General

And Now For The Malcolm Gladwell Backlash Backlash

May 22, 2009, 9:00 PM UTC

It was bound to happen sooner or later: the backlash against Malcolm â†µGladwell’s articles and how they explain sports to the world and vice â†µversa has reached a ... well ... tipping point. Publish one article about how â†µ12-year-old girls and Rick Pitino explain why the â†µpress is a horribly underutilized underdog strategy and lo, the â†µfloodgates open with a chorus â†µof â†µobjections â†µworthy â†µof â†µthe â†µone-link-per-word â†µgambit. Heck, even I got â†µin on the act at my home base. â†µâ†µIf you are familiar with the way the internet works you are â†µanticipating a backlash targeting the backlash, and Basketball â†µProspectus’ excellent John Gasaway is here to â†µoblige:â†µ

â†µâ†µâ‡¥What I took from Malcolm Gladwell’s piece was that far too often â†µâ‡¥coaches–much like everyone else–rely on custom and the settled inertia â†µâ‡¥of habit when instead they should, particularly if they’re facing a team â†µâ‡¥that’s better than theirs, ask themselves a simple question: How can I â†µâ‡¥surprise and discomfit my opponent? ... In this Gladwell is better than â†µâ‡¥correct. He is correct on something foundational. â†µâ†µâ†µAh, but this flies in the face of trends in that most war-like of â†µgames, football. In that sport, underdogs are always-but-always looking â†µfor a surprising stratagem that will propel their team of talentless â†µfuture chemists to glory. â†µ

â†µ

â†µThis can be seen on every level from the NFL, â†µwhere the Dolphins busted out the Wildcat and shocked the Patriots, to â†µcollege, where the zone-read option spreads like it's contagious, to â†µhigh school, where the single-wing â†µhas gone from a newsreel relic to this: â†µ

â†µâ†µâ‡¥At the last Wilkes-Barre conclave, in the spring of 2008, there were â†µâ‡¥138 coaches in attendance. A summer symposium organized by the National â†µâ‡¥Single Wing Coaches’ Association that started in ‘96 with four coaches â†µâ‡¥now annually draws more than 100.â†µâ†µâ†µThis is always happening, from the wishbone to the West â†µCoast offense -- Dr. Z forgive me -- to the Run and Shoot to the I to the spread ‘n’ shred. It never stops. â†µ

â†µâ†µUnless you assume that basketball coaches are lazy charlatans in a â†µway football coaches aren’t -- which is unlikely -- the same process bubbles under the surface there. If pressing your brains out was a generally viable way for underdogs to win more games, it would be prevalent. And then it would be prevalent amongst favorites, and the game’s equilibrium would have shifted. Once something exists and is demonstrated to work, coaches will relentlessly copy it until the next thing comes along. â†µ

â†µâ†µThe problem with the Gladwell article is its arrogance in assuming â†µunderdog coaches could rise to prominence if they just tried something â†µdifferent. The likely answer is no, they wouldn’t. Rick Pitino is â†µsuccessful not because he presses but because he’s Rick Pitino. Tommy â†µAmaker coaching a press is still Tommy Amaker. â†µ

â†µâ†µGladwell’s asking everyone to be different in games with limited â†µpossibility spaces; this is neither feasible or, ultimately, beneficial. He’s saying “be different” when coaches are constantly making compromises between their talent and their style of play, dealing with a â†µcomplicated metagame â†µwith a constantly shifting equilibrium. What he assumes when he cites â†µunderdog armies that won with unconventional tactic is that there â†µexists an unconventional tactic to deploy. â†µ

â†µâ†µThat’s not always the case. Sometimes you’re just a Chinese guy â†µstanding in front of a tank, or Blake Griffin. Same difference.â†µ

â†µâ†µ(HT on the Gasaway piece: UMHoops.)â†µ

â†µ

This post originally appeared on the Sporting Blog. For more, see The Sporting Blog Archives.

See More: