ESPN Iowa - The Oakland A's of college recruiting

[mopkins]

Ok, i am interested. What was wrong with the movie moneyball?

Sorry just now saw this...

The reason the 2002 Oakland A's were successful was because of their starting rotation. Mark Mulder, Barry Zito and Tim Hudson threw 675 innings and combined for a 57-21 record. That's nearly 3 20-game winners on the same team. They carried that team and yet they weren't mentioned in the movie, at all. I think they showed Hudson throwing one pitch. Further, once all of those pitchers left via free agency/trade the A's no longer contended.

On the offensive side of the ball they were carried by Miguel Tejada and Eric Chavez...they combined for 68 homers and 240 RBI. Chavez was not even mentioned once in the movie even though he hit 30+ HR's and had 100+ RBI.

"Moneyball" makes the casual movie goer think that Billy Beane inserted Scott Hatteberg and David Justice into a lineup and instantly won a division because of statistical analysis. It's complete BS. Also, David Justice's contract was almost entirely paid for by the Yankees that season so it's not like they saw something in him, he was a freebie.

Don't get me wrong, Billy Beane drafted that starting rotation so him and his staff get a lot of credit, but the premise of the movie and the reason the A's were successful that season is complete BS.

I feel better

 

[NEIChawk]

^^ that explains why the Cubs aren't winning now ^^^ Isn't Theo a Billy Beane believer?

 

[mopkins]

^^ that explains why the Cubs aren't winning now ^^^ Isn't Theo a Billy Beane believer?

Well I'm a Cardinals fan so the Cubs losing is always a plus for me.

Theo and the Cubs have drafted pretty well, Rizzo is a stud, but that Edwin Jackson contract is just laughable. I have no idea why Theo did that.

Billy Beane and his style isn't necessarily a bad thing, but money will always win long term in baseball. Its like when you see the Rays contending over the last couple years. They draft really well, compete, then trade off their studs for young prospects before they walk via free agency to the large markets. It's about the only way the mid/low market teams can compete with the big boys.

Also more emphasis is being placed on the draft across baseball more than ever. It's messed up, but most players finally get through arbitration around 29 years old and once they're 33 they're considered in decline, so there's only a small window for them to really cash in.

 

[Foval21]

Except Billy Beane and they Oakland A's have not done much since 2003. Just a coincidence?

They make the playoffs about every 3 yrs and have the best record in baseball right now.

 

[guffus]

They make the playoffs about every 3 yrs and have the best record in baseball right now.

http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/oak/history/year_by_year_results.jsp

lol, you are so right. The A's have been great lately. I stopped Watching baseball a long time ago and i got caught repeating a comment I saw on another moneyball thread. Serves me right for getting slammed for commenting on a sport I don't follow closely.

it is strange though that Billy Beane's team never win in the playoffs.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

Sorry just now saw this...

The reason the 2002 Oakland A's were successful was because of their starting rotation. Mark Mulder, Barry Zito and Tim Hudson threw 675 innings and combined for a 57-21 record. That's nearly 3 20-game winners on the same team. They carried that team and yet they weren't mentioned in the movie, at all. I think they showed Hudson throwing one pitch. Further, once all of those pitchers left via free agency/trade the A's no longer contended.

On the offensive side of the ball they were carried by Miguel Tejada and Eric Chavez...they combined for 68 homers and 240 RBI. Chavez was not even mentioned once in the movie even though he hit 30+ HR's and had 100+ RBI.

"Moneyball" makes the casual movie goer think that Billy Beane inserted Scott Hatteberg and David Justice into a lineup and instantly won a division because of statistical analysis. It's complete BS. Also, David Justice's contract was almost entirely paid for by the Yankees that season so it's not like they saw something in him, he was a freebie.

Don't get me wrong, Billy Beane drafted that starting rotation so him and his staff get a lot of credit, but the premise of the movie and the reason the A's were successful that season is complete BS.

I feel better

I despised that movie and many supposedly true sports movies because of how "hollywooded" (my word) up they make them. I was pretty bummed out when I heard Kurt Warners story will be made into a movie just because of how I'm sure they'll butcher it up. Those movie makers could care less about the truth in the story but how can they spruce it up to make people want to pay to see it. If I don't know the true story going in and I watch the movie (that was the case for me when the Blind Side came out) I am just as mad once I hear about what the truth was afterwards as I am if I knew the truth before. I feel it's just such a disservice to those involved with what really happened....

 

[Foval21]

http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/oak/history/year_by_year_results.jsp

lol, you are so right. The A's have been great lately. I stopped Watching baseball a long time ago and i got caught repeating a comment I saw on another moneyball thread. Serves me right for getting slammed for commenting on a sport I don't follow closely.

it is strange though that Billy Beane's team never win in the playoffs.

Teams and depth win games over 162...teams with top pitchers and hitters win series. But this yr the a's seem to have both. So at some point in the next few yrs they will lose some players and have to build again.

 

[Foval21]

Sorry just now saw this...

The reason the 2002 Oakland A's were successful was because of their starting rotation. Mark Mulder, Barry Zito and Tim Hudson threw 675 innings and combined for a 57-21 record. That's nearly 3 20-game winners on the same team. They carried that team and yet they weren't mentioned in the movie, at all. I think they showed Hudson throwing one pitch. Further, once all of those pitchers left via free agency/trade the A's no longer contended.

On the offensive side of the ball they were carried by Miguel Tejada and Eric Chavez...they combined for 68 homers and 240 RBI. Chavez was not even mentioned once in the movie even though he hit 30+ HR's and had 100+ RBI.

"Moneyball" makes the casual movie goer think that Billy Beane inserted Scott Hatteberg and David Justice into a lineup and instantly won a division because of statistical analysis. It's complete BS. Also, David Justice's contract was almost entirely paid for by the Yankees that season so it's not like they saw something in him, he was a freebie.

Don't get me wrong, Billy Beane drafted that starting rotation so him and his staff get a lot of credit, but the premise of the movie and the reason the A's were successful that season is complete BS.

I feel better

They were successful because they had young talent (mulder, Hudson, zits, tejeda, etc) and because they found value in players others didn't. Perfect storm of what you need. Teams have learned that is how you do it. That is how the cards do it, the rays, the Red Sox.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

The article lays a foundation for national media to jump on a "feel good story" this season. Iowa better be damn close to 11+ wins this season. They have the easiest schedule in the history of easy schedules. Specific to the article; I interpret the "meaning" of the article to be that KF picks his own players and expects to develop them. Got it. But, that had better translate into wins and the past 4 seasons, it really hasn't. On that recent history, I'm not sure how you can say KF's approach to recruiting has been successful. Remember, Iowa is 3 games over .500 the past 4 seasons. You win and lose with the players you play, and you play the players that you recruit. It's about winning.

 

[mopkins]

They were successful because they had young talent (mulder, Hudson, zits, tejeda, etc) and because they found value in players others didn't. Perfect storm of what you need. Teams have learned that is how you do it. That is how the cards do it, the rays, the Red Sox.

Yes but the movie NEVER mentions the pitching, which was THE major part of the team. They focused on "guys who get on base" which yes led to some success, but to leave the starting rotation out of the movie and leave a 30+ HR and 100+ RBI guy out of the movie makes it a complete sham and misleading to the average movie-goer

Eric Chavez even came out and said that the movie was not accurate with what happened that season.

 

[YWinston]

Yes but the movie NEVER mentions the pitching, which was THE major part of the team. They focused on "guys who get on base" which yes led to some success, but to leave the starting rotation out of the movie and leave a 30+ HR and 100+ RBI guy out of the movie makes it a complete sham and misleading to the average movie-goer

Eric Chavez even came out and said that the movie was not accurate with what happened that season.

It wasn't a sports doc dude, it was a family movie staring Grade A Hollywood beefcake. Add in the story with his daughter, and it's clear who the audience for this film was.

SPOILER ALERT! it wasn't annoying baseball purists.

 

[Foval21]

Yes but the movie NEVER mentions the pitching, which was THE major part of the team. They focused on "guys who get on base" which yes led to some success, but to leave the starting rotation out of the movie and leave a 30+ HR and 100+ RBI guy out of the movie makes it a complete sham and misleading to the average movie-goer

Eric Chavez even came out and said that the movie was not accurate with what happened that season.

The movie wasn't about the big guys on the team. It was about the following:

1) a baseball guy going against the common convention (though that story was changed as the gm before billy did things like billy did)

2) finding value guys that could help the stars (ie David justice for cheap and the others)

it it was not about the stars but about the unconvential means to give the stars the help they needed. The scouts kept looking for the same type of guys they lost. Billy knew those guys couldn't be bought but had to be made in the minors (and later sold or lost when they couldn't pay them). Instead he was looking for the guys that were valuable but other teams did not see the value in them.

 

[ICHawk24]

Did you read the book? It didn't mention the big three much either. It focused on fat catchers and scrubs and such.

Sandy Alderson started down the OBP road, but Billy took it to much greater lengths within the organization.

Getting Justice "for free" is a feature, not a bug.

The movie painted a very poor and inaccurate portrayal of Art Howe. But at least the guy who negatively portrayed him was fatally struck down by drug addiction.