MovieChat Forums > Moneyball (2011) Discussion > Why does Moneyball make it seem like the...

Why does Moneyball make it seem like the A's had no good players for the 2002 season?


They had the best pitching rotation in baseball with a top 3 of Tim Hudson, Barry Zito and Mark Mulder. Pair that with all star level players in Miguel Tejada, Eric Chavez and Jermaine Dye. None of these players are even glossed over during the film. They only focus on the castaway type players and make it seem like that was the reason for their success.

reply

doubt you're going to find many '02 A's fans here

reply

I think it was just trying to focus on Beane's unusual methods.

reply

That makes it more interesting.

reply

You're right, the A's had a solid core that Billy had been building that up for several years. It just took time to bring everything together.

reply

Because it wouldn't be as dramatic would it?

reply

I think some people mistakenly look at this as a rag tag group of baseball players shocking the world. The point is that they were a small market team losing three key players and didn't have the money to replace them, so they used unconventional methods to try to replace their production. Logically you'd think they'd be worse than the season before and that wasn't the case.

reply