puts a huge blemish on the movie for me.
In the book Billy was telling the manager how to stand in the dugout to give the right mindset to the players and he did it. He was more on board with the system than portrayed but that's a creative liberty.
Exactly. Hollywood always has to have an antagonist in every movie. The way they portrayed Dan Devine in "Rudy" was bordering on slander and I'm surprised the real Devine allowed it. He was going to let Rudy dress for the final game all along but they needed a heavy in the plot and he was it.
@@acrustykrabIf i remember correctly he wanted him to be in the players view and to look calm and straightbacked when things were getting difficult. Billy basically viewed that a lot of teams somewhat give up when things start getting bad (which is a pretty obvious idea) and so by projecting confidence and positivity to the players they played better in difficult circumstances.
@@Dana-wq5tp the way Commander Denniston (Charles Dance) is portrayed in The Imitation Game was another one. In reality that man was one of the kindest and most decent military supervisors civilians could have had. His family are still outraged at the way he comes off in that movie.
This scene is often glossed over, but it shows what a huge mistake that Billy made. He drastically changed how he wanted his roster shaped and the lineup and staff instituted, but didn't include Art Howe in that planning and discussion. Billy wanted drastic new nontraditional things, like playing players (wildly considered) out of position or playing players with lower batting averages, because they got on base more over their position counterparts. Howe couldn't be expected to just know this and do it on his own. And in this scene, he makes a good point to Billy that since Beane won't commit to new managerial contract, Howe was going to play the team the way a normal manager would so he can explain himself in job interviews in the offseason. Billy should have know what kind of position he was putting his manager in, included him in the discussions from the beginning and given him guarantees about job security based on trying new nontraditional managerial moves.
It's not just that he didn't include him in the planning. Howe, like the head of scouting, was an old school guy who wasn't going to buy into Billy Beane's new philosophy. In today's game, where GMs follow Billy's lead, they bring in a manager who believes in those analytics and work with the GM. The Dodgers' Roberts-Friedman team they have daily meetings of what the roster, lineup game plan is for that day. Considering that that combo has gone to two World Series, three LCSes and won 8 consecutive division titles, it's hard to argue against them.
@@fivedollarsteve GM's run baseball teams now, no doubt. They pick the starting pitchers, bullpen arms and often the roles, and all the starting fielder spots including the lineup positions in a general way. The manager is just a figure head. Just someone the GM can blame when the roster sucks. Hell, nowadays, they invented a new position - President. This allows what used to be the GM to add another layer of protection from being fired. Now the GM (called Prez) hires a figurehead GM and a figurehead manager, both of whom have zero power and report to the Prez who makes all the roster decisions. Quite frankly, I think its a gutless miserable idea. But that's the way it is now. But it wasn't back then when this movie is taking place and therefore Beane badly failed in that aspect. You can't build an experimental team that will only work with experimental ideas, and then not include the one person in the organization that needs to implement your vision.
The movie takes incredible liberties with the actual reality. Art Howe was very aware of what Billy was doing, because the previous general manager before Billy tried it as well. And Miguel Tejada, the shortstop who was hitting 300, is barely mentioned as well as the fact that the A's starting pitching was loaded. The movie had to have some "bad guys", and they chose the scouts and Howe. But everyone in the A's organization knew what was going on. And don't even get me started on the fact that a LOT of the players were juiced. :-)
thelordofhellaz well, sure they were juiced. Just like Damon, And Giambi before them. Beanie had one year to test this and t worked. After that, every team in the league wanted the decoder ring
"Could this be about your contract?" "No, this is about you doing your job and me doing mine. Mine is being left alone to manage this team that you assembled for me." "I didn't assemble it for you, Art." "No shit" Gold.
@@ruinaderoma Nothing, Napoleon wasn't really the smartest cookie when it came to quotes. Yeah he was a good general and all but we all know how dumb army people are.
Philip Seymour Hofmann was one of those rare actors that could play completely dramatically different characters and be hundred percent natural. Vast majority of other actors play “themselves” - very similar character over and over again.
Watching Seymore Hoffman is sad. Between Oxycodone and Heroin, we have lost too many great people. Our friends, family, favourite actors, musicians etc...
“I don’t care about lefty/righty” and Mike Hargrove sez back - “I do.” Yeah, we know. leave Michael Jackson in and the Indians would have a World Series.
@@matthewbennett3352 Mike Jackson’s ERA was less than 2 that season and had struck out the side the inning before, while Mesa was no longer the dominant closer he had been the 2 previous seasons (his ERA was in the mid 3s that season and consistently gave up base runners (not what you want to do against a team that has contact hitters). So Indians fans agree with you, keeping the dominant (that season) reliever (Jackson) in the game and the Tribe wins the WS.
And if Jackson blows the game we forever question why the hell Hargrove didn't stay with the All Star closer? Don't get me wrong I agree with you. I was there (well sort of I was at the Field of Dreams at the Nautica Stage) and we partied hard all night given our lead. But once we blew it the skies above Cleveland opened and hit us with deluge of a storm that sent us all home never knowing we had to wait 20 more years for another shot.
@@wjatube - ball movement ball movement ball movement. Jackson was throwing strikes and the ball was moving. That trumps lefty/righty to me. I would NOT have blamed Hargrove if he left Jackson in and we got a bad result- but ultimately Fidget had to be a bizzy body.
Mesa simply froze up in the situation. His nerves got the better of him. I'll forever have the vision of Sandy Alomar punching his glove and yelling at Mesa to throw his fastball when he keeps feeding him junk. Whether Grover made the move to Mesa or kept Jackson in really doesn't matter to me. What matters is Mesa fell on his face. Vizquel was well within his rights to call him out in his book. Mesa from then on threw at Omar's head every time they met until Mesa retired. That's all on Mesa.
Hatteberg actually was a decent hitter. His OBP was ALWAYS above average, his BA was good and he had a little power 12-15 HRs. He walked more than he struck out. Yes Pena had more power and had a few good years with Tampa, but it wasn't long before he was struggling to hit .200 every year.
I can honestly see why the coach acted the way he did though. This scene didn't explain it, but the scene afterwards does. He explains that he needs to be able to explain why he assembled his team the way he did with the players he had on hand, and he can't say, "I did it because the GM told me."
They also made a big deal in the movie of acquiring Jeremy Giambi to help replace his brother - completely ignoring he was on the team the year before as an everyday player.
People also forget those old scouts were REALLY good at their job. The A's were basically a farm team for young All-Star players for years. They just couldn't afford to keep them.
Billy Beane is a genius in recognizing and exploiting talent in unconventional ways on a shoestring budget. He definitely proves the adage "necessity is the mother of invention." But I can't help but notice his team not only never won a World Series under his watch, they've never even got to one. In fact, they've only won two playoff series in 13 tries. I wonder if that will count against him when it comes to the HOF? I'd still vote him in.
Championships are not the goal of moneyball for small market teams. The goal is not to be last or close to last every season from now until eternity. Did the A's win more than their budget for investment into players suggest they would? That is the only measure of success that makes sense when talking about Moneyball concepts. Does anyone really think a team can consistently win championships without serious player investment? Based on what data? The whole point of moneyball is to overperform based on your resources. For a team like the A's...that means consistently making the playoffs. For a team like Boston, that means World Series. It is folly to compare the two organizations goals. They are fundamentally different based on the context of the financial disparity. Go back to the 'What is the Problem' scene. The problem is not that the A's can't win championships. The problem is that the A's can't even win consistently unless they get lucky with their scouting and player development.
The one thing i did not understood from this movie was why didn't he sacked the coach? I don't know much about USA sports teams, and how they operate, but in Europe, the GM can sack the head coach. Or were the team in the movie so low on cash, that they couldn't afford to pay out his contract and sack him?
Firing a coach in the middle of the season isn’t very common in the MLB, also his act in the movie is pretty exaggerated compared to how it actually happened , in real life I believe he was more accepting to the process
1: He is not called a coach. He is called a manager. 2: In reality, Billy Beane and Art Howe got Alina quite well, and for the most part, seldom disagreed. 3: While most of this movie is quite accurate, the riff between GM and MANAGER was not accurate at all. Howe did have some initial reservations, but on the whole was in agreement with Beane.
If this is how Art Howe really felt while he was managing this team I can completely relate to it. I think a lot of people that have jobs can. You're asked to do a job with certain time limits and assets to work with and be successful no matter what. But then you have people from different departments constantly telling you how to do the job you were hired to do. The people that think they know it all should just do it all themselves. It would make things easier on everybody...Except for the certain people that think they can do it all themselves lol. I'm not saying Billy Beane is stupid, but has he ever won a championship using his dictatorship way of running things???
The glaring problem with analytics driven baseball decisions, is that baseball is in many instances resistant to interpretation by analytics alone. There are simply too many variables involved, some known, many unknown, that must be factored into the equation in order for the analytical data to have any meaning. The Athletics and many Analytics departs since equate a walk with a base hit, but are they really the same, does a walk accomplish what a base hit does, not necessarily, depending on the circumstances and situation. A walk doesn't drive a runner in, yes it can extend an inning, but it passes the baton, so that the next batter succeeds or fails. Having hitters that walk is generally a good thing, yes. However, when you fill your roster with players batting .200 - .240, striking out 26% - 40% of their At Bats, walking 70-90 times per season, hitting occasional home runs, and scoring the majority of your runs via the home run, proving game after game largely incapable of extended rallies or driving runners in scoring position home with a single, guess what, you may win lots of games against mediocre teams and mediocre pitching, but when facing the better pitchers in the league and better teams, to expect success is harboring unrealistic expectations. The better pitchers do not issue walks that often, in high leverage games they focus on every pitch and rarely leave one in the middle of the plate for mediocre hitters to smack out of the park, so you have to be able to put the ball in play, make contact, something good might happens, string hits together. Sure hope for a blast, but if that doesn't materialize, you have to be able to score by other means. Nothing good can happen when you strike-out, unless the catcher misses the pitch. Many baseball analytics departments prefer a .230 hitter who walks a lot, having say a .360--370 On-Base percentage over a .300 hitter who doesn't walk and as a result has say a .330 OBP. But tell me, which hitter would you want up for your team, with the season on the line, in a one run game, man on second, two outs, the .230 hitter or the .300 hitter. At some point in many games you need but a single to score a must have run, and when your line-up is filled with feast or famine, home-run or strike-out hitters, even in the best scenario, one can expect a successful outcome perhaps 5% of their At Bats, which doesn't get it done. Then factor in, that that .230 hitter gets most of his hits and home runs against back of the rotation pitchers during the regular season, pitchers that he will not face come post-season. Against front-line pitching he may have batted more like .160 and against aces .80 and his chances of success are pitiful. That is a reason Billy Bean teams did not experience Post-Season success.
It’s a shame Art was portrayed like this in the movie. That’s not how it went in reality. You knows what’s funny though? Managers wear baseball uniforms. That’s always struck me as ridiculous.
My only gripe with the movie is they almost purposefully gloss over many good players the A’s had…Tejada, Chavez, Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Dye, Durham…the production and acting itself is still phenomenal but that part always bothered me a bit
It seems like a conflict between purists and practicalists. The coach, players, and scouts want to play pure baseball, and win using talent. The GM wants to win using statistical strategy which has little to do with actually playing baseball - just get players on base and rack-up the score. I never saw the actual games they won, but was it exciting baseball?
I agree. The A’s never won shit. Even with a loaded pitching staff. Beane is an innovator but if it doesn’t equate to championships then what’s the point?
Well, hold on. I heartily agree that humanly speaking winning is the main point of a game, and that championships are the *highest* achievement and measure of success in sports. However, winning and championships are not the *only* achievement and measure of success in sports. Each year one team wins a championship, and no matter how good the 2nd place team is they don't achieve that pinnacle. But they did get closer to it than the 3rd place team. Is that difference utterly zeroed out? What about versus the last place team? There may be room for a difference of opinion on these questions. Stakeholders at every level (owners, shareholders, players, fans, staff, merchandisers etc) may find that 2nd, 3rd, 4th,etc was a great achievement and a stunning level of success, bringing substantial rewards. For stakeholders of a championship team the achievement and rewards are probably greater, but the contrast isn't all vs none. And if, say, a champion repeats but against a weaker opponent than before, with a poorer performance and record than before, accompanied by scandal and leading to an acrimonious dismantling of the team and a subsequent precipitous decline into mediocrity or worse for the next decade, later assessment may devalue the championship itself. If the second place team goes on to a dynastic run beginning the next year, again, their non-championship may go up in estimation. (A sort of example may be seen in the National Hockey League New York Islanders vs Edmonton Oilers 1982-1983) In addition, each individual works within their means and abilities to strive to be as successful as they can. If a .198 team or hitter improves to .298 is that improvement utterly worthless if it was not achieved during a championship-winning year? Do fans, commentators, players, etc have 100% bliss (fun, comaraderie, money, fame etc) if winning a championship and 0% if 2nd or less? Ask the Dallas Mavericks this year. Just thinking aloud. Maybe I'm wrong.
@@richzito there’s no “manager” in sports like a store. There is only a general manager. So GM vs Manager doesn’t make sense. Ones a GM and ones a coach
@@CM-xy7uk Yes that's not correct. In professional American baseball, the person who is in charge of the on field day to day operations of the team is called a manager, not a coach.
He represents what sucks about heroin. Most users keep using it because they don't want to suffer withdrawals. I know what I'm talking about. But you're always free to disagree with me. I'd love to hear your opinions.
I can imagine how frustrating it must've been for everyone involved. Billy was trying to show them a better way to play the game and the old timers were too set in their ways, the coach only knows one way to play ball and he was afraid of losing his job so he wasn't willing to put his own neck on the chopping block incase Billy's plan didn't work.
In actuality tis never would have happened. In real life, if the team coach thwarted the efforts of the G.M., the owner would have let the coach 'go' upon the recommendation of the G.M. Hollywierd's license with facts.
Art Howe made the playoffs in his career as a manager only when he had Billy Beane as a GM. His record without Billy Beane as a GM is a losing one. That's a fact.
No one was taking the 2003 and 2004 Mets to the postseason, let alone have a winning season. Those 2 Mets team stunk. However, no GM will recommend a manager who doesnt want to work with his philosophy
I just want to say that I always felt extra fat in a baseball uniform and I mean like really, really fat. It’s like the uniform was designed to make you feel self conscious about yourself.
Why do baseball managers/coaches have to wear full uniforms? Could my image Bill Belichick standing on the sidelines in full uniform, or pat Riley in shorts, Jersey, a knee high socks?😂
the coaches in baseball are on the field. You have a third base and first base coach and a pitching coach or manager who comes out to talk to the team. No other sport does that.
@@mikeid3067 actually that’s not technically true. Base coaches are supposed to be in their coaches box. Which is technically in foul territory , but you can catch a foul so that’s a gray area. Basketball, and football coaches are just as close to the sidelines as any basketball coach/manager.
Well, sometimes it works out that way. U don’t have to play to have knowledge. Don’t forget the guy regarded as one of the FB coaches of all time - Bill Belichick- never played a down in the NFL.
Your counter argument is to point out a coach..in a different sport A coach who .." I miss interpreted the rules" and lost me right away because football sucks
@@daydaviddunn Lost you right away, eh? You got lost with times tables, fractions and long division in grade school. Why don't you get lost now? You insignificant little shit.
phillip seymour hoffman was always 100 percent believable in every role I ever saw him in.. he was so great.
Gold standard of acting, up there with the best
He was awesome playing that junkie that held it together long enough to break everyone's heart when he finally overdosed and died leaving a wife and young children to fend for themselves. What was the name of that flick again?
@@pconrz Avatar
@@starwarsroo2448 weak
@@pconrz not as weak as you
Art was actually more supportive of Billy with this than the movie portrayed. He actually believed in Hattie but the movie needed an antagonist and he was it.
I don’t believe in any antagonists in this movie, Howe was under the cloud of doubt over his job security. How could you expect him to play an unorthodox team on a 1 year contract? He made the right choice playing normally and having a chance for job interviews in the post season.
@@FRANKIERGG thats what the movie wants you to believe. Art howe and billy beane were 100% on the same page and all the players loved and respected both of them. Watch the interviews. OP is correct
@@isars3433 that’s really weird they made him the “villain”. This movie felt very jarring to have someone so against a plan that made sense and it honestly is disrespectful and spits in the face of those who believed in the A’s game plan. That puts a huge blemish on the movie for me.
In the book Billy was telling the manager how to stand in the dugout to give the right mindset to the players and he did it. He was more on board with the system than portrayed but that's a creative liberty.
how would he say to stand?
@@acrustykrab powerful and authoritative. Gotta do that in the pro leagues around men with strong senses of selves.
Exactly. Hollywood always has to have an antagonist in every movie. The way they portrayed Dan Devine in "Rudy" was bordering on slander and I'm surprised the real Devine allowed it. He was going to let Rudy dress for the final game all along but they needed a heavy in the plot and he was it.
@@acrustykrabIf i remember correctly he wanted him to be in the players view and to look calm and straightbacked when things were getting difficult. Billy basically viewed that a lot of teams somewhat give up when things start getting bad (which is a pretty obvious idea) and so by projecting confidence and positivity to the players they played better in difficult circumstances.
@@Dana-wq5tp the way Commander Denniston (Charles Dance) is portrayed in The Imitation Game was another one. In reality that man was one of the kindest and most decent military supervisors civilians could have had. His family are still outraged at the way he comes off in that movie.
This scene is often glossed over, but it shows what a huge mistake that Billy made. He drastically changed how he wanted his roster shaped and the lineup and staff instituted, but didn't include Art Howe in that planning and discussion. Billy wanted drastic new nontraditional things, like playing players (wildly considered) out of position or playing players with lower batting averages, because they got on base more over their position counterparts. Howe couldn't be expected to just know this and do it on his own. And in this scene, he makes a good point to Billy that since Beane won't commit to new managerial contract, Howe was going to play the team the way a normal manager would so he can explain himself in job interviews in the offseason. Billy should have know what kind of position he was putting his manager in, included him in the discussions from the beginning and given him guarantees about job security based on trying new nontraditional managerial moves.
It's not just that he didn't include him in the planning. Howe, like the head of scouting, was an old school guy who wasn't going to buy into Billy Beane's new philosophy. In today's game, where GMs follow Billy's lead, they bring in a manager who believes in those analytics and work with the GM. The Dodgers' Roberts-Friedman team they have daily meetings of what the roster, lineup game plan is for that day. Considering that that combo has gone to two World Series, three LCSes and won 8 consecutive division titles, it's hard to argue against them.
@@fivedollarsteve GM's run baseball teams now, no doubt. They pick the starting pitchers, bullpen arms and often the roles, and all the starting fielder spots including the lineup positions in a general way. The manager is just a figure head. Just someone the GM can blame when the roster sucks. Hell, nowadays, they invented a new position - President. This allows what used to be the GM to add another layer of protection from being fired. Now the GM (called Prez) hires a figurehead GM and a figurehead manager, both of whom have zero power and report to the Prez who makes all the roster decisions. Quite frankly, I think its a gutless miserable idea. But that's the way it is now. But it wasn't back then when this movie is taking place and therefore Beane badly failed in that aspect. You can't build an experimental team that will only work with experimental ideas, and then not include the one person in the organization that needs to implement your vision.
The movie takes incredible liberties with the actual reality. Art Howe was very aware of what Billy was doing, because the previous general manager before Billy tried it as well. And Miguel Tejada, the shortstop who was hitting 300, is barely mentioned as well as the fact that the A's starting pitching was loaded. The movie had to have some "bad guys", and they chose the scouts and Howe. But everyone in the A's organization knew what was going on. And don't even get me started on the fact that a LOT of the players were juiced. :-)
thelordofhellaz well, sure they were juiced. Just like Damon, And Giambi before them.
Beanie had one year to test this and t worked. After that, every team in the league wanted the decoder ring
@@thelordofhellaz you're right. The book makes it quite clear he was brought in because he would implement Billy's ideas.
A interesting scene between baseball Managers, the "General Manager" and the "Field Manager", each making some valid points from their perspective.
This was an outstanding fkn movie.
"Could this be about your contract?"
"No, this is about you doing your job and me doing mine. Mine is being left alone to manage this team that you assembled for me."
"I didn't assemble it for you, Art."
"No shit"
Gold.
“One bad general”, said Napoleon “is better than two good ones”
What does that mean?
@@ruinaderoma it means that sticking to a bad plan is better than having two plans colliding at each other
@@kalee6 thanks!!
@@ruinaderoma Nothing, Napoleon wasn't really the smartest cookie when it came to quotes. Yeah he was a good general and all but we all know how dumb army people are.
@@harrismazari5484 "how dumb army people are"... behold fellas we are in presence of an intellectual powerhouse
Hoffman was the greatest actor of his generation. Such a tragedy to lose him so young.
Maybe he shouldn't have played stupid games with opiates. No sympathy
Philip Seymour Hofmann was one of those rare actors that could play completely dramatically different characters and be hundred percent natural. Vast majority of other actors play “themselves” - very similar character over and over again.
I.e. brad pitt
Dang he does a good Art Howe...
Art Howe doesn’t think so lol
Such an accurate representation of such a middling manager. (As a Mets fan, I recognize the incompetence, the hubris...)
He did a great everything. He's a top 5 actor of all time imo. And he didn't even hit his peak.
@@irish6783 I believe he didn’t like how his actions were portrayed not the performance
When I see Philip Seymour Hoffman, I can't help but see him as Dusty from Twister. The man had a range in roles.
*Scent Of A Woman" "in BIG DADDY'S POCKET!" 😭😭😭😭
"ITS A SPACE STATION!!!!"
Supporting role in "The Talented Mr. Ripley" but again steals every second he's on screen!
“The suck zone, is the point, where the twister……sucks you up.”
Watching Seymore Hoffman is sad. Between Oxycodone and Heroin, we have lost too many great people. Our friends, family, favourite actors, musicians etc...
@Jim McCracken actually yes, many friends as well.
@C M watch it, son.
Of all the roles PSH played, this one impressed me the most...because it is just totally different than any of his others. What range!
The best “no shit” delivery I have ever heard.
One of the best. This one is iconic 😂.
“I don’t care about lefty/righty”
and Mike Hargrove sez back - “I do.”
Yeah, we know. leave Michael Jackson in and the Indians would have a World Series.
U don’t go to your all star stopper in the game 7 of the World Series?
@@matthewbennett3352 Mike Jackson’s ERA was less than 2 that season and had struck out the side the inning before, while Mesa was no longer the dominant closer he had been the 2 previous seasons (his ERA was in the mid 3s that season and consistently gave up base runners (not what you want to do against a team that has contact hitters).
So Indians fans agree with you, keeping the dominant (that season) reliever (Jackson) in the game and the Tribe wins the WS.
And if Jackson blows the game we forever question why the hell Hargrove didn't stay with the All Star closer?
Don't get me wrong I agree with you. I was there (well sort of I was at the Field of Dreams at the Nautica Stage) and we partied hard all night given our lead. But once we blew it the skies above Cleveland opened and hit us with deluge of a storm that sent us all home never knowing we had to wait 20 more years for another shot.
@@wjatube - ball movement ball movement ball movement. Jackson was throwing strikes and the ball was moving. That trumps lefty/righty to me. I would NOT have blamed Hargrove if he left Jackson in and we got a bad result- but ultimately Fidget had to be a bizzy body.
Mesa simply froze up in the situation. His nerves got the better of him. I'll forever have the vision of Sandy Alomar punching his glove and yelling at Mesa to throw his fastball when he keeps feeding him junk.
Whether Grover made the move to Mesa or kept Jackson in really doesn't matter to me. What matters is Mesa fell on his face. Vizquel was well within his rights to call him out in his book. Mesa from then on threw at Omar's head every time they met until Mesa retired.
That's all on Mesa.
The greatest "no shit" in cinema history
Never noticed that chuckle at the end!
Two masterclass actors just going at it. Great scene.
Brad pitt a masterclass actor? You’re out of your depth
it's alright Metroman everybody makes mistakes and Art should learn to watch his temper
Hatteberg actually was a decent hitter. His OBP was ALWAYS above average, his BA was good and he had a little power 12-15 HRs.
He walked more than he struck out. Yes Pena had more power and had a few good years with Tampa, but it wasn't long before he was struggling to hit .200 every year.
2 amazing actors.
Stubbornness can be the worst sickness...it's a hinderance to progress and I love how this movie portrays it
I can honestly see why the coach acted the way he did though. This scene didn't explain it, but the scene afterwards does. He explains that he needs to be able to explain why he assembled his team the way he did with the players he had on hand, and he can't say, "I did it because the GM told me."
In real life Art was in favour of what they were doing and Pete was involved in the organization a year or two before the streak happened.
Absolutely. Beane and Howe actually got along quite well in reality.
They also made a big deal in the movie of acquiring Jeremy Giambi to help replace his brother - completely ignoring he was on the team the year before as an everyday player.
People also forget those old scouts were REALLY good at their job.
The A's were basically a farm team for young All-Star players for years. They just couldn't afford to keep them.
In real life Pete didn't exist.
Phillip Seymour Hoffman was great actor.
An officer and NCO meet to discuss talent management
Seymour Hoffman's body language here is a masterclass.
PSH did a great job playing him, but they really made Art out like a villain in this film.
PSH did a gjph, but they rm Art out like a vitf.
NEVER record from a TV on your phone then post it to CZcams
😄
Ooh, a video of a video. Very meta.
full circle art howe managed the mets now we're looking at billy as a candidate for our GM...
Psssh. More like a full circle jerk.
PSH OWNS this scene and he OWNS Pitt in this scene.
Should have seen more of Hoffman in this movie.
Psh is good at art howe except for the fact that art howe has a granite chin
that no shit at the end was gold
Billy Beane is a genius in recognizing and exploiting talent in unconventional ways on a shoestring budget. He definitely proves the adage "necessity is the mother of invention." But I can't help but notice his team not only never won a World Series under his watch, they've never even got to one. In fact, they've only won two playoff series in 13 tries. I wonder if that will count against him when it comes to the HOF? I'd still vote him in.
Championships are not the goal of moneyball for small market teams.
The goal is not to be last or close to last every season from now until eternity.
Did the A's win more than their budget for investment into players suggest they would?
That is the only measure of success that makes sense when talking about Moneyball concepts.
Does anyone really think a team can consistently win championships without serious player investment? Based on what data?
The whole point of moneyball is to overperform based on your resources. For a team like the A's...that means consistently making the playoffs. For a team like Boston, that means World Series.
It is folly to compare the two organizations goals. They are fundamentally different based on the context of the financial disparity.
Go back to the 'What is the Problem' scene. The problem is not that the A's can't win championships. The problem is that the A's can't even win consistently unless they get lucky with their scouting and player development.
Winning championships are all that matters.
@@SuperJoshdave, LOL.
Only for the big teams. For many teams, winning championships is impossible or so unlikely as to be practically impossible.
If your involved in sports winning should be all that matters. Kansas City won a championship granted they weren’t a moneyball team.
@@SuperJoshdave, 'winning' is the objective, yes. That is not the same as winning championships.
The one thing i did not understood from this movie was why didn't he sacked the coach? I don't know much about USA sports teams, and how they operate, but in Europe, the GM can sack the head coach. Or were the team in the movie so low on cash, that they couldn't afford to pay out his contract and sack him?
Firing a coach in the middle of the season isn’t very common in the MLB, also his act in the movie is pretty exaggerated compared to how it actually happened , in real life I believe he was more accepting to the process
1: He is not called a coach. He is called a manager.
2: In reality, Billy Beane and Art Howe got Alina quite well, and for the most part, seldom disagreed.
3: While most of this movie is quite accurate, the riff between GM and MANAGER was not accurate at all. Howe did have some initial reservations, but on the whole was in agreement with Beane.
Were they on a boat?
Hoffman acts amazingly.....only this never happened.
If this is how Art Howe really felt while he was managing this team I can completely relate to it. I think a lot of people that have jobs can. You're asked to do a job with certain time limits and assets to work with and be successful no matter what. But then you have people from different departments constantly telling you how to do the job you were hired to do. The people that think they know it all should just do it all themselves. It would make things easier on everybody...Except for the certain people that think they can do it all themselves lol. I'm not saying Billy Beane is stupid, but has he ever won a championship using his dictatorship way of running things???
The glaring problem with analytics driven baseball decisions, is that baseball is in many instances resistant to interpretation by analytics alone. There are simply too many variables involved, some known, many unknown, that must be factored into the equation in order for the analytical data to have any meaning. The Athletics and many Analytics departs since equate a walk with a base hit, but are they really the same, does a walk accomplish what a base hit does, not necessarily, depending on the circumstances and situation. A walk doesn't drive a runner in, yes it can extend an inning, but it passes the baton, so that the next batter succeeds or fails. Having hitters that walk is generally a good thing, yes. However, when you fill your roster with players batting .200 - .240, striking out 26% - 40% of their At Bats, walking 70-90 times per season, hitting occasional home runs, and scoring the majority of your runs via the home run, proving game after game largely incapable of extended rallies or driving runners in scoring position home with a single, guess what, you may win lots of games against mediocre teams and mediocre pitching, but when facing the better pitchers in the league and better teams, to expect success is harboring unrealistic expectations. The better pitchers do not issue walks that often, in high leverage games they focus on every pitch and rarely leave one in the middle of the plate for mediocre hitters to smack out of the park, so you have to be able to put the ball in play, make contact, something good might happens, string hits together. Sure hope for a blast, but if that doesn't materialize, you have to be able to score by other means. Nothing good can happen when you strike-out, unless the catcher misses the pitch. Many baseball analytics departments prefer a .230 hitter who walks a lot, having say a .360--370 On-Base percentage over a .300 hitter who doesn't walk and as a result has say a .330 OBP. But tell me, which hitter would you want up for your team, with the season on the line, in a one run game, man on second, two outs, the .230 hitter or the .300 hitter. At some point in many games you need but a single to score a must have run, and when your line-up is filled with feast or famine, home-run or strike-out hitters, even in the best scenario, one can expect a successful outcome perhaps 5% of their At Bats, which doesn't get it done. Then factor in, that that .230 hitter gets most of his hits and home runs against back of the rotation pitchers during the regular season, pitchers that he will not face come post-season. Against front-line pitching he may have batted more like .160 and against aces .80 and his chances of success are pitiful. That is a reason Billy Bean teams did not experience Post-Season success.
Were they sitting in a boat? Why is the office rocking?
Did you really just ask that?
The coach has to work with what he is given and GM does the given. Definitely there's a conflict here.
The correct title should be GM versus coach
It’s a shame Art was portrayed like this in the movie. That’s not how it went in reality. You knows what’s funny though? Managers wear baseball uniforms. That’s always struck me as ridiculous.
My only gripe with the movie is they almost purposefully gloss over many good players the A’s had…Tejada, Chavez, Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Dye, Durham…the production and acting itself is still phenomenal but that part always bothered me a bit
This is about everyone doing their part and You not losing your job as the most losing coach in baseball…
I highly doubt that the Athletics owner would have fired Howe, even with Beans recommendation
he shoulda howe and hired me
It seems like a conflict between purists and practicalists. The coach, players, and scouts want to play pure baseball, and win using talent. The GM wants to win using statistical strategy which has little to do with actually playing baseball - just get players on base and rack-up the score. I never saw the actual games they won, but was it exciting baseball?
Man … we lost a lot when we lost Hoffman.
Lost a lotta heroin
Scott Hatteberg only had 5 errors that season.
thats alot for a firstbaseman, specially one who didnt play that many games
One of the ACTUAL greatest actors in history.
In honesty, nobody should care about righty lefty match ups....
GM v coach
I used to dislike art howe....this movie solidified it.
I agree. The A’s never won shit. Even with a loaded pitching staff. Beane is an innovator but if it doesn’t equate to championships then what’s the point?
Well, hold on. I heartily agree that humanly speaking winning is the main point of a game, and that championships are the *highest* achievement and measure of success in sports. However, winning and championships are not the *only* achievement and measure of success in sports.
Each year one team wins a championship, and no matter how good the 2nd place team is they don't achieve that pinnacle. But they did get closer to it than the 3rd place team. Is that difference utterly zeroed out? What about versus the last place team? There may be room for a difference of opinion on these questions. Stakeholders at every level (owners, shareholders, players, fans, staff, merchandisers etc) may find that 2nd, 3rd, 4th,etc was a great achievement and a stunning level of success, bringing substantial rewards. For stakeholders of a championship team the achievement and rewards are probably greater, but the contrast isn't all vs none. And if, say, a champion repeats but against a weaker opponent than before, with a poorer performance and record than before, accompanied by scandal and leading to an acrimonious dismantling of the team and a subsequent precipitous decline into mediocrity or worse for the next decade, later assessment may devalue the championship itself. If the second place team goes on to a dynastic run beginning the next year, again, their non-championship may go up in estimation. (A sort of example may be seen in the National Hockey League New York Islanders vs Edmonton Oilers 1982-1983)
In addition, each individual works within their means and abilities to strive to be as successful as they can. If a .198 team or hitter improves to .298 is that improvement utterly worthless if it was not achieved during a championship-winning year? Do fans, commentators, players, etc have 100% bliss (fun, comaraderie, money, fame etc) if winning a championship and 0% if 2nd or less? Ask the Dallas Mavericks this year.
Just thinking aloud. Maybe I'm wrong.
GM vs coach
GM stands for general manager
Manager stands for manager.
@@richzito there’s no “manager” in sports like a store. There is only a general manager. So GM vs Manager doesn’t make sense. Ones a GM and ones a coach
@@CM-xy7uk Not much of a baseball fan, are you?
@@richzito what are you trying to say? One man talking is the coach, the other is the GM. Are you saying that’s not correct?
@@CM-xy7uk Yes that's not correct. In professional American baseball, the person who is in charge of the on field day to day operations of the team is called a manager, not a coach.
He represents what sucks about heroin. Most users keep using it because they don't want to suffer withdrawals. I know what I'm talking about. But you're always free to disagree with me. I'd love to hear your opinions.
@steve4158
6 months ago
He represents what sucks about heroin. and what does that have to do with baseball?
@@richard6440 I don't recall what I was trying to say or if it even was related to this video. Sorry.
@@steve4158
@steve4158
6 months ago
He represents what sucks about heroin
I don’t know how accurate this is, but Art Howe was a terrible manager with the Mets. Just awful. So this isn’t hard to believe
I think every player or manager, no matter how great they are, puts on a Mets uniform, and they instantly become trash. Cursed franchise
The NY Mess perpetually suck.
gm vs trainer...but ok
Psh looks 60 there
Psssh. 60 is your IQ.
Talk about differences in actors ability
Every movie Brad Pitt is in the only thing i see is Brad Pitt pretending to be someone else.
@@Loneshdo With Ben Affleck!! Its not Batman I see.
Not saying Pitt is better than Hoffman was, but the dude can act. Have you seen Snatch? C'mon
Why do the baseball managers dress like that?
Why do you wear frilly women's undergarments?
I can imagine how frustrating it must've been for everyone involved. Billy was trying to show them a better way to play the game and the old timers were too set in their ways, the coach only knows one way to play ball and he was afraid of losing his job so he wasn't willing to put his own neck on the chopping block incase Billy's plan didn't work.
Also, it didn't help that Billy wouldn't renew Art's contract.
I just love that Billy Bean gets played by Brad Pitt and Art Howe gets who? A great actor, but not exactly a compliment physically.
In actuality tis never would have happened. In real life, if the team coach thwarted the efforts of the G.M., the owner would have let the coach 'go' upon the recommendation of the G.M. Hollywierd's license with facts.
some teams are cheap and don't want to pay two coaches.
Art Howe made the playoffs in his career as a manager only when he had Billy Beane as a GM.
His record without Billy Beane as a GM is a losing one. That's a fact.
No one was taking the 2003 and 2004 Mets to the postseason, let alone have a winning season. Those 2 Mets team stunk.
However, no GM will recommend a manager who doesnt want to work with his philosophy
I just want to say that I always felt extra fat in a baseball uniform and I mean like really, really fat. It’s like the uniform was designed to make you feel self conscious about yourself.
Sound is horrible
Bummer that there's no sound.
Why do baseball managers/coaches have to wear full uniforms? Could my image Bill Belichick standing on the sidelines in full uniform, or pat Riley in shorts, Jersey, a knee high socks?😂
the coaches in baseball are on the field. You have a third base and first base coach and a pitching coach or manager who comes out to talk to the team. No other sport does that.
@@mikeid3067 actually that’s not technically true. Base coaches are supposed to be in their coaches box. Which is technically in foul territory , but you can catch a foul so that’s a gray area. Basketball, and football coaches are just as close to the sidelines as any basketball coach/manager.
@@barryfields2964
He answered you.
Now, zip it.
1 Thessalonians 5:17
King James Version
17 Pray without ceasing.
Or play without creasing...
You taped this off of your tv. Don't do that. The picture is crap and the sound is lousey. It's also in bad taste to do in the first place. STOP IT.
😄
Shove it, andy.
This looks and sounds like it was filmed off a TV screen. Not good.
The guy who had a 11 year MLB career
Has less power
Then kid who was a bust
Yeah that makes a lot of
Fucking sense
Well, sometimes it works out that way. U don’t have to play to have knowledge. Don’t forget the guy regarded as one of the FB coaches of all time - Bill Belichick- never played a down in the NFL.
Your counter argument is to point out a coach..in a different sport
A coach who .." I miss interpreted the rules"
and lost me right away because football sucks
@@daydaviddunn coaching is coaching. Some of the best coaches/managers were average players. And football is a great sport, as is baseball.
Although Jerry West, the logo, is one amazing exception, most former players are terrible as GMs.
@@daydaviddunn
Lost you right away, eh?
You got lost with times tables, fractions and long division in grade school. Why don't you get lost now? You insignificant little shit.
Billy Bean is the Donald Trump of his time! Logic and results vs Dogma and same old - same old?🤔
Wtf?
@Ulysses432 Bahahaha the Russian hackers! Good one. Wait you're serious?!..
No, Bean worked hard for what he has and was a good manager, with offers and opportunities. Trump is a perpetual failure.
You sir are incredibly moronic and in a deep cult stupor.
You nail it.