Stephen Curry, despite being arguably the best basketball player of all-time, is often a flashpoint because of his extraordinary skills and the way in which he practices, behaves, and more.
I posted a video of Curry shooting an impossibly high-arcing layup in warmups (like the one above) and added: “If high-school players shot these in pregame warmups, coaches would pull out their hair, but show a video of Steph’s two-ball routine, and they say, ‘See, if it’s good enough for pros, it’s good enough for you.’ Why one, but not the other?”
Specific examples are better than nonspecific in writing, explaining, or instructing. I previously posted, “Video of NBA player that confirms to coach’s beliefs: ‘If it’s good enough for PRO, everyone should do it.’ Video of NBA player that does not conform to coach’s beliefs: ‘PRO can do it because he’s so athletic, but that doesn’t mean everyone should.’ See what we want to see”. Nobody disagreed, and few bothered to comment. I imagine many scrolled by, nodded, and moved to the next post. An actual shot or skill instead of the general “video of an NBA player” creates a more visceral reaction. People are invested.
The posts make the same point, but one offered a specific instead of the general. Throughout my writing, I am concerned with general ideas and concepts, not specifics: I am unconcerned with shooting the ball as high as possible or practicing two-ball drills, but I am interested in the confirmation bias that allows one NBA example to be something worth emulating while the other should be avoided.
This should not be unfamiliar for anyone who has followed my writing or social media. One could summarize #FakeFundamentals as “addressing confirmation bias in basketball” and not miss much. The most important point of the Fake Fundamentals books is the why; the specifics are simply popular examples to force coaches to think and examine their coaching or beliefs.
Everyone nods, likes, and moves along when Simon Sinek or another famous psychologist or consultant tweets, “Know your why” or “your why is all that matters”. However, ask a long-time coach to explain their use of the three-player weave or the zigzag drill or whatever, and they no longer nod and like. Some argue. Some fight. Some change their minds. The specific changes the statement. Agreeing with the general statement is easy; agreeing with the statement when it is specific and challenges one’s deeply-held beliefs is entirely different.
The same occurs in things such as ranking players. It is easy to say “Jayson Tatum is a top five player in the NBA.” Top five is general; it is almost like saying he is good or elite. As soon as one must name the top five, adding specificity, naming Tatum in the top five is more difficult. Jokic, Curry, Luka, Embiid, Giannis, AD; who drops to include Tatum? Many television experts and content creators have 10 players in their top five!
People watch Curry shoot the underhanded, high-arcing layup and react in one of three general ways:
He’s Steph. He can get away with doing whatever he wants.
Steph is amazing, but imagine if he took things more seriously.
Steph is super skilled, and these creative, playful shots are a small part of his skill development and brilliance.
Most people fall into the first group and offer this response any time a video of an NBA player does not conform to their beliefs. The NBA player can “get away with” doing whatever it is, in this case shooting incredibly high-arcing layups, because they are so athletic/talented/advanced. This group believes Curry’s warmup shots have no positive or negative effect on performance or development. They are essentially Curry showing off for the crowd in pregame warmups.
Most see these as purposeless, if not detrimental, because they do not look like our perceptions of effortful, orderly practice, like the two-ball drills. Attributing even some of his greatness to practice such as these shots would contradict our entire belief system about work and practice, grinding and effort, seriousness and determination.
Few people actually suggest number two now, but only because of the heights to which Curry has ascended. More people would respond with number two if this was Curry’s rookie season, prior to his breakout, championships, and MVPs. More people would fall into group two if the video was posted before a playoff game in which he shot 1/11 from the three-point line, as many would point to his lack of seriousness as an explanation for his poor performance.
Of course, nobody would turn around and point to the same high-arcing layups as the reason for his shooting success if he made 8 of 11 three-pointers in the next game. The reactions move in one direction; acting differently than one’s peers in a way that disagrees with convention only can explain negative performances, but never the positive. Positive performances are explained by work, coaching, and more practice. We see this every summer when people post video after video of NBA players playing pickup games, but attribute all improvement (but never regression) to work in the lab with their private trainers.
Very few people join me in the third group, believing these shots positively affect Curry’s skill and performance. However, based on his background and previous comments, one can infer he believes these playful, creative shots are more than throwaways. During his rookie season, Curry said:
"I have a lot in my bag of tricks," Curry said. "I was always a short kid on my team, so I would always get my stuff blocked. I've had to find creative ways to score my whole career.”
The article described these pregame warmup shots like the one from the video:
During pre-pregame warmups, it sometimes might appear that Curry, Anthony Morrow and C.J. Watson are messing around. They take turn after turn sprinting toward the basket and trying a variety of inventive layups, which they call “crafties” and look like shots that wouldn’t be tried on a playground.
Until they are. And then they are tried in an NBA game.
“They do it in a loose environment and then when they come into play in the games, they’re used to shooting them in a relaxed state,” [Golden State Assistant Coach Keith] Smart said (Simmons, 2010).
Many suggested the shot is too advanced or unrealistic for non-elite professional players, but Curry was trying these shots before he reached the top. They are not a large reason for his success, but they are not unrelated either. These shots require creativity and touch, two qualities Curry possesses in spades.
Going back to Curry’s childhood:
“Dribbling through the rocks and tire tracks at Jack's hoop honed Curry's ball-handling skills, while the unpredictable backboard and the unforgiving rim tested his touch and inspired the perfect, impossibly high parabolic arc of his shot. But the court also polished his composure; this is where he first obtained the Tao of Point Guard.”
Curry again referenced exploration, problem solving, and creativity as pivotal to his development and success:
“This was a visionary place for me,” Curry says. “Make it work no matter what you have to work with — that's something that stuck with me very early on as a point guard. Adjust. Get creative. Try a different angle, a different lane, a different move or a different shot — just make it work. Out there on my grandpa's court, there was no better place in the world to breed that kind of creativity,” (Fleming, 2015).
We struggle to reconcile fun, joy, and play with development and improvement, despite evolutionary and contemporary evidence for its positive, long-lasting, and vital effects (see Free Play: A Decade of Writings on Youth Sports), but Curry, it seems, finds value in these shots and practice. However, there is no definitive way to know. There is no control group; we do not have Curry living in three timelines to see which creates the best version. If someone argues Curry is a great player, but he could be better if, there is no definitive response; it is a hypothetical, impossible to disprove, just as if I argue these shots enhance his skill level, I cannot be disproven because there is no Curry who did not grow up shooting on his grandpa’s hoop or throwing up crafties in pregame warmups.
Instead, we revert to the three basic responses, and these reflect our own beliefs and biases: He’s great regardless; he’s great, but what if; and he’s great because of. We see the same thing — Curry shooting wild shots in pregame — but attribute a different significance to the shots based on our already-established beliefs about basketball, development, improvement, and more.
Coaches should be able to answer "why". If not, then why do the drill?
Also, you had better be able to explain it clearly to your athletes or they will leave.
Tennis example here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/67166854