Why A Little Paranoia Can Be A Good Thing
Too much trust can make you more vulnerable than you realize.
Welcome to Get Better Baseball.
This project is intended to help elevate others. If you are looking for inspiration and ideas on how to make people and players better, sign up now to receive the weekly email delivered to your inbox Sunday night:
Billy Martin was a master tactician.
Part of what made him so successful on the field was his ability to harness the power of prudent paranoia. He would review every possible scenario that opponents could use against him to make his team better.
Paranoia, at its core, can lead to a toxic environment. It can kill trust and turn people against one another, negatively impacting the culture. There’s certainly signs that Martin fell too far into that side. On the other hand, when funneled in a positive manner, a little paranoia can be healthy, and Martin was able to do this on the field.
In spring training in 1983, Martin and his team practiced a defensive scenario where there was a runner on first and third, and less than two outs. In this situation, a hitter lofts a fly down the right field line beyond the infield in foul territory. This ball is playable for either the second or first baseman.
The standard strategy was to have the fielder throw the ball back toward home plate with the pitcher acting as a cut-off man in foul territory. This way the pitcher could cut the ball if the runner on first made a break for second. But Martin felt that this allowed the runner to move up to scoring position as they read and reacted to the throw home.
So he devised a new plan of defense.
Instead of acting as a cut-off man, the pitcher would sprint directly to first base. The fielder would make a hard throw to the inside corner of the bag. This would pin the runner on first and also keep the runner on third from tagging up.
That day alone the Yankees practiced this for 20 minutes, using their fastest runner at third base. Each time, using Martin’s new strategy, they were able to keep the runner at first while cutting down any attempts by the runner on third from scoring. By Martin’s own admission, that particular play happens maybe a handful of times each season. Yet by going through every potential scenario that an opponent used to gain an edge, he would create a maneuver in hopes of eliminating the threat.
Over his career, he thrived on unpredictability from the dugout. As the Minnesota Twins’ manager in 1969, he would deploy the seldom used triple steal (running everyone with the bases loaded), catching is opponents off guard. He knew that his teams would not be ready for that move so he was certain it would work against others.
By questioning the status quo and exploring new ways to defend a routine play or incorporating new baserunning tactics, he arguably made his team incrementally better — if not better, more difficult for competitors to plan against.
Martin practiced what Roderick Kramer described in a 2002 Harvard Business Review article as prudent paranoia.
Kramer wrote that by “awakening a sense of present or future danger, prudent paranoia serves as part of the mind’s early warning system, prompting people to search out and appraise more information about their situations.”
That’s exactly what Martin did. His mind would concoct ways opposing teams would attack his and he would plan accordingly.
Kramer believes that too much trust in existing systems can leave individuals and organizations vulnerable. In Martin’s case, if he had continued to play the game by the existing playbook that many coaches entrust, his team would have been more susceptible to surrendering extra bases.
Kramer outlined several key attributes of prudent paranoia:
Gather data relentlessly. Get all the facts, not just the ones that support an existing confirmation bias.
Question your interpretations. Avoid reaching a conclusion until you’ve considered all aspects.
Be unpredictable. Consistency is a good trait in leaders, but unpredictability will keep competitors from being comfortable.
Disregard all the rules. Following the rules gives a false sense of security; tactically bending or breaking the rules can lead to better performances.
Looking inward at your team’s vulnerability can create opportunities for improvement.
Lisa Bodell created an exercise for organizations called “Kill the Company”. This exercise shows how to workshop ideas to metaphorically destroy their own company. Companies would put themselves in the role of their number one competitor and think of ways to exploit their own weaknesses.
The same exercise that worked for Fortune 500 companies can work for baseball and softball teams as well. Put yourself in the position of your opponent. How would you attack your team? How would you defend against your team? How would you pitch to yourself?
While dismantling your company or team may be fun, the key to Kill the Company is then to create action plans that help insure against those perceived threats. If you can identify the biggest weaknesses of your team and where you might be most susceptible -- such as keeping runners from gaining 90 feet. You can be ready for when your opponent tries to take advantage of your bunt defense or your foul ball relays.
You may not have the luxury of practicing an individual play that may happen only once or twice a season while ignoring the overall fundamentals. However, if you take time to think deeply about your team’s weaknesses, you may be able to construct plans to defend against them. Or, if you are like Martin and his bases loaded stolen base attempts, you mind be able to find something that catches the competition sleeping.
A little positive paranoia can be a good thing.
Like what you just read? Check out a few other articles:
If you enjoyed this post and want to receive more like it, please consider subscribing for a weekly email:
And if you really, really liked it, please consider sharing it with others: