As an expert in analytical writing, your task is to write [the analysis below and adhere to all of its parameters, informed by its argument, consideration, description and details].
Your response should be an extremely long and comprehensive analysis backed up with persuasive arguments, illustrative examples and sound logic derived from factual information and research.
Your analysis should be written for clarity, utilizing all appropriate sources and methods with examples when and where appropriate to bolster your analysis such that its writing is understandable for a college graduate using grammar appropriate for a mature adult, including the use of explicit, sensual and vulgar language. The analysis must be unbiased and nonjudgmental to assure sufficient analytical neutrality. Exclude any caveats or counterarguments.
Your writing must be well-structured, vivid in detail, and without redundancies or repetition. Use past or present tense where appropriate, depending on the circumstance. Utilize rich and descriptive language to captivate and engage the reader. Keep in mind the provided text is an excerpt of a larger analysis. Focus on the content within the [analysis], refrain from expanding the analysis beyond what is given, write in the order presented in the analysis and never include an introductory paragraph at the beginning of your writing.
Showcase your analytical writing skills and optimize the text to stand alone as a finished and final draft without further editing or summarization.

Proposition:
Illustrate and describe how in Michael Lewis' book Moneyball the argument made by the author about the 2002 Oakland A's baseball team was that despite its low payroll compared to other MLB teams the A's were competitive for the American League pennant and playoff spot in terms of being a winning baseball club due to the organizational philosophy of its general manager, Billy Beane. Beane's idea was that managers and scouts have been undervaluing certain skill sets in players like the ability to get on base through walks even if the player otherwise didn't have the traditional metrics of athletic ability like agility, speed or power. This meant that players like Jeremy Giambi, were overlooked and could provide the team with substantial value at a relatively low cost in terms of player salary due to other teams not recognizing their underappreciated talents. However, in arguing that Jeremy Giambi was a valuable asset to the club in terms of on the field performance, Lewis neglects the reason why managers and scouts were wary of players like Giambi in terms of a current retrospective analysis of his abilities in particular using modern statistical data analysis for baseball.  While Giambi was able to get on base by demonstrating the ability to draw walks, his other skill sets such as hitting for average, running the bases, and being athletic enough to field a premium position in the field that wasn't first base, was so mediocre or poor that he generally wasn't worth much in terms of modern baseball analytics. Since Giambi couldn't play any other position than a first baseman, which he did poorly, or as a designated hitter, he was penalized for having poor defensive value. Since Giambi was exceptional slow for a player, he was penalized for creating negative outcomes by either grounding into double plays or being too slow to advance to the next base too many times. Accordingly, baseball analysts have regarded Giambi as a mediocre to poor player unlike, Lewis, who at the time of writing his book, touted Giambi as an asset. For example, in terms of the baseball analytics of Wins Over Replacement, or WAR, Giambi was worth 0.9 WAR in 2001 for the A's and in 2002, while on the team as he was traded mid-season, he was worth 0.6 WAR for the A's. Those values are consistent with a mediocre player that has the potential to being cut or released, especially for a player with no defensive value, and not a player who should be considered undervalued and written about so glowingly by Lewis. The only saving grace for Giambi was his low salary. If he had an average or high salary, he wouldn't have been worth his meager contributions to the team, but rather a liability, both on the field and financially to the A's as a club.