The Fallacy of Wins and Losses in Youth Sports

January 31st, 2011

Note: Originally published in the January/February 2011 issue of Los Angeles Sports & Fitness.

In a recent youth football championship game, one team trailed 6-0 when the coach ordered a trick play that is now a youtube sensation. After a penalty, he called out loudly that the defense had been off-side, and the official forgot to walk off the five yards. He yelled at his center to move the ball forward. The center stood up and handed the ball over his shoulder to the quarterback, which is a legal maneuver. The quarterback started to walk off the five yards and then sprinted past the unassuming defenders for the game-tying touchdown. Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Strategy | 1 Comment »

A Lesson from College Football

October 13th, 2010

In Greg Easterbrook’s Tuesday Morning Quarterback, he writes about Oregon University’s offense:

Pass patterns are minimal, which keeps the quarterback’s mind from melting under the pace…The blur offense has maybe 20 plays, though several involve an option about who carries the ball. A very simple playbook allows Oregon to perfect the execution and snap really quickly.

Oregon emphasizes execution and speed of play, and they score at a near-record pace. Rather than add complexity, as has been the trend over the last decade, Oregon simplifies. As Easterbrook writes, offenses and defenses ebb and flow – an offensive system gains an advantage and then defensive systems adjust and force offenses to develop something new.

The idea of simplification is important for basketball coaches, especially at the youth level. Rather than out-duel the opposition with added complexity (more presses, more defenses, more set plays, more OB plays), out-execute the opponent through simplification, speed of play and skill execution.

Often, when a team lacks great individual skill, a coach feels compelled to add complexity to give the team an opportunity to compete. However, rather than adding complexity which makes the skill execution more complicated, why not simplify?

When we developed the Blitz Basketball methodology, we simplified. We were an u9 boys’ team, and we had no great shooters. Rather than adding complexity to create open shots for the best shooter, we implemented a system so most outside shots resulted from dribble penetration into the middle and a pass out; were shot off the catch; and the pass was received with the player facing the basket and standing still. In essence, from a shooting standpoint, we eliminated as many variables as possible to simplify any outside shots.

From our standpoint, the Blitz system dovetailed nicely with a Teaching Games for Understanding approach to coaching. I had been coaching college basketball where my primary responsibility was running off-season workouts with the guards and running through shooting and ball handling drills with the guards during position breakdowns. Therefore, I was in an individual skill and drill mind-frame when I started to coach the nine-year-olds. The program director, Jerome Greene, had a son of the team, so he attended every practice. After every practice, he implored me to allow them to play more – he said that they would only learn to play the game through playing, not through a bunch of drills. He changed my mindset and the Blitz system developed naturally through this change.

In his New York Times’ article, “Oregon Turns Practice Into Nonstop Sprint With Precision as Goal,” Pete Thamel writes:

Oregon’s practices last two hours, an hour less than a typical college practice, and there is so little time between plays that coaches must do their teaching with only a few words or wait until the film room. Kelly said that practice had become so sophisticated and fluid that getting off 30 snaps in a 10-minute period had become common.

While basketball differs from football, a shorter, more intense, more focused practice is better in basketball too. When I coached in a professional league in Sweden, we had 90 minutes for practice. When time is an issue, it forces the coach to prioritize and make decisions.

“That relentless pace and superior conditioning help explain how Oregon has outscored its opponents, 86-7, in the second half this season without ever running that staple of football conditioning drudgery — wind sprints.

‘Practice is a wind sprint,’ said Nate Costa, Oregon’s backup quarterback. ‘There’s no real need to do that additionally.’”

When we added more small-sided games and scrimmaging, as opposed to drills, we eliminated conditioning because the players were in good shape. The practice conditioned the players for games because the entire practice was game-like. In a limited amount of time, we prepared players for games while improving technical skills like ball handling, passing and lay-ups and tactical skills like handling traps, spacing and trapping on defense.

In addition to simplifying, Oregon Head Coach innovates:

The high-speed practices mean that wide receivers must learn to run backward to the huddle to see the next play. Receivers are taught not to chase after missed passes and to sprint to the referee, who is a manager wearing an official’s jersey, to hand him the ball after a completion.

Simple things, really, but innovative and creative because few coaches cover the small details. When I visited Vance Walberg to write an article about Fresno City College, the two things that stood out to me the most were that he taught the jump ball and he chose specific players for specific spots for blocking out on opponents’ free throws. Many teams have a play for the jump ball; Walberg actually taught the principles of making sure they won the tip. Many coaches concentrate on blocking out: Walberg made it a reward or honor to be the player under the basket, and at that time, it was 6’2 point guard Tyronne Jackson boxing out under the basket.

As the end of the day, whether the offense is simplified or complex, execution determines success. Last season, at the high school level, I used one defense, one offense and four out of bounds plays. We won the league championship, and we were not the most talented or skilled team. We beat one team by 30+ points, and the coach called a different play every time down the court, none of which worked because the players thought too long about what they were doing and were constantly correcting each other on where they were supposed to go.

I recently read a post with the coach of a youth team bragging that you could not win a game in their youth league playing only one defense. I find that astonishing since UCLA went to three Final Fours in a row without changing its defense. In the end, it is not so much what you do, as how you do it. The blur offense looks great, but it is the precision and execution that makes it great, not the intricacy of the 20 different plays in the playbook.

By Brian McCormick
Author, Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Join the forum discussion on this post - (5) Posts

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Strategy | 2 Comments »

Did Efficiency Statistics Kill the Mid-Range Jump Shot?

September 24th, 2010

Every season, a coach or NBA analyst publicly bemoans the lost art of the mid-range jump shot. I never understand the argument, as a mid-range jump shot is typically a lower percentage shot than a three-pointer, the shot typically vilified by the argument (we’re arguing, of course, about players old and strong enough to shoot three-pointers without altering their shooting technique; I’m not advocating for six-year-olds to start jacking threes).

I don’t see a problem with the apparent “lack of mid-range shooting” mythologized by some. A mid-range jump shot is an inefficient shot. Last season, our entire defensive game plan was to force mid-range jump shots, preferably off the dribble.

A stand-still catch-and-shoot three-pointer is an easier and higher efficiency shot than an off-the-dribble, full-speed pull-up jump shot. There are many more variables at work in a mid-ramge jump shot versus a three-point shot, not the least of which is that a three-point shot is from the same distance and speed every single time which improves the specificity of practice. The increase in three-point shooting has nothing to do with pleasing the crowd, as some suggest, but an evolution as the game becomes more statistically analysis-based.

What are the variables for a stand-still catch-and-shoot three-pointer? The defense. Distance is constant and shooting technique should be constant.

What are the variables for an off-the-dribble pull-up jump shot? Pick-up of the dribble (left or right). Speed of movement forward. Speed of movement lateral of the basket. Degree of bend to decelerate. Type of stop. Defense’s proximity. Distance from the basket.

Therefore, once a player is strong enough to overcome the distance to the basket, a catch-and-shoot three-pointer has fewer variables to consider than a mid-range jump shot. To the point of variables and difficulty, in the 2009-10 NBA season assisted shot values ranged from 36.9 (Orlando) to 77.2 (Utah) for shots from 16ft-23ft and 32.1 (NYK) to 52.9 (Toronto) for shots 10ft – 15ft.

On the other hand, assist values for three-point shots ranged from 75.7 (Cleveland) to 92.6 (Indiana).

While not a definitive measure of shot complexity, assisted shots generally mean that another player created the shot for the shooter, while unassisted shots mean that a player had to create his own. In my opinion, when one must create his own shot for a jump shot, that is a more complex shot with more variables than a shot created by a teammate.

Looking at the shooting percentages and efficiency numbers, and considering that the three-pointer is worth 50% more than a two-point shot, illustrates the reasoning behind increased three-point shooting and decreased emphasis on the mid-range jump shot.

In the NBA, mid-range shots are defined as 16-23 feet. Last season, team shooting percentages ranged from 36.4% (Charlotte) to 43.2% (Dallas). Shots from 10-15 feet ranged from 34% (NJ) to 44% (LAL), while three-pointers ranged from 31.4% (Detroit) to 41.2% (PHX). Teams shoot better on mid-range shots, but not enough to overcome the extra point.

In terms of offensive efficiency, the top 5 NBA teams in 2009-10 were PHX, Orlando, Atlanta, Cleveland and Denver. These teams ranked 1st, 4th, 9th, 2nd and 10th respectively in 3-point percentage and 3rd, 10th, 18th, 23rd and 16th respectively in mid-range shooting.

What to make of the numbers?

1) Offensive efficiency (the measure of how good an offense is in terms of points scored per 100 possessions) correlates with good three-point shooting more than good mid-range shooting.

2) Three-pointers occur after a pass more often than 2-point jump shots.

3) The efficiency from the three-point line per 100 shots for the worst three-point shooting team is better than the efficiency on mid-range jump shots of the best 2-pt jump shooting team.

Now, mid-range jump shots MAY lead to more free throw attempts, shorter rebounds, etc. Of course, many teams now design their defenses to encourage deep two-point shots and discourage three-point shots, meaning some of three-point attempts may be tougher shots now, leading to lower shooting percentages.

In my last two coaching positions with high school girls’ teams, I actually encouraged lesser players to shoot three-pointers. Why?

  1. It stretches the defense for other players if they are a threat.
  2. They were novice players and fairly unskilled. If they did not shoot, they often traveled when trying to make a move and drive to the basket. If they missed, we had a chance for an offensive rebound, and we were a good offensive rebounding team.
  3. They were the smallest players on the team, and often on the court, and had difficulty shooting or passing inside the key.

In one game against the defending Section Champions with my top two players fouled out in the third quarter, this player hit 5 three-pointers. She kept the game close with her shooting, and she had the confidence to shoot because I encouraged her to shoot all season. She did not shoot a high percentage that season, but, honestly, nobody shot a high percentage at that level of play. You never know when the attempts will pay off, especially when players are not scared of being yanked from the game for a shot attempt.

Now, I do not take this approach with all players. When I coached a pro women’s team, I encouraged our worst offensive player (who we needed on the court for her defense) to put her head down and drive hard to the basket on her first pass reception of the game. I did not care if she drew a foul, made a basket, missed a lay-up or was called for a charge: I simply wanted our opposition to know that they could not leave her to double our best player because she would attack the basket. She went from a player who played less than 10 minutes during the previous season and who traveled almost every time she caught the ball at the start of the season to a very important role player/defender off the bench who did not kill us offensively.

However, back to the argument, the “lost art of the mid-range game” is not as bad as those who mythologize the mid-range shot make it appear as (1) it is a lower efficiency shot and (2) there are more variables on the shot making it a more difficult shot and (3) there is less specificity of practice.

Therefore, why is it a bad thing that more players and teams take higher efficiency shots with fewer variables and more specificity of practice (distance is the same every shot, just like practice, whereas the distance changes constantly for a mid-range shot)?

If the argument eliminated the idea of three-point shots versus two-point shots, and instead started with the suggestion that high school teams should take higher efficiency shots where there are fewer variables and a greater specificity of practice, would anyone disagree?

By Brian McCormick
Author, Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Tags: , ,
Posted in Strategy | 8 Comments »

Creating a Defensive Strategy or Principles

May 8th, 2010

I never played on a team that played zone defense, and I developed with the mindset that teams only play zone defense if they do not think that they can guard the opponent man-to-man.

However, as I began to coach, I realized that man-defense and zone-defense are very similar. When I coached in a professional women’s league in Sweden, we upset one of the top-ranked teams in the last game before the All-Star teams were announced. The Swedish National Team coach was in attendance. Our opponent had four players who were likely to make the All-Star Game (one played at LSU and the other at Miami). We won by 20+ points and held them below 50 points (averaged over 70ppg). After the game, their coach told them that their performance cost them an All-Star selection. Actually, it probably cost them one spot, as we received two selections, and they had three players represented even though we swept them on the season by double-digits in both games.

At the All-Star Game (I was the Head Coach and these players were on my team), we went out to dinner on the night before the game and the players asked me what type of defense we played against them. They guessed that it was a triangle-and-two and then a 2-3-zone. We played man-to-man defense. However, to me, every good man defense is a zone defense, and every good zone defense is a man defense.

At that level, I scouted opponents and game-planned our defense to take away our opponents’ strengths. That was our second time facing them, and we always defended better in the second game because I had a chance to scout based on the first game, whereas I did not always get to see an opponent live or on tape before our first meeting. Against this team, we fronted their strong post player and sagged off their forward who was not an outside shooting threat. They typically had a strong-side triangle or high-low involving their three best players, so we defended those three tightly and used the other two to play lots of help defense, daring their two weaker players to shoot.

At the high school level, my strategy is far more general. This season, rather than starting with specifics of rotations and movements and slides, I started with a general philosophy: force low-percentage shots.

When I played, we never had a general philosophy. The unstated goal, of course, was not to allow the opponent to score. During my J.V. season, our coach’s goal was 50 points allowed, and we ran a sprint for every point over 50 that we allowed.

There is no defense to prevent the opponent from shooting or to generate a steal on every possession. Therefore, as a coach, I am conceding that our opponent will shoot. My goal defensively is to dictate where the shots are taken.

To force low-percentage shots, we strove to do three things: prevent lay-ups, limit free throws and eliminate catch-and-shoot three-pointers. We never practiced weak-side rotations. However, we practiced contesting a lay-up in transition without fouling. We did not practice a traditional closeout; however, we practiced running at a shooter and forcing the drive.

While we defended a man, we really defended areas of the court. We defended the paint, meaning that off-ball defenders were prepared to help if someone had a lane to the basket even though we never worked on the proper rotations or the exact spot to stand (we never did the shell drill in the entire season). We defended the lane to the basket.

On the ball, the first goal was to eliminate the catch-and-shoot three-pointer, even if it meant giving up the drive. If our on-ball defender had good defensive position, she played the lane to the basket, not just the player. If the offensive player started to drive, our defender’s goal was not to stop her on her first dribble, but to keep her out of the paint. These are different goals.

If the opponent took one hard dribble and stopped for a 16-foot pull-up jump shot, we played good defense. We believed that a team could not beat us with two-point jump shots because we would make a couple three-pointers and shoot a lot of free throws. Even a good shooting team (50%) from the mid-range area would not beat us without making some three-pointers and free throws.

All of these thoughts and strategies crystallized as I played in my 4v4 men’s league game last night. We play a 2-2 zone and as experienced players, we rotate and cover the ground pretty well. We were playing a bigger, slower team and we started off slowly, as they passed the ball around the perimeter and into the high post and forced us to chase.

Rather than allow them to walk the ball up court, I extended into the back court. I did not guard the man, but I guarded a lane. I forced the ball away from the area of the court that I left open. If they tried to pass over my head, I forced a lob pass, which gave me time to recover, or I stole the pass. By extending the defense, we gave up some open shots. However, these shots were typically runners from 15-feet or angled 18-foot jump shots. More important, these shots were taken when we had 3-4 defenders, while they had 2-3 offensive players.

On the first couple possessions, we gave up several offensive rebounds that led to most of their early points. Once we extended the defense, their rebounds diminished. While it appeared that we gave up open shots, we created advantages for our defense. They took hurried 18-foot jump shots which increased the pace (our advantage) and limited their offensive rebound opportunities. Sure, they made a couple jump shots, but they were the shots that we (I) could live with because they shot a low percentage and we easily compensated for the made shots with a couple steals for lay-ups.

Most coaches spend a lot of time on specifics with the approach to eliminate all shots or create turnovers on every possession. However, what if you do not create the turnover? What if the other team gets open shots? Are they the shots that you want to give up or the shots that they want to take? Do your players know the difference? Do your players know your defensive philosophy? Is the philosophy realistic?

When creating a defensive strategy, you cannot plan only for the best possible outcome (steal for a breakaway lay-up) but also have to plan for the worst possible outcome (2v1 fast break vs a press or an open shot vs a half-court defense). When your players know how to react in these situations and defend with a purpose, then you have a tough defensive team regardless of the original strategy (man, zone, press).

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League<

Tags: , ,
Posted in Strategy | No Comments »

Two Ways to View Basketball: Clocks and Clouds

April 19th, 2010

In the May 2010 Wired, Jonah Lehrer writes about problems with MRIs in an article titled “Lost in the Details.” At the end of the article, he quotes Karl Popper, a philosopher of science who divided the world into clocks and clouds.

“Clocks are neat, orderly systems that can be solved through reduction; clouds are an epistemic mess, ‘highly irregular, disorderly, and more or less unpredictable.’”

Some basketball coaches choose to view basketball as a clock, while others see basketball as a cloud. The way that you view basketball determines the systems that you run and your method of teaching.

I see basketball as a cloud, as I see a lot of ambiguity. I feel my job is to prepare players as best as possible and then trust them to make the best play or best decision in the heat of the moment. Coaches who see basketball as a clock try to control the decision-making through set plays and set rotations, attempting to create order out of a chaotic game.

When I coach, I ask a lot of questions, and I often answer questions with “It depends.” Sometimes this can be seen as a negative. However, I do not want players to be too caught up in making the “perfect decision.” I don’t want players thinking on the court; I want them to rely on their instincts to make the best play possible.

When a player asks if he should stop the ball in transition or protect the basket, it depends. Who is handling the ball? Where is your help on defense? Who is the other offensive player? Is the ball handler attacking with his strong hand? Is he under control?

There is not a black-and-white answer in my opinion. In some cases, the player should stop the ball; in others, he should protect the basket. As a coach, it is impossible to cover every single instance. Therefore, I want to practice different situations, go over different ways to look at the situations and then trust the players to make the best decision in their opinion at that time.

If the decision looks like the wrong decision to me, it becomes a teaching point at the next practice. I try not to criticize; instead, I want to know what the player was thinking. Why did he choose A over B? Maybe he saw something or felt something that I missed. Maybe his decision was the best decision when looking at it based on what he saw. For instance, maybe he did not see that he had a second defender back close enough to contest the pass – is that the original defender’s fault for not seeing his teammate or is it the trailing defender’s fault for not talking and helping the first defender?

Because there are so many situations that are possible in a game, I do not believe that a coach can treat it as a clock and expect precision. It makes it easier to teach some skills and decision-making in certain situations, but the ease of instruction often breaks down in a live situation because the decisions depend so heavily on the particular situation.

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Tags: , ,
Posted in Strategy | No Comments »

Zone Defense and Player Development

April 11th, 2010

Many coaches feel that youth teams should not be allowed to play zone defense. They believe that man-to-man defense increases player development. The perception is that zones are lazy.

It is true that zones can take advantage of young players’ lack of strength to shoot three-pointers and throw skip passes. However, for players this young, I advocate 3v3 play, rather than full-court 5v5 games.

As for player development, I do not understand the dislike of zones. I do not spend a lot of time with help defense and rotations with my high school team. Instead, I use general directions: no shots close to the basket and no wide open, catch-and-shoot three-pointers.

However, as I played in a 4v4 men’s league tonight (and played zone because one of our players was sore from painting his house all day), I realized that any team that can play a four-man zone understands help defense and rotations. As we talked about the game afterward, we were surprised at how well we rotated and covered for each other. We played with awareness and talked on defense.

If players practice in 4v4 or 5v4 situations, and play zone defense, they practice the same type of defensive rotations required to play great team defense. They develop help-defense skills and learn to help and rotate in a live situation rather than memorizing certain rotations in a shell drill and trying to apply those lessons to a game situation.

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Tags: , ,
Posted in Strategy | No Comments »

Basketball Transition Defense: are You Tom Izzo or Coach Bennett?

March 31st, 2010

By: Coach DeForest

Why is this Important?

If you ask most coaches to describe what the game of basketball is when you simplify it to its basic principles they will give you offense and defense. While this is true, Bobby Knight believes that transition is a critical component of sound basketball. Think about it for a second…if you are a great half court defensive team, but you allow transition lay-ups, how good is your defense? In a worse cast scenario, if your players aren’t crashing the glass for the offensive rebound and they aren’t back in transition, then where the heck are they? We are going to examine where they should be in regards to two different philosophies on what a team should do after a missed shot.

Offensive Rebounding or Limiting Transition Opportunities

As a coach you basically have to choose between two options in regards to transition defense. Remember that you can’t be good at everything or you are going to be good at nothing. For example, if you try to crash the offensive glass, but you expect the other team not to score any lay-ups in transition then you are setting your team up for failure. CHOOSE and EMPHASIZE your philosophy based on the talent of your team. Also remember that the philosophy a coach chooses should mirror their offensive philosophy. I would like to present the two basic philosophies that most coaches adopt in regards to transition defense.

The Philosophy to Offensive Rebound

Tom Izzo, the great coach at Michigan State, has built his program on the belief that most teams aren’t good at the defensive box out. His teams are among the nation’s leaders in rebounding margin (+11.7) since he took over the Spartan program. He spends at least 15 minutes each practice on teaching his players the habits to crash the offensive glass. They fight and compete to tip the ball, keep it alive, and own the offensive glass. A byproduct of this hard work is that his teams are fantastic at defensive box outs because they are used to going to “war” (a drill he uses) each day in practice. Most teams don’t compete like the Spartans on the glass. For more information, take a look at his DVD: Tom Izzo-Dominating Rebounding & Man to Man Defensive Drills.

Basic Offensive Rebounding Principles

· Choose if you are more athletic than the best teams in your conference

· Point guard to half court line and everyone else to the paint to rebound

· Stress that 70% of all rebounds come opposite – overload that side on shots

· Practice and chart – do your players get 4 to the paint and the PG to half court in your drills? Offense? Defense?

· Teach them to tap the ball against the backboard if they can’t come down with it

· Keep the ball alive – TIP it!

· Celebrate offensive rebounding

· Never accept it, but be prepared to see teams fast break more often

The Philosophy of Limiting Fast Break Opportunities

On the other hand, another great coach that believes coaches have control over transition, Dick Bennett of Washington State, would send two and sometimes three players back depending on the opponent in an effort to neutralize fast break opportunities. His teams traditionally held opponents under 60 points per game. Coach Bennett’s philosophy was that his team was better than your team at half court execution on offense and defense. His teams only pressed if behind in games late and they played strictly man-to-man defense. In other words, his teams were simple to prepare for, but difficult to beat because of their execution. For more information, take a look at his DVD: Dick Bennett’s “Pack-line” Pressure Defense.

Basic Principles of Limiting Transition Opportunities

· Choose if you are less athletic than the best teams in your conference

· Send the PG to the opposite FT line and the Off Guard to the half court line

· Another option is to also send the shooter back immediately against superior teams along with the two guards

· Stress that we are not giving up ANY transition lay-ups

· Work on defending scramble situations in the full court every day

· Teach how you want to match-up and remember that open shots NOT match-ups beat you

· Practice and chart – do your players have defensive balance in your drills? Offense? Defense?

· Choose offensive sets that allow for defensive balance; For example: stay away from 1-4 low sets or the Flex. Instead use 2-3 high sets or 4 out – 1 in motion

Prepare them the best you can so that your team can achieve to the best of their potential because you put them in the best situation to succeed. Transition is often overlooked and the main thing a coach needs to do is decide from Day 1 what their team is going to do in regards to defensive transition. Teach that all year long and emphasize it in practices and games. I hope this article has helped you to better understand the two basic philosophies of transition defense.

About the Author

This is an Online Basketball Coaches’ Club designed to help other coaches learn about this game. If you want to learn more about these coaches or philosophies, join our online coaches club at Basketball Coaches Club (www.basketballcoachesclub.blogspot.com) or email me at coachdeforest@gmail.com.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Tags: , ,
Posted in Strategy | No Comments »