Skip to content

Mark Mulder watched and live-tweeted “Moneyball” last night

Jul 3, 2014, 9:57 AM EDT

Mark Mulder was one of the stars of the “Moneyball” Oakland A’s back in 2002. But, until last night, he had never seen “Moneyball,” the movie that depicted that team and that season. Well, mostly did. If you watched it you’d get the impression that team was all castoffs and old men and didn’t have an amazing young pitching staff, but never you mind.

Anyway, Mulder started off:

And had several fun observations, some of the debunking variety, many of which I wondered about the first time I saw the movie too:

Go read the rest of his tweets here. Overall: he liked the movie. And seemed to do what a lot of people who watched the movie were unable to do: accept that movies sometimes fictionalize real life events for dramatic purposes and not get too hung up on it.

  1. stex52 - Jul 3, 2014 at 10:22 AM

    Yeah, a movie is not a documentary unless it says so. And sometimes not even then. But Mulder picked up on my three biggest complaints:

    1. The A’s had a pitching staff? You never would have guessed it from the movie.
    2.It wasn’t that big a rejuvenation. They were a very good team the year before.
    3. The movie was a mugging of Art Howe. But so was the book. I have no idea why Beane disliked Howe so much, but it would appear from the book that he did. And Lewis wasn’t particularly perceptive about when he was being played.

  2. phipfwe76 - Jul 3, 2014 at 11:29 AM

    Your #2 was my biggest issue with the movie. It was based off just the 2002 season, and I assume because it was the year they won 20 in a row, which is what the movie focused on. What it really was, was the 4th of 8 straight winning season for the A’s. I would have preferred a movie on what you can build long-term with the strategy, not what you can build for 3 weeks or 6 months.

    • asimonetti88 - Jul 3, 2014 at 12:27 PM

      While that makes for a good book or documentary, that kind of story wouldn’t make a very compelling movie. A feature film needs to have a buildup to a singular climax. A long-term look at the A’s success would be like a roller coaster up and down, with a buildup to the climax of every season, followed by a letdown into the new season, then back up again, etc. Not as effective as grabbing your audience.

      I personally thought Moneyball was a good movie.

    • bisonaudit - Jul 3, 2014 at 2:58 PM

      It wasn’t 2002 because they won 20 that year. It was 2002 because that’s when Lewis had access. Also, winning 20 in a row is only nominally the climax of the story. The story is actually about needing to understand how winning 20 in a row isn’t what matters. “This is a process. It’s a process. It’s a process.”

  3. ironcurtin64 - Jul 3, 2014 at 11:56 AM

    No complaints here. All movies have a bit of artistic license. The best movie I watched in 2011.

  4. dluxxx - Jul 3, 2014 at 11:59 AM

    I liked his comment about sucking in game 5. Only 2 runs in 6 innings, so I’d say he was being a bit facetious.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Pitching vs. history in NL wild card game
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Jeter (3430)
  2. C. Kershaw (2614)
  3. R. Martin (2546)
  4. A. Rodriguez (2180)
  5. D. Gordon (2008)
  1. J. Altuve (1971)
  2. J. Hamilton (1954)
  3. I. Suzuki (1756)
  4. D. Ortiz (1738)
  5. E. Volquez (1717)