Is Moneyball A True Story?| Truth Behind Moneyball| Moneyball Real Story| Billy Beane Moneyball
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 09. 2020
- Is Moneyball A True Story?| Truth Behind Moneyball| Moneyball Real Story| Billy Beane Moneyball
📺 SIGN UP to D.A.T.A. Productions Media’s Patreon page to SUPPORT the channel to continue giving valuable content. rb.gy/x8rufo
Please SUBSCRIBE to my BRAND NEW and STRICTLY SPORTS CZcams channel if you are a SPORTS fan: / @thesportsvault-espnen...
📧 Please SUBSCRIBE to my email list to stay connected for updates in the case I get taken down from a censorship purge. rb.gy/4lywc3
📕 NEW BOOK OUT NOW!!!
Link to Purchase: amzn.to/36QhHe2
Sports Secrets: Uncovering the Conspiracies and Finding the Facts in the Sports World
🎥 Links To Purchase ‘The Endless Season’ Documentary (Official Feature Film):
📀 Physical DVD (Amazon):amzn.to/3cVSUI3
💻 Itunes: apple.co/2ZPOYnf
Available on Amazon Prime as well!!
Moneyball, the mathematical madness behind the regular season success in early 2000’s by the Major League Baseball team, Oakland Athletics. The film is based on Michael Lewis's 2003 nonfiction book of the same name, an account of the Oakland Athletics baseball team's 2002 season and their general manager Billy Beane's attempts to assemble a competitive team.
In the film, Beane (Brad Pitt) and assistant GM Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), faced with the franchise's limited budget for players, build a team of undervalued talent by taking a sophisticated sabermetric approach to scouting and analyzing players. This little fact of info is really here nor there, but Billy Bene went to my high school, Mount Carmel High, back in the day in San Diego, California. While me and billy may have the same alma mater, that doesn’t mean I won’t do my job of breaking down the facts from fiction in Hollywood’s portrayal of this story and if his scouting methods actually changed the game of baseball.
Hello, and welcome to Sports Vaults, presented by D.A.T.A. Productions. Uncovering the Untold, Lost and Forgotten Files of the Sports World.
In the movie, Billy Beane, is hurt by the team's loss to the New York Yankees in the 2001 American League Division Series. With the impending departure of star players Johnny Damon, Jason Giambi, and Jason Isringhausen to free agency, Beane needs to assemble a competitive team for 2002 with Oakland's limited budget.
During a scouting visit to the Cleveland Indians, Beane meets Peter Brand, a young Yale economics graduate with radical ideas about how to assess player value.
Rather than relying on the Oakland scouts' experience and intuition, Brand uses sabermetrics, selecting players based on their on-base percentage. Brand and Beane use this methodology to hire undervalued players such as unorthodox submarine pitcher Chad Bradford, aging outfielder David Justice, and injured catcher Scott Hatteberg.
The scouts are hostile toward the strategy, and Beane fires head scout Grady Fuson after he accuses Beane of destroying the team. Beane also faces opposition from Art Howe, the Athletics' manager. With tensions already high between them due to a contract dispute, Howe disregards Beane's and Brand's strategy and plays a more traditional lineup that he prefers.
Thanks to a walk-off home run by his guy Hatteberg, the Athletics achieved a record-breaking 20th consecutive win. Beane tells Brand he will not be satisfied until they have changed baseball by winning the World Series using their system.
The Athletics eventually clinch the 2002 American League West title, but lose to the Minnesota Twins in the 2002 American League Division Series. Beane is contacted by the owner of the Boston Red Sox, John W. Henry, who realizes that sabermetrics is the future of baseball. Beane declines an offer to become the Red Sox general manager, despite the $12.5 million salary, which would have made him the highest-paid general manager in professional sports history. He returns to Oakland, and two years later the Red Sox win the 2004 World Series using the model the Athletics pioneered
Lets now separate the truths from the lies in the movie!
True: Beane did hire a former Cleveland Indians employee who had graduated cum laude with an economics degree from Harvard. In reality, he was Paul DePodesta, a self-assured former college athlete.
False: In the movie, DePodesta is re-imagined (for legal reasons) as Peter Brand, played by Jonah Hill as a jittery misfit with an economics degree from Yale. DePodesta joined the A’s in 1999; Brand starts in 2002.
Tags:
Moneyball didn't work,
Truth Behind Moneyball,
Moneyball Real Story,
Billy Beane Moneyball Truth,
Moneyball Movie,Moneyball Movie Truth,
Moneyball Movie Real Story,
Billy Beane,Scott Hatteberg Moneyball,
Is Moneyball a true story?,
Moneyball Truth,
Sabermetrics Moneyball,
Billy Beane oakland athletics,
moneyball oakland as 2002 season,
Was Moneyball based off a true story?,
moneyball homerun scene,
moneyball scene,
moneyball scott hatteberg,
Forgotten Sports Stories - Sport
📺 SIGN UP to D.A.T.A. Productions Media’s Patreon page to SUPPORT the channel to continue giving valuable content. rb.gy/x8rufo
*Please SUBSCRIBE to my BRAND NEW and STRICTLY SPORTS CZcams channel if you are a SPORTS fan:* czcams.com/channels/UyKEcLAeGGhheEZYttMU6g.html
📧 Please SUBSCRIBE to my email list to stay connected for updates in the case I get taken down from a censorship purge. rb.gy/4lywc3
📕 NEW BOOK OUT NOW!!!
Link to Purchase: amzn.to/36QhHe2
Sports Secrets: Uncovering the Conspiracies and Finding the Facts in the Sports World
🎥 Links To Purchase ‘The Endless Season’ Documentary (Official Feature Film):
📀 Physical DVD (Amazon):amzn.to/3cVSUI3
💻 Itunes: apple.co/2ZPOYnf
Available on Amazon Prime as well!!
The downfall of "Moneyball" was that teams with money could also pay for better statistical analysis and predictive analytics and therefore pay more for players with data-tested run production potential. Oh, in addition to cheating by stealing signs and beating on trash cans to signal the pitch.
Thank you for your input!!
“The yellow cheat of TEXAS”
After that 1st season with the As they could.
I don’t know what dummy you heard it from but they weren’t cheating.
@@Seth655 He's clearly talking about the 2017 Astros with the beating-on-trash-cans reference.
I enjoyed the movie. I read somewhere moneyball analytics downfall was other teams finding out about it and using it themselves thus nullifying the Oakland Athletics advantage. The true lesson isn't that math based analysis doesn't work. It's that if you have a advantage, don't tell the opposing team about it.
Very valid point you have there. You showcase your strategy. Now your enemy knows you. Sun Tzu Art of War in sports.
Agree… Moneyball - A’s
MoneyBall + Money - Red Sox
Red Queen theory 101. Card-counting in Blackjack was another example. Andy Beyer's speed figures yet another.
Whether or not Oakland did this, other teams would’ve done it anyways
Oakland simply pioneered the strategy, but there isn’t any way to ‘prevent other teams from finding out’ it was inevitable that this would be the direction of the sport over time
But the fact that other teams have used the A’s strategy means that it does work. Just not in the A’s favour because they are financially strapped, compared to like Boston.
I like the fact that Baseball has become an intelligent sport that implement actual smart, mathematical strategy, rather than just looking for ‘potential’ alone in singular athletes.
It works now. If no team used what Billy Beane and his team had pioneered, then they don’t have much chance winning.
You can’t just nullify what worked for one team, because it ultimately worked for a team that would win because they were smart, and not just rich.
The first time I ever watched this movie with friends I said right away, they are completely leaving out that Tejada had an mvp season in 02, and that the pitching staff was amazing.
Haha that’s not as good of an underdog story!!
Still they had to get supporting players. Barry Bonds arguably best hitter ever..... 0 ws wins. It takes a team
@@FastDuDeJiunn I like to joke that the real story of the 2002 A's is that they were a 102-win team in 2001 that lost 13 wins to free agency, got 7 wins back through bargain transactions, and random varianced their way to a 103-win team. It doesn't tell a romantic tale for Hollywood, but that's really what happened. They might've had the same level of playoff success that year (lost in ALDS) if Beane's off-season acquisitions were mediocre instead.
So true the 02 As had a great young core. They just didn’t have enough money to plug in high priced players to give them depth
I think the Braves this season at he deadline is a great example on how moneyball can work. They lost their entire outfield, and instead of looking to find 1-2 big name guys, they traded for 4 players who most didn’t see high value in and rotated them based on statistical matchups each day. It led to them winning it all
Solid points!!
My take from Moneyball was something Brad Pitt says near the beginning of the movie, you can't beat someone who actually is better by playing their way, you have to come up with something different. They did come up with something different and performed better than anyone expected them to. No purely analytical approach will reliably work when you're analyzing people as people aren't perfectly predictable, but choosing to focus on different stats will get different results and if you're dead last what have you got to lose?
Thank you for your input!
Moneyball is a movie. Like all movies bad=sed on true stories, it plays with time, space, and facts to form a more dramatic narrative.
Moneyball is also not necessarily a good thing. Analytics are awesome, but saving money for billionaires by hiring undervalued players and paying them less is bullshit.
I loved the movie and the book. I think in regards to the A's the big quote that really applies is "the first one through the wall always gets bloody." What the A's did was apply smart baseball thinking such as scouting and player development, utilizing the draft rules to select value prospects, keeping their teams young and cost controlled, and finally trades. The A's traded players constantly to get better players and prospects. Unfortunately the reality to the above statement is other teams started to value their prospects more and have begun to hoard their talent. Big market teams have embraced sabermetrics and invested in their minor league farm systems. The biggest example is the Dodgers. The A's never had a chance in the long run and didn't capitalize on their advantage when they should have.
Excellent analysis!!
I think my favourite quote was, "Who's Fabio?"
@@kennedysan1045 I liked “it’s not that hard…tell ‘‘em Wash…”. “…it’s hard….”
Money WAS a success! The whole point is to make the playoffs. Whether you steal games from weak teams or over power them, a win is a win. It’s a different situation in the playoffs with a protracted series. Regular season and a three game series, you might win a game or two, but a 5 or seven game series, not likely!
Excellent points!
No it was to make the world series. They'd already been in the playoffs. None of the moves he made had any impact whatsoever, they had the best left infield and pitching staff in baseball and weren't mentioned once. They traded carlos Pena to the tigers who they lost in the alcs to 4 years later. That movie was total bullshit, someone who even slightly paid attention to the game back then knows who made the real impact.
@@paulbosco776 to make the World Series first you make the playoffs, but to do that need to win games in the regular season. With the salary that Oakland had, it pretty much was a done deal that they’d have to come up with something different. With money ball, you suit up and take what’s given to you and roll the dice in the playoffs!
Beane hardly hopes people don’t analyze the post season. Even in movie he acknowledges that if you don’t win the last game of the season, they will be dismissed. They are very open about their losing in the playoffs
Very true!
The team that won the 2002 WS (then the Anaheim Angels) was actually a moneyball team. They had 4 homegrown players surrounded by castoffs - eckstein, spiezio, Kennedy, etc. Brendan Donnelly was a lights out set up guy but was technically a scab since he apparently played during the strike.
The interesting thing about that team was that skipper scioscia played a ton of small ball and hit and run. They got on base a lot but remained active.
In the end moneyball can’t beat loaded teams that also use their strategy but also pay up for elite talent that put them over the top.
Great point!
Yes! As a Angel fan since 1973 I can say, although I'm not a Scioscia fan, he did some things right that year. He had them peaking at the right time and he brought up Chone Figgins because we desperately needed a runner.
Other than that we were the epitome of a "team" that year and during that post season. Evidenced by none of the guys reaching great heights after that WS. Eckstein did win another ring with St. Louis.
It works over a 162 game season to “buy wins” and get you in position to compete for a championship.
When it comes down to 5 or 7 games and specific moments of each game then it really comes down to having the star hitters, pitchers, and pressing the right buttons.
I agree!
Don't downplay Billy Beans impact. You have to go really far back to grab those WS titles by the A's. By the time Bean arrived they had such a low budget they couldn't compete and he was amazing and finding talent for cheep. He still is. The A's are never bad more than a few years in a row before they have yet another resurgence, and it's all bean. He loses all of his stars repeatedly, but always manages to put a great team back together. If he was GM of the yankees or red sox he'd have multiple titles by now.
Thank you for your insight!!
No, it did work.
1. Boston broke their curse using stats & metrics.
2. Even all other sports now use & rely heavily on metrics +/-
So, the principle of using stats in moneyball did work.
Thank you for your comment!
They incorporated aspects of it but I'm not gonna ignore the 120 million payroll they had
Except now that everyone uses it the poor teams are still at a disadvantage cuz now the rich teams can use metrics and buy the talent, particularily on the mound. Oh well.
Not to mention the many post season appearances. Imagine if they used this method with extra 10 million dollars.
I remembered Boston had the second highest payroll that year. The previous year they had bullpen by committee and that didn't work. They finally went out and got a decent closer in Keith Foulke. That was the difference between 2003 and 2004
From a slightly different perspective, I think this movie (and I haven't read the book yet) portrays Billy Bean as a great leader as a change manager. From best I can tell, Oakland wasn't using any secret information that no one else knew about, they were simply applying it in a different way. They focused more on what the player was actually doing in stead of what he looked like he could do (we see that in the scene discussing free agents and their physical makeup, who their girlfriends were...etc). Due to changing economics in baseball because of expanding television networks, internet upgrades, etc. teams like Oakland who didn't draw as much money had to think more creatively (think I'm making this up, consider that the largest marked team the Yankees hadn't been in a World Series for almost two decades before the later nineties). Things in sports and sports economics were changing quickly in the late 90's and Billy Bean (to me) was the first that was required to think more creatively about how to run a team that couldn't afford to pay tons of talent ever increasing salaries that were accelerating quickly during that time. So while other teams were certainly using information at their disposal, what I think is that Billy Beane embraced, due to economics, a more economical way of evaluating players based on data. That is to say that he had to look a little deeper into the player's actual tendencies and performance because he couldn't afford to throw money at players and hope for the best if they were going to stay competitive. While it has yet to bring them a World Series victory in now 20 years later, it has kept the A's in the playoff hunt for far more seasons than I think we can all admit we thought they would be.
I loved you’re insight! Thank you for sharing!! Haven’t seen a comment like yours til now 🎥💭
The final statement, about how the film portrayed the Athletics as a floundering team with no prior history of success, is inaccurate. The film opens with the Athletics dropping huge portraits of former stars, now traded, from the outside stadium to the parking lot.
Good point!
I thought the Oakland A's had a competitive team going into the 2002 "Money Ball" season. Starters Maulder, Hudson and Zito coming off good seasons were returning and expected to repeat their success, which they did. The movie kind of suggests Giambi was the sole Hr and RBI producer of the A's. Giambi did have a great 2001 season, but the A's still had the offensive production of Tajeda and Chavez. Beane did a great job of filling the holes of the key departed free agent players, when you consider the budget restraints he had to work with . Seems as if MLB today has adapted some of Beane's on field player strategy . The important OBP stat and the overrated stolen base stat seems to be true for a leadoff hitter today (assembling a team without the once prototypical leadoff hitter who can steal a lot of bases). Of the games I watched on TV, I noticed many teams using the "three run homer" strategy, what Earl Weaver called a "pitcher's best friend". Seems like most hitters today are "swinging for the fences". Not much "small ball". My subjective opinion.
I love your opinion and thank you for sharing! You made some excellent points!!!
All great points. Also OBP eventually did give way to a more eye opening statistic of OPS.
There are two aspects of pretty much all sports that have to be reckoned with: 1. winning in the regular season to get to the post-season, and 2. winning in the post-season to become THE champion. These are sort of the points that "Moneyball" glossed over. The analytics and metrics are so different in each category. During any given season in baseball, teams are organized based on pre-existing data sets going back one to three years. This fine tuned during the season, especially regarding the bullpen, with real-time analytics. The post-season is a completely different animal. Although teams playing in the post-season can rely on data analytics carried over from the regular season, the greatest attention is paid to the pitching staff. Yogi Berra once quipped: "At any time good hitting can beat good pitching...and, vice versa." Not so in the post-season: here it is all about pitching. During the regular season, you are trying to win games by getting on base and scoring runs. In the post-season, it is about the exact opposite: winning by getting batters out through strike-outs or non-scoring outs. It has to be done this way since there are so fewer games in the post-season. I'll never forget this conversation I had with a die hard Yankee fan during one post-season. He was convinced the Yanks were gonna win it all with the likes of Jeter, A Rod, Sheffield, etc. hitting the ball at will. He was so frustrated because opposing team pitching pitched meticulously to these players and down they went...A Rod and all.
Thank you for your insight!!
There are more off days in the post season, so you can over use your bullpen, but other that that it's the exact same game with the exact same rules. It's very much the same animal. Almost every word series winner has also had a great offense
@@paulg6274 It's not about the rules. It's about studying your opponents offense that counts and coming up with a pitching strategy to match it and defeat it. These are potentially seven game series so each pitch monstrously counts. Remember, just like in pretty much every sport, offense wins games, but defense keeps you in the game.
@@thejils1669 Offense and defence contribute exactly equally to winning games. A run gained is worth the exact same as a run saved. Everyone has these cliches they spew but they make no sense.
Pitchers study hitters to prep for regular season games also. And hitters study the pitchers. Other than RP's used for a higher % of the game, what is the huge diff between regular season and post? The only major diff is fan narratives.
@@paulg6274 I dunno, if that's the case, why could Billy never get the A's to win in the postseason? I'd say the empirical evidence says that there *_IS_* a difference.
Interesting video, although it misses the point of Beane's approach. He was forced to do it differently because he had a limited budget from the owner. “The reality is, the entire Moneyball system that Billy Beane devised was based on the fact that we had limited resources,” A's President, Dave Kaval. Even the movie made this clear.
Definitely see that POV. Thank you for your commentary!
Just want it noted that the hockey world applies this. Herb Brooks, 1980 Winter Olympics, Miracle on Ice.
Also look at what the Vegas Golden Knights put together their inaugural draft year.
Your criticism of them not winning in the playoffs because they didn't have players capable of playing "small ball" at first glance seems like a reasonable conclusion; UNTIL, you go back to page one and realize, apparently to your surprise, that with their limited small market budget they simply can't afford the kinds of star players who can make that kind of contribution come playoff time. The miracle in Oakland was that they year in and year out could run with the big dogs for a lot less payroll. AND they turned a profit each and every year, something very few other teams can claim.
I feel you!
It clearly worked because it was all based on math & the sabermetrics systems Bill James employed. It allowed a team with virtually the least payroll in the league to compete with the teams with the highest payroll in the league. The problem is that now all the teams have adapted the system & because of this, the jig is up…
Thank you for your insight!
Moneyball. A Hollywood Director creating his own version which movie goers would pay money to watch. 2002 MLB draft pick was “Moneyball”. If you want to know the real story , read the book. My brother is Bill Moneyball Murphy the Oakland Athletics first pick in 2002. Set the story straight and realize Hollywood never knows the true facts in True Stories based around Professional Athletes. You’ll all be disappointed if you read the book.
Thank you for your information!!!
Another important fact is the players knew nothing about the Analytics of baseball. Teams kept the players in the dark on everything having to do with this ridiculous assumptions on individual players. The Major league organizations treat Draft Picks as Stock investment. I was saddened when I found out every pitch he threw in the Major leagues was given by the Pitching Coach. My brother doesn’t wanna pitch the bullshit he’s being forced to throw. Look back on Bill Murphys High school AHS in Riverside CA, through three years at CSUN . I’ve watched a few of his championship games where he’d give up a couple home runs 1st inning . But once he shook the jitters out of his body, the Kid would shut the opposing hitters down the tensing innings he’d pitch. Which was all accept the last inning .
What makes the game great is baseball is really predicated on pitching. A good pitcher can change “game metrics” by being unpredictable. As hard as man tries to control the world around him, there is another man controlling his own destiny.
Nice input!!
Baseball is 90% pitching. The other half is hitting.
Yogi Berra
It did work they stayed in budget and kept fans in the seats
Championships are the ultimate goal tho. But you’re right about that
It actually did. The 2003 marlins won the WS with a 50 million dollar payroll. Yankees were close to 200 million 😂
Didn’t work the the A’s tho
Please keep doing these breakdowns!
I will!
this channel is criminally underrated
My day in the CZcams sun will come! 🎥💭
Dumb question, but whats the source of the song that starts at 3:04 and ends at 5:37
It sounds familiar but I can't remember where I heard it
It's called "A Look Back" its a royalty free song off of Tube Buddy's music partner 'Audio Hero'. I liked this song cuz it has that sporty triumphant feel to it!
I have an interesting stat not covered. Number of teams that do not use SABRMETRICS... Zero.
For all the "star" players Dodgers aquired (Mookie Betts) They finally win the World series with their amazing farm system (especially pitching) and players other teams threw away (Muncy, Taylor and Turner). Their payroll becomes huge because they retain the talent they cultivate plus sign and trade for star talent where Oakland never could.
Thank you for your input!
While the A's are playing Moneyball, as you hinted the Dodgers are playing Wall St Ball. They have the money to keep players they value like Taylor, Muncy and Turner (like how Beane wanted to keep Jason Giambi) but I suspect they also use statistical data to determine which guys don't warrant big money. Seager, Maeda, Ryu are examples. They aren't always right of course!
Moneyball is not a new system, scouts for 100 years identified players over other players because they can get on base. The difference is using mathematical formulas to identify those players. Numbers don’t lie, however, if read wrong or paid too much attention to some numbers vs others can mislead
Interesting!
I lived in the SF Bay Area in 2002. I am an Athletics fan. I went into a depression when Tejada left.
Sorry about that!
I actually thought Chavez was a better player and more valuable but he kept getting hurt
The Philadelphia Eagles practiced Moneyball a lot in the late 1990s, shedding players right at the end of their prime, when they still had market value. Bill James spilled the "Beanes" it was just Billy Beane's own underachievement that showed him how not to draft people.
Thank you for the insight!!
Another thing the movie doesn't mention is that the 04 red Sox didn't win it all simply because of analytics either. They won with a corps that included Pedro Martinez and Curt Schilling (granted Curt Schilling was acquired when the Red Sox were adopting an analytic approach, but no baseball executive needed analytics to know he was a great pitcher) as well as a lineup that included Jason Varitek, Manny Ramirez and Johnny Damon-the same guy the movie poo poos as "an imperfect understanding of where runs come from". I will also grant analytics played a roll acquiring ortiz, but you can not say the 04 red sox were a genuine moneyball team because they absolutely were not.
I forgot to mention, but had it not been for the players association interfering, they would've had A-Rod. Forgive my lack of vision, but I fail to see how acquiring the man who had at the time the largest contract in the history of professional sports is playing moneyball.
Thank you for your comment and opinion!
Money ball comes from finding value in the place no one finds it. Yes BoSox had stars, and more money, but they found the right pieces to put the team together. They still were a money ball team, but with more money. There were big role players that helpend them, not just Varitek, Manny, Damon, Pedro, Papi, and Curt.
The A's also had Hudson, Zito and Mulder as pitchers and Chavez and Tejada on the left infield.
What people forget is that a team that wins 103 games in the regular season are playing a lot of sub .500 teams. Yes, they can beat up on teams that aren't as good in a game that doesn't mean that much but in the playoffs, when things start to actually matter and hands clench up, you aren't going to beat the above .500 teams that have big names (clutch players). Arod was one of the best that ever played the game in regular season...but put him in a playoff series and he tenses up and performs poorly.
Good insight thank you!!
Zito, Mulder, Hudson
MVP that year Miguel Tejeda
Definitely stacked
Money Ball does work. Every team today is using some variation of it. Wealthier teams not only can pay for better quality research, they can pay to keep top talent. Things like RsBI, a pitcher’s W-L, BA, Ks, etc, not really being factors was figured out by Branch Rickey and his team of mathematicians back in 1954. It just took the baseball world 50 years to catch up. The big difference today is that with more cameras capturing data from more angles, which has made reliable defensive stats also possible, his formula can be made better and less incomplete. Add in things like release point, THH%, etc, and players can thus be evaluated more thoroughly.
Teams that do the better evaluations will rise to the top.
Also, the movie makes it clear the A’s lost twice in the ALCS before Money Ball, meaning Money Ball was not the reason for those series losses. That is glossing over facts, something this video criticized Beane and the movie of doing.
Thank you for your input!!
I'm a big fan of both the movie and the book, Moneyball. Having said that, like most books and movies, Moneyball doesn't cover every aspect of the subject. I think this video critique excels at pointing out some of the obvious questions overlooked in Moneyball, such as why couldn't the A's of that era win in the postseason? Good question, but I don't think the A's lack of playoff success during that time discounts the overall story behind Moneyball. The movie does make the factual point that after all was said and done, the A's lost in the playoffs that year. It doesn't ignore that fact.
Also, Moneyball does what most movies do: they compress complex events covering a span of time into a movie length story. This means the players that get prime-time are the ones that fit the story. Sure, it isn't fair to the A's starting pitchers and other players who were a big reason for their successful season but didn't get mentioned in the movie.
But hats off to Michael Lewis for doing the work and writing the book. Overall, Moneyball educated thousands of fans to an aspect of the game they would have otherwise never realized existed.
Thank you for the insight!
I enjoyed the movie a lot. I believe the success of MoneyBall drew immediate attention from the Red Sox with the caveat what if we search for these values and add money, maybe better defense. I agree the fact they had 3 epic pitching horses plus Tejada was completely glossed over. Also keep in mind Sabermetrics does remove the human element. It’s a pattern to win over a long term 162 game season. But everyone in baseball knows the baseball playoffs are the hardest to navigate for the simple fact when the shittiest team takes 2 of 3 from the best it’s not incredible…. It’s baseball.
Excellent points!
The aggregate Giambi creation from OBP between the 3 players was a flaw by using the simple average dialogue vs WEIGHTED avg.
Interesting!!
@DATAProductionsMedia Moneyball's a great entertaining movie, I won't knock it but, exactly! For one, not only is simple avg dialogue for the stupid audience, but it was actually 4, not 3 that factored to that argument to begin with.
Jeremy Giambi was excluded of added to Olmedo Saenz + Jason Giambi + Johnny Damon during that board room scene, as the DH was shared between Jeremy and Olmedo that 2001 season.
The simple avg there, for shits and giggles compared to the ".364" target in the movie would have been (.291 +.371 + .477 + .324) / 4 = .367
Yet, with Bill James model, a Yale graduate with an economics degree, and Billy Beane looking like a genius orchestrating around that, the Brad Pitt star drama overshadowed not to lose the audience attention without explaining the weighted avg between them as more valid, sound, therefore convincing.
What a stupid take... You're gonna ignore the hundreds of games Oakland won over this period and the fact that every team has an analyctics department now--because of the success of these Oakland teams--cause of a post season sample when they were 8-12? The same things win baseball games in the post season as the regular season. It's literally the exact same game. Barry Bonds never won a world series, so does his style of play not work or something? Obv you'd never say this
Thank you for your input!
Data Analytics lead to how teams shifted on players based on their tendency
Yes
Yes but he did change the game and the way they use the statistics.
True!
I love the movie, despite it over looking the 2002 AL CY young Zito, 2002 AL MVP Tejada, 2002 silver slugger ang gold glove third base Chavez, having all star catcher Hernandez, having mulder, Hudson, lidle also in the rotation. Having Jermaine Dye. Having the arrival of players to the team wrong like Jermery Giambi got here in 2000, Bradford was already on the club in 2001. But I know they’re gonna stretch the truth for a movie so I don’t take it as a factual movie and I really like the movie and Beanes relationships with others while trying to not be stressed and have it bleed into his child’s life and such.
Good points!
I think you're missing the point a bit. If Tejada had more disciplined at bats, his OBP would have been even better that year. He had 30-40% more at bats than Hatteberg and Justice that year but had a worse (but fairly close) OBP than them. But yeah, you don't discount a good player. I'm with you there.
But that extra 20-30% in OBP would have resulted in his total number of bases skyrocketing, which means more runs, which means more wins.
Very fair points!
If you're going to have a crap microphone, don't blast the music so loud that I can barely understand you. Hopefully in the last two years you've fixed this issue. I'm sure other watched it just fine, but it's difficult for me.
Lol Thanks for your critique. I am a better video editor today than I was 2 years ago. Probably was a better video editor than you then too.
The movie is enjoyable and what Oakland has done is very neat to see, but I MUCH rather have seen the Rays covered in a movie format. They have an owner dying to move to team to Montreal and plans to actually move to Tampa (currently in St Pete [less than half the population of the 2nd smallest MLB market within 30 minutes]) have failed several times in franchise history. Despite this and a budget that rivals that 2002 A's team, the Rays have been among the most competitive teams for the last 5 years, even making it to last year's world series. All of this inside of arguably the strongest division in baseball (AL East) compared to the relatively easier AL West that Oakland is in. Hell, they even have their own book named "The Extra 2%: How Wall Street Strategies Took a Major League Baseball Team from Worst to First". Sure, the Rays have had their fair share of star talent in those years, but they have carried far less weight than what Tejada, Mulder, Zito, and Hudson did.
Excellent points!!
Interesting you mentioned 'small ball' which Bean seemed to totally disregard in the movie when he told his guys NOT to bunt and NOT to steal bases. This is after the economics guy told him in Cleveland when they first met , " You should be buying RUNS" Manufacturing these runs with 'small ball' seems to be directly in line with winning without great talent , but Bean disregarded it. My philosophy, still today is that Managers who consistently STRAND runners in scoring position, and lose games WITHOUT resorting to 'small ball' to increase run production and decrease LOB's should be the FIRST ones to lose their jobs, Right? That being said, how the hell did Mike Scosscia keep his job with the Angels for nearly 20 years with those extremely 'HIGH $$ player payrolls. I never ONCE saw the Angels 'squeeze bunt' and rarely saw them even ATTEMPT a stolen base.
Yea good points!!!
Bunts and stolen bases have been shown to hurt run production, not help it, overall. Sure, you can find times when they do payoff but those are not that often. Having a pitcher bunt to advance a runner is a better outcome than a K but that is due to the fact pitchers are overwhelmingly poor batters. Bunting to beat the shift is a good use of the bunt because it has a high enough probability of success. However, even that will lose its advantage after, at most, a few times as teams will adjust. If bunts and stolen bases helped, Branch Rickey’s formula would have included them, particularly the stolen base.
@@GetRidOfCivilAssetForfeiture OK very good! HOWEVER... GENERAL Run production is not the same as 'CAPITALIZING' on scoring opportunities!. How many times have you seen a team lose by a run when they stranded one or even more runners at 3rd base with less than two outs; and had they tried a 'Squeeze' they may have had a better chance of scoring that run: 'Squandering opportunities, to me, is the HUGE ISSUE that seems to go unnoticed until AFTER the game is lost.
@@sleepytickle what you described was one of those times when it would be the right decision. There are times when a team has to do something that normally is not the best thing to do. Bunt because that run is needed and the opportunities have been far and few between, to beat a shift, etc. Steal the base because it might be the only time a runner will be in scoring position or it has been known to rattle the pitcher. Those are usually late game situations when the number of opportunities becomes more limited.
General rules are just that, generally speaking. One must be willing to go against the grain when it makes sense. When La Russa decided to in the 2006 NLCS to PH Chris Duncan, a LHB, when a LHP pitcher was on the mound, that went against everything La Russa normally would do but he did so anyway and Duncan hit a HR. La Russa probably had some analysis that said Duncan would be the best batter in that situation.
@@GetRidOfCivilAssetForfeiture Again Excellent. So would YOU squeeze a runner home from 3rd in the bottom of the 8th if you were down one run? Also, didn't Larussa NOT pinch hit with George Bell in the 9th inning of a playoff game when he was down one run back when he was with the CHISOX.?
True false true false truer false
My god everyone must be as confused as I am as to what was true and what was false
Tough to get an unadulterated story these days!
I enjoyed this video but what the heck is the music at the start I can't focus on anything except it
Rattles the Noggin before I get into detail!
While I do agree with some of the Sabermetrics expressed in the movie there are some in the movie I disagree with! No base stealing should be individual basis regarding Runner Pitcher Catcher. Another is bunting. Butcher Boy bunting and bunting against the shift should always be in the playbook!
Also back in the late 70s and early 80 when I played Highschool ball our coach was obsessed with on base percentage and didn't care how it came. He was a first year baseball coach after the baseball coach [former MLB player] quit right before the season and the school asked the basketball coach to take over the team. He had played college baseball at in the late 60s. The first year we went 21 and 1 in the regular season but was beat in the first round of the region playoffs by a team we beat twice badly. The next year we went 22 and 0 in the regular season and was beat in the second round of the state playoffs by another team we beat badly in the regular season, the third year was the same except we made the state playoffs but was beat in the first round!
Wow wild story! Thank you for sharing!
They keep underrated and undervalued players in the minors or on the bench now
Beane did change baseball
He just tried to change it to quickly and used the wrong statistics to buy players. He bought runs. He should have bought balance
Nice analysis!
Good movie and Thanks for analysis.... "Though may not be complete Factual, but though provoking"... Watching movie for nth Time..
Very good movie! You’re welcome!
his theory was based on, ON BASE percentage, he didnt care about hits, so right there i can tell you have no clue what you are talking about.
Now you showed right there you didn’t watch the full video. Which is okay with me. Doesn’t hurt my feelings. Because I go through all of that. Rather than going straight to your keyboard, watch the full thing and understand what I was saying. My opinion on moneyball not working and being overly hyped was because it Provided no fruit when it came to the playoffs. 3 first round exits when they could’ve closed the series?
@@DATAProductionsMedia the math guy would respond that an 8-12 sample size isn't big enough to conclude failure.
PETER BRAND IS NOT HIS REAL NAME, IRL HE IS PAUL DEPODESTA BEANE GOT FROM THE INDIANS, HE DIDN'T WANT HIS REAL NAME USED
Correct
Moneyball brought sabermetrics to a wider audience but Lewis made some mistakes and draws some wrong conclusions from the concepts he wrote about. I remember one passage describing BABIP and Lewis falsely concluded that batting average is completely arbitrary and players have no control over batting average. Tony Gwynn might have something to say about that. Billy Beane has even backed off some of his positions when the book was written. He admits he undervalued fielding and concedes that drafting only college prospects will limit the ceiling of your prospect pool and cause you to miss out on elite talent. Everyone with a brain knew that looking at batting average in a vacuum and ignoring OBP was dumb and that RBIs and pitcher wins are silly stats for the back of baseball cards. This isn't sabermetrics, it's common sense that goes back to baseballs inception. What's sabermetrics did.was highlight the importance of having as much information as possible, and that information ideally being as objective as possible. This was achieved with stats like FIP and BABIP, which helped to eliminate some of the fluff and focus only on what you could ensure the player had control over. You need a bunch of stats to fully paint a picture on a player and the more information, the better.
Thank you for your insight! 🎥💭
When John Henry offered Billy Beane $12 million and Beane decided the offer, it was the classic example of when two fools met.
Right! Hahaha
The playoffs are a crapshoot. The way to ensure playoff success is to get to the playoffs consistently.
Yes but at what point do you get held accountable for your shortcomings in the playoffs?
@@DATAProductionsMedia who should get held accountable then? Billy?
@@Manmanit80 I think so! At some point , I think it’s fair to say that he should’ve compromised his scheme or philosophy a little bit more to have a better shot at postseason success.
@@DATAProductionsMedia How does a scheme resulting in playoff success differ from one that produces regular season success?
@@Manmanit80 Idk man. If winning regular season games is enough for you, we clearly don't value the same goals in sports. On base percentage is cute and all but I played sports to win championships. And The A's those seasons using that system didn't really come close to winning a championship in all honesty. But hey I value anyones opinion, this is just mine.
Your “true or false” segment is really confusing. It’s not always clear which statement you’re talking about
Thank you for the input!!
Awesome breakdown! Moneyball was still a good movie tho.
Thank you!
I went to almost every Mets home game from 1980- early 1982 and never once heard the name Billy Beane. Strawberry and other minor leaguers were the focus. I remember Don Nyer saying in 1983 that the Tidewater team was ten runs better than the Mets. Either way, Beane was never the future of the Mets. Not even close.
Beane never made any noise as an athlete foreal
@@DATAProductionsMedia But he was never going to be a franchise player for the Mets, as they were ridiculously loaded and I swear not one of the hardcore Section One fans at Shea mentioned him, let alone anyone else. That he might make the roster as a rookie might have been news but the Mets never needed him to win (obviously). Many first-round picks go bust Strawberry was the class of the 1980 group.
I really liked the movie, and I think the moneyball approach has its value, but I don't buy into it 100%. Strong pitching, solid defense, smart base running and clutch hitting still key essentials to winning. And I love bunting and stealing bases.
Good points!
When people make vidoes just to get clicks by taking polar-opposite positions. Moneyball not only "works" in baseball but now is starting to work in soccer.
People are allowed to make content on varying opinions. It’s what makes the world go round.
@@DATAProductionsMedia , you are perfectly entitled to your correct opinion. ;-)
Why does this video play a wake up alarm throughout, it’s horribly annoying. Not sure if I can finish this video.
Then don’t finish the video!
What was their bottom line, how much money did this team make during this period? Also was there drug use by some players on baseball teams during this period of time? It was an interesting time in baseball! I liked the movie, gets you to thinking about the game!!!!!!
A few players were on the juice! The A's had a few superstars but not a lot of money
Had to stop watching as the background music was so loud I had to strain to hear the dialogue.
My apologies! 🎥💭
Just look at the dodgers last year and braves this year. Sure dodgers had the luxury of paying for stars but also took chances and people nobody wanted
Fair point!
It worked as well as it couldve. Baseball has too many perameters. Too many points in the season that can turn the momentum on a dime. It did work but you had unforseeable issues. Thats baseball reality.
Solid points!
The background sounds are unnecessarily annoying and creepy at the same time
Thank you for your input! 🎥💭
Moneyball did work that's how the Boston Red Sox won the world series
They didn’t have as many average joes as the As
Actually it did. The 2004 world series Red Sox based their strategy on Billy bean and Oakland
Yes!
Interesting video, but very bad conclusion. They truly got the most they could out of their abysmal budget. Unfortunately, that wasn’t enough to win the series.
Thank you for your input!
For all the hype surrounding the A’s 20 game win streak in 2002, an often forgotten fact is that during that time they extended their division lead by only 3 games. Over that same period, the second place Angels went 17-3. Of course the Angels would have the last laugh as they were World Series Champions that year, advancing through the playoffs as the Wild Card team. While the A’s (as stated in the video) lost in the first round to the Twins. This after taking a 2 games to 1 lead but ultimately choking and losing Games 4 & 5 (a pattern of the A’s in the Billy Beane era).
Thank you for your input!
Not true.. moneyball works just fine for the regular season...just not post season....except for The Rays...they just happened to get a few guys that were way above avg and could produce in the post season. .. but over all it works if u want to be cheap and at least put a competitive team on the field every year.
I agree with you. As I said in the video
I never knew Chris Pratt had some pop in his bat?!?!?
He did!
Moneyball both the movie and the book seem to me to just feed into the absurd narrative that “some teams just can’t compete” meanwhile all Mlb owners are multi millionaires that could easily invest in their team and choose not to by telling they’re fan bases it’s not their fault because they’re small market (look at the Rockies literally giving the best 3rd baseman in their franchises history away)
Very valid points!!!
I'll take stats like hr, bat avg, so, bb, era, over moneyball
Facts
Holy moly that music is making it hard to follow what you are saying.
I apologize!
the music & audio quality already makes me discredit this video
Thank you!
Yeah idk I think we all know the better players win like no shit. But it's not like Billy Bean went well I don't want these better players so I'll choose Moneyball. He didn't have an either or choice. You make it sound at the end it was his choice to ignore fielding snd base running abilities because they had no value. He couldn't afford to have both and decided if I can only have one than getting on base was the one to choose and he was right.
Thank you for your perspective!
It seems for a poor team, money all is their best option.
Yup
Still can't help but laugh out loud at the scene where Jonah Hill's character gives the initial speech about "runs" not players, and diminishes Johnny Damon and actually says it was good they got rid of him from their payroll.
In real life, Damon went on to be a top 5 guy in the entire American League in runs each season and hit lead off and play outfield on multiple world series winning teams. LOL
Solid insight!
The point was he was over paid though according to the advanced stats. A ton of players could've been top 5 in runs hitting lead off for those yankee and red Sox offenses. They also never said he was bad, they said they could use that 7.5 milion more efficiently
@@paulg6274 it's far simpler than that... they were just wrong. 🤷♂️
@@stephenmason9527 he only had 1.2 war in his season with Oakland which would not at all have been worth the salary at the time. The point was, if u only had $34 million to make a team out of, paying Damon 7.5 would not be cost effective
@@paulg6274 anytime anyone starts mentioning WAR even remotely seriously I know to just laugh and move on. 😄
The movie was Great !
It was!!
Was a great movie
Solid indeed!
Moneyball did work the Boston Red Sox higher Bill James and they won the world series twice
This is true!
My take on this is that the Oakland A’s were built to win 3 game series, not the post-season format of 5 and/or 7 gamers, where a 1-2 pitching rotation can give you an advantage to take three of 5, or four of 7; the A’s statistical approach was very sound for the objective of winning games over the course of a marathon season by being patient, taking walks and working for more runs accrued than surrendered, but the regular season is played very different from the post season where runs are much harder to get due to an opponents greater focus and stinginess over the course of a nine inning game. The theory works for a 162 game season, but doesn’t have as much utility in a short series where a manager with deeper talent can husband those resources to expose a weaker teams holes. We see this all the time in the college game’s post season tourney, that’s why the top tier orgs always end up in Omaha every June. The post-season weeds out the thin clubs.
Thank you for your great insight! 🎥💭
You obviously don't understand what "BASED ON a true story" means or this video never would've been made 🤣 its a fictional story based on actual events that happened, not a documentary of those events.
Going by this vid, you believe it means it's supposed to be a documentary or you wouldn't be calling the differences 'lies' and whatnot. They're not lies. It's a fictional story lmfao. Do you really not understand that?
How do so many people not understand what "BASED ON a true story" means?
It’s just a point of view my good sir!
You bring up a interesting point. Most movie goers go to movies for the purpose of being entertained. So even a movie "based on a true story" needs a certain amount of fictional dramatization to keep the audience entertained. Most movies based on actual events will give the audience a "heads up disclaimer"
before the movie starts, but because this so called "disclaimer" is flashed on the screen for less than a minute it's probably ignored. If Moneyball was all factual. it would be like watching a PBS documentary (like you stated, Moneyball is not). I have nothing against PBS documentaries ( I enjoy watching them) , but a movie needs to appeal to a larger audience. Making movies is still a business, and like any other business a profit needs to be made.
8:30 "A factor the RED SOX dismissed...."
Thank you!
Those scouts found the big 3
Interesting!
Why did u choose this music it’s scary asf😭
Sometimes the truth is scary!
It's a movie not a history class !
This is true
A) In MLB, unlike the NBA, the postseason is a crapshoot.
B) In MLB, unlike the NBA, the team with the best regular-season record is not necessarily the best postseason team.
I totally agree! MLB postseason is a crapshoot but 3 seasons is a large enough of sample size to at least consider that the method being used to build a team wasn’t the best. If they got the ALCS once or twice, different story. But they weren’t even able to close out series consecutive years in a row
@@DATAProductionsMedia I totally agree. In the postseason, I think a team with 2 star pitchers and a decent bullpen has a great advantage more so than a team with a good pitching staff. ( by star pitchers, I mean real stars of the highest level. ie a Randy Johnson and a Curt Shilling). With pitchers like that, you don't have to be the best regular-season team. As long as you can just make it to the playoffs, I would put money on that team. I wish the regular season was shorter and the playoffs were expanded to best of 11. I think then you would see much more balance between regular and post-season teams.
You made two excellent points. If you don't mind me adding, in a crucial baseball game situation, your "go to guy" may not be available. In a NBA game , getting the ball to your best shooter/scorer for a crucial shot is possible , but in baseball you can't bat out of order because you need your "clean up" hitter up to drive in a crucial run. It does make for some exciting possibilities and unlikely stars (like Bucky Dent's playoff HR at Fenway).
@@rnklv8281 Excellent point. I had never thought of that aspect of it like that.
@@rnklv8281 You're right. In a lot of situations, you can't have your best guy take over the game. It has to do with timing and situations. which makes baseball a unique sports than the rest!
if that horrible a's owner would have got just 1-2 good bats they win the W.S.
Agree
too much background music.
Can’t make everyone happy!
turn down the "background" music.
Thank you !
You miss a LOT of points in your analysis. I think you’re dead wrong and miss so many subtleties.
Lolol yet you provide no points yourself? Funny how that works
@@DATAProductionsMedia I’m not the one making videos trying to promote a point.
Mt. Carmel! C/O 2000!!!
I was Mt. Carmel Class of 2013!! GO SUNDEVILS!!! 🔥🔥🔥
@@DATAProductionsMedia 2013?? You make me feel so old 👴.
@@neilkonitshek2906 Nah You are now just entering your prime. I live in Salt Lake City Utah now, but visit San Diego a decent amount.
Wtf is that background music...
Experimentation
Всё тоже самое услышать бы на русском языке.
Everything the same would be heard in Russian
Interesting
Anyone watching this should check out an article titled "The Many Problems With Moneyball" by Allen Barra that delves into this further.
Michael Lewis's focus on relief pitcher Chad Bradford, who has a wacky style and was a moneyball-style pick for the A's, is particularly misleading. As this video details, the trio responsible for the A's pitching success (Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson, and Barry Zito) are almost forgotten by Lewis and the movie because they were found through the traditional manner -- highly scouted, early round draft picks, etc.
That said, moneyball WAS effective for the A's, just like scouting young talent and working with them before they became free agents was also effective. Beane's focus on on-base-percentage over the traditional batting average was a different strategy at the time and gave the A's a workable strategy on a budget.
Thanks for the video, it's an interesting topic!
They can "get on base" all they want, but if they dont hit , no one knocks them in.
Exactly!!!!
If four guys get on base consecutively what do you think happens?
@@djp928 they weren’t that good to just get 4 ppl consecutively on base.
@@DATAProductionsMedia yeah no you're right. They only won 103 games that year, they definitely didn't do that by getting guys on base and scoring runs. There are many other ways to score runs in baseball that don't involve getting on base.
@@djp928 how did that go in the postseason vs better competition?