Dying at the MONEYBALL argument, lol. I've had this with
@Gooksta so many times.... The overall organizational philosophy of adopting a contrarian edge as a small budget team and the specific strategy used to gain that edge should not be conflated.
To me, I think the issue lies in conflating the term MONEYBALL with Saber-metrics/analytics. Moneyball is any contrarian approach that allows a small budget team to compete. The specific strategy they use doesn't really matter, it just needs to be contrarian or currently undervalued by the rest of the league. Often times this is short-lived because the small budget or little sister of the poor team having success with this moneyball approach causes that specific strategy to be adopted by big budget or big market teams, and then it no longer provides a contrarian edge for the little guy. The Contrarian edge is Moneyball, the specific strategy is not. In the book MONEYBALL, the Oakland A's utilized Saber-metrics/advanced statistics as the specific strategy to identify market inefficiencies that allowed them to be competitive on a limited budget. It doesn't matter what specific strategy, the MONEYBALL part of the discussion lies in the advantage gained by taking a contrarian approach (Saber-metrics was the strategy in this case). When the Boston Red Sox (and the rest of the league) adapted to the A's success and started using more advanced statistics, it wasn't MONEYBALL (even though they were utilizing a similar strategy) because they weren't gaining a contrarian edge (they didn't need one). The Red Sox weren't looking for market inefficiencies and players who slipped through the cracks, they were looking to utilize advanced statistics to identify the very best players. The Red Sox recognized the merits/value of advanced statistics and started to utilize them from a big market perspective. That's different from MONEYBALL.
In short, Arsenal are embracing an advanced statistics strategic approach, but their organizational philosophy is to be cheap/thrifty with their immense potential budget. That organizational philosophy is quite the opposite of a money ball approach, which would be to spend every last dime of a limited budget.
Lets give a college footbaw example:
In the 1990s and early 2000s, spread offenses were one of the major areas where a small school could snag a contrarian advantage. There were still relatively few spread offenses and these small or mid level schools were able to get recruits that fit their systems because the big schools were overlooking them. This was a money ball approach for a small school. By the mid 2000s and the end of the 2000s the spread offense had gained so much following that it was now actually the predominate offense at the college level, and was being embraced by even the largest schools. Still a great offense, but now it no longer provided much of a contrarian edge because the small schools were competing with the big schools in the same game for the same recruits who fit this offense. This is no longer a money ball approach because the contrarian edge is no longer there. Then up-tempo no huddle became the contrarian edge for a few years until everyone copied it and it once again lost the contrarian edge. Right now, if a small or medium sized team wants a true contrarian edge, they'd be best served going right back to a pro style offense with a fullback and multiple TEs, since those really good TEs and FBs and pro QBs are probably under recruited now, lol. Leagues adapt and what was a MONEYBALL/CONTRARIAN strategy last year will be the mainstream strategy next year.
Lets give a WBL example:
In the years 2049 and 2050 the North Dakota riggers had one of the lowest budgets in the WBL so they had to identify cheap players with undervalued skillsets (these were not complete players). The riggers identified defense and high control/movement pitching as a strategy that fit their park and should give them a contrarian edge to compete against teams with better overall players. I was able to bring in a lot of terrible shitheads who were cheap and good at only defense and movement/control and finding that contrarian edge was a "money ball approach."
In the year 2059 I now have one of the highest budgets in the WBL. I still choose the same strategy of good defense and high movement/control players, but I'm no longer using a moneyball approach to eek out a contrarian edge. I'm buying the very BEST defensive players who also have complete bats and are good base runners. I still value high movement/control pitchers but now I can afford them to have good stuff too! So many other teams have learned to prioritize defense in the league that it really wouldn't provide much of a contrarian edge for a small market team at this point (because they'd have to compete with at least 2-3 major market teams in the same niche). My strategy of valuing defense and high movement/control pitching never changed, but it is certainly not a MONEYBALL strategy anymore, as I can afford to buy the very best complete players who also fit my strategy. The small market teams now have to identify their own contrarian edge and buy the overlooked players that fit their strategy. (Or they can be copycats and be doomed to failure)
tl;dr - MONEYBALL = finding contrarian edge as a small market/underdog team, the specific strategy employed to find that edge isn't "Moneyball." A huge budget team therefore cannot really be "MONEYBALL" by defintion because it would be stupid for them to attempt to eek tiny/marginal value or limit themselves financially when they can afford to just have the best complete players in whatever system/strategy they want. Any self-imposed financial constraints means that team is just being cheap, and that's certainly a non optimal strategy.