
Why underdogs should take more chances - naish
http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1735-why-underdogs-should-take-more-chances
======
philwelch
Football is not a sport that lends to risky behavior. One or two interceptions
could lose a game where you otherwise dominate, and turn a loss into an
embarrassment. The laboratory for "let's do something crazy and see if it
works" in football is college ball, though you are seeing pro ball get more
adventurous in recent years.

Basketball lends itself well to "systems" that work well statistically over
the long run: you get dozens of possessions, and the other team gets the same
number, so you just maximize your average-case possession outcome (offensively
and defensively) and the variance will wash out in a seven game playoff
series, or a 90 game season. (Which is why boring teams like the Spurs
succeed).

But soccer? In soccer, 95% of what you do has _no impact at all_. Even if it
is theatrical, the average case outcome for a soccer play is that a goal isn't
scored at all. So you can play systematically, except like football, a fluke
play in soccer can win or lose the game. But unlike football (where
interceptions are usually more the passing team's fault than the defending
team's credit), soccer allows you to create fluke plays. You can spend most of
the game doing almost nothing of interest, pull off a fluke play (at the very
end, if you have a flair for the dramatic), and beat a team that had a slight
advantage the whole game but never capitalized. Turkey repeatedly did this in
Euro 2008 and it was the most fun I've ever had watching any team play any
sport ever.

If you're an underdog, and you're going to take a risk, best check which game
you're playing, and whether you're good enough for that risk to pay off.

~~~
wallflower
> The laboratory for "let's do something crazy and see if it works" in
> football is college ball, though you are seeing pro ball get more
> adventurous in recent years.

The forward pass itself was actually an innovation that was introduced by UNC
Chapel Hill into American football over 100 years ago. Before the forward
pass, college teams simply brute-forced the ball forward.

"John Heisman, a noted historian, wrote 30 years later that, indeed, the Tar
Heels had given birth to the forward pass against the Bulldogs (UGA). It was
conceived to break a scoreless deadlock and give UNC a 6-0 win. The
Carolinians were in a punting situation and a Georgia rush seemed destined to
block the ball. The punter, with an impromptu dash to his right, tossed the
ball and it was caught by George Stephens, who ran 70 yards for a touchdown.

Heisman wrote he was at the game standing near the action on the sidelines. He
is emphatic that Pop Warner, who was coaching Georgia, protested to the
referee to no avail. And he adds that he personally wrote Walter Camp, the
final authority on football, of the possibilities of the ‘forward pass’ making
football a new and more exciting game."

[http://tarheelmania.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/unc-invented-
th...](http://tarheelmania.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/unc-invented-the-forward-
pass/)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_pass>

------
pchivers
A Malcolm Gladwell quote from the article:

 _The consistent failure of underdogs in professional sports to even try
something new suggests, to me, that there is something fundamentally wrong
with the incentive structure of the leagues._

This pretty sums up why I generally don't watch professional sports. I love
basketball, but the way that it is played in the NBA is so conservative that
it's about as interesting as watching paint dry.

I would love to see the pro sports leagues implement financial incentives in
order to reward teams that are taking risks. The only organization I know that
does this is the UFC (via their "Fight of the Night", "Knockout of the Night"
and "Submission of the Night" bonuses), and perhaps not coincidentally, that
is the only sport I find interesting enough to watch on a regular basis.

~~~
aichcon
What are you referring to when you say the NBA is conservative? Play calling?
Refereeing?

~~~
pchivers
Mostly the style of offense. Teams are much more content to keep the ball
around the outside and shoot threes all night than to a) drive into the paint
and make something happen on the inside, or b) score points off of fast
breaks.

~~~
apsurd
I used to "assume" the same thing, but I have reasoned that nba teams use a
lot of perimeter offense because _its hard_ to penetrate the paint. Imagine
having Dwight Howard, Andrew Bynum, Pao Gasol, or Yao Ming waiting for you ...

Usually guards are responsible for "penetrating and kicking" because they have
the knowledge and dexterity to do so. But the average guard is maybe 6'3"
180lbs. Good centers start at 6'11".

I just don't think outsiders appreciate how much effort, skill, and knowledge
it takes to drive to the basket and

a. take and make a good shot over a 7foot defender.

b. recognize the collapse and pass down low accordingly

c. recognize a double team and swing out to the parameter.

edit*: Maybe you just are not watching the right people. Have you ever seen
Allen Iverson play? You'd like him. How about Dwayne Wade or Chris Paul ?

------
csbartus
"When you’re small and risking less, you don’t need a business plan. You don’t
need a board of directors. You don’t need to study the techniques of Fortune
500 CEOs. You don’t need to know Six Sigma ideas. The strategy that’s right
for heavyweights has nothing to do with how welterweights should fight."

Sounds like PG ...

------
far33d
Yes, but the coach of a mediocre NBA or NFL team has a lot more to lose than
just the game. Take big risks and end up losing 15 football games, and your
career as a coach might be over. Play the regular style and lose 15 games, and
you have a "young team".

------
edw519
Actually, there are several excellent counter-examples to OP's sports examples
(that further support his point).

Two years ago, the Golden State Warriors implemented a fast paced "run and
gun" style offense to offset their liabilities. They made the playoffs (and
knocked off top seed Dallas) for the first time in years.

Last year the 1-15 Miami Dolphins brought back the left-for-dead Wildcat
formation into the NFL and went from last to first.

The critical missing piece? Heavyweight management that knew what to do.
Golden State's Don Nelson and Miami's Bill Parcells were both brought in
specifically to "shake things up".

The problem isn't that underdogs don't take more chances.

The problem is that underdogs don't know how to do it.

Being an underdog startup is tough enough. Not knowing how to compete is even
tougher.

~~~
vlad
_Last year the 1-15 Miami Dolphins brought back the left-for-dead Wildcat
formation into the NFL and went from last to first._

To be accurate, the loss of Tom Brady and the addition of Brett Favre within
the division helped Miami get 1st place instead of 3rd. If the Patriots beat
Miami by having Tom Brady in just that game, then the seedings would have been
Patriots, Jets, Miami, Buffalo. Miami had just enough success to compete with
the Brady-less Patriots and interception-king Favre, barely winning the
tiebreakers against them.

Also, the loss of Tom Brady in game one of the season likely inspired Miami,
and beating the Patriots without Tom Brady, as well. In fact, the wildcat
formation was first used against the Patriots, if I am not mistaken. Had the
Patriots beaten them, would they have tried it again? Also, Bill Parcells
didn't throw those balls; their players were versatile.

 _The problem isn't that underdogs don't take more chances. The problem is
that underdogs don't know how to do it. Being an underdog startup is tough
enough. Not knowing how to compete is even tougher._

This sounds fancy, but I don't see what you're saying.

------
joecode
_When you’re small and risking less, you don’t need a business plan._

While I agree with the general spirit of the artiicle, this particular advice
is just stupid. Maybe you don't need a _written_ plan, but you absolutely need
to address all the standard points in a normal business plan.

------
swolchok
My first guess was that shaking things up would hurt sports betting based on
point spreads.

