THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I’m genuinely excited about this. I didn’t think I would be, but the idea, news, the names attached have leaked/slowly built in such a natural, non-hype-machine way, that it sounds like it could be really good. I just saw that Chris Pratt (Andy from Parks and Recreation) is playing Scott Hatteberg, which for some reason delights me.

I am going to guess that the technical parts of the movie are going to be pretty inaccurate. Most people won’t recognize that.  Only sabermetricians and people who follow sabermetrics will.  The movie “21” was like that, and countless others.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/moneyball/

They’re coming fast and furious.  Only 2 of the 15 critics gave it a “rotten”.... except… if you read one of those rottens, the reviewer seemed to enjoy the movie.  He must have given it a rating that was half a star below the threshhold.

I agree with MGL’s guess, to the point that I sort of expect myself and the other regular readers of sites like this (well, there isn’t any site QUITE like this one) to be disappointed in this movie.

Keith Law’s review: http://meadowparty.com/blog/?p=1861

Michael Lewis’ response: http://blog.moviefone.com/2011/09/14/moneyball-writer-michael-lewis-responds-to-keith-law-moneyball-review/

dave: I think I’m going to enjoy the movie.

I read Law’s review and I have little idea how Lewis misconstrued what Law was saying so much to spit out such venom unless there’s some personal grudge going on.

Law is pretty much the only negative review I’ve seen, which almost convinces me that the movie is going to be nominated for awards. I want to see it even more after reading Law’s trashing of the movie.

Many of Law’s criticisms appear to be at the lack of accuracy in a based-on-a-true-story movie. That seems, at the very best, a really, really stupid thing to do. The movie is not a documentary, and it hardly matters if a line is used at a different time or if, for purposes of telling a better story, a particular character is introduced at a different time from when the person he’s based on was hired.

I think Law is the one with the axe to grind, and like Lewis, I’m not entirely sure why.

To sum up Law’s review: The most realistic aspects of the movie are too boring for him (GMs talking on the phone), and any attempts to add drama are too unrealistic for him(the mortal sin of a GM flying to meet another one face to face). It’s clear from his review that there was literally nothing that would’ve made him happy here.

When I read Law’s review, I was reminded of reviews by real cops of Law and Order.  Things like it takes weeks for DNA testing, not same day, etc, etc.

The #1 rule in movies: suspension of disbelief. 

This is not to say that you should ignore everything, but if it’s a device used to move the plot along or to make a point, then who cares.

I was starting to think of the implausibility in The Dark Knight that the Joker could set everything up like clockwork and so darn quickly.  Then I decided to just stop doing that, because I was going to ruin an otherwise fantastic movie.  I love watching that movie over and over.  But if I’m going to think physically, rather than just appreciate the art of the movie, and the point being made, then why am I going to the movies?

Artistic licence is my friend.

My bachelor’s degree was in history so some things I can suspend disbelief on. For example, I can enjoy 300 because I know it’s not trying to be historical. Or I can enjoy a movie like Dances With Wolves since it can get the general feel or mood of the frontier correct. But then there are movies like Gladiator that portray not only events, but the mood/culture of an era so incorrectly that it just doesn’t jive with me.

For Moneyball, I’m not really expecting it to be a baseball movie so I’m not expecting it to be true as true to the A’s. So I’ll probably enjoy it. What I want it to be is a movie in the style of Boiler Room or Glengarry Glen Ross, showing the decision making processes of running a baseball team. After all, would Moneyball be any less interesting of a book if the A’s never made the playoffs just because they tried a methodology that hadn’t really been implemented before? It’s a bit like how I find the Pirates sandblasting their organization real interesting even if they don’t turn into contenders just because it’s something I haven’t seen much of before.

Watched it today. Pretty much a waste of my limited movie time.