Regardless of how it is obtained, Success = Credibility
I know that I said that this blog was moving to At Home Plate.com, and it still is. But I couldn't just stop writing here; I love it too much. I love the comments and emails I get, and I appreciate everyone that reads my articles.
So, with that being said, there will be much less articles posted at this address than before, but there will still be articles posted here for reading.
So here is my first article here since the “death” of this blog.
It's reincarnation!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are looking for statistics, projections, and the like in this article, as I normally write about, well I am sorry. This article will contain none of those.
This article is written because of a segment I listened to on ESPN’s radio show, “The Herd,” hosted by Colin Cowherd. The segment basically was about how success breeds credibility…regardless of how that success is obtained. Cowherd went through examples of people who are deemed “credible” by peers and critics alike, because of the success that they “backed into.”
This got me thinking about a situation like that in baseball. It didn’t take me long to think of the perfect example of a person in baseball being deemed “credible/great” because of the success he has had, even though he “backed into,” that success.
Let’s go back to the 2003 playoff’s to start the story of this “credible” person. In the 2003 playoffs the Boston Red Sox lost the American League Championship Series to the New York Yankees. It is widely believed that the reason that they lost this series was because in Game 7, then-manager Grady Little left starting pitcher Pedro Martinez in the game much too long. Because of this, Martinez wore down, became more hittable, and eventually gave up the tying run to the Yankees after his team was up by 3 runs. Then, in extra innings, long after Martinez was yanked, the Red Sox lost the game, and the series.
Because the responsibility for this loss was placed squarely on the shoulders of Little, he was eventually fired. After that, the Red Sox were left with a great team, with no manager.
So the search for one began.
In the midst of the search, the Red Sox made a trade for a pitcher named Curt Schilling. Curt Schilling was brought in to be the “missing link” from that 2003 team; the piece that was missing from the Red Sox’s World Series Championship puzzle. Since Schilling was such a big commodity, he also carried some weight on the way the team was run. Knowing this, Schilling being the opportunist that he is, decided to recommend one of his former managers that he liked to the Red Sox as a candidate for their managerial opening.
After a few weeks of negotiating, the manager that Schilling had recommended was hired. Now the Red Sox had a new ace for their rotation, and a new manager who they thought wouldn’t make the same mistake as Little did the season before. Every thing was perfect for a World Series Championship in 2004.
It is hard to believe that the manager the Red Sox chose was more than anything but a favor to their new star pitcher because it was only a few years ago that he was fired from his former managerial job with the Philadelphia Phillies because of an inability to lead his team.
While he was in Philadelphia, fans slashed the tires on his car because of how terrible he was. This manager was truly lucky to have had his prior experiences with Schilling in Philadelphia. Little did he know that those experiences would lead him to future “credibility” in the area of managing a baseball team.
Now we all know how the 2004 season played out for the Boston Red Sox. They won the World Series for the first time since 1918. When a team does this, the manager is the person given most credit for his teams success, and rightfully so. So, with that holding true, this newly hired manager was given that credit, and was deemed “credible” because of the Red Sox’s success.
Now, this same manager who was run out of Philadelphia just a few years ago, was being deemed a “great” manager. Is this fair? Isn’t it obvious that he just happened to be available when a great team, one that was already predicted to win 95-100 games before he was hired, had a vacancy? Isn’t it obvious that he was there because of the recommendation of Curt Schilling? Isn’t it obvious that he “backed into” the success he just had, and subsequently, the “credibility” he now holds?
If you haven’t guessed it already, the now “credible” person I am talking about is Boston Red Sox manager Terry Francona.
If you ask anybody—go ahead and try—they will tell you that Terry Francona is a great manager.
Why do they answer this way? Well, just look, he just led a title-deprived team to its first World Series Championship in 86 years, that’s why.
Well folks, it is of utmost importance to look at how success was obtained by a person, before deeming them “great/credible” in their field.
It is clear that Francona is a good manager. But great? Credible? Not in my opinion. This is a guy among the ranks of Ringo Starr and Kevin Federline when it comes to luck.
He was in the right place at the right time.
Now, I don’t want to take anything away from the Red Sox, what they did was phenomenal. But, honestly, how many people out there think that they could have lead the 2004 Red Sox to the World Series Title? I know I do.
This example is just to show that “success” is not an easy thing to accomplish, and the label of success shouldn’t be so easily handed out as it was with Francona.
Let me use this example:
Lets say that tomorrow Sports Illustrated decides to hire a random website baseball writer to write a weekly baseball column in their magazine. They make the call, and the writer they end up hiring is “yours truly.”
After you read my first column, you would assume that I have succeeded in the field of writing because, after all, I am writing for the biggest sports magazine in the world.
Because of this success that you assume I have had, my writing becomes a lot more credible than what it is now, doesn’t it? When, in fact, I am just as credible as I am today.
I would have backed into success, and would have been deemed as a “credible” writer because of it. Clearly, this is not fair to the writers who worked their butts off for the credibility they now hold.
This effortless grant of credibility is not fair to the people who did work hard to achieve success in their field. They are the ones who deserve the credibility. Not the lucky ones who just backed into success.
So next time you are about to label someone a success, and deem them with the credibility that comes with it, take a minute and research how that success was obtained.
Thank you for reading. If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to email me at frnkbndy@yahoo.com.
***I am a die-hard Red Sox fan, and a Francona-lover.***
So, with that being said, there will be much less articles posted at this address than before, but there will still be articles posted here for reading.
So here is my first article here since the “death” of this blog.
It's reincarnation!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are looking for statistics, projections, and the like in this article, as I normally write about, well I am sorry. This article will contain none of those.
This article is written because of a segment I listened to on ESPN’s radio show, “The Herd,” hosted by Colin Cowherd. The segment basically was about how success breeds credibility…regardless of how that success is obtained. Cowherd went through examples of people who are deemed “credible” by peers and critics alike, because of the success that they “backed into.”
This got me thinking about a situation like that in baseball. It didn’t take me long to think of the perfect example of a person in baseball being deemed “credible/great” because of the success he has had, even though he “backed into,” that success.
Let’s go back to the 2003 playoff’s to start the story of this “credible” person. In the 2003 playoffs the Boston Red Sox lost the American League Championship Series to the New York Yankees. It is widely believed that the reason that they lost this series was because in Game 7, then-manager Grady Little left starting pitcher Pedro Martinez in the game much too long. Because of this, Martinez wore down, became more hittable, and eventually gave up the tying run to the Yankees after his team was up by 3 runs. Then, in extra innings, long after Martinez was yanked, the Red Sox lost the game, and the series.
Because the responsibility for this loss was placed squarely on the shoulders of Little, he was eventually fired. After that, the Red Sox were left with a great team, with no manager.
So the search for one began.
In the midst of the search, the Red Sox made a trade for a pitcher named Curt Schilling. Curt Schilling was brought in to be the “missing link” from that 2003 team; the piece that was missing from the Red Sox’s World Series Championship puzzle. Since Schilling was such a big commodity, he also carried some weight on the way the team was run. Knowing this, Schilling being the opportunist that he is, decided to recommend one of his former managers that he liked to the Red Sox as a candidate for their managerial opening.
After a few weeks of negotiating, the manager that Schilling had recommended was hired. Now the Red Sox had a new ace for their rotation, and a new manager who they thought wouldn’t make the same mistake as Little did the season before. Every thing was perfect for a World Series Championship in 2004.
It is hard to believe that the manager the Red Sox chose was more than anything but a favor to their new star pitcher because it was only a few years ago that he was fired from his former managerial job with the Philadelphia Phillies because of an inability to lead his team.
While he was in Philadelphia, fans slashed the tires on his car because of how terrible he was. This manager was truly lucky to have had his prior experiences with Schilling in Philadelphia. Little did he know that those experiences would lead him to future “credibility” in the area of managing a baseball team.
Now we all know how the 2004 season played out for the Boston Red Sox. They won the World Series for the first time since 1918. When a team does this, the manager is the person given most credit for his teams success, and rightfully so. So, with that holding true, this newly hired manager was given that credit, and was deemed “credible” because of the Red Sox’s success.
Now, this same manager who was run out of Philadelphia just a few years ago, was being deemed a “great” manager. Is this fair? Isn’t it obvious that he just happened to be available when a great team, one that was already predicted to win 95-100 games before he was hired, had a vacancy? Isn’t it obvious that he was there because of the recommendation of Curt Schilling? Isn’t it obvious that he “backed into” the success he just had, and subsequently, the “credibility” he now holds?
If you haven’t guessed it already, the now “credible” person I am talking about is Boston Red Sox manager Terry Francona.
If you ask anybody—go ahead and try—they will tell you that Terry Francona is a great manager.
Why do they answer this way? Well, just look, he just led a title-deprived team to its first World Series Championship in 86 years, that’s why.
Well folks, it is of utmost importance to look at how success was obtained by a person, before deeming them “great/credible” in their field.
It is clear that Francona is a good manager. But great? Credible? Not in my opinion. This is a guy among the ranks of Ringo Starr and Kevin Federline when it comes to luck.
He was in the right place at the right time.
Now, I don’t want to take anything away from the Red Sox, what they did was phenomenal. But, honestly, how many people out there think that they could have lead the 2004 Red Sox to the World Series Title? I know I do.
This example is just to show that “success” is not an easy thing to accomplish, and the label of success shouldn’t be so easily handed out as it was with Francona.
Let me use this example:
Lets say that tomorrow Sports Illustrated decides to hire a random website baseball writer to write a weekly baseball column in their magazine. They make the call, and the writer they end up hiring is “yours truly.”
After you read my first column, you would assume that I have succeeded in the field of writing because, after all, I am writing for the biggest sports magazine in the world.
Because of this success that you assume I have had, my writing becomes a lot more credible than what it is now, doesn’t it? When, in fact, I am just as credible as I am today.
I would have backed into success, and would have been deemed as a “credible” writer because of it. Clearly, this is not fair to the writers who worked their butts off for the credibility they now hold.
This effortless grant of credibility is not fair to the people who did work hard to achieve success in their field. They are the ones who deserve the credibility. Not the lucky ones who just backed into success.
So next time you are about to label someone a success, and deem them with the credibility that comes with it, take a minute and research how that success was obtained.
Thank you for reading. If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to email me at frnkbndy@yahoo.com.
***I am a die-hard Red Sox fan, and a Francona-lover.***
posted by BaseballFan at
10:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home