A Man At Work
An interesting column today by one of my favorite writers, George Will, in the Washington Post.
Money quote:
"But the 2006 Yankees did baseball -- and the rest of America, if it learns the larger social lesson of the story -- the favor of demonstrating the steeply declining utility of the last $100 million of payroll."
That's an interesting claim right there, that the return on investment in salary declines after a certain threshold. Could it be argued that at a point there is even negative utility? The Yankees are the only team in baseball that has to ponder this, but it's something to think about.
Money quote:
"But the 2006 Yankees did baseball -- and the rest of America, if it learns the larger social lesson of the story -- the favor of demonstrating the steeply declining utility of the last $100 million of payroll."
That's an interesting claim right there, that the return on investment in salary declines after a certain threshold. Could it be argued that at a point there is even negative utility? The Yankees are the only team in baseball that has to ponder this, but it's something to think about.
posted by Anthony at 3:06 PM
2 Comments:
Narrowing in on the issue of how money impacts performance is tricky.
There is a basic concept that I think the media (and Steinbrenner) embrace, that if you come to NY to make the "big bucks" then you're expected to earn that money by winning a championship. Case in point, this year's postseason lineup was touted (correctly) as the most stacked in MLB history. On paper, this was Murder's Row Redux. But it turned out that our massive firepower was a paper tiger in the face if Big Tigers' pitching. For one series. Best of five. 3 losses. Lesson learned (time and again since 2001: You cannot buy championships. I think we all agree on that!).
My theory is that this team, especially since 2001, has been (narrowly and to our detriment) designed to negate Boston's surge. Much like how the United States spent trillions on defense during The Cold War against the Soviet Union, The Yankees, with their high payroll, have fended off Boston during the regular season for the past several years. A couple of contenders show up in addition to Boston, but in reality our team is built to win the AL East so Boston does not-- that seems to be the status quo the front office has maintained. This year, Boston was exceptionally poor down the stretch and that kept them out of the wildcard.
That is why this year's playoff bust will be forgotten in the long run, similar to 2002 in that it was inconsequential to the NY-Boston rivalry. But ask yourself this-- do you always feel that playoffs-knot in your belly each time we face Boston during the regular season? We've become obsessed with the Red Sox! It's sick. I used to mock Boston fans for being such hard-ons about the rivalry, but as of 2006, we're basically just as bad in terms of fanatacism. Our baseball universe is centered on that rivalry. In 2003, we beat Boston in the CS, and we nary showed up for the WS. In 2004, Boston beat us and that was their WS in reality. Steinbrenner will spend every dollar imaginable if Boston were to escalate their arsenal. It just so happens that I think the Yankees finally did spend the Red Sox into bankruptcy (not literally, but Boston will probably not sign any big contract stars for the next few years, look at their posture at the All-Star Break this year- they folded with a lead in the AL East!).
And hopefully we can learn to wrangle in our lavishness not for frugality's sake, but so that we are more disctriminating about the "talent" we sign.
I think that's a great point. Because we've matched up well with Boston's pitching recently and because Boston's strength has been their offense, our front office has looked in that direction as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home