Great movie, the only flaw (A big one) is that pitching is 70% of the game. The A's had some outstanding pitching the years depicted and they not even mentioned in the movie.
Good pitching will beat good hitting.
That being said, I am glad this movie was made. A great add to the legendary baseball films due to of its is original point of view .
I know they didn't show Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson or Barry Zito at all. I think they needed more air time so they could include everything
shareI suppose having three young aces didn't gel with the underdog narrative.
shareI would add an even bigger flaw.....No mention of Miguel Tejada playing shortstop....and he won the freaking MVP....
.308 Batting Average
34 Home Runs
134 RBIs
he definitely wasnt playing small ball
"When the *beep* did we get ice cream?!"
The point of the movie was a new look at the sport to find a way to replace players that became overvalued in the market and moved to big spending clubs. Why would they waste time on players that were already on the team? Were you hoping for a Miguel Tejada documentary?
shareNo, I wasn't looking for a Tejada documentary, but when the movie portrays the success of the team on math equations and castoffs, yet doesn't bring up their 3 Stud Pitchers and Best player in baseball that year it's a pretty glaring omission, Hudson, Zito, and Mulder were a gigantic part of their success.
Also, Art Howe was not the villain banging heads w Billy Beane as shown in the movie. He was on board with his vision of what he wanted.
I know movies take creative license when telling a story, but if the story is already good, why embellish it or leave things out?
" Tell me mom...when your little girl's on the slab...where will it tickle you?"
Well, like I was saying, I think they were trying to focus on the new players they had to pick up (Hatteburg, J Giambi, Bradford, Justice, etc) to replace the high paid ones they lost (Giambi, Damon). There would be time constraints I would think if they had a side story for the core players also, and they don't have much to do with the plot since they were there before the 'invention' of moneyball.
share[deleted]
vmf you are a fool, did you even read the other posts in this thread that answer your questions? The movie was not about highlighting star players they already had, it was about how do you REPLACE star players with NO MONEY!!!
share[deleted]
It focused on how to replace lost players, not on how to pump your chest about what you already have. Maybe I was drooling into your eyes and you couldn't see that.
shareThere's also the point that all the key players Tejada, Chavez, Zito, Mulder and Hudson along with Damon and Giambi were the result of the A's scouting department before Beane made the switch to Moneyball.
shareThe movie is good and I enjoy it, but is misleading as to the story of why the A's won a hundred ghames. It was the players mentioned and not Billy Beanes genius. That is not to say he did not help them be better, but that was a good team that just did not know it the winter before
share