Charlie Rose

finalfantasytown  12/12/2011 02:53 AM Report

Tom Cruise, Tom Cruise, Tom Cruise, why are you born before Brad? I love you

finalfantasytown  12/12/2011 02:13 AM Report

Is it magic or fate that Brad acted as Benjamin Button in the film 'The curious case of Benjamin Button'?

finalfantasytown  12/12/2011 01:57 AM Report

It is a newborn and successful. Brad Pitt is super lucky. What a great American model! I am jealousy but not distracted, just take a breath.

Galao405  12/09/2011 01:30 AM Report

Considering that all teams now use large amounts of statistical analysis and databases based off of what Beane and Paul DePodesta did with the A's (nd 20 or so including the Yanks, Cards, BoSox rely on it heavily), I'd say that this isn't a trend but has and will continue to effect the way teams value players for a long time to come. I mean, every single player that the Red Sox have looked at over the last 5+ years has been put through the Carmine computer program to determine how good a player projects and a lot of other teams do the same thing; that's a major information revolution that helped make the Sox champs and hopefully Epstein will turn around the Cubbies, a team that has never really embraced sabermetrics to its own detriment. This isn't to say that the rest of the teams are as radical as they A's had to be in their approach back then, but nontraditional stats like OBP, slugging, OPS, WARP, have become the backbone of how a lot of (very good) teams have built their rosters and really don't even seem to be nontraditional anymore but just a part of the lexicon. Moneyball has almost because an anachronism now because everyone is using it and it really isn't that cost effective anymore. I think the downfall of Oakland as a contender the past five or so years is tantamount to the fact they no longer have an edge in finding value because the rest of the league has caught up. Players that 10 years ago would have been discarded by the rest of the league that Oakland could pick up on the cheap are now properly valued, never again will a $40 million payroll be able to compete with a $160 million payroll using these methods because that richer team has the same info available and have embraced what Beane helped start. But I would say that now sometimes people become slaves to the numbers and don't go off of scouting and intuition quite enough, and that of course people like Beane who use numbers are going to make mistakes (his comments on Prince Fielder in the book as an example), but so is everyone else.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/08/2011 02:28 AM Report

Yes, find inefficiencies!

$40 million on payroll instead of $140 or $150 million to spend on players (Michael Lewis from the 2003 clip).

This movie cost $50M and worldwide has done about $100M

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=moneyball.htm

So can we find the inefficiencies in entertainment payroll?

YouTube wants more than the 20 minutes the average viewer is now viewing per day. So Google/YouTube is going after the viewer's television time.

Is professional content the answer? Perhaps the social aspect would work better with YouTube parties?

The inefficiencies are great in payroll and cost of delivery. Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner and others may be defeated if Google finds the right algorithm.

Googlemetrics instead of Sabremetrics.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/08/2011 02:06 AM Report

Brad kinda looks like Billy Beane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Beane

"In 1995, team owner Walter A. Haas, Jr. died. New owners Stephen Schott and Ken Hofmann ordered Alderson to slash payroll.[1]

As a result, Alderson began focusing on sabermetric principles toward obtaining relatively undervalued players. Beane succeeded Alderson as GM on October 17, 1997.[2] He continued Alderson's crafting of the Athletics into one of the most cost-effective teams in baseball. For example, in the 2006 MLB season, the Athletics ranked 24th of 30 major league teams in player salaries but had the 5th-best regular-season record.[citation needed]

So it appears Billy Beane is not the main guy--it was Schott and Hoffman telling Alderson what to do. Then Billy Beane followed.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  12/07/2011 06:07 PM Report

Jonah Hill was smoking in this interview. Sitting in the middle between Sex God Brad and burnout Miller (LOL), Jonah shined on many levels--especially in dress and attire.

I also saw Jonah on "The Daily Show" the same night promoting another movie. Jonah referenced doing "Charlie Rose" to Jon Stewart.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-6-2011/jonah-hill?xrs=share_copy

Since Charles works out of Bloomberg space Jonah mentioned the huge disruption in work Brad Pitt caused.

Yes, not only did Brad disrupt the Bloomberg workers (how can you tell says Jon Stewart), he got the entire hour for a movie that came out almost three months age.

Perhaps Brad actually defies the Sabermetrics theory. Then again, perhaps he didn't by working for scale and a percentage?

Ellen_Dibble  12/07/2011 01:21 PM Report

Brad Pitt "dated himself," to my mind, when he was carrying on about wanting to spend time with his children, and explaining that "it's impossible to explain that to anyone who doesn't have children." I should add I've never seen this actor before, and I can't tell how old he is from this piece, but he sounds vintage 1950s, before women redefined themselves, and the "it takes a village" called women back to the ancient traditions where children were everybody's responsibility, in some way. Maybe the other people at the table are singularly unable to resonate with the Pitt experience of being tethered to offspring, or seemed so to him. Who knows. Meanwhile, he is channeling my great-aunts and the certain ladies at the church rummage sale. There are reasons we ALWAYS make exceptions for "events" related to close relations, funerals, spring plays in 6th grade, doctor's appointments... We don't want to get into second-guessing whether this is part of the deep tidal forces within that keep this individual afloat and sane. It might be. Other things might do the same for somebody else, with or without children, but without any of those exceptions being extended. In short... There is no "in short."

REMant  12/07/2011 11:56 AM Report

While I have sympathy with the plight of the Oakland's of pro sports, and think the use of black box methods good (tho the stats themselves often lacking), I think there is ample evidence this trend has played itself out and a large number of teams now have bloated payrolls based on it, which ought to be producing but aren't, forcing management to go back to developing their own personnel internally the old-fashioned way, which I think can easily be seen most consistently good teams do. MLB was been complicit too, for instance, by lowering the height of pitchers' mounds in 1969 from 15" to 10" to increase hitting percentages thus fundamentally changing the game, as well as, by changing free-agency rules. A revolution in college basketball occurred around the same time when coaches such as Bob Knight showed they could win with less talented players through good coaching, motivation and discipline, succeeding so well the NCAA changed the rules to decrease its effectiveness, in general giving street players an advantage, and the same changes were made by the NBA. Eventually US teams began losing to foreign competition even when playing by similar rules. No doubt the same attitude was displayed with regard to doping, which went on for decades. So even if Lewis's theory applied in the 1970's, I have a feeling that it is no way applies today, nor even in 2003. And I don't think I'd be trying to script a big morality tale out of the subject unless it were the opposite of what I think this is.