The Competitive Cauldron

My team is deep. We have 16 players, but can roster only 12 for games. For roughly half of our games, this is not a big deal, as we are heavy favorites and our top four players play up an age group or in the second division men’s league. To prevent overtaxing them, they skip our local games. Choosing the roster for the bigger games, the competitive games, is more difficult.

I use the competitive cauldron, which I wrote about in The 21st Century Basketball Practice in addition to a few old blogs (edited together below). I compile wins and losses for every competitive practice drill, whether tag or a five-vs-five full-court scrimmage. The results do not determine rosters and starters, but they inform my decision-making. The results, although they fluctuate from week to week, generally correspond to my subjective evaluations.

The player who leads during practice is the player who I feel I need to have on the court in big moments. He is the safety blanket; I feel more confident when he is on the court. He often is overlooked within the club; he is not the best in anything. He just wins. Ultimately, coaches want those players, and in this case, the objective practice winning percentages match my subjective feelings during games.

Fortunately, I had the feeling before the cauldron had a sufficient sample to be predictive, but to this point in the season (12th week), I believe he has the best winning percentage of any player in any season I have used the competitive cauldron. A .500 winning percentage is difficult, as everything except five-vs-five has more losers than winners; a one-vs-one game may have two winners and 14 losers (usually played on two baskets, so two separate games). He is well above .500.

The cauldron thus far primarily confirms or supports my subjective evaluations. I am not sure I have learned anything surprising this season. As we approach our next set of competitive games and roster trimming, spots 10-12 are undecided, and the cauldron likely will influence my roster selections.

---

I adopted the competitive cauldron after reading a book about Anson Dorrance, the legendary former Head Coach of University of North Carolina Women's Soccer, who devised the system. I believe he formalized a system used by Dean Smith.

I explain my system to players in the preseason. I track wins and losses in every practice. The first five on the leaderboard start the next game, and number one is our captain for the game. This is not the best way to determine starters and captains from a continuity and competitive standpoint, but I rarely had a complaint in three high-school seasons. I also played everyone in every game, which may have been the bigger factor.

Some players respond and attempt to win every single drill, and some care a little less. They appeared pretty competitive when I announced the daily winner at the end of practice. Last year's team huddled as soon as practice ended on the day prior to a game as I tallied the wins to determine the starters.

This week, I realized the players who play the most — essentially those I trust the most or feel are the best — are not at the top of the practice leaderboard. Many variables affect the winners of a single drill or scrimmage, but a valid measure would have the better players near the top, and the lesser players near the bottom. There is a problem when the best players are near the bottom; I may be misevaluating my players or there may be a disparity in practice effort, which would need to be addressed, or the practice activities may not transfer to games.

Assuming players practice relatively hard and the activities transfer, the discrepancy identifies players to whom I should pay more attention. If nothing else, I should determine the reasons they do not perform as well in games? Are they nervous? Do they play a different position in games? Do they cheat the drills?

The system is not without flaws. Last week, a player I felt had the best practices did not earn a point. Practicing well does not guarantee wins; a player may end up on the wrong team or a bounce may go the wrong way. The bounces — luck, variance — even out over the course of a season with a big enough sample. I do not trust a single day, but instead look at trends and cumulative standings.

Tracking wins forced me to step back and check if I am missing something. I have spent the past two practices trying to determine the discrepancy. Why do their teams win? They are not the best shooters, rebounders, ball-handlers, passers, post players or scorers. They just win. Isn't that the point?

The leaders in minutes are the point guard who plays with the most composure and pressures the ball defensively, and our post who rebounds, defends. and finishes the best. They are generally between two and six in practice wins. After watching more closely, the top two players in practice wins are probably our best defender and the player who plays the hardest. These are harder to quantify and oftentimes hard to see, whereas the best shooter and leading scorer are easier to identify.

These players may get lost in another system despite their effort. I am increasing their playing time, not just starting them, because of their practice performances. They earn more opportunities because they outplay their peers in practice. If not, how important is practice?

I am uncertain I play the right guys the right minutes. I think I do. I ask input from my assistants. I ask input from other coaches. I use the wins and losses as a guide. However, I make mistakes. I play one player too long and cheat another player. I notice one mistake and not another. I relate more to one player than another. I know I am not perfect.

Playing time is hard. I asked a coaching associate after my game yesterday if I was missing something on a few players. We disagreed on two or three players. Who is right? I watch practice every day. The player I favor is fourth in practice wins, and the one I did not is last. Does that make me right? Maybe my behaviors cause one player to excel in practice, but not the other. Maybe I see one player's mistakes too quickly, and he becomes demotivated, whereas I grant the other more freedom to play through errors.

Coaching a freshmen team is not only about this season. This is the last season for some, and a preparatory period for higher levels for others. Should those who will not play next year play less so the others gain more experience, or more because this is their last competitive experience? Will playing less affect who makes the team next season because it plants a seed in the mind of the next coach as to who is good or because players do not improve as much due to reduced repetitions? Who decides what is best?