Strategy = Winning
So, I read Idris' Strategy...it has to be fun post. The first thing I thought of was a personal email exchange I had, and then reading Parinella's comment in Idris' NW Regionals '06 post got me thinking further.
First, I would like to post selective sentences Idris wrote...
"If you truly believe your strategy is a recipe for success, you will get that fun feeling. That excitement that drives you individually and the team.
and
"I guess I would say that having an identity is not important in establishing a winning team. For chemistry, it depends on how you define it. Of course, if players know what each other are doing, then things will run more smoothly on the field, but I think what people usually mean by “chemistry” is captured in quotes like “I knew someone would pick me up because that’s the kind of team we have.”"
I think, and I could be wrong, that if I were to be philisophical about what Idris wrote, that I would come to the conclusion of the following:
If the strategy is fun, then you will win.
And to evaluate what Jim wrote, I would come to the following:
If you win, then the strategy is fun.
Although I pretty much agree with much of what Idris writes, I think he has this one completely wrong.
Why is Idris wrong? Well, I guess it depends on your outlook. I'll go with what I am assuming is Idris's outlook it that if you are having fun, you will be successful. Having fun does just simply not equal success. I can have a fun strategy at playing chess, but that doesn't mean I am going to win at chess...you can huck and hope (tm parinella) and although some might consider fun...just because you are having fun doesn't mean you are going to win.
Secondly, it depends upon the value you place on winning. If you place more emphasis on winning than you do on having fun...then strategy does not have to be fun.
Which brings me to Idris' other point, which is buyin. If the strategy is a winning strategy, then there will be buyin because you are winning. If the strategy no matter how fun, does not equate to winning...the initial buyin, if any will fade.
Let's look at Kobe Bryant. He won three titles with Phil Jackson at the helm. Kobe never felt that the strategy was fun for various reasons...but they won three titles. Phil takes off for a year and a new strategy was implemented and the Lakers had a bad season even though Kobe had his best statistical season.
What was Kobe's reaction? Bring back Phil. Why would he ask to bring back Phil? The reason is simple, although Kobe realizes that he is not having "fun" in Phil's system...he is winning. Kobe places a higher value on winning than he does fun and the reason they win is Phil's strategy.
East coast vs. west coast play and strategery. It appears that his theory is that players would be frustrated playing the different styles. I would tend to agree. However, I think it is more about the individual player.
As an example, player A is a great receiver playing for the East Coast (EC) team and loves to recieve hucks. Well, the EC team doesn't huck as much as the West Coast (WC) team. If A moves to the WC, then he would get more hucks, and I would bet have fun with the strategy as he is receiving more hucks. Reverse the above, and I bet he would be frustrated since he wouldn't be hucked to as much.
I think the same would apply to a thrower who can put it deep. They would be more frustrated in the EC offense than the WC offense.
I think where it gets a bit more tricky is when you have great role players who don't fit into either of the two roles above. Then, based upon how they learned to play the game, they would be frustrated moving from one type of play to another type of play since that is not what the player is used to playing.
Anyways...maybe it makes sense...maybe not.
$
First, I would like to post selective sentences Idris wrote...
"If you truly believe your strategy is a recipe for success, you will get that fun feeling. That excitement that drives you individually and the team.
...
But at the end of the day, if you’re not having fun doing what you’re doing… you won’t be successful."
And then follow it up with Jim's thought on the NW regionals
"I’ve always thought identity and chemistry were effects, not causes, of good play and winning."and
"I guess I would say that having an identity is not important in establishing a winning team. For chemistry, it depends on how you define it. Of course, if players know what each other are doing, then things will run more smoothly on the field, but I think what people usually mean by “chemistry” is captured in quotes like “I knew someone would pick me up because that’s the kind of team we have.”"
I think, and I could be wrong, that if I were to be philisophical about what Idris wrote, that I would come to the conclusion of the following:
If the strategy is fun, then you will win.
And to evaluate what Jim wrote, I would come to the following:
If you win, then the strategy is fun.
Although I pretty much agree with much of what Idris writes, I think he has this one completely wrong.
Why is Idris wrong? Well, I guess it depends on your outlook. I'll go with what I am assuming is Idris's outlook it that if you are having fun, you will be successful. Having fun does just simply not equal success. I can have a fun strategy at playing chess, but that doesn't mean I am going to win at chess...you can huck and hope (tm parinella) and although some might consider fun...just because you are having fun doesn't mean you are going to win.
Secondly, it depends upon the value you place on winning. If you place more emphasis on winning than you do on having fun...then strategy does not have to be fun.
Which brings me to Idris' other point, which is buyin. If the strategy is a winning strategy, then there will be buyin because you are winning. If the strategy no matter how fun, does not equate to winning...the initial buyin, if any will fade.
Let's look at Kobe Bryant. He won three titles with Phil Jackson at the helm. Kobe never felt that the strategy was fun for various reasons...but they won three titles. Phil takes off for a year and a new strategy was implemented and the Lakers had a bad season even though Kobe had his best statistical season.
What was Kobe's reaction? Bring back Phil. Why would he ask to bring back Phil? The reason is simple, although Kobe realizes that he is not having "fun" in Phil's system...he is winning. Kobe places a higher value on winning than he does fun and the reason they win is Phil's strategy.
East coast vs. west coast play and strategery. It appears that his theory is that players would be frustrated playing the different styles. I would tend to agree. However, I think it is more about the individual player.
As an example, player A is a great receiver playing for the East Coast (EC) team and loves to recieve hucks. Well, the EC team doesn't huck as much as the West Coast (WC) team. If A moves to the WC, then he would get more hucks, and I would bet have fun with the strategy as he is receiving more hucks. Reverse the above, and I bet he would be frustrated since he wouldn't be hucked to as much.
I think the same would apply to a thrower who can put it deep. They would be more frustrated in the EC offense than the WC offense.
I think where it gets a bit more tricky is when you have great role players who don't fit into either of the two roles above. Then, based upon how they learned to play the game, they would be frustrated moving from one type of play to another type of play since that is not what the player is used to playing.
Anyways...maybe it makes sense...maybe not.
$
posted by $ at 10:29 PM
2 Comments:
$, good post.
Maybe there is another aspect that agrees or disagrees with what each of us has written. We (if we're competitive people) generally think of things as fun if we can do them well, so there is little difference between having a fun strategy and having a winning strategy. Having buy-in simply means that you've assembled a group of players with similar talents/perceptions of fun. If there's not buy-in, it's because the strategerists have one skillset and the others have a different set. One path to ruin is when the leader is a phenomenal player who implements a strategy that requires everyone else to be just as phenomenal (in which case the strategy would be a great one). To some extent, DoG doesn't HnH because most of us can't throw like Shank, but we are able to read the field and work hard and move the disc around.
In summary, I don't know whether I have contradicted or supported anything any of us has said.
I guess I would boil my arguement down to:
A strategy that provides wins will be much more fun (at least to competitive people) than a strategy that is considered fun but does not produce wins.
If you don't care whether you win or lose, then you would want a fun strategy as you are there to have fun.
I agree with the rest of what was written.
Post a Comment
<< Home