Purposeful Practice Design

Does the drill solve the problem? Does the drill create other problems?

The ultimate purpose of practices and coaching, whether we want to admit it or not, is winning or performance, not learning. Learning, improvement, and development are important because they impact winning. Secondary purposes are building confidence, enhancing intrinsic motivation, exercise, fun, and more, but we play to perform and win. Drills lacking representativeness or ignoring the affordances, but building the confidence of an eight-year-old, are not bad or wrong, regardless of the nonsense posted by your favorite content creator.

Drills solve a problem. Generally, the problem is skill-based; I devise a drill such as med-ball shooting to enhance the player’s coordination and improve his rhythm during shooting. The constraint, the heavier ball, enhances the player’s learning, as he feels the difference as the weight forces his upper and lower body to work together to synchronize the timing of movements.

Improving coordination through the med-ball shooting does not directly improve performance. The goal is to improve coordination to improve his shooting style, which can be transferred to more complex shooting drills, which transfers to improved game shooting and overall performance, eventually impacting winning. The goal is not to improve at the drill or the med-ball shooting. The drill is a means to an end. As skill acquisition specialist Job Fransen wrote last week, “Don’t assume ‘near transfer’ (getting good at the specific drill) automatically leads to ‘far transfer’ (getting good in the game).” Med-ball shooting is several steps away from far transfer, but the drill solves a very specific skill-related problem.

Recently, Mike Jagacki tweeted, “Random thought: we had coaches attacking the 3-man weave and other drills because they didn’t represent the game. Now we have offensive players rip balls from the backside of defenders, defenders running around cones, etc. If the goal was to recreate the game environment, things still look pretty weird.”

I agree to an extent. Content creators need more and more content, and the drills move further and further from the game. However, just because some of the starts are unrealistic does not make them bad, nor does their lack of realism make the three-player weave a good drill. What is the purpose? Does the drill solve the problem? Is the drill the best activity to solve the problem? Is the drill one activity in a series of activities to solve a problem?

The difficulty in designing drills is getting to the endgame (SABA), the most pivotal drive/pass/shot decisions and actions. A high pick-and-roll is easy to get into: The ball-handler starts with the dribble in the backcourt and dribbles into the front-court, and the screener steps up to set the screen. This is not difficult and is game-like. However, what about the end of the possession? How do we set up drills to practice the decisions and actions after the initial advantage has been created?

I never liked the shell drill (Fake Fundamentals) as a coach because our coaches told us to step aside and allow the offensive player to beat us on the baseline in order to practice rotations. First, the positions and actions are prescribed beforehand, so the practice is rehearsal, not learning. Second, and most important, why would I allow an offensive player to beat me when coaches yelled at us whenever we gave up baseline penetration? The lack of congruency bothered me.

I use cones or other starts to create the initial advantage. Is it game-like? No. Is it better than telling defenders to step aside and allow offensive players to beat them? I believe so.

Anything other than five-vs-five sacrifices representativeness, generally to practice a specific action, reduce the complexity to improve success, to increase repetitions, or potentially all three. The two questions to ask are:

1. Do the gains outweigh the losses? Are the increased repetitions or specificity worth reducing or eliminating the representativeness?

2. Does the set up create negative transfer?

I watched a defender cut off the sideline in the front-court just as one would in the zigzag drill (Fake Fundamentals), and the offensive player changed directions and drove straight to the basket. The coach was incensed and questioned the defender who responded that he did exactly as they had practiced the previous day. The coach was astonished, and said, “That was just a drill.” Therein lies the problem. The purpose of the drill should be to transfer desirable behaviors to the game; the drill has negative transfer when it develops undesirable habits. Anytime the answer is “that was just a drill”, there is a better activity to teach or train the skill.

Skill-related problems are not the only problems to solve, as the number of players, baskets, balls, and other constraints impact practice design. I use different drills in small-group workouts than large team practices. I use different drills when one or two baskets are available versus four or more baskets. I cannot play Funio with a large group or without the side baskets.

Similarly, 3v3v3 only works with 18 players and six baskets. Running a practice or workout on a half-court with one basket poses different problems than a full-court space.

Many people use the drill below or their own related version. I initially used a version, which I called cone layups, when I trained players individually. I used a gym with a small half-court: The entire area would not support an NBA three-point line. How do you practice full-speed or game-like layups with roughly 20-feet of space?

Cone layups. Players circled the cone without losing too much speed to attack the basket as fast as possible. Initially, we started with one cone, similar to the video (minus the defense), then added a second cone. Players started on one sideline along the baseline, dribbled at the cone near the opposite short corner, turned around that cone and headed toward the top of the key to round the second cone and head back to the basket. Eventually, two players worked out together, and we added the defense to chase the dribbler.

I liked the cone layups to increase speed for layups, but also to practice lowering the inside shoulder when turning the corner against a defender. Running the entire arc is not game-like, but players often turn a corner during games when driving to the basket and lowering the shoulder helps to create or sustain an advantage. I also use curved runs because they may inoculate players against hamstring injuries, based on conversations I had with hamstring expert Mackie Shilstone years ago, which appeared in an early newsletter.

I did not use this drill with teams initially. Why use a half-court drill to practice full-speed layups when a full-court is available? A few years later, however, I coached a J.V. girls’ basketball team and used our pregame warmups as practice. Everyone played, so fatigue was not a concern. We practiced only three times per week for 90 minutes and had no preseason. We turned our pregame warmups into practice with 12 players and only three or four basketballs on half of the court. Chaser Layups became a purposeful drill given these constraints.

I had a problem: Practicing layups with greater speed in a confined space. The cone layups solved this problem. Later, I had a related problem: Practicing full-speed layups with a small contest with only a half-court available for an entire team. Chaser Layups solved this problem reasonably well. The competition enhanced the intensity, and players appeared to enjoy the challenge, enhancing concentration and effort compared to a normal pregame layup drill.

Almost any drill has a purpose for the drill’s originator, but coaches down the line are unaware of the original purpose as drills are shared and copied so much. Who knows the original coach’s purpose when he or she devised the three-player weave? Did the coach teach a secondary fast-break with the outlet and sprint behind? Did the team run a weave in their half-court offense and this expanded out to a full-court drill? Was the coach more interested in conditioning? Did the team struggle with catching passes on the move? I do not use the traditional three-player weave (Fake Fundamentals), but the originator likely had a purpose. Now, coaches copy the drill because everyone does it, and few people question its purpose. Why not use the three-player weave? An NBA coach uses it, so it is good enough for my team. Too few people ask why. Too few teams practice purposefully.

I see coaches post the chaser layup drill and similar drills when they have full-courts and multiple baskets available. The drill is not game-like. One does not dribble away from the basket and turn 180 degrees in an arc to attack the basket. This, I believe, was Coach Jagacki’s point when critiquing those who argue every drill must be representative, but then demonstrate drills with cones and other obstacles.

There are better drills when space and numbers allow. The instructions and the drill are not game-like or game-based. However, they solved specific problems for me. Different problems require different solutions, different drills, different constraints. Copying drills, even great drills, without understanding the purpose is not purposeful coaching.