Chris Uhle
11-17-2014
Global Sports Business
Moneyball

When Michael Lewis’ Moneyball was released it officially announced Billy Beane’s new way of thinking to the rest of the world. Before the book was written, only a small group of people really had a full understanding of how analytics were changing the evaluation process in the sport of baseball. Billy Beane had always been using unconventional ways in finding undervalued players, but Lewis’ book brought his in depth strategy to the forefront of the sport. In 2011, Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill starred in the film Moneyball. The movie did keep the same basic storyline as the book, however there were many differences between the two.
One of the biggest disparities between the book and the film that I saw was in the way the film portrayed how the idea of Moneyball started. One of the first scenes in the movie has Billy Beane in Cleveland to discuss trade possibilities with the Indians. Beane notices that one of Shapiro’s (Cleveland GM) assistants is dictating who is tradable and confronts him after the meeting. The movie says this is the first time Beane is introduced to the world of sabermetrics and advanced analytics. While this makes for a good storyline, Billy Beane actually got the idea from former A’s GM, Sandy Alderson, not Peter Brand like in movie. This is a great exaggeration from the book as Brand is basically credited with the entire idea. In fact, Peter Brand was not even the real name of Beane’s assistant GM. Instead it was Paul DePodesta.
Another big discrepancy between the two would be how they handled the draft before the season started. The film dismisses completely the drafts discussed in the book. The only mention of any player taken is Jeremy Brown who is used for a metaphor by Brand in the end of the film. There is no reference of him being drafted for his OBP or anybody else for that matter. This isn’t the only time in the film that key members aren’t discussed. The film completely disregards the three aces on the pitching staff for the A’s, Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, and eventual Cy Young winner Barry Zito. The book goes into more detail on this, especially Zito’s case, because it applied heavily to his rookie scale deal and what that meant for the A’s payroll issues. Those are really the main differences that I found. There were also a few smaller ones such as the book was more concerned with Beane trying to field a competitive team while film shows him trying to change the sport as a whole. Another was the climax of the movie being the 20 game winning streak, while it is simply just another part of the book. Lastly there was a lot more time dedicated to discussing Browns books and the backgrounds of the Moneyball era.
After looking at the differences, it is also important to pay attention to the similarities between the two. Obviously since the movie is based on Lewis’ book, the whole plot is very similar. A few things that did jump out at me were some of the small phrases from Beane are used in the film such as “We’re not selling jeans” or possibly the tagline of the movie “I made one decision in my life because of money and I promised myself I would never do it again.” Another big theme from both would be how Beane did butt heads with his scouts and manager when it came to choosing players based on OBP and slugging percentage. The fact that no one could replace Giambi outright but taking aggregate average from 3 starters was possible was mentioned in both. Finally, one of my favorite parts of the story is how big of an anger problem Beane has and it is very apparent in both medias.
With the increase in technology in sport and the continued success of teams like the Oakland A’s, sports beginning to use analytics more and more to make decisions in nearly every aspect of the business, from ticket and merchandise sales to labor agreements to player contracts. It seems that if Billy Beane can make this style of player evaluation relevant in baseball, what is stopping other sports from trying to achieve the same thing. To a certain extent it has already been seen across the sports world in sports such as basketball, football and maybe even soccer. Teams in the NBA have especially been influenced by this as they look to build the most competitive team as possible while also staying under the league’s salary cap. The main difference you can see from baseball to basketball however is that one player can dramatically alter a teams championship odds. If you were to put LeBron James on any team in the league that team is probably going to make the playoffs. He would be in the game for about 4/5 of the time and will get well over 100 touches throughout the game. Conversely if you were to take Mike Trout, arguably the best player in baseball, and put him on any team, the effects would be greatly decreased due to the fact that he has a limited effect on a game when compared to a basketball player. Trout will get maybe 5 at bats and have 3 ball hit to him in center field on an average game.
In the NBA the effects of Moneyball aren’t really seen at the top because to have a successful team you have to get superstars. It can be seen in the first guys off the bench and specialists that every team has. A great example of this would be the San Antonio Spurs. Their bench is comprised of players that have come cheaper than normal, or they are old and unwanted by other teams, and yet they still compete for championships every year. This is a result of great coaching and their superstars taking less money but can also be attested to how the front office has been able to find great value in players that had been overlooked by others. Maybe the biggest example is Boris Diaw. If you have ever seen Diaw play you would almost certainly be asking yourself what is a guy who looks like that doing in the NBA. He is 33 years old, 6’8” and is generously listed at 260 pounds. Much like Jeremy Brown in Moneyball, he was overlooked because of his appearance but has managed to be a vital member of a championship team. He is a great example of how analytics can be used to the advantage of teams in other sports than baseball.
Moneyball doesn’t necessarily correlate with our class directly but some of the ideas from it can be seen throughout the areas we have studied. When a team like the A’s or Spurs put this type of system to use it can only bring good things to their respective franchises. Whether this is through fielding a team or using the same system in marketing and ticket revenues. However I don’t really think it has much to do with the globalization of sport, which is a main focus of ours but I did enjoy this assignment.