“Moneyball” Shows Promise, Misses Strike Zone

If “Moneyball” was based on a Major League Baseball team playing in the 2011 season, it would not be the first-place Philadelphia Phillies but rather the mediocre Chicago White Sox.  Both the film and the team contained a lot of potential and excellent individual components, but neither came together in a successful fashion.

“Moneyball,” based on a book of the same name by Michael Lewis, tells the story of how Oakland Athletics General Manager Billy Beane, played by Brad Pitt, overcame a limited budget to put together a competitive team during the 2002 Major League Baseball season. 

Shying away from over 100 years of conventional baseball wisdom, Beane and his assistant Peter Brand, played by Jonah Hill, use a complicated system of statistics to sign highly productive players who, according to their philosophy, are undervalued by other teams.

Although the film’s premise centers on economics and business rather than the technicalities of baseball, the plot of “Moneyball” follows Beane and Brand’s journey of overcoming naysayers and triumphing over the odds. While the film follows this familiar underdog storyline, it does not live up to the potential of what could have been had the script truly focused on the ingenious management method that is “Moneyball.”

Similar to “Milk,” for example, which focuses on a man, Harvey Milk, who changed the world around him while overcoming personal challenges, “Moneyball” is about a man, Beane, who overcomes personal challenges and in the meantime changes the world around him.  

Unlike “Milk,” however, which focuses on the lasting impact of Harvey Milk’s life and the societal context of his story, “Moneyball” fails to adequately capture how the protagonist changed the world of baseball. Instead, the film focuses on Beane’s personal struggles with his family and his journey towards a sense of self-worth.  

The bland, one-dimensional character of Peter Brand also detracts from the film’s appeal. The presence of Brand, an economics major from Yale, is meant to highlight a perspective on baseball that has been ignored by those who are too close to the game. Namely, that examining statistics covering factors such as on-base-percentage are more important than the number home runs or runs batted in by any one player. 

Brand’s character, however, is never developed. The film does not addresses his interest in baseball, how he discovered the system he and Beane used, or what his life is like outside of baseball. Since none of these ambiguities are ever answered, Brand does not add depth to the story nor does he influence anyone around him in the film.

The film also contains repetitive elements.  Beane spends what seems like an eternity fighting with manager Art Howe, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, about how he is improperly managing the team.  For some unknown reason, however, Beane never explains his system to Howe.

The film would have benefited if its focus stepped away from Beane’s character and explored what was happening in the world around him. Beane appears in virtually every scene, however, including three scenes that simply involve him sitting alone in his car thinking. 

Scenes of Yankee executives shaking their heads or the other members of the Athletics organization trying to understand Beane’s method would interest ardent baseball fans and casual movie-goers alike.

For Aaron Sorkin fans out there, there is enough compelling dialogue to make the film enjoyable to watch. 

The over-simplification and repetitiveness of the film, however, is not worth the $10 at the theater.