Being a Player's Coach
Empowering players rather than the team revolving around the coach.
Most team pictures feature the coach centered with players surrounding the head coach or coaches. Players wear their uniforms and coaches wear an alternate color. The central position and distinct color capture the eye’s attention, and our focus naturally gravitates toward the coach. Teams revolve around their coaches generally and in the photo. It is the coach’s team.
I stand to the side in the back. I am not and do not want to be the focal point. The team is not centered around me, literally or figuratively. I am there to assist, guide, and help players, but the players are central. The team picture is a minor thing in the context of a long season, but illustrates the difference between coaches who want to control everything and be the center of attention and my approach as a player’s coach.
I never consciously decided to be a player’s coach. I coach in the way I feel is best, and I place the players’ needs first. I am not easy or soft, and I do not lower expectations, but I treat players as equals and empower them. I work with players, or for the players; they do not work for me. My objective is to reduce the obstacles in their path to enable their best performances.
Last season, my assistant asked about meal times to plan with the hotels on every road trip. Every time, I told him to ask the players. I want the players to be comfortable. If they prefer to eat three hours before a game instead of four, I want to eat three hours before a game. If they do not like to eat directly after the game and want to wait an hour or two, so do I. I can adapt. I am not playing. My performance during the game has little to do with the outcome. I want the players comfortable and confident. I want to remove obstacles.
I value a few things and hold players to high standards for these (sharing the ball, taking good shots, sprinting, pressuring the ball, being on time, cleaning up the bench), but do not stress every detail. I prefer to keep the main thing the main thing. I am unconcerned with meal times, different color socks, tattoos, or hair color or style. I honestly am indifferent about wearing the same exact outfit on road trips. I do not see how any of this affects performance, and I am unbothered if it does not impact performance (this is not to say my approach is right or best).
I ask questions and seek opinions from players. Even when I was a 25-year-old rookie head coach in a professional league, I asked players for their thoughts at timeouts, asking for their opinions on plays to run or changing defenses. I did not act like Hollywood’s depictions of a coach. I did not yell or threaten to establish my authority. I am sufficiently self-assured to ask for opinions without worrying about losing their confidence or being undermined. I valued their opinions as experienced players. I continue to coach similarly, as we switched to zone in our national championship game, after playing zone in only one or two games all season, based on a player’s suggestion. He suggested zone, I asked the group’s opinion, and they nodded and said we should see if it works. I hate zone defense, but I trusted the players.
These are small actions, whether standing in the back for a picture, allowing players to choose the meal times, or listening to players’ suggestions, but they demonstrate respect for the players as people, not objects to control. I empower players. They have some autonomy or control over their environment as opposed to many environments in which the coach dictates everything and punishes dissent.
My biggest hurdle in most new coaching jobs is convincing players my questions are earnest and not tricks. Players are unaccustomed to coaches asking for their input and wanting honest answers. I ask players how they feel because I want to know how they are feeling. I want to match their feelings or perceived exertion with my perceptions of their effort and the practice’s difficulty. My sports science is my coach’s eye and honest communication, not GPS, but my observations and intuition are only reliable when players answer truthfully rather than telling me what they think a coach wants to hear. I want to know how hard I can push and when I need to back off. I am not evaluating toughness or even conditioning at the beginning of the season; I want to maximize health and intensity to peak when it is important.
I attempt to communicate with every player to understand what each needs. I rarely set mandatory check-in meetings or some of the other contrived strategies coaches have for endearing themselves to their players. I do not want to overstep. I do not need or want the hot goss. I just want players to know I am there if they need me. I have coached players with whom I had a good relationship and enjoyed coaching, and I knew almost nothing about their lives off the court, and others who have used me for everything short of professional mental health counseling or family therapy. I want to be consistent with players and not favor one player over another, and I use the competitive cauldron, among other tools, as a check. I constantly question myself or inconsistencies: Why is a player consistently winning in practice if I feel he is playing poorly? What am I missing? Where is my bias? I try very hard to prevent blind spots, positively or negatively.
I was buoyed as a young coach when I read a Men’s Health article about the winningest football coach in NCAA DIII, John Gagliardi from Saint John’s University (MN). He basically eliminated the things football players tended not to enjoy, such as calisthenics, laps, agility drills, and even tackling. They play 11-v-11 two-hand touch. He created a program around the players’ natural passion for football, not threats or intimidation.
Fake Fundamentals followed a similar philosophy, as I questioned the purpose of activities I disliked as a player. Can you develop into a good basketball player without doing the three-player weave? If yes, why use a drill most players find boring? Most coaches approach drills with a mindset of why not: Why not use a drill that has been around for generations? I ask why. Why move away from playing the game to do the three-player weave? My default is subtraction; I need a good reason to add something.
I am generally easy to play for because I encourage players to explore and try new things. I want the game to be fun. I want confident players. I try to use relevant practice activities. I want players to shoot because everyone likes shooting and scoring. I do not call plays. I allow players to switch BLOB and SLOB defenses on their own. I empower players. I want players to be mad when they do not play. I feel it is a normal, healthy reaction. I prefer to allow players to play through mistakes and then discuss the mistakes at practice rather than substituting immediately. We play basketball; we should enjoy it.
I have standards. I am demanding. I expect players to share the ball. I encourage exploration, but everyone gets a chance. We are not playing to see how many points one player can score or how many dribble moves one player can string together. Of course, we better find the hot player when someone has it going; that is not the time for someone else to explore. Everyone gets a chance, but not in every game or in the same proportion. I substitute for selfish players.
The assumption by old-school coaches is this freedom leads to anarchy. I find the opposite. Players tend to be less selfish because they know they will have opportunities. If everyone is invested in making the best play, eventually their shot will be the best play. In other teams with more coach control, I see bad shots because players know a favored player is a black hole and will never pass. This questionable shot might be their only shooting opportunity. We value shot selection and focus on it in practice, and generally take good shots, even while encouraging non-shooters to explore and develop into shooters.
I rarely punish mistakes, but I will punish poor reactions to mistakes. I benched a player at least twice during the playoffs for his reaction to mistakes. I have little patience for players who blame other players, and I have no patience for players who stop playing. Mistakes happen; the reaction to mistakes matters most. I do not need an excuse or an explanation; I need attention and effort on the next play. Forget the mistake, and play present.
Players can be mad about playing time, but they have to support their teammates. I will discuss playing time with players, and I will explain my reasons, my views, and what the player needs to do to earn more playing time. I will not tolerate players trash-talking teammates, gossiping, or not supporting the team and their teammates. They can be mad at me. I am not worried about whether or not they like me. Again, being a player’s coach is not about popularity or friendliness. I know I am not the right coach for every player, and I do not try to be. However, players cannot take out their personal frustrations on the team or a teammate.
Very few coaches are true player’s coach as I define it. Coaches crave control and fear chaos. They need to be the center of attention. The nature of the profession, the hiring process, and climbing the ladder often requires control and being the centerpiece. Coaches must stand out to convince future employers of their abilities. Coaches who empower players often are disparaged for not doing anything. We want players to take responsibility, make decisions, develop a basketball I.Q., and more, but besmirch the coaches with the confidence to step back and enable these developments because their behaviors do not match those depicted on television. Society wants coaches in the center of the picture with the team revolving around the coach’s demands.