Here’s a question about last night’s exhilarating, stomach-churning, 10-inning seventh game of the World Series between the Cubs and Indians: Was it “true baseball”?

Early in 2015, Dave Stewart, the former major-league pitcher who had recently become the general manager of the Arizona Diamondbacks, made a crack about data-friendly teams (like the Cubs and Indians). Stewart suggested that free agents might prefer to sign with Arizona, because they would see it “as a true baseball team versus some of the other teams out here that are geared more toward analytics and those type of things.”

It was not an isolated remark. Many people around baseball have reacted to the so-called “Moneyball” revolution, in which people use data to analyze the game, by saying its version of baseball lacks soul. It’s nerds crunching numbers, rather than loving the game.

The writer David Maraniss, of whom I’m otherwise a big fan, captured the disdain for data in a 2011 article. “My problem with the philosophy is a question of art and beauty,” he wrote in The Washington Post. “The thrill of baseball has nothing to do with statistics, as much a part of the game as they are. It has to do with the athletic skill of the players: the rifle throw from right field to third base; the dazzling speed of a runner stealing a base; the grace of a second baseman making the turn on a double play.”