America's Pastime in a New Time

I went to the movies a couple weeks ago to see the recently released "Moneyball" starring Brad Pitt.  I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting much for some reason.  But after seeing the movie, I was shocked by how well-cast Pitt was and how well he acted out the part of Billy Beane, the General Manager of the 2002 Oakland Athletics who with the help of a young Assistant General Manager (Peter Brand) had a very successful season, even with the lowest payroll of any team at the time.  

After seeing the film and liking it, it got me thinking (as any good movie should).  One major theme brought up throughout the movie was that of tradition versus innovation.  Beane revolutionized the way baseball teams scout, manage, and organize their players through a system that used statistical data and straight numbers to predict a team’s ability to win based on its players.  Beane and Brand with this computerized data figured out odds to construct a baseball team based on stats instead of intuition and scouting reports to fit their meager payroll.

This innovative methodology of choosing a baseball team is so radically different from what baseball scouts believed passionately in for generations.  In the film, Beane gets into a heated argument with Grady Fuson (A's Head Scout), an older man, who says, "You can't put a team together with a computer, Billy."  Beane responds by saying, "Adapt or die."  

The movie is, of course, dramatized for Hollywood effect, but I feel that the same ideas hold true.  Americans tend to hold very romantic views about baseball, I've noticed.  We call it our national pastime and associate its best old-time players with almost legendary status (Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, Honus Wagner, etc.)  There's a certain sense of baseball lore and true sense of American culture that is difficult to explain but nonetheless rooted in the humble beginnings of the sport.  

I've always had the idea that old-timers would go out and scout the young blood on the field, handpicking and crafting a cohesive team based on a traditional, handed-down method of intuition mixed with personal experience.  This idea was supported by Fuson in the movie "Moneyball".  This process also is, to some, a more gritty and traditional yet pure and old-fashioned charm that has kept with baseball since its start.  

What many swore by for years was shot down swiftly by Billy Beane, who replaced it with what the traditionalists believed was shallow and non-nonsensical, computerized garbage.  I believe there is a conflict of American ideologies here because as some in the U.S. value tradition and stability others value innovation and progress as well. 

I initially felt that there was something wrong with Beane’s approach; it just seemed kind of impure and too far-off from the traditions of baseball.  But, as I thought about it more, the themes of innovation and progress using technology as a guide have always been a key part of the intrinsic, American way.  Therefore, I was and still am conflicted on how to feel about Beane’s method, however successful.  Yes, it did work for a great season, but Oakland didn’t win the World Series and haven’t yet.  What is the best way to approach a difficult situation?  Is it to rely on your ancestors’ passed down teachings or on the up-and-coming, most creative technology to-date?  Or maybe a mixture of both…