>I don't have a problem with Pitt, I have a problem portraying
>that A's season as a traditional underdog baseball story. I
>mean, you lived through it too. Beane had been building that
>franchise for like five seasons before 2002. The A's made the
>play-offs the previous two years. Beane's job was never in
>danger; the team had a bad two weeks early in the season where
>they were a whopping six games under /500 (much better than
>the current situation). They didn't win 103 games that season
>and 20 games in a row and made the play-offs because Beane
>took a chance and turned Scott Hatteberg into a first-baseman.
>They did all that because Miguel Tejada was the MVP, Zito was
>the Cy Young, and they had the best rotation in the game. This
>seems like fairly simplistic bullshit that they're pushing.

But that was true with the source material. From the book you would think Chad Bradford was the key to the season. He got more run than Zito, Hudson and Mulder combined in that book.