‘Moneyball’ challenges representations of real baseball dynamics

Columnist graphic fall 2020 screen and roll

“Moneyball” is a 2011 movie based on a 2003 book of the same name. The film follows Oakland Athletics manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) as he reshapes his scouting system to prioritize a few key statistics. Led by strong performances from Pitt and Jonah Hill, who plays Beane’s right-hand man, the film gives an inside look at the men who brought sabermetrics to MLB front offices to compete with teams with much higher payrolls, changing baseball scouting forever with their success.

Lauren Mattice: I am upset that this had to feature the Oakland Athletics, but the way the team and Billy Beane’s story followed the “if something is not working, try something else” plot line made it THE perfect baseball story to make into a film. 

Aidan Berg: Man, you L.A. Dodgers fans are so petty. Can’t you just enjoy your team being in the World Series without taking shots at others? With that (necessary) pushback out of the way, I do agree that this is a great baseball story as long as you add “modern” in there. Ever since those A’s teams got going, baseball roster-building has been all about optimizing the most important statistics, and that is represented most in this film with the clash between youth and, um, “experience.” 

LM: Who said that was out of the way? I can’t rest knowing that Dave Roberts is making potentially devastating decisions for us. (Update, Dodgers won!) I looked into the book and I love the second part of the title: “The Art of Winning an Unfair Game.” What’s great about the movie is that it takes on not just the representation of clashing like you said, but it really makes us notice how much money funnels from the top through scouting managers and down to players. It begs the question of what really lets a team get ahead now, knowing that sabermetrics and scouting stats are widely used. As someone who really enjoys the statistics part of sports, though, I think the pseudo-documentary representation of these issues was really enjoyable to watch. 

AB: It was, in nearly every aspect — the biggest exception being when the old scouts were judging players’ confidence on the attractiveness of their girlfriends. That was not particularly fun to watch. I think Beane sums it up best with the line “Adapt or Die.” That’s the reality for a team with a budget below $40 million going up against the Yankees and Red Sox. It’s like baseball darwinism.

NOTE: Obviously, we’re not supposed to like the incumbent scouts because they’re a bunch of disrespectful old farts, but I have to shout out two lines relating to them that made me chuckle: “Who’s Fabio?” “He’s a shortstop from Seattle” and “You gotta carry the one” “What are we doing?” 

LM: Speaking of old farts, I think the story could’ve confronted ageism in a way that was a bit more productive than the usual sort of labeling people as “old.” While teams are really moving toward the players they see with longevity along with talent, there isn’t a resolution once an older manager adopts sabermetrics, how long is their opinion worth paying for? The focus, and I’m not surprised it went like this, was on systemic change rather than individual (outside the A’s). I think what does bite them by not focusing on this is the fact that the Red Sox won the 2004 World Series using the system without Beane overseeing them. 

AB: Yeah, as a Red Sox fan I’m not particularly happy with the way that the movie skipped over that team (which, in case the Yankees fans out there don’t remember, was the squad that broke the Curse of the Bambino and became the only team to come back from down 3-0 in a postseason series). But I think that was one of the things that did call into question the effectiveness of this approach, and therefore why we should be watching this movie at all. The Athletics still haven’t won a World Series under Beane, even as low-budget franchises like this year’s Rays advanced further with a similar approach. Why aren’t we hearing the stories of those other teams? 

LM: I think we can skip over the Red Sox whenever. But I think it’s a matter of the variables that are inputted, not so much the formula, which leaves fans who do know their record still with the question of why the method didn’t close the gap completely if the movie lauds the underlying story. And to your question of “Why should we be watching this,” I think the filmmakers and Beane himself probably knew that when they cast Brad Pitt they were in for a much different audience demographic that probably doesn’t have the background in baseball to make this sort of judgement. 

AB: Yeah, I wanted to touch on that because I think this movie gets into some interesting situations in its representation of real people. Number one, and most importantly to me, I found it HILARIOUS that Beane said Pitt was the only person who could play him. I’m sure it’s a coincidence he picked out one of the most attractive men in Hollywood. But this topic also brings up some serious questions: Why didn’t Paul DePodesta, who Hill’s character Peter Brand is based on, want his name in the movie? And why was the athletic and by all accounts personable Art Howe presented as a fat, unyielding jerk? 

LM: For the drama. I think Aaron Sorkin, who comes from the theatre, wrote it? But you’re right, while Pitt brings people into theaters to cover that first-weekend box office target, these changes don’t make sense for a film that inches to and away from reality — it’s like it doesn’t know what to do with itself except play around with details. Also, Aidan, now that you brought it up and obviously wanted me to ask this, who do you think the most attractive man in Hollywood is? 

AB: I don’t want to get into objectifying people, Lauren, I just thought it was funny that apparently Brad Pitt was the ONLY guy who could play him. I just think that’s interesting. But I think it’s a problem for what you were saying about a documentary kind of film: I know there are going to be creative liberties taken, but this bordered on “The Social Network” levels of misrepresenting something that really happened. (Also my answer is Chris Evans) 

LM: OK, Chris Evans isn’t even the hottest Chris in Hollywood, but whatever. And it’s interesting you mention “The Social Network,” because Sorkin wrote the screenplay for that film as well! But in terms of creative liberties, the movie was also willing to take risks in its portrayal of Beane, and I think Pitt managed to balance pretty well the arrogance and the lightheartedness that he’s known for in real life. Howe however (had to do it), played by the incomparable Philip Seymour Hoffman, publicly and frequently denounced the portrayal of himself in the film. But is a film supposed to get all these details right to appease everyone? 

AB: I know the movie needed a “villain” or opposing force or whatever, and I know that movies can make some tweaks to stories in order to make them fit the cinematic structure. I just wish it wasn’t a choice between being inaccurate and being boring. To call back to another of my favorite lines, this one from Jonah Hill about getting shot once in the head or multiple times in the chest: Are those my only two options? 

LM: I can’t remember any lines from anything so that is pretty impressive. But I think what we take away from this is a sort of surface-level understanding of the role statistics has played in the game, Pitt for some eye candy and the potential for a greater appreciation for sabermetrics and the individuals portrayed if you actually want to get into watching baseball.

Aidan Berg and Lauren Mattice are seniors writing about sports culture and entertainment. They are also the deputy outreach director and digital managing editor of the Daily Trojan, respectively. Their column, “Screen & Roll,” runs every other Monday.