Here’s an interesting article in the New York Times about how there is no statistical correlation between boffo paychecks to A-listers and boffo box office. In essence, $20 million plus a percentage of the first dollar gross for Tom Cruise (and stars of his caliber) amounts to a marketing expense. He’s a brand name, though why he recently decided to change his brand identity from “superstar” to “crazy” is beyond me.

The article reminds me of Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, Michael Lewis’ great book about how the Oakland A’s, one of major league baseball’s small market teams, has been able to consistently field winning teams, competing with the Yankees and Red Sox who have payrolls four to five times larger. Sure, it may veer into a hagiography of A’s general manager Billy Beane but what Beane and is staff did was simple and brilliant: they found that there was an institutional reliance on a scout’s gut regarding potential players and actually very little importance placed on delineating the story from a player’s statistics.

They dove deep into statistics and determined statistical categories that were overvalued (batting average, stolen bases, fielding) and those that were undervalued (on base percentage or the ability to not make an out) and targeted players who didn’t physically fit into a scout’s mold of the prototypical ball player but who excelled in those categories. Since other teams and scouts didn’t think much these players and stats, the A’s were able to get them cheaply.

Simply put, a team full of Joe Neckbone and his 24 asshole buddies will win more often than not if they are skilled at not making outs and can efficiently get opposing players to make outs.

[I want to make a smart point about the Value Over Replacement Player stat here in relation to the movies, like what’s the value of replacing Tom Cruise with say, dreamy Josh Duhamel in M:I III but since I’m Good Will Hunting in Mister Mxyzptlk’s 5th Dimension, you’re on your own]

It’s probably unfair to compare the chaotic Hollywood economic system to major league baseball. No agent or executive in Hollywood knows what it takes to make a successful movie. They may tell you what they think over cocktails and chicken marsala at Spago’s but they’ll go back to their offices and be anxious about their fall and winter slates.

Shit, you put me in charge of a studio, I’d probably do just as good (or bad depending on you look at it) as everybody else. I’ll tell the one thing I would do: I’d start shanking bitches to get Jerry Bruckheimer on my lot and I’d fire the glut of midupper management whose job is to stymie projects and protect their ass.

Mr. Ravid, the Rutgers professor, suggests that stars serve as insurance for executives who fear they could be fired for green-lighting a flop. “If they hire Julia Roberts and the film flops, they can say ‘Well, who knew?’ ” said Mr. Ravid.

So what’s undervalued in Hollywood?

Risk.

Good scripts.

But that’s just my opinion.

• BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
• « dun-dun-dun-dun!
• » totally crushing

• BROWSE / IN flicks sport
• « dun-dun-dun-dun!
• » rosters are set