The funny thing about Monday Morning Quarterbacks is that they’re always right. They deftly identify and discuss every flaw and weakness in a team’s or player’s approach, and some misguided viewers or listeners might be wishing these analysts and talk show hosts had been coaching their favorite team or taking the snaps the night before. What people tend to forget is this: it’s easy to criticize and dissect a performance or a decision after the fact, and all discussions about a prior performance are subject to what is known as “outcome bias”. That is, our perception of whether a decision was right or not is always influenced by our knowledge of the actual outcome. It takes no leadership, very little critical thinking, and no foresight to prove a decision as being “wrong” when one has the negative outcome as proof. Unless a team’s or player’s performance was perfect (and let’s face it, they never are), then coming up with criticism is extremely easy.
A perfect example comes from the American League Championship Series in 2003. The Boston Red Sox and New York Yankees were playing a decisive Game 7 at Yankee Stadium to see which team would advance to the World Series. Pedro Martinez had pitched 7 dominant innings and held a 5-2 lead heading into the 8th inning. After getting the first out quickly and then giving up back-to-back hits (one that should have been caught by the center fielder) that closed the gap to 5-3, the Red Sox manager – Grady Little – walked to the mound to speak with his pitcher. After speaking with Martinez, Little decided to leave him in the game. – The next two batters doubled, and the game was quickly tied at 5 runs apiece. Little took a second trip to the mound and replaced Martinez with a relief pitcher. The Red Sox went on to lose the game in 11 innings, and Grady Little was vilified in the Boston and national media as a poor manager because he didn’t take Pedro Martinez out when he first visited the mound.Looking back on the situation, it’s easy to criticize Grady Little’s decision – now that we’ve seen the results. But don’t forget that we are subject to this “outcome bias”. Pedro Martinez had thrown 104 pitches in the game to that point, and he (a first-ballot Hall of Fame pitcher) told Little he could get the next two outs. Grady Little had 2 relievers ready in the bullpen, but you’ll never see their bronze busts in Cooperstown.
The truth is, Grady Little did what most managers would have done in that situation. (If you’re thinking that I’m wrong…then you may be forgetting that you too are subject to this “outcome bias”!) Pedro Martinez was the team’s best pitcher, and the odds of him getting 2 more outs after having thrown 104 pitches were probably just as good as a journeyman relief pitcher doing the same after coming out of the bullpen.
The sad and irrational thing about this story is that Grady Little’s contract was not renewed based largely on this decision, his laudable success with the Red Sox has largely been forgotten, his time in Boston will be forever remembered for one negative outcome, and every commentator or fan who openly criticizes his decision is accepted as a genius. The most ironic thing about this example is that another manager – the Cubs’ Lou Piniella – was just criticized this week for taking his star pitcher out of a game too early in a similar situation. (Piniella Pulls Zambrano Too Early)
As I pointed out before, this “Armchair Quarterbacking” takes no leadership, no foresight (only hindsight…and we all know how good that is), involves no risk, and can’t be wrong. In short, it’s easy and almost cowardly to openly criticize and attack the person having to make a critical decision under pressure once the results have been made manifest.
Since this thought piece has gone on long enough, I’ll make my point and close for the day. Consider the following:
What if Game 7 of the ALCS was analogous to some important moments in our country’s recent history? Wouldn’t President Bush be playing the role of Grady Little? Perhaps some executive decisions have been as unsuccessful as leaving Pedro Martinez in to face 2 more batters. Certainly there have been others that have fared better. (After all, Grady Little must have done some things right to get the Red Sox into Game 7!) It's easy to identify those people who are the Monday Morning Quarterbacks that criticize every decision, highlight the negative outcomes, ignore the positive ones, and brashly proclaim that they would have done things differently.
I’m not saying that I would have made all the same decisions that President Bush has made over the past 7 years, but I’m also not claiming to have any idea of the enormous pressures, stresses, and information asymmetry problems that a Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the United States must deal with. (I make enough of my own mistakes within my little sphere of influence!) What I am saying is this: “I don’t know what I would have done if I had been in his shoes. Nobody knows, and anyone who says they would have acted differently or would have made different choices is heavily influenced by the luxury of knowing the actual outcomes.”
So, if you’re ever caught thinking that a 45-year old sports analyst might make a better quarterback for your favorite team, imagine that same skinny talk show host suited up in pads and a helmet and lining up on a football field against today’s best athletes. How much better do you really think he’d fare?
No comments:
Post a Comment