[ESP/ENG] Innovación Deportiva En El Béisbol / Sports Innovation In Baseball

Hello #fulldeortes friends, I hope you are well, preparing for a start of the week full of blessings and success. This time I wanted to try to do something different, trying not to leave the editorial line of the community. Precisely in the reading of that editorial line was allowed to write about a sports movie, so I took a risk and it is important to take risks in life to grow, create or maybe be wrong, the relevant thing is that if you grow is positive, if you create it would be much more than positive, it would be great, but if you make a mistake is most likely to correct you and then teach you. So everything you can dare to do has its gain.

So in this publication I will refer to a movie that was presented in 2011 and marked the history of a sport like baseball, the movie is MONEYBALL, based on a real life event of Billy Beane who was a promising baseball star who, prompted by the failure of not having demonstrated on the field all that was expected of him, focused all his competitive nature towards the area of team management. At the beginning of the 2002 season, Billy is faced with a depressing situation: his modest team, the Oakland Athletics, has once again lost its best players to the big clubs, and on top of that he has to rebuild with only one-third of the budget.

There are teams with a lot of money and others with relatively few resources. Signing the best players is the dream of teams, but they are also the ones that cost the most money. So far there is nothing new, the more demand, the higher the price. Now, the Yankees' payroll in 2011 is $201 million. That amount could have paid the payroll of the Pittsburgh Pirates, Tampa Bay Rays, San Diego Padres and Kansas City Royals. The reader may or may not be anti-Yankee, but it must be recognized that every year teams with modest budgets must answer one question: How can we compete against baseball's big money owners?

Billy Beane, general manager of the Oakland Athletics, proposed an answer to this question, Beane knew that the future of his team was not in hiring "stars," but in maximizing what they could do with their modest budget. Like David, he knew he could not take on the giant Goliath as an equal. He needed a slingshot with which to beat his opponent. If you are not a giant and must face one, better to use cunning than strength. Billy Beane, if he wanted to win, had to innovate.

Doesn't having more money mean you can buy more talent and, with it, create the best team and win? The answer, obviously, is no, you can buy talent and NOT win. But to justify it we usually use arguments such as: "the game is like that", "it's a matter of luck", "anyone can have a bad afternoon", but it is not enough with the best players, they have to work well as a team and channel their talent. And, indeed, these are great reasons to explain why the best team in baseball, soccer or basketball or whatever we want is not necessarily the best paid. There are many human factors, unpredictable and difficult to explain, that influence the results of a sports team. It is enough that one night you have slept badly for that goalkeeper to be a sieve or that hitter not to give a single hit.

In the case of baseball, Billy Beane and his Oakland Athletics discovered that there was a flaw in the way a player's offensive contribution was analyzed. Teams were evaluating their hitters primarily by batting average, but batting average is not the best indicator of offensive contribution because, in reality, in run production, it's not just hits that matter, but also how many times you get on base even if you don't get a hit. The percentage of times a player bunts is a better indicator of his offensive contribution than batting average. Who contributes more to a team's offense, a Player A who is batting .300 average but has a .320 fielding percentage or a Player B who is hitting .280 but has a .370 fielding percentage? Yes, bases on balls matter.

Billy Beane identified that the ability to get on base - in particular, to get on base on balls - was undervalued in baseball's talent market. And he knew, with the cunning of the little guy, that therein lay the weapon he needed to use against Goliath. Handling the knowledge that getting on base was underrated-and hitting for average was overrated-would allow him to achieve superior performance per dollar invested. In other words, producing runs and winning games would cost him less than his opponents as long as he could exploit that information.

The innovation presented in this sports film should be an example to start asking the right questions and thus find the answers that allow us to go beyond what others see, because continuous innovation guarantees success and transformation, elements that are needed in this beautiful community of #fulldeportes to continue growing and ensure that we position and consolidate ourselves as an example community not only of sports content, but of the entire hive blockchain. This way I culminate my risky foray in reference to a sports movie. Trying to do something different...greetings.