Claiming that you are crucial to a project is not the same as taking sole credit for it.

This is one of the biggest things I see software engineers struggle with in both hiring and annual reviews. They are so afraid to point out why they were critical for a project that they end up marketing themselves as a ride-along, which does not look good.

Note that no one would expect Seinfeld to not be a crucial part in a series that is named after him.

He could have said things like, "I always think my micromanaging was what made it successful, but lots of folks worked really hard on the show"

He didn't, though.

In that particular sentence, no.

does being part of a project because of lack of resources count as being critical?

> In which he takes sole credit for the success of something

I don't think he has ever taken sole credit for the show, neither in this interview or in the plenty of others I have read or watched.

Are there lots of people disputing him? Or are you just reading into something with no foreknowledge?

It literally has his name on it.

In the supplementary behind the scenes footage, the other cast members specifically mention that their job was easy in comparison because they showed up, said their lines, then left for the summer, while Jerry (and Larry, when he was working on the show) were putting in grueling, obsessive 18 hour days, all year long, for the duration of the series.

What if he's just right?

As an example - there are a lot of smart people at Tesla, and there have been for years. If you'd have put me in charge of it 10 years ago it would be dead. Dead dead dead. Elon makes a big difference. He's done it several times. Some people actually are the differentiator.