Before we get started, a correction. Last week, due to too many re-writes, I ended up posting backward logic, as several correspondents pointed out. You’ll find a corrected version here, near the bottom, in the Bob’s Last Word segment.

# # #

Speaking of bad metrics (we weren’t, but I couldn’t come up with a better segue to this week’s topic), let me offer a big thank-you to Lee Neville, a long-time member of the KJR community, for bringing a high-profile example to our attention.

Titled “At N.F.L. Draft, America Begins Annual Tradition of Celebrating Hubris,” it’s by David Leonhardt and appeared in The New York Times, April 28, 2022. Annoyingly enough, I’m pretty sure Leonhardt’s core conclusion is at least partially on target: with lots at stake, and huge investments in data-gathering and analysis, the correlation between NFL draft rankings and player performance isn’t very good.

Leonhardt ascribes the problem to hubris, and extrapolates his conclusion to business hiring, which he suspects is just as unreliable, and for similar reasons.

So what’s the problem? Leonhardt bases his conclusion on the five 2018 first-round quarterback draft picks. Using career touchdowns as his metric, he demonstrates conclusively that actual career performance and draft order have little to do with each other.

I’m just messin’ with you. He did no such thing.

The illogic of his commentary began with his choice of career touchdowns as his quarterback performance metric. It conceals a wealth of missing but important information that’s critical to evaluating Leonhardt’s contention. For example:

Did all five quarterbacks play the same number of games? The answer is no. Baker Mayfield, for example, didn’t play until partway through week three of the 2018 season. In all he’s played 60 games, Sam Darnold has played 50. Josh Allen … the quarterback with the most touchdowns has, suggestively, played the most games at 61. That leaves Josh Rosen having played 24 games and Lamar Jackson 58.

It doesn’t take a metrics nerd to know that playing in fewer games means having fewer opportunities to score touchdowns.

Did all five of these quarterbacks enjoy the same level of protection? Every football fan knows that the better the offensive line, the more time the quarterback has to execute plays and the more successful he’ll be.

And yet, with all the zillions of statistics football game callers give us to fill time as part of their commentary, nobody seems to measure the average time between the snap and the moment the quarterback throws the ball or is sacked (limiting analysis to passing plays only for clarity). A similar point could be made about the caliber of the team’s receivers and running backs.

ESPN take note.

How about the quality of coaching? While some quarterbacks do call some plays, the coaching staff create the game plan and call a lot of the plays as well. Presumably, some coaches are better at this than others, which means some quarterbacks are the beneficiaries of better game plans and play calling than others.

A sample size of five? Seriously? With all the data available for football, getting to the magic number of 30 data points – the minimum needed for general-purpose statistics – wouldn’t have been all that difficult. Statistically speaking, a sample size of five is just pretending, especially because … why choose the 2018 draft for analysis and not some other year, anyway?

Bob’s last word: Picking on Leonhardt is fun, but it isn’t entirely fair. Far too many of his fellow reporters and opinion writers of all stripes just aren’t very good with math or statistics either, whether they cover sports, politics, management, or information technology. We can hope the level of sophistication among journalists who cover the fields of math and statistics is better.

Then there’s Leonhardt’s conclusion – that recruiting in all fields is a matter of hubris. It would be convincing if he offered a better alternative. So yes, recruiting and selecting the best candidates to hire is an imperfect science at best. That doesn’t mean a high failure rate is due to character flaws all around.

It means it’s hard.

Bob’s sales pitch: Schrodinger’s cat is alive and well, as will be revealed on May 11th, 2:40pm CST. That’s when a battle royale will ensue, as I engage with the estimable Roger Grimes in The Great Quantum Debate: Is There a Role in Business Yet? as part of CIO’s Future of Data Summit.

Oh, okay, it won’t be a battle royale, but there’s a pretty good chance you’ll enjoy it almost as much as Roger, Eric Knorr – our moderator – and I did when we recorded it.

I knew a guy who based all of his decisions on colorful anecdotes he’d amassed over a lifetime of varied experiences. He succeeded at everything he tried. Let me tell you about him.

Let’s pretend I actually did know a person like this, and that I had enough imagination, creativity, and recursion to turn their life into an anecdote about how relying on anecdotes works really, really well. Would you find my conclusion convincing?

Of course not. Turning the famous quote around, the KJR community recognizes that anecdote isn’t the singular of data.

But unconsciously turning a vivid anecdote into a trend or truth is an easy cognitive trap to fall into, even for the wary.

We’re still thinking about thinking – a big subject. Interestingly enough, my haphazard (as opposed to random) research found an order of magnitude more sources listing different forms of fallacious thinking than provided tools for thinking well.

We’ve been exploring some of these over the past few weeks. This week: what I call “anti-anecdotal thinking” but should probably call “anti-anti-anecdotal thinking.”

Start with what anecdotes aren’t: Evidence that some idea or other is valid.

Bigotry relies on anecdotes-as-evidence. The bigot finds something heinous that happened and identifies as perpetrator a member of a group the bigot doesn’t like. The bigot relates the anecdote as proof all members of the group are horrible sub-human beings and we need to do something about them.

Extrapolate from an anecdote and you’re performing statistics on a sample size of one. It’s worthless.

But that doesn’t mean anecdotes are worthless.

Anecdotes are akin to analogies. Using either one to persuade violates the rules of logic. But they’re excellent tools for illustrating and clarifying your meaning.

Anecdotes serve another useful purpose as well: While generalizing from an anecdote is bad statistics, using an anecdote to demonstrate that the seeming impossible is, in fact, achievable can make all kinds of sense, as explained in “Look to the Outliers” (Sujata Gupta, Science News, 2/26/2022):

Northern Somalia’s economy relies heavily on livestock. About 80 percent of the region’s annual exports are meat, milk and wool from sheep and other animals. Yet years of drought have depleted the region’s grazing lands. By zeroing in on a few villages that have defied the odds and maintained healthy rangelands, an international team of researchers is asking if those rare successes might hold the secret to restoring rangelands elsewhere.

The article adds: Statistically speaking, success stories like those Somali villages with sustainable grazing are the outliers, says Basma Albanna, a development researcher at the University of Manchester in England. “The business as usual is that when you have outliers in data, you take them out.

Investigating outliers can offer new and valuable insights.

Anecdotes don’t necessarily describe outliers. But just as “Man bites dog” is news while “Dog bites man” isn’t, there’s rarely much point to relating an anecdote that describes the ordinary.

Combining anti-anecdotal and anti-anti-anecdotal thinking into a single merged thought process is a useful way to explore a subject:

Anecdote: The media would have you believe ransomware is a huge problem. But I talked to a CIO whose company was hit. He told me they just restored everything from backup and were up and running in a day.

Anecdotal thinking: Once again we’re being lied to by the lamestream media! Ransomware is the new Y2K – a bogus non-crisis pushed by IT to inflate its budget.

Anti-anecdote response: Anyone can relate an anecdote. That doesn’t mean it really happened. Even if it did, that doesn’t mean restoring from backups is all any company has to do to avoid being damaged by an attack. We’ll stick with our best-practices program.

Anti-anti-anecdote response: Most likely this is just an anecdote. But it would be worth finding out if an IT shop truly has figured out a simple way to recover from a ransomware attack, and if so, if their situation is typical enough that other companies can benefit from their experience.

Bob’s last word: This week’s punchline is simple. If someone uses an anecdote to try to convince you of something, skepticism should rule the day. But if they use one to try to convince you something is possible, don’t reject it out of hand. It’s as Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine advised: “The rub … is finding that balance between being open-minded enough to accept radical new ideas but not so open-minded that your brains fall out.”

Bob’s sales pitch: My formula for deciding what to write about each week includes, seasonally enough, four questions: (1) Do readers care about the subject? (2) Do I know anything about it? (3) Do I have anything original to say about it? And, (4) have I written about it recently?

I have 2, 3, and 4 covered. But it sure would help if you’d write to suggest subjects you’d like me to cover.