Strategery
by Lauri on May 4, 2009 4:23 PM CDT
Email
PrintWhile we analyze our prospects during the hot-stove season*, here's some interesting grist for the mill: an article in this week's New Yorker (and we know what Kenny Fuckin' Powers would call it, but let that remain unsaid) by Malcolm Gladwell about how Davids beat Goliaths. He uses several basketball examples, including Fordham's defeat of a Julius-Erving led UMass team. Apparently that game left a big impression on UMass benchwarmer at the time, Rick Pitino.
It's an interesting read (other examples include T.E. Lawrence's strategy for defeating the Ottoman Turks, a 1981 A.I.--as in artificial intelligence, not Allen Iverson--program that allowed its creator to crush opponents in war games, and a girls' Junior Basketball team of small, inexperienced players that played full-court press, every game, every time, and ended up getting to the national championships). Here's the link.
Does it have any application to the Spurs? I'll let y'all decide.
* Since basketball's off-season is during the hottest months of the year (in the northern hemisphere, that is, sorry, didn't mean to be hemisphobic or whatever), shouldn't there be a term equivalent to "hot-stove season" for it? "Standing-in-front-of-the-freezer-and-holding-the-door-open season" is a bit cumbersome, though.
88 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Recc'd
Really excellent find, Lauri.
What a truly novel concept. It makes one wonder what other innovations might be applied to the generally accepted philosophies of basketball. This idea is the antithesis to D’Antoni’s 7 seconds or less game plan.
This probably wouldn’t work in the NBA, but a young team might be able to steal a game or two by trying this during the season. (Although you know Tim Duncan would be doing his quarterback thing if this ever happened to us).
This article also reminds me that in the past Pop had an aversion to tightly defending an inbound pass in the waning moments of a tight game. He used to prefer to use the fifth man as an additional defender on the hot player. I think we got burned a couple of times on this strategy and he reverted back to man to man defense. I always thought he was crazy for not guarding the pass more tightly, but after reading this… I’m not so sure.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
Free George Hill! (member #3)
8 pages? I’ll add it to my list of extremely interesting bookmarks that have wasted away for months.
There’s an awesome 20 something page recount of how Obama won the election waiting to be read…
My tapeworm tells me what to do.
I thought the same thing and then I read the first page… you’ll be hooked.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
Free George Hill! (member #3)
Of course, I just finished reading The Road. So I was happy to read a pick me up.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
Free George Hill! (member #3)
I really want to read that book, I read Child of God by the same author. How was it?
My tapeworm tells me what to do.
Cormac McCarthy is truly gifted. The Road is beautifully written, but incredibly horrific. This story will stay with me for a long time… it’s heartbreaking.
I’ve read All the Pretty Horses, but I really need to take a look at some of his other novels.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
Free George Hill! (member #3)
ouch!!! Awesome, huh? Did you read all 20 something pages?
connecting the dots in the sky would have been more interesting.
by cojones2thewall on May 4, 2009 9:52 PM CDT up reply actions
It was 8 pages and it was interesting.
And if you look over there… that is casseopeia.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
Free George Hill! (member #3)
the Obama one was what I was referring to :)
by cojones2thewall on May 5, 2009 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions
I could have linked to the one-page version, and then where would you be, young man with no attention span?
Honestly. You kids today, with your hippity-hop music and your Twiddle.
by Lauri on May 4, 2009 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
This was great, Lauri. I feel like I should have something important to contribute after reading that long article, but it really makes too much sense. I’ll just rec you and spread it around, so that more people read it.
Thanks for sharing.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Lauri, I love Gladwell. I’ve read all of his New Yorker articles and eagerly await each new piece (all of his archives are on gladwell.com). One of my favorites is how miniturization revolutionized, not computers but a portion of every grocery store.
Have you read “Tipping Point,” “Blink” or “Outliers”?
You’re better off trying to intimidate the sea. - LatinD
Free George Hill! (member #4)
It seems to me that a taller or faster team should still beat a slower or shorter team all coaching being equal. Given the same amount of talent, I think a competent coach should be able to beat the press, especially if he knows is coming. In any case that was a wonderful read. Something irked me about the tone at then end regarding the self-sinking boats though. I cannot put my finger on it.
"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG
Dont know. I think in the article the self-sinking boats resulted in overall victory for the competition (which is nothing like this years Spurs). I think it is because I related self-sinking ships with kamikazes or suicide bombers or something of the sorts… not sure really.
"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG
an interesting read, and a lot of truth in it.
however, i have some bones to pick. these are rather scattered thoughts, and i may not agree with everything i’ve written here in 12 hours time.
the reason “david” tactics work against a goliath isn’t because of any inherent quality in them. one of the main reasons they work more often than not is because the goliath doesn’t react to them and change their own strategy. a full court press works when the goliath panics and turns the ball over. a well disciplined team can break the press, and when they do they expose the fundamental flaw in the press (it allows uncontested shots for the offensive when its broken). guerrilla warfare works when the goliath tries to apply traditional military tactics to the battle. you beat guerrilla warfare by applying non-conventional tactics back – things like embedding troops in villages/cities and getting them to do civic works, to get the local population on your side (the local population often being in support of the guerrillas). if more david’s tried the unconventional route, goliath’s would react and change their own tactics to match over time.
his wondering why the full court press isn’t used a lot more is a little simplistic.
The prospect of playing by David’s rules was too daunting. They would rather lose.
this is a gross simplification (and i think a little insulting). a full court press requires speed and athleticism. a lot of teams aren’t going to have this at every position. if the source of your scoring is a big (power forward or centre), you’re not going to be able to keep them on the court as they’ll tire too quickly most times. this will disrupt your offense and could negate any benefit gained from forcing more turnovers. if you’re team is built for employing a full court press, then take advantage of it. but that doesn’t mean it will work for every “underdog” team.
also, his using of pitino’s success as evidence of the presses virtue is also a bit simplified. if he’s coaching a big time program at a traditional basketball powerhouse, that program will attract higher quality players anyway, which will impact the team’s success. i know gladwell mentions that pitino has only coached 1 player to make it to the nba all-star game, but that doesn’t mean he hasn’t had other quality college players. and i notice no mention is made of pitino’s nba career (which to be honest, i have idea if he tried the full court press then).
having a true cause also matters. and i think this is different from the “effort” he states as trumping ability. this has little to do with the full court press, and more to do with asymmetric warfare. often the david in asymmetric warfare are people who’s land has been occupied – like the bedouins in gladwell’s article, or the mujahadeen in the soviet invasion of afghanistan. the bedouins lawrence of arabia commanded were fighting to remove an occupying power, and so for them there was a real reason to go that extra effort. the turks on the ground probably only cared about not getting killed and not losing their command. the source of the effort lies in the cause of the fight. its not merely applying extra effort.
or something like that…….its late and i need sleep.
free george hill!
by sleep research facility on May 5, 2009 9:56 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Great points, and you’ve touched on one of my reservations about Gladwell (or any theorist, really) — sometimes the information seems forced into the predetermined theory.
I’m wondering if this could be something to use in a tight game with 3 minutes left on the clock. Could a team steal a game? Maybe.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
Free George Hill! (member #3)
I haven’t read the entire article, just the first page, but that doesn’t keep me from having an opinion.
The full court press is used in lower levels of basketball, and in this I include college, to allow the superior athletes to control a game over inferior athletes. When it becomes a half court game, the game becomes more of a game of basketball skill and fundamentals — cutting without the ball, ball movement, picks — that reduces the more athletic teams chances of winning. The reason it doesn’t work in the pros is because the disparity in athleticism is greatly reduced.
Charley Rosen has written about this fairly extensively while discussing the Rick Pitino era in the NBA. I also think it is why so many of Pitino’s guys suck so bad in the pros even though they are very talented guys, they learn none of the fundamentals that are necessary to playing and winning against players who are AS athletic as you.
Then, there is the gimmick factor, the reason it can work for a junior league is that coaches don’t have time to teach their players how to play different styles. They are lucky if they can get them to execute one style effectively. The gimmick factor is that you run across teams who aren’t used to it. The coaches could adapt to expose the weaknesses, but the players couldn’t because it would all be new to them and it is hard — especially for very young people — to execute something they haven’t practiced.
Look no further than the Suns. One of the reasons, I believe, that they had so much regular season success at first — and not as much post-season — is that the teams in the playoffs could plan and adapt for their system over several games. As other teams started to emulate their system, it became that much harder for them to win because teams were seeing it more often. Novelty only gets you so far.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on May 5, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions
The 7SOL Suns didn’t lose in the playoffs because other teams adapted to their system. They lost because the 2005 and 2007 Spurs were a bunch of badasses. Plus, the Spurs were the rare Goliath that was willing to play the Suns’ game. The Suns would have at least one title, maybe two, if not for the Spurs, and in 2006 they advanced to the conference finals without Amar’’$&%e. We saw what happened to that team when they decided to play conventionally: they missed the playoffs. Meanwhile, the NY Knicks didn’t suck quite as bad as they had previously.
I remember Warriors-Spurs in 1991, where Nelson played Alton Lister or whoever at center and was soundly defeated in game 1. Then he said “screw this, their bigs are way better than ours, but our smalls are better than theirs,” and went small. We were treated to the sight of Terry Cummings trying to chase Mario Elie around on the perimeter. That Warriors team would have had no chance against those Spurs playing conventionally, but changing tactics gave them a chance. Simultaneously, Larry Brown was annoyed with the pace of game 1 and said in post-game interviews that they had to get back to playing “the right way,” despite the fact that the Spurs had blown out the W’s by playing up-tempo. That didn’t work out so well.
It’s not that playing unconventionally makes a team invincible; rather, it gives underdogs a chance, where before they would have no shot. Think Mavs-W’s in 2006, or the year Princeton beat defending champ UCLA and advanced to the Sweet 16 (where they were taken out by Erick Dampier’s Mississippi State team).
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
I think you have to differentiate between two things. Playing unconventional match ups, which is Don Nelson’s gig, and playing a style that is non-standard. For instance, the run and shoot offense in the football caused a lot of problems for teams until they adapted to it. Both personnel and strategy. The more common it became, the more worthwhile it became to adapt to it and the easier it became for players to get used to it. It’s like the spread offense vs the running game.
I think the reason the Spurs beat them, besides being badasses, is that they exposed every weakness of their style while also paying due diligence to taking away their running game. Both were much easier to do because they knew the opponent was going to be the same for the next 5-6 games. During the regular season, Pop wasn’t going to change his style for the Suns for one game.
This year’s Knicks were second to last in the east. Better maybe, but Isiah is a low bar to hurdle. They were at least happier. They were still a shit team even though some of the players put up good numbers. But, now that teams have seen the D’Antoni style for several years and other teams have implemented similar styles, other teams know how to attack it and defend it.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on May 5, 2009 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions
I think “playing unconventionally” can encompass a variety of things: funny matchups, constant pressing, or Princeton’s infuriating backdoor cut Chinese water torture offense. In each of those cases, the unconventional style isn’t good for its own sake, but rather maximizes the teams’ strengths and minimizes its deficiencies.
Those Suns teams could not have achieved the level of success they did playing conventionally. I think we’d all agree that defense, rebounding, dominant big men, inside play, etc. is the way to win a championship. However, what should you do if your team lacks those attributes?
By playing the way they did, the Suns maximized their team’s potential for success, by emphasizing their strengths and hiding their weaknesses. If we could transport those Suns teams to today, they would enjoy similar success playing that same style, not because it is unconventional, but because it lets the players do what they are good at.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The ’05 Suns got off to a 31-4 start. I believe the absurdness of that record was attributable to the fact that their style was unconventional. I think as teams adjusted it made that type of success unrepeatable.
Without a doubt, they definitely played to their strengths, but they also benefited from their unconventional style before other teams caught on. That’s why I think the Knicks will not be able to repeat the Suns “success”. Those Suns were the absolute perfect fit for it.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on May 5, 2009 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions
I’m not so sure.
In fact, I think it’d be the perfect style for a team of young kids playing against a veteran team like, say, the Spurs. Just imagine the attrition our players would have to endure if their opponents were able to maintain a full court press for the entire game. I admit that players as talented as Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan would be able to defeat that strategy and get easy points in the majority of the possessions, but how many minutes could Duncan play without sitting on the bench and just catching his breath?
Moreso, how many of the players in our team do you trust dribbling the ball quickly up court while being hounded by a defender? I count three, maybe four: Tony, Manu, George, Roger. You also maximize the usefulness of your worst players, because you don’t need to shoot or pass or even dribble well to be an effective defensive pest. It might be a simplification, but strong, fast legs and a willingness to buy into the system are all that’s needed. Combine this with a 7SoL offense, and you’d have an exhausting strategy that would force us to adjust our gameplan completely.
I think that’s the key. Whether it’s effective or not, this would force good teams to change in order to win. Bad teams (think Memphis, OKC) are forced to react to their betters – knowing, as the article explains, that their chances of winning are slim. Here they’re kicking the board, changing the rules. They might not win, but they will be a playing a fundamentally different game, one of their own choosing and one they can prepare to play. It’d certainly be more or less effective according to the personnel, but that’s true of every system.
I agree with tomasito in that the Suns are not a good example. I for one think that the 2007 Suns were incredibly close to the Spurs, and would’ve won the championship if they’d won that series. Success can’t be measured in championships, because your performance peak could coincide with someone else’s.
Regarding Pitino, he did change the Knick’s immediately reality and had two good season. His time in Boston wasn’t so positive, but his team was depleted of skilled players. You can have the best system in the world, but if Wayne, Hipuks, jolly, tomasito and SRF start, then we just won’t win many games. Of course you need a special kind of player, but once again, I don’t think that’s the point. The idea is to give the underdogs a chance – which they don’t have as they are. So why maintain the status quo?
SRF, you said: “the source of the effort lies in the cause of the fight. its not merely applying extra effort.” Well, you’re right in the military/historical context, but not in the basketball one. Here the effort comes from the desire to win (or simply the desire to win and then earn more money), like in every professional sport. The author’s point was that not every player would be willing to try something like this: because it’s hard, because it’s not conventional, because it looks ugly, because they would be ridiculed, etc. etc.
Again, to me, the whole point is that with this strategy you’re playing a whole new game. One you might even win.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Maybe the better example would be Paul Westhead with the Nuggets. He does what you suggest in pressing full court and the 7SOL offense. I’ll find you the stats, but they got run out of the gym in the NBA. At the college level, however, he was fairly successful with less talent precisely because of what you say. At the pro level, you can’t press all out full court. Pro point guards don’t turn the ball over and in many cases can dribble out/around a double team. When that happens you are TOAST.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on May 5, 2009 8:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Another point, that I think can’t be overlooked, is your point about a strategy that gives an underdog a chance. The problem is that if you think you are an underdog, you play like an underdog. You make decisions like an underdog and you are expected to lose. However, when you become the hunted, you don’t know how to behave and you don’t know how to handle the pressure.
Look at Don Nelson. He’s always thrived on being the underdog and thrived on trying weird things. I think that has given his team a fighting chance, but when he was the better team like with the Mavs, they didn’t believe in themselves and their identity because they didn’t have an identity. They were used to winning as a gimmick and as the risk taker.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on May 5, 2009 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions
However, when you become the hunted, you don’t know how to behave and you don’t know how to handle the pressure.
You mean “hunter”? Otherwise, I didn’t understand what you meant.
This is not a philosophy class: there is a basketball reality, if you will, and the Grizzlies, for instance, are a legitimate underdog in the NBA. It doesn’t matter whether the players and the coach think they are an underdog, or they manage to delude themselves into believing they’re championship material. They simply have no chances of winning anything.
I don’t know why you call Nellieball or 7SoL “gimmicks” – as opposed to legitimate strategies like permanent halfcourt offense/defense. They didn’t lead to championships, but they brought about significant improvements in teams with incredibly flawed rosters. I don’t think there’s one Right Way of playing basketball, mainly because it’s a game played by people, and teams are of course all different to some degree. If everybody plays the same way, then the teams with the most skilled players will always win – why play at all? Maybe full court pressing isn’t the right option, but at least it’s a change. If you’re a crappy team, your only chance in a paradigm shift.
Right?
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
I meant the hunted. The team that people are out to beat. The team that people make roster changes in preparation for attacking you.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on May 5, 2009 9:23 PM CDT up reply actions
You continually argue that if you have less talent then your only or best chance is a paradigm shift aka gimmick. If it was a strategy that would allow you to consistently beat good teams, then teams would be doing it routinely. I think that a big chunk of the “improvement” is that it is novelty. But, novelty doesn’t work as well against better teams, and novelty works even less well against better teams that have time to prepare.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on May 5, 2009 9:28 PM CDT up reply actions
It’s probable. Honestly, I don’t know if this would work on the long run.
But still, I feel to a point that this kind of outside-the-box thinking is impossible in the league not because it’s been proven through the years that it’s not conducive to excellence (think Nellieball), but because not many have the guts to even give it a try. Especially considering that new coaches are quickly devoured in the NBA if their methods don’t produce instant success.
Hell, looking bad while imitating the Spurs can get you fired. Looking bad while making a mockery of the traditional strategies would probably lead to outright humiliation and ostracism.
Say it’s not viable for an entire season. Why not try for half of the games, or 20, or 10? The surprise would definitely net you a few more wins. And if your team can’t handle it for an entire game, why not just the entire first quarter? I can’t imagine it being anything but completely disruptive, forcing an unaware team to play at full bore from the very beginning.
I’d root for that team, and have fun with it. Grizzlies fans have to deal with grim realities and hopelessness, instead.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Apply this same thing to soccer. Why don’t soccer teams do the same thing?
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on May 5, 2009 11:20 PM CDT up reply actions
Hm. Well, that’s not a good comparison.
First of all, a football field is much bigger than a basketball court, so it takes even more “legs”, as the author calls it, to put constant pressure on the opponents. Players don’t rest for 45 minutes at a time, and can’t be subbed in and out as they tire out. It’s also easier to escape for the attacking team, too, because you can pass to an unoccupied spot and triangulate and stuff – that’s not possible in basketball since the ball nearly always goes from player A to B, and you can’t dribble, stop, then dribble some more if a pass is impossible. You can’t pass to the goalie, either, who can hold the ball until the danger’s passed.
Also, in football the roles of the players are well-defined. You have attackers, who rarely defend, and you have defenders, who rarely attack. In addition, the attackers are usually fewer than the defenders, so it’s more difficult for 2 attackers to recover the ball by hounding the opponents near their goal.
In football it’s also actually possible to win if you’re the underdog by retreating into your half of the court, defend with all 11 players, get the tie, and then win in in the penalties. Weak teams that employ conservative, traditional strategies actually have a chance, because scoring a goal is damn difficult. Unlike in basketball, when points are unavoidable.
And even with all those caveats, they actually do it in football. Or at least they do it more than in basketball. First of all, attackers (forwards?) and mid-fielders in good teams constantly try to recover the ball, running back and forth and not letting their opponents enter their half of the field. They even run at the goalie when he’s forced to use his feet in the off-chance that he messes up. The basketball equivalent would be to let players get to the 3/4 line unchallenged, and that’s unthinkable in football. Besides, there’s no inbound pass that isn’t fought for.
It’s true that considering the size of the field, any mistake made can probably be salvaged before the danger reaches the goal zone.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Gladwell’s article doesn’t advocating pressing per se; rather, it is about doing what gives your team the best chance to win, regardless of what the conventional wisdom might say. The example team he cites lacked the skill set to play conventionally, so they developed the pressing style in response.
The Spurs had the personnel to win with defense and inside-out play, so that gave them their best opportunity to win. The Suns didn’t, so it would have been suicidal for them to try to beat the Spurs in a defensive struggle. However, as LatinD points out, many coaches would be embarrassed to even try something different.
I don’t know that Westhead’s Nuggets were such a good example, because they just flat-out sucked. It’s hard to know whether they had a better chance to win because of their style. At least they were entertaining.
Actually, I think the soccer/football comparison is a very good one. The game is “supposed” to be played by skilled athletes who dribble the ball, pass to teammates, take shots on goal and try to score, etc. However, if your team doesn’t have skilled athletes, you’re not going to be successful playing that type of game against a team that does.
The “unconventional” strategy, then, is to pull all your players onto your side of the field to defend and try for the 0-0 tie. The difference between soccer and basketball is that in soccer, the recipe for weaker teams have a chance at defeating stronger teams is widely known and employed, whereas in basketball, it is not.
Texas Tech’s football team is a good example of this as well. People deride them by saying their passing style isn’t conducive to winning a championship. Maybe, but they are outmanned athlete-for-athlete, so if they lined up with a traditional game plan, they’d get smoked. They had an abundance of smaller, quick wide receivers, so that’s what their offense is built around.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
I think the novelty will work very well against second units. Especially used at critical junctures in the game.
This assumes, that the pressing second unit is very very well trained and conditioned a whole lvl above the opposing second unit. Then roger mason or george hill WILL have turnovers, ppl will get hesitant, the offense will stall.
No matter how conditioned you are, its not going to work against Tony, Lebron or Kobe etc. On single coverage they will get the call. But then again, Barea did have success pressuring Tony and testing his conditioning and we all know by the fourth, Tony was exhausted.
Making it a strategy for a full game is prob not gonna work, because its not a flexible adaptable defense.
Well, you’re right in the military/historical context, but not in the basketball one
which is why i said that statement didn’t really apply to the full court press. and this to me is another of the problems with the article – trying to use examples that while are similar in one regard (being the underdog), are fundamentally different in others (motivations for success). using guerrilla warfare and underdog basketball teams to promote your argument is open to problems because they are so vastly different in many areas.
gladwell has picked examples that help his thesis, but ignored other aspects of those examples which have bearing on the issue. which given this is just a magazine article isn’t a crime, but it is a bit disingenuous.
free george hill!
by sleep research facility on May 5, 2009 11:59 PM CDT up reply actions
I know what you mean, SRF – I just don’t see why they aren’t valid analogies.
Fighting a war is certainly far more serious and dangerous than playing a basketball game, and the motivations to put forth the necessary effort to triumph in each scenario will obviously differ. But how does that affect his thesis? Unconventional strategies require more effort because they’re based on “leg work” as opposed to “skill”. Whether it’s possible to motivate basketball players to muster the effort needed, not to wage a war, but to play full court press for an entire game is another matter altogether.
I like to think it’s possible.
Anyway, I’m debating for the sake of debating at this point. Good article, good chat. Thanks, Lauri, I enjoyed it. :)
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
SRF, I’ll pick up if David’s done. I don’t agree with Gladwell being disingenuous, because I don’t see him saying that the lines he’s drawing between the similarities of Davids are the whole story. As I read this Gladwell piece, I get the feeling he’s saying, “Hey, check out the way we usually look at this thing over here. Isn’t it possible that there’s a flaw in the assumptions that form the foundation of the usual analysis of this topic?” And then he begins to show how there are circumstances where conventional wisdom not only breaks down, but is potentially ludicrous.
It’s fun reading, and it brings a new light on what was previously thought to be fully understood territory — but it isn’t a treatise, and I don’t believe it’s meant to be.
You’re better off trying to intimidate the sea. - LatinD
Free George Hill! (member #4)
maybe my saying he was being disingenuous was a little harsh. like i said, it was just a magazine article.
what is gladwell’s thesis in this article? in my opinion, its that effort trumps ability. now in and of itself, this statement is neither true nor false, as every situation is different, so no definitive truth can be applied to it. and i’m not claiming gladwell is trying to do that. and i’m not saying that i believe this concept to be wrong, or flawed. effort can trump ability.
however, the examples he has chosen to support his thesis don’t necessarily fit it neatly. and by omitting looking into other aspects of the examples, he misses some important things that have an impact on their application to the point he’s trying to make.
he also (i think) makes a bit of a mess when trying to figure out why others don’t apply unconventional tactics when they face a goliath, again using the prism of his examples to show why its a good idea. he simply casts the people who don’t want to try it as being afraid of trying, of thinking its too hard, rather than examining reasons why those tactics won’t work in every david vs goliath situation. i sort of tried to address this in my original post – i think he doesn’t want to go into these other reasons as it doesn’t fit into his idea of it requiring effort that people aren’t willing to put in, rather than some other reason (such as my examples of not having the athletes, or it disrupting your own offensive game, when it comes to a full court press).
LatinD -
Unconventional strategies require more effort because they’re based on "leg work" as opposed to "skill"
this isn’t strictly true. they don’t have to require anymore effort at all really, but to merely do things differently. particularly in the area of asymmetric warfare – you get things like booby traps (IEDs), suicide bombings, giving money to locals, building infrastructure, propaganda – things that don’t necessarily require effort, but can be devestatingly effective.
anyway…
i think perhaps i’m casting too critical an eye on this. i’m maybe looking at this as though its been presented as a serious piece of research, to form the basis of a book or doctoral thesis, and i don’t think gladwell is taking it that far. i sometimes think i look at things like this too much from a mathematics/computing frame of mind, and see definitive statements being made where none are, and so tear into any inconsistencies i see.
free george hill!
by sleep research facility on May 6, 2009 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions
How about another unconventional tactic that works: Shooting free throws underhanded. But of course basketball players won’t do it, because it’s not macho enough. We all know the epitome of manliness is swishing a ball through a hole while making a flicking movement with your wrist.
My tapeworm tells me what to do.
I’d say that “steal” is exactly the term to use, Bella. You might be able to pick up a game or two, depending on situations and opportunities (as well as the buy-in of your team) if you suddenly sprung a press on an unsuspecting team at just the right time.
But, while this tactic could work for an entire game with 11 – 13 year old girls, or against the “right” college team, it’d be more difficult to do the more experienced the level of players. Even on my high school team, we’d run “anti-press” practice so that we’d be prepared in case we encountered a team with a 94-foot defense.
The press in the NBA is high risk/reward. You can absolutely gain possessions in the right environment, but you can also give up easy baskets if the offense recognizes the press and has a plan for it — in other words, if they run a set play.
In-bounds plays coming out of times outs are excellent examples of this. This is one thing that Pop is almost uniformly praised about in these parts. After a string of a team breaking the press, an NBA coach would absolutely want to pull his team back into a conventional defense to conserve their energy.
Gimicky? Maybe. Exhausting? Yes, for both teams. Worth it in spurts? With the risk/reward as high as it is, that’s why you see it at the end of games, or not at all in the NBA.
You’re better off trying to intimidate the sea. - LatinD
Free George Hill! (member #4)
Exactly my thoughts. If a coach was able to adapt quickly to the strategy they could expose the weaknesses of the full court press easily, forcing the opposing coach to drop the strategy. I think it is definitely useful as a surprise/change of pace strategy.
"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG
Reading this thread makes me realize how much (and why) I love PtR. If I ever forget, I will just find it and read it again.
Another year of hanging around you guys and I will have some killer basketball smarts.
To go with the rest of your all around smarts? Damn, you would be even more awesome than you are right now.
Can I be your friend? Could we hang together?
Too stalkerish? Yeah, I thought so, too.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
Free George Hill! (member #3)
Get on Facebook and be her friend.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on May 5, 2009 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions
I’d rather stick here… where people talk about things I’m interested in. Let’s take a look at some actual posts on my facebook page. (Names have been deleted in order to protect the dorky).
“____ needs a bandaid”
“____ I’m showing my mom how to use Twitter. hehe”
“____ was just in the same room as Dolly Parton. My life is now complete.” O.K, that one’s pretty cool
“____ is heading to Hershey PA for a few days of PR with a pair of clowns! :)”
“____ is thinking of a midnight showing of the new star trek movie who wants to go ???”
“____ Work induced funk, needs to get…”
“____ is trying to plan her day…her week…her life…”
“____ ROCKETS!!!!” O.K., I like that one, too.
Damn. I need to visit my facebook page more often. ;-)
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
Free George Hill! (member #3)
Ah, nice. Let’s see what today’s posts on mine look like:
“____ is sleepy”
“____ Know what I like even better than swearing? Swear-typing with symbols!”
“____Thanks to researching the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, I have the Led Zeppelin song running on an endless loop in my ‘brane. Do you know how miserable that is when you can’t open your mouth and howl “OOO-OOOH YEAH YEAH” ? I’m dyin’ here. I might have to go sit in my car to scratch this particular itch."
“____ Garden Girl valiantly battles her arch-nemesis, Bindweed.”
“____is suddenly interviewing Alex Cox today.”
“____ wonder if there is cinco de mayo aqui… en el estado muy blanco.”
“____ hopes her favorite husband ever had a great 34th birthday yesterday.”
“____ got a shout-out on author and poet Ken Whitley’s show, Boogie Chillin’, on Marfa Public Radio — we met Ken on the street, _ was pretty sure he was famous and told him so, he said he was and told us he was an author poet, sure nuf’ his book was in the Marfa bookstore so we bought it and he gave us a shout-out on his weekly show. I heart Marfa.”
One of those is mine.
Okay, I confess. Number 3.
But I would love to go there. There are yaks and rivers, Mughal gardens and Shiva temples . . .
Did you read Midnight’s Children?
Ah. I was never able to travel up there coz of the terrorists. I have been to the lower valleys of the himalayas, but like 30 or 40 years ago, it used to be a favourite spot of indian film celebrities and a lot of movies were shot in kashmir back in the day.
Mughal garden and hindu temples are all over the place. Kashmir has its own unique charm. To me its just beautiful tranquil lakes with boats selling fruit and flowers of the valley. Kashmiri food, the little bit I have tasted is superb. Kashmir used to be ruled by a royal family and its one of those things that got lost in history, who agreed to what etc. When pakistan broke off from india, they wanted kashmir too coz back then it had a roaring tourism industry. And then terrorism spread everywhere along india’s border with pakistan and afghanistan. From childhood, all i have heard of is sad stories from kashmir, occasionally meeting a kashmiri family here and there.
Until terrorism by pakistan is solved, nobody can really go there. curfews on the streets of kashmir were a daily thing for soo many years. The years have blurred the boundaries and now nobody knows who is fighting for what and I think they recently tried holding elections with somewhat limited success or so.
Nah I haven’t read that. If its written by a foreign journalist, he would have only understood some partial truth to be honest.
Unless the guy lived in india for many years and speaks some local dialects in which case he might be able to appreciate the depth of the different cultures.
Oh, it’s the Salman Rushdie novel — won the Booker.
I highly highly recommend it on its own merits, but I mentioned it because I remember one of its lyrical passages describing the Kashmir region—and lamenting its fate.
If you’re interested, there’s an article about Kashmir, Midnight’s Children, and the politics of identity here, but it’s looooooooooong. Long and fabulous, but long.
Boy. That is looonng!!
I first knew about the Booker prize when Arundhati Roy won it quite a few years ago. I knew her personally and she wrote about my hometown and the book was ridiculous. She gave me a signed copy which I could never finish. Till now I have no idea what its real merits were and maybe I am an exception.
My conclusion back then in high school was that the ppl who gave out the Booker and the prize money must be really easy to befuddle. :P
Do you mean The God of Small Things? A book club I was in chose that for our selection one month. I’d love to hear what you thought was ridiculous about it!
Ahem. I ran my mouth and is being taken to task /gulp.
Now that you ask, I will read it again. Maybe me 12 years later might understand it.
Oh, I didn’t mean that as a challenge. Heh. No, seriously, if you disliked it, I’m just interested in knowing why. I always get more insight from hearing people explain what they don’t like about books (and movies . . . and anything else) than what they do. I think it’s because when we like something we don’t try to articulate it to ourselves, so we’re not prepared to say much more about it when asked than, “Oh, I LOVED it.” Disliking seems to be a more analytical process (except, apparently, when it comes to the Lakers).
OK, sure.
:: trying to find my binoculars. where are my car keys? Dark wig… check. Dark Glasses… check.::
Damn, this stalking stuff is hard work. No wonder I don’t do it anymore. Ha-Ha!
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed. - CMoney
Free George Hill! (member #3)
U gals r so funnneee!
I was just gonna echo Lauri’s sentiment about this whole thread (and ask if it’s ok to quote her in my sig below;) then I followed along on your hilarious tangent here…which epitomizes what I, a longtime lurker, love best about PtR…thanks for the daily giggles n guffaws!
Honestly. You kids today, with your hippity-hop music and your Twiddle. - Lauri
One interesting thing is that the full-court press is one of the extremes while falling back as a team and defending your side of the court is the other extreme. What is in the middle? I know some teams play traps in the half-court, but is there any other strategy to make it difficult for the offensive team to go past mid-court? I dont think so.
I think part of the reason is that when you have good basketball players you HAVE to play team defense. Remember, the offensive player has an advantage in that he knows exactly where he is going. The defensive players will always be catching up and more often than not help defense is a necessity. In the full-court press, it is almost impossible to have “help” defense by the rim where it is important. It typically ends in a one-on-one situation at best.
Am I making any sense?
"If an expert says it can't be done, get another expert"
- DBG
There is also some strategy that is important to consider. Crossing half court does not score you any points. The real point of defense is to make it harder for the other team to score, or to get the ball from them. It’s not a direct parallel to war say, where losing ground is losing.
In the NBA, the point of a press or trap is frequently to eat some time off the shot clock WHILE not compromising your defensive integrity.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on May 5, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Mmmm, only if he didn’t know what kind of people we are. Which is my way of saying, if he did, you would have done a lot of lying to make it happen.
We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.
by Wayne Vore (ATS) on May 5, 2009 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions
He used to blog fairly regularly here but hasn’t at all in ‘09. But I think you might be surprised how open he’d be to something like that — assuming on his availability, etc.
You’re better off trying to intimidate the sea. - LatinD
Free George Hill! (member #4)
That’s the theory. The truth is that even in the NBA 60% of the players can’t dribble the ball when covered by a good defender, and have trouble running with the ball. Panic-induced errors are also common, even in seasoned veterans.
I think this isn’t so much that it wouldn’t work – it’s that it’s physically near-impossible to maintain that intensity.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Interesting read. To add to the discussion, something like this was tried in the NFL last year by the Dolphins. While it wasn’t an “offense” per se, the Wildcat formation and plays from there proved effective for a team that many would say was not exactly the most talented in the AFC. It took teams by surprise and it worked for them. I understand the point of the article and I agree with the points it tries to make for the most part.
As far as trying the press strategy in the NBA, if used sparingly, it will work. I’m actually going to go to the opposite side of the spectrum here, in the Jordan years, the Bulls would trap every now and again, usually at the beginning of the third and/or fourth quarters very effectively. With some of their length and quickness, it proved to be a very effective strategy.
I’m just surprised more teams didn’t press us this year once TP went to the bench. I think we would have had more turnovers than shot attempts with the lineups that we sometimes had, especially with Mason running the point.
Sheesh, look what you did Lauri . . .
I don’t have the time to read this ridiculously long thread but sure looks like a fun debate. I’d appreciate a wrap up or the cliffs notes version.
Superman wears Manu Ginobili pajamas to bed.
“Taking an unexpected approach can result in victory over what would appear to be an unbeatable foe.”
I would add, “…but social/peer pressure to conform to etiquette and rules of engagement often prevents underdogs from adopting those unorthodox approaches, instead causing them to follow rules that guarantee victory for the favorite.”
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Bill Simmons and Malcolm Gladwell email to the death!
Gladwell: The other, related question is whether you can ever truly run the press with elite players. Pitino did it once, with that stacked 1996 Kentucky team. But I think even he realizes that was a once-in-a-lifetime achievement. Think about it: He got Antoine Walker to play defense for 94 feet. And John Wooden used the press a lot with some of his great teams at UCLA. But he was John Wooden, and that was another era. Realistically, could you convince a couple of McDonald’s All-Americans, who have been coddled and indulged their whole lives, to play that way today? When we were talking, Pitino called over Samardo Samuels, who is, of course, Jamaican — his point being that this was his ideal kind of player, someone who substituted for a lack of experience with a lot of hunger. There is something weird, isn’t there — and also strangely beautiful — about a coach who deliberately seeks out players who aren’t the most talented?
Put them in the FanShots, Lauri. Not many will see them down here. Or I can do it tonight.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Only one left, and it’s a piece of cake. Tomorrow I’m baaack.
Straight from the No-Stat Zone to your computer!
Dunkin' Cheerleaders
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Featured Stories
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Let’s all hate the Oklahoma City Thunder shirts that take a needless shot at the team’s move from Seattle (PHOTO)
- The Golden State Warriors will likely move to San Francisco in 2017
- Chris Paul goes off the top of the backboard for one last Clipper highlight before losing to Spurs (VIDEO)
- Behind the Box Score, where the Heat grabbed control behind LeBron James’ amazing afternoon
- Behind the Box Score, where the Oklahoma City Thunder dominated the fourth quarter. Again
