The Sydney Morning Herald
By, Ross Gittins
December 26, 2011
One of my favourite films for this year was Moneyball. Ostensibly, it’s the story of how the real-life Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), general manager of the Oakland As baseball team, took the second-poorest team in the comp almost to the top.
At a deeper level, it’s about how the super-cool guys of professional baseball got beat by the nerds.
It’s about how the science of statistics can tell us things we didn’t know about our world.
It’s about the ultimate make-or-buy decision facing businesses: do you select and train up your own people, or go out and poach someone whenever you need a new heavy-hitter.
But, above all, it’s about how competition in markets can fail to live up to its advertising. (If you didn’t catch all those levels, read the book by Michael Lewis – much better than the movie.)
Professional baseball in America is a market. All the teams are privately owned businesses, the owners of which are out to maximise profits.
(That’s in theory. In practice, many of the owners probably treat their team as an indulgence – a way to enjoy their fortune – as much as a way to increase their fortune; an end as much as a means.)
Beane was so short of money he turned to a bunch of highly educated baseball tragics, who thought studying a potential player’s statistical record through high school and college baseball was a better way of predicting his success in the big league than relying on the judgment of talent scouts.
Much to the amazement and disapproval of the traditionalists – and despite their opposition – Beane and the nerds were proved right. Eventually, other teams started copying their methods.
This says to me that, contrary to the assumption of the economists’ conventional model, all the guys running all the teams weren’t playing for keeps until Beane and his nerds came along.