"In the late 1970s or early 80s, the Houston Astros commissioned a study about what might happen to their team's performance if they moved the outfield fences closer to home plate. The study's authors found that moving the fences in would actually lead to more losses for the Astros."
"A professional soccer club commissioned scouting reports for three different players. The conclusion for each one was the same: You do not want to sign any of these players. The club responded by asking for positive scouting reports instead."
"Both organizations wanted to use data, but not to make better decisions. They wanted it to justify the decisions they had already made."
In the late 1970s, the Houston Astros studied the impact of moving outfield fences closer to home plate. The study revealed that this change would lead to more losses, but the team chose to suppress the findings. Similarly, a soccer club commissioned scouting reports that concluded against signing certain players, yet they insisted on positive reports because they had already committed to the signings. These examples illustrate a trend where organizations prioritize data that supports existing decisions over data that could lead to better outcomes.
Read at ESPN.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]