There was but one question he left unasked, and it vibrated between his lines: if gross miscalculations of a person's value could occur on a baseball field, before a live audience of thirty thousand, and a television audience of millions more, what did that say about the measurement of performance in other lines of work? If professional baseball players could be over-or undervalued, who couldn't? Bad as they may have been, the statistics used to evaluate baseball players were probably far more accurate than anything used to measure the value of people who didn't play baseball for a living.
The text questions the accuracy of how people are valued based on performance metrics, using professional baseball as a case study. It suggests that if errors in evaluating players can occur in such a public and scrutinized arena, it raises doubts about the methods used to assess individuals in other professions. This implies a broader commentary on economic and social valuations, hinting at the inherent flaws in measuring human worth.
Moreover, it contrasts the statistical evaluation of baseball players with those in various fields, suggesting that while baseball stats might have their shortcomings, they are likely more reliable than the criteria used in other jobs. This observation invites readers to reflect on the complexities and potential inaccuracies present in performance assessments across all industries, ultimately questioning the fairness of how society values individuals based on their output.
