Baseball and Science

As much as I ranted about James Watson's book in my last post, there was one passage that brought up what I've been thinking about for a few months.

I love the game of baseball. I love my home team. Part of the inital draw of my boyfriend was that I'd found someone who loved the game just as much but was definitely just as nerdy.

Science and baseball have a great deal in common, in my opinon. Watson makes a few comparisons about running a lab like a baseball team, which I don't have a way to connect, as I've "run" a lab, but never actually run a lab.

Both have incredible amounts of people who are simultaneously rational and superstitious. If you work really hard, you might not get anywhere on a national level, but there will be a smaller group of people that appreciate you for your effort (hopefully).

There will be your superstars that everyone loves, and the ones that everyone hates. There will be cheating scandals.

Baseball is a sport where in order for a team to be well functioning, there can't be just one superstar. There will be different levels of skill. But the team working together produces far more runs and more wins than individuals.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that science and baseball both create a community among the players. As a baseball fan and a scientist, when I hear, "Did you see the game?" it brings up the same sort of emotions as "How'd that experiment go?" Everyone hopes to hear about results, and most people complain and offer up criticism to make the results better.

Anyone else out there see any comparisons/faults with a comparison of baseball and science? Other than the large differences in salary, of course!