Losing teams are more interesting than winning ones. That’s my theory, based entirely on the personal experience of rooting for a historically bad baseball team for sixteen years before it got really, really good, and now is bad again.
What I find is that when the team is bad, debating and theorizing about how it might get better is fun. The team I follow has a surprisingly talented pool of professional and amateur experts that fans engage with about potential trades, minor league prospects, and the amateur draft.
Yet when the team was winning all the time, nobody was talking about those things. It was all, “Hey, these guys are great!” And the readers are like, “Yeah, aren’t they though?!”
Isn’t there something about failure that attracts a potent kind of creativity?
3 thoughts on “Losing Is More Interesting Than Winning: A Theory”
I’ve tried to explain to a million parents over the years (of kids on teams I coached or my kids were on)… Losing teaches you EVERYTHING. Winning teaches you NOTHING.
Which is why, I suppose, you and I know so much
Hmmm, the millennial’s coined a word for failure, they call it a “pivot” If an idea doesn’t work you swing around to a different approach. This frees the mind to experiment and expect failure, not to be burdened by it. I have perfected this approach– my decisions circle.