Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Art Howe gets wacky on Moneyball portrayal; Raddy/Krueger strike out



Art Howe, the former A's manager, blew a fuse, (well, maybe a light bulb), on Bay Area sports radio stations Tuesday. (He did phonos with both KNBR and 95.7's "The Game").

Too bad the hosts of the respective shows showed such dim-witted "interview" technique. Bad knowledge!

On Knibber, Howe was questioned by Raddy and Mr. Softie, (Larry Krueger); both sounded like presidents of the booster club and were obviously sucked in to the short side of the picture.

Howe let it be known that he was none-to-thrilled with Oscar-winner, Phillip Seymour-Hoffmann's, portrayal of him in the fictional movie, "Moneyball." (Underline, fictional.)

OK, fine.

Did the lame-brain questioners bother to explain to Howe that Hollywood producers and directors tend to play with the facts in most movies. They're looking to make a picture entertaining and rake in lots of money. I doubt seriously Brad Pitt, Aaron Sorkin, or even Billy Beane, for that matter, had some sort of agenda to make Art Howe look like a lout.

That would have taken a bit of homework and show prep for Raddy and Krueger to highlight, but like most "sports interviews", the hosts were too busy concentrating on and soothing Howe's ego.

I'm not an anti-Howe guy--frankly, I really don't know the guy, but he's crazy to suggest that the movie's people chose to go after him. And Beane? I seriously doubt it, but that's not the point here.

When you have two guys who clearly have no understanding about the ins and outs of making a fictionalized movie, then you have a problem. (But what else is new?)

Raddy tried to cover for himself by even mentioning, half-hearted, that, "hey Art, it's only a movie." Krueger stuck to the minor-league chalk lines: "You think Billy Beane will call you and apologize?" Oh, shit, Krueger, get a fuckin' clue, will ya!

I didn't hear Howe's bitchin' on 95.7 FM because I don't listen to that alleged outlet anymore. Something tells me the yo-yo's were no better than Gary and Larry. Yeah, I'm such a wise ass. Sue me.

*Follow me on Twitter

13 comments:

  1. Did the lame-brain questioners bother to explain to Howe that Hollywood producers and directors tend to play with the facts in most movies. They're looking to make a picture entertaining and rake in lots of money. I doubt seriously Brad Pitt, Aaron Sorkin, or even Billy Beane, for that matter, had some sort of agenda to make Art Howe look like a lout.

    Agenda or not they made him come off looking like a lout. Baseball is like most other enterprises in that once a whispering campaign begins it takes on a life of its own. Rest assured baseball is comprised of your fellow citizens....you know...morons. This could wind up hurting Howe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 95.7's interview was better, but still didn't ask really tough questions. Garry and Larry were just trying to add negativity to the movie/A's as their Giant masters no doubt requested.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From the Contra Costa Times:

    Howe continued that Beane "knows who I am and what I did for the organization for seven years. ... If he watched this movie, which I'm sure he has, he knows there was a lot of injustice done here. I would hope he would be man enough to step up and call me and say, 'Hey Art, I'm really sorry this happened.' "

    Asked if he expected Beane to reach out to him, Howe said, "Not really."

    Not a huge Krueger fan myself, but let's put his relatively lame question in context, which in effect was piggybacking Howe's own comments.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's too bad that Hollywood decided to make Art Howe look like a fool, but they also didn't do a very good job presenting what that team was all about. Howe is one of the great gentlmen of the game, and he was treated shabbily in real life by Beane, and unfairly by the movie. Howe was a very good manager for a team that won three straight playoff berths, and his reward was being cut loose after the '02 season by the strutting egotist, Beane.
    And what in the name of ....did Chad Bradford or Scott Hatteburg (outside of his game-winning homer in win number 20 of their long winning streak) do to deserve so much attention in this movie? Plus there was absolutely no focus or even a cursory mention of stalwarts such as Tejeda, Giambi, Jermaine Dye, Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder, Bill Koch, Eric Chavez and Barry Zito, each of whom had scads more to do with the A's being a winner that year than either Hatteburg or Bradford!

    Also I had a beef with the movie making Billy
    Beane look like such a genius and that
    all the credit for the A's success should go to him! He did a very good job, but so too did the aforementioned players and manager Art Howe, who deserved better than Phillip Seymour Hoffman's inaccurate and ridiculous depiction.

    So overall, I was very disappointed that the movie was inaccurate, and with the exception of Brad Pitt's spot-on portrayal of Beane, the film exxagerated or completely misrepresented the other key figures (Jonah Hill and Phillip Seymour Hoffman are good actors, but the people they played were nothing even close to being anything like Howe and Asst GM David Forst.
    Leave it to Hollywood once again to completely miss the boat when it comes to accurately portraying real life characters. The story of how the 2002 season went was also somewhat skewed. I'd give the whole thing a C minus.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I used to think that Billy Beane was a f--king genius. After reading the book repeatly, I realized that he is a f--king opportunist, not a freaking genius. Walsh and Belichick are sport strategy geniuses. Jobs is a marketing genius. Beane is just a b.s artist.

    Once Paul D.(Peter Brand) left, what happened to the team.

    Basically Billy is a good car salesman/horse trader. Overall, he opened his big mouth and the rest is history. Ask him why hasn't his team has not reached the playoff since 2007!? Ask him if marrying into the Haas family helped him a lot.

    Some of us know that Gary R is dick head. But Larry K. is a f--king brown noser. Ask him why did KGO Radio get rid of him after 2 yrs!?

    ReplyDelete
  6. While not exactly a documentary, "Moneyball" wasn't fictional. I don't blame Art for getting hot.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I usually agree with you, but think your analysis is silly, in this case. Of course, it's just a movie. But a guy who had an otherwise pretty benign public opinion in the Bay Area gets made to look like a loser in a feature film, and I can understand why he wants to make sure the public knows the truth.

    I say this having not heard Art's calls and only going off of the facts in the story. I don't blame the guy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I listened to that broadcast, and, although the mention was brief, they did point out the whole notion that 'Hollywood' took liberties to make it an interesting story. Ironic that in a post that you mention the 'fiction' of the movie, you've only supported the notion that, perhaps, there is a strong 'fiction' (or at least a bias) in how you choose to cherry pick stories about the local media.

    I'd been getting pretty tired of Radnich in recent years, and really felt that he was done after the ill-fated pairing with Bruce. But, to be honest, I think he and Larry do work relatively well together. It's far more listenable than it was towards the end of his run with Dibley and P-Con (I could barely stand Dibley at KNBR, and now, at 95.7, his smarmyness is intolerable). Good radio? Eh.. no nothing great, but better than the alternative at 'The Game'.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hollywood regularly traffics in fantasy, which is all well and good when you're making a movie about big blue men. However, when you're making a "docu-drama" about real people and USING THEIR REAL NAMES, you have some responsibility to depict those people within sniffing distance of reality.

    You're a fool once for writing an analysis of an interview you didn't even listen to. You're a fool twice for scolding Art for standing up for himself against an unfair depiction.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I saw the movie with someone who covered the A's and knew Howe and Billy Beane. He agrees with me that Phillip Seymour Hoffman and hack screenwriter Aaron Sorkin should be convicted of first degree character assassination. Hoffman did an Acting 101 straight-off-the-shelf sullen angry manager. They libeled him simply to create a subplot. Howe most certainly was NOT obsessed with a new contract and he did not sabotage Billy Beane's strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I posted here about how much time this last year Radnich has spent spinning his angry -co hosts rants. Sure enough,Radnich had to go into a long bit to cover Kruegers anger rants yesterday. Making excuses,jokes..just to keep the heat off of Angry Larry.
    Bungerhole is shoveling the dirt on Radnich with these lousy pairings and Radnich is using 40 years of being in the bizz to dig himself out of the KNBR's a-holes.
    signed,
    the masked
    'S'

    ReplyDelete
  12. Will Baer let them fire ralpharoo? He calls the shots over there. That's why no on except D. Bruce rips on the Giants. I was surprised he allowed Krueger back.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think the point of the movie was that the A's were going to continually lose their "stars" so Beane was going to have to get quality production from has beens and other flawed players. So if Howe didn't want to play Hattie vs developing Pena that is a solid mgr's decision but the reality is as soon as Pena was available he would be gone. Giambi, Damon and Izzy left and then Hudson Zito Mulder Tejada et al departed for bigger money. Moneyball the movie was about showing to the layman how a small market team would be able to compete. The current A's are doing much better than the Kansas City A's did a generation ago.

    ReplyDelete