Re-Thinking Blowout Victories

Approaching games with a developmental mindset

We won by 80 on Sunday, and I know the final score (126-48) will offend some. Lopsided wins are not my goal, but this was a league game; we do not determine our schedule. Most of our season is a competitive waste, but with only 30 games from August to May, we cannot waste games either.

The score is only important from a competitive standpoint. Does the score matter when one views U17 basketball developmentally? Is it better to run the clock or take other measures to reduce the final margin or play normally, providing the opponent more opportunities to improve? The anti-blowout arguments often align with the anti-shot clock arguments: We want lesser teams to feel more competitive rather than striving to increase opportunities for the lesser teams to improve and develop.

We did not roster our strongest 12. Our probable starting center is returning from injury. A starting guard went home for the weekend after playing with the U19 and men’s teams during the week. Another guard travelled to the United States with a group of players looking for prep school opportunities. Our youngest two players were at a national team training camp for their age group. With players in and out of practices while playing with other teams, our starters were the five players who performed the best and did not miss any time in the last week. It was not our usual starting five, or our best five from the game-day roster. All 11 players played substantial minutes, and our two regular starters played the least. I mention this only to say winning by as much as possible was not the goal.

I play everyone, regardless of score or opponent. Everyone played when we trailed by double digits through most of the first three quarters a few weeks ago. Our quality does not drop much when we substitute because everyone plays every week. I am not emptying my bench to play guys who rarely play. This weekend, the player who entered the game last was arguably the best player in a men’s game the previous week. Going to the bench did not weaken our lineup.

We did not get much out of the game. The players who benefitted the most were those fighting to make our 12-player roster for our important games, especially two posts who missed significant time early in the season. They played a lot and had opportunities to expand their games; one made three three-pointers and the other knocked down a three and added two dunks. More importantly, as we were much bigger than our opponent, both matched up against the opponent’s point guard a few times, defending him for the full-court. This is the versatility they need to be included in future rosters when all 16 players are available and choices have to be made.

Overall, the player who benefited the most was the opposing point guard. Everyone hates to lose, but he faced three to four defenders likely better than anyone he will face in practice or games this season. We play full-court player-to-player defense on every possession, and he handled the ball against this pressure. He is unquestionably their best player, and he performed well considering the constant pressure he faced from fresh defenders. He got something from the game; would we say the same if we backed off and played defense only within the three-point line and ran the clock to depress the score?

People generally do not view basketball games, especially at this age, developmentally. We only reference development to criticize coaches for not improving fundamentals or some other purpose, such as arguing players should not specialize and should play multiple sports. Otherwise, we view these games competitively; coaches play six- or seven-player rotations, criticize players for missing a game or practice due to prom or other school-related social activities, argue against the shot clock, and deride an 80-point win with a team continuing to press. These are competitive behaviors. We want to win every game, and our best opportunity to win is to have all of our players and to practice with a full roster to prepare. Despite the emphasis on the competitive, we take a paternalistic view, protecting the weaker. We do not strive to help the weaker teams improve, only to lose less badly.

Often, once a certain score threshold is met, the clock runs, thus speeding the game to its conclusion and reducing the margin of victory. Who does this benefit? Sure, the margin may be 50 instead of 80, but does that really matter? Is a slightly more appropriate score worth reducing playing time for players? What about teams where some players only play in blowouts; running clock further suppresses their court time and opportunities? How does the lesser team improve to compete against the better team by playing less against the better team? We worry so much about self-esteem due to the final score that we forget the purpose of the game: Development. None of these players is a finished product. Why reduce their court time to pretend a game was more competitive than it was?

Early in the season, we won 130-42. I ate breakfast with the coach ahead of the game. At half-time, I asked if he wanted me to change anything or do anything for him to practice against. He told me to play the same way because his guys had to learn to play against our type of defensive pressure. After the game, he had no complaints. He viewed it as a learning experience for his players: Developmental basketball.

An 80-point win with the winning team pressing the full game is viewed negatively in the United States because everything is competitive. While I prefer to play more competitive games, and do not enjoy these lopsided games, they are less problematic when viewed developmentally, as both teams can attempt to learn something and improve, not just compete for the win. Rather than criticize each other when interests and expectations do not align, we need to define expectations.

Are high school sports competitive? If yes, different behaviors and expectations are required. However, specializing in one sport, lengthening the high-school season, playing with a shot clock, separating teams by competitiveness not just geography, and more should be incorporated if high school sports are deemed competitive and not developmental. If developmental, encouraging multi-sport participation, reducing travel, and other actions are more appropriate. The problems arise when we attempt to be all things, developmental and competitive.

Coaches preach process and not focusing on winning the games, but our actions center on the score and the wins. We won by 80 because I have preached process since the beginning of the season; we are playing against ourselves and our potential, not the opponent. We have only six to eight games against equitable competition all season before the playoffs. We have played two of those games, and through 12 games, our margin of victory is still 50 points per game. If we ran the clock in blowouts or changed how we played, we would hardly have a season.

I believe the competitions should be organized differently, I would prefer to play more competitive games, and I believe the schedule is stunting our players’ development, but the decisions are outside of my control: The Federation dictates the schedule. All we can do is play to our potential and play as consistently as possible to prepare for more competitive games and attempt to develop and improve players individually.

Many problems in youth sports are due to emphasizing competitiveness, while also exhibiting developmental or even recreational behaviors. None is wrong, but the problems arise when they are mismatched. When a coach sees a high-school team as competitive, but some players are recreational players (football players staying in shape) and others are developmental (focused on improving to reach college basketball), while others are also competitive, problems arise. Coaches see the parents and players as the problem because they see things from their vantage point; parents object to lopsided losses because they fret for their children’s self-esteem. Parents and players see things from their vantage point and interests, and blame coaches for differences of opinions. In the end, nobody is truly wrong; everything is a matter of perspective.

I hate blowouts. I want to change the schedule. However, I do not believe running the clock, hiding the score, or preventing full-court defense accomplishes anything. The lesser team needs more practice, not less. When viewed developmentally, the score is incidental. We strive for players to play the same regardless of the score; we would want players to play with the same intention and concentration if we turned off the scoreboard. In many ways, that is what happened in our game. The score was incidental; our opponent did not hold the ball and attempt to slow down the game. They did not complain about pressure defense with a big deficit. We did not joke around and take bad shots or stop defending. Both teams played. Both teams competed. Despite the score, a few players got something from the game, which at a developmental level should be the goal.