Most of this stuff has already been said, but I'll just spit out my opinion anyway:
The moneyball theory works....in the regular season. Getting guys on base and waiting for the big boppers is a recipe for success when facing teams like Baltimore, Tampa Bay, etc who have weak pitchers.
The problem is that it doesn't work in the playoffs. Games are typically closer, pitchers/teams are better, and three-run homers just don't come as often. This is when you have to be able to manufacture runs.
I site the Atlanta Braves as an example for my argument. They have had TONS of post-season success getting good pitchers and waiting for the 3-run homer. However, they are infamous for their post-season failure. Oakland hasn't won a post-season series since the early 90s.
YES, stealing, hit and runs, etc are risky. The Red Sox even killed a few rallies against the Yankees in the 2003 ALCS by trying to put runners in motion and getting double plays. Maybe they weren't doing it in the right situation, or maybe they didn't have the right people. It's a high risk, high reward situation.
Small-ball wins championships. The Marlins and Angels proved that, and the Yankees teams who won three years in a row proved that too. If you can't get the bunt down, or execute hits and runs, etc....you are destined for post-season failure (in my mind).