Baseball By The Numbers

Rating: 5/10 (31 January 2012)

My first comment would be to warn people who aren't big baseball fans that this is a baseball movie. In fact, it's not even so much about baseball - it's about the behind the scenes machinations involved in building a baseball team. There's very little onfield action depicted, so unless the idea of watching the management team rather than the players really turns your crank, this likely won't be for you. Personally, I'm not a huge baseball fan. I follow the game, I know the teams and the big name players, but I'm not a fanatic. So I approach this movie from that perspective.
In 2001, the Oakland A's went 102-60, but then lost in the playoffs. They then had several of their best players leave after the season, because they didn't have enough money to pay them, and General Manager Billy Beane (played by Brad Pitt) was forced to try to keep the team competitive on what would be generously described as a shoestring budget. Without the money to pay for the best players, Beane recruits a young executive from the Cleveland Indians named Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill) and together they try to craft a winning team strictly by the numbers - using in depth statistical analysis to determine not so much the biggest names but the best fits for their particular team, and we watch as the 2002 season unfolds.
There are things about this movie that I liked. Brad Pitt for one. I thought his performance as Beane was very good and very believable. What I also found believable was the tension that rose between Beane and the team's scouts as well as manager Art Howe (Philip Seymour Hoffman) - all of whom were "old school" baseball people who didn't understand what Beane and Brand were trying to do and weren't especially co-operative. The behind the scenes look was as interesting as it could be, I suppose - especially the glimpse at how players are rated and evaluated and treated.
But I have to admit that this movie still didn't really appeal to me. First, I'm not a baseball fanatic, and in my opinion this is a niche movie for a niche audience. I appreciated that Beane kept the team winning, but to be honest they didn't actually win anything of importance (and still haven't.) Yes, the team pulled off an amazing 20- game winning streak in 2002, but they lost in the playoffs and as Beane himself said, nothing matters if you don't win the last game of the season. That's true. I'm enough of a baseball fan that I'm sure I noticed in the summer of 2002 that the A's were on a massive, mega- winning streak, but I don't actually remember it 10 years later. I guess in the end that's what really makes me scratch my head over this movie. It's just not especially important. As much as this was supposed to be a new way of building a team - frankly, it doesn't work. With no salary cap, baseball is about money. Yes, the movie suggests that the Boston Red Sox used the system Beane and the A's developed, but it leaves out an important point - the Red Sox used the system - AND MONEY! The title is accurate. Baseball is about money. The American League especially is divided into 3 groups - the Yankees and the Red Sox (one or both of whom will be in the playoffs because they have a lot of money and can buy the best players); their division rivals the Rays, Blue Jays and Orioles, who (aside from a massive upset periodically) can't compete with them over a full 162 game season and who start every season knowing that they're going to end up on the outside looking in; and everybody else, who compete to be the best of the rest and hope to be able to beat the Yankees or Red Sox in a 3 of 5 or 4 of 7 series.
This isn't a bad movie, but I for one thought it was massively over- rated. It's neither overly interesting nor overly important, and why anyone would have thought of it as a nominee for Best Picture I have no idea. (5/10)