How could you possibly turn a book that did not have a traditional story arc, and that focused more on interesting details day-by-day of the A’s 2002 season, into a feature film?

The result was a very pleasant surprise.

Before I get into too much detail, to answer the main question of those who have read the book and have not seen the movie: they are very different. It needed to be that way. This is not a documentary, it is a Hollywood film. The good news here is it’s one of the best movies I have seen all year.

Moneyball begins with the 2001 ALDS, where the A’s lost a best-of-five series against the the wealthy New York Yankees (2001 being the year everyone rooted for the Yankees following September 11th). Many viewed this as a “last chance” for Oakland as they would be unable to resign Jason Isringhausen, Jason Giambi and Johnny Damon.

In the movie, Billy Beane, played by Brad Pitt, refers to the A’s as “organ donors” to richer teams. Beane realizes that a team with a modest budget can’t compete unless it finds new ways of doing things. He discovers a similarly quirky innovator, a theorist named Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), who graduated in economics from Yale University, and together they try to remake the fundamentals of the game but focusing largely on metrics popularized by Bill James (an example would be On-Base Percentage for batters).

The film then makes its main focus the life of Billy Beane.

Beane, for those who have not read the book or seen the film, was a first-round pick of the New York Mets in 1980 (23rd overall). He was the classic cliche of a “five-tool” player that is usually deemed a “can’t miss prospect”. But he did miss, and few baseball fans knew of Billy Beane the player; you can tell he failed to reach expectations (an interesting contrast to the type of players he would go after, Beane’s career OBP was .246).

Brad Pitt does a phenomenal job in the role. Honestly, I don’t think it is possible to create a more likeable character than Pitt’s Beane. He is charismatic, enigmatic, rebellious, loyal, and a good father. The last character in any movie that came across as this purely “nice” for me was James Stewart in “Harvey”. I would recommend people watch this movie just for Pitt’s character and performance.

Something I was not expecting was for “Moneyball” to turn out like a buddy comedy. But the interactions between Pitt and Hill really does come off that way, which only serves to make both characters that much more likeable in the viewer’s eyes.

Watching this film, I have to sympathize with Art Howe, the 2002 manager of the Oakland A’s. He really gets thrown under the bus as the face of old-school baseball thought standing in the way of a baseball revolution. Philip Seymour Hoffman’s portrayal of Howe makes for a perfect antagonist who does have many layers and who the viewer can sympathize with on certain levels, but still he comes across as a dinosaur standing in the way of Oakland’s success. The book really does not paint Howe in this light. He is merely seen as a manager who wants job security from a team that can not afford such frivolous spending (especially on management) who eventually does come around to the new system.

I love the fact that the film puts large focus on the Oakland A’s final game of their amazing 2002 winning streak. All baseball movies need that big game or dramatic “moment”. Thankfully, reality offered up a fantastic example with this game against the Kansas City Royals, and I was really happy they gave this classic game a fitting tribute.

One major problem I had with the film is it gives the viewer the impression that the A’s acquired some players like Jeremy Giambi and Chad Bradford after 2001. The film implies Jeremy was an offensive replacement following the loss of Jason Giambi. Jeremy actually joined Oakland in 2000 via trade and was often used as the team’s DH in 2001. Chad Bradford (who I wrote about here) was also acquired prior to 2001, although he was used sparingly during the 2001 season. This is a minor caveat that most movie-goers will not care about at all, but that serious baseball fans will notice.

Another slight issue is the bizarre way they refer to Carlos Pena as an “All-Star” prior to his trade in the film. Pena always was a slick fielder, but he only had a “good” April (.264/.323/.552, 5HR, 16RBI) and then an absolutely horrible May (four hits in 45 plate appearances) before being traded to the Tigers. Add to that, if he was the lonely bright spot on the team, he wouldn’t have held permanent residence as their #9 hitter.

In summary, “Moneyball” is a movie that fans and non-fans will surely enjoy. It’s a feel-good movie that doesn’t beat you over the head with happiness. It comes out organically throughout the movie. While there are some aspects that don’t really come off as being true, that’s the beauty of billing a film as “based” on a true story. Liberties were definitely taken in making the film, but it makes for a better final product. “Moneyball” in it’s original form would have been a complete failure of a film. This is anything but.

Highest recommendation to see.

In that time, a person forms an opinion about you based upon your appearance, body language, demeanor, mannerisms, and a veritable plethora of other factors, both conscious and unconscious. These initial impressions can be nearly impossible to reverse or undo, making these first encounters extremely important, as they set the tone for the all the relationships that follow.

First impressions also apply to the world of sports. An athlete being scouted can receive too much, or too little credit based on a five minute performance. For this reason, I am compelled to make this week’s player Chad Bradford. He is one of those players that almost never made it due to flaws in scouting. He also made me a fan after seeing only one pitch.

I have a long standing love affair with the utterly ridiculous. I eat cereal that should be served as dessert. My favorite TV show is the 1960′s Batman. But my biggest love are athletes that perform despite approaches that seem psychotic at best. And nobody embodies this like Chad Bradford.

Some would incorrectly call Bradford a side-arm pitcher. That does not do him justice. Bradford’s delivery begins not with a high leg kick, but a swivel of the hips, ending in an underhand delivery which occasionally results in his hitting the mound with his hand. His fastball is a paradox, usually topping out at around 84MPH, but he’s been incredibly effective over the span of his career. A career that almost never happened.

Bradford is not sexy. (Well, not to pitching scouts anyways. He’s really quite dashing, especially with that manly, lumberjack mustache) In fact, he was only scouted by one team throughout his high school and college career: Jerod’s beloved Chicago White Sox.

The Sox actually drafted him twice — both 1994 and 1996. He would make his “cup of coffee” debut in 1998, and was seen as the type of player who was not going to be more than a Quadruple A player. He didn’t have the pedigree of your prototypical major league pitcher.

Thankfully for Bradford, Billy Beane was in the process of “Moneyballing up” the Oakland A’s, and therefore saw just how good Bradford was, trading Miguel Olivo for him. Over the next four seasons, Bradford pitched 250 games with a 3.34ERA with an ERA+ of 133. This was thanks in large part to that zany delivery.

The reason his delivery is so effective is how it induces an extraordinarily high percentage of ground balls. In fact, Bradford routinely maintained a Ground Ball to Fly Ball Ratio of 70-80% and was in the top five every season from 2001-2008 in that category. In 515.2 career innings pitched, Bradford has only allowed 28 Home Runs (of which Carl Everett somehow has three and Manny Ramirez hit his 500th career dinger).

Bradford was traded by Oakland to the Boston Red Sox, and later signed with both the New York Mets and Baltimore Orioles, before being traded to Tampa Bay in 2008.

Tampa proceeded to make The World Series that season but Bradford was only used twice in the Series (he only gave up one measly hit). This lead to my yelling loudly as I watched Tampa Bay lose. To this day, I still think the Rays should always have brought in Bradford. The numbers back me up on this too. In 24 career postseason games, Bradford posted a sparkling0.39 ERA, allowing just one run.

Bradford spent most of last season injured and currently remains unsigned. Last I read, he had been thinking of retirement, which would be a shame. I firmly believe any team in the league could benefit from having him in their pen. Apparently I’m the only one.

Every HR Bradford has given up

Bradford invited to play himself in “Moneyball” movie

If you have any suggestions for future Obscure Players, drop them in the comments.

I actually like Gardner. He’s the kind of player every team could use more of. Great defensively, insane amounts of the oft-hailed DISRUPTIVE SPEED, plus the ability to actually get on base and use it (Rajai Davis and Willy Tavaras cry manly tears at this fact). He just didn’t have to steal home on Opening Day is all. What a jerk.

Until Gardner ruined all my fun, Mike Bordick was the last man to ever steal home on Opening Day.

He did so for The Oakland A’s back in 1992 on a double steal of home and second with Rickey Henderson. This was one of the only weird Bordick facts I could hold onto when people asked who my favorite shortstop was, and then asked, “Who the hell is Mike Bordick?”

If baseball can be considered an art form, then Mike Bordick was using oils, and the other shortstops, merely water colors.

Mike Bordick was, without question, the greatest defensive player I’ve ever seen live. He set records for most consecutive error-less games (110) and chances (543) by a shortstop in 2002.

And live he was just amazing to watch.

I’ve never witnessed balls hit to the left of the infield just die like they did for Bordick. He only ever led the league in one thing (in 1998 he led the AL in sacrifice bunts) and he only made the All-Star team once (2000). Still, Bordick gets the distinction of being the player that moved Cal Ripken Jr. (the man who played the most consecutive games in MLB history and most consecutive at shortstop) to 3rd base permanently.

Let me repeat: Bordick was so good defensively that they moved one of the greatest Shortstops of all time, and a former Gold glove winner, to a new position.

I had the pleasure of seeing him play for Toronto in his last two seasons. Although he was usually a back-up player, he always ended up in games that I went to (maybe because Eric Hinske and Chris Woodward attacked ground balls like a pair of serial killers, butchering anything on the left side), and even at 37 the man could cover the whole infield, robbing sure singles and doubles and turning them into easy outs (and covering up for whatever bucket of crap he had to play with).

Bordick also symbolizes the most angry I’ve ever been at a baseball game. Post game I went to the Jays shop IN THE SKYDOME to get a Bordick jersey. He had been on the team over a year and they had none. None. In the team’s home stadium! And it was not because so many like-minded fans were snatching them up like Tickle-Me-Elmos in 1996; no, they just didn’t make any. (Coincidentally, they had about 50 Hinske jerseys that no one has ever worn.)

Stupid Eric Hinske.

NY Times Article About Bordick

Article About Bordick’s Role with The O’s

If you have any suggestions for future Obscure Players, drop them in the comments.

* – Photo credit: Christine Chew UPI via UPI.com

The Toronto Blue Jays will make the trip to New York this weekend for a four-game set. The Jays started off the season guns a blazing but have cooled off since. They find themselves in fourth place in the division with a minimal chance of winning it, and we just hit July.

Meanwhile, the Yankees have been the exact opposite. They are as strong as they’ve been in the win column this year and they’ll look to keep on building on it.

They’ll have a couple of hurdles this weekend as both Roy Halladay and Ricky Romero will pitch for the Jays.

MLB betting: Tigers, Twins Square Off Square Off At Metrodome

The Detroit Tigers hold a three-game lead in the American League Central but that lead could shrink to nothing by the end of the weekend.

The Tigers have slowed a little bit as the calendar has flipped to July. While Magglio Ordonez is trying to regain his power (went 150 at-bats in between home runs), the lineup seems to be in flux as manager Jim Leyland is moving batters up and down.

The Twins entire starting rotation is on fire right now from Kevin Slowey, to Nick Blackburn, to Scott Baker, which is more bad news for the Tigers bats. Look for the Twins to take advantage and gain some ground on the weekend. The sportsbook odds makers should have them favored throughout the weekend.

MLB Betting: Last-Place A’s Meet Last-Place Indians

A few years ago, sports picks on this series would handicapping a matchup of two playoff contenders. Not nowadays as both teams are a combined 64-93.

The A’s are usually a scrappy bunch but injuries have taken a big bite out of their production. They have put 12 players on the disabled list already this season and they simply don’t have the depth to compete when it gets that’s bad.

The season hasn’t been much brighter for the Indians who have lost five straight and are just 2-8 in their last 10 games. The Indians are having problems scoring runs, especially with Travis Hafner’s pop disappearing over the last two seasons.

The Indians are off a sweep at the hands of the White Sox and have been outscored 38-13 in their last five games. I’m betting management wasn’t expecting that with a lineup consisting of Grady Sizemore, Victor Martinez and the aforementioned Hafner.