http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2011/09/28/art-howe-livid-over-his-portrayal-in-moneyball/ Every movie needs a villain, and for one of the top grossing movies of the last week, the villain resides among us. At least that’s how the movie seemed to portray it at times, but Art Howe, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman in the blockbuster baseball film Moneyball, tells a very different story of the events interpreted by Hollywood. Howe, who played for the Astros from 1976-82, managed them from 1989-93 and now does the pre- and postgame shows for Fox Sports Houston, living in Houston all the while, was the manager of the Oakland Athletics club on which the movie was based. He was shown being consistently at odds with general manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) and consumed with his own personal financial future. His recollection of the events is quite different, and Howe felt betrayed by the movie, based on a 2003 Michael Lewis book for which he says he was consulted only for about 10 minutes. Here are his thoughts on his unceremonious big screen debut. Q: What was it like to be portrayed on screen and how did you feel you were portrayed? A: First of all, Philip Seymour Hoffman physically didn’t resemble me in any way. He was a little on the heavy side. And just the way he portrayed me was very disappointing and probably 180 degrees from what I really am, so that was disappointing too. Q: Was the contract an issue? I know that was a big thing in the movie and almost how they introduced you in the movie. A: That was fictitious. They didn’t do their homework as far as the movie was concerned because I was on a two-year contract through 2003. I had another year after that. My agent always took care of my contract; I never negotiated with Billy, especially not in the hallway of the clubhouse. Never happened. Q: What was your working relationship like with Billy? A: It was a job. It was a work of labor. He was a little difficult to work with. We got the job done. I had a great staff and our minor league system did a good job of preparing players for us. And our scouting department, before this so-called Moneyball, did a great job of bringing good young players into the system. Q: Was he a clubhouse presence like he was portrayed in the movie? A: More so than any general manager I’ve ever worked with. He’d lift weights during the game right across the hall and be in the clubhouse. Generally when we were home, he was in the clubhouse almost every night. Q: Did you find that to be OK? Undermining? A: He’s my boss. I guess he has the right to be in the clubhouse. In the past, general managers really didn’t come in the clubhouse that much. In fact, when I was a player, I rarely saw my general manager. But times have changed. Q: What were your thoughts at the time of the way he and Paul DePodesta (aka Peter Brand, played by Jonah Hill in the movie) did their player evaluations? A: It was different. It was certainly a different thing to a degree, but everybody in baseball knows that on-base percentage is important. He really zeroed in on that, and everybody bought into it that there was something really different that they were doing. Q: How do you look back on your time in Oakland? A: I think it was a great learning experience, and for me it was a good experience. We went from last place to first place. My last few years there, we played in the postseason, won 102 and 103 games, set an all-time record for winning streak with 20 straight wins. I’m real proud of what I helped achieve there; it certainly wasn’t a one-man deal or a two-man deal. It was the whole organization. Great pitching with (Mark) Mulder, (Tim) Hudson and (Barry) Zito and a guy named (Cory) Lidle, who was our fourth starter and had a good year for us, and Billy Koch had (44) saves for us. Miguel Tejada was MVP at shortstop. Zito was the Cy Young Award winner that year, and Koch was the Fireman of the Year. That’s where I was really disappointed with the movie also, is that none of these players got any credit. Q: Carlos Pena played an interesting role, and it wasn’t even a footnote what he went on to do. Did you see stardom when you first saw him, or at least his ability to get to an All-Star level like he’s gotten to? A: Right from the beginning. We knew he was an outstanding defensive first baseman. He’s a rookie; there’s going to be learning curves and he’s going to have to take some lumps. As we’ve actually seen throughout his career, he’s kind of a streak type hitter. He went through a funk with us and Billy decided he didn’t want him with us anymore. It kind of opened the door for one of his experiments, I guess, with Scott Hatteberg. And Scottie’s a great guy, a good teammate and a hard-nosed kid. He did a good job for us. Q: Would you like to manage again? A: Under the right circumstances, yes. Q: Do you feel that this (movie and book) affects your name in baseball circles? A: It certainly doesn’t help it the way I was portrayed. I think the book hurt me and now the movie. I want people who don’t know Art Howe – that’s the problem with the movie – I’ve spent my whole career trying to build a good reputation and be a good baseball man and someone who people like to play for and all of the above. Then in two hours, people who don’t know me – and Brad Pitt’s a big name, people are going to see his movies – and all these people across the country are going to go in and get this perception of me that’s totally unfair and untruthful. So I’m very upset.
While Art certainly has biases of his own - wanting to portray himself in as positive a light as possible - I tend to believe his version of events and would be pissed, too.... especially if you consider how overblown the whole moneyball thing is these days. http://www.mademan.com/10-reasons-real-life-moneyball-is-overrated/
What a stupid article. The part where the author says he doesn't know who the GM of the Rays was when they went to the WS (LOL O RLY?) is bad enough. Then he makes the comment that he isn't considered a genius. Um...Friedman is considered by many to be one the smartest GMs in the game. He then jokes that "lol he probably stole his ideas from Beane!" sarcastically. Jokes on you dumbbutt, Friedman is absolutely a statistician. He also cracks on the A's for not winning the WS during Beane's years. Guess what? The two teams that constantly heat him, the Red Sox and Yankees, believed in all of Beane's concepts. They did what he did but did it with 100 million more. Cashman even said in a NY article in the past month that he was thrilled when Moneyball got published, because while the Yankees already believed a lot of the same things (they had zeroed in on OBP around 1994) they were glad to get an inside look at how Beane operated. All in all, that article read like it was written by a mouth breathing fan who has never read the book and doesn't understand statistical analysis at all. Here's a hint for him, since 1996, the Yankees and Red Sox have implemented most of the things that Beane focused in on as statistical factors for success. In that time (16 seasons) those two teams have won 7 world series titles and played for 9 of them.
Well from his own quotes it sounds like he didn't exactly get along with Billy Beane. Haven't seen the money or read the book, so don't know how much artistic license was taken. But from the interview it sounds like there was tension.
I can't say Philip Seymour Hoffman's Howe screamed "career baseball guy" to me. I didn't feel like it was a particularly accurate portrayal, though I suppose that could be blamed on the script.
LOL! I googled Art Howe to see which guy it was, using the images tab. And your post came up in the search (7th row in pics) http://www.google.com/search?q=Art+...ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CBUQ_AUoAQ&biw=1680&bih=987
As far as what it says about the A's and Billy Beane being overrated, I think it is right. It does have obvious bias though, and one shouldn't discount the value of sabermetrics. They are valuable tools.
read the phillip seymour hoffman and the first thing i thought was art was bothered by the physical appearance
I don't disagree with your post, but think the items you point out that make it terrible are exactly what make it appropriate, even if the author didn't elucidate effectively enough. The general public doesn't know about Freidman. Heck most people from Houston probably don't know who it is or that he has Houston ties. And you don't see a movie being made about the Red Sox or Yankees using sabermetrics since the mid 90's (even though that isn't exactly what they did). And you absolutely can tie the effectiveness of it with the A's to their ultimate success. Much of the reason the story has been tied to Billy Beane and the A's is because it is always tied with success with a team with a low payroll. Which is fine... if true. But as the author points out, competently, other teams with similar salary structures considerably outperformed the A's during the period... in much tougher divisions. the author doesn't even mention the 07 rockies (with their ridiculously low payroll). The Giambi factor rings true, as well. If the real story is that you still can't win without having a huge payroll (mostly true), and most good teams with good front offices use advanced statistical analysis, then Billy Beane's moneyball isn't that special?? I understand it became popularized under his watch for the A's, and he probably took it further than many had at the time, but it strikes me as an evolution (more and better access to data leading to the inevitable) a lot more then a revolution. Howe himself notes that people had been looking at other (non BA, HR, etc.) stats for a while, just not quite to that level. To the point of this thread... the book/movie unfairly portrays Howe. as it does other people though - kind of par for the course for those industries, but not everyone who sees non-fiction understands that it doesn't mean everything was completely true. i'm no huge Art Howe fan or anything, but can see why he'd be really upset.
Considering that Brad Pitt played Beane, I guess you could argue that Howe and Paul DePodesta kinda got raw deals :grin:
I can understand Howe being pissed about his portrayal, because he's certainly portrayed as a villain. But, based on the movie, I think the biggest question is whether he refused to play the team the GM built (Hatteburg, etc) and did force the GM into making those trades. If he did, they I think the rest is relatively minor and he deserves to be portrayed as the bad guy. If he didn't, then he has a valid beef.
His portrayal in the book wasn't much better. It's been a few years since I read it, but the way I remember it, Beane liked Howe as a manager because he took an "ignorance is bliss" approach. He managed the team he had and didn't do much talking.
it's a movie, they need conflict, that's understandable, but so is Howe's reaction Using artistic license to play with a man's professional reputation is not cool.
I re-read the book last week while traveling, and Howe doesn't come off nearly as poorly as he does in the movie. Even in the book you get the feeling that he didn't completly buy into the Moneyball concept, but he certainly doesn't come off as openly defiant, which is the way he is portrayed in the movie.
I agree...just because its a "movie" doesn't make it right...THings tend to be over exaggerated to sell...
