November 12, 2004
Seeing Is Not Believing
Sally Jenkins sums up the recent shenanigans around the D.C. ballpark financing plan in this morning's Washington Post:
If you really want to define the mayor through baseball, look at his reaction when the Cato Institute published a briefing paper on the fallacy that stadiums bring big economic benefits to cities. "I can't imagine why, with all the things happening in the world, the Cato Institute would take the time to analyze the impact of baseball in Washington, D.C.," Williams said.
The answer is that the Cato Institute is a think tank with a serious interest in efficient municipal policy, and its scholars live and work and pay taxes in the District. The mayor's irritated dismissal of independent academic research was a truly defining moment.
I'm beginning to wonder if the following, which appeared in the Post on Saturday, was a defining moment as well. Here's Michael Wilbon:
Sometimes, I can't believe the stupid junk I read from academics who spin their silly obstructionist excuses on what stadiums don't bring, when all you have to do is look at what they actually contribute in Cleveland and in Denver, or for that matter along 7th Street near MCI Center, which around here ought to be Exhibit A.
Which brings me back to a point I've made before, and one that bears repeating. Why in the world would we want to consult pointy-headed academics when it comes to determining whether or not building a ballpark with public money is a good idea?
Because sometimes my friends, our eyes deceive us. And when it comes to a new stadium, there's plenty of glitz and glam that can distract us from the underlying truth.
Here's one example, straight from the pages of Michael Lewis' Moneyball.
Plenty of folks like to talk about how Oakland A's General Manager Billy Beane picked Boston Red Sox catcher Scott Hatteberg off the scrap heap and turned him into a servicable first baseman. But mentioned less often is the story of set-up man Chad Bradford, a pitcher who was languishing with the White Sox organization.
Why? Because Bradford has a sidearm delivery that can be charitably described as unorthodox -- so unorthodox, in fact, that despite the fact that he kept getting hitters out, the White Sox were more than happy to keep him in Triple A. But it was that ability to get hitters out that led Beane to pluck him from obscurity and turn Bradford into an inexpensive set-up man.
And it was a hard look at the numbers that led Beane to give him a chance, while the folks inside the White Sox organization weren't willing to give him one -- all because their eyes deceived them.
Which is why we ought to listen to the sabermetricians, the academics and the financial analysts. So read the analysis by the folks at Cato, and at least hear what they have to say. And even if you still want to commit public dollars to a baseball stadium, at least you'll be going into the deal with your eyes wide open -- even if that pair of eyes won't be telling you the whole truth.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ericmcerlain.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3909
I agree that Cato is terrific and Sally Jenkins is right on the money when she points out that, "Cato Institute is a think tank with a serious interest in efficient municipal policy, and its scholars live and work and pay taxes in the District."
It's just a little strange to hear that coming from Jenkins since she:
a) Does not reside in DC, but rather New York. (A fact which the Post obscures by omitting a dateline from her columns).
b) Does not pay taxes here.
c) Has a well-earned reputation as a liberal social activist.
d) Has championed any number of government boondoggles in sports.
Posted by:
at November 12, 2004 01:06 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in,
.
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
06:13 AM