We have ideas about the composition of 'great' teams, greatness without hyperbole. Consider greatness over a season, achievement consistency over time, extended winning streaks, championship runs.
The elements of team greatness might include leadership, talent, perseverance, chemistry, and sometimes luck.
Consider the recent Cleveland Indians winning streak of twenty-two consecutive games.
Multiply that by itself 22 times (correct to a percentage by multiplying by 100) and we arrive at 0.0013 percent. 1 in 1000 is 0.1 percent, 1 in 10,000 is 0.01 percent, and 1 in 100,000 is 0.001 percent. The Streak tramples the peculiar English that "slim chance, fat chance, and no chance all mean the same."
Authors and poets write of greatness.
And yet we know that problems accompany greatness.
Talent. Great talent doesn't guarantee a great team. According to Sam Walker in The Captain Class, the New York Yankees outspent every team in MLB in the decade from 2002 by at least 1.2 billion dollars. That yielded one championship. "Money can't play." But the Golden State Warriors assembled a "superteam" of scorers and won two NBA championships in three years even with a "salary cap".
With fewer players on the 'field' and payroll disparity, the talent levels are unequal.
Perseverance. How can we measure perseverance, resilience, or "doggedness"? The 'go-to' metrics for perseverance or 'grit' have origins in Carol Dweck's "mindset" where students were challenged with standardized tests and complemented on either being 'smart' or 'hard-working'. Under repeated challenge with harder tests, the 'smart' group tended to quit and those labeled 'hard-working' equalled or exceeded previous efforts. But as for measuring the grit of teams, do we examine come-from-behind wins, success in close games, wins in overtime or extra innings?
Angela Duckworth's "Grit" questionnaire helps discriminate individual attitudes correlating with persistence, but it seems as though we know 'gritty teams' when we see them.
Chemistry. We value 'team chemistry' but how do we measure it. Walker argues the theory of social loafing. "Social loafing describes the phenomenon that occurs when individuals exert less effort when working as a group than when working independently. Research indicates that there is some degree of social loafing within every group, whether high-functioning or dysfunctional." This has been called the "Ringlemann Effect", initially measuring individual effort alone versus during a team 'rope pull'. Individuals exerted less effort as part of a team. Can we get each team member to work 'closer' to maximal effort? Kentucky's John Calipari tries by heart rate monitoring. "The monitoring system doesn't lie."
We might consider chemistry a subset of culture. At the extreme of culture, we see the Navy SEALs, where "two is one and one is none." Yet we see have seen teams that won, e.g. the Yankees of the Bronx Zoo, with open revolt.
Luck. Even great teams have the benefit of luck. Pasteur argued that "chance favors the prepared mind."
The 1969 NBA finals saw Don Nelson make a key shot to help defeat the Lakers. As John Havlicek has the ball knocked away, the fortuitous bounce goes to Nelson who gets the favorable bounce. How many times have we seen teams get the 'lucky bounce' and wonder about the basketball gods.
The Steelers had the "Immaculate Reception" and Doug Flutie had "The Hail Mary".
Branch Rickey noted, "luck is the residue of design."
