Nathan Goldman

Analysis of Moneyball

Introduction

When Moneyball became available in theaters fall of 2011, the general public encountered initial beginnings of a cultural transformation within Baseball culture. The films $110.2 million dollar box office profit (IMdbPro) is a testament to Hollywood's entertaining touch of hyper exaggeration. Groundbreaking Events from the 2002

Oakland Athletics season are based on a true story, however cinema culture intensifies the ideologically dominant resistance facing Oaklands management. Baseball culture has historically had a consistent presence of systematically traditionalist values and expectations. Players are unofficially required to consent their on field presentation according to the sports value of visualized athleticism. Looking like a ballplayer is just as important as on field success. This structural emphasis on visualized athleticism unfortunately hinders an organization's financial efficiency. Evaluating individuals based on physical appearance causes professional baseball teams to overpay for players.

According to an article on Fanduel Sports: “when players do hit free agency, they are often signing long-term deals that stretch well into their less-productive 30s. When players inevitably age, they are vastly overpaid to what they are actually worth.” (Jung,

2020) Moneyball justifies statistical data’s increasingly effective solution to maximize financial capabilities. InsteadTraditionalist talent scouts rely on a heterodoxy

set of standards in the form of visually appealing generalities. Size, speed, personality, and even moral views often determine an athletes chances of benefiting the organization.

As a result of this described cultural misconception, this essay will primarily focus on investigating the hegemonic traditionalism resisting Oaklands management present in Moneyball’s script. Hegemony's dominance fundamentally provides an antagonistic force against team management throughout the majority of the big screen. The the theoretical term Hegemony can be defined as: “ process by which one ideology subverts other competing ideologies and gains cultural dominance through consent..”

(Ott, Mack,p142) Baseball scouts, local sports journalists, and the general public of old school fans are all acting in unison to extinguish this new wave of statistically based ideology. When Oaklands general manager Billy Bean decides to rebel against a system of generational practices, his ideological presence becomes a threat towards the entire cultural identity of baseball. This ideological identity takes the form of a doxa in the eyes of traditionalists. Why would it make sense for Oakland to disrupt a process of evaluation with a generationally reliable method?

In order to analytically dissect this initiation of hegemonic resistance a raw textual investigation is necessary. Four specifically selected scenes from the movie's script will be individually dissected and critiqued. Page numbers from the ScriptSluge.com database will be referenced. Each scene contains unique representations of hegemonic traditionalism, while simultaneously containing a similar thematic presence.

Direct citations and situational descriptions will be established to support current

scholarly discussions about baseball's historically oldschool culture. Before conducting the actual research, this essay will produce an initial hypothesis. Hegemonic player evaluation methods fail to account for the statistical benefits an individual can offer for the team winning percentage, because of an interpolated obsession with athleticism.

Scene#1: “Its an unfair game”

In the opening portion of Moneyball, Oakland suffers a devastating playoff loss against the mighty Newyork Yankees. When the final out is recorded General Manager

Billy Beane aka Brad Pitt, knows his organization was about to lose their three best players to free agency. Severe budget constrictions make it impossible for the Athletics to even resign one member of the trio. After the Athletics Owner Stephen Schott (Tony

Frye, Whitcleatbeat.com) fails to provide any increase on the available budget for next season, Billy’s frustration becomes apartment. His competitive will to win can only be satisfied with a championship banner.His preexisting animosity sets the stage for a pivotal point in the narrative, because it's the first time hegemonic traditionalism is addressed.

Initial camera placement is fixated on a giant white board when the scene begins.

The whiteboard is covered with a multitude of player name cards organized by their defensive positions.Muffled background conversations fill the silence as the camera zooms out. All of a sudan a voice from a new character calls attention to the audience.

A double digit number of older men sitting at a table turn their heads to look at their speaker. Head scout Grady exclaims: “Alright, guys... we had a great year. We won 102 games and we only came a buck short in New York. Now the bad news... we’ve got three big holes to fill.” (Moneyball, P18) Clearly Grady acknowledges that the organization is facing an extremely difficult situation involving potential on field success.

Regardless, it immediately becomes apparent he is going to revert back to his usually strategic reasoning to solve the problem. When he asks the other scouts in the room which players they like for potential replacement options, their answers seem to interest him. The scout known as Keough describes: “I like Geronimo. Guy’s an athlete. This guy is big, fast and talented.” (Moneyball, 18) Unmeasurable generalities are immediately present in Keough’s reasoning for this player analysis.

In reality professional sports including baseball, contain a massive quantity of visually appealing athletes. Additionally, superior athleticism is not guaranteed to transfer into success on a baseball field. The sports skill based motions does not necessarily need strong muscles and quick feet to accomplish. A sports journalist named Conrad Guest, produced an article on Bleacher Report relatable to this claim.

Guest explains:“I look at a team like the Yankees and I see more gifted athletes than I do ballplayers, and they haven’t won a championship since 2000.” (Guest, 2009)

Despite this quote's age of over 10 years, its still relevant because the Yankees have only won one World Series Title in two decades. In relation to Moneyball, the New York

Yankees are responsible for metaphorically enforcing Hegemonic traditionalism. The organization's infinite amount of wealth is a reason why Billy Bean decided to contest the universal method of assembling rosters. There is absolutely no chance for a team like Oakland to obtain enough flashy players to compete with NewYorks empire.

Yankees management usually acquires the undoubtedly successful veterans for top dollar. This entitled mindset definitely causes the Yankees to overlook statistical data.

The Yankees utilized there finances in 2002 to acquire Jason Giambi from Billy Bean’s ball club. A constant theme of Giambi’s ensuing departure heightens the urgency characterized in our initially analyzed scene.

After Grady, and Keough exchange opinions about Geranimo’s potential, Billy

Bean finally decides to make his agitation known.Particularly the claim of: “Good jaw.

He's the real deal” (Moneyball, 18) is his last straw. From a viewer's perspective, its honestly astonishing to witness none of the scouts object to this pointless observation about a players jawline appearance. MIllions of dollars are on the line and this guy is worried about a players attractiveness. Traditionalist affiliation is the only explanation for such a nonchalant response. In other words, nobody questions the flawed take due to faith in the overall credibility of everyone in Oaklands scouting department. Similar perspectives on how to effectively evaluate ball players is assumed. In response to dominant traditionalist values affirming their ideological presence, Billy repeatedly asks:”can he hit?” (Moneyball, 18,19) This simple question furthers Billy's frustration when he receives another unmeasurable generality. According to Keough: “He's got a great swing…. Natural swing” (Moneyball, 19) Praising a natural swings visual attractiveness feels like a universal trait of a good hitter. But what constitutes a natural swing besides an obviously athletic movement? Fortunately Billy cuts right through the hollow claim:”So you're saying he can’t hit?” (Moneyball, 19) When posing this rhetorical

question to his scouting department, a monumental step is taken to oppose a hegemonic process that supposedly benefits the organizations front office , and the player these scouts are complementing. However in reality, a generalized analysis like this could be setting a player up to fail. Billy captures this lack of logic by sarcastically claiming: “right….we put him up against big league competition and suddenly he’ll be able to hit.” As previously stated, this portion of the exchange is significant in the demonstration of systematically hegemonic flaws. The audience needs to understand why a historically significant ideological culture should be altered. Oakland’s loss in the opening scene of the movie is problematic, but its not justifiable to scrap an entire organizational mindset based on a single season's shortcomings. Hegemonic culture shifts take repeated agitational events to begin oppositional reasoning. Billy's sarcasm is only identified by the audience if they are able to interpolate the scouts' patternized failure. Interpellation can be defined as:”..an account of the genesis of the subject; that is, of the subject as an already subjectified, and thus social, being.” (Noela Davis,882)

Monumental financial hurdles, and inefficient patterns of player evaluations, represent the existing subject in place.

Following the establishment of duel subjectivity, Billy gives the scene’s title: “its an unfair game” justification. An enormously thick book is slammed on the table by

Oaklands General Manager. The room goes silent, and all the scouts turn and stare at

Billy. Now these traditionalist scouts are forced to address Billy's agitation because of his unprofessional behavior in a meeting. It is no coincidence that a unprofessional

finally got the scouts attention. Baseball's respectful cultural values contribute to the hegemonic tendency to overlook potential on field success. However Billy doesn't care if he seems rude because he is willing to do what he has to do. That's a theme within

Moneyball. A player's athletic appeal may not always look visually appealing but that doesn't mean they cant contribute to a team's winning ability. Eventually the tension among the entire room is broken by Billy's voice. He proclaims:”.....this is an unfair game. There are rich teams, poor teams, 50 feet of crap and then there’s us.”

(Moneyball,21) Basically, Billy wants his scouting department to understand its literally impossible for their organization to efficiently replicate normalized roster management strategies. He directly intends to demonstrate traditionalist cultures ideological abandonment. It's at this point that Grady finally seems to understand that BIlly is talking about a larger scale problem than just the future of this season's roster. The Head scout relies on his obvious alignment with Baseball cultures majority to radicalize Billy's argument. According to the script: we’re gonna find 25 guys, put ‘em through player development, teach ‘em how to play Oakland A baseball. This is no time to push the panic button. This is the way we’ve been doing it for 150 years. Let us do our job.”

(Moneyball, 22) Grady's phrase “Oakland A baseball” is an attempt to show Billy that current hegemonic values are uncontestable, regardless of how dire the situation appears. Concluding the analysis of this scene with this particular statement feels appropriate. The short textual example, effectively summarizes Hegemony's presence in the entire scene. Normalized Baseball culture values visual generalities when evaluating players because of its interpellated usage among talent scouts. Unmeasurable opinions about a player's potential carry a credible value, because all the scouts in Oaklands organization assume their peers possess the knowledge of dominant cultures' functionality. Everysingle individual in this room is allowed to participate in the discourse by virtue of dominant culture recognizing their authoritative intellectual perspective. In other words, these scouts gained this assumable credibility from previous events throughout their lifetime.

The next section of this analysis will build off this concept by utilizing additional textual examples of Hegemonic culture.

Scene#2 “Enter Peter Brand”

As the movie progresses its becomes critical for the film writers to demonstrate how Billys ideological frustration was able to locate a solution. So far this paper has descriptively discussed the problematic implications of normalized player evaluations, however, we have not explained why statistical data can be effective in producing a winning ballclub. Peter Brand is a pivotal character for illustrating Oaklands plan to avoid ideological suppression from Baseball's dominant traditionalist majority. Aadiance members are introduced to Peter during a business consultation evolving Billy and the

General Manager of the Cleveland ball club. Cleveland is an example of what BIlly means when talking about “rich teams”. In the 2002 season Cleveland's Roster Payroll was $78,909,449 compared to the Athletics' $40,004,167. (The Baseball Cube) With this in mind Billy knows he must think differently than his Cleveland competitters.

Instead of trying to acquire an established vetren, he targets underrated players lacking popular cultures' interpellated generalities based on athleticism. This claim is affirmed in the opening sentences of Billy’s business trip to Cleveland. The hosting General

Manager begins the conversion with asking Billy what he is looking for. (Moneyball,27)

In response to an blatantly rhetorical question. Billy sarcastically answers: “50 million in additional payroll.” (Moneyball, 27) Billy’s response is exactly the answer Cleveland's

GM wanted to hear. He plays along with the sarcastic tone saying: “Try Giambi”

(Moneyball, 27) Intentions of this passively aggressive jab from the Cleveland GM is an attempt to expose the direnss of Oaklands roster situation. Billys advisory hopes this well demonstrates his superior hegemonic position in the roster negotiation.

After exchanging an awkwardly tense greeting with Billy, Cleveland's GM questions Billy about his organization's solution to their challenging offseason. He asks: “Where’s

Steve in all this?” (Moneyball,28) The opposing general manager references Steve because he is the Athletics Owner. This shows that Cleveland's GM recognizes his organization's benefits from baseball's traditionalist culture. He is essentially trying to see Athletics management is willing to take credibility for putting themselves in this horrendous position. Failing to meet the unified expectations associated with forming a competitive roster is simply the fault of Oaklands management, instead of systematic barriers. From the position of this flawed perspective Cleveland is historically successful, because they know how to reap the systematic benefits of traditionalist player evaluation.

When Billy actually begins to discuss possible trade scenarios, the financial gap between the two teams henders his persuasive tactics. Cleveland's GM repeatedly rejects every single one of Billy's offers on underrated players. Eventually BIlly convinces him to consider a desperate offer that clearly positioned Oakland on the losing side of the exchange. Billy pleads: “Let’s make it work, I’ll go straight up with you,

Garcia for Guthrie, no kicker.” (Moneyball, 30) A straight up offer like this is an example of Billy using the systematic benefits of evaluation generalities. He knows that the player he offers posses established athletic appeal, in comparison to his requested acquisition.

Ironically, the Cleveland GM denied the overgenourous offer after a unknown character whispered something in his ear. Additionally, the man who was responsible for the rapid change in the trades bipartisan agreement does not look like a identifiable member of traditionalist Baseball culture. The man's physical frame fails to resemble any athletic potential. Eventually we learn this nerdy looking man is actually Peter Brand. After leaving the trade negotiations empty handed, Billy decides to interrogate Peter in order to find out why his opinion matters. Billys simply asks: “Why does Mark listen to You?”

(Moneyball, 31) At first Brand attempts to dodge the question, until Billy gestures towards the door. Peter follows him outside to the parking garage due to fear of someone overhearing the true ideological framework behind of his player evaluation model. Peter knows the dominant influence of baseball culture would extinguish his ideological perspective if an authoritative member in Cleveland's organization was aware. Once they are completely out of view from any form of hegemonic surveillance

Billy addresses him: “ I’m the first person in baseball who’s ever talked to you this long.

Right? Why is Garcia undervalued?” (Moneyball,33)Clearly Billy assumes that what he is asking Peter to do could potentially end his career in Baseball management. At this point Peter finally gives into the relentless pressure, and proceeds to give Billy the answer he is looking for. Peter explains:”Baseball thinking is medieval. It’s stuck in the

Dark Ages. I have a more scientific view of the game.”(Moneyball,33) Peter finishes this statement with a shaky tone, still expecting Billy to antagonize his radically progressive theory. However, Billy is intrigued by the statement and tells him to keep talking. Peter continues on saying: “There is an epidemic failure within the game to understand what’s really happening. And it leads people who run major league teams to misjudge their players and mismanage their teams. They’re still asking the wrong questions. People who run baseball teams still think in terms of buying players.” (Moneyball, 33) This quote metaphorically serves as the meat and potatoes of this essay's argument.

Hegemonic player evaluation methods fail to account for the statistical benefits an individual can offer for the team winning percentage, because of an obsession with visualized athleticism. Billy recozies that him and Brand share similar ideological agitation. As a result, Peter is hired by the Athletics organization the following day.

Throughout the remainder of the movie, Billy and Peter combine their ideological perspectives to build a winning ballclub full of underrated players. Despite repeating their loss in the opening round of the payoffs, Billy's ability to overcome severe financial obstacles was recognized.

Scene#3 “Recognition”

When the 2002 Athletics season came to an end, Billy received a interview with the historically famous Boston Redsox. Billy is completely blindsided by this random invitation, but decides to attend anyway. Billy's figures that traditionalist dominance in the MLB will suppress his achievement by calling it a fluke or a lucky season. However when the Redsox owner (John) begins the interview, this is not the case. John claims:

“For 41 million you built a playoff team. You lost Damon, Giambi, Isringhausen and

Pena and you won two more games without them than you did with them.” This statement is a monumental moment in the film's plotline, because it breaks the barriers of interpellation when it comes to universal methods of evaluating players. This ideological barrier represents a cultural Doxa in Baseball culture. From the perspective of Ott and Mack, a doxa is defined as: “constructed aspects of a culture that its members do not really challenge or critically reflect on.” (Ott, Mack,141) The members of Baseball culture this definition is referring to includes the Oakland Athletics, and the

Boston Redsox. Once another organization follow the cultural trend, ideologies are no longer universal. After making his sales pitch John slides an envelope over to Billy while saying: “My first offer.” (Moneyball, 159) The amount of money witten on this envelope would make Billy the highest paid General Manager in Baseball history. Five and a half years 12.5 million (Yahoo sports) The magnitude of this offer is extremely important to

Moneyballs Hollywood success because it marked the beginnings of a cultural trend in

Major League Baseball. Oaklands evaluation process became progressive.

Sources

● “Moneyball.” Box Office Mojo, www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl459638273/.

● Jung, Tristan. “7 Most Overpaid MLB Players Heading into the 2020 Season.” The Duel,

The Duel, 21 Feb. 2020, www.fanduel.com/theduel/posts/7-most-overpaid-mlb-players-

heading-into-the-2020-season-01e1mjrg8gb9.

● “Moneyball (2011).” Script Slug, www.scriptslug.com/script/moneyball-2011.

● Gough, Christina. “MLB Franchise Values 2020.” Statista, 29 Apr. 2020,

www.statista.com/statistics/193637/franchise-value-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-

2010/.

● Davis, N. (2012). Subjected Subjects? On Judith Butler's Paradox of Interpellation.

Hypatia, 27(4), 881-897. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01285.x

● Amenta, Edwin. “Opinion: Moneyball Is Ruining Baseball.” MarketWatch, MarketWatch,

28 Mar. 2019, www.marketwatch.com/story/moneyball-has-made-baseball-games-

boring-2019-03-28.

● Ott, Brian L, and Robert L. Mack. Critical Media Studies: An Introduction. , 2014. Print. ●