"Any other team wins the World Series, good for them. They're drinking champagne, they get a ring. But if we win, on our budget, with this team... we'll have changed the game."
Well, I've mentioned it before, but as I'm sure you know, it's awfully curious that "Moneyball" takes no time to really mention the actual great players on that team -- if you watch the movie, you'd think they were driven into first place by Hatteberg, Justice and Bradford. They don't want to mention Miguel Tejada, the year's actual MVP, because he was also known for juicing (another probable factor in the team's winning ways). They don't even want to mention how sabermetrics has thrived by allowing teams to avoid paying players who put up counting stats, making the audience think a star isn't necessary when you can Frankenstein two guys together to mimic a star, an approach that doesn't really work all that much.
And yet, I really enjoy the movie. The Hoffman/Howe thing is especially curious to me, because Hoffman is so volcanic, so funny in the role, but obviously he bears little resemblance to the real guy or his role on the team.
Thanks for the comment. I was planning on working in the tejada angle, but I was getting a message on the post that said I was nearing the length limit, which I didn't know was a thing on Substack. It's definitely interesting when you tihnk about it as a money issue (owners not wanting to pay stars) and not just a new way to win. But in baseball and in life, it is almost always a money issue.
Ah, don't listen to Substack, there's no size limit. That warning basically means that it will be too big for an email, and that people will have to click to go to Substack to finish reading.
Interesting. Good to know I can blather on for s long as I want. And would that mean i would get credit for another click on the actual Substack? Or would most people not bother clicking through? Hmmm...
Well, I've mentioned it before, but as I'm sure you know, it's awfully curious that "Moneyball" takes no time to really mention the actual great players on that team -- if you watch the movie, you'd think they were driven into first place by Hatteberg, Justice and Bradford. They don't want to mention Miguel Tejada, the year's actual MVP, because he was also known for juicing (another probable factor in the team's winning ways). They don't even want to mention how sabermetrics has thrived by allowing teams to avoid paying players who put up counting stats, making the audience think a star isn't necessary when you can Frankenstein two guys together to mimic a star, an approach that doesn't really work all that much.
And yet, I really enjoy the movie. The Hoffman/Howe thing is especially curious to me, because Hoffman is so volcanic, so funny in the role, but obviously he bears little resemblance to the real guy or his role on the team.
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
Thanks for the comment. I was planning on working in the tejada angle, but I was getting a message on the post that said I was nearing the length limit, which I didn't know was a thing on Substack. It's definitely interesting when you tihnk about it as a money issue (owners not wanting to pay stars) and not just a new way to win. But in baseball and in life, it is almost always a money issue.
Ah, don't listen to Substack, there's no size limit. That warning basically means that it will be too big for an email, and that people will have to click to go to Substack to finish reading.
Fromtheyardtothearthouse.substack.com
Interesting. Good to know I can blather on for s long as I want. And would that mean i would get credit for another click on the actual Substack? Or would most people not bother clicking through? Hmmm...
That, I cannot answer, though I'm guessing no.