Dr. Evil: [Upon being told his plans to expose Prince Charles' infidelity and to initiate the greehouse effect are worthless because those things have already happened] "Oh, hell, let's just do what we always do. Let's hijack some nuclear weapons and hold the world hostage."
--Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery
I want to talk about three things in sports that make absolutely no sense to illustrate a point below. Saddle up
First, football.
Situation: Its 4th and forever, and you need to punt. Unfortunately, the other team has a total stud, like Devon Hester, waiting to receive. You know if he catches the ball there's a really good chance he'll score, or at least go for a pretty long run back. What do you do?
Answer: In the NFL and college, the answer is to kick it straight down the field and let the receiver catch it and take your chances. But until about the last few years or so, teams routinely would kick away from that kind of receiver, trying to punch it out on the sidelines. The downsides are that you won't be able to kick it as far, and its easier to block a punt coming from the outside than straight up the middle. But at least you don't run the greater risk of a big return. The game used to always be played by kicking to the side. The last punter in the NFL who can still do this is old man Jeff Feagles, who creaks as he walks on the field and wipes out half of his team with the smell of Ben Gay, with his helmet hiding the too long in the fields melanomas on his balding head. Its like he's the last of some extinct species, the only person left on earth apparently capable of punting a ball other than straight down the field. But we know that the laws of physics haven't changed since punters routinely could punt to the sideline without getting the ball blocked. The ball hasn't changed shape. Global warming hasn't yet changed average barometric pressure to the point that the atmosphere cannot sustain a football projectile on a non-direct track. Why won't college and pro teams kick away from returners they have little chance of stopping?
Second, baseball.
Situation: Bottom of the 7th, and your starter is running out of gas. Your team is clinging to a one-run lead. Opposition hitters are torching your pitcher, your guy hasn't gotten anyone out, and the second, third, and fourth spots in the lineup are coming up. You go to the bullpen to replace the starter. Who do you bring in?
Answer: Instead of bringing in your best reliever, you bring in your third or maybe even fourth best reliever. Why? Because its only the 7th, and you need your second-best reliever to pitch the 8th as the "setup man," and your best reliever to pitch the ninth as your "closer" to get the "save." This makes no sense whatsoever. The game doesn't need saving when the closer would pitch, hopefully, to the eighth, ninth and first place hitters in the ninth. It needs saving in the seventh when the opponent's best hitters will come to bat, and especially if they have a rally going. Yet in today's game, managers pre-designate their relievers as closers, set up men, and everyone else, and will only put in their closer in the ninth, set up man in the eighth, and everyone else before. This means that you will put in some scrub to pitch to the other team's best hitters, keeping your best pitcher on the bench to use him against the other team's worst hitters. In the other sports this never happens. Defensive coaches put their best cornerbacks on the offense's best receivers. Basketball coaches put their best defender on the other team's best scorer. Hell, in Caddyshack, when Judge Smails told the head greenskeeper to do something about those gophers tunneling in from Al Czervik's condominium project across the street from Bushwood, the greenskeeper promised to put his best man on it (which turned out to be Carl Spackler). But in baseball, managers don't use their best pitchers to pitch to the other team's best hitters, just because the best hitters aren't hitting in the ninth inning. Is a run in the ninth worth more than a run in the seventh? No. When the "save" was first invented, relievers like Goose Gossage, Sparky Lyle, Rollie Fingers and Kent Tekulve (grasshopper looking, submarine throwing, John Lennon glasses wearing freak) all routinely pitched two and three innings to get their saves, precisely so they would face the heart of the other team's lineup. Now managers are intimidated by agents who maximize their client's salaries by pressuring the manager to only put the "closer" in when a save situation is easily attainable, but to the detriment of the overall enterprise of winning the game.
Third, basketball.
Situation: seconds left in the game, your team is up by three, the other team has the ball. If you foul, the other team gets to shoot two, but if you don't foul they can win the game with a three point shot. Do you foul?
Answer: not if you're the Memphis Tigers. When this exact situation happened in this year's NCAA Final Four championship, Mario Chalmers for Kansas had the ball outside the three point line, Memphis didn't foul, Chalmers hit the three point shot to tie the game, and then Kansas won the game in overtime. I've seen this in many other games. Why wouldn't a team foul in that situation? The worst that can happen is the free throw shooter makes the first shot, then intentionally misses the second shot and his team gets a quick rebound and two point score. But that's the worst that can happen, and its less probable than the shooter hitting the three point shot. Today on sports talk radio, Memphis' coach said he had instructed his players to foul in that situation, but they just couldn't get it done. Then he said he had at least 20 coaches call him after the game to say that they NEVER foul in that situation. Why? Because they just don't want to commit intentional fouls.
The lesson here is that relatively sophisticated organizations across all sports, and these days sports is big business, adopt these approaches to certain situations without any real justification, and which conflict with their broader goals of winning the game. The only apparent reason in each case is because they've always played the game like that (or at least, have played it like that the last few years or so). But if they would simply think about it, they'd find these approaches have no real merit, and would change.
How many businesses, governments, families, non-profits, and people in general do the same thing? Just because you've always done something doesn't make it continue to be right. Like going to keg parties or to Sixth Street-at some point something that used to be cool and fun becomes pathetic. Or, what once made sense might not make sense anymore as the world changes around you. Like buying an SUV that consumes ten times the gas of conventional cars.
My advice to you, is to start drinking heavily, no, is to question the things you've always done, and ask if they continue to make sense.
Next-Jazz Festival
No comments:
Post a Comment