|
|
Post by klawrencio79 on Aug 3, 2021 15:23:22 GMT
I love Moneyball as a movie. It's entertaining, Pitt and Hill are both great in it as you said, but it completely ignores the fact that this particular A's team, despite losing Giambi, Damon and Isringhausen, had an MVP of its own in Miguel Tejada, a HR hitting, slick fielding 3B in Eric Chavez, quality lineup cogs in Ray Durham, Jermaine Dye and Mark Ellis, a rotation consisting of Tim Hudson, Barry Zito, Mark Mulder and Corey Lidle and All-Star closer Billy Koch. Not one of those guys is even mentioned in passing once during the movie, instead the movie attributes the team's success to the likes of Scott Hatteberg (a quality addition, for sure, but not the panacea as he is depicted) and Chad Bradford. That’s a flaw but you couldn’t talk about all 25 of the A’s. Did you ever read the book? Dry as a fart. I still can’t believe that an entertaining movie could have been made from Moneyball. I would have thought a HS yearbook would have been better material I haven't read the book, but I imagine there is at least a passing mention of Miguel Tejada. The movie doesn't need bottle scenes about all 25 guys on the team, but they don't even acknowledge the existence of any of the 10 best players. It's just weird.
|
|
