I would say those terms are incongruent.
I don't know the premise behind "smallball moneyball", but it sounds stupid.
the early 2000's A's built a playoff-caliber roster around the (at the time) underappreciated player attributes of OBP and waiting around for a 3 run dong. because these attributes were undervalued by most other teams, they were able to build this roster on the cheap, which is why it's called "moneyball".
the 2014 royals were able to build a playoff-caliber roster around the (at the time) underappreciated player attributes of speed, contact hitting, and defense. this style of playing baseball is sometimes called "smallball". and, because these attributes were undervalued by most other teams, they were able to build this roster on the cheap, which is why it's called "moneyball". so you could say that the 2014 royals were the "smallball version of moneyball"
The 2014 royals were built around a concept that they could score more runs in 9 innings than the other team could score in [effectively] 6 innings. A concept that many other teams are now trying to replicate.
Do you guys really think Dayton built a 2014 "value" team based upon contact hitting and stolen bases? Particularly given he really has no actual control over those things? We have 6/9 same players in the lineup, afterall, none of whom were "undervalued" veterans. On the contrary, look at the vets he bought that year (Ibanez, Willingham, that catcher Kretz?, Maxwell?) power/bb guys.
On offense, I think this year's team is the team he intended to build in 2014.
I agree with your decision not to get behind smallball moneyball because it's so clearly based on a false premise. But at least now I got the premise.
