Nowadays, Bagwell, who retired in late 2006, provides color commentary for Houston, the team that made him a star. In the top of the second in the Astros game on Wednesday, Bagwell discussed his assessment of the movie.

“I just think Moneyball is a farce,” he said. “They had the three best pitchers in baseball. You could’ve stuck anybody out there. My son’s 15-year-old team could have been out there with those three pitchers.”

The three pitchers to whom he refers are Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson and Barry Zito. Bagwell continued:

“I ask you to go back to 2000 and look at the records they had. ...

"The Braves won for 15 years with (Greg) Maddux, (John) Smoltz and (Tom) Glavine,” he added. “They mixed in some other great starters around them, and they had to score three runs a game. And won 15 years in a row. Why aren’t they called the Moneyball team? What’s the difference?

Bagwell admits that there are some redeeming qualities to the movie, as well as the strategy after which it is named:

“I like the concept of getting on base, don’t get me wrong, but to make a movie about it? And to get all this credit that they were so smart?”

Sigh.

I must confess that Bagwell has a point. For all of the success that the A's of the early 2000s had, they never actually won the World Series. And, as many have long argued, a commitment to analytics and moneyball is at least partially responsible for the lackluster product we see all too often on too many MLB diamonds these days.

Bagwell may be a moneyball wet blanket, but sometimes, we need a wet blanket to wash some of the pixie dust Brad Pitt sprinkles in our eyes.

moneyball

In Honor Of James Van Der Beek, These Are The 5 Best Sports Movies Of All Time

'Moneyball' a 'Farce,' Says MLB Hall of Famer