Matt Booher

Most of us fall into the trap of having unhelpful standards. Whenever we try to prove something, we end up doing the opposite. Once we know something important is at stake, the cognitive load can be overbearing and we crumble under the weight of those standards. According to Jake Breeden in a recent Authors@Google talk, a requirement for success is the ability to embrace the paradoxes inherit in performance and find ways to move beyond workplace habits that masquarade as virtues. He outlines three paradoxes: the Excellence Paradox, the Collaboration Paradox, and the Creativity Paradox.

With respect to the Excellence Paradox, Breeden suggests that you may need to do less than excellent work to do an excellent job. One must decouple the work from the job and decouple the work from oneself. Breeden says one way this can be done is to get into the habit of sharing incomplete work – lowering initial standards so that you can achieve a higher standard later on. He closes the discussion by asking the audience “when do you fall into the trap of having unhelpful standards?” I realized for myself I typically have unhelpful standards in two key areas of my life: 1) when I’m writing and 2) when I present strategic thinking. When I’m writing, I always saddle my work with the baggage of “I used to be a sportswriter, so this better be good”. This typically leads to unecessary critism and paralysis by analysis of the work. When I’m presenting strategic thinking, I always try to stuff as much smart thinking into the talk as the talk will allow. This invariably disrupts my ability to present a cohesive and coherent narrative as the work falls short of the standard I set for it.

The second paradox he discusses, the Collaborative Paradox, highlights our unwillingess to step out of our comfort zones and interact with others that may have a different perspective. Breeden says too much of our collaboration is the same. We spend time in the same circles, with the same people, and just recycle the same thinking. And we try to pass this off as collaboration. He even has a name for it – the bait ball – where people cluster together to feel safe and hide from external threats. The work of a leader, Breeden says, is to make it safe for people to interact, criticize each others work, and still maintain a positive team environment. I’m going to challenge myself to interact with others disimilar to me and encourage an environment of healthy criticism while maintaining positivity. Too often I fear my intended positive criticism demoralizes the group and comes across as griping. Ensuring a solution-focused attitude is key.

Breeded closes his talk with the Creativity Paradox. The Creativity Paradox attacks creativity as narcicism. So much of the creativity in the world focuses on the creator leaving their mark on the world. Well, Breeden says, the world doesn’t need that mark. We have an idea. It gains inertia. But its not what is needed. Sometimes what is needed is the same thing that has always been done. It might not be creative, but its effective. And ultimately the application of that same idea in a different context becomes the creative output. Ultimately you can’t guarantee disruption through a process, but can improve the chances. I’m going to look for small ways to be creative. Instead of chasing the big idea, I’m going to focus on creative opportunities that do not require a grand gesture or idea and simply apply familiar techniques to new problems.

On March 1 the Columbus Blue Jackets were languishing in last place in the Western Conference with 13 points from 20 games. From that date through April 16, the Blue Jackets have earned the most points in the Western Conference, climbing from the cellar into ninth place to be even on points with the Detroit Red Wings for the final playoff spot and two points behind the sixth-place Minnesota Wild.

This incredible stretch of hockey positions the Blue Jackets for a chance at the playoffs, something unthinkable six weeks ago. According to Sports Club Stats – an amazing site that provides estimated odds for teams reaching the playoffs – Columbus has an 18% percent chance at reaching the postseason.

The run in over the final two weeks of the season will not be easy. For one, five of the final six games will be played on a West Coast road trip where the Blue Jackets have been an ordinary 7-11-2 away from Nationwide Arena.

It seems like just yesterday sports resisted every attempt to introduce technology into their games. Traditionalists decry the removal of the human element. Modernists present technology as a matter of fairness – in that we could finally correct unjust wrong calls. A couple of decades into this “technological revolution”, its hard to say our games are any more fair today than they were before our cameras, replays, and super slo-mos found their way into the rules books of sport.

Both teams receive six timeouts at the start of a college basketball game, unless the basketball game just so happens to be close late, and the officials watch the game clock with hawkish eyes. Going to the monitor in late game situations ground to contest to a halt. In more than a few instances, teams without timeouts find themselves able to gather around the coach and work out a last-second adjustment or play. So much for placing a premium on timeouts. Just keep the game close and the officials will parade over to the scorers table to keep an eye on those precious tenths of a second. The delay will last longer than a timeout so you’ll have plenty of time to adjust your defense or set up a last-second scoring play. What’s the point of preserving your timeouts if your opponents waste them early? Sure, you might not get that fortunate clock review when you most need it, but too often in this recent NCAA Tournament the officials huddled around a monitor while teams regrouped and called plays in close games.

And when does the statute of limitations end on video replays? Take Tiger Woods at the Masters this weekend. For a brief moment the real possibility that Woods, one stroke off the lead, would be disqualified for turning in an incorrect scorecard after taking a questionable drop after hitting into the water on the 15th hole. It would later be determined, well after the round via video replay, that Woods took his drop too far from his original divot. The ruling was a two-stroke penalty. But it seems the rule is being enforced through video replay after the fact. If the rules official with the group missed the illegal drop, how far back do we look? And if the mistake is not corrected prior to submitting one’s scorecard, could the round then be deemed over? It seems we could infinetely replay into perpetuity any shot or scenario via video, seeking even the slightest of rules violations.

Baseball has been very slow to adopt technological advances. But in an incident Tampa Bay Rays manager John Madden simply referred to as “something that should not happen in a Major League game” went uncorrected. Joe Nathan’s final pitch clearly missed the plate by a good six inches, but yet, homeplate umpire Marty Foster called strike three and snuffed a late Rays rally. In this case a clearly unfair outcome occurred because the technology that could precisely review the call – PitchFX – is used for umpire evaluation and not for in-game reviews of questionable calls.

Another slow adopter, FIFA, has resisted goal line review technology for almost as long as television cameras have been bringing the world’s most popular games to living rooms across the globe. Next season, the Premier League will be implementing goal line technology in the English game with much consternation from those associated the game. Truth is, it’ll have minimal impact – the number of goals impacted will be counted on one hand. Proponents claim they’re modernizing the game. Opponents say the referree as authority on the pitch has been undermined. Given the allegations of match fixing in Europe, not sure fairness is possible.

No matter the case, technology seems to have simply moved the attention away from the human element and into a realm where we’re reviewing the fairness of the technology or the process. Perhaps this can be considered an improvement.

The timing of Bob Ryan’s recent rant against WAR in Sunday’s Boston Globe seemed a bit suspicious. While thousands of quants from the recent MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference climbed out of bed and fire up their tablets and computers, Ryan treated his Globe readers to an attack on a statistic gaining popularity in the baseball mainstream while using the very same position the advocates of said metric use to bolster their argument. If the first rule of journalism is know your audience; the second must be say something provocative – especially if it attacks the new, defends the old, and gets said in the decaying world of newsprint.

Ryan’s picking a fight where there was none to be had and used a shaky argument – that the stat is made up – to demonstrate how little he actually knows about the very statistic he’s challenging. And picking the stat’s poster boy Mike Trout didn’t make his comments any more sensible. Trout’s 9.1 WAR is exactly why he is the best player in baseball. And that is based on thorough analysis of statistics, both advanced and traditional – not a shaky opinion he thinks is coming from the world of sabremetrics. There is no “eye-test” or subjectivity in WAR. Its a detailed breakdown of the aggregate contribution a player makes to winning. The made-up “replacement player” is a similar statistical representation. It isn’t pretend or made up. In 2012, he was Ceasar Izturis. But I’m guessing Ryan cared little for doing any research that would have helped explain the stat but undermine his grumpy old man rant.

Bob, General James has plenty control of his troops. They’re thinking in a rational and disciplined way. Not sure if the same can be said here for this column.

Both Manchester clubs lead this weeks ratings with United secure in its spot at the top. Aston Villa, Queens Park Rangers, and Reading hold the relegation spots. Villa has been the weakest performer this season at nearly a goal below average vs. the rest of the league.

About the rankings: The rankings are created by utilizing Wayne Winston’s World Cup Ratings system outlined in the book Mathletics. A score of 0.00 on offense and defense respectively equals the mean goals scored and mean goals conceded per match. Margin of victory plays a large role in the rankings, so teams that have suffered significant goal differences will be penalized.

I’m pleased the Browns failed in Arizona. Not in a I hope Jimmy Haslam and Joe Banner fail in their efforts to steer the Browns onto a winning path, but in a “there is more than one way to skin a cat” and the NFL’s latest feline fancy Chip Kelly seems more interested in flying with Ducks or Eagles than getting down and dirty in Cleveland with the Dawgs.

Kelly is not a fit. It’s one thing to succeed where competitive advantage comes in the form of Nike money and a video-game style offense that benefits greatly from having better athletes. In the NFL, the money is equal, the stakes higher, and talent margin slimmer. Winning in the NFL occurs at the margins and Kelly’s sloppy teams leave doubt as to whether this inattention to the details at the professional level could prove problematic.

Let’s face it, despite the progress made in 2012, the Browns need a turnaround artist. Someone been there, done that. Haslam and Banner claim they need a strong personality and a coach versed in the personnel decisions. Only Haslam and Banner know how close they think the Browns are to contending regularly in the AFC North and what expectations would be heaped on the incoming coach. But with a sluggish offense, questions at quarterback, an average defense with a porous secondary, and youthful roster, this just simply isn’t a team that’ll go from 5-11 to 11-5 with a change in head coach. A college coach making the jump to the pro ranks doesn’t seem to me to be the best source of information on how to succeed in the NFL.

Cleveland’s front office talks quite a bit about contention. Ask most Indians fans what contention means to them and they’ll likely talk about playing baseball into October. Ask the Indians front office and you’ll likely get a discussion of the economic realities in baseball, competing for a division title, and some abstract commitment about prudently investing in the team on the field. So 2012, up to this point, would qualify as a moderate success.

A 44-41 record heading into the second half of the season meets the criteria established by both Indians fans and the front office. Only the most pessimistic Indians fan wouldn’t believe Cleveland has at least an outside shot at winning a fairly weak AL Central. And the front office can trot the platitudes about contending and tease with the promise of investment provided the terms be economically feasible. Not “Legends of October” worthy investments, mind you, but chances are the club will try and get better in the second half of the season.

Speaking of which – the second half of the season. As it stands, the Indians record is slightly better than their run differential would suggest. Thanks to a strong bullpen helping the team win close games, the Indians sit four games better than the 40-45 record they should have at this point in the season. This puts the Indians on pace to win somewhere between 82 and 86 games. An improvement over last season’s 80-82 – but you just don’t get the sense Cleveland will ride a hot streak, and finish north of 90 victories. Here are the reasons why:

Pitching. Aside from Chris Perez and Vinnie Pestano, Indians pitching has been nothing short of awful in 2012. Check out the AL Pitching WAR leaders graph below. Justin Masterson barely slides into the top-half of AL starters thanks mostly in part to a recent string of strong outings. Derek Lowe and Ubaldo Jimenez have been subpar despite Lowe’s strong start and Jimenez’s recent improvement. Jeanmar Gomez, Josh Tomlin, and Zach McAllister haven’t done enough to significantly impact the season and can be considered nothing more than slightly better than replacement players at this point. Best case scenario has McAllister and Tomlin holding down the back end of the rotation while the front three of Masterson, Jimenez, and Lowe find their top form for the remainder of the campaign. Worst case scenario has all five remaining inconsistent forcing the Indians to chase ballgames with a hit-and-mostly-miss offense.

Hitting. This has been a known question mark for a couple of seasons and the 2012 numbers suggest that aside from Carlos Santana’s extended struggles, the guys the Indians expected to hit have hit. Jason Kipnis, Asdrubal Cabrera, Shin-Soo Choo, and Michael Brantley have delivered on expectations. For the Indians to push on in the second half, Cleveland needs to get some production from Carlos Santana and the rest of the lineup. The left field problem has been well-documented and Casey Kotchman has been a borderline disaster at the plate despite a recent uptick in production. But if this team can’t find a way to score runs on a more consistent basis, the AL Central title won’t be arriving on Ohio’s North Coast anytime soon.

Earl Weaver once posited a theory regarding baseball success: the best teams will lose 60 games, the worst teams will win 60 games – it’s what you do with the other 42 games that matter.

Never before in the history of baseball have approaches on how to win those 42 games been more hotly debated. And the fault lines divide between the game’s traditionalists and the growing brood of statistically-driven analysts can be summarized in two books – Three Nights in August by Buzz Bissinger and Michael Lewis’s Moneyball.

Picking up Three Nights in August after just re-reading Moneyball left me exasperated. The debate between the LaRussaistas (traditionalists) and Moneyballistas (statisticians) presented by Bissinger portrayed both parties as despotic tyrants trying to win over the masses. And that is the problem – that somehow baseball must be played and explained from either of these mutually exclusive perspectives and no overlap between the two schools of thought can exist. Dumb.

In Three Nights, J.D. Drew serves as Larussa’s example as to why a numbers-driven approach to baseball won’t work. Despite very appealing stats, LaRussa’s experience tells him Drew will never fulfill his potential as a ballplayer because the player refused to play through injury and generally lacks the heart and hustle needed to succeed in professional baseball. But the singular emphasis on intangibles such as heart and hustle misses the mark just as easily as the Moneyball crowd failed to see a flawed player. Focus too much on heart and hustle and the Cardinals miss out on the production Drew can deliver. Focus too much on the numbers and someone will overpay for a passionless under-producer in the free agent market.

The walk represents another common misunderstandings between the two philosophies. LaRussaistas believe the Moneyball crowd place a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the walk and incorrectly value players based on those walks. But its not the walk the Moneyballers care about – they care about players not making an out. In a timeless game where outs exist as the only scarce resource, Moneyballistas believe outs are too precious to be wasted.

This argument accelerates when the conversation turns to the sacrifice bunt. Again, the numbers-driven crowd maintains a consistent position – the out is too valuable to be sacrificed in moving a player into scoring position, particularly when the next batter faces a diminished probability of plating the run. LaRussaistas see the sacrifice as a game-changing strategic gambit aimed at unsettling the opponent and gaining a shift in momentum. In a game devoid of human emotion, the numbers view certainly works best.

But traditionalists believe momentum can turn a game and unknowingly engage in a very Moneyball-esque calculation when deploying the sacrifice bunt: will the marginal emotional benefit of executing the sacrifice exceed the reduced numerical probability of scoring a run? When the traditionalist can answer this question in the affirmative – they employ the very technique they easily dismiss as a lack of understanding and appreciation of the subtleties of a well-played baseball game.

Reading these two books back-to-back certainly exaggerated the differences. But like any complex issue, the oversimplification of each philosophy prevents progress. Teams like Tampa employ the Moneyball philosophy throughout the entire organization from the ownership, front office, and on the field. Cincinnati, on the other hand, operates with a more traditional front office and managerial approach. Both have found success in recent years.

To borrow a phrase from the club, Aston Villa stand ready to embark on a vibrant new era and Paul Lambert is the right man for the job. For some, Lambert may feel like second or third choice. After a very public flirtation with former Manchester United forward and current Molde FK coach Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and another go at Wigan’s Roberto Martinez, Randy Lerner selected Lambert for the position. All three seemed in the mix and its hard to interpret through press reports who was preferred and when.

Villa need someone to consolidate the club in the top half of the Premier League table and push on for European places. When Lambert assumed the managerial position at Norwich City, the club was in shambles. The League One side quickly ascended to the Premier League. While Villa are not in complete shambles, its very clear the club need someone to initiate an upward trajectory.

Consider what Lambert has done for Norwich and compare his performance to Martinez’s stewardship of Wigan and Solskjaer’s brief tenure at Molde and a clearer picture of why Lambert is right for the job emerges. Using the Euro Club Index as a ranking of club’s relative strengths at a given point in time, one can compare the how a manager has moved a club forward or backward during their tenure. The three graphs, sourced from the Euro Club Index website, tell the story:

Norwich City

Wigan

Molde FK

Consider fan favorite Roberto Martinez. It’s easy to be allured by the attractive football played by Wigan and the romantic notion of football being played “the right way.” But Wigan have never really advanced since Martinez took over from Steve Bruce, battling to stave off relegation in the past two seasons. Most seasons include long runs of winning football followed by long stretches of poor performances. Given Wigan’s limited resources relative its Premier League rivals, it can be said Martinez has done a fantastic job keeping the team in the Premier League.

Ole Gunnar Solskjaer presents an interesting case. OGS has overseen the improvement of Molde this past season and looks capable of pushing the side to even greater heights. However, he’s done it outside the Premier League and with only a single season under his belt. His appointment most likely would have been high risk-high reward, a creative hire demonstrating Villa’s ability to think outside the box to gain an advantage over wealthier Premier League clubs.

It’ll be difficult for Lambert to maintain his rapid ascent, but Villa certainly have room to grow. And at the very least, return to a competitive place in the Premier League after a dismal season under Alex McLeish.

The numbers paint a pretty dismal picture:

• 38 points from 38 games – lowest point total in 42 years
• One point worse than the total accumulated by relegated Birmingham City last season
• Four wins in 18 home games – worst home record in history of the club
• Two wins in final 18 games of the season
• Winless in final 10 games of the season
• Escaped relegation by two points
• Worst league finish in six years

Alex McLeish
Needless to say the recent dismissal of Alex McLeish as Aston Villa manager closes the door on a relationship that was a day too long from the day it began. CEO Paul Faulkner exhibited poor judgement with his selection of McLeish. Not only did the former Birmingham City skipper twice relegate the Blues in three seasons, but his teams played unattractive football. Many of McLeish’s defenders in the media chalked the vitriol from Villa supporters up to his St. Andrew’s ties, but that’s just lazy journalism. The record above speaks for itself. Moving on…

Ownership
Randy Lerner invested no small sum of his inherited fortune upon arriving at Villa Park. With Martin O’Neal on board, Lerner decided to go for it. The current state of the squad is penance for the trust he placed in MON but the money spent chasing a Champions League position. It’s hard to fault Lerner for pulling back on the spending. But the whole cost-cutting approach seemed directionless. Villa accepted cuts wherever they could be found and the slash and burn approach left a weakened squad ill-prepared for the challenges presented during the 2011-2012 campaign.

Squad
Shay Given may have single-handedly kept Villa from falling into the Championship. Far too often the back four conceded goal chances too easily, leaving Given exposed and isolated. When Richard Dunne went down with a broken collarbone, Given took command and helped organize an inexperienced and unfamiliar backline. Left to make acrobatic saves, Given showed himself to be one of the smartest pieces of business from last summer’s transfer window.

Injuries forced Villa to shuffle the defense on far too many occasions. As the Claret and Blue slipped into a relegation tussle, the back four typically included youngsters Eric Lichaj and Nathan Baker as Stephen Warnock slid into midfield (certainly one of the more “curious” McLeish decisions).

Darren Bent’s injury certainly hindered Villa’s ability to score goals, but the midfield looked in complete disarray all season. Part of the midfield’s ineffectiveness can be attributed to McLeish’s inexplicable tactics and scatter-brained style of play. Too narrow. Too defensive. Absolutely no imagination. Too often Villa were overrun in the middle of the pitch and forced into their own half. The inability to generate an attack from a defensive position led to Villa’s strikers spending an awful large amount of time isolated up front with nothing to do.

Andreas Wiemann’s emergence as a future fixture up front stood out as a lone highlight from the attackers this season. Bent’s injury and Gabby Agbonlahor’s disappearing act stiffled an offense already limited by the manager’s preferred approach to football. Emile Heskey offered no relief as a target man. Villa’s new manager must find a way to improve goal production.

Next Season
Rival Premier League sides offer a way out of this current fog engulfing Villa Park (see United, Newcastle and Everton). It’s clear the wage bill must be reduced, but it must be reduced with clear alternatives in mind. This will require a manager with an eye for finding value in places most English clubs wouldn’t think to look. The buy-to-sell mindset must evolve into a buy-low, perform-high approach that looks beyond the net transfer earnings and produces results on the pitch.