There is no Rev said:
This is like if Casey at the Bat was written today, people on the main board having a fight about whether or not Casey had a negative WAR or if it was a problem of cherry picking the data.
No, it's pretty simple--he's crafted a profile of a compelling character, but he massaged the history in doing it. Yes he mentions failure, but it isn't serving the piece you want to be reading, it distributes it in such a way as to mitigate his culpability. Yes, if you're not aware of the specifics, it makes for a compelling character all the same and you'll never know the difference. If you do, you know he's fudging the record and missing out on profiling a perfectly compelling reality in the process.
I think it's more like the film Moneyball--many understandably enjoyed it as an entertaining story about a compelling character in a familiar environment, but it was also a wasted opportunity. The film skips on the clear purpose of the book, which was about an institution having a major cultural change. That's what the people involved will tell you it's about, and you can pick out surface elements that seem to suggest it, but they exist in that movie (and are given the tone necessary to serve that end) to further a narrative--the underdog Billy Beane and his life of iconoclasm and conflicts with ambition and success and innovation. It is an entertaining narrative, and well done, but if you have any awareness of the truth hidden within just a step more complexity of approach, you know a chance was missed on the overall. If you don't, it was a good movie and who cares that it was the small-town Old School Twins that beat the A's in the end.