The biggest difference here is that hitting a baseball is an entirely objective measurement of skill/talent. You could be a disfigured, 3-fingered freak (did “Three Fingers” Brown really have 3 fingers?), but if you can hit a curveball or a 95 mph slider at a regular clip, you can be successful.

“To CEO”, as you put it, is a much more subjective action that depends much more on how people perceive you. You disregard the fact that “stereotypical” CEOs are selected is because they “[instill] confidence in employees who hold subconscious preferences for this type of leader,” but I would argue that that is a great basis on which to select a CEO. A CEO is the face of the business both internall and externally. You NEED someone who inspires confidence in their employees (not to mention stock holders) and “looking the part” is a huge part of that equation.

Where the “Moneyball” formula may apply is at the lower levels of hiring. To predict entry level employees who will work harder and better. I would hypothesize that college GPA & activities as well as pure aptitude/intelligence are not the best measurements for evaluating future success in business (despite the fact that these are two factors that are probably most prevalent in hiring decisions). I’d look for objective ways to measure loyalty, determination and drive (as evidenced by my contstant posting to this site during work hours, I would not be hired…).

(I would bet that HR departments already do this to some extent…)