"As portrayed in that book," Schuerholz writes, "it is a bogus concept because I know you can’t make baseball judgments entirely on statistical analysis to build a team."
10 bucks John Schuerholz didn’t actually read "Moneyball", such is his apparent failure to understand it’s main thesis, which, if I remember correctly, is not that you can select talent based on statistics alone and ignore scouting, but rather that one can exploit the market and find players who have skills that are undervalued and build a competitive team even at a fiscal disadvantage. The model of "Moneyball" is also scaleless, so employing it even with a larger payroll is still possible: value is value, no matter what the pursestrings, and stockpiling value gives a team the opportunity to be agile with their roster. Hence, Schuerholz’ use of the 2004 Red Sox as proof that Moneyball is BS is BS itself. Schuerholz, who has nothing to prove as an executive, is clearly feeling a little professional jealousy. It’s unbecoming.