Should the 2004 regular season end as it stands now - and there's no guarantee that it will - with the Dodgers in the playoffs and the Angels out of it, some writers might be tempted to pen little morality plays: that you don't need to make a huge splash with big contracts to win.

They will be nice compliments to the morality plays written this spring, which dramatized that you don't win by standing on the sidelines.

Both plays will be correct in their ways, and both will be beside the point. What's most important is this: Every decision a team makes should be to make use of its resources in a way that best improves its odds of winning.

The italicized word is, not surprisingly, the key. You can make all the right decisions and still get none of the right results, and vers-vicea.

There were some decisions that the Angels made in the spring that weren't high-odds decisions, such as signing Bartolo Colon to a rich, long-term contract. Chance of reward there, but the risk/reward ratio wasn't ideal. For the Dodgers' part, one can fairly say even without the benefit of hindsight that an investment in Vladimir Guerrero, even with the subsequent emergence of other stars like Adrian Beltre, was a risk worth taking.

The dollars you spend are only relevant to the extent that they affect your ability to spend on your next decision. You can win games spending oodles or spending noodles. The important lesson is to make the most out of every decision - and to understand that the outcome may not do justice to the decision, rightly or wrongly.