Posts Tagged ‘playing time’

Finishing the Season: Three Approaches to Late-Season Practices

Saturday, March 13th, 2010

The March 8, 2010 ESPN the Magazine has an article titled “Too Much of a Good Thing” about the Texas Longhorns. In the article, Elena Bergeron compares Rick Barnes’ mid-season strategy to that of some other coaches.

“We think the human body can take only three high-level, hard workouts a week,” Barnes says. In the middle of the Big 12 season, with two or three games a week on the schedule, that means less mandatory practice time and more walk-throughs and shoot-arounds. “There are times during the year when we’re going to be on the floor for more than two hours; other times, for an hour or less.”

Barnes relies heavily on one of the top strength & conditioning coaches in the country – Todd Wright – and numerous graduate students who do research on topics related to basketball and performance enhancement. Few other teams follow this methodology. However, what is most important late in the season – the extra time on the court practicing or having healthy, fresh players? Sometimes, less really is more.

Other coaches are not following Barnes’ methodology:

“Shorthanded Notre Dame head coach Mike Brey, who has a seven-man rotation, started two-a-day workouts in February to toughen his squad for a late Big East push. And Villanova’s Jay Wright, who runs an 11-man rotation, says his team is scrimmaging more at this point in the season than in previous years, to give everyone a regular run. Sometimes starters get the day off so Wright can work out his rotational players two-on-two. ‘This season we’re much more concerned with guys who play 10 to 15 minutes and making sure they’re always involved,’ Wright says.”

At the end of my season, I scrimmaged more than ever, as I played 12 players and wanted to keep players in game shape, as most players played less than a half during games. In previous seasons, as the season neared a conclusion, my goal was not to continue teaching new things, but to keep the players fresh and focused for the late-season games.

Different situations require different approaches, and different coaches approach the same situations with a different set of eyes.

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Share

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Managing a Team | No Comments »

Does Every Player Deserve Playing Time?

Monday, March 1st, 2010

This season, I coached in a program that believed every player deserves to play in every game. I never coached this way. I usually stuck with an 8 or 9-player rotation.

From the outset, I told the players that they were not guaranteed playing time; they earned their playing time through practice. However, I played every player in every half of every game with the exception of two times when I benched a player for a half for a failure to communicate about missing a bus and missing practice.

Upon reflection, I believe in playing every player for several reasons:

1. Development. I had 12 players on the team. If I used a nine-man rotation, three players would have seen little to no playing time. During the season, the gap between the nine and the three would widen. Instead, one player who likely would have been outside the rotation hit a game-winning shot in a win that preserved a tie for the league championship and another player who would have been outside the rotation played a pivotal role in a 15-point fourth quarter comeback in the semi-finals of a tournament.

2. Inconsistency. At this level, you never know who will perform well in any given game. Players are inconsistent which is one reason they play junior varsity and not varsity. With 12 players ready to play, we had a good chance that someone would be on their game. We won a tough game without our two best players scoring a point because their back-ups stepped up and had great games. The players who played the majority of the minutes at the end of the season were not the same as those who played at the beginning of the season.

3. Practice Intensity. Because every player received meaningful minutes, every player was engaged in practice. Because every player played, every player continued to improve throughout the season, meaning more balance in scrimmages. In the past, as the season progressed, the starters improved more than the bench and the disparity between the two grew. This season, it did not matter how I split up the teams.

4. Team Morale. I did not see any of the usual petty jealousy that happens when some players sit on the bench and others play all the time and the bench players feel they deserve more time. Instead, players supported each other. Before our last game, one player suggested a new starting line-up so she would have a chance to start. One girl who this change would benefit was the loudest to disagree even though it would have been her first start of the season. Instead, she favored the regular line-up, the player who earned the starting line-up, because, a she said, “the game is important:” a win meant a tie for 1st place and a loss meant a tie for 2nd place.

During the season, we almost always out-played teams in the fourth quarter. We had a 15-point comeback in the 4th quarter against a good team; out-scored a team by 9 points in our one overtime game; came from 8 points down with 6:00 left against the co-league champions; and came back from 5 points down with 4:00 to play against the 3rd place team. Much of our 4th quarter success, I believe, was due to our lack of fatigue. We pressed and worn down other teams who refused to play their bench.

During league, we had several 40 and 50 point wins because our level of play did not drop off when we substituted five non-starters into the game. Our non-starters were accustomed to playing major minutes against good teams, so by league play, they were superior to some teams’ starters.

I do not play that every player should feel entitled to playing time regardless of their effort. I am not a fan of mandatory play leagues. However, I do believe that at the developmental level, every player who puts forth the effort and shows up to the practices deserves an opportunity to play.

In Little League, teams often put the worst player in right field for his mandatory two innings and hope that he draws a walk in his one mandatory at-bat, while the top players play shortstop, first base, pitcher and catcher and bat 3-4 times each game. How is the worst player supposed to have a chance if everything is slanted to favor the best players? The coach creates the self-fulfilling prophesy: he expects more and more from the favored players and less and less from the benchwarmer. Often, the difference between best and worst is a small gap at the beginning of the season, but widens through the season because of the opportunities afforded the chosen players. Also, the difference at the beginning of the season often has as much to do with age as anything else.

If development is the coach’s goal, every player should receive an opportunity to play meaningful minutes, provided that the player earns the minutes during practice through his effort and concentration. There is no reason to punish a player for not being good enough; that’s why he is playing: to improve!

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Share

Tags: , ,
Posted in talent development | 9 Comments »

Coaches & Parents Working Together for Youth Sports

Friday, November 20th, 2009

This week, I attended a mandatory coach certification meeting (lecture) for the local school district. The presenter was the athletic director and softball coach at a local high school with years of experience.

The nugget of wisdom from those years of experience that he shared with the coaches – really the only time he deviated from reading the prepared script – was in regards to parent meetings.

He suggested (implored) that coaches have a parent meeting and tell the parents that they refuse to discuss playing time with the parents. He insisted that if the coach is firm in the meeting, he will not have issues with parents. He even said that when a parent comes to talk to him, his first question, in a stern voice, is: “You’re not here to discuss playing time, are you?” He warned coaches not to waffle on this issue.

I could not disagree more. Personally, when coaching high school athletes, I prefer that parents encourage their child to approach me directly so we can discuss any issues that the player may have, as parents rarely attend practices (all my practices are open).

I also use the 24-Hour Rule: I will not discuss playing time issues with parents or players until the next day, as I do not want the emotions of the game to impact the discussion. Once we have a chance to take a deep breath and remove ourselves from the game, I am more than willing to discuss playing time with parents.

Why? Because we want the same thing.

When I listen to coaches like this speak, they make parents (and often the players too) into adversaries. Parents have the same goals for their child as I have for all the players. The difference is that I have to balance the goals and desires of 12 players, while the parents are laser-focused on one player. Sometimes this causes parents to lose some perspective, but we still want the same thing.

What do parents want? Here is what I wrote earlier this fall:

They want their child to have a great experience, and they feel a great experience is one where the child wants to go to practice and games and where the coach emphasizes sportsmanship, keeps it fun, teaches the skills and communicates openly and honestly with the players.

Are a coach’s goals any different? I hope that all players have a good experience, and I hope that all players want to go to practice. The worst thing that I can hear from a player is for a player to say, “I have to go to practice.” I don’t want players to feel that they have to do anything – I want them to play because they enjoy practices and games, like the competition, and want to learn something new.

There is nothing to gain from avoiding conflict by refusing to speak to parents and players. Parents simply want to ensure a positive experience for their child, and coaches should want the same. Nobody wants a player to have a bad experience. By meeting with parents and working together, as opposed to creating adversaries, coaches and parents can enhance the players’ experience.

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Share
Join the forum discussion on this post - (3) Posts

Tags: , ,
Posted in Parents & Coaches | 10 Comments »

Motivating your Bench Players

Saturday, October 10th, 2009

One tough issue for coaches is utilizing bench players. These players play several pivotal roles:

  • Often, these players form the nucleus of the program’s future, whether they are underclassmen or rookies on a professional team;
  • If a player is injured, someone must step in and step up to maintain the current level of success;
  • Non-starters must challenge the starters in practice to keep the starters (and key reserves) sharp throughout the season.

During my rookie season as a head coach, I had seven solid players, but players 8-10 were unproven. Like many teams, players 8-10 were the youngest players.

Player 8 was a rookie reserve point guard who was more of a shooting guard. Player 9 was 19-years-old and in her fourth year with the team, though she played a total of 36 minutes in the previous season. Player 10 was 17-years-old and in her second year, though she played a total of 32 minutes during the previous season.

The team was somewhere between going for one last play-off run with its core (though we were picked last in the pre-season) and needing a youth movement to build for the future.

Without a guaranteed contract, I needed to win, but I needed to develop the players on the end of the bench, as our 37-year-old starting PG and 41-year-old back-up center planned on retiring sooner, rather than later.

bench 2Unfortunately, at the outset of the season, players 8-10 were in no position, talent-wise to help us, and in some cases, provided mere fodder for our starters in practice. However, I knew our lanky 17-year-old could  be important, as she had the athleticism and length we lacked on the perimeter. I also believed that the neglected 19-year old could help us if she gained confidence, which was hard to come by for a player who had not played a meaningful minute since she was 14. The back-up PG abruptly left the team after four games despite playing her best game because of a contract dispute with management.

At the outset, the young players were excited for a change of coaches, and the potential to play, but their hopes were dashed early in the pre-season. I  was close to losing one, if not both, so I confronted the players.

First, I explained that I generally stick to an eight-man rotation so they needed to be in the top eight to see considerable playing time. However, I said that the rotation could and would fluctuate as the season progressed. I challenged them to be better than the seventh man, and to guard someone ahead of them and not each other during practice. I set goals for each player that were realistic and backed with promises of playing time.

The 17-year-old needed to show that she could be a lock-down defender, which I knew she could be. However, she needed to be effective enough offensively that I could play her without fearing that she would commit a turnover when she touched the ball. This meant playing on better balance, learning to use a jump stop and simply squaring to the basket every time she caught the ball. She never even had to shoot or score to earn minutes, though the more she could offer offensively, the more her playing time would increase. Instead, I gave her a role (defensive stopper) and the motivation to improve to see tangible results (playing time).

Consequently, she showed up at every guard workout that I did with the club’s men’s team to work on her ball handling. She improved and earned playing time, and probably defended the league’s top point guard better than anyone in the league because she matched her length and quickness.

As her confidence and playing time increased due to her defense, her offensive skills improved. She accepted her role and worked on her own to improve her deficiencies, as she understood that would lead to more playing time.

Second, I gave the players a role during games. A popular coaches’ mantra is “A loss is only a loss if you fail to learn from it.” The same goes for a lack of playing time. A player can sulk on the bench or  use the time to prepare for an opportunity to play.

benchI challenged them to watch the players and scout. They assisted our players  by pointing out opponent’s offensive tendencies or an opportunity to be more effective offensively. This kept the players mentally in the game, in case they played, and increased their basketball IQ, as they learned to see the game better, which ultimately helped them when they earned their playing time. In this way, the lack of playing time was not a loss, just a setback from which they learned.

Ultimately, the success of a team in a game or season depends upon play from the bench. At some point, the bench must step up for an injured player or a player in foul trouble. The quality of depth on the bench is pivotal to keep the starters fresh during tight games and throughout the season.

Bench players must be mentally into the game, be made to feel a part of the team, remain motivated and be given attainable goals for which to strive. Every player has a role and in order to have a happy, successful team, players must embrace their roles and feel that they contribute to the team’s overall success.

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Share

Tags: , ,
Posted in Managing a Team | No Comments »