I think jonfmorse was pointing out that in sabermetrics, what we know evolves with new research and more information. The simplistic notion in Moneyball that drafting college players makes more sense because more of them contribute in the majors has evolved into something more complicated and nuanced. You might want to look at the two last amateur drafts by the A’s. Note how many HS players they have drafted. Clearly Beane hasn’t gotten into an intellectual rut. He keeps looking for new information and research. As he and his people learn more, their approach evolves.

Also, “Billy Beane has had a lot more success” yadda yadda is a very cute Appeal to Authority. It’s also utterly irrelevant to the question of actual levels of success on the Major League stage. Even if Beane had never drafted a single high school player and all his college draftees turned out to be stars, his philosophy would not change the facts as demonstrated by Rany (except to the extent that such a wild circumstance might change the numbers themselves).

Moneyball is an excellent view into the process. The “Moneyball system” - i.e., “identifying areas where a team may maximize benefits other organizations are undervaluing” - is a wise model. The actual nuts and bolts of what went on in the Oakland A’s draft room, on the other hand, are pretty much meaningless. That draft, as it turns out, has pretty much blown chunks. Past Swisher (whose OPS+ this season is under 100), Blanton just got dumped on Philly, Teahen is Teahen, and nobody else has amounted to anything at all.