STORY STUDY - MEDIUM: FILM “Moneyball”
If there’s anything this film has taught us is that the world of insider baseball can be just as compelling as the sport itself.
Directed by Bennett Miller, written by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, story by Stan Chervin, and based on Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game by Michael Lewis, Moneyball is the story of Billy Beane, the general manager of Oakland Athletics baseball team. The A’s suffer a huge loss when three of their star players leave the team. Beane, wanting a championship team, has to replace them. However, that’s going to be a problem because the owner of the A’s literally cannot afford good enough players to fill in the empty spots. As the owner says to Beane, “We’re a small market team, and you’re a small market GM.”
During a visit to the Cleveland Indians office, Beane meets Peter Brand, an economics graduate who informs him a different way in recruiting players, simply stating that “your goal isn’t to buy players, it’s to buys wins.” Brand becomes the new assistant GM for the A’s, and together, they attempt to recruit players within their budget based solely on their on-base percentage, a tactic based on the research of writer/statistician Bill James.
Despite everyone telling him that this tactic won’t work, Beane’s sticks to the plan, which becomes the basis of changing the unchangeable game of baseball.
Let’s start with the obvious: it’s baseball. Yeah, it’s a popular American sport, but this isn’t about understanding the rules or the players of baseball (though we do get some of the latter); this is about the business of baseball.
Who’s going to understand that? Enter Aaron Sorkin.
Now to be fair, Sorkin isn’t the sole writer of the film; in fact, he was brought on to write a third draft. However, since he has a history with explaining complex business mechanics and making it understandable for a general audience, I’m going to assume that the film is as easy to understand as it is.
What I got out of the film was it’s about numbers. The film even opens with “$114,457,768 vs. $39,722, 689” to demonstrate what the A’s are up against. It heavily drives the idea that the best players are being paid the most money, therefore the high-budget teams always wins. It also states that the best players are perfect, good looking, no physical deformities, etc. Beane literally can’t afford those players, so instead, he gets players based on how often they get on base. Even though these players “throw funny” or basically written out because their baseball career is supposedly finished, he uses their advantage to put the A’s on top. It doesn’t matter what you look like, or how you perform, it’s the result that counts.
You can even attribute this comparison for filmmaking: just because a film has a high budget, doesn’t automatically make it good. The same goes for every aspect of competition.
I don’t have much to say about the directing or acting; they’re all understated. Is that a positive thing? That’s up to you. To me, it focuses on what it needs to focus, and nothing stands out in a negative way. Did you know what Billy Beane wanted? Did it feel satisfying to see he was proven right after being told he was crazy and was “killing the team?” If so, the film did its job.
I can’t seem to recall how I came across the film. I just remember seeing the trailer for it, but I had no interest in it. I think it was going through my Sorkin phase did I finally give it a chance.
Moneyball is a slow buildup type of film, but the underdog story is compelling and relatable enough for general audience to get behind.
Learn some sabermetrics, and check it out.
