Skip to content

Video of the Day: Official, extended Moneyball movie trailer

Jun 16, 2011, 2:47 PM EDT

I linked yesterday to an Entertainment Tonight video showing a few brief scenes from the upcoming Moneyball movie and opined that it didn’t exactly make me excited about the film, but today an official trailer for the movie was released and in addition to being a whole lot longer at two-plus minutes it also looks a whole lot better.

Still some stuff that seems awfully silly if you’ve read the book or are simply a knowledgeable baseball fan, but if you suspend reality a bit and think of the whole thing as a Major League-style story about an underdog team of misfits and toss in Brad Pitt doing all sorts of Brad Pitt-like things playing general manager Billy Beane it might be decent. See for yourself:

  1. hughhansen - Jun 16, 2011 at 2:53 PM

    “Video is private.” Won’t play.

  2. royalsfaninfargo - Jun 16, 2011 at 2:56 PM

    This could be a great movie, but I still dont see it. Craig your line about “an underdog group of misfits” is nice, but they already made that movie its called “Major League.” Also, Beane’s teams have never won a title. A couple of Division crowns sure, but non-baseball fans who watch this and are informed of the “genius” of Billy Beane will wonder why he has never won a World Series.

    • scatterbrian - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:30 PM

      Well it looks like the climax is the 20 game wining streak in 2002. Then they’ll probably flash text describing what happened in the A’s/Twins series, and what’s happened since 2002: that most other teams have since embraced some type of statistical analysis, maybe that wealthier teams have with a mix of statistical analysis and money, and hopefully give some credit to Bill James. I also assume they’ll quote Beane’s theory that the playoffs are a crapshoot.

      What was the climax of The Blind Side? Did it deviate at all from the actual story?

      • royalsfaninfargo - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:40 PM

        I never saw The Blind Side. I agree with you on most points about the movie, plus the ending flash text is almost a given but i wonder if they will include the fact that the A’s havent been over .500 in 5 years (I know they finished 81-81 last year, thats why i said over). I hope this is a good movie and yes I will probably end up watching it, but I am a die hard baseball fan. My wife is not and it will take a lot of convincing to get her to watch this movie. Thats all I was trying to point out.

      • natstowngreg - Jun 17, 2011 at 3:34 PM

        Not really. The Blind Side movie climaxed with the Ravens drafting Michael Oher (with the actual footage of Oher shaking hands with Roger Goodell).

        Having read the book before seeing the movie, I thought the movie was consistent with the book — without the book’s commentary on the history of pass rushing.

    • Paul Zummo - Jun 16, 2011 at 4:47 PM

      Umm, the team in Major League also didn’t win a world title.

  3. Chris Fiorentino - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:01 PM

    OH MY GOD!!!!! This movie looks like a stat geek’s wet freaking dream. I hope they tell everyone that the A’s won zero championships and that, while it was a very small part of the “moneyball” concept(drafting college pitchers instead of high schoolers) that helped bring them Hudson, Zito and Mulder, they wouldn’t have won what little they did win without those three pitchers.

    I haven’t wanted to see a movie any less in my entire existence on this planet.

    • paperlions - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:11 PM

      No Chris, it’s not. It is about innovation, creativity, and finding new ways to do things and new ways of understanding to overcoming obstacles.

      It really isn’t any different than a story about the revolutionary war. If you can’t win on the traditional field of battle, you have to find a way to shift the field so that you can win.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:26 PM

        LOLZ at the notion that Moneyball “isn’t any different than a story about the revolutionary war”. I didn’t realize that the story of “Moneyball” is as important than the founding of the United States of America. Wwwwwwwooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Thanks for the laugh Paperbag.

      • royalsfaninfargo - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:32 PM

        Comparing “Moneyball” to the Revolutionary War is a WEE bit of a stretch. Even granting your logic about the traditional field of battle angle, comparing anything in sports to the war that founded this country is kind of a joke.

      • paperlions - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:35 PM

        You really aren’t that bright are you?

        Both stories are about innovations to beat (or at least to compete with) superior opponents. Luckily for the colonists, no one published a book about the tactics they borrowed from native Americans during the revolution.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:44 PM

        Why did they have to “compete with superior opponents” though? Is Oakland, the 44th most populous city in America, such a “small market”?

        “The greatest trick the [Oakland ownership] ever pulled was convincing the [fans] [money] didn’t exist.”

      • seeingwhatsticks - Jun 16, 2011 at 5:41 PM

        Kind of agree with Chris in that I’m not sure how much I like praising the A’s for being so cheap. They want to be given the rights to San Jose even though the Giants owners paid for those rights, because if the A’s could afford the several hundred million dollar payment that it would take to get the Giants to back off they’d just build a new stadium in downtown Oakland.

        The Oakland A’s: always trying to get something for nothing.

    • scatterbrian - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM

      You’d rather watch Human Centipede?!

    • aceshigh11 - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:49 PM

      Speaking of Mulder…

      It’s a shame he never pitched for the Dodgers.

      Vin Scully…Mark Mulder…Mulder and Scully…get it? GET IT?

      What…Craig can geek-out on his Twitter thread but I can’t??

      • clydeserra - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:52 PM

        I do. So did Chris Carter, which is why Scully was named Scully. Also, when Mulder quit, he was replaced by “Doggett” Named after the Dodgers #3 70s PXP guy Jerry Dogett.

    • thefalcon123 - Jun 16, 2011 at 4:09 PM

      Yeah, and without “Moneyball”, those pitchers would have had exactly zero run support. What’s your point?

    • mkd - Jun 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM

      Actually I think this movie will wind up driving stat geeks crazy because of how oversimplified and dumbed down it’s going to be, whereas I suspect the anti-stats crowd is going to love it because it’s going to confirm all of their most oversimplified and dumbed down notions of what statistical analysis and inefficiency exploitation is all about. The sheer glee you’re displaying in this comment thread while ripping apart a movie you’ve never even seen is proof enough of that.

      And how does Oakland having the 44th largest population in the US help your argument that the A’s are not a small market team? That means their market is smaller relative to other teams dude! That said there’s nothing about the A’s that new ownership wouldn’t fix in a jiffy. Someone get Mark Cuban on the phone…

  4. APBA Guy - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:15 PM

    Interesting trailer. Good cast. That little problem about lacking a WS will turn off a lot of the baseball world, as Chris and Royals showed, above.

    Still, every team scours the planet for the best players, defining “best” is still an art. Even Oakland has recognized this by bringing back Grady Fuson last year to head up a revitalized scouting department, part of a move that Beane realized was necessary as more and more teams searched for market inefficiencies.

    But for non-baseball fans, it’s a Brad Pitt movie. And it looks like it has a hero’s journey to it, with a happy ending. Sounds like a minor hit, probably.

    • Chris Fiorentino - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:33 PM

      Maybe if they had even MADE a World Series it would make for a good story but they didn’t even accomplish that. What is the difference between what the A’s did and what the Rays did the last few years? If anything, the Rays have spent less money and done more being in the toughest division in baseball. I’d rather watch a story on the Rays making the World Series in 2008 as it is much more compelling than the A’s, who are a small market team about as much as I am Brad freaking Pitt.

      • The Common Man/ - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM

        The Indians never won the World Series, and Major League was still pretty awesome. Also, I don’t think we ever found out how the Durham Bulls did. You could make a great movie about the Shot Heard Round the World, and the Giants got destroyed by the Yankees that October. There’s no real requirement that a team win the WS or make the WS for it to be a compelling story. Don’t get hung up by the language.

        That said, you make a great point about the accomplishments of the Rays. Maybe Jonah Keri can option the rights to The Extra 2% for a movie deal. Like Wall Street meets Major League.

      • scatterbrian - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:48 PM

        Like it or not, what happened in Oakland changed the landscape of baseball and how it’s analyzed by both fans and front offices. The Rays are a great story, but it didn’t change the game like the A’s did.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:51 PM

        If this movie was being marketed as a comedy, like Major League, then I wouldn’t complain. However, it is being marketed as the greatest innovation in baseball history and I think that without the team it is based on even winning a title, it is a little full of itself. Kinda like Billy Beane and the rest of the MOneyball-ites.

      • Chris Fiorentino - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM

        “Like it or not, what happened in Oakland changed the landscape of baseball and how it’s analyzed by both fans and front offices. The Rays are a great story, but it didn’t change the game like the A’s did.”

        No scatter, it changed the way baseball is sold to sucker fans who think their team is in a small market and front offices who want to advance such claims.

      • The Common Man/ - Jun 16, 2011 at 4:08 PM

        Explain this last point. I don’t get your point. Does finding undervalued resources and taking advantage of them not work?

      • baseballstars - Jun 16, 2011 at 4:16 PM

        I’m with Chris here. The story of the Rays, the cheap team in the AL EAST, is way more intriguing than the A’s. And since MLB started doing PED testing, Moneyball philosophy has tanked.

        Granted, I do think BB should get credit for thinking differently and opening up the doors to evaluate performance based on more than just traditional stats. But there’s more to the story than what most people subscribe to. Like others have said, BB traded away some really, really good prospects (before they made it to the majors), hurting the team long-term more than helping it short-term.

      • The Common Man/ - Jun 16, 2011 at 4:37 PM

        Baseballstars, what exactly do you think the “Moneyball philosophy” is? From your talk of steroids, it sounds like you mean the take-n-rake that the A’s employed from that era. But that’s not the actual strategy. The strategy (indeed, as it’s successfully deployed by the Rays) is to find undervalued and underpriced resources that you can use to improve your team.

      • baseballstars - Jun 16, 2011 at 5:42 PM

        MB is pretty self-explanatory – squeezing as much value out of your resources as possible. Instead of valuing traditional stats, on-base percentage and OPS became much more important. Like all those stats, though, they were inflated by PEDs. Anyone remember John Jaha? Dude crushed 30+ homers, 100+ RBIs in 1999 for the A’s, then fell off the map. Steroids inflated those numbers that MB relied heavily on. And MB doesn’t explain the dumb trades BB made that have caused the team to regress from all the success it previously had. In short, MB = useful, but overrated.

    • Paul Zummo - Jun 16, 2011 at 4:50 PM

      And since MLB started doing PED testing, Moneyball philosophy has tanked.

      This makes literally no sense. I don’t believe that steroids were a market inefficiency that Sandy Alderson and then Billy Beane were trying to exploit.

      • baseballstars - Jun 16, 2011 at 5:48 PM

        What doesn’t make sense is how you somehow misconstrued what I said about steroids with Alderson and Beane trying to exploit its usage. They were using stats to evaluate players that would maximize their dollar value. Those stats were inflated by steroids. When drug testing went in, many of those players subsequently tanked. It’s no coincidence that the A’s peaked from 2000-2003, then declined (with the exception of 2006). Giambi was juiced to high heaven. Besides, young pitching was the primary key for the A’s success, and trading that pitching at the right time.

      • baseballstars - Jun 16, 2011 at 5:52 PM

        It’s like scouring the market for undervalued stocks without taking into consideration inflation.

    • clydeserra - Jun 16, 2011 at 6:04 PM

      Are the Rays an interesting story though?

      you lose for 10 years and stock pile great draft picks then when they mature, you win.

      How is that compelling?

  5. clydeserra - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:24 PM

    This looks much better in its full form. The cuts they used on the ET teaser were crap

  6. The Common Man/ - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:26 PM

    Really, you couldn’t pony up for Ed Harris to play Sandy Alderson? That’s weak.

  7. cur68 - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:32 PM

    Yep. Definitely gonna see it. My thesis is based on very similar principals; overlooking some obvious, though boring, concepts in favor of more flashy, expensive options is not always the way to go. You can win by doing certain, low cost things and being a bit creative. I’m selling the rights to my movie for $2 billion. Canadian.

    • royalsfaninfargo - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:44 PM

      At the exchange rate right now that is pretty much even money Cur!

      • cur68 - Jun 16, 2011 at 4:29 PM

        The fee the bank would charge me to exchange it would cause a loss of profit. You buyin’?

  8. santoslegs - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:51 PM

    So is this set in modern times, since Pitt mentions texted scores to him?

    • clydeserra - Jun 16, 2011 at 3:53 PM


      • santoslegs - Jun 16, 2011 at 4:13 PM

        be that as it is, 2002, how many people we texting?

      • scatterbrian - Jun 16, 2011 at 4:33 PM

        I was. Text messaging was available in the mid 90s.

  9. baseballstars - Jun 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM

    When can we expect the sequel where the Red Sox signed a bunch of guys in 2010, justified by sabermetrics, to help them win the title? You know, guys like Mike Cameron, John Lackey, and Marco Scutaro.

    And before I get labeled as a Joe Morgan neanderthal when it comes to sabermetrics, I just want to say that they can be useful – if interpreted correctly within proper context, and knowing how certain outcomes are weighted by equations. The problem is that this type of philosophy works well for teams on a small budget. I just don’t know how well they work for rich teams like the Sox. That philosophy didn’t help in ’10, and those guys aren’t contributing to the Sox anymore.

    • The Common Man/ - Jun 16, 2011 at 4:40 PM

      I dunno, baseballstars, maybe we can expect a sequel where the Red Sox use the same idea, of finding good players that other teams don’t appreciate properly and deploy them to maximum advantage, to win the 2004 and 2007 World Series. You’re confusing valuing walks (which, indeed, we should value) with the idea that undervalued resources can be leveraged to create a competitive advantage (which is what Lewis’ book was about). Walks aren’t really very undervalued anymore, and teams have moved on to find other inefficiencies.

      • baseballstars - Jun 16, 2011 at 5:50 PM

        The Red Sox did not win their titles with a small pocketbook. They emulated the Yankees and spent like crazy. I wouldn’t call what they did to win their championships “moneyball.”

    • clydeserra - Jun 16, 2011 at 6:10 PM

      the red sox spent on guys like Kevin Millar and bill Mueller and mark bellhorn, who are moneyball type batters.

      And don’t forget keeping Youkilis

      • baseballstars - Jun 16, 2011 at 6:30 PM

        How many of their true impact players were from trades? Besides, every team that has won a championship had those type of good role-players. Youkilis wasn’t a product of MB. The Red Sox made some excellent trades that really helped their team.

      • scatterbrian - Jun 17, 2011 at 1:49 PM

        Dude, Beane referred to Youkilis as “The Greek God of Walks” in Moneyball.

  10. md23rewlz - Jun 17, 2011 at 4:37 PM

    I just think this trend of making movies about really really really recent events is slightly odd. When you’re making biopics about people who are still young and alive, it just feels weird. Felt weird when they made ‘The Social Network,’ felt weird when they did ‘127 Hours,’ and it feels weird with ‘Moneyball.’ Beane is still the GM in Oakland and they’ve already made a movie about him? It doesn’t mean the movie will be bad, of course, but with reality and fantasy existing in such close proximity, the world’s probably going to explode.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2457)
  2. D. Span (2305)
  3. G. Stanton (2226)
  4. Y. Puig (2187)
  5. J. Fernandez (2147)
  1. G. Springer (1965)
  2. B. Crawford (1897)
  3. M. Sano (1776)
  4. M. Teixeira (1769)
  5. J. Hamilton (1696)