Fantastic! This is the most important work I’ve read of yours. I was writing something that touched on this topic too, but you have done a much more comprehensive job of capturing an enormous issue that we should be discussing more: specialization and its implications.
Let’s go back to Naismith—a P.E. working at the YMCA trying to solve a problem.
Interestingly, I have not lost this many subscribers after a post for a long time. Correlation isn't causation, but funny nonetheless that you called it my most important, and others were like, "Nope, I've finally seen enough. I'm out of here."
Very funny. That is typical for Substack. I’m laughing at how people behave when someone says something accurate they disagree with. This happens to all Substack writers who politely and respectfully speak their mind. You didn’t say anything wrong or disrespectful, but you most likely did have a number of specialist subscribers who are probably guilty as charged: who sound authoritative, puff up their chests, but actually worsen problems their trying to solve through their incompetence. Now is the time to stay the course. Or if you want, you could follow up with a post describing the ways in which you’re a specialist, and why specialization is beneficial, and why being a generalist comes with tradeoffs. But don’t expect it to bring more subscribers. Some generalists might actually flee. Or you could feed your post into Claude or ChatGPT asking if it is fair and balanced. Sometimes helpful even if you disagree with the chatbot’s assessment.
Yeah, I think it is impossible to know why people subscribe, read, or unsubscribe. I figure it's more a fun coincidence. I get subscribers from various areas too...someone who thought they were getting more drills and plays may be turned off by writing on other topics; someone who read one of my "policy" articles on NIL, transfer portal, Euro basketball, etc. may realize I write about many things. It's kind of what I mentioned, I think. I write about a bunch of things, and I'd likely grow a bigger audience if I specialized in one thing and devoted the whole newsletter to SABA or NADA or shooting or whatever...that's just boring to me, and I don't write to grow audiences or even make money, so it doesn't matter. It's just amusing.
The problem becomes when specialists believe their expertise in one area transfers to other areas, as we see throughout the world and sport now, and others cannot differentiate because they too lack the general knowledge to know better, especially when specialists use specialist language.
For example, for years, the specialist shooting coaches put biomechanics into as many sentences as possible. Every problem was biomechanics, which, technically, I suppose can be true, but just saying, "Well, that's biomechanics" doesn't actually say anything, but for someone who knows nothing about biomechanics or motor learning, they may acquiesce to this "person of science" with the big vocabulary, ignoring Einstein's ""If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself." Now, eco psych and constraints have replaced biomechanics...
Well said. There are two problems here. The one you point to is the bigger problem. I asked Claude and ChatGPT for labels describing this problem. Claude’s answer is slightly better. Here it is in full.
The core problem
Dunning-Kruger effect (adjacent) — but more precisely its inverse: the expert who overestimates the transferability of their expertise
Halo effect — competence in one domain lending unearned credibility in another
Authority bias — audiences deferring to perceived experts regardless of relevance
The specialist overreach specifically
Ultracrepidarianism — the habit of giving opinions beyond one's knowledge (literally "cobbler, don't go beyond the sandal")
Expert overreach or domain overconfidence
Epistemic trespassing — probably the sharpest modern label for this; a philosopher named Nathan Ballantyne formalized it. An epistemic trespasser is someone with genuine expertise who crosses into territory where they lack it, but carries the same authority
The language/obscurity dimension
Jargon as gatekeeping or mystification — using technical vocabulary to signal authority rather than communicate
Bullshitting (in Harry Frankfurt's technical philosophical sense) — speech concerned with impression management rather than truth
Cargo cult science (Feynman) — adopting the appearance and language of science without the substance
The audience's failure to detect it
Illiteracy tax — people pay a premium for not knowing enough to evaluate claims
Asymmetric information problem
Epistemic trespassing is probably the single best label for what you're describing, and the jargon dimension is essentially mystification used to prevent the audience from even attempting to evaluate the claim.
I completely agree about the benefits of being a generalist. The broad scope of knowledge allow a better overall perspective. It also helps you have conversations with the 'specialists' when they are available. Vern Gambetta likened the viewpoint of a 'strength coach' to looking through the hole in a weights disk: it gives a narrow viewpoint. Good for you, Brian for continuing to learn.
Fantastic piece and a great topic for discussion. I am also a generalist and can see across sports and different movements. Some people's minds just don't work like that. So, it's kind of like a good marriage when a staff supplements each other's strengths and weaknesses.
Interesting aside- my wife is a head basketball coach at a university. She found that strength coaches were often extensions of the football programs that dominate the college landscape. What that meant was, ultimately, they would revert back to what they knew, which was training football players. Around 2010, she convinced our AD to let her hire a basketball specific strength coach whose base philosophy was functional movement. It was a game changer for our program. We saw the added benefit of how certain players were able to move on the court. We've stayed with the philosophy ever since.
I read "Range" and liked the first half or so, but I found it got redundant. My favorite book by David Epstein is "The Sports Gene". It attempts to scientifically explain elite athletic performance in various sports.
Yes, many S&C coaches are influenced heavily by football. I spoke at the Boston Sports Medicine and Performance Group conference, started by Art Horne at Northeastern before he left for the NBA, that focused on basketball and ice hockey S&C. I also spoke at Vern Gambetta's GAIN which has a heavy slant toward track and field and physical education, as opposed to football.
Fantastic! This is the most important work I’ve read of yours. I was writing something that touched on this topic too, but you have done a much more comprehensive job of capturing an enormous issue that we should be discussing more: specialization and its implications.
Let’s go back to Naismith—a P.E. working at the YMCA trying to solve a problem.
Interestingly, I have not lost this many subscribers after a post for a long time. Correlation isn't causation, but funny nonetheless that you called it my most important, and others were like, "Nope, I've finally seen enough. I'm out of here."
Very funny. That is typical for Substack. I’m laughing at how people behave when someone says something accurate they disagree with. This happens to all Substack writers who politely and respectfully speak their mind. You didn’t say anything wrong or disrespectful, but you most likely did have a number of specialist subscribers who are probably guilty as charged: who sound authoritative, puff up their chests, but actually worsen problems their trying to solve through their incompetence. Now is the time to stay the course. Or if you want, you could follow up with a post describing the ways in which you’re a specialist, and why specialization is beneficial, and why being a generalist comes with tradeoffs. But don’t expect it to bring more subscribers. Some generalists might actually flee. Or you could feed your post into Claude or ChatGPT asking if it is fair and balanced. Sometimes helpful even if you disagree with the chatbot’s assessment.
Yeah, I think it is impossible to know why people subscribe, read, or unsubscribe. I figure it's more a fun coincidence. I get subscribers from various areas too...someone who thought they were getting more drills and plays may be turned off by writing on other topics; someone who read one of my "policy" articles on NIL, transfer portal, Euro basketball, etc. may realize I write about many things. It's kind of what I mentioned, I think. I write about a bunch of things, and I'd likely grow a bigger audience if I specialized in one thing and devoted the whole newsletter to SABA or NADA or shooting or whatever...that's just boring to me, and I don't write to grow audiences or even make money, so it doesn't matter. It's just amusing.
Thank you.
I always find it interesting to hear which articles others think are my best.
Where as the specialist likely says, “That problem is not in my wheelhouse,” Bryan McCormick says, “I can help you.”
He’s a problem solver, not a specialist.
The problem becomes when specialists believe their expertise in one area transfers to other areas, as we see throughout the world and sport now, and others cannot differentiate because they too lack the general knowledge to know better, especially when specialists use specialist language.
For example, for years, the specialist shooting coaches put biomechanics into as many sentences as possible. Every problem was biomechanics, which, technically, I suppose can be true, but just saying, "Well, that's biomechanics" doesn't actually say anything, but for someone who knows nothing about biomechanics or motor learning, they may acquiesce to this "person of science" with the big vocabulary, ignoring Einstein's ""If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself." Now, eco psych and constraints have replaced biomechanics...
Well said. There are two problems here. The one you point to is the bigger problem. I asked Claude and ChatGPT for labels describing this problem. Claude’s answer is slightly better. Here it is in full.
The core problem
Dunning-Kruger effect (adjacent) — but more precisely its inverse: the expert who overestimates the transferability of their expertise
Halo effect — competence in one domain lending unearned credibility in another
Authority bias — audiences deferring to perceived experts regardless of relevance
The specialist overreach specifically
Ultracrepidarianism — the habit of giving opinions beyond one's knowledge (literally "cobbler, don't go beyond the sandal")
Expert overreach or domain overconfidence
Epistemic trespassing — probably the sharpest modern label for this; a philosopher named Nathan Ballantyne formalized it. An epistemic trespasser is someone with genuine expertise who crosses into territory where they lack it, but carries the same authority
The language/obscurity dimension
Jargon as gatekeeping or mystification — using technical vocabulary to signal authority rather than communicate
Bullshitting (in Harry Frankfurt's technical philosophical sense) — speech concerned with impression management rather than truth
Cargo cult science (Feynman) — adopting the appearance and language of science without the substance
The audience's failure to detect it
Illiteracy tax — people pay a premium for not knowing enough to evaluate claims
Asymmetric information problem
Epistemic trespassing is probably the single best label for what you're describing, and the jargon dimension is essentially mystification used to prevent the audience from even attempting to evaluate the claim.
I completely agree about the benefits of being a generalist. The broad scope of knowledge allow a better overall perspective. It also helps you have conversations with the 'specialists' when they are available. Vern Gambetta likened the viewpoint of a 'strength coach' to looking through the hole in a weights disk: it gives a narrow viewpoint. Good for you, Brian for continuing to learn.
Great stuff. Never realized the specialist problem that the coaching industry has. You have provoked my interest in this topic.
Fantastic piece and a great topic for discussion. I am also a generalist and can see across sports and different movements. Some people's minds just don't work like that. So, it's kind of like a good marriage when a staff supplements each other's strengths and weaknesses.
Interesting aside- my wife is a head basketball coach at a university. She found that strength coaches were often extensions of the football programs that dominate the college landscape. What that meant was, ultimately, they would revert back to what they knew, which was training football players. Around 2010, she convinced our AD to let her hire a basketball specific strength coach whose base philosophy was functional movement. It was a game changer for our program. We saw the added benefit of how certain players were able to move on the court. We've stayed with the philosophy ever since.
I read "Range" and liked the first half or so, but I found it got redundant. My favorite book by David Epstein is "The Sports Gene". It attempts to scientifically explain elite athletic performance in various sports.
Yes, many S&C coaches are influenced heavily by football. I spoke at the Boston Sports Medicine and Performance Group conference, started by Art Horne at Northeastern before he left for the NBA, that focused on basketball and ice hockey S&C. I also spoke at Vern Gambetta's GAIN which has a heavy slant toward track and field and physical education, as opposed to football.
I skimmed Range. I agree about Sports Gene.