Brother Britton has a post on Michael Lewis' "Moneyball" chock full of linky goodness.

Of course, not everyone is thrilled about the trend. But so what? “While old-fashioned trainers may lament this technification of sport, a new generation of sports theorists, who range from economists publishing in refereed journals to fans of an analytical bent sharing their views via the web, see a beauty in their rigour,” the article states. The trend has even given rise to several scientific journals such as the Journal of Sports Economics and the International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport.

Read the whole thing. I'd only stop to point out that while this "technification of sport" (great turn of phrase) is going to upset the old guard, the old-boy network doesn't have as much to lose as it probably fears (provided they learn how to use a laptop). Why? To understand, think of how often in a week you'll read an article about a new study that demonstrates nothing more than the perfectly obvious: "Human pedestrians more likely than birds to be hit by automobiles"; "Water has many health benefits and makes you pee." The point is we "know" a lot of things without having the data to back it up.

This transformation is a "marginal revolution"; this is not to suggest it isn't significant. In many ways, the most significant developments are always those that happen at the margins (a fact lost on most cultural/political elites). I'm as excited by the geek revolution in sports as the next guy (for more see "Money Is the Root of All Good") but a little perspective is in order. The best and most lasting revolutions are usually cumulative in nature. The sabermetrics revolution is that kind. In other words, Bill James is Julian Simon or Ben Graham, not Robespierre.