Moneybalk
$$$$$$$$$
This may come as a bit of a shocker to
most of you because of my love for baseball, but yes, I recently just saw Moneyball for the first time last
night. As most of you may already know, the film starring Brad Pitt and Jonah
Hill was based off the book Moneyball, written by former Wall Street
bond traitor Michael Lewis.
Long story short, Michael Lewis
centered on the economic stature of baseball early in the 21st
century. At the time of the book’s release in 03’, the Oakland Athletics were on
a franchise tear and in the core of a dynasty-- having reached the postseason
for the fourth consecutive year despite having one of the lowest payrolls in
baseball just under $40 million. Ironically the Athletics are compared to
George Steinbrenner’s ‘evil empire’, the New York Yankees who had an annual
payroll almost three times that size… Just kidding. There’s nothing ironic
about the A’s being compared to the Yankees. Everyone hate’s the Yanks and
Moneyball just may be Joe Buck’s favorite book…
Anyway… Lewis based his entire story on
the 2002 Oakland Athletics campaign, where he highlights the front office of
the Athletics organization and in particular, their general manager Billy
Beane. Billy Beane changes baseball ‘forever’ by basing his team solely off of
OBP (on base percentage) as an attempt to win the highly anticipated ‘final
game of the season.’ I wont spoil the ending for anyone who doesn’t know the
story.
I know next month marks two years since
Moneyball first aired in theatres,
but for some reason I feel the need to write about it now… probably because
after watching the film I’m still bothered by the same problem I had after
reading the book in 2003 and probably because I’m a pitcher’s kind of guy. I
think that starting pitching is the most important position in baseball and
that strong pitching indeed wins baseball games.
That said, my biggest problem with both
the book and film is why did Michael Lewis choose to ignore the starting
pitching of the Oakland Athletics?
I mean call me crazy, but when I think
about the Oakland Athletics in the early 2000’s and especially during that
stretch of playoff runs, the three names that instantly come to mind are Barry
Zito, Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder.
In 2001, the year the A’s lost to the
Yankees in the ALDS, Zito (17-8), Hudson (18-9) and Mulder (21-8) combined for
a total of the 56 out of the 102 Oakland Athletic wins.
Also in 2002 - the ‘rebuild’ year when
Jason Giambi, Jason Isringhausen and Johnny Damon all left the Oakland Athletics
via free agency, the Athletics made the playoffs again, and… (As promised I
wont spoil the ending) that year Zito (23-5), Hudson (15-9) and Mulder (19-7)
combined for 57 of the 103 Athletic wins.
Is anyone catching my drift? Both years
this pitching trio combined for over 50% of the Oakland Athletic victories.
Michael Lewis failing to mention these pitchers as part of the Athletics
success from 2000-'03 is like talking about the Braves and Yankees in the
1990’s without mentioning Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz or Pettitte, Clemens, and
Mussina… It just doesn’t vibe.
I wouldn’t consider this an
exaggeration either. Zito, Hudson, and Mulder are literally not even given the
light of day at all in both the book and film. In fact, the only sighting in
the film is the back of Zito’s jersey in spring training and Tim Hudson briefly
getting smacked around by the Kansas City Royals in a game that…well, I’ll let
you guys find out on your own.
Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment