>Moneyball shows us that all that knowledge and experience used to pick a baseball team was wrong and that people should ignore their "common sense" (which is u

>Moneyball shows us that all that knowledge and experience used to pick a baseball team was wrong and that people should ignore their "common sense" (which is usually just another word for "cognitive bias") and should use hard data. Nothing of the sort. Moneyball showed that an actuarial method was better than other methods in picking a baseball team. This does not mean that the previous methods were no better than random chance. In the case of baseball there was a large corpus of data which had good correlations to players' future performance. That's a rather unique situation. In this case assuming that whatever previous methods are immediately wrong was on a much weaker basis: just the dataset from one particular toy challenge. A comparison with Moneyball is misleading.