Balancing Exploration and Refinement

Developing potential with more realistic expectations

Fake Fundamentals: Volume 5 now available! Fake Fundamentals: Volume 1-5 is now available as a paperback. SABA: The Antifragile Offense is now available as a paperback and an audiobook.

Two years ago, I coached two players, and I knew I did not get the best from them. It happens. I understand not every player is right for every coach, and not every coach is right for every player. Nobody is necessarily right or wrong.

One was a 16-year-old point guard on my U18 and men’s teams. When I arrived initially, I suggested he could start on the men’s team, as I did not see a lot of separation between the other, slightly older point guards and him. My first impressions were positive, and the other coaches, including his individual coach, tempered my optimism.

The second was a 15-year-old on my U16 team who I really liked and thought highly of, but could not figure out. I constantly felt as though I was unable to get him to perform his best, as he had a roller coaster season, occasionally establishing himself as clearly our most-talented players and occasionally appearing almost unplayable. He seemed lukewarm about basketball, as though he played mostly because of his above-average height and natural ability. He was unlike his younger cousin, who was not on my teams, but was one of my favorite players, as he was always in the gym, hanging out, shooting, even jumping into my practices with players four years older. Same family, different attitudes.

I liked the players, enjoyed coaching them, and identified the talent and potential, but recognized I did not do the best job to maximize their talent, which frustrated me personally.

In the lead up to the NBA Draft, I read some discussions about shooting translation and talent evaluation for potential NBA draft picks. Two discussions peaked my interest: First, #DraftTwitter excused bad shot selection by young players (Bub Carrington and Ron Holland specifically) because the approach, the self-creation, the confidence to take the shot, and more outweighed the shot selection or the shot’s success; and second, Matas Buzelis shooting 27% during AAU demonstrated his potential, not poor shooting. I realized I sit on the fence, but they also caused me to reflect on my previous coaching.

How important is shot selection with a developing player? Shot selection generally illustrates one’s decision-making skills or basketball intelligence. We praise players who make the extra pass, the good to great pass, especially as coaches or those inclined toward good, fundamental, or winning basketball, and not entertainment. However, we also want players who can self-create and make tough shots when necessary. Everyone loves watching Luka Doncic, Kyrie Irving, Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, Jamal Crawford, Kobe Bryant, and others. We love tough shot makers, especially as fans. Coaches secretly love these players too because they take off some pressure from the coaches, as they can depend on the player to go and get a basket rather than having to scheme and call plays to defeat good defenses. The game is easy when you make shots, as my friend Lindell always reminds me.

How do we develop tough shot makers and shot creators if we limit players? Most skill development, especially at the college level, is refinement. Coaches limit players to their strengths and ignore or manage weaknesses. Coaches teach one method of footwork because mastering one thing will reduce mistakes and turnovers, and reducing turnovers will increase winning. The best players are not limited; they do not perform skills only in one way. They take difficult shots and invent new moves. They explore and expand their game and skillset.

How can we encourage the exploration while encouraging good shot selection and making the right play? Threading this line is tricky, and when most coaches have a player for a season or two and are hired and fired based on wins and losses, they err toward limiting the mistakes to increase the odds of winning rather than encouraging exploration to expand the player’s skill set. They want players who follow directions and perform as expected and instructed.

The 16-year-old’s trainer worked with him on any number of multi-dribble combo meal moves. He was quick, good at drawing fouls, a good passer, and an above-average finisher and free-throw shooter. However, he was a ball-stopper and a foul grifter. Several players disliked playing with him because the game stopped when he got the ball. He did not play off the catch; he needed three to four dribbles. He committed too many turnovers, often due to emergency passes when his foul grifting did not work.

As the season continued, despite my initial impressions, I often hated watching him play basketball. He just played like he was determined to make a move he practiced with his trainer, and he focused too much on drawing fouls rather than scoring. Over-dribbling and foul grifting annoy me.

He did not fit with the others who were more system-based, pick-and-roll players. The wild card is not always bad; I like having a player off the bench who can change a game, and I used him to start the second quarter to pick up a few early fouls on the opponent to help us reach the bonus. He had some of his best games against the better defensive teams because he was one of, if not the best one-vs-one player on our team. When their team defense took away our sets or they could disrupt a pick-and-roll, he had the quickness and handle to beat almost anyone. However, his inability to fit with his teammates, and some other personnel and fit reasons, meant he spent more time on our second men’s team than our first, which gave him the opportunity he relished to dominate the ball, usage, and the shots.

As I thought about the scout’s discussions of shot creation and encouraging the best players to take otherwise bad shots because they are young and learning, despite Carrington playing in the ACC and Holland in the G-League, I questioned whether I should have given him more freedom. Was trying to get him to play within our (fairly unstructured, free) system a mistake? Should a coach make more allowances for potential players, even when he clearly was not one of the three best players at the time and probably in terms of future potential? If he was clearly my best player or best potential player, would I have coached him differently? Would it be a positive to give the player a near unquestioned green light or is that how players develop bad habits? Is it easier to correct bad shot selection or improve shot creation as one moves to the next level?

The 27% three-point shooting struck me as objectively bad, regardless of level or age. Again, I equate a 27% three-point shooter as attempting bad shots or poor shooting. However, I realize more and more, great shooting high-school teams generally are more concerned with volume than efficiency. Making three-point shots appears more important than shooting a high percentage from the three-point line. I do not follow AAU or AAU statistics, so I inquired with those posting these arguments.

Eli the Economist answered another user who said Buzelis had only one good shooting season by writing: “This is only true if you do not consider AAU; 27% for a primary in AAU is not bad. Comparing percentages without context is kinda silly, and he also has positive shooting indicators outside of the three-point percentage.”

When questioned about the 27%, he continued: “That is generally where a primary will be in U17 EYBL, for example. Sixteen-year-olds are not supposed to be efficient on self-created threes. It is not good; good in AAU is like 33-34% (most elite shooters), but it is not bad relative to age.”

Again, this hit me. My 15-year-old was one of our primary shot creators. We were filled with point guards and shot creators, but he was the most iso-oriented shot creator. He took shots I dislike: fade aways on the baseline, step-back long twos, and more. He was the first on our team to attempt to dunk in a game, and I encouraged him to attack the rim harder and try to dunk on people, even in the half-court, as opposed to shooting these self-created, difficult two-point jump shots.

The scout’s comment stung; 16-year-olds are not supposed to be efficient on self-created shots. Should I have encouraged more of these shots? Did we sacrifice development for winning once we started well and raised expectations? On a team with seven players in contention for the U16 National Team, is it fair or good coaching to encourage players to take bad or questionable shots just to enable more exploration and skill elaboration?

Half of our team made the age-group national team that summer, and three started in most games. However, I reflect on that team often. Did relatively equal playing time and opportunities hold back the few with the most potential? Was it better to develop six players for the U16 national team instead of trying to develop one or two stars for the U16, U18, U20 national teams in the coming years?

Everyone played every game, and generally nobody played more than 25 minutes in a game. At least four players played point guard, and every player dribbled up the court at some point: There was no yelling, “Pass it to the point guard.” That likely helped develop players one through twelve, and the depth created an advantage against our opponents, but did it hold back the potential stars? Should the players with more potential have been encouraged to take more self-created questionable shots, including self-created threes, instead of a more egalitarian approach?

Statistics are objective, but our interpretations are subjective. Is 27% shooting good? Should we encourage more attempts? Is there a signal to suggest improved shooting in the future? Is it a small sample size and not predictive of anything? There may not be a right answer.

How should we coach to develop players? When should games matter? Do players learn not to care about results, as many college coaches contend, when games do not matter? Can players develop when competition (winning) is important or valued? Is it better to focus on the top one to two players or developing everyone as much as possible? Who decides who has the most potential? On my U16s, my top potential player remained fairly consistent throughout the season, except when he was injured, but my second choice fluctuated between three to four players, and a fifth was arguably our best player during the season. Why should I pick the top two to highlight and promote when they will have a different national team coach, a different U18 coach, a different U18 NT coach, a different pro coach, and more?

Development is hard within a team context, which is why so many coaches rely heavily on recruitment and recruiting. Encouraging exploration and emphasizing development and improvement requires the patience to allow mistakes, bad shots, poor shot selection, and more. Managing the balance between encouraging the self-creation for improvement and preventing selfish play that undermines the team is difficult. Learning to make the right, winning play is also part of developing a skilled player or developing potential into actualization.

The answer likely is individual. Some players likely need a push to explore and expand their skills more, whereas others may need to be reigned in and encouraged to make the right plays. Limiting or refining does not always have to be the opposite of development; it can complement skill development and exploration, especially when the instructions focus on the individual’s limiters, not simply what is best for a team to win a game.