Winning the Superbowl vs almost winning

There are times in our lives, when life teaches you lessons in very peculiar ways. Sometimes in school, sometimes at work, and sometimes watching a sports game... sometimes an insignificant one, and sometimes at Superbowl XLIX.

What happened last Sunday?

As most of you may know by now, the New England Patriots defeated the Seattle Seahawks after clinching a dramatic 1-yard intercepction of what was meant to be the game-winning touchdown for Seattle, instead turning into the most questioned play of the season, and perhaps, of the past ten years in the NFL. For those of you who didn't watch the game, I'll make a quick summary:

• Seattle was down 24-28, with 26 seconds left on the clock.
• Seattle was one yard away from scoring a touchdown that would have put them ahead 30-28 (31-28 after free kick)
• Seattle had Marshawn Lynch -the best running back of the league- ready to receive the ball and make his way though New England's defense and reach the scoring line. This is the play that most Seattle fans and NFL pundits would have chosen.
• The play that was called by Seattle's coach Pete Carroll, was to have Russell Wilson throw/pass to attempt scoring a touchdown.
• The pass was intercepted by New England's Malcolm Butler.
• New England held the ball for the remainder 26 seconds and won the Superbowl.
• Almost instantly after the game ended, thousands of tweets and social media messages erupted heavily criticizing Pete Carroll's play choice of passing and not running with Lynch.

The result: instead of being hailed as a hero, today Pete Carroll's coaching skills are the most questioned in all the NFL.

How does this fit in business and management?

The beauty of watching sports on TV is that as a manager, director, executive, or MBA student, you are handed with a unique opportunity of analyzing the weigh of the decisions being made, as if you were studying a case-study or preparing a business strategy for your company. And sometimes in a business, as in sports, you are faced with life-defying decisions to make.

Case I: Zidane vs Buffon

One of the most jaw-dropping moments I have had the fortune to witness, was the 2006 Football/Soccer World Cup finals. Early into the first half of the match between France and Italy, the french squad was awareded a penalty kick. Zinedine Zidane, France captain, best player of the world cup at that point -and arguably one of the best players of all time- calmly took the responsibility. On the other end defending for Italy was Gianluigi Buffon, who at the time was the best goal-keeper in the world.

As most of you who watched the match, what happened next was just shocking:

In amazing display that combined guts, balls, crazyness and cold blood, Zidane simply soft shot the ball, carefully placing it inside the goal line, as if he threw it using his mind. A mislead and confused Buffon, thought the ball hadn't gone in and struggled to grab it after throwing himself to the opposite direction of where the ball was shot, but the goal was as valid as a One Dollar Bill.

The perspective that we have to have here was that Zidane could have

Shot for power straight to the middle.
Aim for one of the lower corners
Aim for one of the mid corners
Aim for one of the higher corners
Shot high for power

...because 99,99 % of penalty kicks are taken like that. Instead, he went with the most improbable of the options, in the most important scenario possible, against the toughest goal-keeper he could have been facing.

If you read the comments below the video, I think they all fall short of the magnitude of what Zidane pulled. Some of the best ones are:

"Only Zidane can mislead the best goalkeeper to the wrong corner and then rape him with a soft shot on the bar and keep the audience, players and referee wondering what the hell just happened!"

"This is what proves that a human can have unbeliveable courage."

"I call it ...BALLS OF STEEL"

"WHAT A LEGEND. HE DID A PANENKA IN A FINAL THAT'S IS CLASS"

and my personal favorite:

"You must be crazy to do this, World cup Final, panenka, best goalie in the world at the time. People who are crazy enought to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."

Case II: Jordan vs Utah Jazz

When someone asks me who I think is the best basketball player of all time, I point them to this clip which I believe sums up the greatness of Michael Jordan in less than five minutes. The context:

• It's the 1998 NBA Finals and aims for a sixth championship. 
• Much speculation has been around about this being his final season.
• Chicago Bulls are up 3 games to 2 against the Jazz of Karl Malone and John Stockton, two of the best NBA players of all time.
• With 59.2 seconds left on the clock, the Jazz lead by 83 to 81.
• A foul is commited against the Bulls and Jordan takes both free throws to tie the game 83-83.

This is what followed:

In less than a minute, Jordan scored two free throws, stole the ball from one of the best players of all time, and threw two 2-pointers -including the game winning one-. It doesn't get more flawless than that.

Jordan could have decided to pass the ball to one of his teammates, take a 3-pointer, aim for overtime. Instead, and like Zidane, he took full responsibility and decided coldly and calmly.

Case III: Sampras vs Corretja 1996 US Open Quarterfinals

One of the most memorable tiebreakers ever played in tennis was the 5th set quarterfinal match between defending champion Pete Sampras and up and coming star spaniard Alex Corretja. It would have gone by as another tense tiebreak, if it hadn't been because of the background involved:

• Sampras had just lost his coach to cancer and had struggled through a very up and downish season. He had yet to win a grand slam tournament and the US Open was his last chance.
• If Sampras couldn't win this tournament, he would have been on a huge setback towards the grand slam record and more importantly, the #1 end year record.
• Sampras had just been diagnosed with a rare mediterranean decease which rendered his stamina and put his resistance to long matches in jeopardy.
• After battling Corretja for four hours, they got themselves into a 5th set tie breaker. Two points were played and Sampras began vomiting and looking very dizzy.
• With all at stake, things were looking dreadfully bad for Pistol Pete

But Pete had other plans...

As points began flying by, the stakes rose and Pete knew it. He began playing more aggressively but still it wasn't enough as he had no more energy left and had to go all-in.

Tied at seven points and facing a potential match-point after a long fault first serve, Sampras served an improbable second serve ace to take the lead and have a match-point. Corretja came on to serve and double-faulted himself out of the open, sending Pete on to the semi-finals and eventually the championship.


Case IV: Kirk Gibson's 1988 World Series game-winning Home Run

After a successful nine season career with the Detroit Tigers, Kirk Gibson arrived at the Los Angeles Dodgers early in 1988 and immediately became the team leader and motivator. He became a driving force around the team thoughout the struggling season, along with Dodger manager veteran Tom LaSorda. Unexpectedly and against all odds, somehow the LA team found themselves in the World Series, facing the heavily favorited Oakland Athletics. Unfortunately for the Dodgers, Gibson sustained critical injuries in the play-offs series aganst the Mets and was ruled out of the World Series at all. A major setback for a team when their leader cannot play.

Game #1 went on pretty much as expected, with Oakland taking a strong lead powered by one of their own stars slugger Jose Canseco, who hit a grand slam early in the game. Innings went by and the Dodgers were held back to a 4-3 score down to the ninth, when Oakland's manager -Tony LaRussa- brought closing pitcher Dennis Eckersley, the best of the league that year, who led the league with 45 saves and allowed only five home-runs during the season.

Eckersly quickly retired the first two Dodgers, taking the inning to two outs, bases empty, in what appeared to be a routine save for him. With Mike Davis coming at bat next, here's where things got strategic:

• Davis was a left-handed batter and Eckersley a right-handed pitcher, preferred not to face another southpaw. 
• Tom LaSorda sent Dave Anderson a right-handed batter on the waiting deck as next in-line batter -if Davis could get on base-. This was meant as a bluff. In reality, Gibson, who had been receiving treatment for his injuries in the clubhouse, had told LaSorda he was ready to pinch-hit if needed. 
• Eckersley and Oakland's catcher Ron Hassey saw Anderson on deck, and strategized to pitch Davis carefully, preferring to take their chances with Anderson.
• The at bat confrontation began and while Eckersley was trying to close the game on Davis, a visibly limping Gibson appeared at the Dodgers dugout, with commentators and fans wondering whether if he would get the chance instead of Anderson.
• Unable to get the third out, Eckersley walked Davis. 
• Anderson turned around and began walking back towads the dugout and out of nowhere, Gibson got up and started limp-walking towards the plate, while making a few warm-up swings on his way.

Now Eckersley had to face left-handed-injured Gibson...

After Gibson sent Eckersley's slider to the stands, TV commentator Vic Scully said it all, when after a long silence he finally uttered "in a year that has been so improbable... the impossible has happened".

Gibson never took another at bat in the series, but his feat was enough to inspire the Dodgers who went on to lesson Oakland and become World Champions by 4 games to 1.



So where does this all add up and what do Zidane, Jordan, Sampras and Gibson have to do with Pete Carroll?



The topic in hand is about how one key moment, one key decision, one key shot/swing/play, can have a significant result:

It can make of you either a great hero or can simply leave you oblivion.

This article by Benjamin Morris makes an outstanding analysis of the odds that played in factor in last Sunday's Carroll's decision, and essentially, it mathematically backs up Carroll's thought process of choosing Lynch as the second play, had the pass play hadn't worked out. It also makes a great point on how improbable was the Patriot interception of Russell Wilson's pass.

But what about the other cases?

Zidane went for the most improbable scenario, because he was facing the toughest of the opponents. I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that Zidane choose a Panenka, because Buffon never expected Zidane to do it. The bottom line is that nobody told Zidane to take the shot the way he did. He was entirely responsible whether if it went in or not.

Jordan had pretty much control of the last minute in that game six NBA Finals. He took both free throws, he took the field goal, he stole the ball from Malone, he scored the winning shot. This case is more interesting because it shows that after Jordan's last shot, Utah still had a shot at winning, took it, and failed. It makes one wonder: why did Jordan score and Utah missed? The bottom line again is: nobody told Jordan what to do.

Sampras had little to no chance of coming out of that game a winner, had he played conservative or short of what his talent could do. He went for his shots and took his chances every single time. Faced with a potential match-point on Corretja's serve, had he double-faulted that 7-7 point, instead he went for the big second serve ace. The bottom line again: no one told Sampras what to do. He did it all by himself.

Gibson's case has a bit more variables, first because it was LaSorda who made the decision of sending him at bat. The most important variable though is the fact that years later Gibson stated in an interview that back in 1988 while preparing for the World Series, Dodger scout Mel Didier provided a report assuring that Eckersly 99.99% of the time when faced on a 3-2 count against a left-handed hitter, would throw a slider, which is exactly what he did. Still, it might have been LaSorda who sent Gibson to bat, and it might have been Mel Didier the one who provided the crucial tip, but at the plate, there was only Kirk Gibson who went for the home run swing.

My point being made, is that while most of the blame is placed on Carroll or Seattle's offensive coach, two things must be taken in consideration:

First: whoever made the decision of playing a pass, knew he was faced with two scenarios. A daring glorified one, in which he would be hailed as the most daring person in the NFL this season, and a second one in which he would take the blame for losing the XLIX SuperBowl being just 1-yard away from victory, which is well... what eventually happened.

Second: it might had been a called play, but still, I believe the players on the field had the very last call of going with the running back play. It would have been mild, but one can only wonder if the team would have been more eager to go for the run, rather than to play the passing tactic which probably caught them off-guard, which is well... what eventually happened.

Third: by adding first + second, the conclusion is that in life (sports, professional, studies, management), you are faced with key moments that raise the question of "what are you made of?" and ask for you to deliver the best of what you have. A time when you have a 50-50 chance to rise up to the occasion and mark a memory in other's people's mind. Either that, or you can fail, and be left simply in oblivion.

Now... when the time comes for you, which one will you do?