There’s a time in every story when I think it’s just about the most perfect thing I’ve ever seen. Literally perfect. This is always immediately after I’ve written “The End” for the last time and I’m still awash in the sense of power that has brought me to that piece. Makes sense, eh?
Unfortunately, there generally then comes a time when I decide I was wrong. This is generally right after I’ve hit the “Sent” button to submit it to an editor.
Such is life, eh?
Today, though, I finished a story and hit the “Sent” button and still think it’s pretty danged okay. Gotta love that. That piece was the focus of my weekend, which was kinda fun.
Here’s an interesting article on competitiveness that Lisa sent me. I’ve been thinking about it on and off the past few days as it has some bearing on how teams (and probably individuals) should look at strategy–in particular, I’m thinking of the portion labeled “performance.” Here’s a key quote:
“After additional analysis and three studies of their own, they concluded that when people are trying to excel — playing to win — their performance improves. When they’re trying to avoid messing up — playing not to lose — their performance goes downhill.”
Using basketball as an example, two things come to mind:
Free Throws at tight games — If this article is right, shooting FT with the lead is harder than shooting FT when you’re a few points behind. This “feels” right to me just based on watching games for years.
The old “Four Corners” argument — If this article is right, it explains why the four-corners was doomed to be just a fad. It’s the epitome of playing not to lose, and the facts of the matter were that fans were getting tired of coaches blowing games at the end–which was happening A LOT. I’ll go to my grave thinking that if the shot clock had not been installed, the 4-corners would have become a niche strategy, like the box-and-1…occasionally used as a trick or gimmick. Here’s “science” that might prove why.