James: You have reversed the argument. You earlier wrote -look at the Yankees great runs-and then the logical conclusion (by you) is teams not using analytics (i.e. Yankees because there no computers) can be just as good if not better -i.e. look at those great Yankee runs. What I'm saying (writing) is two fold: 1) you can't make that argument because there is no comparison since no computers existed then; 2) now that we have some teams using analytics more than others the Dodgers-who use it more than other teams-have won their division repeatedly and have been to the World Series two times in a row and may be headed to a 3rd appearance. That is what you call a "comparison" since all teams have the ability to use data from computers-some choose to more than others (i.e. Dodgers).

Bottom line is the only way to use the Yankees great run as an example is to somehow juxtapose the Dodgers of today (and their use of computers) with the Yankees (who had computers but didn't use them) and see who would win a 7 game series.

My problem with analytics is -similar to your thoughts (i.e. robots)-the winning team may not have the best players but the best computer programs.