[philkid3]

There's a pretty big mistake in your assessment of teams in that the Rays are one of the quentisential examples of a statistical-approach organization. They're run by ex-Wall Street folks who apply what is almost exactly a moneyball approach (and be careful you actually know what moneyball is before you question that) to their organization. They build using empirical data to find market inefficiencies. They are absolutely a sabermetric organization, more so than just about any team in baseball. They even a couple days ago eliminated their advance scouting department in favor of computer scouting.

The Phillies and Rays got to the World Series based mainly on taking players with a lot of tools and a lot of upside.

Taking players with "tools" and "upside" has nothing to do with approaching with stat-based analysis or not. Teams are still looking for tools and upside, they are just evaluating them differently. A stat based team like the Rays is trying to figure out exaclty how much skill a player has, by whatever tool, and how much that is worth.

The A's, the original "calculator team" began the revolution by valuing a player's ability to get on base. It's the most important thing in the game, was much more easily determinable at the time and also much cheaper at the time. Since then, the entire market has caught up and the A's have moved to new realms of research, notabably how to value defense and find it cheap. The Rays do the same thing. Having a scientific approach to the game doesn't mean you don't want good players with a chance to get better, it just means you're finding those players with fact-based data analysis.

The Angels are DEFINITELY not a "calculator" team, and I have never seen any information that the Cubs are, either. I'd be interested in something that says otherwise. The Red Sox also changed absolutely none of their philosophies with the Manny Ramirez trade, so I'm not sure what that means. They are still a heavily forward thinking organization that employs the works of the very founder of sabermetrics. They just do so with enough resources to approach team building in many different ways that teams like the A's and Rays can't afford.

Calculators fail to factor in a guy's attitude and feel for the game.

And scouts fail to factor in a large sample size, empirical data and weights for the data. Or any sort of cold, subjective look. You can find nitpicky flaws in every approach, so the best approach is a mix of everything. Teams with limited resources, though, increasingly lean towards the objective large-sample data for a reason, though.