If you read any later edition of Moneyball, Lewis mentions how much the 'baseball establishment' disliked his book, and frequently referred to it as "Billy Beane's book". This is interesting, since, for those of who've read the book, Billy Beane is sort of a distant figure, almost certainly not the motivator of the story. He's sort of a figure that Lewis can hang his hat on as the ostensibly interesting figure in a story that's really about cultural changes in an American sport.

The little comments at the end of this article make me think that a true old-school baseball insider is writing the article.

So, in 2002 or so, Billy Beane was doing something interesting with statistics that gave him an edge in baseball. Since then, we have baseballprospectus.com, many (most? all?) teams have full-time statisticians (Red Sox being the most famous), and there have been multiple books about baseball analysis from all different angles.

I don't even mention Pitch/FX, and the great excitement it has generated among baseball stats folks for how it will help their analysis of the game.

All this to say, this article reads like a weird Billy Beane slam from someone who doesn't really get what the hell Michael Lewis was talking about, (market inefficiencies first exploited by cheap teams, and already put in play by rich teams by the time you or I read his book) and, frankly, probably doesn't care.