The Strengthening Weakness (It's a Feature, not a Bug)
A different way to look at evaluating players, and how to deal with perceived weaknesses.
Pluses & Minuses. Strengths & Weaknesses. When evaluating a player, teammate or colleague, this is probably the structure that most of us would use. We rely on metrics and statistics to assess an individual's traits. We then assign them to either the strength and weakness category. Our assessment is done with the understanding that strengths are to be enhanced and weaknesses reduced. That's how I've personally approached personal growth and optimisation. "Reinforce your strengths, minimise your weaknesses".
A few months ago, I watched a Showtime documentary called Quiet Storm: The Ron Artest Story. It's a biopic about Ron Artest - aka Metta World Peace - one of the most feared defenders in the NBA over the last 3 decades. The documentary explores the tumultuous life of Artest who - despite his achievements as a player - had to deal with mental health issues which affected him on and off-the-court.
While watching the documentary, I imagined what sort of scouting reports would be made on a player like Artest. Strengths would likely highlight his superior defensives abilities. Weaknesses would point at his over-the-top toughness and erratic behaviour. At that point, I had to stop and think about the way a team would handle such a player. As indicated previously, I tended to see strengths as something that should be built upon, weaknesses as to be minimised. For a player like Artest, wouldn't it be great to have more of the great defensive abilities and less of the erratic behaviour? Watching this documentary actually challenged my viewpoint on strengths/weaknesses assessment and management. When discussing his hard foul on Ben Wallace that led to the infamous 2004 brawl in Detroit, Artest had the following to say:
I remember Ben Wallace being open for the layup, and not wanting to give up a layup. I didn't want to change my mentality because we were winning. I always played to the last second. That's the only way I know. I have to finish [...] the game and finish it hard.
Until hearing what he had to say, I was pretty much on the consensus that there could be no justification for committing such a hard foul. Artest's team had a 15-point lead with 45 seconds left in the game. But the way he explained his gesture made me realise I was probably making a mistake in evaluating him. First, having a particular mindset and taking it to the extreme is not always negative. Knowing when to pick your battles is a valuable skill. But you'd rather be committed to a mindset than be at risk of slacking (see this post of mine).
But my biggest error was probably separating one aspect of Artest's game - his over-the-top toughness at times - from his "proposition" - his great and intimidating defense. Both are inexorably linked and one (his behaviour) can reinforce the other (his defensive abilities). It is foolish to think that trying to erase his bad behavioural traits would have no impact on his game or the way he'd be perceived by his opponents. Kobe Bryant had to play against Artest and was his teammate on a championship team. He is featured in Quiet Storm and talks about Artest's reputation around the league:
I think a lot of players let him get away with stuff because he's so strong and he tends to scare people a lot.
Being defended by a tough player is one thing; Being defended by a tough player who can hard-foul you at any moment is a whole other story. Artest's hard-nosed defense could mean trouble for his team but it also added another, valuable dimension to his game: intimidation.
Considering the extent of some of Artest's mistakes, it is easy to imagine teams wanting to tame his behaviour. His blunders have made him a liability at times despite being a good defender. This dilemma requires teams to ask themselves two crucial questions when assessing a weakness:
Is it a bug or a feature? In other words: is player X's weakness a true weakness or a perceived weakness (no relation with the medical term)?
If it is a perceived weakness, does the organisation have the right environment in place to ensure that it does not turn into a true weakness?
1. It's a feature, not a bug
A true weakness is something that is definitely detrimental to the team. Poor handle in basketball, subpar fielding in baseball, whining constantly at referees, not knowing how to handle pressure moments, etc. No positive can be extracted from these authentic weaknesses. They often translate into negative statistics which should be avoided at all costs: high turnovers, low defensive runs saved, low expected goals, etc. In 2007, Brian Cashman - General Manager of the New York Yankees - had to sit down with Derek Jeter and explain to him that his defense was hurting the team[1]. Jeter had the sixth worse Defensive Runs Saved in the Majors[2]. Despite his incredible leadership and impact with his bat, his poor fielding was a true weakness that the Yankees needed to address - by minimising or removing it completely.
A perceived weakness is something that appears to be negative on the surface but can actually improve the player's overall proposition and be positive to the team if handled properly. Being dirty, mentally and physically challenging your teammates (Michael Jordan was known for that), being selfish in a team context, etc. These traits can be negative and bring their fair share of "penalties" to the team: technical fouls, yellow/red cards, suspensions, missed opportunities, tensions within a team... But they can also:
improve a player's proposition and team results
if removed/tamed, negatively impact a player's proposition and team results.
When thinking about a player with a perceived weakness, Dennis Rodman came to mind immediately. Rodman was a player similar to Artest in terms of combo great defense/unpredictability. Throughout the years, he collected a decent amount of technical fouls (fifth all-time) and was suspended multiple times for fights, altercations with referees or kicking a court-side cameraman. On paper, all these are negatives for a team. But they also played a part in Rodman being a great and feared defender. Having that kind of player can also be beneficial to a team when facing players with a similar profile. If an opponent uses his/her physicality to bully your players, having an enforcer or another bully in your team can help repel or even prevent the aggression. In an ultra-competitive setting, this can be very positive. In Quiet Storm, Kobe had the following to say on the Lakers' acquisition of Artest in 2009:
On defense, we knew we could get after guys and scare the living shit out of them. We knew that. We said: "We're going to get this player. Let's just make his night a complete hell. Let's just harass him, beat him up, intimidate him". We'd have fun doing that.
Another example is the play style of Ronaldo (Brazilian) or Messi early in their career. These two players relied a lot on their speed and dribbling skills to create scoring opportunities. The problem is that they would regularly ignore better-positioned teammates to pursue these opportunities themselves. Forfeiting great opportunities for good opportunities seems like a negative. But in the grand scheme of things, their team wouldn't get these opportunities in the first place if these players didn't have this perceived weakness, i.e. being selfish. Handling this weakness is not as straightforward as telling these players "you just have to pass the ball more". There is a possibility that taming this selfishness could negatively impact the overall number of opportunities created by these players. It's a fine and delicate balance between optimising one's game (by removing weaknesses) and limiting second/third-order consequences.
2. How a team should approach perceived weaknesses
Managing a player with a perceived weakness is a huge challenge. The key for a team is to have a culture that will create a natural balance for the weakness. Leadership within a team revolves around the key players. In an ideal situation, these players set the tone with their work ethic and help the coach align the rest of the squad on one goal: winning. When this culture is established, all players - including the one with the perceived weakness - understand that they have no choice but to fit in. This team-wide alignment makes it easier for players with perceived weaknesses to manage their weaknesses and for their team to accept their possible slip-ups.
When Rodman joined the Bulls in 1995, this was a crucial moment for him and the team. He was coming out of a rocky spell in San Antonio where he was never able to fit in. The Bulls were trying to recapture their past glory after back-to-back failures in the playoffs. This was a terrific situation for Rodman:
great leaders with Jordan & Pippen
a team locked-in to win the title
a coach - Phil Jackson - who understood that he had to allow Rodman to be himself as opposed to trying to control him[3]
Despite the technical fouls and suspensions, Rodman largely bought in the Bulls' culture and had the most successful stretch of his career. The Bulls got the best rebounder in the NBA and a great defender who embodied the toughness of this squad. They had to deal with an unpredictable player whose unpredictability ultimately helped their bottom line.
Artest had a very similar trajectory. In 2009, he ended up with the defending champions Lakers. Upon arrival, he was warned by Kobe Bryant not to be disruptive and integrate himself to the team. Just like Rodman, Artest was coached by Phil Jackson. It was a gamble but both parties ended up winning. Artest helped the Lakers defend their title, the only one of his career. The Lakers got the toughness that was much needed when facing the Boston Celtics - the league's meanest teams - in the Finals.
Rick Mahorn is another illustration of the importance of having a solid culture. When he got traded to the Pistons in 1985, he went to a team which featured players he couldn't stand. He didn't want to play for Detroit and showed up out of shape at training camp. Had the Pistons not have the proper culture in place, Mahorn's antics may have proven destructive for the team. But one of the Pistons' leaders - Bill Laimbeer - was quick to remind Mahorn that he would have to fit in:
We [Pistons, ed] told him in certain terms that it's not how we do business here. [...] People who are coming to our team, I set them straight: "Here's how we do business here, here's what's expected of you. And if you don't, we've got a problem and we'll get into fights".[4]
Under the leadership of Laimbeer, Isiah Thomas and the direction of Hall of Fame coach Chuck Daly, Mahorn eventually bought in the Pistons' culture. He would play a vital role in helping Detroit capture its first-ever championship in 1989, teaming up with Laimbeer to become the NBA's most intimidating duo.
As you can see, assessing individuals can be a tricky exercise. One thing that this post has stressed is the necessity for an organisation to do some soul-searching when evaluating a player with a perceived weakness. If the team has a clear direction and strong leadership, a lot of value can be extracted from these players. The right culture can create the balance to enable these players to express themselves and channel their perceived weakness into a positive force for the team.
Najib
Follow me on Twitter.
References
[1] Lindbergh, B. (2013). The Tragedy of Derek Jeter's Defense. [online] Grantland.com. Available at: https://grantland.com/features/the-tragedy-derek-jeter-defense/ [Accessed 20 Feb. 2020].
[2] Page, B., History, M., MLB, 2. and Fielding, 2. (2020). 2007 Major League Baseball Standard Fielding | Baseball-Reference.com. [online] Baseball-Reference.com. Available at: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2007-standard-fielding.shtml [Accessed 20 Feb. 2020].
[3] Winfrey, O. (2013). Zen Principles Phil Jackson Used to Coach Dennis Rodman. [online] YouTube. [Accessed 17 Feb. 2020].
[4] 30 for 30 - Bad Boys. (2014). [video] Directed by Z. Levitt. ESPN.