‘Moneyball’ wasn’t and isn’t about finding players that have good eyes at the plate and poor defensive abilities. It was about identifying under-valued aspects of a market that could used to win ballgames. It wasn’t that Beane thought slow-footed players with strong plate discipline were better than prospects highly touted by scouts but that their skillset was under-valued, thus allowing for bargains on draft day.”

I’m going to take this opportunity to say “no shit, Sherlock”.

Ask a fan about Moneyball and two questions?

1) What is the best way to describe Moneyball?
- Searching for players w/ high OBP’s
- Valuing young and fat players over stars and vets?
- Finding value that’s underpriced in the market?
- An outdated system of player analysis?

2) Is acquiring a player like Kevin Kouzmanoff against Moneyball principles?
- Yes, the A’s realize it’s broken
- No, it shows an evolving market

I mean those even beg for the right answer. People will still get it wrong.

I’m going to take this opportunity to explain something about the often misinterpreted ‘Moneyball’, not just in this column but by the baseball community in general.

‘Moneyball’ wasn’t and isn’t about finding players that have good eyes at the plate and poor defensive abilities. It was about identifying under-valued aspects of a market that could used to win ballgames. It wasn’t that Beane thought slow-footed players with strong plate discipline were better than prospects highly touted by scouts but that their skillset was under-valued, thus allowing for bargains on draft day.