Every once in a while the New Yorker brings back an old article that has new relevance. That’s just what they’ve done with one called “How David Beats Goliath,” by Malcolm Gladwell from May 4, 2009. The full article is here and it comes just in time for peak March Madness upset season. Now when I said last time that I was boycotting the tournament this year (if you missed it, you can see that post, here), note that I didn’t say I was boycotting basketball. I only said that I was boycotting the NCAA tournament. So technically I am still within my rights. And actually it’s not so much the sport itself but the writer and his techniques that I have a small problem with. So, with that lengthy preamble, here goes.
********
So, what’s my beef with Malcolm Gladwell? Well, it’s not his Afro hair-do. And it’s not his prose either. He’s a very fine writer. You may have heard of some of his most popular books, like Outliers (2008), Blink (2005), and The Tipping Point (2000). What he specializes in is arriving at counter-intuitive social-science conclusions by means of a mixture of carefully chosen anecdote and skillful argument, with the odd statistic thrown in just to make it all sound scientific. And therein lies the crux of the matter, at least as far as I’m concerned. And as you will see if you read on.
The central tenet of “How David Beats Goliath” is that David breaks with social convention while Goliath is stuck in the tried-and-true. It’s quintessential Gladwell, and as far as it goes, he’s right. Applied to basketball, it translates into the proposition that an agile full-court press gives David a key advantage against Goliath who runs a plodding, pound-it-down-low, half-court offense. And again, as far as it goes, I’ve got no problem with it. It’s just the way he gets there that’s flawed. Bear with me as I wax philosophical, and (hopefully also) a bit scientific.
********
Consider this passage during a classic Gladwell digression on underdogs fighting guerilla warfare:
…in 1809, the Peruvians fought the Spanish straight up and lost; in 1816, the Georgians fought the Russians straight up and lost; in 1817, the Pindaris fought the British straight up and lost; in the Kandyan rebellion of 1817, the Sri Lankans fought the British straight up and lost; in 1823, the Burmese chose to fight the British straight up and lost. The list of failures was endless…
Notice anything? Well, other than the fact that nobody who doesn’t have access to an obscure database of early 19th century armed conflicts ever heard of most of these battles? That’s right – it’s all anecdotal. It’s entirely possible (Note: I’ve not taken the time myself to analyze the database like Gladwell obviously has) that one could theoretically come up with a list of battles arriving at some other – entirely different – conclusion. The fact that by beating us over the head with this kind of endless list such that Gladwell prevails in an argument proves only that he’s adept at arguing, not that either his logic or the overall trend of data invariably supports his chosen conclusion.
To his credit Gladwell does occasionally pepper his narrative with a few stats. But the fact that those stats NEVER go against the flow of his narrative is proof to me that he’s cherry-picking facts rather than that he’s painting anything like a fair and balanced picture of the actual overall landscape. And the twin hall-marks of science are 1) the Gaussian (normal) distribution of data across a continuum, and 2) the notion that discordant data is valuable and must always be reported. Oh, and did I mention, a relevant statistical control group? Well, now I did.
********
If you made it through all of that – cue the sound-track with wild applause – I’m proud of you. But back to basketball: Gladwell’s chosen anecdotes are about underdog teams like Fordham and coaches like Rick Pitino. But if you’re trying to make the case for using a full-court press, why not bring up UCLA coach John Wooden’s 7 straight National Championships (1967-73) thanks to the 2-2-1 zone press? Well, the fact is that in such a narrative, players like Lew Alcindor and Bill Walton – not to mention the greatest college basketball coach who ever lived (sorry, Geno Auriemma) – do not lend themselves to making a case for scrappy upstarts from the Bronx triumphing over blue-chip Blue Bloods stuck in their old-fashioned ways. At least not after the first 4 or 5 National Championships in a row it doesn’t.
********
How’s this for an alternative argument, Master Malcolm? In today’s NCAA tournament – as well as in today’s NBA for that matter – it isn’t the full-court press that makes the difference, it’s 3-point shooting. Case in point: Penn State’s Andrew Funk hit 8-of-10 treys (80%) and the Nittany Lions crushed higher-seeded Texas Tech in their first-round match-up. And in Fairleigh-Dickinson’s historic 16-over-1 upset of top ranked Purdue? FDU limited the Boilermakers to just 5-of-26 shooting from 3-point range. For those of you keeping score at home, that’s a paltry 19%. OK, so maybe tenacious defense played some small role, but still.
Of course by resorting to anecdote I’ve fallen into the same trap here as Malcolm Gladwell, so take it all with a grain of salt. But my abiding point remains: Skillful argument based on anecdotal evidence is one thing. But scientific analysis based on a full spectrum of carefully controlled data? That’s a whole different ballgame. And besides, even Goliath can learn how to use the full-court press. Just sayin’.
