One group of critics comes off as disingenuous, mercenary, or cranky. The disingenuousness is easy to spot: just look for anyone who admits that no one can predict the future, then lists anything that happened after the season on which the book was based as proof that the book was wrong. Beane made decisions based on the exigencies of that particular season; whether Chad Bradford sucked on the 2008 Tampa Bay Rays is immaterial. This critical take is akin to blasting a 1920 history of the Versailles Conference for failing to anticipate Hitler sending troops into the Rhineland in 1936. It stretches immediate valuation into a more favorable long-term examination wherever the immediate is difficult but the long-term damning.
I’m not sure if I posted this before, but if I didn’t I have no idea what took me so long.
Good story, but these things are horrendous. Make your own. I prefer this recipe: http://www.thespir.it/articles/honey-bourbon-cocktail-cherries/
Fascinating and seemingly so logical. You just need to bank a ton of cash first.
Fascinating and scary. Also, people should stop trying to tell us this wasn’t a bunch of hockey fans.
