Daniel Gilbert, the Harvard psychologist and author of Stumbling on Happiness, thinks that Alex Rodriguez's recent struggle to hit his 600th home run was so unusual that it requires an explanation. Gilbert, who also happens to be a Red Sox fan, was pleased to provide it in the Op-Ed section of the New York Times. He applied a psychological theory:
One of the ironies of human psychology is that desperately wanting something can make attaining that thing all the more difficult. When stakes go up, performance often goes down. In one study, subjects practiced sinking a putt and got better as they went along - better, that is, until the experimenter offered them a cash reward for their next shot, at which point their performance took a nosedive. . . .
That's why milestones can be millstones. When Rodriguez stepped to the plate in recent days, he may not have heard the roar of the crowd as much as the sound of a record book opening and a pencil being sharpened. The more important his next homer became, the more he probably thought about how to hit it. The more he thought, the less he hit; the less he hit, the more he thought, and the cycle spun on.
There is no doubt that Gilbert's general theory is widely acknowledged by sports psychologists and captures a genuine phenomenon. The question is whether it should be applied to the particular case. Was Rodriguez's difficulty hitting his 600th homer really that odd?
Gilbert offers two data points in support of his thesis: (1) It took 12 whole days for ARod to hit his 600th homer; (2) ARod had gone hitless for 17 at-bats beforehand.
A cursory glance at ARod's stats, however, suggests that the preceding "slump" was less bizarre than Gilbert lets on. In fact, Rodriguez had failed to hit a home run for 12 or more consecutive days five other times during this season alone:
(a) July 6–18
(b) June 3–22 (He missed four games in the stretch, but failed to homer in the 12 games he did play).
(c) May 19–31
(d) April 20 – May 9 (19 days!)
(e) April 4–17
Are we to think that ARod was equally "overthinking" home runs #598, #592, #590, #586, and #584?
Going hitless for 17 consecutive at bats is rarer for a player of Rodriguez's skill but hardly unprecedented. In fact, he went hitless for 19 consecutive at bats earlier this season on April 24–30. Why not think this requires explanation as well? Why not suppose that ARod was busy thinking about tying Frank Robinson's 586 home runs for seventh place on the all-time slugger list?
Moreover, if we think these hitting slumps require explanation (I don't), why not consider alternatives? Perhaps Rodriguez often made the conscious decision to swing for the fences (e.g. when bases were empty or when the Yankees were far ahead or behind) before stepping up to the plate, so he could quickly get #600 behind him. Note that this would differ markedly from Gilbert's account: We would be accusing ARod of making a decision before batting that lowered his chances of a hit, a thought process independent and separate from his actual swing. Gilbert, on the other hand, is accusing Rodriguez of thinking too much during his swing.
Consider for a moment how patronizing Gilbert's column is to a super-athlete of Rodriguez's caliber. Gilbert wishes to take research on novice and "expert" non-professional golfers and apply it to a Hall-of-Fame baseball player. As a 35 year old, Rodriguez has probably been trained by sports psychologists to control his thoughts through breathing, repetitive rituals, limited points of focus, etc., for two decades. But Gilbert is going to diagnose Rodriguez as thinking too much—as suffering a pathos—for failing to do something he has also failed to do five other times this season!
How would you feel if you were Alex Rodriguez, with all the professional experience and training that made him what he is today, hearing this Harvard psychologist telling him that he can't hit #600 because he's thinking too much up there (at each and every pitch he faced!)? I suspect ARod would give him a Bronx cheer . . . which Gilbert would deserve, because he is playing the fan rather than the psychologist.
On reflection, Gilbert's essay doesn't rise above sports-talk-radio pablum. In fact, it is so beneath someone of his stature that, to my mind, it requires an explanation. As a trained journalist and philosopher, as well as an amateur athlete, I am happy to apply my own pet theories, of which I have two that may suit:
(1) Sports homers like Gilbert tend to psychologize every failure by an athlete, especially one on their favorite team or on their favorite team's rival, even when ordinary statistics suggest no such explanation is necessary. (e.g. Buffalo Bills Kicker Scott Norwood missing from 47 yards, taken in itself, doesn't require explanation. So why should we feel compelled to psychologize when he misses at the end of Super Bowl XXV, at the cost of statistical common sense and respect for a professional athlete? And, by the way, wouldn't it be nice to have a psychological theory about our tendency to psychologize this way?)
(2) Book authors tend to latch on to whatever news will allow them to promote themselves on the New York Times Op-Ed page, even when their ideas don't readily apply to the subject discussed.
Whether one or both of these theories fit or not, Rodriguez as well as athletes in general deserve more respect than Gilbert's armchair psychologizing offers.
