Jason Grimsley: Kiss My Ass!!!

[gblowfish]

Last night I was channel surfing, and the movie "Moneyball" came on. Part of the story is, the Oakland A's -a franchise I despise almost as much as the Yankees- is working on an American League record winning streak. Of all teams, they can set the record (20 straight wins) against (who else?) but the Kansas City Royals. This was in 2002. I found the line score and official game record on espn here:

http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=220904111

Anyway, here's my beef with Oakland. They were Charlie Finley's bitch back in 1968, nabbing KC's baseball team right before they got good. Right after they moved to Oakland, they started winning, and had a dynasty in the early 1970s. They were the team that was in the Royals way to success in the early years. They pissed on us until we finally blew past them around 1976.

Anyway, it would have been so sweet to pay them back for their good fortune at our expense. The Royals have been so useless for so long, all they had to do was beat them in this ONE GAME to get historic payback. Instead, Paul Byrd goes out and gets hammered. Royals go down 11-0 by the third inning. Pathetic, but they do mount a furious comeback. Sweeney hits a 3-run homer to draw them within one in the 8th, Royals tie it in top of the ninth, 11-11, then JASON FREAKING GRIMSLEY gives up a dinger to LOSE in the bottom of the ninth. A walk off homer, A's fans go nuts, KC is still Oakland's bitch.

Goddamn it, that movie made me mad, making me re-live that again.

The uniforms in the movie were cool, anyway. They were pretty accurate. Saw actors playing Ibanez, Sweeney, Randa, Kit Pellow, and JASON FREAKING GRIMSLEY. GOD....I HATE that guy.



That is all.
When's spring training start???

[mikeyis4dcats.]

[Thig Lyfe]

That was the best scene of the movie for me. Seeing Mike Sweeney and lesser mother****ers portrayed in an overall pretty good movie starring Brad Pitt? So surreal. Even though the Royals lost.

[KC_Connection]

Moneyball is a pretty good movie, actually. I was surprised it was done as well as it was.

[chefsos]

You'd think Grimsley would've gotten that guy out, as much as he was roiding.

[stevenidol]

Paul Byrd and Darrell May gave up the 11 runs before him, so they get most of the credit for the meltdown.

I hated being reminded of Neifi Perez even being on the Royals when Mike Sweeney drove him in with that HR.

[DJ's left nut]

Hated, hated, hated that movie.

Beane was wrong throughout it. Pena was a better player than Hatteberg. And when Howe said "Bradford would've had to face a lefty" and our hero Billy says "I don't care, I want Bradford" I wanted to punch him in the face. Bradford vs. a LH hitter was a losing proposition. Bradford got rocked by LHers his entire damn career.

The A's didn't win that year because of David Justice and Scott Hatteberg. They won because Miguel Tejada was an MVP, Eric Chavez was a stud, Billy Koch threw 1000 MPH and because Mulder, Hudson and Zito won about 18gms/piece on barely more than the ML minimum because Beane's predecessor was smart enough to draft them.

Ugh...**** the cult of Billy Beane. The book is good because it focuses on the idea of undervalued assets and things of that nature. But the movie bastardized the hell out of it by making it exactly about what the book isn't - walks and 3R homers. No, that's not the Depodesta approach to undervalued assets.

Stupid movie. Awful, trite, contrived, half-cocked, insultingly diluted movie. I don't know how that movie didn't drive any self-respecting baseball fan right through the damn roof.

[HC_Chief]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Hated, hated, hated that movie.

Beane was wrong throughout it. Pena was a better player than Hatteberg. And when Howe said "Bradford would've had to face a lefty" and our hero Billy says "I don't care, I want Bradford" I wanted to punch him in the face. Bradford vs. a LH hitter was a losing proposition. Bradford got rocked by LHers his entire damn career.

The A's didn't win that year because of David Justice and Scott Hatteberg. They won because Miguel Tejada was an MVP, Eric Chavez was a stud, Billy Koch threw 1000 MPH and because Mulder, Hudson and Zito won about 18gms/piece on barely more than the ML minimum because Beane's predecessor was smart enough to draft them.

Ugh...**** the cult of Billy Beane. The book is good because it focuses on the idea of undervalued assets and things of that nature. But the movie bastardized the hell out of it by making it exactly about what the book isn't - walks and 3R homers. No, that's not the Depodesta approach to undervalued assets.

Stupid movie. Awful, trite, contrived, half-cocked, insultingly diluted movie. I don't know how that movie didn't drive any self-respecting baseball fan right through the damn roof.

So, you're saying it's a 3 out of 5 stars?

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Hated, hated, hated that movie.

Beane was wrong throughout it. Pena was a better player than Hatteberg. And when Howe said "Bradford would've had to face a lefty" and our hero Billy says "I don't care, I want Bradford" I wanted to punch him in the face. Bradford vs. a LH hitter was a losing proposition. Bradford got rocked by LHers his entire damn career.

The A's didn't win that year because of David Justice and Scott Hatteberg. They won because Miguel Tejada was an MVP, Eric Chavez was a stud, Billy Koch threw 1000 MPH and because Mulder, Hudson and Zito won about 18gms/piece on barely more than the ML minimum because Beane's predecessor was smart enough to draft them.

Ugh...**** the cult of Billy Beane. The book is good because it focuses on the idea of undervalued assets and things of that nature. But the movie bastardized the hell out of it by making it exactly about what the book isn't - walks and 3R homers. No, that's not the Depodesta approach to undervalued assets.

Stupid movie. Awful, trite, contrived, half-cocked, insultingly diluted movie. I don't know how that movie didn't drive any self-respecting baseball fan right through the damn roof.

Yeah, no mention about that stud staff they had at all in the movie. It was entertaining but flawed.

[Three7s]

Originally Posted by whoman69

Yeah, no mention about that stud staff they had at all in the movie. It was entertaining but flawed.

The whole entire theme was all about the value of OBP. I couldn't believe the big 3 was hardly ever mentioned.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Hated, hated, hated that movie.

Beane was wrong throughout it. Pena was a better player than Hatteberg. And when Howe said "Bradford would've had to face a lefty" and our hero Billy says "I don't care, I want Bradford" I wanted to punch him in the face. Bradford vs. a LH hitter was a losing proposition. Bradford got rocked by LHers his entire damn career.

The A's didn't win that year because of David Justice and Scott Hatteberg. They won because Miguel Tejada was an MVP, Eric Chavez was a stud, Billy Koch threw 1000 MPH and because Mulder, Hudson and Zito won about 18gms/piece on barely more than the ML minimum because Beane's predecessor was smart enough to draft them.

Ugh...**** the cult of Billy Beane. The book is good because it focuses on the idea of undervalued assets and things of that nature. But the movie bastardized the hell out of it by making it exactly about what the book isn't - walks and 3R homers. No, that's not the Depodesta approach to undervalued assets.

Stupid movie. Awful, trite, contrived, half-cocked, insultingly diluted movie. I don't know how that movie didn't drive any self-respecting baseball fan right through the damn roof.

You looking or expecting for any kind of realism in a movie marketed towards people who don't know anything about baseball is the problem here. I had similar criticisms the first time I watched it (the Pena trade, the making scouts out to be complete idiots, the rather ridiculous trade negotiation, etc.) but on a second viewing, I stopped picking at minor/largely irrelevant details like that, tried to watch it from the perspective of somebody without my biases and all of my prior knowledge about Beane/the A's/Moneyball, and recognized its value as a pretty entertaining and well-made film with some heart.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

You looking or expecting for any kind of realism in a movie marketed towards people who don't know anything about baseball is the problem here. I had similar criticisms the first time I watched it (the Pena trade, the making scouts out to be complete idiots, the rather ridiculous trade negotiation, etc.) but on a second viewing, I stopped picking at minor/largely irrelevant details like that, tried to watch it from the perspective of somebody without my biases and all of my prior knowledge about Beane/the A's/Moneyball, and recognized its value as a pretty entertaining and well-made film with some heart.

There will be no second viewing...

(said in my most ominous voice)

EDIT: I think the problem is that it was made so damn soon. 1/2 the players in that movie are still active ballplayers, FFS. You're not going to slip the whole "Oh, and Tim Huson was the best pitcher in the AL that season" by anyone that gives a crap less than a decade later.

[dirk digler]

I love that movie. I watched it about 10 times since it has been on HBO\Showtime.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Hated, hated, hated that movie.

Beane was wrong throughout it. Pena was a better player than Hatteberg. And when Howe said "Bradford would've had to face a lefty" and our hero Billy says "I don't care, I want Bradford" I wanted to punch him in the face. Bradford vs. a LH hitter was a losing proposition. Bradford got rocked by LHers his entire damn career.

The A's didn't win that year because of David Justice and Scott Hatteberg. They won because Miguel Tejada was an MVP, Eric Chavez was a stud, Billy Koch threw 1000 MPH and because Mulder, Hudson and Zito won about 18gms/piece on barely more than the ML minimum because Beane's predecessor was smart enough to draft them.

Ugh...**** the cult of Billy Beane. The book is good because it focuses on the idea of undervalued assets and things of that nature. But the movie bastardized the hell out of it by making it exactly about what the book isn't - walks and 3R homers. No, that's not the Depodesta approach to undervalued assets.

Stupid movie. Awful, trite, contrived, half-cocked, insultingly diluted movie. I don't know how that movie didn't drive any self-respecting baseball fan right through the damn roof.

Its a great movie. i truly enjoyed it.

It doesnt matter if Billy was right or wrong, makes no difference in my enjoyment of the movie.

[gblowfish]

Game box score is here.
Beltran went oh for four.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/box-...d=200209040OAK