One thing about our sabremetric era that doesn't get discussed much: it's inherently anti-labor. "Efficiencies" is not a word workers want to hear from the executive suite. When Bob Seger sang "I Feel Like a Number," he wasn't talking about OPS+ or Revised Zone Rating (and by "Like a Rock" he sho nuff didn't mean Tim Raines), but there's more than a grain of truth to the suspicion that all this statistical research turns people into commodities as owners squeeze the most performance from the least amount of capital.
But one man's soulless Futuramic dystopia is another man's common sense. Why not try to figure out who actually plays better defense? Why not ask what, exactly, is the pitcher's contribution to his team's success? Smart players will take advantage of the technology, too, whether it's digital video or higher math.
Besides, when we describe baseball players as "labor," we're not exactly talking the downtrodden and oppressed. Baseball players are, shall we say, exquisitely exploited. If this report is accurate, Bobby Abreu is about to take a 67% pay cut, and he'll still make at least $5 million. After pocketing more than nine digits during his illustrious career, Tom Glavine isn't sure he's willing to play for $1 million.
Minor leaguers are a different story, I understand, but compared to most Americans at the same age level I'll bet they still make a living wage. We can discuss this at a later date or in the comments.
So when I root for the Giants to build the best team possible at the most sensible price, I guess I'm siding with The Man and against my brothers in the fields. So much for solidarity. I don't feel too guilty. The players' union, like many other unions in history, has grown from a righteous cause to a juggernaut that has made its share of transgressions. For example, there are some who feel it's just as complicit as management in the steroids cover-up. It wouldn't surprise me one bit.
In this way, every fan is a closet chamber of commerce booster. Here's the test: When your favorite player leaves your favorite team, do you still root for your favorite player no matter the circumstance? Even if he's in a position to beat your favorite team? Even if he has a pornstache and wears blue? I suspect very few fans would say yes.
Try this one: If your favorite player of all time reached free agency and demanded a huge contract to stay with your favorite team, would you want your team to pay him whatever he asked for, even if it meant tying up money that could be spent constructively elsewhere? (Yankees fans don't have to worry about this scenario.) I'll bet the percentage of fans who would say yes to this is smaller now than ten years ago, seeing how so many understand the economics of the game because they run fantasy teams of their own, or they read Moneyball, or whatever.
What's all this about? Perhaps as player contracts have increased, they've alienated more fans. Perhaps as prices have gone up, the fan base has become more white collar, more identified with ownership, not labor. Maybe it's the Internet's fault, making math and statistics and computing power so much easier for kids to get hold of. Damn you, Internet.
Whatever it is, ain't this the sign of the times: Instead of Bang the Drum, Slowly, it's LoveSexxy Moneyball. When we talk about naturals, we mean Billy Beane, not Roy Hobbs (nor, alas, Morgana the Kissing Bandit). Wake me up when George Clooney and Philip Seymour Hoffman play Jay Jaffe and Will Carroll in Secrets of the Prospectus.
