Oakland A's: Fans Need to Stop Complaining About the Movie Moneyball

Hearing complaints that the movie  "Moneyball" wasn't exactly the way things went down is becoming nauseating. I get it—the movie didn't talk about the "Big Three" (Hudson, Zito and Mulder) and Miguel Tejada, the league MVP in 2002, was basically breezed over. 

Former A's Gold Glove award winner Eric Chavez recently complained that the movie didn't tell the entire story. Chavez was more or less left out of the whole book and movie equation as well.

Baseball fans already know about the contributions made by Billy Beane's stable of pitchers, and they are well aware of the parts that Chavez and Tejada played in the A's success in 2002.

The book was not about them. 

What about non baseball fans? Sure, they might not know the full story. 

But that part of the story is not what sells tickets, and it's not as if writer Aaron Sorkin took huge liberties. The movie was about what Michael Lewis saw while he was around the organization and Sorkin didn't stray too far from that.

The book and movie were about what Beane had to do after losing Jason Giambi, Jason Isringhausen and others after the 2001 season. It was about the Scott Hatteberg, Chad Bradford and David Justice experiments as well as Beane's relationship with Peter Brand aka Paul DePodesta—and much more.

Michael Lewis, the author of Moneyball, followed Beane around to try and figure out how he had extracted diamonds in the rough like Giambi and Tejada. By the time 2002 rolled around, these guys were already polished to a glossy sheen.

The way Beane finds them with the limited means at his disposal and his quirky car salesman demeanor as well as the GM's own back story are where the real story lies, not with the stars of that team.

If Beane didn't bust his butt and do everything he could to build a supporting cast around the stars, would the 2002 season had been as interesting, or for that matter, as successful? Probably not.

I didn't hear as many complaints from fans and players after the book became a best seller.  Movies usually find a much larger audience than books, obviously, and it seems like most people waited to serve their sour grapes until then.  I would argue, though, that guys like Tejada, Chavez, Zito, Mulder and Hudson got the attention they deserved—just not from the book or movie.

Again, the story was not supposed to be about them. And even so, I never got the impression that the book or the movie were trying to make the audience believe that the stars on the team had nothing to do with that season.

If you have seen the movie, I suggest you read the book. They are pretty darn similar.

The portrayal of  manager Art Howe has also been a hot button issue.  I agree that Philip Seymour Hoffman didn't look anything like Howe, but shouldn't we just blame that on poor casting?

As far as Howe coming out and publicly criticizing the film, I understand that as well. Howe did not come off well in the movie, so of course he is not going to be happy with the portrayal whether it's true or not.

In Sorkin's defense, the book did touch on the fact that Howe and Beane did not see eye to eye and that Beane basically tried to use him as a puppet while pulling all the strings. If this is the case, the movie portrayed Howe as a manager standing his ground and not taking any crap.  I don't see why he'd have a problem with that.

Chavez seemed upset with the way Howe came across in the movie, saying that Howe acted nothing like that. Well Eric, how many meetings between the GM and Manager were you present for?

Chavez had this to say: "It was completely opposite. Physically, not even close.  Demeanor, not even close. Art was very quiet. Not very outspoken at all.  I never heard one thing about a contract dispute during that time. The way some of the guys were portrayed in the clubhouse I wasn't very fond of, either."  

The film didn't really show all that much interaction between manager and players.  Isn't it safe to say that when a manager goes at it with a GM his demeanor might be different than when he is around the players?

Was "Moneyball" completely accurate as far as the 2002 Oakland A's season is concerned?  Maybe not, but it told the story that it set out to tell. Isn't that what counts?

This article can also be viewed on SportsandMoviestuff.com