Are superstars worth it?

So Manny Ramirez of the L.A. Dodgers has been suspended for 50 games — 50 games! — after testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs.

Another Major League Baseball superstar falls from his lofty perch, and joins the all-enhanced team of America’s favorite pastime. And costs his team. Dearly.

The story of Manny — and A-Rod, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds and several other high-profile players busted for or suspected of using performance-enhancing drugs — should be a cautionary tale for all sectors of business, not just sports entertainment.

The caution is not about using performance-enhancing drugs. I’m not aware of too many higher ed marketing, PR or communications types using performance-enhancing drugs, unless you count Red Bull and strong coffee. No, this cautionary tale is about the price of chasing after superstars.

So many colleges and universities seem to get caught up in the game of trying to attract the superstars of academia. The search committees for endowed chairs seem to always want the highest-achieving superstar in that field — and usually because that’s what the president wants, what the donor wants, or what the development officer has promised the donor. But what happens when that superstar professor turns out to be a complete a-hole? Then you have an expensive liability on your hands.

Sometimes, superstars hurt the team.

Consider the Boston Red Sox. No one would argue that in the late 1990s and early 2000s, their shortstop, Nomar Garciaparra, was one of the best in the game while playing for Boston. But as time went on and the organization changed, Garciaparra felt his role was being diminished — threatened by up-and-coming superstars like David Ortiz and, yes, Manny — and be 2005, he was a malcontent and a liability to the team. He was traded to the Cubs, and a year later, the rejuvenated Red Sox won the World Series.

Consider your own shop. When you’re looking for a new staff member, are you concerned most with someone’s resume? How many awards they’ve won or how prestigious their academic pedigree? Or are you looking for someone who can fit into your team? Are you hell-bent on bringing in someone from the outside — a free agent, so to speak? — or will you also consider promoting from within (from the “farm team,” to stretch the analogy). When the choice boils down to ability versus attitude, which is more important?

P.S. – In case you’re wondering how long it took Manny to reach your annual salary this year, here’s an easy way to find out.

P.S.S. – I’m still in a blogging slump. But the Manny Ramirez story was just too good of a blogging opportunity to pass up. Guest-blogging inquiries are still welcome. See previous post.

Baseball and politics: Does Phillies win predict an Obama victory?

Veering way off-topic here to discuss presidential politics.

You can have your FiveThirtyEight with all its fancy number-crunching and sophisticated analysis. Back in the days before the Internet, people used to rely on simpler methods of predicting the winners of presidential elections. One such method that held true for many years since the 1950s was this:

If the National League team won the World Series, the Democratic candidate would win the White House. Conversely, if the American League team won, then the Republican candidate would win the presidency.

This has played out fairly accurately over time since the 1940s. Take a look (data from Baseball Almanac’s Comprehensive History of the World Series, and the anomalies are in italics):

1940 – The Cincinnati Reds (NL) beat the Detroit Tigers (AL), and Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt won his unprecedented third term.

1944 – The St. Louis Cardinals (NL) defeat the St. Louis Browns (AL), and Democrat FDR again wins the White House.

1948 – The Cleveland Indians (AL) beat the Boston Braves (NL). So, the winner should have been the Republican, Dewey. But Truman won, so the baseball predictor didn’t work out that time. (However, many people thought Dewey would defeat Truman. Remember the famous newspaper headline? So that may account for the Indians’ victory.)

1952 – New York Yankees (AL) beat the Brooklyn Dodgers (NL). Eisenhower (Republican) wins the White House.

1956 – Yankees (AL) beat the Dodgers (NL) again. Eisenhower (GOP) wins a second term.

1960 – Pittsburgh Pirates (NL) beat the Yankees (AL) and JFK (Democrat) beats Richard Nixon, the Republican.

1964 – Cardinals (NL) beat the Yankees (AL) and Lyndon Johnson (Democrat) wins over Barry Goldwater (Republican).

1968 – Tigers (AL) beat the Cardinals (NL), and Nixon (GOP) wins the presidency.

1972 – The Oakland A’s (AL) beat the Reds (NL), and Nixon wins a second term.

1976 – The Reds (NL) beat the Yankees (AL), and Jimmy Carter (Democrat) beats Gerald Ford.

1980 – The Philadelphia Phillies (NL) beat the Kansas City Royals (AL), but a Republican (Ronald Reagan) wins the White House. (The fact that the Royals were the AL candidate may account for this fluke. Either that, or a bad economy.)

1984 – The Tigers (AL) beat the San Diego Padres (NL), and Reagan wins again.

1988 – The Los Angeles Dodgers (NL) beat the Oakland A’s (AL), but Republican George H.W. Bush wins the White House.

1992 – The Toronto Blue Jays (AL) defeat the Atlanta Braves (NL), but Democrat Bill Clinton wins.

1996 – The Yankees (AL) beat the Braves (NL), but Democrat Clinton wins a second term.

2000 – The Yankees (AL) beat the Mets (NL), and George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, wins. The formula returns to true form after three straight terms.

2004 – The Boston Red Sox (AL) beat the St. Louis Cardinals (NL) and Bush wins a second term. (That still hurts, by the way. The Sox beating my beloved Cardinals, I mean. Or maybe I mean the other thing.)

2008 – The Philadelphia Phillies (NL) beat the Tampa Bay Rays (AL). And….?

* * *

So, now that the Phillies have won the World Series, then the White House should go to the Democrat, Barack Obama, right? But remember that the last time the Phillies won (in 1980), a Republican (Reagan) beat the Democrat (Carter). If McCain wins this election, then there could be a “Phillies curse” for the Democrats.

There are some other theories about sports and presidential politics, such as, “If the Washington Redskins win the week of the election, this means a win for the incumbent party,” and “If the Los Angeles Lakers win the the championship, then the Republican candidate will win” (source). But I don’t go for that superstitious stuff.