Set plays are not bad. However, when players depend solely on a play, the play has the effect of limiting the player’s development of game understanding. Read the rest of this entry »
The Problem with Set Plays
February 4th, 2012Patience and speed in offensive basketball
December 30th, 2011Watch an NBA game. Those guys move so quickly. However, it appears like they are moving slowly. Watch a high school or youth game. In comparison, those players move so slowly, but they appear to move too quickly. Read the rest of this entry »
Basketball Coaches Solving the Marshmallow Problem
June 5th, 2010In this TED talk, Tom Wujec discusses the Marshmallow Problem:
For coaches, I see two important lessons.
First, The Ta-Da Problem. Many coaches use a similar process as the groups that perform poorly. They orient, plan and build, but when they put the marshmallow on top at the very end, everything falls apart.
This happens when coaches and teams spend too much time planning and practicing 5v0 offense or defense. While waiting for a game last week, I watched a youth practice. The girls looked to be about 10 years old. The team spent nearly a half-hour working on 5v0 offense: screen down, screen away.
As they ran through the offense, the players predictably set screens on the wrong side of their teammate (the outside of the player on the block, rather than the inside where a defender should be playing). The screener and cutter often ran past each other rather than actually setting and using the screen. Also, without a defender present, the offense never read the defense and used the screen accordingly; instead, the offense ran from spot to spot.
Of course, in this scenario, the defense is the marshmallow. After 30 minutes of 5v0 offense, the coaches hurriedly added defense for the final few minutes of practice and the offense looked nothing like that which they had just practiced. The game changed completely. Players did not follow the pattern and when they did, they were not open because they did not wait for their screens or read the defense when making their cuts. In effect, the 30 minutes of practice was completely useless in terms of transfer to a 5v5 setting.
The kindergartners in the video would practice 5v5 throughout practice. They might introduce the idea of the screen quickly without defense, but then add defenders. They would struggle, presumably, so the coach would add another piece of instruction or maybe simplify the game. The players would try again. Just as the kindergartners spend their time building prototype after prototype, a more successful approach to developing a team offense with young players is to play against defenders in small-sided games or 5v5 scrimmages.
At this age, players are not going to memorize plays and run them perfectly against defenders in the game without considerable practice against defenders. Moving quickly to 5v5 before players perfectly memorize the plays in a 5v0 seems like a poor approach, just like building a spaghetti structure without first designing a plan. However, just as the trial and error approach works better for the kindergartners, players need to learn to adjust and adapt to mistakes during games, as their execution against defenders will never be perfect.
The second lesson for coaches is the influence of the executive admin with the CEOs. We tend to think of coaches as CEOs. However, in this video, coaches need to be more like the executive admins. The executive admin “have special skills of facilitation” and they “manage the process.” A coach needs the special skills of facilitation to work with his or her players and to bring out their best performances. In a sense, he or she manages this process. While CEOs tend to set forth their expectations and demonstrate their power, the executive admins work to make things work.
As a coach, we are bestowed a position of power. There is no need to prove this position to anyone. Instead, our objective is to assist players in their development and performance. We need to facilitate this development through physical, cognitive, social and psychological pathways.
By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League
Author, Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development
Why Are Set Plays Dangerous for Young Players?
May 12th, 2010I attended a university lecture on decision-making and the presenter showed a version of this video (There are many versions of this online). Please watch this video before reading the article below.
Why do people miss the moonwalking bear? When people focus on one task – counting the passes made by the white team – they attempt to ignore all irrelevant stimuli. To some people, noticing the moonwalking bear could be seen as a weakness, as it illustrates an inability to stay focused on a task. However, what happens if you focus so intently on your task that you miss something as obvious as a moonwalking bear?
Young, inexperienced players must deal with new and different stimuli when playing basketball. They have not mastered the basic basketball skills of passing, catching, shooting and dribbling, and now they must execute these skills under defensive pressure. Then, coaches teach set plays for players in an effort to make the game easier or to create a good shot for the best shooter.
The problem is that as players try to run the play, they miss the moonwalking bear. I watched a high school AAU game at a recruiting evaluation tournament a couple summers ago. The team had a player who had peaked the interest of Big 12, WCC and Big West coaches in attendance, so the team was not devoid of talent. The team ran the same play every time down the court. After several possessions, the defense caught on to to the play. The play started with a down screen and a wing entry pass. By the fourth possession, two defenders were running with the cutter coming off the down screen and nobody guarded the screener. The team threw the pass to the wing anyway, which resulted in several steals before the coach called timeout.
Why did the guard fail to see the screener who was open? There are probably several explanations, but this video explains one: she was trying so hard to run the play (count the white team’s passes) that she did not see the open player (moonwalking bear). The play was designed to go to one area of the court (wing entry), and she devoted all her attention to protecting the ball and making that pass. She focused more on running the play than trying to score.
Set plays or continuity offenses have a role in offensive basketball. However, the objective is always to create a good shot and score, not just to run the play. I hear coach after coach screaming at players to run the play, and then the player completely ignores an open lane, shot or teammate.
Before teaching plays, we need to teach young and inexperienced players our general goals. At my first practice this season, I asked the players for the best possible possession. They threw out some answers, but none gave me my number one answer: a possession that ends with a made basket with a defensive foul that puts us on the free throw where we score a third point. To me, that is the best possible possession because we get three points, our opponent gets a foul and we can set our defense. This type of thinking may be over the heads of eight-year-olds, but if that does not make sense to them, what is the objective of the set play?
After discussing the best possible possession, we discussed the worst: a steal or long rebound that leads directly to a fast break lay-up for our opponent. Not only do we not score, but our offensive possession leads straight to their basket.
Then, we went through other scenarios that fit between the best and worst. We prioritized shots. A wide open, catch-and-shoot three-pointer: great shot. An off-the-dribble, fade away 17-footer: terrible shot.
After we had the general idea of the types of shots that we wanted to take, we instituted a basic set: a four-out offense predicated on a high on-ball screen: think the Orlando Magic (without Dwight Howard or nearly as many shooters).
More often than not, while we started in the basic four-out set, we rarely ran the play. In fact, after a fellow coach had watched us play four times, she had no idea that our offense was designed for a high pick-and-roll as she had only seen us run it once or twice in four games. Instead, players took advantage of lanes to the basket or passed to cutters cutting to the basket.
Occasionally this freelancing led to bad offensive possessions or one player got in another’s way because she cut too early or stood in one spot too long, but generally the freedom to make plays within one set worked very well. We rarely missed the moonwalking bear under the basket, and the varsity coach was amazed at the points that we scored, as we well out-scored the varsity.
This isn’t to say that the Orlando offense is the perfect offense or that you should only shoot three-pointers. Instead, the point is that we cannot teach in a way that makes our players miss the moonwalking bear. Players need to be aware on the court and play the game, rather than run the play. The objective is to score. The best process is to take good shots – often, this means running a play or a continuity offense. However, the offense is only as good as the players, and when players focus more on the play than on scoring, mistakes are bound to happen because their awareness of the court decreases and bad decisions follow.
To enhance the decision-making of your players, create awareness of possible options rather than limiting the focus to one entry into a set play.
By Brian McCormick
Author of Cross Over: The Model of Youth Basketball Development, Developing Basketball Intelligence and several other books for coaches.
Join the forum discussion on this post - (2) Posts Right-Brain Thinking Against Zones
February 8th, 2010This article originally appeared in Hard2Guard Player Development Newsletter 4.5.
Zones stymie many teams and players. Generally, teams and players who attack man2man defenses stand around and play passively against zone defenses. There is no real reason to explain the passivity. Zones require a different strategy than man2man, but good defenses combine man-defense and zone defense on each possession.
I thrived against zones because I was a good shooter. However, more than spot-up shooting ability, I found holes in the zone. I visualized the open space or how I could create open space for myself or a teammate. Now, when I play pick-up games, I am frustrated that players rarely see the game or the developing play as I do.
My team struggles with zones because we do not visualize how a cut, pass or pass fake will move the defense. Playing against a zone requires some basic tactical skill and understanding. We use three general skills: dribble and replace; flare screen and skip pass; and a long diagonal cut followed by a short cut into the space. More importantly, I focus on understanding the defense to create a 2v1 somewhere on the court.
As a player, if I know the defenders’ zones, and I can move one away from his area, I know that there is an open area if a teammate fills that space. When all five offensive players have the same understanding, zones are easier to play against.
If we have the ball in the corner with a player in the short corner, the ball handler dribbles toward the wing. Usually, the defender stays with the ball, meaning the baseline defender in the 2-3 zone is now on the wing. The girl in the short corner fills the corner. On the pass back to the corner, we have an open shot or an open lane – we forced the baseline defender to defend two players in one zone.
If the player penetrates baseline, the middle player in the zone has to rotate to stop the ball. We flash a cutter from the high post on a dive to the rim. Again, we have forced one defender to defend two people. If he stops the ball, a short pass to the cutter should result in a lay-up. If he does not stop the ball, the ball handler has a shot.
The key is understanding the spatial relationships. I have a very analytical team – nearly every player excels in mathematics. We are very left-brained. Consequently, we struggle to visualize space. We lack a creative element. The least mathematically inclined – the two players who lean most heavily toward kinesthetic learners – see space and attack the gaps better than the others.
My players crave more structure, as they are used to plays that occur in a specific sequential order: Pass A leads to Cut B which leads to Pass C which leads to Shot D.
I want them to see space and attack gaps. My approach costs us in some games, but junior varsity is a developmental level and I want them to learn to adapt to different situations. I want them to see the openings in the zone without having to run a play for them to see the openings.
I see the openings and gaps from the sideline; however, rather than design play after play to exploit these gaps, my goal is to get these left-brain thinkers to move beyond their comfort zones and use their creativity and some right-brain thinking to visualize the play developing.
Our biggest problem, ironically, is a poor understanding of angles and relationships between teammates and defenders. For instance, we run an on-ball screen against the zone; our primary purpose is to create a 2v1 in the high post or on one side. However, often the screener is open rolling to the basket if we pass before she reaches the middle defender. Tonight, rather than rolling across the front of the defender, we rolled down the lane-line, which allowed the middle defender to steal a pass. We do not understand the angle that we need as a passer and a cutter. We see open space, but we do not account for the defenders. If there is a line between the two nearest defenders, the pass receiver needs to get to the ball side of the line; by rolling down the lane-line, our player moved behind this line, and the middle defender had a better angle to the pass than our player. If she rolled across the face of the defender, it would be like playing against a man defense when the defense switches.
A similar mistake is in the corner. On a quick reversal, we caught the baseline defender running at the wing with a player in the corner. If the wing drew the defender and passed to the corner, the corner player would have an open lane to the basket. Instead, our player in the corner would take off on backdoor cuts, moving behind the defender closing out to the wing and eliminating any passing angle.
These mistakes are a combination of problems. First, we need more confidence with the ball, especially under pressure. We work on no-dribble passing drills every day to work on pivoting and passing to moving targets while under pressure. Second, we need a greater tactical understanding of where the open spot is and how to get the ball to that player. We need to understand how to exploit open space.
This is a challenge because we are unaccustomed to this process. Against man defense, we excel – we know exactly where to go and how to react. Zone defenses provide more grey areas. At this level, the ball handler generally has an A or B decision against man: (A) use the screen and go to the basket or (B) if they switch, pass to the roller. Zones complicate decision-making. Coaches cannot teach in absolutes, which is why many struggle to coach against zone defenses. Players have to be able to think and find space.
As coaches, we need to prepare players to play against zones. I start with transition, as any transition situation uses the same principles as a zone, offensively and defensively. In 3v2 and 4v3 situations, it is easier to see the openings, the space and the angles. Now as the season nears a conclusion, I want the players to see and feel the space and angles in 5v5 play just as they do in a 3v2 break. However, this takes patience and practice to develop.
By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League
Attacking Zones through Small Combinations
January 7th, 2010In Coach, edited by Andrew Blauner, John McPhee’s chapter “VBK” centers on Butch van Breda Kolff and his relationship with Bill Bradley at Princeton.
Van Breda Kolff simply tells his boys to spread out and keep the ball moving. “Just go fast, stay out of one another’s way, pass, move, come off guys, look for one-on-ones, two-on-ones, two-on-twos, three-on-threes. That’s about the extent,” he says. That is, in fact, about the substance of basketball, which is almost never played as a five-man game anymore, but is, rather, a constant search, conducted semi-independently by five players, for smaller combinations that will produce a score.
Van Breda Kolff’s philosophy is perfect, especially at the developmental level. The coach gives the players some ideas to use to create these smaller combinations, and then the players use the spacing to create a shot. Too many teams and players are hamstrung trying to run a play or set up a play rather than understanding or learning to understand how to play basketball.
Here is an example of a Princeton University women’s basketball set used to find smaller combinations and create a shot through some basic tactical skills (I saw this in November, so it may not be exactly what Princeton runs, but my version based on my recollection of a frequent set of theirs).
The concepts are simple. First, get the ball to the corner and force the baseline defender to defend the ball in the corner (any zone defense becomes a 2-3 when the ball goes to the corner). Second, dribble out of the corner and fill behind the ball. If the baseline defender (O3) does not stay with the ball, she drives to the basket or shoots the open shot; a defender cannot leave the ball. If O1 leaves the high post area too quickly to push O3 off the ball, the offensive player in the high post is open for a shot or drive.
When X3 passes to X4 in the corner, O5 has to move to the ball or give up the open three-pointer. As she closes out, nobody is there to defend X5 cutting to the basket.
If O4 or O2 commit to X5, X2 or X1 is wide open for a three-pointer because the defense would be committing four players to three offensive players on the strong side.
This is simply a matter of using one basic tactical skill (dribble and fill) to create an advantageous smaller combination to get the ball inside against a zone defense.
By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League
Team Offense: A Philosophical Decision
January 5th, 2010With my team at the developmental level, we run a very unstructured offense. We have a “play,” but it rarely looks as good as it does on paper. In games or practice scrimmages, players speed up, lack patience, or pivot too slowly, which prevents perfect execution.
Luckily, my goal is not to run the play. I imagine that we could spend time at every practice running through the play 5v0 until the players memorized exactly where to go and our timing would improve. When we entered into the high post, we would pivot quicker and see the open cutter for the lay-up, rather than passing too late or missing the cut altogether.
However, if we spent so much time memorizing the play, what would happen when the defense learned the play and adjusted? If we spend hours trying to eliminate thinking, how would we adjust?
Rather than practice precision timing, we spend most of our practice learning to adjust and adapt. We have our primary goals: shoot close to the basket or open three-pointers. We have our strategy to create these shots: disorganize the defense and force the defense to defend sideline to sideline. And, we have our primary tactical skills that we emphasize: give-and-go cuts, high on-ball screens and dribble-ats.
Therefore, when we run our initial action and someone forgets where to cut or the defense takes away the first option, we can adjust. The players can make the decision to make the best possible play. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. But, we’re never stuck. We may not always look pretty or precise, but we also do not waste time “setting up.”
At the developmental level, these are the two options: either spend a lot of time memorizing certain plays so that the team offense looks precise or teach players some simple tactical skills to use over and over until they manage to create a good shot. The first option typically leads to quicker results; however, these teams are easy to defend and players are not necessarily learning the skills employed in the offense. The second option takes more time and often looks ugly, but players learn more and as they improve, they become more difficult to guard because they can adjust to the defense.
By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League
Running Plays like the Indianapolis Colts
December 22nd, 2009We played a game last weekend and our opponent spent more time setting up to run a set play than doing anything else. Players dribbled around, other players ran in circles and the coach grew increasingly frustrated. We managed to force a couple 30-second violations just by letting them try to run their own plays. We eventually won by 25 points running one “play.”
In his ESPN column, Gregg Easterbook tried to explain the difficulty of defending the Indianapolis Colts and Peyton Manning:
Manning is the sole NFL quarterback who calls his own plays…Many plays drawn up by Moore and Manning have multiple options — any one of several things can happen, depending on the defense. When Manning comes to the line, he chooses which variation to use. Most of the time, Manning simply calls whatever he wants to call. Often several of the receivers are running “sight adjustments.” They don’t have a specific pattern called at the line — rather, they run what seems likely to be open given the defensive set.
In a perfect world, our offense (and to a lesser extent our defense) would be the same. We start in a basic five-out set. However, the point guard has multiple options based on what she reads. In fact, at the developmental level without a Manning-like player, the numerous options probably hurts our efficiency.
Generally, the ball handler is looking to pass and basket cut for a give-and-go. She has three potential pass receivers. If none is wide open, she also has the option to dribble at one of the pass receivers. The pass receiver then reads the defense and receives a hand-off or cuts backdoor to the basket.
In this way, we can play an entire quarter and look like we have run multiple plays even though our entire offense is based on three things: dribble-ats, pick-and-rolls and give-and-gos. I never call anything. It is up to the ball handler and the pass receivers to read the defense. When we play well, it looks great, we create open shots and we look pretty good. When we do not play well, we can look pretty bad, fairly unorganized and like a team without a coach.
However, that is part of the lesson: learning to adapt to and read the defense to make good basketball plays. At the developmental level, the decision-making is far from perfect. The goal, however, is to develop players who will make the right decision when they reach the varsity. How will they ever learn this skill if they are not allowed to make mistakes or look bad occasionally?
Having Manning call his own plays is extremely effective. Obviously, many quarterbacks lack his level of ability. But TMQ thinks the real reason more NFL quarterbacks don’t call their own plays is coaching bureaucracy. The coaches want to be in control, and maintain their illusion of possessing super-ultra-secret insider knowledge. No mere player could call a down-and-out — only coaches have that kind of skill! By not letting quarterbacks call their own plays, NFL teams concede an advantage to the Colts.
Is the same true in basketball? Phil Jackson will never get his due as a coach because he appears to allow his players to do everything and rely solely on his best players. However, former players have told me that in their years in the NBA, nobody prepared a team for an opponent as well as Jackson and his staff.
We see a coach who allows his players to play in the Triangle, which requires them to read the defense and make plays, and we give credit to the players, which they deserve. However, these players would not be able to make these plays if Jackson coached in a different style, demanding that players run certain sets every time down the court. His players thrive because of the way that he coaches, just as Manning thrives because of the way his coaches have allowed him to perform.
Is this only possible with a Manning or Kobe Bryant? It certainly helps. However, how many quarterbacks look better in the 2:00 Drill than they do throughout the course of the game? Why is that? How many basketball teams play better when making a comeback than during the normal course of a game? Why?
To a certain degree, players stop worrying about being perfect and concentrate on making plays. Coaches stop dictating the play and have to trust the players. When players read the defense, make the correct decisions and execute, they are more difficult to stop than when they try to run a specific play and the defense can defend the play.
Unfortunately, oftentimes a coach’s best intentions backfire and the plays are not nearly as effective against another team’s defense, especially when the players lack the general playmaking ability to fall back upon. My goal with my team is to develop the general playmaking ability first and then the varsity coach can play a similar style or use more plays knowing that the players have the general skills to enhance the execution of the plays and to use if and when the plays do not work.
By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League
Learning the Triangle Offense
December 15th, 2009Jonathan Abrams wrote a good article about Kurt Rambis instituting the Triangle Offense with the Minnesota Timberwolves. He writes:
The triangle, created by the post, wing and corner players, revolves around seven guiding principles: the ball handler reading the defense; correct decisions based on the defense; penetration through a pass into the post; separation of 15 to 20 feet for all the offensive players; movement through sharp cuts; interchangeability in positions; and balance for defensive transition.
These seven guiding principles may apply specifically to the Triangle, but they are good principles for any offense. Shouldn’t all offenses involve reading the defense and making correct decisions? Isn’t the goal to get penetration into the key, whether through a pass or dribble? Aren’t all offenses predicated on good spacing? Don’t the best offenses involve all players in all positions? Isn’t the first aspect of great defensive teams the court balance when a shot is attempted?
Abrams writes:
The triangle differs from more traditional N.B.A. offenses because it presents more options for the five players on the court. There are no set plays, just many possibilities.
Isn’t the ideal offense for developing players one that presents opportunities for all five players and creates an interchangeability among players? As Rambis says about the Triangle:
“It really teaches players how to play…It teaches players how to move without the basketball, how to read defenses, how to play together.”
Isn’t that the goal for youth basketball? As Los Angeles Lakers’ assistant coach Jim Cleamons says:
“The triangle is literally a junior high school offense, so if junior high players can run the triangle, then, certainly, young players of this caliber can run it. It’s a mind-set. You just have to be open, you have to be receptive and you have to be willing to realize that you can’t dominate the basketball. If you are good to the offense, the offense will be good to you.”
I don’t know if the Triangle offense is the perfect offense or the best offense for youth teams. However, the principles and the basics that it emphasizes are those that every youth coach should emphasize. Developmental teams should find ways to get every player opportunities and to encourage every player, not just run sets to get the best player shots. If every player learns to read the defense, move without the ball, pass and take good shots, the coach has been successful, at least on the offensive side.
By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League
Basketball & Improv
December 4th, 2009In the December 2009 Los Angeles Magazine, Michael Mullen recounts his experiences learning improv comedy at the Upright Citizens Brigade in Hollywood in an article titled “Get Me Outta Here!”
During two passages, he captures the essence of great basketball as well:
Improv…is about scenes and what is known as The Game. There’s a paradox here. It is human nature to be competitive, to want to stand out and earn a pat on the back. If a scene works, however, it is because players have cooperated and found a game. The game requires an ensemble performance, so it works to your advantage if everyone succeeds.
While NBA basketball depends on star performances, and many high school and colleges win because they have one dominant player, the best teams typically have an ensemble. When everyone plays well, the team performs at its best, offensively and defensively. Even stars depend on teammates to pass the ball, set screens, rebound and defend. While everyone wants to be the star, too many wanna-be stars hunting bad shots or playing individually lead to poor performances.
A group game is infinitely harder than a two-person scene. It is akin to meeting seven friends at a shopping mall and trying to decide what to do. Everyone stands around for half an hour, then finally arrives at a compromise nobody likes. Group games depend on achieving a consciousness in which one loses awareness of self and becomes mindful of only the thoughts and movements of the assembly. It takes listening.
Motion offenses are similar. Bad motion offenses are like the seven friends at the mall. Great motion offenses succeed when teammates read each other and anticipate each other’s movements. This comes through experience playing with each other as well as knowledge of the best plays in certain situations.
If we run a high on-ball screen and the defense rotates to the screener rolling to the basket, the ball handler anticipates that another player fills the vacated area and another player anticipates the open area where the screen originated (top of the key). This is fairly basic basketball, but it spaces the floor and keeps the ball moving. Rather than the ball handler forcing the pass to the screener or pounding the ball, the ball handler reverse to the top for a high-low into the screener or to get a new action going to the weak side.
When the players anticipate the play in this manner, each player plays off each other and off the proper spacing to create open shots for the team. As the players play together more and more, the timing improves and players understand each other’s tendencies, strengths and weaknesses, and the offense flows with less thinking and more reacting to the situations, leading to quicker and more effective decision-making and more decisive plays.