Malcolm Gladwell discusses his Full Court Press article with Bill Simmons

Last week, Malcolm Gladwell's piece from the New Yorker on the Full Court Press became a college hoops blog sensation. For the most part, the reaction to his thinking was overwhelmingly negative (including ours).

Gladwell defended his piece in an email exchange with Bill Simmons, saying the following:

There are two other things here that fascinate me. After my piece ran in The New Yorker, one of the most common responses I got was people saying, well, the reason more people don't use the press is that it can be beaten with a well-coached team and a good point guard. That is (A) absolutely true and (B) beside the point. The press doesn't guarantee victory. It simply represents the underdog's best chance of victory. It raises their odds from zero to maybe 50-50. I think, in fact, that you can argue that a pressing team is always going to have real difficulty against a truly elite team. But so what? Everyone, regardless of how they play, is going to have real difficulty against truly elite teams. It's not a strategy for being the best. It's a strategy for being better. I never thought Louisville -- or, for that matter, Missouri -- had a realistic shot at winning it all in the NCAAs this year. But if neither of those teams pressed, they wouldn't have been there in the first place. I wonder if there isn't something particularly American in the preference for "best" over "better" strategies. I might be pushing things here. But both the U.S. health-care system and the U.S. educational system are exclusively "best" strategies: They excel at furthering the opportunities of those at the very top end. But they aren't nearly as interested in moving people from the middle of the pack to somewhere nearer the front.

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? I know you have very, um, complicated feelings about Pitino. I love the man.

Basically, what Gladwell says is that the central point of the article is that often times it is in the best interest of a less talented team to press because it raises their chances of winning. He mentions two teams, specifically - Missouri and Louisville - that strictly ran a press. For the Tigers, I happen to agree. The make up of their team was, essentially, a bunch of fantastic athletes that were not quite as talented (i.e. not as many great shooters, ball-handlers, etc.) as many of their opponents this year.

But Louisville? They won the Big East this year. They were the #1 overall seed in the tournament. Two of their players (Terrence Williams and Earl Clark) are first-round picks with a shot at getting into the lottery. Two more (Samardo Samuels and Terrence Jennings) could develop into first-rounders down the road. This was not exactly a team devoid of talent.

And unless he has some critical insight that no other college basketball analyst had this year, Louisville was one of the favorites to win it all heading into the dance.

There is one major flaw in his logic - in order to be successful running a full court press, you have to have the more athletic team. You have to have guys that are quicker, longer, and more aggressive than your opponent. In some cases, it makes more sense to sit back in a zone and allow the other team to try and beat you via the jump shot (think Providence's upset of then #1 Pitt this season). But in some cases, it is better for the less talented team to press (could Missouri have come back against Kansas this year had they played a zone and not pressed?).

As with all things sports, it is a case-by-case basis. And that is where his argument falls apart.