Baseball, Judgment, and Technocracy



Spread the love

Having been invested in a variety of sports given that my youth, I’m generally down to baseball as I enter into midlife. I should just proceed and confess that I have a somewhat romanticized relationship with the sport, which began when, late in my childhood, I began listening to the New york city Mets play on the radio. This was an odd and fateful advancement. It was odd because I was residing in Miami, but this was before an expansion team concerned Florida and I suppose there were lots of transplanted New Yorkers in town. It was fateful due to the fact that, naturally, ending up being a life-long Mets fan is the sort of thing you don’t want on your enemies, although apparently it is something you foist upon your kids who don’t yet understand any better.

I’m the type that, in the right state of mind, will go on and on about the odor of the leather, the fracture of the bat, the feel of the turf and dirt underfoot, the pace of the video game, the rhythm of the season and how it tracks with the natural patterns of life, death, and renewal, and so on, and so on. I will imply all of it, while acknowledging the hackneyed sentimentality of it.

I likewise think baseball uses an intriguing viewpoint from which to believe about innovation, or, better, the technocratic spirit. The sport itself appears to contain conflicting propensities: one resistant to the technocratic impulse and the other welcoming it. On the one hand, one method of believing about baseball stresses its agrarian character, its purposeful pacing, its storied tradition, and so on. Another method of thinking of baseball would highlight the fixation with numbers, stats, analytics, and so on. Baseball in this vision is an as-yet-to-be-realized technocracy.

This post, I must have pointed out by now, is primarily held together by baseball, and, rather more loosely, by reflection on the style of judgment. That said, here are some pieces that I’ve read in the in 2015 or two on the theme of baseball, which also raise some excellent questions about how we connect to technology.

To Begin With, I began mentally drafting this post when I read the very first paragraph of a evaluation of a book about Roger Angell’s respected baseball writing, which spans nearly 70 years. The reviewer opened by recalling Angell’s first column:

” In its Might 27, 1950 issue, The New Yorker released Roger Angell’s brief, whimsical piece about ‘the decrease of personal privacy,’ an advancement ‘speeded by electronic devices’ that was discreetly reshaping politics, relationships, and the nationwide pastime. ‘At a current ballgame,’ he reported, ‘a delicate microphone in your home plate got the abundant remarks of one of the team managers to the umpire and sent them winging to countless radio sets, instantly turning the listeners into uncontrolled eavesdroppers.'”

When I read something like this, I instantly wonder how this struck people at the time. I wonder, too, how it strikes us today. It must seem charming, yet with an air of familiarity. It recommends to me a trajectory. Personal privacy was not unexpectedly taken from us. We did not yield it up in one grand Faustian bargain. Rather, we trade it away occasionally, gave in when it is seized for this factor or that, hardly notice as the structures that sustained it were deteriorated. Along the way, naturally, some have discovered, some have actually expressed their issues. However at any offered point, up until it became much too late, these issues were too easily dismissed, the pattern was primarily obscured.

It is tempting to think of the relationship between society and technology as a series of grand and unexpected disturbances keyed to the arrival of a new device or a brand-new machine. But the relationship in between innovation and society is complicated by the reality that the truths we think we are calling when we say “innovation” and “society” are, in truth, constantly currently deeply intertwined. Techno-social changes are as most likely to gradually unfold, in below ground style, prior to they are suddenly apparent and become the specific source of cultural angst.

I’ll now go in reverse to the oldest product on the list, a column by Alan Jacobs titled ” Quiting On Baseball.” In this piece, Jacobs, a life-long fan, explained why the game was losing its hold on him. Chiefly, it amounted to the triumph of fine-grained analytics determining group technique. As Jacobs succinctly put it, “Strangely enough, baseball was much better when we understood less about the most efficient method to play it.”

This paradoxical point, with which I tend to concur, raises an interesting question. By method of getting to that concern, I’ll first recall for us Heidegger’s distinction between what is appropriate and what holds true. What is appropriate might not yet be real, in part due to the fact that it may be incomplete and thus possibly if not actually misleading. Maybe we might likewise identify, along the lines of Jacobs’s analysis, in between what is right and what is excellent. As Jacobs readily yields, the analytically sophisticated way of approaching the game yields results. GMs, managers, and players are correct to pursue its recommendation. However, giving this point, might we not also have the ability to conclude that while it is proper it is not excellent. Its accuracy obfuscates some larger truth about the video game, or the human experience of the video game, in which the goodness of the game consists.

We may generalize this observation in this way. The analytically intensive technique to the video game is a mode of optimization. Optimization appears to be something like an essential value operating at the crossway of technology and society. Like effectiveness, it is a worth that appears most suitable to the operation of a machine, but it has permeated into the cultural sphere. It has actually ended up being an individual value. We look for to enhance both gadgets and the self. However to what end? Is such optimization good? Possibly it is proper in this field or that undertaking, however at what expense?

This segues perfectly into the next piece, a current installation of Rob Horning’s outstanding newsletter, which is likewise a weekly dispatch at Reality In it, Horning opens with a series of observations about the ever more refined information that is now collected in a baseball stadium:

” That left the bat at 107 miles per hour and took a trip 417 feet.” These figures, frequently mentioned with a “how about that!” enthusiasm, are not just ads for the brand-new security capacity that is circumscribing the game, but they likewise evoke the fantasy of an entirely datafied world where every act can be rendered “objectively” and be further evaluated. In that world, everybody’s private contribution can be cleanly separated and completely associated.

From here, Horning winds his method through a conversation of WAR, or Wins Above Replacement, a fact that plans to render a gamer’s total worth to their group in abstraction from the remainder of the group. As Horning puts it, WAR “presumes an ideal: that any favorable contribution a player makes can be isolated and determined directly or inferred from other information sets.” This then brings Horner to a conversation of efficiency in conversation with Melissa Gregg’s Disadvantageous. You need to check out the entire piece, but this area appeared specifically relevant to the course along which this post is unfolding:

Gregg argues that “the labor of time management is a recursive diversion that has held off the requirement to recognize a rewarding basis for work as a source of spiritual satisfaction.” Instead, there is a sense that conserving time is an end in itself. You do not require any good ideas about what to spend it on. This unfolds the possibility of a completely gamified life, unconfined by actual games, guidelines, standings, actual triumphes– simply statistical simulations of wins pegged to tautological performance procedures that serve no noticeable function. As Gregg writes, “personal productivity is an epistemology without an ontology, a structure for understanding what to do in the absence of a directing principle for doing it.” It’s a treadmill masquerading as a set of goals.

One last item in this winding post. This one is an interview the theorist Alva Noë offered the Los Angles Review of Books I discovered in this interview that Noë is likewise a Mets fan, and so a bro of sorts in the fellowship of the constantly dissatisfied. I was primarily interested, nevertheless, in Noë’s discussion of the function of judgment in baseball:

I enjoy the task played by judgment in baseball. Its what makes the game so important. Baseball highlights the truth that you can’t remove judgment from sport, or, I believe, from life. Sure, you can count up home runs and strikeouts and work out the rates and portions. You can utilize analysis to model and compare gamers’ efficiencies. But you can’t ever eliminate the fact that what you are quantifying, what you are counting, that whose frequency you are measuring, is always the stuff of judgment– outs, hits, strikes, these are constantly judgment calls.

” We as a culture are fascinated with the concept that you can eliminate judgment and let the realities themselves be our guide,” Noë adds, “whether in sports or in social policy. Baseball advises us that there are limits.”

However not really, since as Noë himself observes a bit in the future, the possibility of doing away with umpires in favor of automated choice making does not appear completely implausible. Noë does not believe it will come to this. Perhaps not, who knows. But it does appear as if this is where the demand for correctness inexorably leads us.

Toward the end of the interview, Noë talks about what worries him about the brand-new “moneyball”:

It removes gamers as representatives, gamers as human beings who are on a group and interacting for an outcome, and views them, instead, as simple assemblages of baseball homes that are summed-up by the numbers.

This, I would argue, is a warning that speaks with trends far beyond the world of baseball. This advancement in baseball is but one circumstances of a much larger pattern that threatens to engulf the entire of human affairs.

There’s a lot more to the interview, and, similar to the other pieces, I encourage you to check out the entire thing.

One last thought. It appears to me that at some ill-defined point the pursuit of effectiveness, optimization, correctness, etc., just turns in such a way that something necessary to our experience is lost. We pass a threshold across which ends are forgotten, truth is obscured, and the good is undermined. It is as if, not unlike Huxley’s Savage, we need to declare the right to be not just unhappy, but likewise, to provide one example, incorrect. The status of judgment as a human great obtains only if we can err in judging.

You can sign up for my newsletter, The Convivial Societ y, here

Read More

About Ronnie

Ronald Antonio O'Sullivan OBE (born 5 December 1975) is an English professional snooker player who is widely regarded as one of the greatest players in the history of the sport. He has won five World Championships, a record seven Masters titles, and a record seven UK Championships, setting a record total of 19 titles in Triple Crown tournaments. He shares the record for the most ranking titles (36) with Stephen Hendry. His career earnings of over £10 million put him in first place on snooker's all-time prize-money list. Winning the Tour Championship on 24 March 2019 made him the sport's current world number one, the fourth time in his career that he has held the top position and the first time he has been number one since May 2010. This is the longest gap between number one spells by any player in history.