Playing Moneyball

The new movie "Moneyball" opened on Friday. For those that don't know, Moneyball is a philosophy pioneered by Oakland A's General Manager Billy Beane as a way for the A's to compete against teams with bigger payrolls.

Beane's method — which involves a statistical analysis of players to determine who is undervalued in an attempt to gather a team that even a modest franchise can afford — was chronicled in the book by Michael Lewis, the same author to that captured Michael Oher's life story in "The Blind Side." The question was, how do you turn a book on statistical analysis into a movie.

The answer is "Moneyball." Director Bennett Miller, screenwriters Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian, and star Brad Pitt have made a compelling film. They have given depth to the characters and made the journey — primarily going through Beane's 2002 season — a fun ride.

Where I quibble with "Moneyball" isn't as a film, but as a concept. Beane has never won anything. In fact, his moneyball team finished the same way the team with Jason Giambi and Johnny Damon did, losing in the playoffs. And, though the Oakland A's were competitive despite financial obstacles for a good stretch in the 2000s, the team has completely tanked the past few seasons. So why are we glorifying this method?

The film would have you believe that the Boston Red Sox were so impressed with moneyball that they used it to win the World Series in 2004. The film asserts as much at the end. I would dispute that, as would, I think, most people that understand baseball.

The Red Sox are consistently among the biggest spending teams in baseball. While you could argue that part of moneyball is recognizing players that are under valued by others and poised to break out — something Boston has done well the last decade — it's also about doing that with no financial resources. In 2002, the New York Yankees spent about $120 million for their team. The Oakland A's had maybe $40 million. They had no choice but to maximize every dollar if they wanted to compete, and they did.

In 2004, when the Red Sox won, their core included Manny Ramirez, Pedro Martinez, Curt Schilling, David Ortiz, and Johnny Damon. All five were high-priced free agents the Red Sox acquired. Did they make good guesses about who to get, especially with Ortiz who the Minnesota Twins gave up on? Sure. But did they do it under incredible financial constraints? No. They did hit it big with some crucial role players, and they had some incredible luck.

Which is my other complaint about moneyball.

Moneyball helps you maximize your resources. It helps you build an affordable team that can compete, and that can work well during the regular season. But stars, depth, and luck help you win in the playoffs. Those Oakland teams had none of that, and it cost them.

Baseball is probably the major American sport that most needs to have competitive balance restored. The title of the book is "Moneyball, the Art of Winning an Unfair Game." That's probably accurate. Baseball is unfair. There's the Yankees, Red Sox, Philadelphia Phillies, Mets, and Dodgers, then there's everyone else. Money can't buy you a title — just ask Mets fans — but it can prevent you from hanging on to the talent you developed and from brining in marquee players.

In some ways, it was incredible the way that Beane was able to compete with a lack of resources. He was creative and clever, and along with his staff found a way to compete without those resources. And, at least for a while, it worked. But he couldn't stem the tide of losing players. Off that 2002 team, many went on to collect big contracts and compete for playoff teams. Those include starting pitchers Ted Lilly (Cubs and Dodgers), Tim Hudson (Braves), Barry Zito (Giants), and Mark Mulder (Cardinals), as well as position players like Jermaine Dye (Chicago White Sox), and Miguel Tejada (Baltimore Orioles).

Moneyball remains unique in that it focused on a statistical-driven approach. That is something that has remained important to baseball — even big market baseball teams — since that time. Unfortunately, like many pioneers, Beane and the Oakland A's never really reaped the big rewards. And, unfortunately for baseball, the big spenders still seem to dominate the post-season.