Moneyball's point was subtly different than this, and I was hoping the article would actually touch on it. The article suggests hiring the best candidates that have skills that mesh well on the team; Moneyball explicitly searches for people whose flaws can be overlooked. This way, you get a team member whose performance outpaces the open-market salary.

In other words, you don't hire candidates whose strengths match your weaknesses, you hire candidates whose weaknesses you care about less than the competition does. Like, the best example from the movie was the pitcher with an effective but highly unconventional delivery mechanism.

Ha I was just about to say that. This sounds similar to what they did.