Wasting Chances: An Example in Sport
You are a distance runner who has pulled far clear of the competition. You check your wristwatch and see that you are also on pace for a personal best - and the course record. Do you
a) Push ahead at your limit for a chance at the greater victory?
b) Slow down for fear that your elevated pace might lead to cramping (you’ve never cramped in a race before)?
You are an artist creating a highly detailed clay sculpture for a timed contest. You look around the room with fifteen minutes left and see that, though your piece is not yet as intricately ornamented as you had planned, it is more than good enough to win “best in class” as-is. In fact, it's already one of the best sculptures you’ve ever made. Do you
a) Scramble to finish your original concept, pursuing not only victory but your highest personal achievement ever as a sculptor?
b) Stop working on the piece, for fear that in haste you may accidentally damage what you already have completed (you’ve never made such a mistake before)?
You are pianist playing Chopin’s Polonaise No. 6 before a packed house. The performance has gone brilliantly; so brilliantly, in fact, that you have not made a single mistake. The audience hangs on to every note - you can feel the energy in the air, tension building as you near the end of the piece. Do you
a) Go for perfection, for a chance to prove your virtuosic ability and to impact the audience in a unique and powerful way?
b) Let a finger slip (e.g. 8:11) to ease the tension, for fear of capping off an otherwise flawless run with an error on the final few chords?
You are the 2009 Indianapolis Colts, five games away from the first undefeated NFL season since 1972. You are playing the New York Jets. Do you
a) Play to win the game, to continue pursuit of professional football's greatest challenge?
b) Cede the game by remove your only indisputably essential player, for fear that he may get injured (he has never been injured before)?
Or, as the Colts did tonight against the New York Jets, do you c) play over half of the game as if following strategy a, only to adopt strategy b just as the upper hand has been gained?
It is a decision that will surely leave a lasting foulness in the mouths of Colts fans, whether or not – albeit for different reasons – the team does indeed win the Super Bowl. It is a decision that, most unfortunately, appears to be essentially the product of mere leadership personalities – personalities that consider the smaller victory so precious that they would cast aside any chance of achieving the greater victory for, at best, a miniscule improvement in chances of achieving the smaller. Or is it that this “greater victory” (19-0) is only such in the eyes of fans and players, not coaches and front office personnel? But if this is true, and the first hypothesis is not, then why wouldn’t team leadership bend to the overwhelming desires of fans and players on such an inconsequential matter? In every case, I am confounded.
The Colts, playing with Peyton Manning (a sure indication of the team’s willingness to win), had overcome several mistakes and taken a 15-10 lead midway through the third quarter. Following this, the defense forced the Jets to punt. 5:36 to go in the third. And here, it occurred: Peyton Manning out. Curtis Painter in. And, meekly, the Colts proceeded to punt away the game. 15-18, 15-21, 15-28. The win, contested hotly for two and a half quarters, was quietly surrendered.
Oh, sure, there were reasons for the decision to introduce Painter to the game. There must have been. But none of them were any good.
We wanted to rest the starters
Then play them for the first quarter and be done with it! Is a mere twenty minutes of game-clock rest so significant that it is worth sacrificing a perfect season? Will Peyton Manning feel healthier in three weeks for having sat out those twenty minutes? Will this be offset by the psychological effect of 15-1 (or 14-2) compared with 16-0? Is there any compelling reason to find all of this out?
We wanted to avoid injuries [especially to our prize quarterback!]
Then don't play the essential players at all! Is risking Manning’s health for 40 minutes instead of 60 acceptable? Is that where we draw the line? Under what justification? Is the reduction of risk to Manning and other players really worth all the negative press, fan reactions, and player reaction to losing the game? Is it worth pointing out again that Peyton Manning has NEVER sat out a game due to injury in his career?
Oh, but if Manning had gotten hurt in the 4th quarter, fans would have…
What if he had gotten hurt in the first quarter?
We really just wanted Curtis Painter to get some experience.
Oh. Oh really. Experience playing quarterback in the NFL or experience being in the eye of a self-inflicted hurricane of fan scorn? Because the former aim could have been quite easily accomplished earlier in the season, during several inconsequential fourth quarters.
You're telling me that Curtis Painter can't play during the fourth quarter of a 42-6 blowout against the Saint Louis Rams (what if Manning had gotten injured then?), but he's coming in to a 15-10 game, with history in the balance, to get "experience"? No. Not sensible.
Oh, but we're simply afraid of success
Yeah. Yeah, I'll buy that. Oh, I know it’s not really true – but that’s the undeniable feeling that continually emanates from the Colts’ front office. Again, it feels like a manifestation of personalities. The 2007 Patriots played every game to win, ran up the score when possible, and pursued ruthlessly their own potential to conquer – at any time, anywhere. Why, when in possession of the same opportunity, did the 2009 Colts not do the same? What was so different about these two teams, as both sat 14-0, other than the personalities of their leaders? Every word that comes from leadership of the Colts suggests that while they DO quite want to win the Super Bowl, thank you very much, they are very uncomfortable with the notion of success unto itself – they would much prefer to enter the playoffs with a quiet 12-4 record than to carry the burden of 16-0, to have the ability to stand up and declare proudly “We are the elite!” and the desire to prove it at every turn.
The 2007 Patriots went forth under such a banner, flaming out spectacularly at the end. They will long be remembered for this. The 2009 Colts chose instead the hand-wringing, worrisome, fearful path. They ceded their high ground willingly, for fear that it might later be captured. They demonstrated a lack of respect for the pursuit of history. They flouted their fans. They did not embrace the greater challenge. They quit the race. And, really, for no good reason.
(update: greater men have now spoken)