so moneyball, baseball is a perfect example. if you look at thely of the baseball -- the history of the baseball, there are the scouts and the managers, you know, they look at a pitcher, they look at his delivery, they look at some aggregate statistics and then make a decision whether this pitcher or this batter has potential or not. oakland and billy beane who was a small market team, they didn't have the $100 million budget of the yankees and the red sox. he said, what can i do? how can i make my team better? more importantly, i think, the book and the movie finish if you have seen the movie -- kind of makes it clear that he was, the word i think he used, there is a general fog of misjudgment. there is this echo chamber, then everybody starts believing in whatever they see, and he felt that's not the right thing to do. there is a better way to evaluate people. and, you know, he started working with -- i forget the name of the person -- a statistician, you know, who was deeply interested in looking at the data ask the statistic

. >> chapter nine of your book, streaming, sharing and stealing is called moneyball. what's the point? >> this goes back to the discussion we had earlier about how to use the data and information in decision-making. if you look at the hayes history of the baseball, there are the scouts of the managers and they look at the aggregates and statistics and make a decision whether this picture or that has potential. oakland and billy dean who was a small market team, they didn't have the hundred million dollars budget that the late yankees and the red sox had. he said what can i do, how can i make my team better. more importantly, if if you have seen the movie, it makes it very clear, the word he said was a gentle misjudgment. that is this aqua chamber that everybody starts believing in whatever we see and he says that's not the right thing to do. there's a better way to evaluate people. he was deeply interested in looking at the data and the statistics but this picture, which everybody thinks is really not that good is excellent because look, when given the right pieces, i

a book i wrote called moneyball came out in 2003. that book was ostensibly about baseball, but what it was really about, in my mind, was the way markets can misjudge, misvalue people. and this team, the oakland as, had figured that out, and because they lacked resources, they found new and better ways to value the players than existed. it meant what they were doing, basically, was replacing the intuitive judgment of the so-called experts with analysis of the performance statistics that was just better. it identified, it identified systematic mistakes that the experts made in evaluating the players. >> using business school research. >> exact bely. business school -- actually, the research they were using, it wasn't as if they had proprietary information. you could have gotten the stuff off the web, but nobody paid attention to it because they trusted their experts. so this book comes out, and an economist and a lawyer together reviewed the book in the new republic. richard thayler and cass sunstein, and they said they liked my book a

but if she can help pay off the addition flo built for her, e's denily up for some moneyball. who has no children to pass the card on to, is game as well. that's when steve strommer suggests contacting an auction house. on your behalf? >> yes. he made the connection. >> i was just, you know, doing my job, just trying to facilitate getting this card in the right hands. >> strommer takes the photo home, scans it, and sends it to chris ivy, who specializes in sports memorabilia at heritage auctions in dallas. >> when the first e-mail came in with images, i showed it to one of my other experts. and we thought, "it looks right from the images, and we are looking at a very significant piece of baseball history here." the photo was in good shape. and the overall condition of the card is very strong. >> of course, it's not exactly the kind of card later generations will collect with bubble gum and wax packs. >> there was no bubble gum involved with this card, no. i don't think bubble gum was around, actually, until the early 1900s. it's considered a carte de visite, a cdv. >> a carte