Decisions Decisions

Possibly no one makes more decisions in quite such a transparently public manner than a football coach. On each play, he must decide which players to use and which play to run, so every game is something of a referendum on the wisdom of his choices.

On the other hand, in modern football, the head coach has a phalanx of faceless assistants who share the responsibility -- in fact, a head coach is often thought to be a bit of a megalomaniac if he calls the plays himself (it's all about 'delegating' and 'managing', you know). Besides, even once the play is called, the quarterback may still change it if he has what he thinks is a better idea based on the defense he's looking at.

Contrast that with baseball -- as we know, the only true, pure sport and frankly the only one worth talking about or even giving much thought to -- where the manager holds the keys, or I suppose the steering wheel, solely in his own hands. He may consult a small group of advisers, but the manager makes out the lineups and carries out the pitching changes and determines the strategy.

Unfortunately, the inescapable flaw in his Master Plan is that he is then dependent on other, imperfect humans to carry out his will. If the pitcher throws a bad pitch, or a ball goes through somebody's legs, or a guy pulls a hamstring as he's rounding third, it's quite possible that a genius blueprint will fail to add anything to the 'win' column.

As a consequence, smart baseball people don't really judge a manager on whether he wins or loses (at least not on a day-to-day basis). You'll often hear the losing manager say, "Well, we had the gun loaded." Meaning: we got our best hitter to the plate with the game on the line, or our best pitcher against the other team's slugger; if our guy pops up, or the other guy hits a tough pitch out of the park... we can't control for results, just the process of making the decision.

And... may I suggest that that's a pretty good model for evaluating decisions in general -- our own, or others such as in the case of evaluating a political candidate (to choose a less than random example).

For me, the question is not, "Did the decision 'work'?" but rather, "Did the decision make the most sense given the available facts?" I might feel a wave of regret from a bad outcome... but I ought to be able to forgive myself if I made the decision the right way.

Likewise: in voting, we're choosing someone essentially to make decisions for us. It would be great to find someone who agrees with us in every respect, who would make all the decisions we'd make ourselves. Assuming we were smart enough to do so, but if I've been hearing the political rhetoric correctly lately, we should trust good ol' Joe Sixpack to be wiser than, you know, actual smart people.

Anyway, I've never found anyone running for office that I thought had the 100% perfect plan -- so the way I'm trying to evaluate now is to get a sense not of what decisions someone would make, but how he or she would make them. I'm looking for someone who's willing to surround himself (allow me to be pronoun-specific for the sake of simplicity) with smart people, people who don't necessarily agree with him down the line, listen to all their opinions, then put it together and make the call decisively.

I feel that a person of integrity and intelligence who's capable of using information to reach conclusions might be more valuable as a public servant than a person with nearly any defined set of convictions you could name -- left, right, or center.

Of course, even if worse comes to worst -- and you have to define that for yourself-- at least in two more weeks this 'election cycle' will be over (I could certainly write reams more about the political process... but on the other hand you could argue that I already have). Then we'll have 6 to 8 weeks of Christmas ads and Christmas specials, then about 10 days of vacation (or if you prefer, Bowl Season)... so that puts us to at least the middle of January before the first candidate declares for 2012.