In case you still care about Moneyball…
Posted By Jeff Fletcher on June 26, 2009 11:04 am
Here’s an explanation of what went wrong between the December version of the script and the one that got rejected last week.
(By the way, there were some Twitter rumors that the movie was back on again, picked up by another studio, but to the best of my Googling ability, I have been unable to find a story confirming that.)
Anyway, I read the December script, written by Steven Zaillian, when it was posted on this blog — it’s since been removed, but I made a copy 
— and I actually liked it. I still don’t think it would have been a huge commercial success, but it did succeed in bringing the stat geeky stuff a little more toward the mainstream to make it comprehensible. It also put in the required chick-flick appeal like showing some of Billy Beane’s relationship with his ex-wife and daughter, which I don’t think was in the book at all. The huge glaring bit of poetic license in the Zaillian’s script was he has Beane finding Paul DePodesta in Cleveland after the 2001 season, and DePodesta basically shows him all the sabermetric stuff and Beane hires him. In real life, DePodesta came in 1989(oops) 1998. I also feel pretty confident that Beane was already aware of on-base percentage (having worked for Sandy Alderson) prior to DePodesta’s arrival.
The script also makes it look like the 2002 A’s were just like the Indians from the movie Major League, a ragtag bunch of no-talents who formed the perfect team. This ignores the fact that they had Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, Miguel Tejada and Eric Chavez, all in their prime. Then again, the book pretty much ignored that too, so in that sense it’s accurate.
If you read the blog post linked at the top, you’ll see that the screenplay that director Steven Soderburgh was more like a documentary, not nearly as dramatic or interesting.
“so you’re telling me there’s a chance”
YES!
I had similar reactions to several items you included. The A’s started using statistical analysis long before the time frame covered in the script when Beane was a scout. He’s talked in interviews about being familiar with Bill James’ stuff since the early 90′s. This should be somewhat implicit by the drafting of a guy like Giambi in the first place. Although the A’s scouting staff tended to be old school, they also knew about that stuff and understood it was part of the process. The script makes it seem like the first time they ever heard of it. The stuff with DePodesta could very easily be corrected. There is no reason the scene where he “trades” for him couldn’t be placed in the proper time line.
I think the stuff about his reaction to Giambi’s departure is overly dramatic. You have to think since Hatteberg and Justice were both attached that their storylines have some element of truth, at least from their perspective.
I was expecting a little more of the Beane as the can’t miss prospect throughout. I thought the usage of BIll James for each chapter was an interesting device, kind of like the old agent in Jerry McGuire.
I don’t see how this could have been a huge success but I think it could have been made entertaining at least for baseball fans.
I actually have obtained a copy of the revised script, and while it’s much more accurate, it’s also much less dramatic. More of a documentary than a movie. I can see why they didn’t want it. I’ll post some more thoughts on the revised script when I’m done reading it.
If they intend to take liberties with the truth to make the story compelling, they should combine Moneyball with the autobiography of Billy Bean.